|
COVID 19
Apr 10, 2020 13:39:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aquaduct on Apr 10, 2020 13:39:48 GMT -5
Well you are the numbers guy but to me deaths per million is better indicator of what's really going on. The total population is a fairly known number as are deaths. The problem with deaths per infected is the infected number is a function of how much and how accurate the testing is. Which is why the only meaningful projection of number of deaths this year is 2.85 million. It's the only mathematically defensible number.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Apr 10, 2020 13:39:53 GMT -5
Well you are the numbers guy but to me deaths per million is better indicator of what's really going on. The total population is a fairly known number as are deaths. The problem with deaths per infected is the infected number is a function of how much and how accurate the testing is. True, but if something is killing 90% of the people it touches, but has only touched 10 people, only nine deaths out of 330 million sounds pretty good. But the 90% is the more relevant number to me.* * This assumes the number of people exposed can be known. Yes, I have just assumed wind resistance is zero, and the lead weight and the feather will land at the same time. Understood. I'm starting from the assumption that Covid is widespread through all countries at this point so the # that interests me most is the one based on dead bodies/live bodies.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 10, 2020 14:16:51 GMT -5
These numbers are a snapshot in time. As such, they are a tool that can be useful for feedback on past policy and guidance for future policy.
The numbers available at the end of this viral run will be of far, far, far, far greater use... for all purposes, good and ill.
If we are to compare ourselves to other countries as regards response and result, comparisons to Western Europe, the UK, and Canada are apt and useful. The reporting metrics are known and trusted and the medical and technical systems are similar.
Comparisons to "the rest of the world" are pointless and subject to ill use. Accurate numbers from the rest of the world aren't available and are subject to far too many variables. (and just in terms of numbers, what will we ever know accurately about China, India, Russia, Africa, Indonesia?)
Comparisons to South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan can be made. But we will lose, as will the nations most like us. (Germany might hold its own, time will tell). Let it known beyond any doubt, the U.S. is my all time favorite country, but get real, we aren't as organized or efficient or as uber-modern as South Korea, Taiwan, or Japan. We just aren't. We got our good points and they got theirs.
Plus--- and this a BIG PLUS--- South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan got the shit scared out of them by SARS. SARS hit home with Asia and this was a factor in their response . For the U.S and Europe, SARS was a more abstract threat. Yes, it was a real event and was taken note of, but SARS was "over there, not here". Argue what you will in this regard, we are human, and "over there, not here" is a very human response, one all humans, even South Koreans and Finns, are subject to.
So, compare us to Western Europe, UK, and Canada. (and don't expect to beat Canada, but if we don't beat Italy and France, heads should roll!)
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Apr 10, 2020 14:53:27 GMT -5
Somewhat tangential but, this hit my inbox today; chicagocitywire.com/stories/530092711-roseland-hospital-phlebotomist-30-of-those-tested-have-coronavirus-antibody A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital said Thursday that 30% to 50% of patients tested for the coronavirus have antibodies while only around 10% to 20% of those tested have the active virusI admit to being confused, since I just heard Dr Fauci state that we don’t have an accurate antibody test yet. Any ideas? Beta-test? chicago cooking the books again? At any rate, the stats pencil out, knowing that 60 percent of infected can be asymptomatic.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 10, 2020 15:38:08 GMT -5
Finger-picking in the time of pandemic. (Warning: contains political message that some viewers might find disturbing. Just try to enjoy the music.)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 10, 2020 15:41:25 GMT -5
North Dakota/IHME update.
(I'm paraphrasing, but it is darn close) __________________________________________________________
Reporter: At yesterday's press conference, a reporter asked Gov. Burgam "You have made reference to IHME and their infection modeling as one of the tools available to use for shaping policy, yet IHME's projections for North Dakota have been far off the mark. Can you comment on this?
Gov. Burgam: As I have said in the past, models require adequate data and accurate data. The IHME model is a good one, I believe the best available to us, and North Dakota now does have enough data to get a useful result from that model. Unfortunately, IHME made some mistakes... plugged in the wrong numbers for North Dakota, and it skewed the results. We have been in contact with IHME and are working to get the inputs corrected. You will see improvements as these entries are corrected. Modeling isn't perfect, it can't be nor is it expected to be, but it a useful tool and the modeling will get better as the data does. _________________________________________________________________________
Sure enough, IHME has changed their ND projections. Still off, but closer.
If you will recall, a couple days ago IHME had projected ND would have 45 deaths by Easter, they now project 18. (we are at 6 today. At most, I would expect we would be 9 by Easter, if not still 6). They have lowered our April 15 numbers (a week out from my post, at the time) from 169 to 35. My guess is they have that number down to 10-12 by Monday.
So, in conclusion. IHME made a mistake with ND and plugged in some bad numbers (another states?). They listened to North Dakota and worked to fix the mistakes (some issues, like the number of respirators available and not adequately crediting locally issued but un-enforced stay-at-home orders vis a vie state issued but un-enforced stay-at-home orders are not resolved). But, IHME probably has the best model available and they are working to improve as more data becomes available to test it against. If you understand what a model is, how it functions, what its limitations are, and if the model is improved as more data and correction points become available, models are a useful tool.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 10, 2020 15:43:47 GMT -5
Yes, they are. And even a perfect model will yield bad answers if Chester types in the wrong number. We're talking about human beings here.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 10, 2020 15:46:57 GMT -5
Just now, Gov. Burgam issued a state proclamation declaring the Easter Bunny to be an essential worker, provided he follows "ND Smart" guidelines.
I really do like ND's governor. First one I can say that about.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Apr 10, 2020 17:56:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 10, 2020 18:02:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Apr 10, 2020 18:55:47 GMT -5
a fire waiting to happen
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 10, 2020 18:59:21 GMT -5
17 million unemployed in the last 3 weeks or so. Give it another week or 3. It'll show up.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Apr 10, 2020 19:44:01 GMT -5
17 million unemployed in the last 3 weeks or so. Give it another week or 3. It'll show up. Disagree. Although, I guess it depends on what you call civil disorder. Protests and street marches are one thing. Riots and loss of life are another. I think we can equal “”the greatest generation”. Mike
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 10, 2020 20:06:47 GMT -5
The Greatest Generation weren't the ones forcibly locking people down in interment and concentration camps against their will. Whole different thing.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Apr 10, 2020 20:19:20 GMT -5
The Greatest Generation weren't the ones forcibly locking people down in interment and concentration camps against their will. Whole different thing. They did do it to Japanese Americans.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Apr 10, 2020 20:21:16 GMT -5
Given the efficacy of the tests that are being used, along with the laughably low/inadequate level of testing, accurate numbers are not available for the US. I don't see how US numbers can be compared to anywhere. (Edit: Or how the US could credibly suggest that some other country's numbers were wrong, or under-reported, etc.)
And without that testing, down the road far enough to be able to look back on this, it'll still look muddled/unclear, and the 'lessons' to be learned will be anybody's guess.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 10, 2020 20:30:15 GMT -5
The Greatest Generation weren't the ones forcibly locking people down in interment and concentration camps against their will. Whole different thing. They did do it to Japanese Americans. 17 million of them?
|
|
|
Post by John B on Apr 10, 2020 21:10:55 GMT -5
The Greatest Generation weren't the ones forcibly locking people down in interment and concentration camps against their will. Whole different thing. Camps?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 10, 2020 21:32:39 GMT -5
Given the efficacy of the tests that are being used, along with the laughably low/inadequate level of testing, accurate numbers are not available for the US. I don't see how US numbers can be compared to anywhere. (Edit: Or how the US could credibly suggest that some other country's numbers were wrong, or under-reported, etc.) And without that testing, down the road far enough to be able to look back on this, it'll still look muddled/unclear, and the 'lessons' to be learned will be anybody's guess. I agree with you that comparisons to other countries are problematic and very often pointless. Given that, comparisons are being made and will continue to be made. And some, like the CNN one referenced earlier, are well beyond dubious. If comparisons are to be made concerning the impact of Covid-19 on a large population, deaths per million would seem to be the one to best tell the tale. A better bottom line eludes me. To cut a finer line, clearly the test that will give the best picture of the breadth and depth of the infection within a given population will be an antibody test. This test will be deployed. And if it is deployed widely it will clearly provide the very best picture possible of the percentage of a population that was infected and the percentage of the population with no protective antibodies should the virus make a return trip. No guessing will be required. I obviously don't know at this point, but my guess is the United States population will be well tested with the antibody test. I expect it will be a testing effort the like of which this country has never experienced. And comparisons will be made, each one serving a pre-determined purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Apr 10, 2020 21:35:11 GMT -5
Given the efficacy of the tests that are being used, along with the laughably low/inadequate level of testing, accurate numbers are not available for the US. I don't see how US numbers can be compared to anywhere. (Edit: Or how the US could credibly suggest that some other country's numbers were wrong, or under-reported, etc.) And without that testing, down the road far enough to be able to look back on this, it'll still look muddled/unclear, and the 'lessons' to be learned will be anybody's guess. Saw a news story tonight that the number of people found dead in New York were eight times higher now then this time last year. But those deaths have not been tested so they are not included in the Covid deaths. It seems to me that we have no idea of the real numbers. Mike
|
|