COVID-19 models, COVID needs, and New York
I came across these charts the other day, and I’ve been trying very hard to figure out certain things about them. The charts are an attempt to compare the projected need for ventilators, hospital beds, and ICU beds with the actual supplies of those things, and calculate what will be needed versus what will be available at peak (a date calculated to be April 15 – a date few of us were inordinately fond of before, and this new association is not likely to further endear it).
Here are my questions; so far I haven’t been able to find the answers – although the answers may be there; I just haven’t been able to find them at this point.
Did the modelers take into account the fact that elective surgeries have been stopped?
Did they take into account the tent hospitals that are being built, or the ships that are being sent to various coastal cities that need them, or the medical personnel who are being recruited (from the military, retirees, etc) by the government?
Do they assume this peak of April 15 will be reached all over the US all at once? That seems unlikely to be the case.
Also, I see (for example) that on their graph of predictions for ICU bed needs (go here and click on the “ICU beds” tab to see the chart), it says that for Mar 31 (yesterday) 21,569 ICU beds would be needed. But on the chart for the USA at Worldometers (which may or may not be accurate, although it’s what everyone seems to use) it says the number of cases in the US that are serious or critical is presently 5004, and that yesterday it was 4576. That’s a huge disparity between the model and what’s actually being reported. And I’m not at all sure that all serious cases go to the ICU rather than regular hospital beds, so the disparity may even be greater than it seems.
Now, it may well be that 4576 and 5004 are too low and perhaps way too low, since 912 people died yesterday in the US. Did about a fifth of all the ICU cases in the US die in a single day? Seems unlikely, although I have no figures on whether it’s possible I can’t really tell who’s right and who’s wrong, and how many people are actually in ICUs in the US right now.
However, let’s look at what the chart predicts for ICU beds and need. It says that at peak we will need 38,849 beds and at that point we will be 18,905 beds short. By my calculations, that means that they are saying that the most ICU beds we’ll ever have available for COVID patients would be 19,944 (that’s 18905, the shortfall at peak, subtracted from 38849, the need at peak).
But they are also saying (if I’m reading their graph correctly) that on March 31, yesterday, there was a need for 21,569 ICU beds. If that is correct and that actually was the need for ICU beds yesterday, it would mean that we’re already short about 1.5 thousand ICU beds as of yesterday. But I have read nothing about that. And in fact, most states have no problem at all right now. New York is stressed, but that’s where a huge number of all the cases are right now and even they apparently have not run out of ICU beds, although the press is loaded with predictions that they soon will (here’s just one example of the many articles like that).
And that is not the whole country; that is New York, which at the moment has something like 1/3 of all US cases and about 2/5 of the deaths so far. I’m not saying they won’t run out of ICU beds there – in fact, I would be surprised it they didn’t – but it’s the model I’m talking about at the moment, and its projections don’t even seem to fit what’s actually happening right now.
Am I doing the math wrong? I’m tired of the number crunching and checking and re-checking, so I may be getting careless and making errors. But I just can’t make head or tail of that ICU bed chart compared to reality – not that reality is easy to get figures for, either. For example, that last article I linked contains this interesting passage about New York City’s resources and needs:
Yet [NY Mayor] de Blasio has refused to publicly share how many beds or ICU beds remain available at city public and private hospitals. Instead, he has said he’ll keep updating the public about how much longer the city’s resources can last given the available beds and ventilators needed to keep the sickest patients alive.
That makes it impossible to know whether the city’s ICU bed availability has gone below 300 at any point — or whether the numbers have since been boosted and by how much.
Do they just not know? That wouldn’t surprise me. Or are they hiding something? That would not surprise me either. Are they very close to running out for real, and don’t want to further panic people? That would not surprise me. Or are they okay for now, and want to make things seem even worse than they are (as if they’re not bad enough) to keep people in line as well as get more resources from the feds? Wouldn’t surprise me either.
I saw videos of empty ER entrances a couple of days ago, and then 1,000 beds tied up on the waterfront yesterday…
The bed numbers used are low. One of the modelers, IHME (the folks out of Washington state) had numbers for Utah that are 20% lower on total beds, and 40% low on ICU beds, than the numbers reported by the Utah Hospital Association.
I know whose numbers I’ll trust more…. And that’s the numbers BEFORE any additions. In this particular case, I attribute the differences to simply better info sources for the UHA than IHME is using.
https://kutv.com/news/coronavirus/contingency-planning-in-case-utah-sees-surge-in-coronavirus-cases
https://kutv.com/news/local/when-can-utah-expect-coronavirus-cases-to-peak?fbclid=IwAR2NzPnqmO7hI1EWQDdp9AIUYVYEuOVbON6hgnLrE4hsh8EMj3BzidC4muc
Empty Hospitals across the country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDsYG57qII
The left hates Trump more than they love the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq7UDA-Kgk8
I think what we’re seeing here is that our public health authorities aren’t able to report and track data in real time in any kind of consistent way. All of them.
There are too many sources with just-different-enough criteria that we can’t tell if we’re comparing apples to apples, to pears, to grapefruit, or to squirrels.
At this point, I’ve given up trying to assign any meaning to any specific numbers other than “a few”, “some”, or “many”. We won’t see real meaningful data analysis on the pandemic for at least a year (with all that implies for retroactive CYA behavior, unfortunately).
They don’t know the denominator, it can be asymptomatic, the deaths are not accurately counted, they don’t list pre existing conditions, they don’t do autopsy’s on all victims and have have no idea if a person died of coronavirus or died with coronavirus. Aside from that I really trust them.
Bryan Lovely- “retroactive CYA behavior”
Yeah, there will be a lot of that.
My wife works at a hospital. She was discussing similar data yesterday. I can’t answer most of your questions, because neither of us know, and I think much of the data is incomplete (bad) such as John Sanford and Bryan Lovely note above. However, I can tell you that the 15 April peak is for New York. Other regions will have different peaks. The regions with the most rapid rises now will peak earlier, while others are expected to ramp up and peak a bit later. For example, mid May was the estimated peak for Texas.
Other than local information I can get on my county or from my wife; I consider the other information and models to have garbage going in with the inevitable results. And yes hospitals are empty, but don’t get too much false hope there. My wife’s hospital is starting to see the surge in cases. That said, I doubt many realize that even confirmed COVID-19 patients are often sent home, as their symptoms can be easily managed at home. So number of confirmed patients does not equal beds being used. I suspect that’s why some are reporting “serious cases”, which I’d imagine means at least using hospital bed but without more definition I can’t rule in ventilators.
The projections do get updated as data comes in, the charts below show the real data as solid lines and the (new) projections as dashed lines. The answer to some of your questions might be at http://www.healthdata.org/covid/faqs. There is a pdf that explains the methodology and model in more detail, but I can’t find it again. The code for data cleaning, data fitting, and links to data sources are on github, but since I am having trouble finding code I looked at yesterday it may not be that well organized 🙂 In these things the actual fitting is the easy part, cleaning up and organizing dirty data is the hard part.
I think Birx has been showing those charts.
My wife’s 88 year old mother has been diagnosed with COVID-19, as well as her 90 year old “gentleman friend” in the senior living home they both share (different rooms). My mother-in-law is feeling fine; no symptoms. Her friend had been sent to the hospital with a urinary tract infection; he was released and sent home with no COVID symptoms. Three other residents of the home have passed from the virus. The statistics for Oregon show that only about 5% of the folks tested for the virus have it, and the only people getting tests are either symptomatic or people that the symptomatic folks have associated with. This virus appears to have two speeds: it either makes you very sick or is fatal, or gives you a mild or no case at all. I don’t think anyone has a good handle on what’s going to happen with it.
Looks like two of us named Stan.
The models are all crap. All of them. We don’t have good data. Way, way too many WAGs incorporated in the models. Makes them worthless. Only positive I can say about the epidemic models is that they appear to be far better on the science than the climate models.
Gov Newsom of CA has just announced school closure to end-of-school-year.
We have 32 deaths attributed to Covid in our County of 2 million.
The County provides a dashboard which gives deaths and “cases” (which they affirm is wildly inaccurate).
They do not provide a count of “Hospitalizations”, which they had in the earlier text-based presentation.
I’m sure NYC is total chaos and misery.
Detroit, LA and New Orleans.
But I’m guessing that plenty of counties have only a handful of cases and have the resources to deal with them.
I’m getting suspicious.
If they intend to extend shelter-in-place for many more weeks, keep everyone out of their jobs, suspend evictions, suspend penalties for late rent, late credit card, late mortgage payments, widen unemployment, perhaps add a guaranteed check per month, add appropriations at the national level for this that and the other …. hey, at some point do we get a vote on whether we want socialism?
Isn’t that what I sent you Neo?
I have a question for people.
At what point does the economic damage done to millions of people override the extreme actions taken to limit the virus?
Is it worth 30% unemployment for a few months and mass bankruptcies and foreclosures?
Doesn’t this question have to be asked soon?
I’ve heard a couple stories today of small businesses having problems even getting started on loans. Banks say call SBA they say call banks. How many will just give up and throw in the towel? The ‘relief’ funds may be too late for thousands.
What of the oil industry in the time of $20 a barrel and no demand?
I don’t mean to sound callous and I’m not saying do nothing but are we ready to bring on a depression based on these models?
Because if this goes on to this extent for more than a couple more weeks it’s going to be really bad.
“I don’t mean to sound callous and I’m not saying do nothing but are we ready to bring on a depression based on these models?”
This isn’t directed at you but it’s hilarious that the people who are 100% sure the virus models are wrong are 100% sure the economic models are right.
You should take heart that virtually all of the people now predicting economic disaster were completely wrong about the impact of Trump’s economic policies.
Mike
One thing folks should keep in mind is that the US is at the very beginning of the pandemic. It is easy to be skeptical at this point, but if the models are correct we have just felt the first few drops of the oncoming storm predicted to fall upon us in full fury in two to three weeks. If nothing much happens in the next month, then we can stick the researchers in the stocks and throw tomatoes, until then I counsel patience and a stock of toilet paper.
That peak must be for New York CITY, not New York State. I am in a rural county in the central part of the state and we are behind NYC. Our cases are just now starting to increase rapidly, though the numbers are still very small. No way will we peak in two weeks.
They just don’t know. How can they know when the situation changes hour by hour? Are autopsies performed on the deceased or is cause of death assumed to be caused by COVID19?
IMO the prognostications of experts are often merely opinions tainted by a personal agenda. I, for one, am not overly concerned. Wake me up when deaths associated with COVID19 surpasses deaths associated with the annual seasonal influenza.
MBunge,
Yes, but 3.8 millions filed for unemployment two weeks ago and tomorrow morning we get last weeks total which may be even higher. Before this there had never been more than 700,000 in a week. We don’t need models for that.
Also don’t you agree that many, many small businesses and some bigger can’t survive for a couple months with very low to zero income. That’s just common sense. Then they are gone and they aren’t likely to come back.
So, no, my predictions are not foolproof nor do I claim they are but you don’t have to be an economist to realize that shutting down a consumer economy like ours totally is going to cause massive displacement.
Maybe people think it’s all worth it apparently our elected leaders do because they just keep adding on the pain.
And I’m not 100% certain the models are wrong but all the unknowns and inconsistent reporting protocols mentioned by people here and elsewhere make me suspicious along with the wide variance we see from one to the other.
Chuck:
It depends.
I don’t think anyone here is pooh-poohing the pandemic. The question, though, is:
(1) what were the predictions for the death toll?
(2) will it be anything like that? (not will it be bad, but how bad compared to those original predictions)?
(3) how will we know whether a lower death rate, if it occurs, was because of the interventions?
(4) in other words, were all of these interventions necessary? would a milder, less economically painful series of crackdowns have had the same effect without the terrible economic consequences?
(5) what are the unforeseen consequences of the crackdown in terms of divorce, child abuse, suicides, mental illness, and disruption of basic civic life?
In relation to empty hospitals, one thing I have seen little discussion about is that it seems probable that the lockdowns and social distancing are going to lead to fewer hospitalizations for non-COVID reasons. There won’t be as much flu, pneumonia or other contagious illness as there would have been if people were living normally. There won’t be as many car accidents with fewer people out and about. Some things won’t change (cancer, strokes) and I imagine there might be more of some kinds of things, like in-the-home accidents and domestic violence — but doesn’t it seem likely that hospitalizations for non-COVID reasons will decrease at least somewhat? I wonder if any of the models are taking that into account.
It also seems pretty clear that we have seen the Overton Window shifted very far to the left by seeing the number of conservatives who seem so unconcerned about the amount of civil liberties we have given up in about a month’s time and what that means for our future and the next crisis be it real or imagined (climate change).
“Also don’t you agree that many, many small businesses and some bigger can’t survive for a couple months with very low to zero income.”
The businesses most impacted by this are those built on a model of regular sales. That includes stuff like, bars, restaurants, and comic book shops. They rely on sales today to pay for the stuff they need to buy tomorrow, essentially. Now they’re selling less but they’re also buying less. Nevertheless, everyone needs to do what they can to support any local business in their area that work like that.
There are also a bunch of businesses, however, that are used to erratic, inconsistent, or seasonal sales. Houses tend to sell much better in May than December, for example. Those sorts of enterprises might not be hurt nearly as badly.
Regardless, I think Trump has made it clear that he’s very concerned about the economic impact and is anxious to get people back to work. I’m not sure every governor out there has quite the same mindset.
Mike
Here is the preprint explaining the methodology in more detail: https://tinyurl.com/t4yzo8a .
“who seem so unconcerned about the amount of civil liberties we have given up in about a month’s time”
Pardon me for shouting but…
THE ONLY WAY TO FIGHT A PANDEMIC IS TO CURTAIN CERTAIN CIVIL LIBERTIES. THAT’S LITERALLY HOW IT’S WORKED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.
There’s nothing wrong with looking at the numbers and wondering if we’re overreacting. We’ll all know soon enough. But I’m just about losing patience with folks who are clearly viewing a potential public health disaster through an ideological lens.
Mike
One thing folks should keep in mind is that the US is at the very beginning of the pandemic. It is easy to be skeptical at this point, but if the models are correct we have just felt the first few drops of the oncoming storm predicted to fall upon us in full fury in two to three weeks. If nothing much happens in the next month, then we can stick the researchers in the stocks and throw tomatoes, until then I counsel patience and a stock of toilet paper.
The first case was reported on 20 January, before the first case was reported in any European country. The first case was reported in Japan on 14 January (57 deaths to date) and in South Korea on 19 January (165 deaths to date). The first case reported in Belgium was on 3 February. Belgium’s crude death rate is currently more than 4x ours.
That peak must be for New York CITY, not New York State. I am in a rural county in the central part of the state and we are behind NYC. Our cases are just now starting to increase rapidly, though the numbers are still very small. No way will we peak in two weeks.
I think the regional distribution of cases in Italy has changed little in recent weeks. Knock on wood, but Italy appears to have reached the plateau.
“…if the models are correct…”
Since when have been correct? I need my memory to be refreshed on the last time the models were correct.
Mike Bunge almost states again that “it” is not debatable but does fall back into all caps.
The Constitution doesn’t have a clause in case of a potential public health disaster cancel all that follows and the Bill of Rights. See I didn’t use all caps.
Yellow fever, typhoid, malaria, cholera, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDs, polio; they just didn’t know to throw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights back then? They didn’t know what caused these scourges. And then quarantines were so effective with the Black Death? Thousands of years of proven success. LOL.
Some may have lost patience with your certitude Mike.
Neo,
I think a post hoc evaluation of the accuracy of the projections will take place, as comparing prediction to what actually happened, using the same measured variables, should be fairly easy even though the projections are following a moving target. Grades will be given and lessons learned. OTOH, post hoc analysis searching for explanations of what occurred will be far more difficult and I predict will be dominated by politics, ass covering, blame shifting, bragging, and other such things 🙂
The stated purpose of the projections was to provide planning data for administrators. If it has been useful in that regard it will have served its purpose.
MBunge:
I have a different interpretation of “who seem so unconcerned about the amount of civil liberties we have given up in about a month’s time.”
That’s not a statement that no civil liberties should ever be given up in a crisis.That’s a statement that conservatives should be concerned about the amount given up. That seems quite reasonable to be concerned about; it’s not really an extreme position.
And yet this crisis must not be wasted.
MBunge,
‘they rely on sales today to pay for the stuff they need to buy tomorrow, essentially. Now they’re selling less but they’re also buying less’
What about rent and other expenses that don’t go away magically? Not to mention they need money to support their families (self employed are eligible for unemployment now which will help with that). Restaurants and bars are well known to operate on very thin margins and just turning off the income stream for a month or two can be enough to topple a business.
But I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but it sounds like your answer to my original question is that it’s ok to cause massive damage economically if it saves life. Fair enough.
As Dennis Prager says he prefers clarity to agreement and so do I.
And then quarantines were so effective with the Black Death?
Are you saying they weren’t? Personally, I think we should burn down London again, it worked last time it was tried.
MBunge,
Show me the disaster. Thousands die everyday from causes unrelated to COVID19. Invidually, the sky is falling, COVID19 or not in the struggle between life and death. In the end, death always wins. Colr me sanguine.
Yes, I fully concede that some of the measures taken are very much needed but I’m uncomfortable with the government telling people they can’t go fishing by themselves or setting up hotlines for people to report on their fellow citizens or police pulling over people simply to ask what their reason for being out is and it being a misdemeanor if the reason doesn’t pass muster.
I agree with Griffin. Ignore all the models if you like but pay attention to the relatively solid facts.
Roughly 4,000+ have died from COVID-19 in the U.S.
Last week the U.S. had one of the biggest unemployment claims numbers ever.
From CNN (Mar. 26):
Start the fire with San Francisco …… 🙂 Worked in 1906. And the wisdom of 2000+ years ago worked for Athens in their plague. Because caps.
The ancients had to predict the future with the entrails of animals, We use shoddy models, built with assumptions layered upon one another, grossly deficient data, and the media to predict our future. Progress! Trust our experts and no back chat.
Here’s a map of CA counties, updated 3/31.
Click on a county to see how many cases they have.
Ask yourself: If I was a resident of Modoc County, would it seem appropriate to me to shut down schools, churches, the entire economy in order to stop the spread of (to them) a nonexistent disease.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article240712141.html
“I agree with Griffin. Ignore all the models if you like but pay attention to the relatively solid facts.”
That’s fair. Here’s some other relatively solid facts.
The CDC estimates H1N1 killed 12,469 in the U.S. from April 2009 to April 2010. The latest numbers I can find is that COVID-10 has already killed 4,709 as of April 1, 2020. With this thing likely not peaking anywhere for another week or two and then not only lingering well into May but possibly returning next year, it seems a relatively good bet that COVID-19 is going to blow H1N1 out of the water as a killer disease even with the U.S. taking drastically more decisive action to contain/mitigate it. Maybe not 200,000 or even 100,000 but still pretty darn bad.
So in the best case scenario where the corona-skeptics are right, it seems highly likely they won’t be nearly as right as they think they are.
Mike
Mike,
My objection was to your statement:
“You should take heart that virtually all of the people now predicting economic disaster were completely wrong about the impact of Trump’s economic policies.”
My point is that we can dispense with talk of predicting economic disaster. We are provably in an economic disaster.
Neo,
I really like the last paragraph in your post. However, I wonder if looking specifically at ICU beds isn’t one of the more difficult numbers to nail down.
What is an ICU bed exactly? It is kind of a kitchen sink treatment facility isn’t it? If you had someone in serious condition but not in an ICU, and their condition deteriorates so you wheel in a ventilator for them, are they now in ICU? I really don’t know. But my point is that in a heavy hospital load circumstance, the idea of what is or isn’t an ICU might be rather fluid or possibly besides the point (of adequate care).
A whole bunch of the models seem to be saying that the epidemic will reach a peak by mid-April. Fine. I’ll stay home by myself for a bit longer.
But if in mid-April the hospitals aren’t overwhelmed and all the authorities and experts say “models now say the peak will be at the beginning of May” then I’m going to, I don’t know what. Get even angrier than I am now?
MBunge cites numbers from the past H1N1 virus estimates of those killed ( oops by a (where are the all caps?) different virus) and conflates them to the Wuhan virus (COVID-19) deaths so far (where the actual leathality is not, repeat, not known yet; to speculate on this “blow (H1N1) out of the water as a killer disease” and then exaggerate the grim reaper’s toll. Because it will, will, will (where are the all caps) be back next year (and be worse). Is this Mike’s April fools?
TommyJay,
It seems to me the rosiest scenario is by July or August things are on the rebound. My best guess is the fiscal 2nd quarter (which ended yesterday) will see GDP round -2% as Jan. And Feb. were decent before March fell off and then 3rd quarter GDP is when it gets scary. The estimates have ranged from -20 to -40 which crazy bad. Then the question becomes how sharp is the rebound.
Unemployment numbers come out this Friday and they may not be that ugly because the way Labor measures it they use a mid date in the month like March 15 which is right before the massive layoffs started so the number may be 6-7% for March then April could insane like 30% or so and everybody knows that then the next few months are the wild card.
The real fear is what are the unknowns that are going to pop up when an economy tanks this fast. Commercial real estate could get hammered. Auto sales will be almost entirely gone. Boeing is going to be hit hard and they have tons of major distributors that rely on them. How long before any airline will be ordering new planes? There were estimates that Boeing stopping Max production in January was going to take a half percent off 2nd quarter GDP which shows how big an effect that one company has on the manufacturing sector.
Could list many, many more danger spots needless to say.
Bryan:
Let those experts model gravity from a lamp post or be a model traffic control employee holding a stop/slow sign while wearing a reflective vest and watching for the odd inattentive driver coming their way.
Let those in the media learn to code and to compete with those from India and the rest of the developing global economy.
MBunge:
Why choose H1N1? It’s one of many you could use, of course. But it’s a disease that was far less lethal than originally thought, and placed a far smaller burden on health care than originally predicted.
Most people have been comparing COVID to one of three things at this point, though: a bad flu year such as 2018 (61,000 deaths in the US, probably most of them during a 5 or 6 month flu season), or a more severe flu pandemic than H1N1 (such as, for example, the Asian flu of 1957, which killed 116,000 Americans which would be the equivalent of about 232,000 with today’s populations), or – from the most pessimistic prognosticators – the flu pandemic of 1918, which killed about 650,000 Americans, the equivalent of about 2 million with today’s population.
These are all estimates, by the way, because record-keeping and testing then was not what it is today, and I don’t just mean in 1918. Even with H1N1 testing was nowhere near as widespread as it is today for COVID.
By the way, H1N1 did not magically go away after 2010. It is still around today. This article from 2019 mentions that since it began in 2009, H1N1 has killed 75K Americans. And the disease tends to kill younger people rather than people under 65.
But that’s not my main point. My main point is that ordinary flu, and every other flu pandemic (1957, 1968) “blows H1N1 out of the water as a killer disease.”
There is so much noise to signal that we will never know for sure what happened. What worked, what didn’t, and hence exactly what to do next time.
Why did they have to close the schools?
Check out this video on germ sharing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5-dI74zxPg&feature=youtu.be
Demonstrating the spread of germs in an elementary school – GloGerm powder
And so we don’t all lose our sense of humor and start yelling at each other —
https://www.facebook.com/yoshinproject01/videos/919372698518409/
How martial arts helps you fight germs
If we didn’t do anything regarding the pandemic and just absorbed the deaths, would it benefit our gene pool? Those who survived would have a reproductive advantage and these genes would survive a little better than those genes from the deceased. Would the total deaths in a thousand years be less because of this more robust genome? Do we have any obligation to descendants?
Nota bene-I’m not advising this passivity.
At what point does the economic damage done to millions of people override the extreme actions taken to limit the virus?
Griffin: I’m with you on the asking of the question. I just have no answers for assessing either side of the dilemma.
Another month will be painful but might be worth of it if we can make a serious dent in Covid and reach some conclusions on where we stand with it.
But obviously we can’t shut down the world economy for months and months either without doing terrible financial damage in which people will also die.
I don’t trust much coming out of China, but I believe the news that they opened movie theaters and some skyscrapers for business then had to shut them down again because of the disease.
We are a species, H.sapiens, that is so social—spectacularly social—that when we have to act in a anti-social way it feels grating….like fingernails on a blackboard.
What kind of neurological symptoms can we expect if this is prolonged? Would these be the same symptoms as if you forced an extrovert to live an introvertish life?
It must be the case that we’ve “bent the curve”.
Other than NY and esp NYC, the cases will now arrive at a time when we’ve shifted into high-gear production. Maybe I’m wrong? But I would think the remaining decision is between
1) “release the Kraken”, let people go back to life (except in a few places), let the virus hit (it will eventually) and muddle forward. C’mon, it’s the flu …
2) keep sheltering because we will soon have a vaccine and/or treatment so that if we can delay a bit more there will be a huge benefit
At this point the damage to the economy is quite dire, in my view. The sooner we get back to life, the better. Disclosure: I’m retired and quite old enough to be in the at-risk group. But at this point: we have one kid with “distance learning” till the end of the year, another laid off from her job with minimal savings, and our third is in great shape financially/jobwise but cowering in place in New York City.
I am concerned about relinquishing some of my civil liberties, but I am even more concerned about Trump not being re-elected. If issuing stay-at-home guidelines helps in his re-election, then I am in favor of it.
About the economic effect, there is a massive disparity in the way we are treating risk.
We are locking down in case the worst case scenarios are correct.
We are taking the economic hit, because we are ignoring the worst case scenarios.
Pardon me for shouting but…
THE ONLY WAY TO FIGHT A PANDEMIC IS TO CURTAIN CERTAIN CIVIL LIBERTIES.
“certain liberties”? Currently it is rather more than “certain” where I live. I can barely leave the house. I can’t really leave the country. My wife has lost all her income.
Chuck @ 7:27pm —
If nothing much happens in the next month, then we can stick the researchers in the stocks and throw tomatoes, until then I counsel patience and a stock of toilet paper.
Not going to happen. Did anyone ever put James Hansen in the stocks for saying that that Westside Highway in Lower Manhattan would be underwater by 2008 or 2018 at the latest?
“…Italy appears to have reached the plateau…”
Perhaps in the north/north-east.
However, the center and south has started ramping up. (Including Sicily.)
Most unfortunately.
Perhaps, most inevitably.
One ought recall Abraham Lincoln and the suspension of habeus corpus (among other things).
And ALL the EXCORIATION and ABUSE he received from political opponents and the Press for behaving so “dictatorially” during the crisis that wracked his presidency.
(Just a reminder.)
File under: “Blood, sweat and tears”
Related:
https://voiceofeurope.com/2020/03/hungary-the-truth-about-viktor-orbans-emergency-powers/
“…Sweden…”
https://summit.news/2020/04/01/sweden-begins-to-abandon-liberal-coronavirus-approach-as-deaths-surge/
However, the center and south has started ramping up. (Including Sicily.)
If that were the case, the distribution of deaths would be shifting toward the south. That has not happened as yet.
https://gabgoh.github.io/COVID/index.html
That’s a link to what’s called an “Epidemic Calculator.” In it, all the math is made explicit. Most of the variables have sliders that can be adjusted, and the effects of the adjustments can be clearly seen. It’s a simple model, and a good start, but it’s the only display I’ve seen that works this way. (Okay, before I say anything else, here’s what we all know: 1) garbage in, garbage out 2) all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I’m not a numbers nihilist. In fact, I think the math behind epidemics is extremely interesting, but here we have a real-life example that’s terribly important, and it looks as if the quantitative epidemiologists are failing as badly as the worst bureaucrats at the FDA and CDC. What’s going on here? Why can’t we good good-sized samples of reliable and standardized data? Why don’t we have a wide variety of models, with clearly clearly stated assumptions? Why don’t we have models that are designed for reliable data only? Why haven’t we seen well devised experiments, with control groups, that provide a more empirical view than that provided by the modelers?
Seriously, what’s going on with epidemiologists? To me, this seems like an extraordinary scientific failure. The example of all the global warming modelers comes to mind. Where is the Judith Curry of epidemiologists? So many questions.
Coronavirus death rate may be less than 1%
The death rate from COVID-19 is likely around 0.66%, if counting the mild or asymptomatic cases, according to a new study
The coronavirus mortality rate might be lower than previously thought, according to a new study.
A group of researchers analyzed data from China and found that the overall mortality rate of COVID-19 was 1.38%. But if they adjusted for cases that likely went unaccounted for due to their mild or asymptomatic nature, the overall mortality rate decreased to around 0.66%, they reported on March 30 in journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Past estimates had placed the mortality rate somewhere between 2% and 3.4% in Wuhan, China where the outbreak first began, according to a previous Live Science report. A recent study published in the journal Nature Medicine had found that the death rate in the city — without including those who were likely asymptomatic — was around 1.4%.
In this new study, to figure out the true “infection fatality ratio” — the mortality rate that includes the people with mild cases who may have not been counted before — the researchers looked to data from people who were flown back to their various countries from Wuhan, China during the outbreak.
Those repatriated people were given PCR tests — tests which detect specific genetic material within the virus, according to a previous Live Science report. They also used data from Diamond Princess cruise ship passengers who also received PCR testing. Since these tests were given to people who didn’t necessarily show symptoms, the researchers were able to estimate the prevalence of such cases.
Consistent with previous research, the new study also found that the death rate varied greatly by age. While the death rate was around 0.0016% in 0 to 9-year-olds, it increased to about 7.8% for people who were age 80 and above.
The researchers also found that nearly 1 in 5 people over the age of 80 infected with COVID-19 were likely to require hospitalization whereas only 1% of people under 30 were likely to be hospitalized.
“Estimating the case fatality ratio for COVID-19 in real time during its epidemic is very challenging,” Shigui Ruan, a professor in the department of mathematics at The University of Miami wrote in an accompanying commentary. But the infection fatality ratio “is a very important piece of data that will help to guide the response from various government and public health authorities worldwide.”
The case fatality ratios will vary slightly from county to country, based on differences in the policies and measures put in place to control the outbreak, he added. In any case, these mortality rate estimates are still much higher than that of the seasonal flu, which kills around 0.1% of people who are infected.
“Even though the fatality rate is low for younger people, it is very clear that any suggestion of COVID-19 being just like influenza is false,” he wrote. For those between the ages of 20 to 29, for instance, the chance of dying from SARS-CoV-2 is 33 times higher than the odds of dying from seasonal influenza, he wrote.
SOURCE – https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates.html
That “deaths surge” story in Sweden is a bit hyped. Sweden has almost twice the population as each of the other three countries (10 million vs about 16 million for the other three combined). The latest numbers I’ve seen:
Sweden 4947 cases 239 deaths
Other three 9606 cases 165 deaths
So cases are lower per capita, deaths higher. The differences don’t seem dramatic. And the new measures they are taking are still modest.
Speaking (or writing) of charts and numbers. I haven’t verified this, but it comes from J.J. Sefton at ace of spades. I think he is a life long resident of New York and lives there now. From prior posts, I also know he is an avid Rush Limbaugh listener. So I trust him when he said Rush said this on his show. You can decide whether Rush is citing the correct numbers.
“In any case, these mortality rate estimates are still much higher than that of the seasonal flu, which kills around 0.1% of people who are infected.“
This, to me, is half of the point. I thought early on we were likely overreacting to the coronavirus and still have trouble seeing us get to 100,000 or 200,000 dead. But every day that goes by seems to demonstrate this is a legitimate public health crisis which demanded some significant response.
The other half of the point is that it is one thing to question the scale of that response and it’s another thing not to appreciate that the nature of the response is entirely normal and appropriate.
Mike
But every day that goes by seems to demonstrate this is a legitimate public health crisis which demanded some significant response.
I don’t think there’s much disagreement on this. The disagreement is over the magnitude of the response: whether the benefits justify the economic impact, and whether there might be a more moderate response that would have nearly the same benefits and much lower cost.
I have written about this same topic. Please see: http://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2020/03/the-coronavirus-events-of-last-two-weeks.html
For years, I have written that medicine could learn a lot from meteorology which was taken by some as preposterous. The events of the last three weeks, however, demonstrate how true it is. Meteorologists carefully measure and track initial conditions of the atmosphere before making forecasts and then carefully validate those forecasts. Right now, as NEO writes, public health officials don’t even seem to know the number of hospital beds which makes adequate modeling impossible.
public health officials don’t even seem to know the number of hospital beds which makes adequate modeling impossible.
I defense of IHME, they state that having beds and having sufficient personal to tend to the beds are different things. I think they used the latter rather than the former in their estimates.
medicine could learn a lot from meteorology
I was thinking about that too, more in terms of near-term vs medium-term forecasts. Meteorologists are very good at predicting weather within the next couple of days. They are very bad at predicting it two weeks or a month away (aside from seasonal averages). No knock in them, it’s very difficult. But we don’t make enormously costly public policy decisions based on those forecasts (aside from “climate science,” which is a separate topic). Epidemiologists, I suspect, are similarly bad at predicting what happens more than a week or two away, but we put a lot of weight on their predictions in policy decisions.
The social contagion spreads faster than the virus.
That said,
NYC Health: COVID-19 Daily Data Summary: Deaths
1397 deaths. 1046 underlying conditions. 333 conditions pending.
635 age 75 and over
574 female sex
872 male sex
The lessons Italy has learned about its COVID-19 outbreak could help the rest of the world
“The biggest mistake we made was to admit patients infected with COVID-19 into hospitals throughout the region,” said Carlo Borghetti, the vice-premier of Lombardy, an economically crucial region with a population of 10 million.
The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine has a short report that just came out about the transmissibility of the virus. See http://www.nap.org. The virus is not only found in coughs and sneezes but is in the air of patients rooms and in hallways of hospitals and around staff dressing areas and patient bathrooms, commodes, and near patients who are on nasal catheters, and generally much farther than 6 ft from patients. Normal conversation is enough to expire the virus into the air. In other words, it is much easier to aerosolize than we thought. This explains to me why NY is so hot. No wonder it is spreading in nursing homes and crowded cities. They also imply that face masks have reduced these viral loads in the air. Watch for a trend for all city folk to wear face masks.
The virus is not only found in coughs and sneezes but is in the air of patients rooms
The medical staff are spreaders.
See http://www.nasonline.org for National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine view of transmissibility of the virus. In essence they are saying that it is MUCH more airborne than we think. Eg. It is all over the air in patients’ rooms. They also believe face masks are reducing the viral load in the air.
Can go to Sean Davis on Twitter to see some of the major misses in hospitalizations from various states in IMHE model.
President Fauci said the economic inconvenience is the price we have to pay. I’m sure he consulted with Vice President Birx about that. Of course their livelihoods have not been inconvenienced so that easy for them to say.
10 million lost jobs in last 2 weeks (probably more because states have been overwhelmed and can’t keep up) and probably double that by next week.
Sure glad we elected President Fauci.
But President Fauci apparently works 20 hours a day so he’s a worker.
This is the actual link to the advisory to which dnaxy refers.
https://www.nap.edu/read/25769/chapter/1
The literature they consulted of on-the-fly studies found virus particles in hospital rooms and adjacent loci. They emphasize they have yet to find live viruses. If I’m not misinterpreting it, they did not find such particles in appreciable concentrations out and about.
For years, I have written that medicine could learn a lot from meteorology which was taken by some as preposterous
I think you’ve confounded medicine with epidemiology in this sentence.
Art Deco:
I think you might want to consult a dictionary:
epidemiology
[?ep??d?m??äl?j?]
NOUN
the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health
In novels, it’s often the vaccine developed to stop a plague that turns the earth’s population into zombies. Regardless of zombies, it feels like we’re only at the beginning of the story. So far, it’s a real page turner.
I think you might want to consult a dictionary:
No, you’re confused. As ever.
All anecdotal, but it seems to me our requirements for medical school are too stringent, or, perhaps, we don’t test for all the appropriate things of applicants. My kids have peers who are in medical school. Every one of them were exceptional students, did very well on the MCATs, had sterling undergraduate records, and most had to wait multiple years before they were accepted to a school. And, now that they are matriculating they are doing very well.
While waiting, and reapplying, most went on to get additional undergraduate or graduate degrees in difficult, hard science subjects. Some did this while also becoming certified EMTs, working full time, often on the night shift as paramedics.
My wife is certified in a medical profession. She was an outstanding student and is very adept at her job. She had to graduate from a very difficult undergraduate program, then pass boards and a state licensing examination and keep up with continuing education credits every year. Now our state requires applicants to first get a PhD (!) before they can sit for the licensing exam and become state certified. It makes my wife furious. Her profession is generally about 80+% female and many of the women eventually marry. My wife worked part time for many years while raising our kids, including a complete 7 year break from work. She wonders how these young girls will be able to have families with the additional years and tuition debt PhDs require.
Art Deco:
Oh I forgot words mean what you say they mean. You are channeling your inner grumpy Mr. Humpty Dumpty, again?
“The biggest mistake we made was to admit patients infected with COVID-19 into hospitals throughout the region,” said Carlo Borghetti, the vice-premier of Lombardy…”
The idea of segregating CV-ID patients in different places/buildings so as to protect other patients and staff is a superb idea, but it would certainly have been nice if he could have mentioned it, say, a couple of weeks ago. What’s he been waiting for?
On the other hand, if the virus is as virulent as it seems to be, then—as was mentioned above—it’s the health professionals who, while endangering their own lives, are also in danger of spreading it.
Cruel irony.
” “…if the models are correct…”
Since when have been correct? I need my memory to be refreshed on the last time the models were correct.”
OK, time to trot out the old saying:
‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’
Models should be tested against measured data, back-calibrated where possible, and so on.
We all use models: ‘How long will it take me to drive to Aunt Mildred’s?’ The answer *will* be based on a model – you just don’t call it that. It will also be wrong, but still useful.
Good modellers should have a sense of the limits, and those reporting should as well.
Dnaxy on April 1, 2020 at 11:44 pm said:
If we didn’t do anything regarding the pandemic and just absorbed the deaths, would it benefit our gene pool? Those who survived would have a reproductive advantage and these genes would survive a little better than those genes from the deceased. Would the total deaths in a thousand years be less because of this more robust genome? Do we have any obligation to descendants?
Nota bene-I’m not advising this passivity.
* * *
That would make more evolutionary sense if it didn’t disproportionately target old people who no longer reproduce. Also not recommending it, just an observation that nature culls the herds constantly when left to her own devices.
However, selecting for increased resistance to a single disease that may not ever be encountered again isn’t enough to offset losing otherwise healthy people.
Barry Meislin on April 2, 2020 at 4:54 pm said:
“The biggest mistake we made was to admit patients infected with COVID-19 into hospitals throughout the region,” said Carlo Borghetti, the vice-premier of Lombardy…he idea of segregating CV-ID patients in different places/buildings so as to protect other patients and staff is a superb idea, but it would certainly have been nice if he could have mentioned it, say, a couple of weeks ago. ”
* * *
Health professionals should be able to figure this out on their own.
This is not a new problem, BUTthey didn’t think about it being so highly contagious at the time — “just another flu” — still, the solution is not a hidden one,just very difficult to enforce and slow in implementation.
https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/how-an-italian-hospital-protects-its-medical-workers-from-coronavirus/
Appendix:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/04/01/covid-19-models-covid-needs-and-new-york/#comment-2487483
Dnaxy on April 2, 2020 at 2:14 pm said:
See http://www.nasonline.org for National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine view of transmissibility of the virus. In essence they are saying that it is MUCH more airborne than we think. Eg. It is all over the air in patients’ rooms. They also believe face masks are reducing the viral load in the air.
Parsing the numbers or models makes little sense, because there is just no reason to trust that the numbers available are accurate. so its just different sums of garbage. There is no guarantee that any public number is accurate. Whether china or germany….everyone has reasons to,lie and manipulate, even if it is just to avoid panic.
But, for now, ‘they’ are acting scared. This is one of three things….
1) scared because they are completely over their heads, unqualified for crisis management
2) scared because of the ramifications affect their political future and are solely looking at how to avoid blame
3) scared because they have information that is not publically available that paints a more dire picture.
We will know which it is in a few months. Until then, prepare, because no matter what it is, it is going to be ugly, The world has been flipped on its head, and no where will just bounce back to the way it was.
Instead of asking epidemiologists maybe we should be asking demographers and actuaries.
Beware big data (models).
The folks creating the models for this, are they the same folks who created the models for IPCC on Climate Change?
Models are just computer programs of someone’s best guesses. Since they try to look into the future, they are often wrong in the past. But the best models are adjusted/tweaked “today” so that the model accurately predicts “yesterday”. That adjustment means it will better predict “tomorrow”.
Stock Market models for example do this a lot. They continuously rerun the historical data to see if the model actually works.
Sometimes a model will be wrong in magnitude, but correct in trend. Basically “model predicted 1000 yesterday but actual yesterday was 100”. That again requires a tweak; check the historical if the magnitude is consistently off, you need to tweak a constant somewhere.
It is insufficiently appreciated, IMHO, that there are problems with the numerator as well as with the denominator.
In proper countries (ie not China) it’s easy enough to count the number of deaths, and easy enough to trust that the number of deaths is being honesty reported. But it’s nothing like as easy to ascribe a cause.
Depending on the jurisdiction, if you die with COVID 19, you go down in the stats as dying from COVID 19. We can reasonably expect reported deaths from cancer, heart disease etc to fall as reported deaths from COVID 19 rise.
So only a proportion of the reported COVID 19 deaths are in fact deaths caused by COVID 19. Indeed a death caused by COVID 19 is a difficult proposition anyway. If you have diabetes, so that COVID 19, when you catch it, is much more serious, and then you succumb to a heart attack caused by inflammation from the COVID 19 infection, what did you die of ? Heart attack ? COVID 19 ? Diabetes ?
It’ll take years to calculate the ‘extra deaths” resulting from COVID 19, and the numbers will not look very like the ones being reported now.
To keep track now, you need to keep an eye on the TOTAL deaths from ALL causes. If total deaths go up significantly higher than the normal number, then it’s reasonable to assume that the excess has something to do with COVID 19.
Given the path of the epidemic, if COVID 19 takes a serious toll, it should show up in the total deaths statistics in New York, within the next couple of weeks, and elsewhere within a month.
Gov Cuomo’s own numbers show decreased rate of hospitalizations–and a negative growth in people in the hospital (new hospitalizations, less discharges). Discharges are growing exponentially–doubling every day. The numbers are public, but not publicized–don’t fit the narrative.
total deaths new deaths Hospitalizations Discharges Net hsptlztns New ICU
4/2/2020 2538 319
4/1/2020 2219 505 1157 1292 -135 374
3/31/2020 1714 372 1297 1167 130 312
3/30/2020 1342 279 1412 771 641 358
3/29/2020 1063 180 1014 632 382 315
3/28/2020 883 277 1176 846 330 282
3/27/2020 606 174 847 681 166 172
3/26/2020 432 147 1154 528 626 374
3/25/2020 285 75 1248 450 798 192
3/24/2020 210 53 736 278 458 215
3/23/2020 157 26 714 150 564 135
3/22/2020 131 17 586 145 441 140
3/21/2020 114 85 637 150 487 143
3/20/2020 29 9 364 102 262 77
3/19/2020 20 7 416 78 338 104
3/18/2020 13 1 121 123 -2 33
3/17/2020 12 9 170 170 46
3/16/2020 3 3 91 91
As may have been pointed out in one of the other comments, this question in your post — “Do they assume this peak of April 15 will be reached all over the US all at once? That seems unlikely to be the case.” — is answered in the models. There are state by state numbers if you click the dropdown menu under “United States.” Now, that said, even state data misses the nuances of local curves. In Texas, it doesn’t matter if Amarillo has plenty of capacity if Austin has people dying in the ERs. BUT, the state by state models clearly predict that different states hit peaks at different times. The later the peak, but better the chance that people won’t die because the local health system was unprepared, but also the better the chance for severe economic damage that carries its own mortality and morbidity.
Oh I forgot words mean what you say they mean.
No, I used a word correctly, and you pretend I did not for effect. As always:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EEVMxdFxh8
MBunge on April 1, 2020 at 9:41 pm said:
The CDC estimates H1N1 killed 12,469 in the U.S. from April 2009 to April 2010. The latest numbers I can find is that COVID-10 has already killed 4,709 as of April 1, 2020.
Do you just not understand math, or is this intentionally misleading?
Your first set of numbers is for an entire year. Your second set of numbers is for about FOUR months. You know, about 1/3 of a year.
But your phrasing then makes it sound like you’re counting those numbers against an April-to-April count. “Oh hey, 12,000 over the race from April to April, and this race starts with almost 5,000 head start.” (The key is that “already” you put in there.) Which would be a good way to lie with numbers.
And the numbers you quote would actually show worse than H1N1 in a straight-line projection. But that straight-line isn’t likely. And even if it happens, it still won’t be anywhere near the numbers of other ‘plagues’.
https://twitter.com/tunkuv/status/1245899048109965312
Lee Moore on April 3, 2020 at 7:36 am said:
Weirdly, total national morbidity has gone down according to some numbers. It always drops in early spring, but this year it’s ahead of the curve.
And, yes, causes of morbidity is always a challenge. It’s much like the “cause” for airplane crashes – the papers report “pilot error” with large headlines and much finger-pointing; but pilot error is almost always a contributing cause at some level (if only the pilot had noticed the loose aileron, no crash), but often not the main reason. And there’s always a chain of causes.
mer on April 3, 2020 at 6:49 am said:
Stock Market models for example do this a lot. They continuously rerun the historical data to see if the model actually works.
Well, stock market models have a direct incentive to be RIGHT. If they’re wrong, people lose money (except for some of the contrarians) and the modelers lose money. If, say, the global warming model is wrong, no one important (that is, the modelers and others who receive gov’t grants) suffers.
If this pandemic model is wrong, no one who used it or built it will suffer. AND, if it’s wrong in the right direction – lots fewer people suffer and die than predicted – they can always claim success. “Oh, look! It would have been horrible, except for all the things you did.” And they go their merry way, predicting more disasters.
Given a statistically-normal population of 31 major nations from Argentina to the U.S., the relevant Covid-19 metric compares each country’s long-term Crude Death Rate (CDR) with its latest proportion of viral deaths to cases per million population.
On this consistent unit-basis, indexing the wholly objective, proportional Covid-19 : CDR Morbidity Ratio by overall Mean and Standard Deviation obtains each country’s comparative Covid-19 mortality risk vs. historical deaths in normal demographic course. Despite wildly disparate circumstances, populations, viral cases vs. deaths, this 31-country ensemble ranks the pandemic’s local Risk Factor on a high-to-low, positive-negative scale: Positive distributions connote mild-to-severe contagion danger, Negative distributions represent viral death-rates within a country’s natural Crude Death demographic range.
Reviewing this objectively comparative, proportional scale, Italy and Morocco share virtually identical High Risk Indices of 1.247 and 1.246 respectively, while America’s low-risk -.254 is relatively benign (conversely, Britain’s Risk Index is a contagious +.375). For the record, as of early April 2020 America’s CDR of 7,703 deaths/day is 119 times Covid-19’s 65 daily fatalities-to-date. Most certainly, neither country’s risk-ranking justifies a panic-stricken economic shutdown trampling civil liberties while inducing bizarrely self-destructive multi-$trillion generational theft in the name of a corrective “stimulus”, a socio-political/economic Covid-19 danger in itself.
Congratulations Neo, Scott Adams tweeted a link to this post about an hour ago.
Art Deco:
Regarding the use of other people’s words. A non Art Deco person wrote something (epidemiology and medicine); his words his context, which you Art Deco claimed was incorrect. I cite a dictionary that contradicts the Art Deco interpretation of the original context, but in Art Deco world I am being misleading or deceptive. Once again in Art Deco land words are curious things.
The number of ICU beds isn’t a useful number. Neonatal Intensive Care, Pediatric Intensive Care, Cardiac Intensive Care, etc. are counted in that number, and completely irrelevant to treating this disease.
Then you have to consider the baseline load on the relevant ICUs. Most of those beds already have someone in then, and will continue receiving patients from sources other than the Kung Flu.
I cite a dictionary that contradicts the Art Deco interpretation
The term ‘contradict’ does not mean what you fancy it means.
Lee Moore, GWB,
Due to 99% of Americans sitting in their homes 99% of the time, wouldn’t total deaths not related to COVID-19 go down? Accidental deaths would certainly be reduced, no?
Art Deco:
What does “pedantic ass” mean?
What does “pedantic ass” mean?
The man who has posted umpteen cack-handed complaints about an innocuous one-sentence comment that he misunderstood is asking that question? What does ‘chutzpah’ mean?
What does a mirror do?
It wasn’t misunderstood.
What does “context” mean?
What does “pedantic ass” mean?
Prove my point again? That is quite enough. LOL
Art Deco and om:
Cut out the personal squabbling.
Luke:
It was my impression that the model takes that into account. It isn’t about every single ICU bed, just the ones that are projected to be available for COVID cases.
Chuck:
Hmm, interesting. It had gotten an Instalanche in the wee hours of the morning, but I noticed the traffic was somewhat higher than the usual Instalanche. That explains it.
Chuck on April 3, 2020 at 11:06 am said:
Congratulations Neo, Scott Adams tweeted a link to this post about an hour ago.
* * *
I wondered where all the new noms came from.
If you have all been lurking, thanks for coming out.
If you haven’t been lurking — start now!
And ignore om and Art Deco; they are not usually this cranky.
“Good modellers should have a sense of the limits, and those reporting should as well.”
Humility. The forgotten virtue. The foundation of wisdom. We have a dearth of humility and it is killing us. The absence of humility is the basis for the massive fustercluck that is climate “science”. It appears to be the reason that the epidemiology WAGs are so crazy with this virus.
President Trump and the governors and the American people are being lied to by these modelers. By failing to adequately explain just how weak their guesses are, they are misleading us all.
When this is on the backside, “expertise” and science are going to be exposed for just how broken they are. It may take an entire generation to regain credibility. One benefit, however, will come when people learn that the climate models are so much worse. Maybe science will finally begin some small semblance of quality control. Some humility would sure help.
In August, September, whenever, we are going to see a lot of post-mortems, or for a little less macabre description, AARs (after action report), and we’re going to use those to decide if it’s been worth it, both in economic and civil liberties.
My go to number is going to be “excess deaths” because every other metric is going to be gamed, because:
CYA – nobody wants to admit they were wrong, especially if their personal prestige and/or income depends on being right.
Politics – The Democrat party knew that they needed a recession to have a chance of beating Trump – some were even so impolitic as to admit it. Only if the medical costs can be shown (or finagled) to outweigh the economic cost can their cheerleading, and in the case of Democrat state officials, directing, drastic actions be justified.
Socialism – Large government and its interventions are the name of the game. They NEED this to be the absolutely correct action and they will lie, cheat and steal to make it appear that way.
Expect “infection” numbers (instead of deaths) to be emphasized. Big numbers are always more impressive, even if it was only a bad cold or less for most.
Expect “died with” numbers. Few autopsies will be performed to distinguish between “with” and “of”. The cynic in me says, “deliberately”.
Opportunity cost calculations will be pooh-poohed at best, suppressed at worst.
The doomsayers can not be seen to be Chicken Littles, even if they are.
FWIW, the Ontario govt just announced that they are estimating a total death toll for the province, over the life of the pandemic, of 3,000 to 15,000, out of a population of about 14,500,000. They also estimate that if they had simply let the virus run its course, with no effort whatsoever to mitigate its effects, they would be looking at a total toll of 100,000 over the lifetime of the pandemic. This is certainly not nothing, but even the no longer possible zero intervention scenario is by no means TEOTWAWKI.
Rufus T. Firefly : Due to 99% of Americans sitting in their homes 99% of the time, wouldn’t total deaths not related to COVID-19 go down?
Not really. Getting on for 50% of deaths are from cancer and heart disease. You don’t have to be out and about to die of those. Most of the rest of deaths are caused by…..just being old.
Accidental deaths would certainly be reduced, no?
Sure, but only about 6% of deaths are caused by accidents. And the kitchen is a deadly place 🙂