The new Corona virus, should we worry?

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,936
Reaction score
2,539
Points
113
^^^ if you’re over the age of 45, you don’t matter and should just be killed so that young people can get on with life. (y)
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,668
Reaction score
2,055
Points
113
Here's a look at the provisional death count data, and how it compares to normal expected deaths from 2/1/20 - 5/23/20. The data does lag by a few weeks, but expected deaths would also continue to go up as we head into the future.

Currently the US is at 99% of normal for expected deaths from 2/1/20 - 5/23/20. Only 7 states are at 105% or greater of expected deaths.

View attachment 8159

On May 8, provisional data were posted as some sort of evidence: https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...u-season.96309/page-4#lg=post-1971914&slide=0

At that point there were 47,128 deaths. Now if you add up the provisional deaths through May 9, the total is 73,513.

In other words, the lag is huge. If you apply the same ratio for the May 8th data (which is probably still not even complete) to you 99% figure, it would be 154%.


The expected deaths in total go up as we go into the future, but they go down on a weekly basis because we're well past the normal flu season. Here was the graph of deaths last year, with the week of May 25 highlighted

 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
7,837
Reaction score
1,198
Points
113
I recall Gov. Walz mentioning something in a recent press conference about a specific date in June where "the models" show MN will peak. I recall hearing 1,000 deaths/week at that peak, but I don't remember the date of it. Does anyone remember?
The latest model update from only two weeks ago had MN between 1,400 and 2,000 total deaths by the end of May. Thanks to our nursing home strategy, MN is doing the best it can to get over 1,000.

The unmitigated scenario showed 1,500 deaths per day, but pretty much every scenario shows over 100 deaths per day at some point.


Walz was preaching again today about using data and Science for his decisions and that we are still a ways off from the peak according to the models.

At this point it feels like he's become completely oblivious to what the actual data is saying, and what every state around us is doing.
 
Last edited:

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
8,219
Reaction score
1,024
Points
113
The latest model update from only two weeks ago had MN between 1,400 and 2,000 total deaths by the end of May. Thanks to our nursing home strategy, MN is doing the best it can to get over 1,000.

The unmitigated scenario showed 1,500 deaths per day, but pretty much every scenario shows over 100 deaths per day at some point.


Walz was preaching again today about using data and Science for his decisions and that we are still a ways off from the peak according to the models.

At this point it feels like he's become completely oblivious to what the actual data is saying, and what every state around us is doing.
Has to be political at this point.........
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,096
Reaction score
1,488
Points
113
Interesting statistics I heard on the radio today:

- if you are under the age of 50, you are under considerably more danger from seasonal flu than COVID 19

- Under the age of 24, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than die from COVID

- Under the age of 14, you are 20 TIMES more likely to die of the seasonal flu than COVID

- Pennsylvania, apparently still shut down, has had more people die over the age of 100 from COVID than people under the age of 45

Wowzers.
I'd be interested in seeing how that was calculated. Most estimates I've seen show the more danger with the flu is at around 25 and younger.

 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
8,219
Reaction score
1,024
Points
113
Coronavirus fatality rate could be as low as 0.26%, CDC says
"According to new estimates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the COVID-19 infection fatality rate may be as low as 0.26%, a number that only doubles the seasonal flu but significantly lower than earlier estimates. Remember back on March 16, a 20‐page report from Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered a lot of attention after the team’s model estimated that around 1% of infections of COVID-19 would ultimately result in 2.2 million deaths in the United States from coronavirus. The model later turned out to be wrong. "

 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,996
Reaction score
2,346
Points
113
Absolutely maddening. The media is so filled with hacks, from formerly well respected institutions. Crazy.
oh, come on - this one has to be a joke. It was worth a good laugh. smh
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
Coronavirus fatality rate could be as low as 0.26%, CDC says
"According to new estimates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the COVID-19 infection fatality rate may be as low as 0.26%, a number that only doubles the seasonal flu but significantly lower than earlier estimates. Remember back on March 16, a 20‐page report from Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered a lot of attention after the team’s model estimated that around 1% of infections of COVID-19 would ultimately result in 2.2 million deaths in the United States from coronavirus. The model later turned out to be wrong. "

> Remember back on March 16, a 20‐page report from Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered a lot of attention after the team’s model estimated that around 1% of infections of COVID-19 would ultimately result in 2.2 million deaths in the United States from coronavirus. The model later turned out to be wrong.

Their guess of 1% IFR was "only" off by a factor of four, which ain't half bad when you think that we knew virtually nothing about the coronavirus at that time. The bigger problem was that the computer program for their model was a catastrophe, and ought to have been censored by colleagues of theirs from other universities (so that they could not do such damage via a bad model). The other lesson to learn is, "when in a crisis, the first team to step to the microphone with a supposed scientific model to offer, might be the team with the worst model but the highest interest in self-promotion."

Who do we blame in the media for even letting these bozos from Imperial College (with their model that is a technical disaster) get up to the microphone and talk?

Oh, by the way. On which of those 20 pages of the Imperial College report was the disclaimer that said, "Our estimate of IFR may be high by as much as a factor of four. If that should be the case, then projected US fatalaties would be more like 550,000 without any interventions."
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
46,439
Reaction score
4,242
Points
113
You can pretend that a significant economic shutdown and the fear created by hyperbolic pandemic media reporting doesn’t directly and indirectly contribute to death from delayed diagnosis and treatment of depression, heart disease, cancer, pulmonary disease, etc., but it is true.

You want to ignore it b/c it’s your best chance to beat Trump in November if things are still bogged down. People are dying, but your conscience is at ease knowing that’s difficult to document.
The economic shutdown was inevitable during the middle of a pandemic. You're ignorantly claiming there would be no economic shutdown or delay in treatment of other diseases if not for terrible Trump hating blue state governors. None of that is true.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
8,219
Reaction score
1,024
Points
113
> Remember back on March 16, a 20‐page report from Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered a lot of attention after the team’s model estimated that around 1% of infections of COVID-19 would ultimately result in 2.2 million deaths in the United States from coronavirus. The model later turned out to be wrong.

Their guess of 1% IFR was "only" off by a factor of four, which ain't half bad when you think that we knew virtually nothing about the coronavirus at that time. The bigger problem was that the computer program for their model was a catastrophe, and ought to have been censored by colleagues of theirs from other universities (so that they could not do such damage via a bad model). The other lesson to learn is, "when in a crisis, the first team to step to the microphone with a supposed scientific model to offer, might be the team with the worst model but the highest interest in self-promotion."

Who do we blame in the media for even letting these bozos from Imperial College 9with their model that is a technical disaster) get up to the microphone and talk?
I'm not even sure why the Imperial College was allowed to give a forecast/model based off of past performances
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
46,439
Reaction score
4,242
Points
113
Back up to 1,500 + deaths and 20,000 + new cases today.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,876
Reaction score
2,104
Points
113
The economic shutdown was inevitable during the middle of a pandemic. You're ignorantly claiming there would be no economic shutdown or delay in treatment of other diseases if not for terrible Trump hating blue state governors. None of that is true.
Where have I said that “there should be no economic shutdown”? I have argued for a shorter shutdown, and yes, a short delay and a more factual media would have far less consequences for a lot of people that have and will suffer, not to mention the arbitrary manner that some of these shutdowns have occurred almost exclusively in blue states. But we have reached a point in being able to mitigate virus hot spots or outbreaks that don’t justify a continued broad shutdown.

You want to act like the consequences of putting people of fear of CV-19 and not shutting down are necessary, consequences that could also cause people to die. But those deaths don’t matter b/c you aren’t getting a daily count on them.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
Yeah, hilarious. Its a fine example of the New York Times breathlessly generating hysteria...that’s all. The cloak and dagger part about obtaining the PowerPoint was a nice touch.

There are some that want to stay in perpetual lockdown or repeated lockdowns without considering the collateral damage based on seriously flawed early modeling. We know a lot more about the epidemiology of the virus now, missteps, risks or lack thereof to certain populations. This has become a game of CYA political theater while Rome burns and vulnerable die.
I'm not sure if the model that Alex was talking about in his tweet is the same one that the media was talking about in early May, the one that was a draft that the NYT "outed," but it sounds like it is. In any event, it was a really stupid model since it was a model "as if" no shutdowns had been done (yet shutdowns had been done by that time). No wonder it was a draft. If the media over-played that, it's not surprising, I guess. My opinion is starting to become that most of the people who form "the media" are not really qualified to be the media.
Don’t know about the scientific community but the media pushed as the narrative against opening up.
In any event, whatever model that the media might have pushed at that time as the narrative against opening up, I'm guessing (although I'm not certain) that it probably wouldn't have been the one listed in the @scools12 post above (https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...housands-of-american-lives.96479/post-1968404), because that one is the first version of the IHME model that kinda-sorta got an in-the-ballpark result (after I had been ridiculing it in various GH posts for many weeks in a row for its extreme inaccuracy). IHME had been (before that first update that was not ridiculous) predicting death tolls for August that we were hitting within a week or so (while my own predictions were accurate).

This sort-of-accurate version of the IHME model (and I haven't checked to see if they've updated it lately) is a model that we will actually come very close to hitting in August. It is a model of Covid-19 deaths under assuption of current (at the time the model was updated) shutdown scenarios in place, not a model incorporating estimates of what might happen if shutdowns were to be lifted. (Or at least that's my impression. I could be wrong on that. It might have been intended as a model of what might happen if shutdowns were lifted. In any event, their prediction of 134K dead by August will (approximately) be hit without lifting shutdowns. To the extent that the lifting of shutdowns might increase C19 infections, we might hit that total sooner.)

Therefore, I'm not sure in what sense the referenced IHME model could have been pushed "as the narrative against opening up."

Edit:

OK, I think I see where the confusion might come from, namely the following quote from what @scools12 quoted ...

"A new model from the University of Washington, previously used by the White House suggested that 134,000 Americans could now die by August -- in a revised toll prompted by the likely impact of state openings. The total was more than double the same organization's estimate last month. A draft internal report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention obtained by The New York Times buckled the White House narrative that the worst of the pandemic is passed and it's time to get going again. It found that the daily death toll will reach about 3,000 by June 1, nearly double the current number."

That seems to associate (association by means of being mentioned in the same paragraph) the updated UW IHME model with the draft model by the White House leaked by the NYT. They definitely *are not* the same model. The White House model might have been loosely based on a prior (before the latest update) edition of the IHME model, for all I know. But that quoted italicized paragraph is a perfect example of lies disguised as journalism. It mentions two separate models in the same paragraph, leading the reader to believe they are one-and-the-same thing, when they are not. The UW model was just mentioned in passing (why, I'm not sure, maybe to give legitimacy to the author, noting that they have heard of models before?). But they casually mention a different model (the IHME model) as being indicative of results that might happen if we open up the economy (when the IHME model shows no such thing), and then mention specific predictions by a completely different model that is only distinguished by its mystery status as a draft model and by having been filched by the NYT.

It is actually mentioned that that specific revision of the IHME model was "prompted by the likely impact of state openings." Well, I suppose they might have thought that they were updating it to reflect the likely impact of state openings. But if so, then that just shows yet one more time the stupidity of the IHME model. Because that update really only brought it into alignment with reality - the reality of state shutdowns in place at that time. They might still need additional adjustments in the IHME model in order to accurately adjust it for state openings. The IHME model as described was only accurate for a shutdown scenario, and would probably not be accurate for state openings.

In any event, the 134K deaths predicted by that edition of the IHME model should be fairly accurate, as long as lifting of shutdowns does not create runaway exponential growth again. And that model that Alex and I were carping about, that predicted 3,000 deaths per day by the end of May, that's a different (and bad) model. Obviously, 3K deaths per day for the months of June and July and the rest of May would be about 66 * 3K = 198K new deaths by August on top of the 102K that we have already = 300K deaths by August, so it cannot be the same model as the more recent IHME model that predicts 32K additional deaths by August.

The above quoted (italicized) paragraph is probably the best example of horrible journalism that I have ever seen. It strings together a bunch of unrelated things in order to lead the uncritical reader to the conclusion the writer wishes to get them to. It intentionally tries to get the reader to jump to the conclusion that the updated IHME model is one-and-the-same as the draft model that the New York Times stole from a branch of the federal government, when these two are completely different and unrelated models and in fact don't predict anything in the same ballpark. It does all this because it is also trying to gently lead the uncritical reader into believing that at the same time that Trump is starting to talk-up the possibility of opening up the locked-down economy soon, other parts of the executive branch are running COVID-19 epidemiological models that predict horrible consequences if we do open up the economy. (Never mind that this was a draft model that had good reason to be draft since it was a very inaccurate model, and the NYT basically stole it from the government, and then proceed to make a big deal out of it at the time.) It wants you to think that different parts of the executive branch are not on the same page, and/or that Trump is not listening to his advisors. If I was teaching a journalism class, that paragraph would be given an F by me. I know that lots of GHers like to complain about the excesses of the MSM. This paragraph is a prime example.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
Not absurd. Criticism or observations of attempts to shape opinion and policy with selective inflammatory statements without mention of possible alternative scenarios is hardly the stuff of conspiracy theorists. It’s bad journalism more accurately labeled as punditry or editorialism. This is separate from the bad science (statistical algorithms, more accurately). we’ve seen where actual outcomes don’t fall within the 95% confidence intervals or perhaps juuust barely as with the HHS modeling in that story.

The MN modeling predicted 1400 deaths by the end of May. How are we doing there?
> The MN modeling predicted 1400 deaths by the end of May. How are we doing there?

According to @short ornery norwegian on May 27 we have ...

Deaths 932 +33.
Deaths at long-term care and assisted living facilities 759 +27


1,400 - 932 = 468 ...

... and with 4 days to go in May we need 117 deaths per day to hit Walz' model's May target. But we're more likely to get 33 per day, in which case we will be 336 short.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
May 26 Minnesota hits an all time high with 33 deaths.

May 26 Wisconsin (14th day of zero state restrictions) reports 3 deaths.

Walz is entirely indefensible.
Yes, Walz is entirely indefensible. For his policies (or lack thereof) re nursing homes and LTC facilities. On May 26th Minnesota had 33 deaths of which 27 were in nursing homes and LTC facilities.

That leaves 6 Minnesota deaths of regular people.

You claim Wisconsin had 3 deaths total on May 26, so I'll take your word for it. Good for Wisconsin. They beat Minnesota, 3 (or less) regular deaths to 6 regular deaths.

On May 27 Minnesota had 24 deaths per Worldometer. They don't break it own by nursing homes, but at 81% on average that's an estimated 20 MN deaths from nursing homes/LTC facilities. And 4 MN deaths of regular people.

On May 27 Wisconsin had 22 deaths per Worldometer. At a 41% average LTC that's an estimated 9 WI deaths from nursing homes/LTC facilities. And 13 WI deaths of regular people.

Good for Minnesota. They beat Wisconsin, 4 regular deaths to 13 regular deaths. (Darn it, those 13 Badgers didn't listen to me when I told them not to go out to the bar a couple weeks ago.)

But Minnesota is still losing big time in the nursing home/LTC deaths department.

As I explained yesterday, you can't compare Minnesota's total death statistics, which contain (very horrible) nursing home/LTC death statistics, to Wisconsin's total statistics, and then say that those horrible Minnesota nursing home/LTC statistics are due to Walz' lockdowns in Minnesota. Lockdowns apply to regular people and regular deaths. Nursing homes are something completely different.

The fact remains that Walz is entirely indefensible for his policies (or lack thereof) re nursing homes and LTC facilities.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
27/33 deaths from long term facilities. How often are LTCF permanent workers and visiting practitioners being tested in MN? Twice a week? Once a week? Only if someone shows symptoms and visits a testing center? How are COVID-suspected or confirmed patients being quarantined? Is there a protocol in place? Staff training? Apologies in advance if someone has already posted.
I think nobody knows the answers to any of those good questions. Well maybe Walz knows, but he's not talking. Well, not talking about anything other than his stupid inaccurate models, that is.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
Absolutely maddening. The media is so filled with hacks, from formerly well respected institutions. Crazy.
What a ridiculous study.

Do you suppose that's because the biggest share of deaths is in crowded NYC that votes Democrat? Do you suppose that the Democrat curve is declining because the coronavirus hit there early and they are approaching herd immunity in NYC?

I suppose that after that Democrat curve falls lower than the Republican curve, we'll see some election propaganda saying "see, vote Democrat and you'll be more robust against COVID-19."

Sheesh!
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
The latest model update from only two weeks ago had MN between 1,400 and 2,000 total deaths by the end of May. Thanks to our nursing home strategy, MN is doing the best it can to get over 1,000.

The unmitigated scenario showed 1,500 deaths per day, but pretty much every scenario shows over 100 deaths per day at some point.


Walz was preaching again today about using data and Science for his decisions and that we are still a ways off from the peak according to the models.

At this point it feels like he's become completely oblivious to what the actual data is saying, and what every state around us is doing.
Impeach Walz!

He's an idiot, and knows nothing about Data and Science. Is that an impeachable offense? No? How about killing 27 elderly in nursing homes and long-term-care facilities in one day, thanks to being an idiot that knows nothing about Data and Science?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
46,439
Reaction score
4,242
Points
113
Florida uses the Vladimir Putin technique of COVID-19 death accounting. It may not be accurate, but it keeps the peasants (and seniors) from revolting.
KGF can continue his Trump/DeSantis statue unconcerned.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
687
Points
113
I'm not even sure why the Imperial College was allowed to give a forecast/model based off of past performances
Good point. If I recall from my prior post on that topic, his prior predictions of catastrophe were high by an (geometric) average of a factor of 5,500 X. By comparison, being off by about *only* 4 X in the COVID-19 case, I suppose Imperial College could claim this as the "greatest triumph yet" for their model. Which would be a truism. But at what cost in terms of panic level.
 
Top Bottom