The new Corona virus, should we worry?

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,077
Reaction score
2,411
Points
113
You used an obvious strawman to make your point and I called you on it. If you want to have a serious discussion, don't say things like "If the goal is to have zero COVID cases then the only option is to lock everyone in a room by themselves within their home. "

The fact of the matter is that if the R0 drops below 1, the virus will die out. We can achieve that through some limitations on social interaction. It needn't be all or nothing. Eliminating super spreader events would go a long way toward reducing the spread and actually allowing other types of more limited interaction, but your knee-jerk reaction is to defend Sturgis and anything else people might think is a cause.
Actually, what I did was point out how stupid it is that you jump up and down every time cases go up somewhere (even tho you swear you don’t follow case count). Do you think people who are pro-Stugis, pro-Universities opening, pro-Sweden not doing lockdowns, etc. aren’t expecting some increase in cases due to these gatherings?

Maybe a graph of Scandinavia would help you. I’ll use multiple axis and include Wyoming for the heck of it.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
Actually, what I did was point out how stupid it is that you jump up and down every time cases go up somewhere (even tho you swear you don’t follow case count). Do you think people who are pro-Stugis, pro-Universities opening, pro-Sweden not doing lockdowns, etc. aren’t expecting some increase in cases due to these gatherings?

Maybe a graph of Scandinavia would help you. I’ll use multiple axis and include Wyoming for the heck of it.
Since graphs with multiple axes bother you so much, how about a table:


 

Angry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Sturgis was a protest so there were actually 0 COVID cases.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,029
Reaction score
2,176
Points
113
Here's the March 30 update from IHME:



They change their forecast regularly. If I predict today that it is going to rain Saturday, then I change my prediction to sunny on Saturday, then change it again to cloudy but no rain, one of those forecasts is going to be correct.

You’re showing one forecast. I recall them lowering the forecast to 60K deaths by August 1, then gradually upping that forecast as new information comes it. Unless you can show us all the iterations of their forecasts, it’s near worthless.

But I will say, IHME has had the most reliable of all the bad models.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
They change their forecast regularly. If I predict today that it is going to rain Saturday, then I change my prediction to sunny on Saturday, then change it again to cloudy but no rain, one of those forecasts is going to be correct.

You’re showing one forecast. I recall them lowering the forecast to 60K deaths by August 1, then gradually upping that forecast as new information comes it. Unless you can show us all the iterations of their forecasts, it’s near worthless.

But I will say, IHME has had the most reliable of all the bad models.
Check out my second link (in the other thread) in which I refute that point the first time you made it.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,029
Reaction score
2,176
Points
113
Check out my second link (in the other thread) in which I refute that point the first time you made it.
Yeah, their predictions have changed dramatically. 100% different.

They were the most accurate of many bad bad models that were far more dire. Congrats.

Their current projections are extremely dire early into the next year. And the have 3 scenarios which give that a fat margin of error. They vary from over 6,000 people dying each day to 3,000 dying per day to the most conservative estimate of 1,200 dying per day. They can’t be wrong b/c they’ll just say we did a good job or didn’t do a good job in hindsight.

There is NO assurance in any of these forecasts, but I’ll go with the lower estimate.

So Joe Biden is full of shit, and scaring people with dire predictions. If they’d only wear a mask.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
Yeah, their predictions have changed dramatically. 100% different.

They were the most accurate of many bad bad models that were far more dire. Congrats.

Their current projections are extremely dire early into the next year. And the have 3 scenarios which give that a fat margin of error. They vary from over 6,000 people dying each day to 3,000 dying per day to the most conservative estimate of 1,200 dying per day. They can’t be wrong b/c they’ll just say we did a good job or didn’t do a good job in hindsight.

There is NO assurance in any of these forecasts, but I’ll go with the lower estimate.

So Joe Biden is full of shit, and scaring people with dire predictions. If they’d only wear a mask.
Except every one of the predictions has come in under the actual number, so...
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,029
Reaction score
2,176
Points
113
Except every one of the predictions has come in under the actual number, so...
They‘ve never predicted over 6K deaths per day before. I’m not believing that is going to happen. But it is the type of data that Biden is using to scare people.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
They‘ve never predicted over 6K deaths per day before. I’m not believing that is going to happen. But it is the type of data that Biden is using to scare people.
Well, you've moved the goalposts considerably. First it was that Biden was citing IHME and that's horrible because everyone knows IHME is way off and alarmist.

Now it's completely different and you're saying we can't trust IHME because their model is predicting something new.

Surely you can see the difference.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,029
Reaction score
2,176
Points
113
Well, you've moved the goalposts considerably. First it was that Biden was citing IHME and that's horrible because everyone knows IHME is way off and alarmist.

Now it's completely different and you're saying we can't trust IHME because their model is predicting something new.

Surely you can see the difference.
I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. I’m saying that their dire projection for a massive increase in January with a range from 1,200 deaths per day to 6.400 deaths per day is ridiculous.

I’d be like me saying Trump will have somewhere between 15% more votes than Biden and 10% less. Very bold.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,607
Reaction score
1,488
Points
113
MN Covid-19 Update - Weds, Sept 30

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive Tests 99,134 +689. (5.4% positive test rate)

Health-Care workers with positive tests 10,440 +79.

Cases no longer needing isolation 89,392 +1,012.

Active Cases 7,706 -341.

Deaths 2,036 +16.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,458 +9.

Total Hospitalized (cumulative) 7,701 +68.

Total in ICU (cumulative) 2,146 +17.

Total Tests processed 2,030,167 +12,820.

Number of people tested 1,414,701 +8,123.
How can we trust an organization we know is hiding data?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,029
Reaction score
2,176
Points
113
Well, you've moved the goalposts considerably. First it was that Biden was citing IHME and that's horrible because everyone knows IHME is way off and alarmist.

Now it's completely different and you're saying we can't trust IHME because their model is predicting something new.

Surely you can see the difference.
JTF, look at the difference in IHME’s model projections from less than a couple weeks ago and yesterday. In less than a couple weeks, they lowered their high end projections in deaths per day by 6,000 deaths and the low end by 1,000.

They aren’t predicting with accuracy. They are making projections which they constantly change as they get more information. The projections for next week are likely. The projections for 3 months from now are what’s called a WAGNER, Wild Ass Guess Not Easily Refuted.

Biden using it to predict 200K more deaths by the end of the year is totally reckless and unethical, not to mention fear mongering.

15BADD49-6D75-4B83-9C04-D0F1E4574FBC.png
79B903C1-616F-42E9-9117-FD1B9CA848B0.png
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. I’m saying that their dire projection for a massive increase in January with a range from 1,200 deaths per day to 6.400 deaths per day is ridiculous.

I’d be like me saying Trump will have somewhere between 15% more votes than Biden and 10% less. Very bold.
A) You started out by arguing that the IHME models have repeatedly predicted massive waves that never materialized. I pointed out that wasn't true. Then you claimed they changed dramatically over time. I pointed out that wasn't true. Then you switched to saying they were overly dire. That also wasn't true. Only now have you given up on dismissing the current models based on the previous ones.

B) Yes, they have a wide band, but they have to. IHME cannot predict government interventions, especially since everything is left completely up to the states. There's a great deal of uncertainty. This is how data science works. Predicting once in a century events that can be affected by unpredictable government action is difficult.

C) You'll notice they're not predicting 0 or even 100 or even 500 deaths per day in January. I'm old enough to remember when even 1200 deaths a day would have been horrifying. Now, at the lower end of a 95% confidence interval, it's proof that Biden is being overly dramatic.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,607
Reaction score
1,488
Points
113
250K was always extreme, but the red line below is when Sturgis ended



NOTE: Using cases because the original tweet used cases.
Of course Sturgis led to cases. The study was abysmal on so many levels it’s not worth going into. Sturgis is the pimple on the butt of the elephant which is people behaving badly at tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of parties, bars, backyard gatherings, family get-together reason XYZ across the United States.

The push and pull of irresponsibility and auto-regulated distancing will continue as conditions wax and wane until we get to “herd immunity” whatever that turns out to be, in the end. Place your bets.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
JTF, look at the difference in IHME’s model projections from less than a couple weeks ago and yesterday. In less than a couple weeks, they lowered their high end projections in deaths per day by 6,000 deaths and the low end by 1,000.

They aren’t predicting with accuracy. They are making projections which they constantly change as they get more information. The projections for next week are likely. The projections for 3 months from now are what’s called a WAGNER, Wild Ass Guess Not Easily Refuted.

Biden using it to predict 200K more deaths by the end of the year is totally reckless and unethical, not to mention fear mongering.

View attachment 9520
View attachment 9521
Not sure where that second image comes from. Only the "Mandates Easing" numbers change dramatically. The others are reasonably close.

Their update briefings are archived, and the Sept 3 update says "nearly 3000" daily deaths in December, whereas the Sept 18 update says "over 3000" daily deaths. Sept 23 just says 3000. The Sept 3 update says that if herd immunity is pursued we'd see 620,000 total deaths by Jan 1, whereas the Sept 18 update says it would be 611,784. A number is not mentioned for this in the Sept 23 update.


 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
501
Reaction score
336
Points
63
A) You started out by arguing that the IHME models have repeatedly predicted massive waves that never materialized. I pointed out that wasn't true. Then you claimed they changed dramatically over time. I pointed out that wasn't true. Then you switched to saying they were overly dire. That also wasn't true. Only now have you given up on dismissing the current models based on the previous ones.

B) Yes, they have a wide band, but they have to. IHME cannot predict government interventions, especially since everything is left completely up to the states. There's a great deal of uncertainty. This is how data science works. Predicting once in a century events that can be affected by unpredictable government action is difficult.

C) You'll notice they're not predicting 0 or even 100 or even 500 deaths per day in January. I'm old enough to remember when even 1200 deaths a day would have been horrifying. Now, at the lower end of a 95% confidence interval, it's proof that Biden is being overly dramatic.
JTF - you can't have a discussion with an irrational person who knows everything about everything. He'd rather have a vasectomy without anesthesia than admit he's wrong on anything
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
Of course Sturgis led to cases. The study was abysmal on so many levels it’s not worth going into. Sturgis is the pimple on the butt of the elephant which is people behaving badly at tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of parties, bars, backyard gatherings, family get-together reason XYZ across the United States.

The push and pull of irresponsibility and auto-regulated distancing will continue as conditions wax and wane until we get to “herd immunity” whatever that turns out to be, in the end. Place your bets.
Or a vaccine. I was told last night that's weeks away.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,607
Reaction score
1,488
Points
113
Well, you've moved the goalposts considerably. First it was that Biden was citing IHME and that's horrible because everyone knows IHME is way off and alarmist.

Now it's completely different and you're saying we can't trust IHME because their model is predicting something new.

Surely you can see the difference.
You can’t trust any of the models beyond several weeks, unfortunately.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,607
Reaction score
1,488
Points
113
Or a vaccine. I was told last night that's weeks away.
Well, Fauci said so, until about a month ago when he acknowledged the cold reality. You’d think he knows better (he does) but it was the carrot dangled to justify continued lockdowns. “Just a little longer”. Isn’t your BS meter ringing yet? Sure Trump is full of it but he’s just doing what the other side was doing for months.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,732
Reaction score
2,102
Points
113
Well, Fauci said so, until about a month ago when he acknowledged the cold reality. You’d think he knows better but it was the carrot dangled to justify continued lockdowns. Isn’t your BS meter ringing yet?
I was just kidding, obviously, but I do think we're much closer to a vaccine than we are to herd immunity.

I've never seen Fauci predict anything other than the end of the year at the earliest for a vaccine, and he never said that would be for full rollout. If I'm wrong, please link.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,607
Reaction score
1,488
Points
113
I was just kidding, obviously, but I do think we're much closer to a vaccine than we are to herd immunity.

I've never seen Fauci predict anything other than the end of the year at the earliest for a vaccine, and he never said that would be for full rollout. If I'm wrong, please link.
Do you watch the nightly news?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,051
Reaction score
3,058
Points
113
I was just kidding, obviously, but I do think we're much closer to a vaccine than we are to herd immunity.

I've never seen Fauci predict anything other than the end of the year at the earliest for a vaccine, and he never said that would be for full rollout. If I'm wrong, please link.
Where? Sweden has herd immunity. NYC does also- although they went at it in a far dumber way- killing off their elderly in droves. California...now they are 6 months away from it. They are determined to exact maximum pain on their citizens.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,607
Reaction score
1,488
Points
113
The inceasing problem
Ha, no. I get exactly zero news from television.
That was the narrative for some time in the MSM. The problem now which is only increasing is progressives don’t trust the federal institutions and conservatives are generally suspicious by default. Add in entities like MDH throwing in the towel on transparency (which is frankly shocking) and you get a climate of extreme distrust, conspiracy theories, doubt.

How many will ultimately take time to go and get the (possible) vaccine in 2021? It won’t be approved or have questionable efficacy for probably up to a hundred million+ peds and high risk elderly persons, and maybe half of younger amd middle aged will volunteer for a vaccine. Efficacy? Another wild card.

Place your bets, herd immunity vs vaccine. It may be a bit player in the end but who knows?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,029
Reaction score
2,176
Points
113
Not sure where that second image comes from. Only the "Mandates Easing" numbers change dramatically. The others are reasonably close.

Their update briefings are archived, and the Sept 3 update says "nearly 3000" daily deaths in December, whereas the Sept 18 update says "over 3000" daily deaths. Sept 23 just says 3000. The Sept 3 update says that if herd immunity is pursued we'd see 620,000 total deaths by Jan 1, whereas the Sept 18 update says it would be 611,784. A number is not mentioned for this in the Sept 23 update.


It’s their website. And how can you say “Only the mandates easing” changed much? Both the upper end and the lower end were lowered by 50%.

I took a sceenshot of it two weeks ago and again yesterday, and these are their projections.
 
Top Bottom