-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Coronavirus II
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Yeah, they're trying to model the inflection point, after which the exponential growth stops and a "new normal" sets in.
I'm not sure they have it quite right, but they're trying to account for alot of variables.
Which leads to....
Took me a minute to figure it out - this wasn't designed by a software user experience person.
At the top is a dropdown which you can select different states. There, it shows what and when certain measures were taken.
I think the "United States of America" entry just aggregates all that. They basically modeled the curve in each state, then put that all together.
Yeah, I'm not deep into it yet, but it almost tracks my straight line 1.25x model. And it doesn't take long for the max estimate to be 4-5x the low estimate. That's a big delta. And not really helpful, in terms of planning.
It is much more than that.
Things like showing in the model we already have double the beds we could possibly need is idiotic given the fact almost every state is setting up emergency hospitals and requesting 10,000 ventilators.
How can anyone that has read any news think we have double the hospital beds we could possibly need?
The guy responsible for it thinks it is.
25X is quite the downward revision. Why would he now make such a claim?
Indeed.
There is value in scaring the s**t outta people. Lockdowns, shelter in place, voluntary isolation, whatever you like to call it rely heavily on people being afraid in order to garner broad compliance. We're not China. We can't really FORCE compliance. And compliance IS important in this case.
But you can only play the fear card so many times, and for so long, before people get tired of it and go back to what they doing. Especially in less densely populated areas where people look around and don't see what the big deal is.
Yeah...that's weird since the American Hospital Association in the annual survey of hospitals back in 2018 published that there are 924,107 hospital beds in the United States with 792,417 in Community Hospitals. It is almost like they did a Google search or something.
So here's a quick comparison.
I've only done my amateur modeling (reminds me of that time in college a guy came up to me with a camera and a thin mustache) out to April 13. Let's ignore the straightline 1.5x model because by that point it gets absurdly high and it is always over-estimating deaths. The current-running-average prediction is still 235k dead. That seems high to me, but the primary assumption there is that the current rate will continue. Since there's no empirical evidence that it will slow, I think we make that the worst case scenario.
My straightline 1.25x, which probably isn't realistic, but does capture a gradual smoothing of the curve (which is also my best case scenario predictor), puts the number at 66k dead. That's about 4x between my best case and worst case. (Both have about an 8% error rate right now- one high, one low.)
IHME has the median estimate at ~27k, with a range from 17k to 44k. That's narrower than my estimates, with the high end only being 2/3 of my best case.
I mean, I hope their best case estimates are what plays out - that wouldn't be terrible. (Yes, sad for all the families.) Heck, even their median predictions aren't horrible.
But, they're smarter and better trained than me, so they're probably more rightier than me.
The guy responsible for it thinks it is.
25X is quite the downward revision. Why would he now make such a claim?
Indeed.
There is value in scaring the s**t outta people. Lockdowns, shelter in place, voluntary isolation, whatever you like to call it rely heavily on people being afraid in order to garner broad compliance. We're not China. We can't really FORCE compliance. And compliance IS important in this case.
But you can only play the fear card so many times, and for so long, before people get tired of it and go back to what they doing. Especially in less densely populated areas where people look around and don't see what the big deal is.
He is getting paid.
If you can look at this https://coronavirus.in.gov/ and not worry you simply do not understand it.
We just over took Italy in infections.
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/03/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/03/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/
I see your point for mortality. But using your same parameters of testing the most severely symptomatic, and the most at-risk would we be looking at the lower limit for R0?Once we start testing more and more we will find all the asymptomatic infected that don't even know it as well as those who rode it out at home and were never counted before. This would increase the body of positive tests.
Last edited:
I think your numbers are pretty good and there is something to be said for simplicity. The Imperial College with their "brain power" could not come up with something realistic, and people were running with it like Paul Revere and have pretty much set the world afire socially, economically, and politically.
Population density may come into play or at least it seems that it might. That is going to make it difficult to come up with something that will apply across the board. The 70-80% that are minor or asymptomatic are going to be an issue. How does modeling, specifically your model, take into consideration those who are not confirmed and never seek treatment? Just for my curiosity, and maybe anyone else watching.
My model ignores them.
Well, we can back into that number by using the total identified infections and taking 80% of that.
For me, this is an exercise in granular, day-to-day forecasting. Professional meteorologists look at highs and lows and high altitude currents to project 3-4 days.
I'm the guy in his back yard looking at the horizon to try and tell what the weather will be for the next hour.
Seriously, my assumptions are that the increase in reported dead people in the relatively recent past can indicate in the relatively near future how many dead people there will be.
(It was also a bit in response to people saying, "This can't be that bad." so as to illustrate exponential growth.)
Really, I only look at the dead people stat, then somewhat cross-check that against the total number of infections. That's part of the reason I think deaths are under-reported.
...with 6 times the population.
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
And significantly more testing
- Status
