Author Topic: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?  (Read 1594 times)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2020, 01:01:55 PM »
A study was published today based on a model

Sorry, stopped reading after this part
Why?  Is this your response to any analysis?

Guilty as charged. You can clearly see from the pattern of my posts that this is my response to any analysis.

Quote
Or is it just that when the word "model" is used, your brain turns off?
There have been more inaccurate "studies based on a model" than one can count and rearview mirror versions of studies based on models are particularly useless. To this day, there are still people that contend the main model used to predict hospital and ventilator (remember when ventilators were a thing?) demand weren't that far off.

In this particular case (using models to guess historical costs of wrong decisions) I'm just not invested enough to engage, so my reply was primarily snark.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2020, 01:20:08 PM »
They weren't that far off.  As has been explained to you before :)

But you chose not to accept that explanation.

And of course, my response was primarily snark as well

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2020, 01:30:51 PM »
They weren't that far off.  As has been explained to you before :)

Yeah. models showed there would be 100 million Americans infected by now. Remember when you guys thought that model was so very reasonable? Right now, there's only 1.6 million.

So off by about 98%. The models said roughly 63x more people would be infected than actually are.

Maybe we need to hear how you define "far off".  :D

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #53 on: May 21, 2020, 01:34:34 PM »
Wow, it's been explained to you probably 10 times now that the worst case scenario was based on the, you know, worst case, where nobody did anything to prevent the spread of the virus.

I'm seriously concerned that you really do have a mental issue that doesn't allow you to process new information.  The weird thing is that you do seem to remember parts of the paper, so the damage to your brain functions must have happened recently...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #54 on: May 21, 2020, 01:57:19 PM »
And it's been pointed out at least 11 times now that the model's predictions were concurrent with the lockdown.

Can you at least try some honesty?


DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #55 on: May 21, 2020, 02:23:29 PM »
So, the worst case scenario was "concurrent" with the "lockdown".

What do you think that means?

For context, it was only after the Imperial College paper was brought to the attention of the UK and the USA governments (over one week later)  that each government started even talking about suppression strategies.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #56 on: May 21, 2020, 03:01:54 PM »
So, the worst case scenario was "concurrent" with the "lockdown".

What do you think that means?

For context, it was only after the Imperial College paper was brought to the attention of the UK and the USA governments (over one week later)  that each government started even talking about suppression strategies.

DonaldD, I don't want to Groundhog Day this again so I'll just ask one question:

Do you acknowledge that the numbers from the IMHE model, used to inform policy in the US, were created using the explicit assumption of continued lockdown measures being in place?

If your answer is no, I'll just stop here.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #57 on: May 21, 2020, 03:05:14 PM »
So, the worst case scenario was "concurrent" with the "lockdown".

What do you think that means?

For context, it was only after the Imperial College paper was brought to the attention of the UK and the USA governments (over one week later)  that each government started even talking about suppression strategies.

The 100 million infected estimates did not come from the Imperial College paper as far as I can tell. I caught it on MSNBC.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #58 on: May 21, 2020, 03:11:32 PM »
So, the worst case scenario was "concurrent" with the "lockdown".

What do you think that means?

For context, it was only after the Imperial College paper was brought to the attention of the UK and the USA governments (over one week later)  that each government started even talking about suppression strategies.

DonaldD, I don't want to Groundhog Day this again so I'll just ask one question:

Do you acknowledge that the numbers from the IMHE model, used to inform policy in the US, were created using the explicit assumption of continued lockdown measures being in place?

If your answer is no, I'll just stop here.
I have no idea about the IMHE model - was it suggesting that, after implementing suppression methods, there would be 100 million people in the USA infected by now?  Because that is what Crunch is claiming.  And he is pretty clear about this, which makes me wonder why you aren't challenging him on his claim...

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2020, 03:15:04 PM »
The 100 million infected estimates did not come from the Imperial College paper as far as I can tell. I caught it on MSNBC.
a) Who cares what "MSNBC" says, and
b) I have huge doubts that "MSNBC" said this - because it is so easily refutable, they would have had to retract it.  Can you provide a link/transcript, with the actual date of the broadcast/publishing?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2020, 03:16:40 PM »
You saw it on MSNBC. smh.

The CDC model in mid-March was concurrent with the start of lockdowns.

Quote
The New York Times recently used CDC data to model how the how the virus could spread if no actions were taken to stop transmission in the US. The models show that between 160 million and 214 million people could be infected and as many as 200,000 to 1.7 million people could die.

It explicitly says "if no action". MSNBC could easily have pulled those numbers and put them on a crawl.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2020, 04:12:31 PM »
So, the worst case scenario was "concurrent" with the "lockdown".

What do you think that means?

For context, it was only after the Imperial College paper was brought to the attention of the UK and the USA governments (over one week later)  that each government started even talking about suppression strategies.

DonaldD, I don't want to Groundhog Day this again so I'll just ask one question:

Do you acknowledge that the numbers from the IMHE model, used to inform policy in the US, were created using the explicit assumption of continued lockdown measures being in place?

If your answer is no, I'll just stop here.
I have no idea about the IMHE model - was it suggesting that, after implementing suppression methods, there would be 100 million people in the USA infected by now?  Because that is what Crunch is claiming.  And he is pretty clear about this, which makes me wonder why you aren't challenging him on his claim...

No, I'm responding to your earlier and repeated assertions that the main model used in the US (IMHE) "wasn't that far off" on projected hospital demand. We've had this dance before but the fact that you have no idea about that model indicates I don't need to go any further.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2020, 04:18:05 PM »
So, the worst case scenario was "concurrent" with the "lockdown".

What do you think that means?

For context, it was only after the Imperial College paper was brought to the attention of the UK and the USA governments (over one week later)  that each government started even talking about suppression strategies.

DonaldD, I don't want to Groundhog Day this again so I'll just ask one question:

Do you acknowledge that the numbers from the IMHE model, used to inform policy in the US, were created using the explicit assumption of continued lockdown measures being in place?

If your answer is no, I'll just stop here.
I have no idea about the IMHE model - was it suggesting that, after implementing suppression methods, there would be 100 million people in the USA infected by now?  Because that is what Crunch is claiming.  And he is pretty clear about this, which makes me wonder why you aren't challenging him on his claim...

No, I'm responding to your earlier and repeated assertions that the main model used in the US (IMHE) "wasn't that far off" on projected hospital demand. We've had this dance before but the fact that you have no idea about that model indicates I don't need to go any further.
No, you were not.  You were literally responding to my statement posted at 2:23:29 pm today, and made no reference to any specific aspect of the IMHE model.  If you wanted to respond to earlier assertions, you would have quoted them in your response.

But I see you are still ankle biting my post to Crunch, while ignoring the very ridiculousness of his post to which I was responding.  Well done.


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2020, 04:51:41 PM »
Quote
No, you were not.  You were literally responding to my statement posted at 2:23:29 pm today, and made no reference to any specific aspect of the IMHE model.  If you wanted to respond to earlier assertions, you would have quoted them in your response.

But I see you are still ankle biting my post to Crunch, while ignoring the very ridiculousness of his post to which I was responding.  Well done.

Nice try. I originally said

Quote
To this day, there are still people that contend the main model used to predict hospital and ventilator (remember when ventilators were a thing?) demand weren't that far off.

You replied to that statement:
Quote
They weren't that far off.  As has been explained to you before :)

I sense you are locked-in, in even though I've shown examples - with links to source data - of how wrong (not just a little, a LOT) the IMHE numbers were. But I didn't feel like pointing it out again because for some reason it seems to short circuit some people's brains. That model was not just "one of the models" it was a cornerstone of many policy decisions.

Fast fwd to crunch's post. I have no idea where he's getting his specific numbers, maybe they're completely ridiculous. It was the "worst case" fall-back comment  that prompted me to ask a single question to determine if you had actually looked at the IMHE model and the assumptions it was built on.

If you had, you'd know it assumed lockdowns in place, and you'd know that its hospital projections never came close to resembling reality. They were the literal definition of waaay far off.

You've admitted you're not familiar with the IMHE model, and I have no interest in copy/pasting stuff from weeks ago yet again. Ankle biting will stop now, carry on.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 04:56:48 PM by ScottF »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #64 on: May 21, 2020, 05:25:52 PM »
That's interesting - you'll note that you are now responding to a completely different post, with different quotes.  You won't admit you are doing this, but you are.

And you still aren't providing specific references to the IHME model in question.  For instance, in this particular interjection you were conflating the same numbers as Crunch is still doing:
There have been a number of references to IHME, but this is illustrative:
We've gone from worst-case projections of ~2M deaths to today's update (IMHE) of ~60K. Were the worst-case projections fantasy to begin with, or have we saved 2M people through swift action?
This is, again, a complete misunderstanding.
The IMHE model (informed by the Imperial London College model which caused the initial panic - and still being used by government agencies) has been updated to reflect social distancing. The good news is it doesn't appear to be getting MORE wrong, but it still does not resemble reality in any way.
Interestingly, the IHME is based on the Imperial College numbers, and those provided a range of possible values dependent on R0 values and triggers.  The IMHE numbers provided here do not have those ranges.
So yes, you originally did not appreciate on what the 2 million projected deaths was based.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #65 on: May 21, 2020, 05:38:50 PM »
Brilliant. If you want to call this a win, have some dopamine on me.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2020, 09:58:58 AM »
And it's been pointed out at least 11 times now that the model's predictions were concurrent with the lockdown.

Can you at least try some honesty?

Which model?

The 2.2 million dead was a do nothing strategy. Its been pointed out to you multiple times that comparing that number to what happened after we shut down large segments of society is meaningless.

The IHME model with suppression measures is the one that predicted between 100,000 and 200,000 dead. Which after the initial lock down was revised down somewhat but it looks like we're heading for that range. I do think the model was off somewhat on peak hospital usage, particularly when you tried to drill down to the individual state level. The input data was pretty sparse, but nation wide the "headline" numbers - number of infected and number of deaths have turned out to have been pretty reasonable.

But the IHME model is really basic mathematically speaking. It knows its leaving out a lot of variables but in the end it did what a model should do, gave us a reasonable forecast to its primary output variables.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #67 on: May 22, 2020, 11:05:20 AM »
Georgia had 862 cases yesterday.
4 days of increased cases isn't a large trend but it is worrying 3 weeks following the relaxation of restrictions.


Florida had 1,200 cases yesterday. Its worst single day total in a month. 1 day definitely can be a fluke but also worth keeping an eye on.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #68 on: May 22, 2020, 11:09:48 AM »
I do think the model was off somewhat on peak hospital usage..

Correct, except for the "somewhat" part. Arguably NY wouldn't have been quite as dramatically wrong had Cuomo not legislated thousands of infected seniors to return to their mausoleums, er I mean care homes.

Quote
On March 31st, the IMHE projections for the following day (April 1st) were:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2020, 11:28:08 AM »
I do think the model was off somewhat on peak hospital usage..

Correct, except for the "somewhat" part. Arguably NY wouldn't have been quite as dramatically wrong had Cuomo not legislated thousands of infected seniors to return to their mausoleums, er I mean care homes.

Quote
On March 31st, the IMHE projections for the following day (April 1st) were:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

Why cut the quote right before I also admitted it was even worse when you drilled down to the state level then post state level data?

Can you admit that the headline numbers have largely been reasonable? The nationwide number of infections and number of deaths are on par with what has come to pass?


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2020, 11:50:41 AM »
I do think the model was off somewhat on peak hospital usage..

Correct, except for the "somewhat" part. Arguably NY wouldn't have been quite as dramatically wrong had Cuomo not legislated thousands of infected seniors to return to their mausoleums, er I mean care homes.

Quote
On March 31st, the IMHE projections for the following day (April 1st) were:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

Why cut the quote right before I also admitted it was even worse when you drilled down to the state level then post state level data?

Can you admit that the headline numbers have largely been reasonable? The nationwide number of infections and number of deaths are on par with what has come to pass?

Yes, freely admit that IMHE infections and deaths tracked much more closely to reality. The reason I got (and remain) a bit spun up is because the main mantra "flatten the curve" was universally messaged to avoid catastrophic medical care overloads. Those never happened but some folks like to pretend they almost did - that we just barely missed those massive numbers from happening.

That's likely still in the thought process of some who think if re-opening happens "too soon" we'll overwhelm hospitals. It's important to learn/remember how wrong we were on that. We need to see the problem for what it is but not worse than it is. When I see people state that the model wasn't that far off re: hospital projections, it drives me a bit nuts. Especially when they see the actual data and come back with "but that was obviously worst case!". Yeah, no.

All I ask is we don't pretend that the hospital numbers we prepared for (e.g. launching Naval ships, converting stadiums) under the assumptions of lockdowntm, turned out anywhere near reality.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2020, 12:05:29 PM »
Yes, freely admit that IMHE infections and deaths tracked much more closely to reality. The reason I got (and remain) a bit spun up is because the main mantra "flatten the curve" was universally messaged to avoid catastrophic medical care overloads. Those never happened but some folks like to pretend they almost did - that we just barely missed those massive numbers from happening.
I'm sure you can find people who will say anything, but because we were able to flatten the curve, we avoided the worst hits on the medical system.

And given that the doubling rate of infections was, in some areas, down to less than 3 days at one point, it is hard to argue that there was no risk of same.  An additional delay of 2 weeks between ending mitigation and initiating suppression strategies likely meant we avoided at least a 4-fold difference in case counts.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #72 on: May 22, 2020, 12:54:09 PM »
Keeping with the original theme of this thread "what would convince you..." I would say that if we start seeing a trend of more quarantine-related suicide deaths than covid deaths, we may have gone too far. Unlike covid, suicide and depression are equal opportunity killers and don't tend to primarily target the old and sick.

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-coronavirus-rates-during-pandemic-death-by/6201962/

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2020, 01:11:21 PM »
Yes, freely admit that IMHE infections and deaths tracked much more closely to reality. The reason I got (and remain) a bit spun up is because the main mantra "flatten the curve" was universally messaged to avoid catastrophic medical care overloads. Those never happened but some folks like to pretend they almost did - that we just barely missed those massive numbers from happening.

It almost did happen in the NYC area, and it was a very close-run thing for them. The big thing about "flatten the curve" was making sure that the rest of the country didn't experience that as well. 

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #74 on: May 22, 2020, 01:38:56 PM »
Yes, freely admit that IMHE infections and deaths tracked much more closely to reality. The reason I got (and remain) a bit spun up is because the main mantra "flatten the curve" was universally messaged to avoid catastrophic medical care overloads. Those never happened but some folks like to pretend they almost did - that we just barely missed those massive numbers from happening.

It almost did happen in the NYC area, and it was a very close-run thing for them. The big thing about "flatten the curve" was making sure that the rest of the country didn't experience that as well.

Yeah NYC was a huge outlier and did get dangerously close to overload.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #75 on: May 22, 2020, 02:21:24 PM »
Keeping with the original theme of this thread "what would convince you..." I would say that if we start seeing a trend of more quarantine-related suicide deaths than covid deaths, we may have gone too far. Unlike covid, suicide and depression are equal opportunity killers and don't tend to primarily target the old and sick.

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-coronavirus-rates-during-pandemic-death-by/6201962/
I find suicide references to be interesting - it is a matter of faith in some areas that economic instability will lead to increases in suicide rates, and that these should be factored against the COVID-19 deaths.  But suicide is complicated.  There are many reasons, not directly economically related, that factor in, but which are ignored by, the "recession will kill people" crowd.  For instance, debilitating illness, chronic pain, chronic illness, the premature death of family, hospitalization... For some reason, these factors, the ones that might be palliated by reducing the effects of the virus, tend to be ignored...

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #76 on: May 22, 2020, 02:39:24 PM »
The same site I cited earlier shows that yesterday Georgia had its 3rd highest daily death toll from COVID.  It was a big jump from the day before, but bears watching.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #77 on: May 23, 2020, 03:18:50 AM »
The same site I cited earlier shows that yesterday Georgia had its 3rd highest daily death toll from COVID.  It was a big jump from the day before, but bears watching.

Idaho's  had 2 deaths recently, but we also have 55 new cases confirmed Friday, highest single day increase since April 20th. And due to Memorial day weekend it looks like they won't be updating the tracker until Tuesday.

But hey, at least my side of the state's been doing pretty good, it's Boise which seems to be struggling. Although the two new cases in my county isn't giving warm fuzzies.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #78 on: May 23, 2020, 05:46:45 AM »
No one doesn't expect cases, hospitalizations and deaths to rise as states allow people to resume congregating.  The concern is that the R-factor will rise again and restart the epidemic in areas that previously were more or less under control.  Church and restaurant reopenings are the worst, because people will be in close contact for long (15min+) periods of time, and especially in restaurants won't be able to participate without removing their masks. 

Beyond the risk that comes with staff and attendees/patrons following safe mingling guidelines, I saw a video of a restaurant last night where a busboy/waiter had a mask on, but it only covered his chin.  Singing and hustling dishes are aerobic activities, so I'm not sure any safety precautions will work in either setting.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #79 on: May 26, 2020, 01:23:29 PM »
Georgia has a swoop in their reported numbers.

GA DPH

8 days ago they got the highest infections reported since the whole thing began. These do come in over time, so they are based on preliminary numbers. That would generally mean the number has a chance to go higher. The preliminary seven day average shows a significant upward slope.

This doesn't prove anything on its own, its just an interesting observation since other factors could lead to identifying more cases than previously detected.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #80 on: May 26, 2020, 01:50:05 PM »
Weekend reporting is limited in nearly all states, which accounts for the jagged daily edge.  We won't know about the week ending today until at least the end of this week.  Since Georgia lags more than many other states, there may be a 3-4 week lag built into their system.  We probably won't see the falloff their "projection" for this past week suggests.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #81 on: May 28, 2020, 01:52:38 PM »
GA moving average is as steep as prior to the stay at home order.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #82 on: May 28, 2020, 02:54:07 PM »
Quote
43% of all COVID-19 deaths are taking place in facilities that house 0.62% of the U.S. population.

And 43% could be an undercount. States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in an assisted living facility. Outside of New York, more than half of all deaths from COVID-19 are of residents in long-term care facilities.

70% of COVID-19 deaths in Ohio, 69% in Pennsylvania

Prior to last week, Ohio reported that 41% of COVID deaths were taking place in long-term care facilities. But updated disclosures last Friday, taking deaths prior to April 15 into account, upped that share to 70%.

In Minnesota, 81% of all COVID-19 deaths are of nursing home and residential care home residents. The region from the eastern seaboard from Virginia to New Hampshire has been especially hard-hit.

Given the numbers, it's pretty fair to say that half of the deaths are related to the fact that "states like New York, New Jersey, and Michigan actually ordered nursing homes to accept patients with active COVID-19 infections who were being discharged from hospitals."

We could have just quarantined nursing home and residential care home residents and cut the death rate in half. That's all this really took to take it from apocalypse to a normal flu season level event.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #83 on: May 29, 2020, 02:00:11 AM »
Half may be an overstatement but certainly a disproportionate number of US covid deaths have occurred in nursing homes. That said, you’re correct in that if you subtracted nursing home fatalities you’d have similar numbers to higher end flu deaths.

In fact, 47 states have fewer total covid deaths that NY state's nursing home only deaths. Let that sink in.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2020, 07:03:21 AM »
What are the statistics on nursing home influenza deaths?  Also, nursing home deaths include care givers who have died...

As an aside, we have a pretty good idea now that case fatality for COVID-19 is about 5 times that of seasonal flu - 0.5%. Also, being a new virus, and considering its relatively long pre-symptomatic phase, it's highly likely that upwards of 50% of the population would contract it absent policies to retard the spread of the virus.

 Does that mean COVID-19 is not dangerous enough to have instituted suppression policies?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2020, 07:46:46 AM »
6 weeks ago, we “knew” the fatality rate was something like 4%. Now you’re saying 0.5%. The latest CDC number, when including asymptotic estimates, puts the infection fatality rate at 0.26%. It just keeps falling. Even the asymptotic spread storyline is degrading.

You guys wildly exaggerated the threat and you continue to do so.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2020, 07:57:36 AM »
6 weeks ago, we “knew” the fatality rate was something like 4%. Now you’re saying 0.5%. The latest CDC number, when including asymptotic estimates, puts the infection fatality rate at 0.26%. It just keeps falling. Even the asymptotic spread storyline is degrading.

You guys wildly exaggerated the threat and you continue to do so.

Nobody "knew" that it would be that high, just like nobody "knew" that the 15 cases would drop to 0.  If you wanted to be safe back then, which number should we have gone with?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #87 on: May 29, 2020, 08:40:11 AM »
6 weeks ago, we “knew” the fatality rate was something like 4%. Now you’re saying 0.5%. The latest CDC number, when including asymptotic estimates, puts the infection fatality rate at 0.26%. It just keeps falling. Even the asymptotic spread storyline is degrading.

You guys wildly exaggerated the threat and you continue to do so.

Nobody "knew" that it would be that high, just like nobody "knew" that the 15 cases would drop to 0.  If you wanted to be safe back then, which number should we have gone with?

I don’t blame you for trying to do a massive historical revision effort.

From Lancet, March 27:

Quote
The trend in mortality reporting for COVID-19 has been typical for emerging infectious diseases. The case fatality rate (CFR) was reported to be 15% (six of 41 patients) in the initial period,1 but this estimate was calculated from a small cohort of hospitalised patients. Subsequently, with more data emerging, the CFR decreased to between 4·3% and 11·0%, and later to 3·4%.

:o

I’ll add NPR reporting from April 24:

Quote
According to Johns Hopkins, the mortality rate here in the U.S. is 5.7%. In Italy, it's over 13%. In China, it's 5.5%

« Last Edit: May 29, 2020, 08:47:11 AM by Crunch »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2020, 08:47:28 AM »
Quote
I don’t blame you for trying to do a massive historical revision effort.

Gosh, are you denying that Trump said the number of cases would drop from 15 to 0?

Quote
Subsequently, with more data emerging, the CFR decreased to between 4·3% and 11·0%, and later to 3·4%.

I highlighted the key phrase in there.  There's been a lot more subsequentiality since March 27, hasn't there?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2020, 08:51:57 AM »
There has. And it proves my point that the original claims, only 6-8 weeks ago, were wildly exaggerated.

You get that, right? You can see how high they were then and understand that 0.26% is a hell of a lot less that over 5%. Seriously Do you understand that? 0.26 is less than 5, a lot less. Let me know if that’s confusing.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2020, 09:10:54 AM »
Don't exaggerations include claims that coronavirus is no more fatal than the flu?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2020, 09:18:03 AM »
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.

Nearly half the deaths that have occurred are directly attributed to intentionally infecting nursing homes and long term care facilities. If not for those efforts, we would already be in the range of seasonal flu.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2020, 09:22:06 AM »
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.

Nearly half the deaths that have occurred are directly attributed to intentionally infecting nursing homes and long term care facilities. If not for those efforts, we would already be in the range of seasonal flu.
I know that old people don't count, but do show your math supporting this belief, excluding this old people if you like (and of course, NOT excluding old people from seasonal flu deaths if that helps you, too)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2020, 09:36:09 AM »
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.

Nearly half the deaths that have occurred are directly attributed to intentionally infecting nursing homes and long term care facilities. If not for those efforts, we would already be in the range of seasonal flu.
I know that old people don't count, but do show your math supporting this belief, excluding this old people if you like (and of course, NOT excluding old people from seasonal flu deaths if that helps you, too)

smh

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2020, 09:43:11 AM »
Is that a Rain Man thing, where you smack your head in response to anxiety?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2020, 09:45:55 AM »
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.

Nearly half the deaths that have occurred are directly attributed to intentionally infecting nursing homes and long term care facilities. If not for those efforts, we would already be in the range of seasonal flu.

Don't flu deaths include people in long term facilities?  If you leave them out, the flu rate would drop even further.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2020, 09:48:38 AM »
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.

Nearly half the deaths that have occurred are directly attributed to intentionally infecting nursing homes and long term care facilities. If not for those efforts, we would already be in the range of seasonal flu.

Don't flu deaths include people in long term facilities?  If you leave them out, the flu rate would drop even further.

Yes it would but we're talking in the context of this thread about how we went too far with restrictions. The point being made is that we could have just restricted access to those care facilities, locking them down. Had we done so, we'd have nearly half the fatality rate and, in the general population, would have seen fatality rates in the range of the flu.

And, in a broader perspective, those fatality rates are declining as we expand testing.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #97 on: May 29, 2020, 09:49:00 AM »
Is that a Rain Man thing, where you smack your head in response to anxiety?

Are you drinking?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #98 on: May 29, 2020, 09:55:52 AM »
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.

Nearly half the deaths that have occurred are directly attributed to intentionally infecting nursing homes and long term care facilities. If not for those efforts, we would already be in the range of seasonal flu.

Don't flu deaths include people in long term facilities?  If you leave them out, the flu rate would drop even further.

Yes it would but we're talking in the context of this thread about how we went too far with restrictions. The point being made is that we could have just restricted access to those care facilities, locking them down. Had we done so, we'd have nearly half the fatality rate and, in the general population, would have seen fatality rates in the range of the flu.

And, in a broader perspective, those fatality rates are declining as we expand testing.

Gee, so you at least agree that testing is helping reduce the fatality rates.  If that works in elder care facilities, it must also be effective in the general population, even if the overall rate there is lower.

Thanks for joining the rest of us on this critical point.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What would convince you we went too far with restrictions?
« Reply #99 on: May 29, 2020, 10:08:33 AM »
Yes it would but we're talking in the context of this thread about how we went too far with restrictions. The point being made is that we could have just restricted access to those care facilities, locking them down. Had we done so, we'd have nearly half the fatality rate and, in the general population, would have seen fatality rates in the range of the flu.

And, in a broader perspective, those fatality rates are declining as we expand testing.

Halving the number of fatalities puts the number of deaths in range of a really bad flu year. But the case fatality rate when you remove infections and fatalities from the highest risk group for covid is still at least double the overall death rate from the flu that includes those high risk groups. And all of this with much fewer people being infected than would be during a normal flu year.

And this still ignores the significant number of people in their 50s/60s that end up with long term ICU stays in order to recover. See Boris Johnson for an example. This disease is more severe than the flu.