Numbers are hard

Number1CanesFan

Sophomore
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
3,510
Predicting it to skyrocket is akin to gambling. Too many unknowns.
Well in black jack, poker, and dice, the factors are known.

There are enough correlations to draw basic conclusions. Let me be clear. I am NOT drawing my own conclusions. The scientific experts are on tv showing charts of states that implemented social distancing policies and those that have not. The one's that have a state policy are starting to level off. The one's with no state policy continue to grow exponentially. They are the one's drawing conclusions. They said grow exponentially and I said skyrocket. Same difference.
 

Empirical Cane

We are what we repeatedly do.
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
6,167
Why hasn't COVID-19 started ravaging the African Continent or Favellas in Rio and Sao Paulo?
 

AmherstCane

Recruit
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
323
Here's a number that's not hard: to date well over 97.5% of positive cases of Covid19 in the U.S. have been mild/moderate. That's based on a positive test rate of about 10% nationally.

At this early stage of the testing ramp up, testing has pretty much been limited to celebrities, athletes, politicians, and (mostly) very sick people. The vast majority of those tested so far have been sick with something else that motivated them to get tested. The lower risk people (most Americans) have barely been tested yet.

I'm not a statistician, but the total number of people contracting Covid19 in the U.S. with mild/moderate or no symptoms has to be well over 99%. I'm optimistic that testing will continue exploding to the point that this becomes evident.
3.6% of the total confirmed coronavirus cases in the US are either dead or in the ICU as of this morning’s figures. That number has been steadily climbing because the infection typically takes a week post-symptom onset to progress to hospitalization. And that percentage doesn’t even count hospitalizations outside the ICU.
 

Go Canes!!

All ACC
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
6,155
You understand that the model (and associated prediction of deaths and medical burden) changed because it accounted for the fact that the UK is now under a national, mandatory, criminally enforced shelter-in-place decree?

That is pure and utter bullshit. They literally started taking their measures two days ago.

 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,181
You understand that the model (and associated prediction of deaths and medical burden) changed because it accounted for the fact that the UK is now under a national, mandatory, criminally enforced shelter-in-place decree?
I can't fathom the decrease from millions to "likely won't exceed 20,000" is SOLELY due to the lock down. Common sense tells you it also likely means their numbers were too high initially.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
Well in black jack, poker, and dice, the factors are known.

There are enough correlations to draw basic conclusions. Let me be clear. I am NOT drawing my own conclusions. The scientific experts are on tv showing charts of states that implemented social distancing policies and those that have not. The one's that have a state policy are starting to level off. The one's with no state policy continue to grow exponentially. They are the one's drawing conclusions. They said grow exponentially and I said skyrocket. Same difference.
Perhaps I should have said speculation. The point is the same. The outcome is unknown.

We've had severe doom and gloom predictions and other more encouraging projections. One thing I do know is that hospitals weren't overwhelmed by March 23rd, but nobody holds the guy who said that responsible. He'll keep collecting a check and going on air making dire predictions that won't come true.
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,181
3.6% of the total confirmed coronavirus cases in the US are either dead or in the ICU as of this morning’s figures. That number has been steadily climbing because the infection typically takes a week post-symptom onset to progress to hospitalization. And that percentage doesn’t even count hospitalizations outside the ICU.
But the new tide is starting to think there are exponentially more people who have/have had coronavirus than we thought. You're talking about identified cases. We are basically only testing the sick that arrive at hospitals. Of course that group would have a massively higher mortality rate than if we magically tested the entire populace.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
That is pure and utter bullshit. They literally started taking their measures two days ago.

The London mayor also reduced the number of subway trains running, so the cars are now more crowded than before.

I can't believe all these people advocating for an oppressive authoritarian government.
 

AmherstCane

Recruit
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
323
That is pure and utter bullshit. They literally started taking their measures two days ago.

Do you even understand how modeling works? Only a small percentage of the UK population has COVID today. The modeling was predicated on exponential growth transmission without a stay home order to lower the transmission rate. The new model is based upon a lowered transmission rate due to a national shelter in home mandate.

He literally said, “that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks.”
 

Go Canes!!

All ACC
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
6,155
Do you even understand how modeling works? Only a small percentage of the UK population has COVID today. The modeling was predicated on exponential growth transmission without a stay home order to lower the transmission rate. The new model is based upon a lowered transmission rate due to a national shelter in home mandate.



He literally said, “that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks.”
Again more bullshit from you. Less than 10 days ago these same scientists said it will take 12-18 MONTHS of total suppression to keep the numbers down.

There’s no model showing that kind of radical change.

They were just wrong and are now forecasting more reasonable numbers.
 

Number1CanesFan

Sophomore
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
3,510
Perhaps I should have said speculation. The point is the same. The outcome is unknown.

We've had severe doom and gloom predictions and other more encouraging projections. One thing I do know is that hospitals weren't overwhelmed by March 23rd, but nobody holds the guy who said that responsible. He'll keep collecting a check and going on air making dire predictions that won't come true.
Well, they're saying a lot of states are 2-3 weeks away. What we should not forgot and we can't quantify is how much social distancing has slowed down the transmission from previous predictions.

The problem is that we still don't have enough testing nationwide to establish a baseline. We're just now ramping up, but most areas still can't get all the testing they need. Once we establish a baseline, we can figure out where the hots pots are going to be and put out the fires. Then we can think about opening up for business.
 

Empirical Cane

We are what we repeatedly do.
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
6,167
Again more bullshit from you. Less than 10 days ago these same scientists said it will take 12-18 MONTHS of total suppression to keep the numbers down.

There’s no model showing that kind of radical change.

They were just wrong and are now forecasting more reasonable numbers.
That's what he, TheOriginalCane and that Jhking cat do.

Don't make sudden movements, they might charge.
 

Empirical Cane

We are what we repeatedly do.
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
6,167
That may prove to be an epically incorrect statement.
What do you mean MAY?

Millions of Britons have COVID-19...with only the sniffles to show for it.

At least that's what all the top minds that Amherst likes to quote keep telling us.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
Well, they're saying a lot of states are 2-3 weeks away. What we should not forgot and we can't quantify is how much social distancing has slowed down the transmission from previous predictions.

The problem is that we still don't have enough testing nationwide to establish a baseline. We're just now ramping up, but most areas still can't get all the testing they need. Once we establish a baseline, we can figure out where the hots pots are going to be and put out the fires. Then we can think about opening up for business.
There's little chance you'll get people to stay like this for another 2-3 weeks. People just won't do it.
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,181
What do you mean MAY?

Millions of Britons have COVID-19...with only the sniffles to show for it.

At least that's what all the top minds that Amherst likes to quote keep telling us.
I am growing to believe that may be true myself. But I don't at all believe it is a fact any more than I think Amhert's positions are facts. Assuming either is true is quite dangerous right now. The important thing, imo, is to be having the discussion. And I'm pleased to see the two sides of that discussion starting to be balanced out more.
 

AmherstCane

Recruit
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
323
Again more bullshit from you. Less than 10 days ago these same scientists said it will take 12-18 MONTHS of total suppression to keep the numbers down.

There’s no model showing that kind of radical change.

They were just wrong and are now forecasting more reasonable numbers.
If you didn’t get more than 600 on your math SAT, you really don’t have any business even being part of this conversation.

You’re comparing apples and baseballs. The article you cited addresses short term healthcare burden associated with an unchecked transmission rate... and the fact that the mandatory stay home order will substantially lower the transmission rate leading to a lower short term burden for this cycle of the disease.

Now you’ve incoherently pivoted to long term multi-cycle mitigation strategy and models.
 

tcgrad1014

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
11,066
Epidemiologist who predicted 3 million deaths in England and the US now says the number will be less than 20k.


The entire world was shut down based on this jackass's guesstimates and now he says just kidding? Too bad he can't be prosecuted.
 

Go Canes!!

All ACC
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
6,155
If you didn’t get more than 600 on your math SAT, you really don’t have any business even being part of this conversation.

You’re comparing apples and baseballs. The article you cited addresses short term healthcare burden associated with an unchecked transmission rate... and the fact that the mandatory stay home order will substantially lower the transmission rate leading to a lower short term burden for this cycle of the disease.

Now you’ve incoherently pivoted to long term multi-cycle mitigation strategy and models.
Maybe. But even this idiot can easily diagnose you with a screaming case of entrenched douchebag with smartest man in the room syndrome.

You don’t have to be an MIT grad to see modifications to social distancing being implemented two days ago aren’t going to affect mortality on that kind of massive scale.

They were obviously wrong in their initial, grossly alarmist numbers.
 

AmherstCane

Recruit
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
323
The entire world was shut down based on this jackass's guesstimates and now he says just kidding? Too bad he can't be prosecuted.
Are you lying or a fool? That article addresses the UK only and is based upon the enactment of a national mandatory criminally enforced stay home order in the UK. Which was what the initial model called for to mitigate the healthcare burden and associated deaths.
 
Top