• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Dec 31, 2017
7,086
They're world class health data scientists, of course they know what they are doing.

The only "issue" with their projection is that they are "officially" only being fed numbers of deaths that occur in hospitals. There is a very significant chunk that are not being accounted by this; this is coming to light now in countries such as Belgium and France. Of course, one can argue they are accounting for it, as their death projection range is very large (25k - 150k). As far as I know, data of deaths outside of hospitals does not exist at the moment for the USA.

Their resource usage projections are on point.

They have continoully updated their projections based on new models and data, its all in their notes and FAQ. Some here just wanted to discount it because it was was too 'optimistic'

While some are wrongfully discrediting them for the entirety of their analysis, you have to be nuanced in looking at the argument and whether it concerns resource usage/case peak and overall deaths. Their death projection range is very broad for a reason; for it to be completely accurate, they do need to be fed data about deaths not occurring in hospitals, which does not really exist at the moment. In that regard, it is too "optimistic," even though that's wrong to say since their range should account for the vast majority of situations anyway.
 

konka

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,856
The only "issue" with their projection is that they are "officially" only being fed numbers of deaths that occur in hospitals. There is a very significant chunk that are not being accounted by this; this is coming to light now in countries such as Belgium and France. Of course, one can argue they are accounting for it, as their death projection range is very large (25k - 150k). As far as I know, data of deaths outside of hospitals does not exist at the moment for the USA.

Their resource usage projections are on point.

Even if that is the case, their projection was created to inform heathcare workers and local governments on healthcare policy to manage resources, so it is doing what it is supposed to do. Even with that, the hospital deaths are easily a large enough sample size to predict the contours of the curve. But people here have been really shitting on their projections of the curve because they think it's unrealistic without actually wanting to understand the science behind it. The blind negativity over seeing that the social distancing is actually having a major impact, as the model was projecting.
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,041
Seattle
The only "issue" with their projection is that they are "officially" only being fed numbers of deaths that occur in hospitals. There is a very significant chunk that are not being accounted by this; this is coming to light now in countries such as Belgium and France. Of course, one can argue they are accounting for it, as their death projection range is very large (25k - 150k). As far as I know, data of deaths outside of hospitals does not exist at the moment for the USA.

Their resource usage projections are on point.



While some are wrongfully discrediting them for the entirety of their analysis, you have to be nuanced in looking at the argument and whether it concerns resource usage/case peak and overall deaths. Their death projection range is very broad for a reason; for it to be completely accurate, they do need to be fed data about deaths not occurring in hospitals, which does not really exist at the moment. In that regard, it is too "optimistic," even though that's wrong to say since their range should account for the vast majority of situations anyway.


I get you about the fact about how the deaths are reported, But I think their data on total hospitalizations and ICU usage is based on correct data. Those are trending down.
 
Dec 31, 2017
7,086
I get you about the fact about how the deaths are reported, But I think their data on total hospitalizations and ICU usage is based on correct data. Those are trending down.

Yes resource usage seems to be trending as they have predicted, thankfully. Anybody who is discrediting them completely isn't really paying attention to what they are reporting.

I would honestly love to be wrong and see the deaths limited to "only" 60,000; I'm just a bit hesitant because seeing the number of deaths in nursing homes in France that were not initially being reported, along with deaths at home in Belgium that are just now being registered, I have a feeling the full picture in that regard just isn't out there yet. But you're right, obviously you should take the projection in it's entirety, which means appreciating the range.
 

lt519

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,064
Yes resource usage seems to be trending as they have predicted, thankfully. Anybody who is discrediting them completely isn't really paying attention to what they are reporting.

I would honestly love to be wrong and see the deaths limited to "only" 60,000; I'm just a bit hesitant because seeing the number of deaths in nursing homes in France that were not initially being reported, along with deaths at home in Belgium that are just now being registered, I have a feeling the full picture in that regard just isn't out there yet. But you're right, obviously you should take the projection in it's entirety, which means appreciating the range.

Is the dashed line an update IHME model? I know the original IHME projection they plotted was based on data available at April 1st. I'm just curious what model they are using now or if they are still using a composite model like they were at the beginning.
 

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,822
They have continoully updated their projections based on new models and data, its all in their notes and FAQ. Some here just wanted to discount it because it was was too 'optimistic'
I hear you, that's kind of my point. In the raw data everyone saw this huge spike, whereas in reality that spike wasn't nearly as extreme because when testing ramped up there was a huge backlog of people who were already sick and had been sick, lots already on their way to recovery even.
 

sweetmini

Member
Jun 12, 2019
3,921
Bulletin for the
French situation:

90676 confirmed cases + 4342 in 24 H
31267 hospitalized + 500 in 24 H
7004 in intensive care -62 in 24 H (this is a net decrease, 431 entries but more releases or deaths)
8598 dead + 554 in 24 H

Care homes:
34193 cases + 2778 in 24H
4599 dead + 433 in 24H

for a total of 13197 deaths

covidcare_hosp0410jfkyn.png


hospital graphs:
covid0410p0jtu.png

covidtable041017kdm.png
 
Last edited:

Alastor3

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
8,297
Bulletin for the
French situation:

90676 confirmed cases + 4342 in 24 H
31267 hospitalized + 500 in 24 H
7004 in intensive care -62 in 24 H (this is a net decrease,)
8598 dead + 554 in 24 H

Care homes:
xxxx cases + xxxx in 24H (missed the number)
4599 dead + 433 in 24H

for a total of 13197 deaths

covidcare_hosp0410jfkyn.png


hospital graphs:
covid0410p0jtu.png

covidtable041017kdm.png
13k death in only one country, this is messed up....
 

Cap'n Cook

Member
Oct 25, 2017
230

Theorry

Member
Oct 27, 2017
60,973
One thing i noticed from the outside now is how US as all these States yet they arent United at all. Not their fault offcourse.
 
Oct 25, 2017
13,127
Would it be a good idea to make a catch-all Coronavirus Impact on Jobs OT thread for people to talk about filing for UI, salary cuts, and layoffs? I feel like its been sporadically all over this thread and it might help a lot of people to have a central location
 

CampFreddie

A King's Landing
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,954
According to the IHME model, the peak of deaths is today.
covid19.healthdata.org

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.
The IHME model seems a bit too optimistic about the effects of lockdown on death rate. At least for Italy. They seem to be thinking the death curve will be symmetrical, but it looks like the decline will be slower than the rise. This is not too surprising, since there is no reason to think the growth phase will be equivalent to the decline phase.
That's not to say the model is totoally useless or that the people designing it are idiots. It's just really really hard to estimate the parameters for the epidemic curve of a new virus. They seem to have made a half-decent estimate, all things considered.
 

TheOMan

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
7,118
Jesus fucking christ. This broke me. Like, legitimately broke me. I started crying halfway through and only managed to calm down after a long time.

Anyone not comprehending the level of suffering and trauma this virus is causing to our healthcare workers needs to read this horrifying account, of which I'm sure only reflects a fraction of what their experience is like. I don't say this in a bad way, I truly mean that it's hard to wrap your head around how bad it is until you read a personal account like this. News, statistics and numbers will never impress upon you the sheer level of human suffering these people are going through. I did not like reading that, but I needed to.

Was it taken down? I haven't been able to view it since yesterday.

Edit: Nevermind - got to the repost.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
13,127

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
Nordics, daily comparison

SWEDEN
deaths: 870 (+77)
hospitalized: 1919 (+73)
ICU: 486 (+22)
cases: 9685 (+544)
deaths / 1M: 86

DENMARK
deaths: 247 (+7)
hospitalized: 401 (-32)
ICU: 113 (-7)
cases: 5819 (+184)
deaths / 1M: 43

NORWAY
deaths: 113 (+5)
hospitalized: 233 (-20)
ICU 89 (-3)
cases 6298 (+77)
deaths / 1M: 21

FINLAND
deaths: 48 (+6)
hospitalized: 236 (-8)
ICU: 81 (-1)
cases: 2769 (+164)
deaths / 1M: 9
 

rhindle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
368
The IHME model seems a bit too optimistic about the effects of lockdown on death rate. At least for Italy. They seem to be thinking the death curve will be symmetrical, but it looks like the decline will be slower than the rise. This is not too surprising, since there is no reason to think the growth phase will be equivalent to the decline phase.
That's not to say the model is totoally useless or that the people designing it are idiots. It's just really really hard to estimate the parameters for the epidemic curve of a new virus. They seem to have made a half-decent estimate, all things considered.
Yeah, that's one thing that seems consistent across regions that are past their 'peak.' The decline phase of the curve (in terms of active cases/hospitalizations) seems much slower than the initial rise.
 

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
So Spain, one of the most affected countries, has the least infectious/dangerous strain? WTF

There is no difference in danger, the lethality hasn't really changed.

How trustworthy is this source and where are there sources? I can't seem to find it on the page.

Sorry, I always need to pick random English sources after reading in my own language.
www.pnas.org

Phylogenetic network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes

This is a phylogenetic network of SARS-CoV-2 genomes sampled from across the world. These genomes are closely related and under evolutionary selection in their human hosts, sometimes with parallel evolution events, that is, the same virus mutation emerges in two different human hosts. This makes...
 

data

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,719
There is no difference in danger, the lethality hasn't really changed.



Sorry, I always need to pick random English sources after reading in my own language.
www.pnas.org

Phylogenetic network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes

This is a phylogenetic network of SARS-CoV-2 genomes sampled from across the world. These genomes are closely related and under evolutionary selection in their human hosts, sometimes with parallel evolution events, that is, the same virus mutation emerges in two different human hosts. This makes...
Thanks!
 

stew

Member
Dec 2, 2017
4,188
The IHME model seems a bit too optimistic about the effects of lockdown on death rate. At least for Italy. They seem to be thinking the death curve will be symmetrical, but it looks like the decline will be slower than the rise. This is not too surprising, since there is no reason to think the growth phase will be equivalent to the decline phase.
That's not to say the model is totoally useless or that the people designing it are idiots. It's just really really hard to estimate the parameters for the epidemic curve of a new virus. They seem to have made a half-decent estimate, all things considered.
I noticed the same thing. It doesn't really look like a plateau.
I'm curious to see how it will look like with the new data from European countries.
 

Hadok

Member
Feb 14, 2018
5,793
The flu would kill a lot less if we implemented the current social distancing standards to fight it every winter, but we've deemed that not acceptable.

oh yeah i totally agree,also wearing masks every Winter (That's not really our culture ,unfortunately.).
But there is a vaccine,at least.
 

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,822
Oct 26, 2017
12,125
So my roommate is a jackass. He's going to his families birthday party in Columbus because " this thing isn't serious".


We've told him he can't comeback for 2 weeks then. He threw a fit and said he'll be back Sunday. I'm legit thinking about changing the locks. Cause if that mother fucker goes to church and lies, and gets me sick I will be beyond furious
 

Arcus Felis

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,123
So my roommate is a jackass. He's going to his families birthday party in Columbus because " this thing isn't serious".


We've told him he can't comeback for 2 weeks then. He threw a fit and said he'll be back Sunday. I'm legit thinking about changing the locks. Cause if that mother fucker goes to church and lies, and gets me sick I will be beyond furious
People are dropping like flies, the USA is becoming very quickly the most impacted country (well, that we know of, since China's numbers are not reliable), hospital staff is overworked and a lot are on the verge of a breakdown, and your roomate wants to take such a stupid risk?
Man, that's a Darwin Award nominee.