-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That 4% was just from the overall % of patients who end in critical condition which I remember from somewhere. I don't know how to go from that to 80% of those dying since that would imply about 3% death rate. Which isn't correct.
Anyway, these are good points, the answer could be wrong. There are presumably some number of patients in serious condition who would not survive though.
Overall, general point was:
1) Denominator not correct; probably too low
2) Numerator likely partly undercounted due to undercounting of deaths.
3) Numerator likely higher than it might be elsewhere in Italy specifically due to hospital overload (though we might still get there in the US - hard to know).
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Nothing simple about it.
A case can start from an asymptomatic contact, or it can start in the ER after intubation.
The lag you speak of can be minutes to a month.
NM now tests asymptomatic contacts of household members;
NYS only tests hospital admissions
If you want a number of any use whatsoever, details are unavoidable.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I posted an older version of this data and it was well received so here is a new updated copy, again the work to create the images was done by MetricT (u/MetricT) - Reddit
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Careful. I wouldn't dare go into a sauna until there are RCTs in Nature. Really I would prefer to sit on my hands a couple years until there is a good meta analysis in Cochrane. I didn't see either in footnotes 13-17 of that wikipedia article -- just crazy talk about monocytes and cyctokine storms.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I just tried this on Worldometer, using today's death numbers, and a 14-day delay.
Germany: 7.5%
SK: 2.0% (We should ignore this because it's a flattened curve so of course will approach the correct result especially this far out from the high ramp rate).
Iceland: 0.6%
So 14 days doesn't seem to work very well.
But you're right that there really is no formula that "works" in general because every country is different in their testing, case reporting, death reporting, etc. It's kind of something we can only know after things have settled out a bit. It's pretty much only good for estimating the order of magnitude for current number of cases.
For example, we can use the lag number (onset to death) to estimate that there are about (5k deaths)/0.01*(1.12^14) = 2.5 million cumulative infections in the US today. +/- (more likely -) a million or so I would think. Accuracy depends on how much curve flattening has occurred in the last two weeks, to figure out the overestimate there. This is just based on a 6-day infection doubling, or so.
Suggests we'll have about ~2.5million * 0.01 = ~25k deaths in two weeks. Seems very reasonable, if not a little low, with current trends. If true IFR is closer to 1.5% then it's more like 38k.
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
Another example: In the article that refer to from the page with the IHME nationwide graphs, they make a prediction for peak ventilator use:
Forecasting COVID-19 impact on hospital bed-days, ICU-days, ventilator-days and deaths by US state in the next 4 months
19,481 ventilators. The URL dates this article to March 27.
In today's graph:
IHME | COVID-19 Projections
32,125 ventilators predicted for April 12, today on April 1.
So in 5 days, their prediction went up by 50%.
That is, according to these numbers, which I hope I got right.
Forecasting COVID-19 impact on hospital bed-days, ICU-days, ventilator-days and deaths by US state in the next 4 months
19,481 ventilators. The URL dates this article to March 27.
In today's graph:
IHME | COVID-19 Projections
32,125 ventilators predicted for April 12, today on April 1.
So in 5 days, their prediction went up by 50%.
That is, according to these numbers, which I hope I got right.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
As far as I can tell he has everyone on ignore. I wanted to wear safety glasses and now I'm on ignore. And I even answered his math question for him. Oh well.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Well if you just need a slight grin or small laugh let me offer
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
That was around the day that Fauci suggested 100k - 200k total deaths. Estimates are improving, but they still have considerable uncertainty. That should not surprise anybody, since even a single confounder like SAH orders have considerable variation in effectiveness across the nation. IHME did not know that Florida e.g. would continue to allow mass congregations for prayer.
IHME does not offer enough transparency to say *why* the estimates are going up, but so far that is the trend.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
another metric for how much we've shut down the US.
US Box Office totals for the week of March 20-26 was $5,179. This time last year, it was $204,193,406 (boxofficemojo.com)
US Box Office totals for the week of March 20-26 was $5,179. This time last year, it was $204,193,406 (boxofficemojo.com)
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Since the IHME model is under discussion here (though @SageBrush will not see this), here's a long Twitter thread from Carl Bergstrom discussing the assumptions behind the model:
Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter
In his view, this model assumes that basically the US will be successful in obtaining Wuhan-style suppression to achieve the results predicted by this model. That means it's optimistic, as far as he is concerned (I would agree! They were welding doors shut and separating people from their families...). Also, the model owners themselves state that they assume that about 3% of the US population will be infected in their scenario (there will be no herd immunity of any significance).
I personally have my doubts about this model (have they really carefully modeled the density in every area of the US when coming up with these estimates, for example, and adjusted R factors appropriately?)...but I do think that their 90k (or whatever it is) number is likely going to end up way low. Unless we get super lucky with the warmth and UV helping us out, somehow.
All of these other states still kind of look "under control" right now. (It's so easy to fall into this trap, like the President did.) But very fearful about the next week. We will definitely have a much better idea of where we stand nationwide in another 7 days. By then, we'll see some real "pop" in all of those areas that are going to be problems (assuming we're testing). If we don't see that significantly in any area other than New York, I might start to feel optimistic, and maybe the President will have been right!
In other news, deadly ignorance from the Georgia governor...apparently not the sharpest tool in the shed. Or he's just lying and trying to pin blame on the CDC:
Andisheh Nouraee on Twitter
Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter
In his view, this model assumes that basically the US will be successful in obtaining Wuhan-style suppression to achieve the results predicted by this model. That means it's optimistic, as far as he is concerned (I would agree! They were welding doors shut and separating people from their families...). Also, the model owners themselves state that they assume that about 3% of the US population will be infected in their scenario (there will be no herd immunity of any significance).
I personally have my doubts about this model (have they really carefully modeled the density in every area of the US when coming up with these estimates, for example, and adjusted R factors appropriately?)...but I do think that their 90k (or whatever it is) number is likely going to end up way low. Unless we get super lucky with the warmth and UV helping us out, somehow.
All of these other states still kind of look "under control" right now. (It's so easy to fall into this trap, like the President did.) But very fearful about the next week. We will definitely have a much better idea of where we stand nationwide in another 7 days. By then, we'll see some real "pop" in all of those areas that are going to be problems (assuming we're testing). If we don't see that significantly in any area other than New York, I might start to feel optimistic, and maybe the President will have been right!
In other news, deadly ignorance from the Georgia governor...apparently not the sharpest tool in the shed. Or he's just lying and trying to pin blame on the CDC:
Andisheh Nouraee on Twitter
Norbert
TSLA will win
Germany 7.5%: Italy's unadjusted CFR is actually > 10%. So in predicting where the CFR is going, 7.5% is not necessarily outside the possible range. However, I am not taking these numbers literally, as I indicated above. I look at the context, try to estimate testing level if possible, whether there is early or late testing, to see if and how that number might make sense. In the case of Germany, I could tell the CFR would go above 1%. I didn't (necessarily) expect the non-adjusted CFR to reach 7% or 9%. With your 1-week number, you were predicting only 1%, and making remarks about anything > 1.5%. Now it is at 1.2% and still rising.
SK 2.0%: No, we should not ignore this at all, this is actually the best example, since using the 14-day lag, one could see that coming already.
Iceland 0.6% : Since March 23, Iceland is reporting only 2 deaths. With that granularity, the error bars are very high. In any case, if you use a 7-day lag instead, you get 0.2%. Since I expect the eventual non-adjusted CFR to go above 1% (if deaths are reported correctly), I think that 0.6% is much better than 0.2%. That is, as long as there is no huge after-the-fact study using antibody tests. Well, in the case of Iceland, even then.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Good points. For example, it seems in the US there is a lot of local, state, and inter-state spread already.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I am talking about a practical measure for making WAGs, not about a scientific definition of a variable in a complex model.
You’ve made your point repeatedly. Is it necessary to continue with the passive-aggressiveness that is clearly for your own entertainment? I think we all got it the first time.
Its not passive aggression; its reductio ad absurdum.
Hopefully to inoculate posts that simply share useful information and even informed speculation from the pathogenic response of attacking interesting speculation.
Seriously it will be harder for someone to condescend to someone's interesting speculation on Finnish saunas given that I did it first in an absurd manner -- while also hinting at the interesting theory. It is worth reading those footnotes.
Last edited:
After playing around a bit in Excel I found an equation that does a good job matching Italy's Daily New Cases values:
It's the derivative of the standard Logistic Function = 150,000 / ( 1 + exp( -0.165 * t ) ) when I set the midpoint to 03/25 (point 32 in the graph above). The "t" is days. You can subtract 740 to get the early days to match up for Total Cases. The derivative is symmetrical around zero but I believe in real epidemics the right side will fall slower. Still, it's surprisingly good.
It's the derivative of the standard Logistic Function = 150,000 / ( 1 + exp( -0.165 * t ) ) when I set the midpoint to 03/25 (point 32 in the graph above). The "t" is days. You can subtract 740 to get the early days to match up for Total Cases. The derivative is symmetrical around zero but I believe in real epidemics the right side will fall slower. Still, it's surprisingly good.
Similar threads
