Coronavirus

[Daniel in SD]

I was under the impression that the original 2 million+ estimate out of London did consider mitigation. What good would a model be if it did not incorporate a (guaranteed) change of behavior when anticipating death projections of that magnitude.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this model can clarify. I am unable to find the original paper.


.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
I feel like I have to post this every week. Clearly the media has done an awful job reporting on this. The whole point of the paper is to evaluate different mitigation strategies! There's a scenario in the paper with only 5,600 deaths in the UK.
The model did not attempt to predict what people and governments would actually do. What good would a model be if it could perfectly predict the future? That would mean there is no free will.
Also if people actually read the paper they would see that they agree with your point:

In addition, the impact of many of the NPIs detailed here depends critically on how people respond to their introduction, which is highly likely to vary between countries and even communities. Last, it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous changes in population behaviour even in the absence of government-mandated interventions.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

View attachment 536604
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
I feel like I have to post this every week. Clearly the media has done an awful job reporting on this. The whole point of the paper to is to evaluate different mitigation strategies! There's a scenario in the paper with only 5,600 deaths in the UK.
The model did not attempt to predict what people and governments would actually do. What good would a model be if it could perfectly predict the future? That would mean there is no free will.

The mortality rates at the BASE OF THE ANALYSIS have been proven COMPLETELY WRONG. Turns out this report was pandemic porn for the few people who enjoy talking about an end-of-days pandemic for months on end. It shouldn't be referenced in any scientific discussion once it's proven astronomically wrong.

At some point you guys are gonna need to suck it up and change your internal model of the universe rather than rambling on and on about impending doom that does not exist.

We have yet to pass the death total from 2018's flu season, even with perhaps the worst mitigation execution imaginable. We shall, but only because the AC casino guy is in charge and we had(and still have) absolutely zero coordinated plan for testing.

 

[SDRick]

Daniel in SD,

Thanks for the link, but it does not look like it is the original model. It references a summary to the original model.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The mortality rates at the BASE OF THE ANALYSIS have been proven COMPLETELY WRONG.

Nope.

 

[azaz]

Elon Musk on Twitter

Dude is gonna be on Tucker Carlson in like a week at this rate

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

No one expected such a high asymptomatic percentage as well. It goes both ways.

Wait...what? People have been talking about asymptomatic cases for a long time and is such an issue that doctors have recognized that controlling them is crucial to controlling the outbreak! Like, since January...

Doctors warn China coronavirus carriers may show no symptoms of illness

That's why we should just focus on the current stats.

That's fine, we can do that. But I'm not sure how that helps whatever case you're trying to make, since it's very clear we'll be over 100k cases looking at where we are now and extrapolating from the vast body of evidence from countries that have already been through the phase of the epidemic that we are going through. (Look at Italy, Germany, South Korea, China.) Even in China, where they basically cut R0 to way below 1 right away (with welders), they saw deaths decrease by only a factor of 10 from their peak, 30 days after their peak. We obviously won't be seeing that type of steep reduction, due to our case growth curve. (China cut daily cases by a factor of 10 in three weeks, while we've basically been at right around our peak for three weeks.) I'd be quite happy to see something like less than 750 deaths per day by the end of May, but seems questionable.

I mean, it's all very well to look at the current numbers, but we can still use the current numbers to make reasonable guesses about the future.

so 4 million in April is about 133k per day. Doubling that would only get us to 266k per day, but Fauci indicated he wanted in the neighborhood of 500k per day.

They are already in the low to mid 200k tests per day. So is this just some sort of PR that they are doing more than April? or something missed by the Marketwatch article like doubling from the end of April?

Yeah, it's really weird. The only way I can read it is that they are talking about supplementing the states' supplies? I mean, we know we need to be doing something like 7 million tests (2%) per WEEK. Not per month. I don't think we're missing anything here. It's just that as usual they are behind the curve. Not a great place to be in an epidemic. It's also not just about having the tests...you also have to be able to process the tests.

It's not looking great, which is not a surprise, really, but at least testing has increased a lot recently. Hoping we'll see 400k tests tomorrow. That would be a good sign.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Elon Musk on Twitter

Dude is gonna be on Tucker Carlson in like a week at this rate

Yeah, I saw these tweets, but I was unable to discern whether they were in reference to his upset about not being able to open his beloved Fremont factory on May 4th. I figured they might be, but wasn't sure. Can you help decode?

He's really coming unhinged. Seems completely unproductive. Just freakin' work with the state to figure out what you can do to help, and what might be a workable plan to re-open. Follow the data.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Daniel in SD,

Thanks for the link, but it does not look like it is the original model. It references a summary to the original model.

In the results presented here, we apply a previously published microsimulation model to two countries: the UK (Great Britain specifically) and the US.

We modified an individual-based simulation model developed to support pandemic influenza planning to explore scenarios for COVID-19 in GB.

Are you referring to this? They are using a model that they previously published for an influenza pandemic.
Here is the original paper on the model: Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic
The current model is here: mrc-ide/covid-sim

 

[powertoold]

Wait...what? People have been talking about asymptomatic cases for a long time and is such an issue that doctors have recognized that controlling them is crucial to controlling the outbreak! Like, since January...

Doctors warn China coronavirus carriers may show no symptoms of illness

Seriously, I don't understand the vibe of this thread. It's toxic.

I clearly said no one expected the *percentage* of asymptomatic to be so high (Fauci thinks around 25-50%, even if it's 15%, that's higher than people were expecting), not that there *are* asymptomatic transmissions.

 

[UCF3]

He's really coming unhinged. Seems completely unproductive. Just freakin' work with the state to figure out what you can do to help, and what might be a workable plan to re-open. Follow the data.

You know what an essential business can do to help? Open the business

 

[sparcs]

Yeah, it's really weird. The only way I can read it is that they are talking about supplementing the states' supplies? I mean, we know we need to be doing something like 7 million tests (2%) per WEEK. Not per month. I don't think we're missing anything here. It's just that as usual they are behind the curve. Not a great place to be in an epidemic. It's also not just about having the tests...you also have to be able to process the tests.

It's not looking great, which is not a surprise, really, but at least testing has increased a lot recently. Hoping we'll see 400k tests tomorrow. That would be a good sign.

I think they may be purposefully being vague so they don't have to get pinned down to any number, but I don't see how you have a coordinated nationwide response if you don't set some goals. I guess that is the whole point, muddy the progress enough so that you can spin it however you want.

 

[azaz]

Yeah, I saw these tweets, but I was unable to discern whether they were in reference to his upset about not being able to open his beloved Fremont factory on May 4th. I figured they might be, but wasn't sure. Can you help decode?

He's really coming unhinged. Seems completely unproductive. Just freakin' work with the state to figure out what you can do to help, and what might be a workable plan to re-open. Follow the data.

he’s been getting increasingly annoyed at the media/popular thought lately (went off on CNN which is a right wing thing these days) and been seeking out more and more fringe outlets like McAfee etc. His CNN bashing and general COVID19 skepticism has been getting a lot of praise amongst segments on the right. It's not hard to draw line between listening to that stuff and saying stuff like Hollywood/SV (liberals) are sanctimonious etc

 

[UCF3]

he’s been getting increasingly annoyed at the media/popular thought lately (went off on CNN which is a right wing thing these days) and been seeking out more and more fringe outlets like McAfee etc. His CNN bashing and general COVID19 skepticism has been getting a lot of praise amongst segments on the right. It's not hard to draw line between listening to that stuff and saying stuff like Hollywood/SV (liberals) are sanctimonious etc

Plenty of moderates think CNN is a joke. Might want to get out of your bubble every once in a while

 

[Daniel in SD]

Seriously, I don't understand the vibe of this thread. It's toxic.

I clearly said no one expected the *percentage* of asymptomatic to be so high (Fauci thinks around 25-50%, even if it's 15%, that's higher than people were expecting), not that there *are* asymptomatic transmissions.

The Imperial College study published on March 16th assumed one third of cases are asymptomatic or very mild. I think a lot of people here are upset by the amount of misinformation being propagated right now. I will try harder to maintain a cheerful demeanor.

Analyses of data from China as well as data from those returning on repatriation flights suggest that 40-50% of infections were not identified as cases. This may include asymptomatic infections, mild disease and a level of under-ascertainment. We therefore assume that two-thirds of cases are sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate (if required by policy) within 1 day of symptom onset.

 

[azaz]

Plenty of moderates think CNN is a joke. Might want to get out of your bubble every once in a while

I also think CNN is a joke, you are missing the point. point is he's been seeking out increasingly fringe sources to validate his priors, many of which agreed with his CNN bashing and are also covid skeptics. and now he's adopting their talking points about sanctimonious hollywood/Silicon Valley etc.

 

[davepsilon]

You are missing the point: It involves TESTING and tracing. Absolutely tracing is important even if there are asymptomatics. Anyone who has been in contact with a known carrier is put in quarantine (different than isolation) for 14 days, and additionally (when there are sufficient tests) is tested repeatedly. That's the whole point of testing and tracing!

When applied millions of times, this reduces R and reduces the case load. It also reduces the threshold for herd immunity, if it actually gets to that point (definitely preferably not). But an effective R of 1.1 means 9% of people being infected gives you herd immunity.

"Q Dr. Fauci, how many additional asymptomatic cases do you think there are currently in the United States? There’s 330,000 more confirmed cases. How many asymptomatic, given what we’ve learned in recent days?

DR. FAUCI: You know, we don’t know. And even among us, good friends that we are — (laughs) — we — we differ about that. I mean, it’s somewhere between 25 and 50 percent.

Q More than —

DR. FAUCI: Yeah. Yeah, in other words, about the people —

Q — the current level?

DR. FAUCI: Yeah, about the people that are out there. Yeah.

And trust me, that is a estimate. I don’t have any scientific data yet to say that. You know when we’ll get the scientific data, when we get those antibody tests out there and we really know what the penetrance is. Then we can answer the questions in a scientifically sound way. Right now, we’re just guessing. "

Likely, from context, he was talking about not just asymptomatic cases - he was also talking about very mild symptoms that never never would have been reported or even really remarked upon. We need more data. 25% seems fairly possible. But it's not really an issue as long as we have sufficient testing. It just makes it harder (need more testing, and more tracing).

as a point of information herd immunity at 9% penetration for R 1.1 assumes that the entire population mixes homogeneously. It’s not a bad place to start and probably reasonable for local epidemics. But for a pandemic that’s spread so widely you might need to add sub populations to the model. Each sub population needs to reach their own herd immunity level

 

[winfield100]

Why are people arguing with a bot or a facsimile of a bot?
I had to click on “show ignored content”
The “....tool.” Bot

 

[Norbert]

Daniel in SD,

Thanks for the link, but it does not look like it is the original model. It references a summary to the original model.

I think it just starts with a summary of itself, instead of having it at the end.

 

[dfwatt]

Yo, you asked me, "Could you please give me an instance of a medically plausible etiology for death from a quote-unquote coincidental problem in the context of minimal severity of covid-19 infection?"

I answered your question with one example. Please use your imagination since you work in healthcare.

It's true I don't know as much you about interferon alfa omega phi delta, but that's not what you asked about. So again. Move on.

Your accounting of our interaction is as counterfactual as your understanding of covid-19. I asked you for an instance of a neat separation between covid-19 and one of your "coincidental" causes of death. Your example failed on that account. Therefore your premise was falsified. In that context you tell me to "move on". I guess it must be embarrassing to have your BS exposed for what it is.

 

[davepsilon]

Seriously, I don't understand the vibe of this thread. It's toxic.

I clearly said no one expected the *percentage* of asymptomatic to be so high (Fauci thinks around 25-50%, even if it's 15%, that's higher than people were expecting), not that there *are* asymptomatic transmissions.

When you say “no one expected” it would likely be more accurate to say that you did not expect. Because others did.

In Wuhan China the expert assessment was asymptomatic cases were not a primary driver of transmission. You’ll see that summarized in the February 1 WHO sitrep. Note that they didn’t say asymptomatic weren’t happening or what rate they thought was happening. Just that asymptomatic people weren’t generally passing it on. That might turn out to ultimately be true. There is a lot of conflation in reporting in the heat of crisis since then that does not properly distinguish pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic.

By the end of February, testing of the entire diamond princess cruise ship gave an asymptomatic rate for that population of 15-20%.

In any sort of crisis there is always going to be an evolution of knowledge. And there are going to continuous pieces of measurements or mistakes or lies that cross our news feeds. But you aren’t casting a broad enough net in your own sources if you think a potential 25% asymptomatic rate in April is a sudden and unexpected shifting of the ground for experts.