Slitherine

quote:

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

quote:

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

More of the way people too often behave. Reporting that things are better than they are is usually easier - and cheaper - than actually making them better.

The pandemic ‘sugar pill’ hospital executives sold the Trump administration in 2018

quote:

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

quote:

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Encircled, thanks for that note.

Yesterday, we discussed the UK situation and the high mortality projection (66k) from the Univ. of Washington site we're discussing here. There were posts about reasons to hold off on putting much stock in that, at least yet, but folks reading through the thread know the UK is really in the thick of things at the moment and that the forecast is troubling.

We're pulling for you all.

P.S. I posted this a.m., asking for an update about your PM. There hasn't been a reply yet (lost in the avalanche of posts).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

As a community, and as for myself, we seem interested in all credible sources and whatever good data and projections we can get. We've used multiple sources over a long time. And we've relied on our internal sources.

I like the U. Washington site because it's widely used, seems credible, and has a track record that I've become comfortable with for US projections (but not, as I noted early this a.m., for European projections).

We aren't mistaking "fast" for "good." None are advocating exclusion of other sources or data. We, or at least I, am taking some time to savor really good news.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This caught my eye in the Reuters article just linked by Encircled.

It brings up similar points made by Obvert yesterday and me a week ago.

The math is really questionable.

If "4/5ths" of the UK population of 70 million is infected, and if the death rate is 1%, that means 560,000 dead.

There's the 80% figure we mentioned a few days ago. When 50% to 70% figures were also mentioned, several forumites scoffed. Obvert noted with skepticism the 15% figure used for one jurisdiction (Washington D.C.)

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

quote:

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

More of the way people too often behave. Reporting that things are better than they are is usually easier - and cheaper - than actually making them better.

The pandemic ‘sugar pill’ hospital executives sold the Trump administration in 2018

quote:

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

quote:

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

So that prompted a pair of genuine question from me, and before pops a blood vessel, it is genuine:

- Are private healthcare institutions incentivized or required by legislation to have extra capacity to contribute towards a pandemic response?
- If not, why would they, given the business motivations for their organisations?

Before people start getting frothy, I'm well aware of the scale and that equipment and PPE are not an exclusively American issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

More of the way people too often behave. Reporting that things are better than they are is usually easier - and cheaper - than actually making them better.

The pandemic ‘sugar pill’ hospital executives sold the Trump administration in 2018

quote:

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

quote:

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

So one point of statistical awareness for folks is around statistical uncertainty.

That predicted figure of say, 1200 likely came with a LOT of uncertainty. That's because predictive modelling is hard and can't account for everything.

In statistical terms, that would have been reported as 1200 +/- 500 (purely back of envelope here). This means that the model is predicating mortality at 1200, but the actual value may range from as low as 700 to as high as 1700.

Stealing an example from earlier, you can see:




Prediction was 421, but the range was 297 to 593, so a +/- of 172.

In short, don't get excited unless the values is outside that confidence interval.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We already covered that very thing in posts in here. You are stating and re-stating things, as though novel, that we've already addressed. We know these things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

So one point of statistical awareness for folks is around statistical uncertainty.

That predicted figure of say, 1200 likely came with a LOT of uncertainty. That's because predictive modelling is hard and can't account for everything.

In statistical terms, that would have been reported as 1200 +/- 500 (purely back of envelope here). This means that the model is predicating mortality at 1200, but the actual value may range from as low as 700 to as high as 1700.

Stealing an example from earlier, you can see:

Prediction was 421, but the range was 297 to 593, so a +/- of 172.

In short, don't get excited unless the values is outside that confidence interval.

quote:

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that he's now tested negative for the coronavirus, after contracting it in March, and that he is now volunteering his services at a hospital.

"I have started volunteering at a local hospital to assist those in my community who are in need of medical help, including coronavirus patients," the senator and ophthalmologist wrote in a tweet that included a picture of him wearing a white doctor's coat and sporting a three-day beard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We already covered that very thing in posts in here. You are stating and re-stating things, as though novel, that we've already addressed. We know these things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

So one point of statistical awareness for folks is around statistical uncertainty.

That predicted figure of say, 1200 likely came with a LOT of uncertainty. That's because predictive modelling is hard and can't account for everything.

In statistical terms, that would have been reported as 1200 +/- 500 (purely back of envelope here). This means that the model is predicating mortality at 1200, but the actual value may range from as low as 700 to as high as 1700.

Stealing an example from earlier, you can see:

Prediction was 421, but the range was 297 to 593, so a +/- of 172.

In short, don't get excited unless the values is outside that confidence interval.

Then what's the error on the Univ. of Washington predictions, and what is it compared to the true reported value?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

So we opened the floodgates of America bashing and we finally see people's true colors.

Good riddance.

More inappropriate.



For the record, since we seem to be self-moderating, that's why I'm tagging these.

And you were apparently voted hall monitor?

What part of self meaning only you is too complex for you?

A shame you can't grasp what you are doing is just as inappropriate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I'm going out on a limb to predict that COVID will NOT be eradicated like SARS or MERS (apparently). It's much better adapted to human transmission. I suspect it will settle in for the long run like the other 4 human Coronaviruses.

229E (alpha coronavirus)
NL63 (alpha coronavirus)
OC43 (beta coronavirus)
HKU1 (beta coronavirus)

With growing herd immunity and almost certainly a vaccine and improved knowledge on treatment it will not be such a terrible threat. I believe of the other human Coronaviruses 3 are of bat origin and one appears to have come from ungulates. We may have had these things for centuries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Sometimes the "quants" are wrong. Half of them have Asperger's syndrome and can't understand human behavior of emotions. It is possible to be incandescently smart and utterly clueless at the same time.

It would be like putting up a shark net on a beach and then taking it down a week later because the attacks stopped.

Let's not forget the "quants" told Lehman Bros. that mortgage backed securities were safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

We don't use the word "Ungulants" nearly enough

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Italy projected to drop very fast...but a couple of cautionary notes. First, the mortality reported today was more than projected by a fair amount (further caveat: this could also be a timing of reporting issue or other irregularity). Also, according to this graph, Italy is only expected to incur about 3,000 more deaths. That would be great but seems so contrary to what we've been seeing.

Bottom line: More time needed to get some level of confidence about the reliability of source for jurisdictions outside the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Meanwhile in Florida...


"This is a reminder that during COVID 19, please remember to keep at least 1 large alligator between you and everyone else at all times,"

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/04/us/social-distancing-florida-alligator-trnd/index.html?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't think any of us feel that things are set in stone or assured.

Regarding the projected mortality, we're using that number as a useful reference point while not losing sight that it's within a range. Nor overlooking that the range is trending encouragingly downward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[Not directed at anybody in particular, including recent posts, but rather on my just completed click-train to another site]

For the first time today, I ventured into the main page virus thread. It's locked, I think as of today. It seems to have veered into a permanent state of acrimony.

It was a rough weekend here, most certainly for me. But the community as a whole has rallied and done a remarkably good job of getting back on point and trying not to inflame things. Pretty cool to see. Here's hoping this thread stays open for business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Looks like NYC is under-counting, by a wide margin, the number of dead from Corona-19. It's a big city and typically 20 people die at home every day. In the last few weeks, over 200 people a day are dying at home. Coincidence? I think not. Anyway, if you die at home the body is not tested for Corona-19. So the actual body count may be significantly higher than the reported number. Not sure of other locals policies but I suspect they are similar. At home deaths are not being counted so the 1% mortality rate (so-far) is probably artificially low

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Well, it also looks like you can't have a Nav Sec losing the confidence of every person in the chain of command below them either.

No, that would be bad. If he made inflammatory or vindictive comments that was unprofessional.

Trump can fire the Sec of Navy