Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I prefer accurate numbers

Agreed, I don't think we will get really good numbers for years. Once the statistical anomalies are all added up you will get better numbers. New Jersey just reported a nursing home that had 22 deaths in the last week, in house. None of those deaths right now are in the stats. Actual numbers don't really mean much right now. As you say, consistent numbers from a controlled source are important because we can use them for meaningful comparisons and trends. In other news I have a co-worker test positive. He works on the same floor and we travel in the sames spaces. As he is on a different shift we have not had personal contact in 2 weeks but the other director I switch days with had recent contact. We are both meticulous about had washing, gloves and masks so I think we should be OK. We have maybe 30 people out of 1,800 in the agency working and even then on split shifts so there should not be much chance for cross contamination. Still, lots of open offices and conference rooms so I'm moving to a different place tomorrow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

In N.Y.C., the Coronavirus Is Killing Men Twice as Often as Women

More men also are infected than women, and they are hospitalized more frequently, new data show. A similar pattern was seen in China.
April 7, 2020, 6:29 p.m. ET

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/health/coronavirus-new-york-men.html

"In its inexorable spread across New York City, the coronavirus is exacting a greater toll on men than women. Not only are men infected in greater numbers, new data show, but they are also dying at nearly twice the rate of women."

--------------

NO COMMENT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Can i just urge everyone to treat UK figures on stuff with a lot of caution.

We are miles behind where we should be in the testing, so our models are based on assumptions, not data (I think Mind messing has stressed this)

We are not alone in that, but we are testing more and more, but are still thousands of people behind the likes of Germany (who appear to have got it right, and have the data to back it up)

Regarding the death tolls, and people going "oh well, its not as bad as originally thought", I suspect that if a close relative gets it then the reality will drive it home more.

Both me and Mrs Encircled parents are perfectly healthy 70+ year olds, and this has us scared to death about them, especially as in the UK our two weeks delay in doing the right thing has could potentially result in many more deaths than if we'd done the right thing at the start.

See attached Reuters report on this

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-path-speci-idUSKBN21P1VF

Regarding the China virus thing, its clearly is from China, but its also clearly being used as something else (not by forumites) by people who should know better. Maybe in the interests of this all staying civil it might be best just to call it Covid-19?

Just a thought.

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: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Peak in deaths also dropped by four days.

There is a big movement underway - a major trend. What the nation is doing, and the way the experts project, are combining to bring this into a sharper focus that is much more encouraging. Just one week ago, the nation was riveted on 100k to 200k.

Just one note of potential caution on getting ahead of ourselves here with comparisons to the Washington modelling.

As far as I can tell the model has three main assumptions (I don't use that word in a negative sense - somebody with more of a science background might know of a better word) - 1) a base rate assumption about how quickly the virus spreads and the proportion of people requiring hospital admission and in particular ICU care, 2) an assumption of the extent to which varying levels of lockdown are able to slow the spread of the virus and 3) an assumption of the extent to which reaching the limit of healthcare provision will result in excess mortality.

If the actual numbers are lower than the predicted ones then that suggests that some of these assumptions were not correct. The problem that we still have at this point is that we don't know which or to what extent.

An optimist will look towards assumptions 1) and 3) and suggest that the evidence is showing that either the virus is less communicable and/or (more likely) less lethal than was assumed or that health services are in reality more agile and resilient to stress than was assumed (as an example of the latter point - the UK prediction is using our historic ICU availability of c.800 beds unoccupied - the new hospital built in London has added another 500 of these beds on its own).

A pessimist on the other hand might look more at assumption 2) i.e. that the various lock-down measures have had a stronger than assumed effect on slowing the spread of the virus. They might also worry in more general terms that the model appears to assume that the only way to reverse the rapid increase of cases and consequent deaths is by imposing significant lock down measures on society and the economy - and that it appears to have been accurate in that assumption. In other words from that point of view the predicted deaths potentially have not all been avoided - more kicked down the road to a later date.

I would probably class myself as somewhere in between. I think there is a lot of encouragement to be taken from the reduction in the predictions. But I think the largest political/economic challenge may still lie ahead. I think that national governments are going to need to hold firm with the lockdown measures (and indeed the public will need to hold firm in their adherence), not just until the case numbers are dropping but until they are confident that they have the testing regime in place to identify and squash outbreaks at source and the administrative/logistical/economic structure in place to put down hard lockdowns/quarantines on very specific localities (as the Italians were able to do in the small villages that showed very early cases in the Veneto province, which subsequently had a much better ride of things compared to Lombardy etc). I think that if national governments and the public are premature in going 'back to normal' then we may well find ourselves back to square one and at the start of another 'curve'. So I think there is a long road ahead and the more pessimistic mortality predictions remain very much in play in the longer term.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not really. I'll paraphrase from a much wiser and more respected forumite (you know who you are!)

<facepalm>

Santa Maria! What on Earth is wrong with you? The US healthcare system ****e. The US Navy is ****e. America is racist. "I'm smarter than everyone". Give it a rest, man.

Did your mama have to pay kids to come to your birthday parties?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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: Cap Mandrake

Statistical models usually provide a "confidence interval"(usually +/-2 SD). These seem to be omitted for presentations to the public.

Interestingly, the National Weather Service does include "probability cones" when they publish hurricane maps. These models, though imperfect, are quite useful for planning purposes..ICU beds, vents, staffing...etc.

quote:

All across Canada and the U.S., emergency rooms and intensive care units have been split into separate worlds, with patients suspected or diagnosed with COVID-19 on one side and those without on the other.

But as the pandemic has ground on, doctors say, they’ve found it increasingly difficult to rule anyone out as a possible COVID carrier. “We’re just seeing so many strange presentations of this that basically we’re in a state where almost anybody coming in with anything is a potential COVID case,” said Dr. Brett Belchetz, who practises emergency medicine in Toronto.
.
.
.
The range of possible COVID symptoms has already expanded dramatically from the early days of the pandemic. One colleague told Belchetz about a patient who came in with a head laceration. “Everyone assumed it was nothing to worry about,” he said. Head wounds are bread and butter stuff in the ER. But after some detailed questioning, the patient revealed how he got the cut: He had passed out and fallen. He didn’t have a cough or a fever. But he wasn’t getting enough oxygen. He got swabbed. The test came back. He had COVID-19.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Statistical models usually provide a "confidence interval"(usually +/-2 SD). These seem to be omitted for presentations to the public.

Interestingly, the National Weather Service does include "probability cones" when they publish hurricane maps. These models, though imperfect, are quite useful for planning purposes..ICU beds, vents, staffing...etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Already covered.

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:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/doedelighed-skal-formentlig-taelles-i-promiller-danske-blodproever-kaster-nyt-lys

For those of you willing to read Danish (Probably a minority).

Danish blooddonors were tested for antibodies, to determine how big a percentage of the population had been infected in Denmark. The number was 22 out of 1487. This, when a few grains of salt have been taken for inaccuracy of testing and other stuff, gives the total of Danes that have been infected to 127000. A number much bigger than thought. 203 Danes have so far died from the virus.

The interesting conclussion is then that the deathrate is as low as 0,16 percent.

Now there is some good news for all of you :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

....

938 deaths yesterday.

Projection for April 7th (as per https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-kingdom at this time and date) was 480-2614.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

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.

Sorry, you're incorrect. Nor do you appear to know what self-moderating meant in that context.

Somebody has to keep us children in line, clearly. Somebody needs to play hall monitor to the schoolyard chest-puffing.

quote:

Here's how one "news" source chooses to capsulize the present situation, as of 10 a.m. eastern time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


What part of 'self' having nothing to do with 'we' is too complex a concept for you?

I understood fully the context in which you were incorrectly applying the term 'self moderating'.

Regardless of any need, your presumption that it needs to be you assuming the mantle of moderator is what you fail to grasp as being just as inappropriate as the behavior you are assailing.

I'm not, for a minute, disputing the inappropriateness of some posts, including mine, just taking strong exception with your self appointment as sheriff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Here's how one "news" source chooses to capsulize the present situation, as of 10 a.m. eastern time.

Well that’s Drudge and he lives off sensational. As for looting. 99% of it has been people breaking into bars and restaurants stealing the top shelf booze. I expect some of them are going to end up getting shot

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

From Canada land (I think!)


Anything can be COVID-19: As pandemic grinds on, doctors find early definitions of disease were too narrow
'We're seeing so many strange presentations of this that basically we're in a state where almost anybody coming in with anything is a potential COVID case'

quote:

All across Canada and the U.S., emergency rooms and intensive care units have been split into separate worlds, with patients suspected or diagnosed with COVID-19 on one side and those without on the other.

But as the pandemic has ground on, doctors say, they’ve found it increasingly difficult to rule anyone out as a possible COVID carrier. “We’re just seeing so many strange presentations of this that basically we’re in a state where almost anybody coming in with anything is a potential COVID case,” said Dr. Brett Belchetz, who practises emergency medicine in Toronto.
.

The range of possible COVID symptoms has already expanded dramatically from the early days of the pandemic. One colleague told Belchetz about a patient who came in with a head laceration. “Everyone assumed it was nothing to worry about,” he said. Head wounds are bread and butter stuff in the ER. But after some detailed questioning, the patient revealed how he got the cut: He had passed out and fallen. He didn’t have a cough or a fever. But he wasn’t getting enough oxygen. He got swabbed. The test came back. He had COVID-19.

https://nationalpost.com/news/anything-can-be-covid-19-as-pandemic-grinds-on-doctors-find-early-definitions-of-disease-were-too-narrow?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Worldometers reported UK morality as 938 for today's list (which probably is the recapitulation for yesterday, since the day isn't over) and 786 yesterday (presumably for the day before).

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.