Coronavirus Modeling Had Faulty Assumptions, the Real Data Gives Us Hope

PJ Media ^ | 03/28/2020 | Rich Fernandez

[AndyJackson]

And the FLUBROs are accusing people like me of being communists, anti-constitutional, and out to destroy the economy of the United States while we are all supposed to just let the pandemic wash over us. Stand up like a man, be tough and take it. If you die, well it comes to all of us and your time was up.

[norwaypinesavage]

You’re confusing media reporting and reality. My issue is with media reporting, not disease realities.

[comebacknewt]

FWIW, I have asked them to back off too.

I know my personal efforts mean nothing, but maybe if each of us agree to do it one at a time, we can start returning FR back to what it used to be.

[AndyJackson]

You’re confusing media reporting and reality.

No I'm not. Exactly the opposite. I am opposing those who are trying to substitute presumption and wishful thinking for the best data we have available. Attack the data and argue for better methodologies so we can better get at ground truth. But don't argue data away so you can substitute your personal prejudice.

[RideForever]

Well, until you get rid of the data from all the test kits from China that give false results, you really have no data.

Testing new test kits made outside China against existing Chinese test kits pointed out the discrepancy and failure.

[Kazan]

We are not supposed to have hope we’re supposed to live in fear and trembling believing every single thing the news media and the “experts” tells us.

The media's efforts have worked well on the Fearbros here. We have alleged libertarians and conservatives willing to give up any and all rights to protect their own hides.

[over3Owithabrain]

They’re also calling for the deaths - literally - of those that disagree with them. In the name of health of course.

[wafflehouse]

hough people see this VERY differently, no one is trying to kill anyone.

you are absolutely 100% wrong.
Flubros are either irrational or ignorant and are advocating behaviors that will get people killed. They are certainly trying to get people killed

[icclearly]

Now, that graph is some more good work! Please keep it up to date. I’m with you and looking to see this level out very soon.

Are you posting this anywhere other than here on FR?

[AndyJackson]

Travis has posted the charts frequently, but the source is the Financial Times which has a superb set of charts.

See https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

[Renkluaf]

Virus modeling is very much like modeling from the Congressional Budget Office. Both assume that people do not change their behavior and both are always wrong.

[icclearly]

Thanks to another Freeper I found the chart at the Financial Times.  There is excellent information and charts over there.  I'm impressed. But, for the most part, in my mind the chart posted here is useless.  Here's why. Based on yesterdays data at Worldometer we had 378 cases per 1,000,000 souls.  Compare us to Italy with 92,000 cases..  They stand at 1,541 cases per million.  That is over four times our rate of cases.  Something close to that ratio will hold pretty much across the world.  I'm not sure we will get anywhere close to that number.

I prefer to follow the gas_dr's numbers and hypothesis. That is, from the time the first 100 cases are reported the curve will flatten at between 15 and 25 days.  That is based on China, South Korea and a few other countries.  He focuses on the "exponential growth factor" or day over day change of new cases, which makes sense as a leading indicator.

In any event, see my tracking chart and data below. We seem to be moving in the right direction, if we don't get blown out of the water by another NY & NJ.  So, maybe our target is 25 days to flatten the curve. Yesterday was day 19 by my count.

I believe it will happen.

Your thoughts and comments are welcome.  No snarky, though.

IC Clearly

click on image to enlarge

Data from Worldometer

[Mom MD]

of only is the number of cases dependent on the number of tests done but one also needs to look at the number of cases over the population size as well. 1000 cases in spain is very different as a percentage of the population than 1000 cases in the US. it give me any data and I can come up with a really scary way to graph it

[AndyJackson]

I prefer to follow the gas_dr's numbers and hypothesis. That is, from the time the first 100 cases are reported the curve will flatten at between 15 and 25 days [based on China, South Korea and a few other countries].

There are a couple of things going on here. First, the FT data is not a projection or based on a model or an interpretation. It is just a chart of raw numbers and it is historical, e.g. past or present perfect tense.

gas_drs hypothesis is an hypothesis, not a fact. It is projection of what could happen. Further it is based on a speculation and not an explanatory mechanism so it has no more credibility than your opinion or my dog's opinion.

Further what is being loudly debated is the propriety and necessity of public health measures in this instance. Citing what happened in China or SK or some such is not an argument against because those trajectories are all based upon very vigorous and intrusive public health measures.

So I am no better informed by this than I was before.

[central_va]

My point is that isolating and caring for those most at risk doesn't require:

    * Hysteria
    * Financial chaos
    * Lock down
    * Spending trillions
    * Risking Great Depression II
    * Hype
    * Fear mongering
    * Generational warfare 

[AndyJackson]

We could have gone like Japan or Taiwan or Singapore, but we didn't we chose the stand in front of the freight train until the last minute path instead.

Some would have us lie down on the track and let the train run over us.

[central_va]

Oh BS. Sending those under 40 back to work would be good thing. Let them infect each other, gaining immunity, while we( society in general ) maintain a bubble around those most in danger. But that make common sense, something that is an anathema to the fear mongers.

[comebacknewt]

B.S.

I don’t agree with them, but what you are saying is patently absurd and beneath this forum — or at least it used to be.

[icclearly]

“There are a couple of things going on here. First, the FT data is not a projection or based on a model or an interpretation. It is just a chart of raw numbers and it is historical, e.g. past or present perfect tense.

gas_drs hypothesis is an hypothesis, not a fact. It is projection of what could happen. Further it is based on a speculation and not an explanatory mechanism so it has no more credibility than your opinion or my dog’s opinion.”

I agree the data at FT, which is excellent, is a statement of facts. It is also misleading. If we are to make well-informed decisions then we should be able to make accurate comparisons. Knowing that Italy, as an example, has 4 times the rate of infection as we do here in this country, to me, is meaningful AND accurate. That meaning is not on display in that graph.

Regarding gas_dr and our dogs, I’m not buying your view. The doc made his assessment based on facts from real countries around the world and then overlayed those facts on our circumstance. While his projection is not fact yet, it is a logical approach to the problem — not dog guesses. There are so-called experts making all kinds of projections. You choose the one you like and I’ll choose the one I like. I just happen to like and believe in the doc’s very logical approach.

By the way, the numbers I posted are also facts, if Worldomenter is factual. It shows the growth factor trending slightly down since 3/22, with the exception of two outlier days. The average growth factor since 3/22 has been 1.13. The average since 3/11 was 1.30 Yesterday was 1.04 which is well below both averages. Those are facts and if the trend continues to decline (big if) so will the total cases. Now, that’s not a dog guess.

IC Clearly

[AndyJackson]

Knowing that Italy, as an example, has 4 times the rate of infection as we do here in this country

You obviously have no scientific training, because you would realize that when you scale effects to the population, there are only two relevant numbers: In calculus it is written as 1/N dN/dt - the fractional increase in cases day over day, and the other is percent of population infected.

The former is about .13 for the US and about .05 for Italy - in other words the "RATE" [rate scientifically means change of a quantity per unit time] of infection in the US is almost 3 times as high as Italy. The second is the fraction of the population infected which is .16% for Italy and .04% for the US. Now why is this latter relevant - because saturation effects will not happen until a significant fraction of the population is infected. Even if both numbers are off by a factor of 100 it would barely effect the rate of spread of the disease.

That Italy has a higher fraction of population infected is because the epidemic has been going in Italy longer than the US - a fact we all know. With cases increasing in the US as they are, it is only a matter of time before we reach the same level of penetration as Italy.