Posted on 05/11/2020 10:42:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Bro’s said she can’t trust a thing from the CDC AND THAT NUMBER OD DEATHS ARE 25% inflated. If correct the true number is under 60,000. Given the overall curves we will be no where near that number unless fhere is more screwing around with the numbers. Sorry.
See above. Brix said CDC numbers untrustworthy and 25% inflated
Puts the true number around 60,000. Sorry. You have been wrong all along and even the government is saying the numbers are wrong. But if you want to be a sheeple and bleat wrong numbers you are not the scientist you claim to be as
if we only had an honest system....
The Dems are going to have to send more COVID-19 cases to nursing homes to get the numbers up.
Every other model is wrong BUT this one will be correct...
Is it REAL Kung Flu deaths or the bullshit numbers reported out of many states which include anyone dying to be Kung Flu?
Models don’t predict. They calculate from data supplied by humans. Humans then make predictions and know that half the public is awed by anything that’s on a computer, and believe it without qualification.
These people really don’t want the country opened up again. They like having 40 million out of work and getting money from the government. I can see it how. Around May 20, we will hear “Oops, we can’t open the state again! Nope. We couldn’t do enough tests. Gotta close up again. Go back home to your hole and wait until we tell you it’s OK to go out again.”
“In my opinion there is zero reason why we shouldn’t be fully open in my region based on the numbers. No restriction. Normal.”
Thanks, I think the South East is doing well. The US needs to break the USA up into regions to manage future outbreaks.
We do not need to lock down if California decides to have a major outbreak. It should be left to regional Governors to determine lockdowns and etc. State governments should have learn from the first round and things in place to manage it now to make good decisions.
Another model?
Those states that have opened, have their infections spiked?
IHME is about as consistent as Marty Feldman’s Igor hump..
RE: Those states that have opened, have their infections spiked?
According to the IHME model, it will spike eventually as interstate travel starts proliferating.
If I had been as massively wrong in my published estimates as this HIME guy is I would be hiding. He’s too narcissistic for that.
RE: 80,000 already.
100,000 by end of May- first week of June.
__________________________
The CDC web page lists the Covid-19 death rate at 49,000 as at today, May 11, 2020
See here:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
I understand the caveat placed in the CDC website when they say that they are a lagging site because they are waiting for State data as they come in and they have to confirm the death certificates.
But two weeks ago, it was 35,000. Now it’s 49,000. How long do we have to wait till CDC’s number reaches the WorldOMeter and Johns Hopkins 80,000 number?
RE: Every other model is wrong BUT this one will be correct...
Of course, in the long term it will be, just like every election prediction model that predicted Hillary’s victory eventually had to be updated after November of 2016 to say that Trump won.
SPI is not meant to predict the future. It’s only a measure of how you are doing right in that moment so you can fix issues if there are some. Yes, obviously when the work is all done, you are doing okay and the metric is meaningless. But before that...
Influential??? - it hasn’t been correct at all...
there may be 137K reported by August but of those reported how many actually died of the CCP virus?
RE: Influential??? - it hasn’t been correct at all...
By infleuntial, it simply means that the powers-that-be STILL refer to the model when they make decisions even when they should take it with a grain of salt.
I’m going to get flamed, I think, but I am an academic and in fact a huge fan of IHME. Their models are getting much better as we go from having 1.4 million cases over 10 weeks in May rather than 100K cases over 5 weeks just over one month ago. Having data and a longitudinal window makes a world of difference. We should never put too much stock in these models, but what was egregious was relying upon them too much too early.
The journalist writing up the CBS article deliberately misleads, which is not IHME’s fault. The upward revision in deaths is not from the current level (roughly 81K) to 137K. It’s from the 134K that the model was predicting on May 4 to the 137K that the model is predicting now. There is indeed a large and unexpected increase in mobility in the past few days and even extrapolated out and cumulative over three months, the impact is just 3K deaths. I view that as evidence in favor of becoming more mobile, but of course that’s not the message that CBS wants to convey.
By this point I think the overall 137K prediction will be reasonably accurate because the result is pretty baked in. I mean by that that deaths lag infections by an average of 2 weeks. In very large parts of the country deaths are only now peaking. They are likely to drop of course, but the point is that a majority of the deaths leading up to 137K are likely to come in the next few weeks. The IHME model isn’t really stretching far out into the future, it’s not speculating much, and it’s not really predicting all that many unforeseen deaths. By late June there will be many, many fewer deaths than now — whether we are more mobile or not.
RE: I’m going to get flamed, I think, but I am an academic and in fact a huge fan of IHME. Their models are getting much better as we go from having 1.4 million cases over 10 weeks in May rather than 100K cases over 5 weeks just over one month ago.
I already wrote in a previous post on this thread — they have a LEARNING ALGORITHM that self-corrects for any previous inaccuracies. Eventually, they’ll get it right. When, we don’t know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.