• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst Case Pandemic Prognostion Model Slashs Predction w/ 96% fewer deaths

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
17,796
Reaction score
14,643
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There has been a wide range of predicted deaths in the US - from 2,200,000 in US to 4,000. The forecast for 2,200,000 was Neil Ferguson, using a model forecasting the rates using different mitigation strategies, or none at all.

Ferguson, using the same model, forecast British coronavirus deaths at 510,000. Now, with the latest information on the virus and data his model forecasts LESS THAN 20,000 for the UK. Moreover, more than half those who die will be individuals who would have died anyway from old age and other medical causes before the end of the year

Although the Britain has only just begun a lockdown two days ago, Ferguson predicts that the new virus deaths will peak in two or three weeks, and then decline.

Another alarmist meme bites the dust.

Back to work by Easter!
 

Er-oh.

With the stock market surging, people not dying & Biden in massive decline, the Democrats will not be happy...

Back to Ukranian Nazis & Trump rapes puppies I guess.

:shrug:
 
maxparrish said:
Although the Britain has only just begun a lockdown two days ago, Ferguson predicts that the new virus deaths will peak in two or three weeks, and then decline.
Click to expand...

Why is that of note. Incubation is two weeks. Maybe three to four is more conservative an estimate.
 
Link?
 

One single person says something, so clearly it's a hoax? How moronic. And how expected. Hannity commanded you guys to say it, so you're saying it. That's all that's going on here.
 

Link for that large team's latest forecast?

FWIW, your premise is BS. Ferguson and his large team never forecast that deaths in the UK would be 500k. That was the "do nothing" approach, which no country on earth has done, and the UK never adopted that strategy, and was used as a benchmark against which to judge various other strategies.

Here's that study:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
 
Mr Person said:
One single person says something, so clearly it's a hoax? How moronic. And how expected. Hannity commanded you guys to say it, so you're saying it. That's all that's going on here.
Click to expand...

No, he misrepresented the study. Here's the original forecasts with various strategies in place. The table lists the modeled number of deaths with a do nothing - 500k or so depending on the actual R0 - and the numbers are FAR smaller with adopting any of the mitigation strategies. Here's one table from that original model:

Edit - it's hard to read so go to the study, and see Table 4.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

 
Mr Person said:
One single person says something, so clearly it's a hoax? How moronic. And how expected. Hannity commanded you guys to say it, so you're saying it. That's all that's going on here.
Click to expand...

Well the one single person was the author of the initial model claiming millions would die...

So it’s not just some random guy
 

I'll maintain my prediction for the USA at 89,100. Hopefully it's much lower.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well the one single person was the author of the initial model claiming millions would die...

So it’s not just some random guy
Click to expand...

No, that's not true. It's amazing you guys are making claims about a study you clearly were too lazy to even click on a single time. Here are all the authors of that study:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf


The bolded all contributed, and the OP lied about what the model showed, or ignorantly claimed it made projections it did not.
 

What I said about the model testing different mitigation strategies, or none at all applied to both US and UK predictions - my "premise" being that his worst case forecast looks to no longer be even theoretically true.

In any event, the model now tells him it will be 1/25th of the prior "do nothing" forecast, just two days into a lockdown order. In other words, much about little.

So sad for alarmists. So glad for the realists.

UK has enough intensive care units for coronavirus, expert predicts | New Scientist
 
Mr Person said:
One single person says something, so clearly it's a hoax? How moronic. And how expected. Hannity commanded you guys to say it, so you're saying it. That's all that's going on here.
Click to expand...
Why do you people think it's a hoax?
 
I thought this wasn't worse than the common cold?
 
Jack Hays said:
Scientist Whose Model Predicted Doomsday Backtracks
Madeline Osburn, Federalist
Click to expand...

While I am unclear as to the reasons for the revised forecast, one factor that changed was that the virus is more infectious than thought (and Ro of 3). Implicitly many more people are infected than will ever know it...or be ill enough to even think it serious. And, in any event, Ferguson's prior long range mitigation options were not the worst imaginable (i.e. not a mandatory no work lockdown) although it required long-term implementation (economically impossible).

Home Quarantine, Case Isolation, Home Sequestration of 70 and above, as well as closure of schools and (after the peak in 2-3 weeks) more testing seems to be a very effective strategy. And, as it turns out, there is no need to ban huge public gatherings for events like football games.

So yes, my own predictions of total death has continually been revised downward. 100,000 seems plausible without the need for most states (as California) preventing people from going to work or eating out.
 
maxparrish said:
What I said about the model testing different mitigation strategies, or none at all applied to both US and UK predictions - my "premise" being that his worst case forecast looks to no longer be even theoretically true.
Click to expand...

That's BS because no one is "testing" the worst case, do nothing strategy. Can you quote him saying the do nothing strategy results that are irrelevant in both the UK and U.S. are not theoretically true? It's rhetorical - NO, you can't. You're making that up.

In any event, the model now tells him it will be 1/25th of the prior "do nothing" forecast, just two days into a lockdown order. In other words, much about little.
Click to expand...

If you bothered to read the study, instead of ignorantly or dishonestly misrepresenting what it concluded, that wouldn't be a surprise to you.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

See Table 4. With case isolation and the other strategies now in place in the UK, the predicted deaths 11 days ago ranged from 5,600 to 48,000 depending on the R0 and triggers, which are ICU bed demand

So sad for alarmists. So glad for the realists.
Click to expand...

It's like you think this is a political contest, with winners and losers. It's not.

UK has enough intensive care units for coronavirus, expert predicts | New Scientist
Click to expand...

The new information appears be that adding an option of community testing and contact tracing lowers the death count, and that wasn't included in the original modeling because at that time (and now) the UK didn't have the capacity to implement it. So he modeled what the results would be with that strategy, assuming it's possible to do "within a few weeks."

So the story is - FACTS CHANGE!!! EXPERT REVISES MODEL BASED ON NEW FACTS!! NEWS AT 11!! :roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
Scientist Whose Model Predicted Doomsday Backtracks
Madeline Osburn, Federalist
Click to expand...

The Federalist really is a garbage website. It's really no better than Breitbart or Jim "Dumbest man on the Internet" Hoft's place. Here's the opening paragraph:


For starters, the report was authored by a team of 30 researchers representing a half dozen orgs. And the team's model didn't actually predict that, because the report assumes that neither country would allow the virus to spread unchecked.


That's a lie. The team didn't retract any modeling. The modeling in the original report predicted that with strict measures in place the death toll would range from 5,000 - 48,000 depending on some 'triggers.' The testimony linked indicates the team revised the model to include an option for test and trace, like S.Korea, that wasn't included in the initial model because the UK didn't have (and doesn't have now) that capacity, but might in a "few weeks" and so that's what he testified to.

Etc. The entire article is a bunch of misleading or dishonest garbage which is typical of the Federalist lately.
 

Sure. Every failed model needs an exit strategy. Meanwhile, Nic Lewis takes the work apart.


[h=2]COVID-19: Updated data implies that UK modelling hugely overestimates the expected death rates from infection[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on March 25, 2020 by niclewis | 124 comments[/FONT]
By Nic Lewis
Introduction
There has been much media coverage about the danger to life posed by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. While it is clearly a serious threat, one should consider whether the best evidence supports the current degree of panic and hence government policy. Much of the concern in the UK resulted from a non-peer reviewed study published by the COVID-19 Response Team from Imperial College (Ferguson et al 2020[1]). In this article, I examine whether data from the Diamond Princess cruise ship – arguably the most useful data set available – support the fatality rate assumptions underlying the Imperial study. I find that it does not do so. The likely fatality rates for age groups from 60 upwards, which account for the vast bulk of projected deaths, appear to be much lower than those in the Ferguson et al. study. Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
Sure. Every failed model needs an exit strategy.
Click to expand...

Read the study, quote from it and tell me what part of it is failed and they exited?

You can't do it, because you've not read it. I'll link it for you. Let me know what you find.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf


He decided that the cruise ship was a better sample. He didn't exactly take the UK study apart, and his own assumption has some weaknesses, since the population of people who go on a cruise are almost certainly richer, and healthier, and more active than the general population.

At any rate, that article was in fact interesting. I'll spend more time reading it later. Thanks for not posting more Federalist garbage.
 

You've obviously never been on a cruise. That population is richer, but also older (often much older) and not really active compared to the general population.
 
JasperL said:
He didn't exactly take the UK study apart . . .
Click to expand...

Really?

. . . The results of the foregoing analysis are set out in Table 1. The key finding is that the estimated tCFRs for Diamond Princess 60+ age groups, which must if anything overestimate their IFRs, are far lower than the corresponding IFR estimates used by Ferguson et al. in the study adopted by the UK government.[12] Those age groups account for the vast bulk of projected deaths. For people aged 60–69, the Ferguson et al IFR estimate is 19.4 times as high as the best tCFR estimate based on Diamond Princess data, for the 70–79 age group it is 8.3 times as high, and for the 80+ age group it is 2.1 times as high. . . .
 

Nope. They had no trouble letting the worst case run in public discourse, until they feared embarrassment.
 
Jack Hays said:
You've obviously never been on a cruise. That population is richer, but also older (often much older) and not really active compared to the general population.
Click to expand...

First of all, you made a claim about the study - that it failed and the 30 person team exited that model. Tell me what part of the model failed, and how did they exit their previous model? Thanks!

And I've been on several cruises. Older isn't relevant to any question related to the sample, and sick people don't typically go on cruises, and wealthier are generally healthier and have had a lifetime of better medical care to control the chronic problems they do have than the general population. It seems pretty suspect to me to assume that the cruise ship population is a good proxy for the general population. I didn't read the study in detail, so maybe he addresses that concern. Can you point out how he did? Thanks.

But the bottom line is there's an academic difference of opinion. The UK team of 30 researchers decided to base their model on a different population than the guy you cited. Which one is correct? We don't know that at this time, and you certainly cannot make a compelling argument that the UK team is wrong, unless you're basing that on the actual population of sick people in the UK and/or U.S. That's when we'll know who was correct - when there is enough data on the U.S./UK CV19 population to see what happened. The reason both teams have to use proxies is because the actually relevant data aren't available yet, and they are guessing, as they must.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. They had no trouble letting the worst case run in public discourse, until they feared embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Great, so you can quote them then? We can all read the study - I linked to it - and no one who reads it comes away with a belief that 2.2 million was the actually predicted number of deaths in the U.S. It was a benchmark. I've still not seen any evidence they abandoned any part of that model. What the legit news stories indicate is they added test and trace to it, and increased the R0 to 3.0 or so, and with those new facts produced a new model. What part of their original work (versus dishonest hacks misrepresenting their work) would prove embarrassing today?

I'll wait for your explanation!

FWIW, the only people I saw making the 2.2 million dead claim were right wing hacks and idiots and ignoramuses. I addressed those claims on here weeks ago.

But feel free to back up your claim above however you want. I'm sure you will fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…