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

[maxparrish]

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.

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

Oh please. I'm not interested in the mining for a unnoted loophole for an over-hyped study once touted as the new oracle of Delphi. Rather, I am interested in how the selling of panic changes rather suddenly from the same team that, 9 days ago, was being quoted as proof as mad max redux.

The Imperial College Covid-19 response team – which has been advising ministers – said that even with the ‘social distancing’ plans set out by the Government, the health system will be ‘overwhelmed many times over’. In its latest report, it said the only ‘viable strategy’ was a Chinese-style policy of ‘suppression’ involving the social distancing of the entire population. It said such measures would need to be maintained potentially for 18 months or more until an effective vaccine became available. The stark warning came after Boris Johnson on Monday unveiled unprecedented peacetime measures to try to control the spread of Covid-19.

...

‘In the most effective mitigation strategy examined, which leads to a single, relatively short epidemic (case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly), the surge limits for both general ward and ICU (intensive care unit) beds would be exceeded by at least eight-fold under the more optimistic scenario for critical care requirements that we examined,’ it said. Military planners examining '10 more sites' for makeshift coronavirus hospitals‘In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1 to 1.2 million in the US.’

Now I'm not going to sort out how one might find a lawyerly loophole for changing their change of tune, nor claim they misrepresented their own study. But clearly going from the best of mitigation still being overwhelmed 8 times over with 250K deaths, and needing 18 months of lockdown to nine days later assuring the public of only 20,000 deaths or lower and having sufficient ICU space WHILE acknowledging such their long-term lock downs were economically impossible doesn't pass a cursory smell test...it reeks.

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:

So 9 days ago they couldn't imagine that in several weeks more test kits would be available or that contact tracing could, sooner or later, be an option...but NOW they have forecast the future and know plenty of test kits will be available in a couple of weeks?

As "forecasters" either they were too incompetent to know and present all the facts, or they intentionally pulled off public manipulation by overselling doom.

Facts didn't change, only the manipulative bull**** did.

 

[RAMOSS]

Scientist Whose Model Predicted Doomsday Backtracks
Madeline Osburn, Federalist

Coronavirus Pandemic: Neil Ferguson Didn't Walk Back His COVID-19 Predictions | National Review

 

[Visbek]

sigh

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

Read Lewis. You'll see.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

The point is that the UK team did nothing to tamp down the worst case fervor until it became patently ridiculous.

 

[Jack Hays]

Coronavirus Pandemic: Neil Ferguson Didn't Walk Back His COVID-19 Predictions | National Review

They were happy to let the worst case numbers dominate public discussion until it became clear they were going to be embarrassed.

 

[RAMOSS]

They were happy to let the worst case numbers dominate public discussion until it became clear they were going to be embarrassed.

What a very odd claim. Can you show that it's more than mere rhetoric? When did you start reading minds

 

[JasperL]

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. . . .

Yes, really. Which researchers are correct? If you can tell me, and it's obvious the UK team was wrong, make your case based on this study. What I see is they have a difference of opinion, and it's completely unknown which estimates will prove more accurate for the UK and US.

If you have a different view, explain.

 

[Jack Hays]

What a very odd claim. Can you show that it's more than mere rhetoric? When did you start reading minds

Why do you suppose Ferguson's latest testimony caused such surprise?

 

[JasperL]

What a very odd claim. Can you show that it's more than mere rhetoric? When did you start reading minds

Here's my guess to your question - NO!! :2rofll:

He's doing his duty repeating the right wing talking point o' the day. It's hilarious to watch it spread from thread to thread today.

 

[Atomic Kid]

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!

Ferguson's original model was a "worse case" scenario. One absent of any voluntary social distancing or governmental intervention and mitigation policies being implemented. He has likely reduced that number due to the voluntary social distancing efforts being made in the UK. Probably without having figured in governmental lockdowns yet since those just occurred a few days ago. His revision doesn't mean that US and Britain shouldn't have taken the measures they did. Those measures I assume have improved his outlook to being more optimistic. But there is still a long way to go yet.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, really. Which researchers are correct? If you can tell me, and it's obvious the UK team was wrong, make your case based on this study. What I see is they have a difference of opinion, and it's completely unknown which estimates will prove more accurate for the UK and US.

If you have a different view, explain.

Read Lewis.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's my guess to your question - NO!! :2rofll:

He's doing his duty repeating the right wing talking point o' the day. It's hilarious to watch it spread from thread to thread today.

There's nothing right wing about it.

 

[JasperL]

Why do you suppose Ferguson's latest testimony caused such surprise?

Who was surprised? Quote them being surprised if you want.

What I've seen is right wing hacks who took the initial model out of context are acting faux surprised that projections he never made (2.2 million in the U.S., and 500K+ in the UK) weren't backed up by his testimony yesterday. The model predicted a range of deaths with a full suite of mitigation measures of, as I pointed out, 5k-46k deaths, depending on R0 and the 'triggers.' This one is at 20k or less. Hardly seems shocking to anyone who, you know, actually read the study versus dishonestly and hackishly misrepresented what it actually projected.

 

[RAMOSS]

Why do you suppose Ferguson's latest testimony caused such surprise?

It does not seem you actually read and understood it yourself. , nor understood the original modeling.

 

[charliebrown]

I will gladly stay in for awhile longer and see how the trends go. You may not die from this virus, but if you have even in your life lived thru a stay in an ICU unit. you will absolutely tread carefully for the next month or two.

Even if I go out, I will be covered and definitely following the open carry laws (for clorox wipes)

 

[JasperL]

Read Lewis.

No! :roll:

I'm not your research assistant, and won't read that study to hopefully back up YOUR claim. Mine is simple - he might be correct, or the UK team might be closer - we'll see in a year or so.

If you believe he's obviously correct and have read the study, surely you can summarize the salient points for us. My guess is you didn't bother reading either, and have no idea. I know you didn't read the UK study, or if you did are dishonestly summarizing it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

sigh

View attachment 67276478

View attachment 67276479

View attachment 67276480

View attachment 67276481

Yeah and the kid who got arrested in North Korea was genuinely sorry to dear leader I am sure.

It’s like climate scientists, whenever they’re caught fudging numbers (like the emails 10 years ago) they come up with a reason.

The truth is, he helped create a death estimate that was patently absurd and now it’s been revised down and that comes at the same time oxford has a paper showing a model that indicates many more people have been infected, Dr Birx went on and said the media is reporting to scare people, so really what we have are the public health dictatorship wanting to change their numbers but also say they were still right.

 

[Jack Hays]

No! :roll:

I'm not your research assistant, and won't read that study to hopefully back up YOUR claim. Mine is simple - he might be correct, or the UK team might be closer - we'll see in a year or so.

If you believe he's obviously correct and have read the study, surely you can summarize the salient points for us. My guess is you didn't bother reading either, and have no idea. I know you didn't read the UK study, or if you did are dishonestly summarizing it.

Small bites from Lewis:

The Ferguson et al. study used estimates of the IFR[2] from another paper from the same team, Verity et al. (2020)[3], which had been published a few days earlier on 13 March. Very helpfully, Verity et al., unlike Ferguson et al., published the computer code and data that they used.
The Verity et al. CFR estimates were derived primarily from Chinese data, which reflected non-random testing. The authors obtained age-stratified IFR estimates (in reality, tCFR estimates) by adjusting their CFR estimates using infection prevalence data for expatriates evacuated from Wuhan, all of whom were tested for COVID-19 infection. This approach involves very large uncertainties.
An alternative approach to estimating the tCFR, as a proxy for the IFR, is to use data from a large sample of people, all of whom were tested for the presence of the virus without regard to whether they showed any symptoms, with all who tested positive subsequently being isolated and the case outcome recorded. I use that approach. While the sample of expatriates evacuated from Wuhan is too small for this purpose,[4] occupants of the Diamond Princess cruise ship do provide a suitable such sample.[5] Moreover, the Diamond Princess sample has the advantage that it consists mainly of people from high income countries, and those requiring hospitalisation were treated in such countries.
The Diamond Princess sample may well represent the best available evidence regarding tCFR for older age groups, who are most at risk. Verity et al (2020) did analyse data from the Diamond Princess, but did not use sCFR or tCFR estimates from them for their main CFR and IFR estimates.[6]

 

[Atomic Kid]

No! :roll:

I'm not your research assistant, and won't read that study to hopefully back up YOUR claim. Mine is simple - he might be correct, or the UK team might be closer - we'll see in a year or so.

If you believe he's obviously correct and have read the study, surely you can summarize the salient points for us. My guess is you didn't bother reading either, and have no idea. I know you didn't read the UK study, or if you did are dishonestly summarizing it.

Don't waste your time with Lewis. Or all the rest of the BS he's postulating.

 

[JasperL]

Ferguson's original model was a "worse case" scenario. One absent of any voluntary social distancing or governmental intervention and mitigation policies being implemented. He has likely reduced that number due to the voluntary social distancing efforts being made in the UK. Probably without having figured in governmental lockdowns yet since those just occurred a few days ago. His revision doesn't mean that US and Britain shouldn't have taken the measures they did. Those measures I assume have improved his outlook to being more optimistic. But there is still a long way to go yet.

He almost definitely considered the new lockdown measures, and we know that because the only decent article about his testimony says he also accounts for test and trace efforts that will not be possible in earnest in the UK for "several weeks."

 

[Visbek]

It’s like climate scientists, whenever they’re caught fudging numbers (like the emails 10 years ago) they come up with a reason.

:roll:

No, dude. Nothing changed. Nothing was revised. Stop twisting his work. Stop spreading misinformation.

 

[JasperL]

Small bites from Lewis:

The Ferguson et al. study used estimates of the IFR[2] from another paper from the same team, Verity et al. (2020)[3], which had been published a few days earlier on 13 March. Very helpfully, Verity et al., unlike Ferguson et al., published the computer code and data that they used.
The Verity et al. CFR estimates were derived primarily from Chinese data, which reflected non-random testing. The authors obtained age-stratified IFR estimates (in reality, tCFR estimates) by adjusting their CFR estimates using infection prevalence data for expatriates evacuated from Wuhan, all of whom were tested for COVID-19 infection. This approach involves very large uncertainties.
An alternative approach to estimating the tCFR, as a proxy for the IFR, is to use data from a large sample of people, all of whom were tested for the presence of the virus without regard to whether they showed any symptoms, with all who tested positive subsequently being isolated and the case outcome recorded. I use that approach. While the sample of expatriates evacuated from Wuhan is too small for this purpose,[4] occupants of the Diamond Princess cruise ship do provide a suitable such sample.[5] Moreover, the Diamond Princess sample has the advantage that it consists mainly of people from high income countries, and those requiring hospitalisation were treated in such countries.
The Diamond Princess sample may well represent the best available evidence regarding tCFR for older age groups, who are most at risk. Verity et al (2020) did analyse data from the Diamond Princess, but did not use sCFR or tCFR estimates from them for their main CFR and IFR estimates.[6]

It's as I said - the UK team and Lewis have a difference of opinion about which sample provides the most useful estimates of CFR for COVID 19 for the UK and US - what our countries can expect. In effect, they're deciding which proxies for the population in question to use to predict the mortality and hospitalization rates in the UK and US. Neither one is obviously correct, or obviously incorrect. They are both guessing. The only way to show which team is correct is to use actual results from the UK and/or US, and those data simply are not available at this time or Lewis would have cited and used those data.

You seem to think that because Lewis comes to a different conclusion, you can simply cite his work, and say, SEE THE UK TEAM WAS WRONG!!! That's not how it works, Jack. No one is impressed by that.

 

[iguanaman]

They were happy to let the worst case numbers dominate public discussion until it became clear they were going to be embarrassed.

Well it sure got Trump off his ass and Boris too. You forget that the worst case scenario represented how it looked when it was reported. No one is embarrassed when millions of lives are saved.

 

[JasperL]

Yeah and the kid who got arrested in North Korea was genuinely sorry to dear leader I am sure.

It’s like climate scientists, whenever they’re caught fudging numbers (like the emails 10 years ago) they come up with a reason.

The truth is, he helped create a death estimate that was patently absurd and now it’s been revised down and that comes at the same time oxford has a paper showing a model that indicates many more people have been infected, Dr Birx went on and said the media is reporting to scare people, so really what we have are the public health dictatorship wanting to change their numbers but also say they were still right.

Sorry, but you either didn't read the study and are ignorant about what it actually claimed, or are lying. It's one of the two. :shrug: