|
|
U of W models when states can ease social distancing
04-25-2020, 09:51 PM
|
#1
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,003
|
U of W models when states can ease social distancing
When Is It Safe To Ease Social Distancing? Here's What One Model Says For Each State
Quote:
The consensus view is that states shouldn't open up unless they have a robust system to detect and quash new flare-ups by testing to see who is infected, tracing their contacts, and isolating and quarantining as needed.
|
It appears that isn't going to happen, at least not within the next several months. And since that's the case...
Quote:
...one team of disease modelers — from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation or IHME — ...are asking the question: What is the maximum number of new infections that states could handle with their current testing and contact tracing capacity?
IHME's answer: 1 new infection per million people in a given state. They estimate that states with this level of transmission should be able to keep outbreaks from flaring up even after people start mingling again, though the researchers stress that states would still need to limit large gatherings.
IHME's team built a model to forecast when each state will reach that threshold of 1 new infection per million. Their main finding is that very few states are close.
|
The estimated date each state will reach that 1 new infection per million level ranges from May 6 (Hawaii, Montana) to July 19 (North Dakota). A few highlights:
Ohio - May 14
California - May 18
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania - May 22
South Carolina, Texas - June 8
Florida, Kentucky - June 14
Arkansas, Georgia - June 22
__________________
Numbers is hard
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
04-25-2020, 10:50 PM
|
#2
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Thailand countryside, Sisaket province
Posts: 1,331
|
The problem with the U of W model is that they report by state and not by city or region. Hospital resources are not evenly distributed and it matters how the infections are distributed. They have the data. It shouldn't be too hard to break it down to regions that would give a little more usable information. For example, it doesn't matter what medical resources are available in Seattle if there is an outbreak in Spokane
__________________
Happy, Wild, and Free
|
|
|
04-25-2020, 11:06 PM
|
#3
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bernalillo, NM
Posts: 2,717
|
Have you looked at the Los Alamos National Lab model? It is a little different. The drill down for each State is interesting.
COVID-19 Confirmed and Forecasted Case Data
https://covid-19.bsvgateway.org/
It turns out the LANL won last year's CDC flu forecasting contest.
https://www.lanl.gov/discover/news-r...-challenge.php
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" ...Michael O’Neill
"We can cannot compel others to do our will" ....Norman Goldman
"There never is shortage of the gullible to accept the illogical"...Anonymous
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 06:29 AM
|
#4
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,643
|
Quote:
1 new infection per million people in a given state.
|
But, how would you ever know that without testing? I find current case count numbers to be totally meaningless. No-one can even agree what percentage of people have already had an infection, often asymptomatically.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 06:34 AM
|
#5
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,003
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptTom
But, how would you ever know that without testing? I find current case count numbers to be totally meaningless. No-one can even agree what percentage of people have already had an infection, often asymptomatically.
|
As I understand it, the model assumes states continue their current level of testing, however flawed or inadequate that may be.
Quote:
What is the maximum number of new infections that states could handle with their current testing and contact tracing capacity?
|
__________________
Numbers is hard
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 06:37 AM
|
#6
|
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 13,879
|
The testing is showing an uptick the past few days at the national level. So, yes, continued increase on that would help.
But I agree the state level thing... I mean Florida feels like 2 or 3 different states on a non-covid day anyway. Fortunately, at least here, a lot of decisions are being made at the county and city level.
Boca Raton closed the city beaches a week before Palm Beach county closed the other few. The state followed another week after that at least. I expect similar spacing as we open back up.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 06:52 AM
|
#7
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,544
|
These models have been so spectacularly wrong, not sure how much confidence we should have in any conclusions suggested.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:02 AM
|
#8
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 17,169
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montecfo
These models have been so spectacularly wrong, not sure how much confidence we should have in any conclusions suggested.
|
I don't think it's the models being wrong but rather people don't understand their many limitations thus they are misused and misrepresented.
Models are a great starting point when tackling new problems. They are far better than just guessing and making random assumptions. They focus the experts. OTOH, models for predicting weather, a very old problem, have proven to be very accurate. I know because I vary rarely hear jokes about the weatherman these days. He/She is just to good!
__________________
Comparison is the thief of joy
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:14 AM
|
#9
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,544
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut
I don't think it's the models being wrong but rather people don't understand their many limitations thus they are misused and misrepresented.
Models are a great starting point when tackling new problems. They are far better than just guessing and making random assumptions. They focus the experts. OTOH, models for predicting weather, a very old problem, have proven to be very accurate. I know because I vary rarely hear jokes about the weatherman these days. He/She is just to good!
|
Oh I am a fan of modelling in general. Coronavirus modeling seems to have been worse than a guess when they are so far off.
Models can suggest precision, but that can be an illusion, as we have seen.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:38 AM
|
#10
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,432
|
The problem isn't so much the models as the way in which their results have been presented and interpreted to the public by various talking heads. The model may say x fatalities +- y under certain assumptions. Then health care professionals and the politicians that listen to them warn the public using the possible number x+y while others trying to justify a more lax approach may talk of x-y. Meanwhile nobody talks about the assumptions going into the model.
Just eyeballing things right now as we zero in on 55-60,000 fatalities in the US by the end of April it seems that 60,000 - 240,000 eventual fatality estimate from a few weeks back doesn't seem that far off (within the error bar as we used to say in the research biz). More recent models have tightened up those error bounds as more and better data is available, but that doesn't mean the earlier models were intrinsically flawed, simply that they had limited information and very broad error bounds as a result.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:46 AM
|
#11
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,951
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyp
The problem with the U of W model is that they report by state and not by city or region. Hospital resources are not evenly distributed and it matters how the infections are distributed. They have the data. It shouldn't be too hard to break it down to regions that would give a little more usable information. For example, it doesn't matter what medical resources are available in Seattle if there is an outbreak in Spokane
|
Our state has two issues right now, nursing homes infections and issues with a couple of meat packing plants...so do you lock everyone down until both these problems are fixed or adapt and had different rules for different things.
For example what exacting do they mean when they say "social distancing" relaxing, just too many uncertainties.
Half the time I feel like these institutions want their ten minutes of fame.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:47 AM
|
#12
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,951
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepford
The problem isn't so much the models as the way in which their results have been presented and interpreted to the public by various talking heads. The model may say x fatalities +- y under certain assumptions. Then health care professionals and the politicians that listen to them warn the public using the possible number x+y while others trying to justify a more lax approach may talk of x-y. Meanwhile nobody talks about the assumptions going into the model.
Just eyeballing things right now as we zero in on 55-60,000 fatalities in the US by the end of April it seems that 60,000 - 240,000 eventual fatality estimate from a few weeks back doesn't seem that far off (within the error bar as we used to say in the research biz). More recent models have tightened up those error bounds as more and better data is available, but that doesn't mean the earlier models were intrinsically flawed, simply that they had limited information and very broad error bounds as a result.
|
It is the models because they all tweak them one way or another and just let the results out to the world.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:48 AM
|
#13
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,331
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montecfo
These models have been so spectacularly wrong, not sure how much confidence we should have in any conclusions suggested.
|
Humankind has never created a model or a method that produces useful forecasts for any complex system. That will be true here, has been true for economic and stock market models, and will be shown to be true for climate forecasting. There is no reason to expect that this situation will be any different.
That said, models can be educational in trying to understand the consequences of tweeking parameters -- sensitivity analysis. But even that assumes that the modeler knows what the input parameters are. Easy example yesterday: Now they are saying that they don't know if people develop immunity after they have the disease.
It's basically the chaos theory problem. The butterfly in India flutters and causes a hurricane in the South Atlantic.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:49 AM
|
#14
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,951
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo
When Is It Safe To Ease Social Distancing? Here's What One Model Says For Each State
It appears that isn't going to happen, at least not within the next several months. And since that's the case...
The estimated date each state will reach that 1 new infection per million level ranges from May 6 (Hawaii, Montana) to July 19 (North Dakota). A few highlights:
Ohio - May 14
California - May 18
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania - May 22
South Carolina, Texas - June 8
Florida, Kentucky - June 14
Arkansas, Georgia - June 22
|
This one new infection for every million is a pipe dream , not going to happen and unrealistic we sure have medical care for more then one in one million.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 10:58 AM
|
#15
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,317
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepford
The problem isn't so much the models as the way in which their results have been presented and interpreted to the public by various talking heads. The model may say x fatalities +- y under certain assumptions. Then health care professionals and the politicians that listen to them warn the public using the possible number x+y while others trying to justify a more lax approach may talk of x-y. Meanwhile nobody talks about the assumptions going into the model.
Just eyeballing things right now as we zero in on 55-60,000 fatalities in the US by the end of April it seems that 60,000 - 240,000 eventual fatality estimate from a few weeks back doesn't seem that far off (within the error bar as we used to say in the research biz). More recent models have tightened up those error bounds as more and better data is available, but that doesn't mean the earlier models were intrinsically flawed, simply that they had limited information and very broad error bounds as a result.
|
I listened to a podcast with a lead scientist at IHME being interviewed by Nate Silver of 538.org. The IHME researcher pointed out that various estimates by other people have been conflated with the IHME estimates confusing the issue. For example they never had 250k in their range. That was someone else’s wag. IHME’s first range was something close to 35k - 135k (I didn’t jot it down but that’s close). They have since narrowed the range as data have come in.
__________________
Idleness is fatal only to the mediocre -- Albert Camus
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 11:04 AM
|
#16
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Coronado
Posts: 3,669
|
The IHME model actually does model some states by area where there is adequate data to do so. They're located in Washington, so that may be the reason they've split their models for that state into several sub-models. They also have regional models for a lot of European countries now.
For those like me, who are interested in what's going into the models, and how those who create them think about their work, I recommended this podcast in another thread a few days ago: https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/h...l-of-covid-19/
Thanks for the pointer to the Los Alamos model.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 03:15 PM
|
#17
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,001
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepford
Just eyeballing things right now as we zero in on 55-60,000 fatalities in the US by the end of April it seems that 60,000 - 240,000 eventual fatality estimate from a few weeks back doesn't seem that far off (within the error bar as we used to say in the research biz). More recent models have tightened up those error bounds as more and better data is available, but that doesn't mean the earlier models were intrinsically flawed, simply that they had limited information and very broad error bounds as a result.
|
We have already crossed 55,000 deaths in the US, and numbers seem to drop over the weekend and then catch back up early in the week. Yep, I expect we’ll cross that 60,000 number by the end of the month.
One model mentioned somewhere was projecting 65K US deaths by early August? Oops.
Quote:
For the record, the current modeling projects 779 total deaths in Washington state due to COVID-19 by Aug. 4, compared with 23,741 deaths in New York and 65,976 deaths in the nation. Johns Hopkins University’s coronavirus tracker currently reports 824,147 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 45,039 deaths in the United States. Over the past few days, the cumulative death toll in North America has been growing by roughly 2,000 daily.
|
IHME model. Article April 21. https://news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-c...021424815.html
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 03:28 PM
|
#18
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,951
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1
We have already crossed 55,000 deaths in the US, and numbers seem to drop over the weekend and then catch back up early in the week. Yep, I expect we’ll cross that 60,000 number by the end of the month.
One model mentioned somewhere was projecting 65K US deaths by early August? Oops.
|
In New York they have said that deaths per day are a lagging indicator and most of the attention is on new cases per day as less cases per day should result in less deaths per day down the road..
In our state they also track number recovered ( either out of hospital or past the 14 day isolation period vs active cases..
I'm not sure anyone anticipated how difficult it would be to keep this out of nursing home and group living situation. Perhaps duee to the number of asymptomatic cases that seem to be around.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 03:33 PM
|
#19
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 40,580
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1
We have already crossed 55,000 deaths in the US, and numbers seem to drop over the weekend and then catch back up early in the week. Yep, I expect we’ll cross that 60,000 number by the end of the month.
One model mentioned somewhere was projecting 65K US deaths by early August? Oops.
IHME model. Article April 21. https://news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-c...021424815.html
|
We’ve probably already crossed that unfortunate threshold, some deaths may have been misclassified, especially early on.
|
|
|
04-26-2020, 03:35 PM
|
#20
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 38,001
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivinsfan
I'm not sure anyone anticipated how difficult it would be to keep this out of nursing home and group living situation. Perhaps due to the number of asymptomatic cases that seem to be around.
|
Yes, I think even the CDC was wishing and hoping that the asymptomatic spread was very minor, despite pretty strong indications otherwise reported from other countries and ships.
Elder care homes are super vulnerable and we don’t have the resources to turn them into isolation prisons detaining employees as well.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|