Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

[sparcboxbuck]

Not for an epidemiologist. This branch of science exists for reasons, one of which being it's more reliable than message board opinions of people who haven't studied it.

They are not infallible. So far some of the "top" scientists have been so far off with their predictions I would be embarrassed if I were them. And they factored in "social distancing" etc.

Without question a number of the forecasts have been incredibly inaccurate. I think the lack of knowns about core parameters that feed the models are clearly evident by the lack of forecasting accuracy. I don't know that I'd say that the models are bad, but given sources of data and quantity of data, the models reflect(ed) the best information available at the time. I certainly do not begrudge the epideologist community for the variation and accuracy in their forecasts -- at least in the earliest stages.

That said, I also think that there are other ways that the forecasts could have been shared with the public that would have gone a long way to increase confidence in their message. There have been a few good examples of this too, so not pointing fingers at everyone. Specifically, when modeling situations where there are significant questions about the reliability of the data, it's not uncommon to run simulations where the inputs are varied such that they cover the best guesses as opposed to the single best guess. From this, confidence bands can be assigned around the single point projections. That view simultaneously provides a best / worst case scenario look as well as the single best guess of the forecasted metric.

The problem is that the public has been given point estimates from these forecasts that have a near zero chance of being correct (think: area under the curve for an infinitely small domain ->0) whereas a much better representation of the forecasts may have been confidence bands around the point estimates such that it reflected a range of probabilistic outcomes... say .5, .75 and .95. Had the public been presented ranges, which frankly I think what the epidemiologists and others who are contributing to decisions being made are using, the public would have much greater confidence in the information being shared.

Thinking back to one of the now more, almost laughable, forecasts... the initial projections in Ohio. They picked a point estimate that was wildly wrong and even on the surface at the time, it did not pass the red-faced test. Think of how that information would have been consumed if they offered an expected range based on what they knew at the time.

That said, my guess is that the 'worst case scenario' may have been intentionally selected to get everyone's attention and to drive urgency. If that's the case, it was a matter of lies, damn lies and statistics.

Either way, here we are... and the choices in terms of how things were communicated -- either intentionally or because it was assumed that the public knew the forecasts are rough estimates -- many people have lost trust in what is likely good information... and as we go deeper into this mess, the information gets better each day while confidence does not recover.

 

[jwinslow]

Without question a number of the forecasts have been incredibly inaccurate. I think the lack of knowns about core parameters that feed the models are clearly evident by the lack of forecasting accuracy. I don't know that I'd say that the models are bad, but given sources of data and quantity of data, the models reflect(ed) the best information available at the time. I certainly do not begrudge the epideologist community for the variation and accuracy in their forecasts -- at least in the earliest stages.

That said, I also think that there are other ways that the forecasts could have been shared with the public that would have gone a long way to increase confidence in their message. There have been a few good examples of this too, so not pointing fingers at everyone. Specifically, when modeling situations where there are significant questions about the reliability of the data, it's not uncommon to run simulations where the inputs are varied such that they cover the best guesses as opposed to the single best guess. From this, confidence bands can be assigned around the single point projections. That view simultaneously provides a best / worst case scenario look as well as the single best guess of the forecasted metric.

I think that second paragraph is assigning far too much kindness and grace to the general public. One of the prominent models was wrongly mocked a few weeks back. The internet/twitter roasted the guy that had 3 models, because the "do nothing" model was way higher than what ended up happening. Except what happened wasn't far off from his suppression model, but facts aren't as important as teams.

The problem is that the public has been given point estimates from these forecasts that have a near zero chance of being correct (think: area under the curve for an infinitely small domain ->0) whereas a much better representation of the forecasts may have been confidence bands around the point estimates such that it reflected a range of probabilistic outcomes... say .5, .75 and .95. Had the public been presented ranges, which frankly I think what the epidemiologists and others who are contributing to decisions being made are using, the public would have much greater confidence in the information being shared.

Thinking back to one of the now more, almost laughable, forecasts... the initial projections in Ohio. They picked a point estimate that was wildly wrong and even on the surface at the time, it did not pass the red-faced test. Think of how that information would have been consumed if they offered an expected range based on what they knew at the time.

I think the real problem here is the bolded part. Not the overselling of the data points they have, but the reality that we're creating models for something we don't understand.

That said, my guess is that the 'worst case scenario' may have been intentionally selected to get everyone's attention and to drive urgency. If that's the case, it was a matter of lies, damn lies and statistics.

Either way, here we are... and the choices in terms of how things were communicated -- either intentionally or because it was assumed that the public knew the forecasts are rough estimates -- many people have lost trust in what is likely good information... and as we go deeper into this mess, the information gets better each day while confidence does not recover.

I think there's a very large contingent that mocked this thing for 2 months, took it seriously for about 2-10 days, and have gone right back into the mockery camp. I don't mean those who think this is overreaching, or that the curebandaid is as poisonous as the disease. I mean those who felt it was sleight of hand if not outright conspiracy, and are right back in that camp now, and partisan nouns are also found too often in there.

 

[AKAK]

How fast you guys think we can spin up a chain of drive in movie theaters?

 

[Bucklion]

Ohio to begin reopening May 1...no specifics, nothing about schools, businesses are expected to require distance and masks

 

[Best Buckeye]

Ohio to begin reopening May 1...no specifics, nothing about schools, businesses are expected to require distance and masks

Dewine says it won't be an "all on" moment but a step by step opening.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Ohio to begin reopening May 1...no specifics, nothing about schools, businesses are expected to require distance and masks

Also....

LET'S LAUGH
SEEN ONE, SEEN THEM ALL
If you're like most folks stuck at home, you've probably been watching quite a bit more TV than usual. That means you've also been watching a lot more commercials than usual, and have probably noticed that brands are... uncreative at best when it comes to advertising amidst this crisis.

And by "uncreative" I really mean that every commercial is pretty much a copy/paste job.



The television ads are extremely bad, but the emails are worse. I don't need a message from everyone I've ever done business with hitting my inbox. I'm glad you're being cautious, Donatos, but please lose my email address.

They can lose mine too.....

 

[Jake]

Pretty cool map.

COVID-19 Map by County and State

 

[sparcboxbuck]

I think that second paragraph is assigning far too much kindness and grace to the general public. One of the prominent models was wrongly mocked a few weeks back. The internet/twitter roasted the guy that had 3 models, because the "do nothing" model was way higher than what ended up happening. Except what happened wasn't far off from his suppression model, but facts aren't as important as teams.

Well, I can’t win for losing. Yesterday I was chastised for being the smartest person on the inter webs, and today I’ve given too much credit to the general public.

I do think that it’s a fair point, to an extent. Yes, completely fair that I may have given too much credit... but at the same time, if I did give too much credit, it only goes to underscore the importance of how the information is being conveyed. No? And that’s a concern.

Personally, I don’t know how much of what we’re seeing in terms of (mis)interpretation of information is a matter of ignorance or negligence. That is to say, I do think you’re right that a lot of the general public is not informed well enough to comprehend what they are bing fed but I also suspect that there’s some intentional cherry picking of pieces of information to form a narrative that generates clicks. I’m far more tolerant of the former and exceptionally disappointed by the later. The later is trusted by the former... and to be sure, that crosses both red and blue lines.

Tail wag dog.

I think the real problem here is the bolded part. Not the overselling of the data points they have, but the reality that we're creating models for something we don't understand.

This could be mincing words, and if so, apologies. I don’t know that I completely agree with ‘something we don’t understand.’ The epidemic models of the spread of a contagion are pretty solid and well understood. What we don’t understand, or didn’t understand... or in my words... didn’t have good estimates for were a number of the inputs for the models. I’m not an epidemiologist, by my background is mathematical modeling, so I can only speak from what I’m observing. In a nutshell, the epidemiologists aren’t necessarily building a new mathematical model... they are feeding tried and true model(s) different inputs based on assumptions / best information at the time. Things like contractibility, duration, severity, durations, population counts / density, mortality rates, detectability, etc. Those inputs are used to estimate number of body bags needed. Again, from what I’m seeing, the models are adequate... but the inputs are bad because we don’t understand enough or were using faulty inputs based on information coming from questionable sources. Sources could be questionable because they didn’t have a handle on the stats yet as well or it could be more nefarious... neither the time or place to discuss.

I think there's a very large contingent that mocked this thing for 2 months, took it seriously for about 2-10 days, and have gone right back into the mockery camp. I don't mean those who think this is overreaching, or that the curebandaid is as poisonous as the disease. I mean those who felt it was sleight of hand if not outright conspiracy, and are right back in that camp now, and partisan nouns are also found too often in there.

That’s not an observation I’ve made. You could be right. I do think that a very large number of people were far less concerned early on. Just look at the first page of this thread for evidence, right? I could easily be included in that number as I took a personal flight from Chicago to Memphis on March 13 to pick up a new car... so I clearly didn’t take it as seriously mid-March as I do sitting here mid-April.

What I do see, however, are a number of people question the relative cost / benefit of cure and disease, but you’ve addressed that.

Perhaps it is available in media I don’t personally consume. I’ve largely given up on any ‘news’ that comes from a TV and when I read it’s with a pretty skeptical lens because, as you point out, partisan tails wagging dogs. And if that’s what you mean by those who consider this an outright conspiracy — not really taking anything that we’re being told at face value — then I guess I’m not seeing it because... well... I guess I’m it then. But I have an excuse, I have questioned the motives of pretty much any media long before COVID-19.

I wish you health.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

Pretty cool map.

COVID-19 Map by County and State

My team has built almost that exact map of the county level data to be used in business impact / planning and scenario development tools for our clients. We included a time series heat map view with daily updates and forecasts of new cases to be overlaid in planning solutions. Pretty cool stuff.

Yay Henry County OHIO... one confirmed case!

 

[Jake]

He's not wrong.

 

[jwinslow]

Well, I can’t win for losing. Yesterday I was chastised for being the smartest person on the inter webs, and today I’ve given too much credit to the general public.

Then we're doing it right.

This could be mincing words, and if so, apologies. I don’t know that I completely agree with ‘something we don’t understand.’ The epidemic models of the spread of a contagion are pretty solid and well understood. What we don’t understand, or didn’t understand... or in my words... didn’t have good estimates for were a number of the inputs for the models.

We still don't know precisely how it spreads. How long it lives on surfaces. How airborne it is. We knew less back when these models were being formed.

I’m not an epidemiologist, by my background is mathematical modeling, so I can only speak from what I’m observing. In a nutshell, the epidemiologists aren’t necessarily building a new mathematical model... they are feeding tried and true model(s) different inputs based on assumptions / best information at the time. Things like contractibility, duration, severity, durations, population counts / density, mortality rates, detectability, etc. Those inputs are used to estimate number of body bags needed. Again, from what I’m seeing, the models are adequate... but the inputs are bad because we don’t understand enough or were using faulty inputs based on information coming from questionable sources. Sources could be questionable because they didn’t have a handle on the stats yet as well or it could be more nefarious... neither the time or place to discuss.

That’s not an observation I’ve made. You could be right. I do think that a very large number of people were far less concerned early on. Just look at the first page of this thread for evidence, right? I could easily be included in that number as I took a personal flight from Chicago to Memphis on March 13 to pick up a new car... so I clearly didn’t take it as seriously mid-March as I do sitting here mid-April.

None of us took it that seriously early on, at least compared to where we are now. I was speaking about the extreme deniers.

What I do see, however, are a number of people question the relative cost / benefit of cure and disease, but you’ve addressed that.

Perhaps it is available in media I don’t personally consume. I’ve largely given up on any ‘news’ that comes from a TV and when I read it’s with a pretty skeptical lens because, as you point out, partisan tails wagging dogs. And if that’s what you mean by those who consider this an outright conspiracy — not really taking anything that we’re being told at face value — then I guess I’m not seeing it because... well... I guess I’m it then. But I have an excuse, I have questioned the motives of pretty much any media long before COVID-19.

I wish you health.

That everyone is colluding and lying about the numbers to justify their decisions, or to steal our freedoms.
That the republicans/democrats want us to stay locked up to keep us from voting.
...or to make this as bad as possible and crater the economy.
...or to make it seem bad so it looks worse than it is so they can do _____.
Or that this is a massive conspiracy brought on by the 5G towers / or china.

Stay unplugged. It's a healthier place.

 

[jwinslow]

https://www.businessinsider.com/fem...Bbykal9jljCLken52QBudzh3zHpbt4wiApEfcfD0pLNmo

In this chaotic effort to obtain supplies, the Trump administration awarded a $55 million contract to Panthera Worldwide LLC, a company with no expertise in the world of medical equipment, for N95 masks, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

Panthera's parent company filed for bankruptcy protection last fall, and one of its owners last year said it'd had no employees since May 2018, The Post reported, citing sworn testimony. It's no longer listed as an LLC in Virginia, where its main office is, after fees went unpaid, the newspaper said.

The Post reported that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was paying Panthera about $5.50 per mask, decidedly more than what the government pays companies with an established background in producing medical supplies such as 3M, which charges about $0.63 per mask.

 

[OHSportsFan]

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Well, we just went over 22 million people who've filed for unemployment, which is the worst in the country's history. But hey, we're possibly saving the lives of a couple thousand 70+ year old folks, so we have that...

 

[Taosman]

I'm not an epidemiologist but I did stay at a hotel that now houses the sick ! It will make a great funeral pyre once the "country is opened up" again. (sarcasm) But Hey! It's just a bunch of old, worthless grandmas and grandpas that will die,right? (more sarcasm)