Great Data Tool from U Dub

[keefe]

Perhaps people can put down their political axe and focus on some genuine empiricism...

http://covid19.healthdata.org/

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

This is pretty cool. 

[keefe]

This is pretty cool.

I know some of the guys who built both the db/visualization tool and did the analytics.

[keefe]

A genuine issue that front line intensivists will have to confront is how to manage the ethical aftershocks of making life and death decisions from having to triage scarce resources during the wave.

While common in natural disasters and combat, those scenarios are focused and short duration. Outbreak-driven shortages of critical resources, especially ventilators, will have greater duration than traditional triage scenarios.

[Hards Alumni]

A genuine issue that front line intensivists will have to confront is how to manage the ethical aftershocks of making life and death decisions from having to triage scarce resources during the wave.

While common in natural disasters and combat, those scenarios are focused and short duration. Outbreak-driven shortages of critical resources, especially ventilators, will have greater duration than traditional triage scenarios.

100%  Our healthcare workers will require an immense amount of psychiatric help by the time this is over.

[keefe]

100%  Our healthcare workers will require an immense amount of psychiatric help by the time this is over.

It is really about the magnitude - the shortfall in ventilators means that intensivists have ratios of dozens to one where they must choose the lucky one while effectively consigning dozens to death.

The impact is far different than rationing of care in traditional triage scenarios.

Fascinating case study for ethicists.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

It is really about the magnitude - the shortfall in ventilators means that intensivists have ratios of dozens to one where they must choose the lucky one while effectively consigning dozens to death.

The impact is far different than rationing of care in traditional triage scenarios.

Fascinating case study for ethicists.

In all cases Keefe.  The country world as a whole is going to emerge from this shell shocked by the random carnage - with our healthcare workers at the top having seen the decisions occur (vs. the outcome).  We are at the beginning of a very long marathon.  I'm really pulling for the scientific minds around the world to blunt this as best as possible. 

[forgetful]

Perhaps people can put down their political axe and focus on some genuine empiricism...

http://covid19.healthdata.org/

I mentioned this in the previous thread, but if you know them, can you get them to fix their data analysis. Some very amateurish mistakes.

The main one being their calculation or ICU beds needed. They calculated them from the wrong peak. They should calculate the number of ICU beds needed from the peak in the ICU beds needed curve. They are not doing so, they are calculating the ICU beds needed from the peak of the all beds needed.

Great visualizations, but such an rookie mistake in data analysis makes one question the accuracy of their models.

[lostpassword]

Great visualizations, but such an rookie mistake in data analysis makes one question the accuracy of their models.

I looked at this yesterday.

In the last 24 hours, the "peak" in WI moved from May 22 to Apr 26.
In the last 24 hours, the "peak" in FL moved from May 14 to May 3.

Either the data or the models or both aren't to be trusted here... or are simply too sensitive to be useful.

[GooooMarquette]

It's a nice tool on the surface, but the basic assumptions aren't all correct. It says that MN has not implemented a shutdown of non-essential services. Not true. This was done last Friday at midnight.

If they correct the mistakes, it might be a very good tool.

[keefe]

Yea, the University of Washington and Fred Hutch are amateurs. Got it.

[Hards Alumni]

Yea, the University of Washington and Fred Hutch are amateurs. Got it.

Snowflake!

[GooooMarquette]

Yea, the University of Washington and Fred Hutch are amateurs. Got it.

Don't think anyone used that word. We have just pointed out mistakes.

The tool is only as good as the data on which it is used, and the methodologies it uses.

[forgetful]

Yea, the University of Washington and Fred Hutch are amateurs. Got it.

There is this thing called peer review. The guys at U-Dub and Fred Hutch are aware of it. They made some mistakes, they are easy to fix, and should want to fix them.

The ones I'm pointing out, look like they were implemented by a graduate student, who is likely newer to this type of data analysis. They probably have a minor coding error based on an incorrect, but reasonable assumption. It would take 5-10 minutes to recode that part of the script.

[wadesworld]

Yea, the University of Washington and Fred Hutch are amateurs. Got it.

Sheesh. A little sensitive there? For someone as alpha as you are, you sure are thin skinned.

You'd think people would want the most complete, accurate data out there. The best response probably would've been, "Maybe he was unaware. Thanks for that.  I'll let my friend know." (Sick name drop there, by the way.)

But that seems to be how this country is run. Instead of taking the information and updating whatever it may be to be correct, we'll just dig our heels in and attack anyone who might suggest further data, questioning how they could ever know more than someone who is obviously smarter than they are.

SAD!

[GooooMarquette]

FWIW - the tool still says non-essential businesses aren't closed in MN, but they have been since Friday.

If you don't want to believe me, look at the map provided by ABCNews.com:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/states-shut-essential-businesses-map/story?id=69770806

The researchers will help their credibility if they correct basic factual errors like this.

[BM1090]

Maybe I'm not fully understanding but they project 0 deaths in Wisconsin after the first couple weeks of June? I'd be shocked if that was even close to being the case. Hope it's accurate, though.

[GooooMarquette]

Maybe I'm not fully understanding but they project 0 deaths in Wisconsin after the first couple weeks of June? I'd be shocked if that was even close to being the case. Hope it's accurate, though.

The only way that might make sense is if they're assuming people stay at home indefinitely. Good luck with that.

[keefe]

Looks like the tool is actually spot on

[withoutbias]

Looks like the tool is actually spot on

...for now. You should know by now that these things change daily. We did miss you when the tool was looking way off though.

[jesmu84]

...for now. You should know by now that these things change daily. We did miss you when the tool was looking way off though.

Lol

[Coleman]

I've been keeping up with this tool for a while... while it is one of the best resources I have found, it is still a little puzzling

Projections have been all over the place for the country, jumping around from 80,000 deaths, to 93,000, down to 60,000. I get that data is updated but it seems to be moving quite a bit very quickly.

Also, there are inaccuracies with Illinois. Death numbers are off. I also have a hard time believing there will be ZERO deaths in Illinois after May 1. Will we be on a downward trajectory by then? Probably. But zero seems unlikely.

[GooooMarquette]

I've been keeping up with this tool for a while... while it is one of the best resources I have found, it is still a little puzzling

Projections have been all over the place for the country, jumping around from 80,000 deaths, to 93,000, down to 60,000. I get that data is updated but it seems to be moving quite a bit very quickly.

Also, there are inaccuracies with Illinois. Death numbers are off.

Agree - the tool and its methodology seem to be strong, but the data input has often lagged. When MN first implemented its stay at home order, it took them several days to change that parameter and adjust projected deaths.

[rocky_warrior]

Well, at this point, the header in the tool also says "COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through May 2020"

THROUGH May!  I mean - at this point, I know most people are hoping to "get back at it" sometime IN May - you know, after the Apr 30 deadline is gone.  But, that's not what the tool is using for it's projections.

Also, I'm amused at the uncertainty bands (not amused at the underlying data they represent...).  I get that's how statistics work - given limited data sets.  But they're um, huge. 

[GooooMarquette]

Well, at this point, the header in the tool also says "COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through May 2020"

THROUGH May!  I mean - at this point, I know most people are hoping to "get back at it" sometime IN May - you know, after the Apr 30 deadline is gone.  But, that's not what the tool is using for it's projections.

Also, I'm amused at the uncertainty bands (not amused at the underlying data they represent...).  I get that's how statistics work - given limited data sets.  But they're um, huge.

Yep. The result of limitations in testing. It's a shame the CDC dropped the ball so badly on test development, and left states and private entities to shoulder that load alone.