Great Data Tool from U Dub

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

This report actually shows the ihme model isn't terrible and discusses many complexities of trying to model this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/22/upshot/coronavirus-models.html

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Tsmith has a non-existent sense of humor.   He's like a kindergartner, who needs explaines to him in simple words.

We all have our flaws I guess. I'm glad my isn't being a hypocritical douche.

[forgetful]

This report actually shows the ihme model isn't terrible and discusses many complexities of trying to model this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/22/upshot/coronavirus-models.html

I'm pretty well versed in understanding the complexities in models, and am usually defending modelers because of these complexities.

For this model, I initially had minor concerns, where they were miscalculating the peak of their own data. This was almost assuredly a coding error that resulted from an incorrect assumption in rushing out a tool. But they never went back and corrected it. That is an issue.

Then, they have yet to publish the actual methodology. Another red flag.

Now, they are publishing data that is physically impossible. I know where this error is coming from, but not addressing it, is simply poor practice, and borderline unethical.

The last straw for me is that their published data now, violates what little we know about the methodology. The core methodology is that they refit the data using trends in other nations. All other nations are showing that there is a long tail after the peak, so the curve looks more like a stretched exponential than a gaussian.

Their fits do not follow the known stretched exponential character from other countries data. So either they are not doing what they claim, or they are doing it very poorly.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

This coronavirus model keeps being wrong. Why are we still listening to it?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronavirus-modeling-us-deaths-ihme-pandemic

"On Wednesday, the US death count passed the 60,000 mark that the IHME model had said was the likely total cumulative death toll. The IHME on April 29 released a new update raising its estimates for total deaths to 72,433, but that, too, looks likely to be proved an underestimate as soon as next week. Even its upper bound on deaths — now listed as 114,228 by August — is questionable, as some other models expect the US will hit that milestone by the end of May, and most project it will in June.

<snip>

"But as the weeks have passed, it has become clear that the IHME's projections have been too optimistic, and slow to adjust to reflect the fact that deaths have plateaued rather than rapidly decreasing to zero. The IHME has been regularly updating its model as new data comes in, but the updates have often been slow enough that the numbers are absurd by the time they're changed in an update. For example, in late April the model still stated the expected total death toll was 60,000, even as the US was clearly only a few days from that milestone."

[Jockey]

When a model like this releases a possible range of deaths and the low end number is passed on the day it is released, there are serious issues with the model - enough to render the model meaningless.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The model here takes into consideration individual state openings. Currently projection is for 161K deaths by August. Can anyone critique this?

https://covid19-projections.com/?fbclid=IwAR2HrpFdipbeNTjk55rYHFYxOkXjTB96Nkc7nhhQrqKvn483zNzRiyuEW1Y

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Well it would tie to the 100K body bags that FEMA bought last week.

[GooooMarquette]

The model here takes into consideration individual state openings. Currently projection is for 161K deaths by August. Can anyone critique this?

https://covid19-projections.com/?fbclid=IwAR2HrpFdipbeNTjk55rYHFYxOkXjTB96Nkc7nhhQrqKvn483zNzRiyuEW1Y

I can't expertly analyze the stats...but common sense tells me 161k will be a heck of a lot closer than the 72,433 currently predicted by IHME. We are already at almost 69k and increasing by over 1k/day. And with the reopening taking place that 1k/day will almost certainly increase.

So 69k + (1k/day x 90 days) = 159k deaths. Pretty darn close to 161k.

But since the actual number of daily deaths has been more than 1k/day (between 1,100 - 1,600 lately), and since the numbers will likely increase as we reopen more, I suspect even that 161k might be conservative...unless states shut back down very quickly.

[cheebs09]

I've seen some posts/tweets showing the CDC cut their death count down to 37K and people are using that to say this isn't that bad.

Looking closer at the numbers, I think that's only due to the lag in data by a week. Anyone else see this?

[rocky_warrior]

I've seen some posts/tweets showing the CDC cut their death count down to 37K and people are using that to say this isn't that bad.

Looking closer at the numbers, I think that's only due to the lag in data by a week. Anyone else see this?

Huh?  They're showing 67k currently
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

[tower912]

Cheebs, I question the sources of your posters/tweeters.     

[rocky_warrior]

You'll also note the CDC is no longer using the IHME model for their forecasts.  You can still find it in their "Previous Forecasts" section.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html

[GooooMarquette]

You'll also note the CDC is no longer using the IHME model for their forecasts.  You can still find it in their "Previous Forecasts" section.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html

Probably a good call, given that we will pass their August 4 forecasted deaths in a day or two...

[forgetful]

Probably a good call, given that we will pass their August 4 forecasted deaths in a day or two...

They updated it again. Got rid of the stupid assumption of a perfect bell curve, now using a stretched exponential. Predicting deaths to be 134k.

[GooooMarquette]

They updated it again. Got rid of the stupid assumption of a perfect bell curve, now using a stretched exponential. Predicting deaths to be 134k.

They're beginning to look like meteorologists who "predict" it's going to rain after it starts to rain.

[cheebs09]

Cheebs, I question the sources of your posters/tweeters.   

I agree. Reading the fine print it looks like the data is based on death certificates which take some time. So it's not as up to date. However, a few people I follow and a quick Twitter search shows people are taking and running with it.

This is why I don't rely on sports journalists for my Covid takes.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

[withoutbias]

Keefe has gone radio silent. Why isn't he around to tell anyone who dares question his friends that they're morons and the experts know their chit?

[rocky_warrior]

They updated it again. Got rid of the stupid assumption of a perfect bell curve, now using a stretched exponential. Predicting deaths to be 134k.

Good to see.  I've never questioned that they *want* the model to be as accurate as possible.  It's just...they haven't succeeded to date.

[Hards Alumni]

Keefe has gone radio silent. Why isn't he around to tell anyone who dares question his friends that they're morons and the experts know their chit?

No need to point out the obvious, aina?

[Jockey]

Keefe has gone radio silent. Why isn't he around to tell anyone who dares question his friends that they're morons and the experts know their chit?

We're just too stupid to understand the complicated nature of the model.

[WarriorDad]

We all have our flaws I guess. I'm glad my isn't being a hypocritical douche.

Potting and kettling