↓
 
Home » COVID-19: models and projections

COVID-19: models and projections

The New Neo Posted on by

As a non-scientist non-doctor non-epidemiologist blogger, my present thoughts on COVID-19 are as follows: it will most likely end up taking a worldwide toll something like the 1957 flu, adjusted for increased population of course. Perhaps even more like the 1968 flu, which was less severe but still worse than an “ordinary” flu year, which also takes quite a toll.

At this point I’m thinking that COVID-19 is very contagious but not especially lethal to the vast majority of the people who contract it. But the problem is that even if a disease has a very low case fatality rate it can kill a lot of people if a huge percentage of the population contracts it. The situation is particularly difficult if a lot of people in a certain area contract it in a short amount of time and the hospital system is overwhelmed with the task of treating them.

At the moment, that seems to be something like what epidemiologist Neil Ferguson is saying. He’s one of the people governments have been relying on in order to decide what their response to the virus will be. His initial projections were very dire, but he seems to believe (if I understand his argument correctly) that the current more optimistic projection is justified by the social distancing put in place as well as the growing evidence that the virus is more easily transmitted than previously thought – which means that its case fatality rate is lower (the newspaper reports I’ve seen don’t really make the basis of his revised predictions clear).

With new diseases that seem to have alarming possibilities, governments are in a bind. Who to trust? Scientists differ greatly. Go with the most optimistic suggestions and you can have a terrible calamity. Go with the most dire and overreact, and you can have a different but still terrible calamity. Decisions must be made in real time with extremely insufficient information. The news media brings terrifying reports and pictures of what’s happening in other countries that were first to be hit. Social media amplifies the fear. Is the fear justified or is it not? And will the cure be worse than the disease?

Some things that seem clear: we’ve previously been coasting somewhat without truly taking the threat of a possible large pandemic seriously enough (see also this as well as this) and making sure we have the tools to deal with it effectively and quickly. Speed is of the essence.

Another thing that’s clear is that social media magnifies the fear. Maybe fear isn’t the only thing we have to fear, but it’s one of the things. But even that’s a balance. Fear can motivate people to take sensible precautions. But it can also paralyze them and/or lead to overreactions.

Comments

COVID-19: models and projections — 21 Comments

  1. https://spectator.org/coronavirus-the-price-of-luxury/

    The above link is to an article about what happened in Italy. It really irritates me that the Hollywood types didn’t give a damn about who made their Gucci bags, and now you have Jane Fonda not buying new clothes so she can save the planet. Is it any wonder that normal people don’t trust experts and are more worried about loosing their jobs than about the spread of corona virus. They know that the MSM is just finding those experts they want you to hear and that social media is full of people expressing their hysteria but who don’t know anymore than they do.

  2. I have witnessed the hype and hysteria over the end of the world during my 70+ years. None of the numerous OMG we’re all gonna die predictions has proved to be accurate. Read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear.

  4. I may be paranoid, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get me. But one of my first reactions when first heard of Coronavirus was why media was making such a big deal of just another seasonal flu. And one of my first answers to that was that they (and the Dems, of course) saw this as their next way to get Trump. But Trump decided to take charge of the problem, thereby negating Dem advantage. Now their next step is recession or, better yet, a depression, which they can then somehow with media’s help, try to blame on Trump. In other words, how much of this panic is political?

  5. “The news media brings terrifying reports and pictures of what’s happening in other countries that were first to be hit. Social media amplifies the fear.” — Neo

    If we can trust the newer numbers we are seeing (not 100% sure), the epidemic is really blowing out in NYC. This is where almost all of the major US news sources are headquartered. Things could get very ugly in terms of media hysteria.

  6. In terms of preparedness, the CDC has been both incompetent and corrupt. When government expands a mandate into other areas its ability to do its basic function declines. The CDC has been busy worrying about global warming and guns. It very clearly dropped the ball on disease prep.

    The biggest problem for decision makers has been the lack of quality information. That all comes down to the lack of tests.

    Imagine how much different our efforts would be if we were able to quickly identify who had the disease? We wouldn’t need to wreck the economy.

  7. Neo’s link to Vaughn’s commentary on Hume’s article about Matzko’s Tweets (this kind of genealogy of news items is ridiculous!) gives us a good reminder that Reagan was absolutely right when he said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/03/26/brit-hume-posts-thread-which-explains-why-were-facing-a-mask-and-respirator-shortage/

    Just as the FDA waived its COVID-19 testing regs (after weeks of delay), it should waive its surgical mask/respirator regulations for the duration.

    But since it hasn’t, the supply of officially-approved masks has remained artificially constricted. New entrants are effectively barred from selling unapproved masks.

    If willing to expose themselves to immense legal liability, new manufacturers could give masks away, but you’re not going to get meaningful quantities that way. It’s merely fodder for pleasant 5 o’clock news stories about making a few 1000s for donation to the local clinic.

    But because most people are unaware that masks/respirators are considered medical devices and just how onerous the applicable rules are, it leaves people thinking that the PPE crisis is a market failure, when it is anything but.

    That leads folks to consider towards heavy-handed measures, like the government seizing the means of mask production. This is problematic for a bunch of reasons (& likely less effective), but it’s also completely unnecessary if the FDA would just DROP THE DAMN RULES.

    I high-lighted one fragment because I remembered that the Democrats were going to partially fund Obamacare with a tax on (wait for it) medical devices.

    IIRC, President Trump has waived lots of rules and some liability laws to get supplies flowing, but “Just Imagine!” if Hillary or Slow Joe were President right now.
    Or any generic Democrat, for that matter.

  8. This might have an effect on some of the projections.
    Regardless of the model used, if your data is bad, so is your result.
    Garbage in; garbage out.

    https://fee.org/articles/oxford-based-group-stops-using-who-data-for-coronavirus-reporting-citing-errors/

    Until March 18 we relied on the World Health Organization (WHO) as our source. We aimed to rely on the WHO as they are the international agency with the mandate to provide official estimates on the pandemic. The WHO reports this data for each single day and they can be found here at the WHO’s site.

    Since March 18 it became unfortunately impossible to rely on the WHO data to understand how the pandemic is developing over time. With Situation Report 58 the WHO shifted the reporting cutoff time from 0900 CET to 0000 CET. This means that comparability is compromised because there is an overlap between these two WHO data publications (Situation Reports 57 and 58).

    Additionally we found many errors in the data published by the WHO when we went through all the daily Situation Reports. We immediately notified the WHO and are in close contact with the WHO’s team to correct the errors that we pointed out to them.

    The article authors then conclude what most of us already know:

    A Stanford University epidemiologist and professor of medicine, in a widely circulated Stat article, recently said the COVID-19 pandemic could end up being a “a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.”

    “The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, who co-directs Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center.

    These problems sound a bit like the local knowledge problem F.A. Hayek described nearly 80 years ago, which might explain the wildly inconsistent projections we’ve seen in COVID-19 fatality rates.

    Government agencies, like people, are fallible. And the more we centralize decision-making and remove individual choice, the greater risk we face of having central authorities making sweeping decisions without the knowledge they believe they possess.

    Back to the unknown unknowns.
    What we DO know is that government can either facilitate effective and useful private sector actions or obstruct them, and the odds are always heavily in favor of obstruction.

  9. No official wants to say that its not extreme… and then have it extreme
    No official minds error on the side of caution, knowing the economic blame will never touch them (conscience anyone?).

    tis a simple game theory table of which option to take vs which outcome

    much like [insert famous person] logic that it is better to believe in god than not believe and be wrong… for there is only one negative answer in the truth table…

    same here..
    not to mention how much more money the state will throw at them so they can be right next time if wrong this time… there really is no downside they can see by putting on the chicken little caps and run around the farm

  10. This Ferguson guy is the first in line of the ‘experts’ who made extreme predictions and then when they inevitably backtrack they just can say hey I wasn’t wrong it was all the precautions which made my extreme projection be wildly off the mark.

    It is a perfect racket really if you’re right you’re a genius if you’re wrong it’s because everybody listened to super smart me.

  11. A lot of interesting headlines at FEE, if you have time to look at the posts.
    (has anyone ever noticed that, once you leave a web page, all those interesting links, that you were going to check out next, have been replaced by different ones when you get back to it?) NOTE: only some of the stories were published by FEE.

    https://fee.org/articles/covid-19-and-the-trolley-problem-you-re-on-the-tracks-and-the-government-is-controlling-the-switch/
    by Robin Koerner

    The worst-case projections for deaths from coronavirus are 3 percent of the population. Has anyone done the math on how many lives will be lost on account of the economic effects of a lockdown for as long as it will take for this infection to ride itself out, bearing in mind that the more we slow the infection rate, the longer it takes to reach its peak and the longer the population takes to become immune? Has anyone tried to weigh the last few years of a frail older person’s life against the livelihoods of entire families? Do we even want to think in these terms?

    If the answer is “no,” then to return to our trolley problem, how can the government even tell on which set of tracks the smaller number of people, or the less vulnerable people, are standing—and down which they think they should send the trolley?

    Let us make a final modification to the coronavirus trolley analogy: you won’t be flipping the points; the government is doing that and you’re one of the people on the track. The government action you support is likely a function of which track you think you’re stuck on—and that will depend on your personality, physical health, financial health, and other factors.

    “Coronavirus Vindicates Capitalism” by Kimberley Strassel – WSJ
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-vindicates-capitalism-11584659306

    https://fee.org/articles/vital-covid-19-facts-everyone-should-know/
    by James Agresti (March 18, some items out of date but other parts still relevant)

    https://fee.org/articles/stimulus-spending-wont-stop-the-economic-fallout-from-the-coronavirus/
    by Daniel J. Mitchell (FEE March 15)

    Critics warn, correctly, that Keynesian policies are misguided. More spending is a consequence of economic growth, not the trigger for economic growth.

    But the “bad penny” of Keynesian economics keeps reappearing because it gives politicians an excuse to buy votes.

    The Wall Street Journal opined about the risks of more Keynesian monetary stimulus.

    https://reason.com/2020/03/21/states-cant-shut-down-non-essential-businesses-without-harming-essential-ones/
    by Eric Boehm

    Even in the short-term, shutting off all supposedly nonessential economic activity poses a risk. “Many of the industries listed as ‘non-life-sustaining businesses’ in the governor’s order are in fact part of the supply chain for other businesses listed as being a ‘life-sustaining’ business,” the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce pointed out in a statement. To businesses subject to the order, the governor’s announcement seemed confusing and arbitrary.

    That’s the difficult balance that elected officials and bureaucrats now must try to strike. How extreme should shut-down and shelter-in-place orders be, and how long should they last?

    “If everything we do saves just one life, I will be happy,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said Friday, as he announced a new round of restrictions on businesses and individuals.

    Yes, containing the virus’ spread and helping prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed must be the top priority, of course, but it cannot be absolute in the way that Cuomo described. As the Pennsylvania Chamber pointed out, hospitals can’t stay open without supply chains, and health care workers—and lots of other people—may need access to other nonessential services to get by.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/17/america-with-coronavirus-gets-a-taste-of-socialism/
    by Cheryl K. Chumley

    Di Martino said that socialism, which he lived with until 2016, when he came to the United States as a student, destroyed his country. [Venezuela]

    The government, seeking to distribute necessary products in a fair and equitable manner, “imposed price controls,” “nationalized the most important private industries,” took over the free market and hampered the individual’s ability to create and produce. Shortages, predictably, were the result.
    …
    What’s most interesting is that the government never once said that its goal was to destroy the nation, or to shepherd power into the hands of the few, of the elite. Nope. The official message from Venezuela’s guiding geniuses was to help the downtrodden; open the doors of opportunity to all; ensure everybody got a fair share of the pie. The official message was one of equality and justice and fairness for all — not just the rich.

    Sound familiar?

  12. Artfldgr at 7:42 pm issued the invitation “[insert famous person]”.

    I’ll go for Blaise Pascal . . .

    “Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

  13. Ferguson is saying he has been misunderstood, and stands by his original forecast. The new number was cases IF the social distancing and closings are maintained.
    Scroll down to the end for his update in Tweets, which I have edited here for clarity.
    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/03/26/imperial-college-study-author-shifts-actually-think-coronavirus-death-toll-will-much-lower-expected/

    1/4 – I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.

    2/4 -This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.

    3/4 – My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.

    4/4 – Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).

  14. Pascal’s Wager rests upon some unspoken and unwarranted premises and axioms, such as the existence of an infinite eternal punishment. That doesn’t like Source God but more like Satan and the Deep State’s pedo rapists.

    So whose god is he talking about? Another unspoken and unquestioned assumption. Humanity has too many of those. Depending on when and where you were born, there are traditional and cultural sacred cows that people don’t question or touch.

    As for me, I’m gonna kill those sacred cows in front of them.

  15. I suppose the alert here have seen this: Dr. Fauci now says, in the New England Journal of Medicine, that fatalities in the US will likely be more like a bad flu season. (Link via the Gateway Pundit)

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

    “This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

  17. … hmm, their Kaggle coding competition forecasts don’t seem to be so easy to see. Much less interesting than I thought, at first pass.

    This is how future AI programmers will be creating better and better AI “engines” to predict future events. Based on data. Bad data, bad predictions.
    Good data, and the estimated output remains a known — est. known/unknown.

    A “known-range” is more than nothing, but less than a known-known.

  18. Awful news. Italy reports 919 deaths this day and there are still five hours left in the day there. The previous record was 793 deaths. It looked as if Italy might have hit a plateau with this, as the death tolls hadn’t changed much in a week. So far not so bad for Spain today, but there are still 6 hours left in the day there.

  19. Art Deco:

    If much of Italy doesn’t have the health care resources to take care of the very seriously ill, all those who need more than home care will die. That seems to be the stark reality. So the death numbers there will be very high.

  20. I’ve heard that there is an increase in Italian doctor suicides.
    Too often redirecting ventilators.

    Should be an enormous scandal. It’s not, yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑