| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| BS COVID-19 fatality model revised downward by Imperial College Wizard - By 25x! |
| 2020-03-27 |
| [Federalist] British scientist Neil Ferguson ignited the world’s drastic response to the novel Wuhan coronavirus when he published the bombshell report predicting 2.2 million Americans and more than half a million Brits would be killed. After both the U.S. and U.K. governments effectively shut down their citizens and economies, Ferguson is walking back his doomsday scenarios. "We could ALL die. Then it would get worse!" Ferguson’s report from Imperial College, which White House and other officials took seriously, said that if the U.S. and U.K. did not shut down for 18 months, and isolation measures were not taken, “we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months.” His “models” showed overflowing hospitals and ICU beds. “For an uncontrolled epidemic, we predict critical care bed capacity would be exceeded as early as the second week in April, with an eventual peak in ICU or critical care bed demand that is over 30 times greater than the maximum supply in both countries,” the report reads. Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, reportedly said the administration was particularly focused on the Imperial College report’s conclusion that entire households should stay in isolation for 14 days if any member suffered from COVID-19 symptoms. But after tens of thousands of restaurants, bars, and businesses closed, Ferguson is now retracting his modeling, saying he feels “reasonably confident” our health care system can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in a few weeks. Testifying before the U.K.’s parliamentary select committee on science and technology on Wednesday, Ferguson said he now predicts U.K. deaths from the disease will not exceed 20,000, and could be much lower. |
| Posted by:Lex |
| #27 *as a side, I did a search for Mr. Gillum, poorly, so only one article popped up. It was about his bi-lifestyle and how he was dating a male lobbyist. The article was from 2018. The picture used is the now infamous picture of him on the boat with the 'escort'. So here is your well connected person, engaging in risky behavior which includes pipe smoking (stop laughing) with poor judgement and impulse control. Even if they were thinking about such things, one pipe share or kiss and there it is. Now kid jiggalo, he goes where the money is, and also to his personal lovers. I laugh and point at all the NY buttlickers, yet can't but wonder if it was a call for the escorts to the stars to cease clientelle and only lick the buttholes of those they know. Story seems awful familiar... |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2020-03-27 19:02 |
| #26 Latest COV-19 figures reported: Tennessee cases(1203) deaths (6) Rate(0.5%) U.S. cases (100,390) deaths(1,543) Rate(1.5%) World cases(587,958) deaths (26,909) rate (4.6%) Rates are case fatality rates. If one were to calculate the death rate for COVID-19 over the entire population of the U.S., the death rate would be very low. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2020-03-27 18:41 |
| #25 All those hollywood and NYC media pervs, and Andrew Gillum for another. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2020-03-27 15:53 |
| #24 He needs to go back to modeling for global warming |
| Posted by: Regular joe 2020-03-27 15:02 |
| #23 ...Charlie Sheen to the courtesy phone. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-03-27 14:35 |
| #22 The bridge between the two is the sex industry. And I think that is the real concern there, be a bit unsightly if the sex and drug culture took a huge hit on account of their lifesyle. The barometer, if you will, will be the entertainment industry. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2020-03-27 12:21 |
| #21 #11 So how come the 'homeless' are not dropping like flies? See - the dog that didn't bark The virus spreads person to person along networks. It was brought into the country by international travelers. How many jet setters hang out with street bums? Longer social network distance = later to get infected. |
| Posted by: Nero 2020-03-27 11:24 |
| #20 That's a requirement, #8 grom. In fact, they'll vote 3 times per election. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara 2020-03-27 10:51 |
| #19 My first laugh of the day. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2020-03-27 10:15 |
| #18 Ref #17: A friend of mine needs an operation.... Go ahead EC, take your doctor's advice and get that vasectomy reversal surgery. You own to the next generation of Rantburg viewers. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-03-27 08:24 |
| #17 There's a daily growth rate that is manageable, and one that is not. Unfortunately we don't know what the REAL growth rate is right now. Intense testing currently jacks up the numbers (and such the growth rate). But if we assume that the number of infected is a lot higher, the death rate would drop. The virus is probaly ravaging Germany, France or the UK in equal percentages. But Germany has done more testing, therefore shows higher numbers and a death rate of currently 0.6% Of course it remains to be seen how many deaths were actually caused by COVID-19. We will only know next year. But German hospitals do expect a troublesome situation in 2 or 3 weeks. A friend of mine needs an operation and was told: Come right NOW while we still have capacities. Unfortunately the Rumsfeld "unknown unknowns" apply here. The situation COULD be better than feared, but it could also be worse. Especially if we don't apply radical measures. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-03-27 08:20 |
| #16 #2 I thought we wanted scientists to adjust their models when they get more data Some problems with the above: first, the inherent problems with the data inputs were well known when Neil Ferguson applied them in his model. For example, here's just one data problem of many, as noted recently by John Lee, a recently retired professor of pathology and former NHS consultant pathologist in the UK's Spectator: There is a big difference between COVID-19 causing death, and COVID-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making COVID-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded. And as grom pointed out, this particular model was a bad choice. Another problem is seen in the use of the plural: "scientists." Reports are that this extreme, doomsday forecast was the model relied upon by our elected leaders. Which other models were considered? Did anyone consider the red flags raised by leading epidemiologists like Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford? |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-03-27 08:06 |
| #15 Homelessness is the ultimate social distancing. Everyone avoids them! |
| Posted by: Airandee 2020-03-27 08:03 |
| #14 P2k ~ Perhaps you have stumbled onto something. The gov't cure is everyone becomes homeless, jobless, addicted to drugs, and lives on the street. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-03-27 08:00 |
| #13 /\ Tough bastids? Already developed immunity? Will die from overdose prior to reaching COVID-19 age, or "pre-existing" condition age range? I dunno. Good point. Something that should be studied. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-03-27 07:58 |
| #12 ^Clinical trials with Meth? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-03-27 07:52 |
| #11 Appears the problem is urban. NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle to name a few highly infected population centers. So how come the 'homeless' are not dropping like flies? See - the dog that didn't bark |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-03-27 07:51 |
| #10 As I understand it from a less histrionic article, the original model included several projections based on what was predicted to happen given certain conditions/actions. The doomsday projection was if nothing was done to stop the spread. The revised projection is based on actual actions taken and is, of course, much lower. It's called adjusting for the data, Federalist. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2020-03-27 07:35 |
| #9 Then they will spreading their voting habits to suburbia as they flee over density areas at risk of disease. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2020-03-27 07:32 |
| #8 ^Can't they keep voting D even after they're dead? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-03-27 06:55 |
| #7 Appears the problem is urban. NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle to name a few highly infected population centers. The loss of democratic voting bases is obviously media and news worthy. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-03-27 06:51 |
| #6 But never accuse these dipshits of inciting a widespread panic. |
| Posted by: Raj 2020-03-27 06:20 |
| #5 ^Dr. Birx: Coronavirus Data Doesn't Match The Doomsday Media Predictions |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-03-27 05:16 |
| #4 #2,#3 They all using SEIR model [1] (ripoff from Lotka–Volterra [2]), which is manifestly unrealistic. At the very least: Infection rate should be Beddington - DeAngelis [3]. And death rate should be density dependent - to account for limited medical resources. 1. https://jsxgraph.uni-bayreuth.de/wiki/index.php/Epidemiology:_The_SEIR_model 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations 3. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jmath/2013/826857/ Sorry, no wiki article |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-03-27 04:49 |
| #3 Fitting the past 5 days data to a simple model projects all Americans will have gotten it and 5 million died from it by the end of April. Pick a different window, get a different projection. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2020-03-27 01:47 |
| #2 I thought we wanted scientists to adjust their models when they get more data. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2020-03-27 01:27 |
| #1 Oops. So sorry about 3 million unemployed. Never mind. |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-03-27 00:40 |