CALPOPPY's picture

CALPOPPY

Moderator


MEMBER SINCE   March 09, 2012

Just a simple human that likes poppies.

Favorites

  • NFL TEAM: Chicago Bears
  • NHL TEAM: Chicago Blackhawks
  • NBA TEAM: Chicago Bulls
  • MLB TEAM: Chicago Cubs
  • SOCCER TEAM: Columbus Crew

Recent Activity

Comment 8 hours ago

How would you produce any sort of bell curve if you aren't basing everything off of new cases/deaths/hospitalizations. If you are only tracking based on the total then you are looking at a log graph. I haven't seen any model's progression be based off the total. That's why they say at the peak will be x amount of new cases. For instance, if its taking longer for you to go from 200 to 400 new cases and then even longer to hit 800 new cases per day you can better track the growth factor.

I don’t even think that we are talking about the same thing. I merely stated, and then backed up with my data, that the rate of increases for deaths from Covid-19 has doubled an average of every 3.3 days, and stated that it is likely to start to have a longer time interval between doubling times soon (doubling time always increases as you start to level off). Yes, these are ultimately based upon how many new cases that you had each day.

Why do I calculate cases/deaths based upon total deaths/cases per time interval rather than simply using daily cases? It is what I noticed that journal articles and data sites have been using to show growth in number of cases. For example, see the site here. Or this article here from CDC.

Comment 11 hours ago

1. New deaths haven't doubled since april 2nd when we were at 975 and then we had 1940 yesterday. That took 6 to double. We need to look at the rate at which new deaths/cases/hospitalizations double, not the number overall

Ok. I have not seen one person besides you state that this is a valid measurement. That’s certainly not an assumption for any model that I have seen....but I guess I at least I now know your methods. But it doesn’t make sense to me to examine them this way. If you wish to use that method, then we need to reexamine how all of the other viral spreads have spread based upon some new criteria you are espousing if we want to compare to anything else, which can help improve our modeling efforts. So, I guess you have a point that the number of new cases are not doubling every 3.3 days. I cannot argue that. But that it not how people have been tracking this, and it never even occurred to me that your were implying this.

I would like you to produce the model that DeWine is using and show how off he was. What was the range of values they were predicting? When I looked several days ago, the values were definitely within the range of the possible outcomes, which is what modeling does. You examine the possible outcomes over a range of variables and come up with a number. Some are lower, some are higher. Typically, the middle value is all that’s reported. Doesn’t mean the model was off or bad. Modeling is attempting to predict an unknown, and are inherently incorrect if you want exact numbers. But my point is that this thing is following almost a textbook example of how viruses are spread, and I think that the models have been pretty accurate.

Comment 13 hours ago

1. when looking at deaths you need to look at it from the number of new deaths doubling to see get the best picture. They aren't doubling every 3 days, the last time it doubled was from 6 days ago

You are right. I was looking at the number of cases (doubling average of every 2.7 days right now) Deaths have doubled every 3.3 days on average.

If you start at some number of deaths (I did 10), the number of deaths doubled to over 20 in 4 days (3/4-3/8).

from 10 to 20 in 4 days (3/4-3/8), overall mean 4 days
reached 40 in 4 days (3/8-3/12), overall mean 4 days
reached 80 in 4 days (3/12-3/16), overall mean 4 days
reached 160 in 3 days (3/16-3/19), overall mean 3.75 days
reached 320 in 3 days (3/19-3/22), overall mean 3.60 days
reached 640 in 2 days (3/22-3/24), overall mean 3.33 days
reached 1,280 in 2 days (3/24-3/26), overall mean 3.14 days
reached 2,560 in 3 days (3/26-3/29), overall mean 3.13 days
reached 5,120 in 4 days (3/29-4/2), overall mean 3.22 days
reached 10,240 in 4 days (4/2-4/6), overall mean 3.30 days
reached 20,480 in ? days (4/6-??)
reached 40,960 in ? days (??)

So, average is 3.3 days to double. Thus far, it have never taken more than 4 days to double, and never fewer than 2 (that’s actually almost a textbook example). I hope that this begins to slow down, and it’s possible that it already is. That would be awesome. Have I done this in the wrong way? Is my math wrong? What am I missing here?

2. This doesn't necessarily have to be a bell curve where it drops at the same rate it rose

Ok. Don’t think that I understand what you are suggesting will happen. If it doesn’t follow a normal distribution, then what will distribution will it follow? Can you explain how we will get there?

Right now we have what people modeled, but the models have been wrong at every turn of this. 

Ok. I think that we disagree on this. Time will tell, I suppose. But I don’t agree that the models have been way off.

Maybe I’m some idiot that missing something.

Comment 13 hours ago

I'd be curious to see what's happened to the number of flu cases/deaths over the last month.

We will get that, eventually. In California, they are tracking confirmed vs suspected cases. The confirmed are about same number as suspected cases right now. They are testing those suspected cases right now, as well.

EDIT: Flu cases will likely drop off a cliff starting in mid-March. With social distancing, those rates are going to drop significantly. Incubation on flu is around 1-2 days, rather than 4-5 days for SARS-CoV-2, so it would be less likely to be transmitted if you even shut-in for a couple of days. 

As for flu comparison, they only augmented their projected H1N1 cases in hindsight by noticing a significant rise in flu-like illnesses for the time of the outbreak (especially before the vaccine was administered). So we will have revisions to these Covid-19 numbers in the future as well, especially in number of cases.

Comment 13 hours ago

Hey!  Isn't this just a nicer way of saying:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean, we are all kinda calling each other as...lacking some understanding. I only commented above hoping that it wouldn’t be so vitriolic. You didn’t have the worst comment, either.

Comment 14 hours ago

Neither of those were ever going to happen.

Not with what we have done to prevent it, that’s for sure.

The virus has actually spread just as predicted, and the number of deaths has doubled every 3 days on average. (The cases are on the same trajectory, but are slowing, as it took 7 days to go from 200k to 400k, where it was average of 2.7 days before that). We crossed 10k deaths a couple of days ago. We will top 20,000 deaths in a couple of days. The number of deaths per day will certainly start to slow, but how many days to 40k? Will that be in 6 days? 8 days? 10 days?

And once we reach the inflection point (where number of deaths per day begin to drop), then you can basically double the number of total deaths from that point. So, if we reached the inflection point yesterday (highly unlikely), then we’ll approach 30k total deaths. If we reach it in 10 days, and the total dead at that point is 35k, then we will likely reach ~70k total deaths. Contrary to opinion, the virus has actually spread like predicted, and caused deaths as predicted. I admit that we will never know what would have happened without intervention, so we cannot prove 100% to be true. But it’s not difficult to make that assumption.

If we had not intervened, then then it’s incredibly easy to get to hundreds of thousands or even...gasp...millions. They are now predicting 62k deaths by August with all of this intervention. Why would you think it couldn’t get into hundreds of thousands (let’s say 200k+) without intervention? Especially because the Case Fatality Rate rises when hospitals are overwhelmed?

Look, if people want to argue about whether we should have closed everything down, then that’s one thing. But I am flummoxed how people can look at the data and say it isn’t feasible that we would have had hundreds of thousands of deaths without intervention. We locked down most of the country and are going to have 60k+ deaths by August. Hopefully we actually have even less.

Comment 16 hours ago

But we also weren’t testing at this rate either for H1N1 that I’m aware of, so that would also effect the # of confirmed cases right?

You are correct. That’s why they now think that there were 1 million cases in the first 3 months of the H1N1 epidemic rather than the ~26,000 confirmed cases. They revised after they noticed that the doctor visits for flu-like symptoms were way above normal in 2009-early 2010. Similar to how they project the flu. They also revised the deaths to ~12,500 suspected rather than the 3,433 confirmed.

Comment 08 Apr 2020

Can you really compare the two though? We didn’t do anything like this for H1N1. If we had, the numbers most likely would have been way lower (or way higher for COVID if we had done nothing).

That’s why I think this is interesting. Even with the drastic measures that we’ve taken, it’s interesting to see where we stand. We won’t be able to get any absolutes out of the comparison, but I like looking.

Comment 08 Apr 2020

Calpoppy, lives will probably be saved every flu season, just because of the awareness we have all gained about hygiene and social distancing. I've been practicing social distancing for years. I've worn latex gloves at the gas station since 2009. #aheadofthecurve

I think that you are correct about the hygiene and such.

Sorry to place an entire essay on response to you, as I wasn't trying to put you in your place or anything. I was just attempting to explain a little more about the comparisons. And, to be clear, you didn't really say anything negative, I guess you just said a word that triggered my curiosity, and I ended up looking a bit more into it.

Take care, Cajun. We always need someone to spend entire threads talking to themselves. ;)

Comment 08 Apr 2020

Shocker. Some people are too stupid to understand that we are changing things with our behavior.

Alright, Cleday, let's take it a little easy, here.

Yes, we all have opinions. My opinion is likely more inline with yours, in fact. But let's just chill here.

I often get frustrated if I see people being jerks about this Covid19 situation (and, to be clear, this isn't directed at Cajun) but I realize that a lot of us are frustrated and stressed by this pandemic crap, and whether it was the exact right decision, and how we proceed from here. But that stress can make a lot of us share our ideals a little more fervently. I do appreciate people trying to help correct data that is wrong, but there are also some opinions that are just opinions, and we can let those things slide past.

Just a thought...because We are all in this together, whether we like it or not.

Comment 08 Apr 2020

January 19 was our first case. So a little longer. The swine flu by comparison, had infected about a million in the same timeline. This may be a good comparison for control measures. We closed some schools in 2009 but that was about it.

Your numbers are possibly correct for assumed cases, but it's still too early to tell.

For the swine flu: by early June of 2009 (3 months in) there were almost 26,000 confirmed cases (as it was first detected in the US in early April 2009). In hindsight, they now state that they think there were an estimated 1 million cases by that end of June 2009.

For Covid-19: it has been 80 days since the first case, and 37 days since our cases topped 100, and we have ~430k confirmed cases of Covid19. In 37 days we have increased our cases nearly 430,000. Have we detected all of our cases? Likely not. But if we did, then we would be at about half the transmission rate of the swine flu, by first case in the country. I imagine that we are underestimating by at least half, so it is likely that we are near or over 1 million cases in the country.

So, maybe our cases will go up in hindsight, but we are well ahead of confirmed cases right now. 

What else is also interesting for comparison of deaths from each disease.

For swine flu: killed ~12k people in one year (April 2009-April 2010), although the number of confirmed deaths was actually only ~3,500. Much like today, they had issues 10 years ago with estimating the deaths versus what is confirmed. I am sure that the 12k+ number is more accurate, but just remember that when we are attempting to figure the actual number of fatalities in the future. By November 15, 2009, 7 months in, there were only ~4000 deaths from swine flu. I don't know how many deaths actually occurred from swine flu by that June 26, 2009 date, but by September of 2009, there were 593 confirmed deaths from swine flu.

For Covid-19: As of today, we are near 15k deaths from Covid19, only ~3 months in, and the first Covid19 fatality was on Feb. 29, just 35 days ago.

Yes, it appeared that swine flu may have been more viral (although it is inconclusive, to me) but the death toll is going to be much greater. Will there be a higher Case Fatality Rate? Probably. Will it stay at 3.5%? Probably not (it will decrease).

Both Swine flue and Covid-19 are diseases caused by incredibly aggressive viruses. Both viruses can cause issues in a short amount of time. But it appears that this novel coronavirus is likely as virulent (in ability to spread amongst the population) while being much more deadly. We haven't reached the end of the story, but that's currently what it is looking like.

And while I believe that most of the cases of Covid19 that we are seeing through today (or really recently) actually happened before the lockdown, we have (in my opinion) nearly as high a rate of cases and many multiples the amount of fatalities through the first 3 months.

Lastly, yes, we also have confounding factors such as whether this is going to be seasonal, and how we are collecting data fro cases and deaths. Its imperfect. Regardless, Covid-19 pandemic appears to be much worse than swine flu at least in the number of deaths, and possibly equally as bad in how it spreads.

Comment 05 Apr 2020

We don’t need the step rails on those as it still sits pretty low. Plus, with 2 cartop carriers, it really weighs down the shocks.

Comment 04 Apr 2020

Thanks, Wahoo. We’ll try to keep on top of things, as starting arguments just to watch things burn is flame-baiting, and shouldn’t be happening.

Comment 04 Apr 2020

Ignorance is bliss. The U.S. is the worst country in the world at the containing the virus. If it is not official now, it will be in a week or so. We have nearly 300,000 cases and nearly 10,000 deaths.

Buckeye2012, give it a rest. This definitely isn’t the place to start or continue this debate. There are plenty of other outlets to discuss these topics, but 11W is a poor place for this.

Comment 02 Apr 2020

Maybe someone could begin a topic about how to exercise from home ;)

I know that there is some stuff out there, but it might help to consolidate the info, especially if someone has expertise in the area.

Comment 02 Apr 2020

Last Friday night? Wonder if that worry was related to getting a coronavirus test on Saturday morning?

;)

Comment 02 Apr 2020

Careful. If you guys keep this up, he’s gonna jump into this bread...

If that fucker goes anywhere near my bread, I’m really gonna be pissed.

You just don’t mess with another man’s bread.

Comment 02 Apr 2020

You do realize that California colleges were still practicing while tOSU had shut down...

That certainly doesn’t appear to reflect the reality where I live and work (UC Davis), nor does it appear to reflect the reality of the other University of California schools. So, not sure what schools you are referencing. Maybe USC? Guess I’d have to look into them.