Posted on 03/25/2020 9:39:13 PM PDT by fwdude
A major source of information upon which government leaders have relied to urge or order the canceling of public events, shut down of businesses and sheltering in place has proved to be inaccurate.
The Federalist's Madeline Osburn points out many members of the media and state officials are relying on an online mapping tool called COVID Act Now.
The site, with a map of catastrophic forecasts for each state, boasts of enabling "political leaders to quickly make decisions in their Coronavirus response informed by best available data and modeling."
"But a closer look at how many of COVID Act Now's predictions have already fallen short, and how they became a ubiquitous resource across the country overnight, suggests something more sinister," Osburn wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Garbage
The data variance is so great that the areas where the virus is nearly nonexistent can’t be graphed on the same scale as where there are concentrations.
The graphical presentations over state actality
40 percent of what, people entering the hospital with symptoms? Or is it a combination of hospital and folks at large?
Don’t get me wrong...I think this disease is very deadly and contagious.
The concern I have is the economic costs. We mitigate and eventually the pestilence drops but then we end up with no economy and no country, vastly increasing death by means of crime, chaos, civil war, and by the despotism that will arise to try to bring the restive populations to heel. Food productions and transport systems may come to a halt. I have no doubt much of this is being flogged into being right now by shadowy types, but it will all get out of even their control. I believe Trump is trying to help but a higher order is interfering now. I suggest we get on our faces and pray and prepare as best we can to take care of our families. The like minded need to seek each other out, learn to trust each other and pool our strengths and talents together.
My measure is that if we do not use any auxiliary additional hospital space like ships, hotels, or convention centers for a given locality to tend to the sick from the virus, then this has been the biggest overblown thing in history. Yea it will get hectic in hospitals and yea supplies might run short, but that doesn’t mean they ran out of supplies or bad space. Heroic efforts put in by all, but handled within existing capacity.
When you do that, NYC and Switzerland look like Italy and Hubei, and the rest of the US looks normal.
Duh, If the magic negro was still our potus none of this hype would have happened.
I do hope there'll be some settling of scores when we find that out.
Karl Denninger is a short seller. His hair has been on fire for one reason or another nonstop since at least 2008 when I became aware of him. He profits from panic. He’s not an authoritative source and his opinions are driven by profit motive alone.
40% of the people tested presumably due to symptoms. According to these latest data there were 30,811 positive and 72,668 negative, which is now around 30%. If you look at the data in the same link for the various states, only about 10% test positive elsewhere.
Couldn't agree more about your concern about the economic costs. We must do a risk benefit analysis for what is best for the country. We can't allow the medical technocrats drive public policy. You can't fight a war without casualties. The survival of our economy is directly linked to the survival of the country.
ehhh, more testing?
yep, at the tune of 10s of trillions of dollars.
Yup....we still have to make money to fight the disease...can’t fight it without the resources that a working economy brings!
interference in our election process and financial markets.
Just who are these people?
any ties to the Oct 2019 dry run of such a global panic?
event 201
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoLw-Q8X174
I haven’t seen people falling over dead in the streets as in China.
it’d be quite the scandal if some Chinese agents ere deliberately spreading this virus globally
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3828166/posts
...
Perhaps, the analysis explained, "the goal of COVID Act Now was never to provide accurate information, but to scare citizens and government officials into to implementing rash and draconian measures." "The creators even admit as much with the caveat that 'this model is designed to drive fast action, not predict the future.'"
Never let a crisis go to waste?
>>But one could also use the data to show the measures taken are working. It’s all a matter of interpretation, is it not?
globalist warming cultists were hoping we’d already adopted their despotic measures so they could explain that it was our “action” that averted the hockeystick temperatures
>>then this has been the biggest overblown thing in history.
bigger thank y2k?
bigger than global warming alarming?
Bigger than Watergate?
Bigger than Russia interfering in the 2016 election?
zeestephen,
The case fatality rate is going down in the US because the number of cases is going up. This is clearly partially due to expanded testing, but it also has largely been to expanded transmission reaching the symptomatic phase - the fundamental problem with using this statistic to project without cohort information.
Here is an case-fatality example of a country with comprehensive testing past the rapid-growth part of the bell-curve:
On March 6th the S. Korea death/cases rate was 0.6%. It’s continuing to creep up as people have time to die. 57% are still sick.
3/22 8897 104 2909 1.12%
3/23 8961 111 3166 1.24%
3/24 9037 120 3507 1.33%
3/25 9137 126 3730 1.38%
Projecting from this end, the current trajectory is a final number around 2.0-2.3% if no miracle cure, and no significant new cases.
//
FWIW, here’s China’s numbers:
Do you recall when the case rate for China was solidly below 2%?
I did not record the initial figures, so I only have them at hand since 3/5.
Date Cases dead recov dead/case
3/05 80422 3013 52229 3.746%
3/08 80735 3119 58588 3.863%
3/10 80956 3162 61559 3.905%
3/13 80945 3180 64194 3.928%
3/16 81032 3217 67910 3.970%
3/19 81155 3249 70535 4.003%
3/22 81409 3274 72808 4.021%
3/25 81726 3291 74173 4.027%
This has a trajectory to about 4.2-4.3% as a final rate if nothing changes. That will need to be offset by earlier suspected unknown cases, which looks to take it perhaps to about 3.3-3.7% ...but it is China, so caveat emptor.
//
3/9, Germany was being touted because it had no deaths at that relatively late point. In this case the rise is on a different end, because while it had these cases, there had not been enough time to die. BTW, the demographics here are entirely different from Italy, as the infections at least are heavily young athletic people who ski.
3/9 Germany has 1151 cases, no deaths, and only 18 recoveries.
3/22 24873 94 266 0.377%
3/23 29056 123 453 0.423%
3/24 32781 157 3243 0.478%
3/25 37323 206 3547 0.551%
“Just be scared all by yourself. How is it that Germany has 800 cases and zero deaths? Other countries are similar. Norway, Sweden, hundreds of cases, no deaths.
It seems certain areas and people are much more susceptible than others.”
51 posted on 3/9/2020, 10:42:18 AM by SaxxonWoods
Germany has 1151 cases, no deaths, and only 18 recoveries (6% of resolved would only be one death).
Norway, 176 cases, no deaths, and 0 recoveries.
(3/25 3084 14 6 0.453%, but only 0.6% of cases resolved)
Sweden with 203 cases, no deaths, and 0 recoveries.
(3/25 2526 62 16 2.454%, but only 3% resolved)
Starting with zeros may seem obviously a dismissible problem now, but at the time it was a fairly common argument.
The short of it, is that the case fatality rate DURING the outbreak isn’t responding the way those touting it have assumed.
//
Here are links to a couple of sources explaining why it is methodologically problematic:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#correct
“One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).”
And
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/162/5/479/82647
Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease
A. C. Ghani, C. A. Donnelly, D. R. Cox, J. T. Griffin, C. Fraser, T. H. Lam, L. M. Ho, W. S. Chan, R. M. Anderson, A. J. Hedley ... Show more
American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 162, Issue 5, 1 September 2005, Pages 479–486, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi230
This one mentioned how using the artificially low fatalities/case calculation during an outbreak can cause alarm when it starts to rise (as the situation actually improves).
I have built in leeway for predictions that miss their mark, but it is my opinion that many predictive “experts” had less than benevolent purposes for their “predictions”.
Not saying this is one of them.
The point is, predictions made in good faith are often wrong for a variety of unforeseen and often valid factors.
But predictions made with a specific end in mind that diverges from useful decision making or informative purposes should be damned, and often are not.
For them (and they fully know this) nobody ever goes back to them and says “Hey, you were wrong.”
Witness “The Population Bomb” or the legions on the Left who said our cities would be under water with no way to go back by now.
To me, in retrospect, that fully characterizes their predictions as the malevolent kind.
Yep. Burning down the house to get rid of a spider.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.