Epidemiologist Drastically Reduces COVID-19 Estimates

[demi-conservative]

R0 and fatality rates are not biological constants but depend on how society responds, whether better treatment is found, and so on*. Every model that you see should come with twenty different asterisks because the predictions make many many significant assumptions.

*and all of these are changing over time

[demi-conservative]

The pneumonia associated with covid-19 is atypical, which is what led to the discovery that a new virus was presenting in China.

There have been plenty of anecdotes of atypical flu in the winter.

[demi-conservative]

How do you know it didn't? Since the Chinese coronavirus presents with flu like symptoms then it's probable that any related deaths could have been attributed to the common flu since doctors wouldn't have known to test for anything else.

If it was the coronavirus last fall or winter, then how much the Chinese covered up since late December didn't matter much. If the mild cases are so mistakable for flu, it would have spread to half the countries before the Chinese noticed that something was significantly different and decided to figure it out.

[demi-conservative]

One link (which I can only partially read on this side of the paywall) is https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-...er-11585239104

It sounds like Ferguson does not do a very good job. I wonder if he had stated this reasoning in his initial notification of the revised numbers.

Maybe someone can tell us what information he uses to calculate his numbers. Also, it would be important to note that it is the big cities that would likely have the density of interaction to have significant problems, if the original death rate from Ferguson is correct. And we have potential medicines to treat the worst cases.

Ferguson's tweet is at:
https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/st...94815200124928

The original prediction seems to be based on the UK doing nothing much. Now that the UK closed down pubs, colleges, etc, R0 changes and everything has to be revised.

[demi-conservative]

R0 and fatality rates are not biological constants but depend on how society responds, whether better treatment is found, and so on*. Every model that you see should come with twenty different asterisks because the predictions make many many significant assumptions.

*and all of these are changing over time

Models cause society to change, which changes R0 and invalidates the model. So all the models need to be revised frequently. Since number of projected cases is an exponential function of R0, even just a small change in R0 can lead to a big change in projected cases.

Separately, the doctors are getting better over time at educated guessing on how to treat the virus and not getting infected themselves, which means that actual fatality rate is changing over time, meaning the models need to be revised over time.

[mikewhitney]

The original prediction seems to be based on the UK doing nothing much. Now that the UK closed down pubs, colleges, etc, R0 changes and everything has to be revised.

But did he consider the reduction of death rate by use of chloroquine? Also, he partly contradicts the message conveyed by the UK taking COVID-19 off the HCID status.

At the same time, we recognize that the mass media tries to portray Trump in negative ways.

[demi-conservative]

But did he consider the reduction of death rate by use of chloroquine?

I don't know about this specifically. In general, like I said, the doctors are getting better over time at educated guessing on how to treat the virus and not getting infected themselves, which means that actual fatality rate is changing over time, meaning the models need to be revised over time.

The models aren't good for much except to frighten people and this has been a success. Meanwhile demi yawns.

[Juvenal]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-predictions/

No doubt this positive report will be met with howls of "But look at these scary, scary numbers over here! We're all DOOMED!"

So I'd imagine that by attack rate she means infection rate. The current US rate from Johns Hopkins is .00025, or one quarter of that one in a thousand figure she's using.

The relevant portion of the parliamentary interview with Ferguson begins at 10:36:13.

Ferguson's revised figures suggest that the infection rate may peak around 5 percent of the population or perhaps 10 percent at the outside. But it needs to be emphasized that Ferguson's revised estimates are based on the recently intensified NPIs in place in the UK. Without the NPIs, or if the NPIs are relaxed, suppression will end, and the previous mortality figures will once again apply.

It should be noted that 5 percent infection rate compares to an original estimate of over 80 percent, a factor of 16. That's where the decrease in mortality is coming from. Applying that figure to the previous estimate under mitigation of about a million deaths in the USA would bring our number down to 62,500.

So yeah, this is good news if we can achieve and maintain suppression until there's a vaccine.

[Juvenal]

One link (which I can only partially read on this side of the paywall) is https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-...er-11585239104

I'm a subscriber, and I was probably reading it when you were composing that. It's an opinion piece that fails to note the need to maintain suppression. That's incredibly irresponsible, but likely of little import. Everybody's got relatives at risk here, and nobody with relatives at risk is going to be accepting medical advice from a banker.

[Juvenal]

I'm a subscriber, and I was probably reading it when you were composing that. It's an opinion piece that fails to note the need to maintain suppression. That's incredibly irresponsible, but likely of little import. Everybody's got relatives at risk here, and nobody with relatives at risk is going to be accepting medical advice from a banker.

Freeman's getting reamed in the comments. Or let me say that more emphatically, he's getting reamed in the comments section of the WSJ. That's friendly fire.

[mikewhitney]

There are others who note that the current coronavirus panic is improper.

Here is a snippet from an interview with Yoram Lass, Former Health Ministry Chief of Israel

Interviewer: So what did you mean?

Yoram Lass "To say that in life we take risks, and I've got some examples: when we drive in the car we cause the deaths of about 350 people per year (in Israel). if we stopped all transportation in Israel, we would save their lives. We would save them."

"Another example: many soldiers who are young and have their entire lives before them are killed so that the defense plans and policies can be implemented, and which are sometimes deluded. So because of the risk we should dismantle the IDF in order to save the soldiers' lives?"

If we get back to our example, the medical price of what is happening now resembles price paid for the seasonal flu virus that we have every fall. In the State of Israel, 126 people die, in the US 40,000 people, in Italy 17,000 and that's the price we are prepared to pay to live normal lives."

The economic damage is harder than the health damage

"I call it the economic and social Yom Kippur. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have lost their livelihood and their support and many more will die from heart attacks and anxiety or depression as a result of this. So in life we take risks and pay the price."

Link: https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-l...acy-1001322696

[mikewhitney]

I'm a subscriber, and I was probably reading it when you were composing that. It's an opinion piece that fails to note the need to maintain suppression. That's incredibly irresponsible, but likely of little import. Everybody's got relatives at risk here, and nobody with relatives at risk is going to be accepting medical advice from a banker.

Note: I was just trying to add the missing link to Ferguson's statement. The search showed the WSJ article.

[Juvenal]

Note: I was just trying to add the missing link to Ferguson's statement. The search showed the WSJ article.

Ferguson's statement is an update to the o/p article.

[mikewhitney]

Ferguson's statement is an update to the o/p article.

I'm glad you perceived that as roughly being the purpose of his tweet. I didn't want you to miss that point.

I become suspicious for his lack of clarity of this before going before Parliament. After meeting with Parliament, he could have been coerced to give a new 'context' to his testimony.

[rogue06]

The EU donated all of it's aid from China, including medical equipment, masks, test kits, etc. to Italy.

Source: Italy wonders where Europe�s solidarity is as coronavirus strains show

Germany blocks exports of medical supplies to Rome and ECB president shakes market confidenceSource

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Coronavirus: Italian doctor accuses EU states of �shameful abdication of responsibility�

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: EU fails to persuade France, Germany to lift coronavirus health gear controls

Source

© Copyright Original Source

The WSJ also reported "" and that the head of the European think tank Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) said "This is a shocking failure of European solidarity. The impression in Italy, Spain, and Serbia and so on is that the weaker links will be left alone." (note this is behind a paywall)


Some of this has changed this week, for example Germany has allowed 14 Italians to be transferred to German hospitals, but it's hard to believe that Italians will forget how they were treated for several weeks during the worst part of the pandemic.