Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: CDC Situation Update, New Projections in Internal Report

  1. #1
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,170
    Amen (Given)
    563
    Amen (Received)
    1210

    CDC Situation Update, New Projections in Internal Report

    CDC Situation Update

    The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.
    Draft report predicts covid-19 cases will reach 200,000 a day by June 1
    CDC document projects as many as 3,000 coronavirus deaths per day by June

    2020-05-04_16-50-35.jpg
    Page 10 of 19

    2020-05-04_16-52-56.jpg
    Page 11 of 19

    These are log scales* because any epidemic is essentially exponential in both growth and decay. That means the halfway point between 500 and 1000 is √500,0000 or about 700, and that 3,000 is roughly halfway between 700 and 8,500.

    The administration is disavowing the report, but there's no disguising the run date in the lower right corner.

    The White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly disavowed the report, though the slides carry the CDC’s logo. The creator of the model said the numbers are unfinished projections shown to the CDC as a work in progress.

    The work contained a wide range of possibilities and modeling was not complete, according to Justin Lessler, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who created the model.

    I project Dr. Lessler will soon be needing additional security.


    *Roughly log scale. The graph incorporates a vertical stretch creating an increasingly larger range between doublings for higher values of cases or deaths. E.g., the vertical distance between 5000 and 10000 is three times that between 500 and 1000 which is three times that between 50 and 100. On a true log scale, these distances would be equal.

  2. #2
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,142
    Amen (Given)
    2273
    Amen (Received)
    1763
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    CDC Situation Update

    The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.
    Draft report predicts covid-19 cases will reach 200,000 a day by June 1
    CDC document projects as many as 3,000 coronavirus deaths per day by June

    2020-05-04_16-50-35.jpg
    Page 10 of 19

    2020-05-04_16-52-56.jpg
    Page 11 of 19

    These are log scales* because any epidemic is essentially exponential in both growth and decay. That means the halfway point between 500 and 1000 is √500,0000 or about 700, and that 3,000 is roughly halfway between 700 and 8,500.

    The administration is disavowing the report, but there's no disguising the run date in the lower right corner.

    The White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly disavowed the report, though the slides carry the CDC’s logo. The creator of the model said the numbers are unfinished projections shown to the CDC as a work in progress.

    The work contained a wide range of possibilities and modeling was not complete, according to Justin Lessler, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who created the model.

    I project Dr. Lessler will soon be needing additional security.


    *Roughly log scale. The graph incorporates a vertical stretch creating an increasingly larger range between doublings for higher values of cases or deaths. E.g., the vertical distance between 5000 and 10000 is three times that between 500 and 1000 which is three times that between 50 and 100. On a true log scale, these distances would be equal.
    And is that model dependent upon an opening up of the economy?

  3. #3
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,191
    Amen (Given)
    409
    Amen (Received)
    1030
    Oh great. A new estimate by people who keep failing to make decent estimates.

    This means that the quarantines were useless for stopping the virus. If the virus has been spreading so extensively during quarantine, doing a quarantine has only delayed the inevitable. I don't get why people do not stop the nonsense of this quarantine. It never was a useful plan in this situation. We now have to factor in the multitude of suicides, alcoholism, spousal abuse, child abuse, economic collapse, food shortages, and untreated illnesses into the effects of the quarantine. This is all due to a panic response to irresponsible media and governors. Even worse we are leaving this all in the hands of bureaucrats -- the most ignorant option to rely upon.

    The good news is that no one is dying of anything else. Wouldn't that make this virus a good thing?

    How come no one can see this?

  4. Amen Cow Poke, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  5. #4
    Thread Killer QuantaFille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Thulcandra
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,810
    Amen (Given)
    754
    Amen (Received)
    1059
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Oh great. A new estimate by people who keep failing to make decent estimates.

    This means that the quarantines were useless for stopping the virus. If the virus has been spreading so extensively during quarantine, doing a quarantine has only delayed the inevitable. I don't get why people do not stop the nonsense of this quarantine. It never was a useful plan in this situation. We now have to factor in the multitude of suicides, alcoholism, spousal abuse, child abuse, economic collapse, food shortages, and untreated illnesses into the effects of the quarantine. This is all due to a panic response to irresponsible media and governors. Even worse we are leaving this all in the hands of bureaucrats -- the most ignorant option to rely upon.

    The good news is that no one is dying of anything else. Wouldn't that make this virus a good thing?

    How come no one can see this?
    Quarantine was never meant to stop the virus. It was meant to spread out the individual cases over a greater length of time so the hospitals don't get overwhelmed.
    Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

  6. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  7. #5
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,191
    Amen (Given)
    409
    Amen (Received)
    1030
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantaFille View Post
    Quarantine was never meant to stop the virus. It was meant to spread out the individual cases over a greater length of time so the hospitals don't get overwhelmed.
    The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies. The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed. The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.

    Nothing that is being done is consistent with the original goals of the mass quarantine. Then they keep reporting more "cases" of COVID-19 when people actually have been quarantined. This indicates first that the number of cases is meaningless -- it is the number of people tested positive or were thought to be positive (without testing). Second, it would be saying that the quarantine was ineffective because the disease mysteriously migrates to bunches of people who never come in contact with each other.

  8. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  9. #6
    Thread Killer QuantaFille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Thulcandra
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,810
    Amen (Given)
    754
    Amen (Received)
    1059
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies. The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed. The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.

    Nothing that is being done is consistent with the original goals of the mass quarantine. Then they keep reporting more "cases" of COVID-19 when people actually have been quarantined. This indicates first that the number of cases is meaningless -- it is the number of people tested positive or were thought to be positive (without testing). Second, it would be saying that the quarantine was ineffective because the disease mysteriously migrates to bunches of people who never come in contact with each other.
    The virus spreads among people who are in contact with each other, usually people who live in the same house, or work together. It isn't feasible for every last person to stay at home for several weeks, as many people work jobs that are essential. My husband is one of those. Plus people have to get groceries, so the grocery stores are still open, and there have been cases where grocery store employees tested positive. How many of their coworkers got it from them before they knew they were contagious?

    My point is, there is no way that quarantine, even extreme quarantine, will completely eliminate contact between people. It was only ever meant to greatly reduce contact to slow down transmission of the virus. Even those in quarantine are in contact with people, it's just greatly reduced from normal.
    Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

  10. #7
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,142
    Amen (Given)
    2273
    Amen (Received)
    1763
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies.
    Thos who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Had we not quarenteened, put the guidelines into effect, the hospitals would not have had the capacity to care for the sick. They barely have the capacity now. The Spanish flu in 1918 killed some 60 million people and was way beyond what hospitals could handle.

    The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed.
    Have you been listening to FOX NEWS?

    The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.
    The point is to stop the spread before those areas where the virus hasn't hit as badly yet end up in the same boat as the harder hit areas.
    Nothing that is being done is consistent with the original goals of the mass quarantine.
    Of course the quarenteen is working as intended. Why would you say it isn't?
    Then they keep reporting more "cases" of COVID-19 when people actually have been quarantined.
    So, you think that because there are still more cases, that the quarenteen didn't slow the spread. You think if everyone was walking around as usual, as if there were no virus, that there wouldn't be exponentially more cases.

    This indicates first that the number of cases is meaningless -- it is the number of people tested positive or were thought to be positive (without testing). Second, it would be saying that the quarantine was ineffective because the disease mysteriously migrates to bunches of people who never come in contact with each other.
    That doesn't even make sense.
    Last edited by JimL; 05-04-2020 at 10:28 PM.

  11. #8
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,170
    Amen (Given)
    563
    Amen (Received)
    1210
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantaFille View Post
    My point is, there is no way that quarantine, even extreme quarantine, will completely eliminate contact between people. It was only ever meant to greatly reduce contact to slow down transmission of the virus. Even those in quarantine are in contact with people, it's just greatly reduced from normal.
    None of the models I've seen assume full compliance with the quarantine.

  12. #9
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,170
    Amen (Given)
    563
    Amen (Received)
    1210
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies. The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed. The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.
    This isn't entirely wrong.

    The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies.

    It misses on the arithmetic, but conceptually, yes, there is indeed an attack rate — that's the cumulative infection rate — that would effectively stop the pandemic. That rate is 58.3 percent, assuming everyone who's been infected becomes immune, and the initial reproduction rate, R0, was 2.4 — the number of new infections from contact with any one person who was infected while they were infectious.

    We're a long way from 58.3 percent, which is just as well, because to get there, we'd have to rack up a million deaths, more or less. So the concept is okay, but the arithmetic says the concept isn't valid, yet. I've posted the formula and its derivation before. It's math, but it's high school math, well within the reach of anyone with a high school diploma.

    A reproduction rate that's more than 1 results in exponential growth. Less than 1 results in exponential decay. E.g., with R = 1.5 or 0.5.

    2020-05-05_02-29-16.jpg

    For the infection rate to experience exponential decay, we need ...

    Reproduction = R0 * Susceptible < 1
    1 - Infected = Susceptible < 1/R0
    Infected > 1 - 1/R0 †

    1 - 1/R0, for R0 = 2.4, is 58.3 percent.

    The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed.

    Similarly, yes, in areas where there were no infections, it wasn't necessary for the population to quarantine.

    But that's kind of like betting a pair against what you think is a busted flush across the table. If it's actually a busted flush, you win. But in this case, what we're betting isn't money, it's grandma. We want to know that flush is busted before we push her onto the table.

    But that's not knowable without testing and we didn't have the capability in the early going. We still don't have enough. At least not for the number of new cases we're still getting. But if the infection is beaten down far enough, the tests we have available could identify most new infections, or enough for us to keep the epidemic damped down using contact tracing.

    Again, if the infection was beaten down enough. Right now, it's what, 30,000 new cases a day. Assuming each of those cases had just ten contacts to trace, that's 300,000 new contacts to trace, every day. Even if we had the tests, we don't have the people to do that much tracing.

    So any way you look at it, if we want to suppress the virus, and keep it suppressed, we need to suppress it further.

    I'm beginning to worry that's not going to happen without a President Pence.


    • The initial reproduction rate only applies to those who are susceptible. So the actual reproduction rate is the susceptible proportion of the initial reproduction rate.

      Reproduction = R0 * Susceptible
      .
    • Which must be less than one for exponential decay.

      Reproduction = R0 * Susceptible < 1
      .
    • Solving.

      Susceptible < 1/R0
      .
    • Because it's a new virus, everyone who hasn't been infected is susceptible.

      1 - Infected = Susceptible
      .
    • Substituting.

      1 - Infected < 1/R0
      .
    • Add Infected to both sides, subtract 1 / R0

      1 - 1/R0 < Infected
      .
    • Turn it around.

      Infected > 1 - 1/R0
    Last edited by Juvenal; 05-05-2020 at 12:35 AM.

  13. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  14. #10
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,806
    Amen (Given)
    5614
    Amen (Received)
    23938
    Internal FEMA document projects spike in daily coronavirus death toll, but data questioned

    An internal document featuring charts produced by FEMA projects far more new coronavirus cases than the White House has forecast and nearly double the current daily death toll by the end of the month — but sources have raised questions about the reliability of the data.

    In a statement, White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere stressed that the document is not from the White House, and that it hasn't been presented to the Coronavirus Task Force.

    “This is not a White House document nor has it been presented to the Coronavirus Task Force or gone through interagency vetting,” Deere said in a statement. “This data is not reflective of any of the modeling done by the task force or data that the task force has analyzed.”


    Fox News has confirmed the existence of the document, which was first reported by The New York Times. Sources told Fox News that while a significant portion of the data comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the projections of new cases and deaths come from modeling done at Johns Hopkins University.

    Those projections claim that by the end of May, there will be 200,000 new coronavirus cases and 3,000 deaths every day. This is a significant jump from current numbers of roughly 25,000 new cases and 1,750 deaths each day.

    Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House task force, has seen the document even though it has not officially been presented to the full task force.

    While such projections are sure to raise concerns about plans – at the national and state level – to begin reopening parts of the economy, sources said the modeling behind these projections did not take into account mitigation guidelines during that phased reopening. Further, they noted some of the data in the report was out of line with other projections.

    Meanwhile, several states have begun to gradually reopen their economies and are relaxing restrictions from stay-at-home orders. None of those states, however, have abided by the White House's recommendation to wait for a 14-day decline in cases before beginning the reopening process.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...ata-questioned

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •