What 5 Coronavirus Models Say the Next Month Will Look Like

By artappraiser on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 1:37am |

Extensive, with lots of links, charts and graphs, some interactive, no paywall.

By Quoctrung Bui, Josh Katz, Alicia Parlapiano and Margot Sanger-Katz @ NYTimes.com, April 22, 2020

In the last few weeks, we’ve all become a little more familiar with epidemiological models. These calculations, which make estimates about how many people are likely to get sick, need a hospital bed or die from coronavirus, are guiding public policy — and our expectations about what the future holds.

But if you look at the models, they really don't agree [....]

URL:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/22/upshot/coronavirus-models.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

5627 reads

Comments

California has some of the worst data in the country. Substantial lags in reporting, very hard to get a handle on its testing situation. https://t.co/PuN8N7a7rH
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 23, 2020

by artappraiser on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 7:35am

The comparison of the models is helpful.

The projections over time comparisons show the Imperial model seeming to adjust only to find the peak with no opinion of what lies beyond. The link to Sageeta Bhatia is not working at the moment. Probably crashed from the NYT linking to her.

by moat on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 8:43am

The Economist has done a model of the U.S. that predicts "the south" is likely to have the highest death rate and that Appalachia may be hit hard, too:

THREAD Covid-19 is spreading from America's cities to its exurbs & rural heartland. Which areas are likely to face the worst of it?

We modeled the disease's fatality rate & find the South & Appalachia are particularly vulnerable. Policymakers, take note. https://t.co/a84Z4eRPdL
— G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) April 23, 2020

by artappraiser on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 11:11am

The Economist projection is very similar to what John Hopkins has recorded as reported cases confirmed by population to reflect density.

That same density is reflected in a different way by the USA FACTS database. Note that with the USA FACTS averaging methodology, cases and deaths have not peaked yet.

by moat on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 11:57am

appreciate your input and hearing your judgments as my brain is not too swift with this kinda stuff

by artappraiser on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 12:13pm

The stuff is well outside of my expertise. I am not able to judge in the way described in the NYT article:

“If you’re just looking at one model, you’re not seeing the full diversity of what could happen,” said Mr. Reich, who leads the team that aggregated the data.

I do see how the uncertainty involved in projecting a model is a babushka doll within the larger uncertainty of what are the factors determining outcomes. We have no idea of how many people are infected yet. When that becomes a number, maybe my tiny mind could understand the rest of the math.

by moat on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 12:48pm

Ok Nate Silver's put a full article up:

The US as a whole hasn't really turned the corner yet.

Coronavirus cases are still at or near their peak in about half of US states. https://t.co/7CxfmiXPWZ
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 23, 2020

by artappraiser on Thu, 04/23/2020 - 8:11pm

After publishing the article, Nate Silver put up a ton of afterthoughts on Twitter, including the following on prediction of next 18 months:

I was trying to think through "There are so many unknowns, but if you had just one modal prediction for what the next 18 months look like, what would it say?" and I think it would probably would look a lot like @tylercowen's from a couple weeks ago: https://t.co/2xJlkTC0CM pic.twitter.com/1dCnYjDYw8
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 24, 2020

In short (my version not Tyler's): it's a slog; there's never really any plan; we never really decide what trade-offs we're willing to make and so we careen back and forth and to some extent get the worst of both worlds.

(The next tweet is more optimistic.)
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 24, 2020

BUT: A lot of things chip away at the margins. Technology and new drugs/therapies help. We never get "enough" testing or contact tracing but we do get *some*. We learn more about the disease. We make improvements through trial-and-error.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 24, 2020

by artappraiser on Fri, 04/24/2020 - 3:31am

Here's interestingly along same lines as Nate Silver and Tyler Cowen, but goes further, explains how we NEED to swing back and forth for epidemiological reasons. I ran across it because it was retweeted by urban planner Richard Florida and I follow him:

Here's an important discussion that people are missing in this polarized environment. Not only can we not remain in full lock-down forever because of its human costs, we should not. Good luck discussing that though. (Work by @mlipsitch/@yhgrad and others). https://t.co/iVtVYVu3xG pic.twitter.com/eJ3qGpwQz2
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 24, 2020

by artappraiser on Fri, 04/24/2020 - 12:38pm

That observation fits with the Roadmap to Pandemic Resilience call to move from broad quarantine to supported isolation.

The need to achieve herd immunity is in all the epidemiological models. The problem is how to get there without catastrophic surges.

Dr. Michael Osterholm explains it here:

by moat on Fri, 04/24/2020 - 1:26pm

Surges is a good word to use, helps. It's hard to remember the big picture of why we are doing this before there's any herd immunity. It's just because the health care systems can't handle everybody sick at once.That's all, no promise that we're somehow "defeating" the virus by doing this. We're not, it's still there and still after us. Heck AIDS flu and common cold are still out there, no cure. Reminds me that they do have that vaccine now for HPV that they push all young girls to get, though....

I'm babbling now. That's cause my brain and epidemiology and statistics are not a good match.

by artappraiser on Fri, 04/24/2020 - 5:13pm

Ah here is the related economics problem in a nutshell:

Retweeted by "Pete Wells"

I remain astonished at the number of people who can not grasp the concept that businesses operating at two-thirds demand with full operating costs and overhead is in many cases a more rapid financial death sentence than simply not operating at all https://t.co/fYHpD2qE6O
— kilgore trout, compulsory consumer (@KT_So_It_Goes) April 24, 2020

and then followed up by him with this

That last retweet is in fact the reason many seasoned restaurateurs shut down before they were told to.
— Pete Wells (@pete_wells) April 24, 2020

by artappraiser on Fri, 04/24/2020 - 5:32pm

As Jim Yong Kim said in the article you linked to in another place, the infection needs to be attacked aggressively. All these models vary in relation to measures that are taken or not. All the emphasis on reopening the economy is not taking aggressive action. It is acting like it is merely a bad storm we have to wait out.

We continue to waste precious time.The GOP strategy to pit State against State is killing us. Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

by moat on Fri, 04/24/2020 - 5:48pm

“The U.S. is now expected to blow past the 60,000 mark around the beginning of May, earlier than the IHME model had projected and with less of the dramatic leveling-off that its forecast had initially baked in.” https://t.co/s1b4PYrmUc
— Blake News (@blakehounshell) April 24, 2020

by artappraiser on Sat, 04/25/2020 - 12:24am

With a number of States going forward with reopening plans without controlling transmission of the virus first, a lot of the arguments don't matter any more. The die is cast.

The Trump, "We will see what happens" is the model. No need to dig further into the agenda.

I feel like a passenger on a large cruise ship.

by moat on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 4:57pm

What 5 Coronavirus Models Say the Next Month Will Look Like

Comments

Sections

Bloggers