tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post3546109132517354381..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Fitting the COVID-19 SEIR model to data, part 2James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-75023915059963565202020-04-03T21:51:21.261+01:002020-04-03T21:51:21.261+01:00Pete, the only way to know is to look at other cou...Pete, the only way to know is to look at other countries like Sweden or South Korea. Not every country is locking down.<br /><br />The other issue of course is the second wave. A months long lockdown would be disastrous if whole sections of economic activity go away, the financial system melts down, lifetime savings disappear, and unemployment hits 50%. This has always led to civil unrest or civil war in the past. In james’ model, ultimate deaths are about the same after we ease the lockdown as without one. If R is higher than 1 even with a lockdown, then we will not stop the epidemic, merely slow it down. So what’s the plan exactly????<br /><br />The one thing that is certain is that the early ‘science’ on this has been terrible. Panic is always the precursor of ineffective or counterproductive actions.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-29647872053730978712020-04-03T10:46:47.093+01:002020-04-03T10:46:47.093+01:00Couple of points to factor in relation to overall ...Couple of points to factor in relation to overall mortality :<br /><br />1) this is with the lockdowns in place - you can't really argue that we are overreacting by using the coronavirus mortality figures as a result of those interventions - without those interventions the figures would be much higher. What would be the mortality statistics from a country with no meaningful interventions in place ?<br /><br />2) What effect do the lockdowns have on other causes of death ? I suspect the biggest effect would be other infectious diseases - e.g. flu<br />PeteBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11719500015671599766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-5090122211255047212020-04-02T21:11:32.878+01:002020-04-02T21:11:32.878+01:00I think we are now quibbling. In any case overall...I think we are now quibbling. In any case overall 24 country mortality is still way way below the 2016-17 peaks. And overall excess mortality looks vastly lower perhaps by 100,000 over the winter/spring season. This seems incompatible with panic. Increasing testing by itself will show more covid19 ‘deaths.’ The question is are more people dying overall. It appears quite plain that the answer is no.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-4439674741203472192020-04-02T20:32:41.077+01:002020-04-02T20:32:41.077+01:00Well anyone else reading these comments can check ...Well anyone else reading these comments can check easily enough and make their own judgement as to how open you are to seeing things that you don't want to see. It's clearly (albeit very slightly) higher. Lining up against a straight border on your screen may help. You could have just said "oh yes, it is a little higher now"James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-21710222375733690072020-04-02T19:39:42.773+01:002020-04-02T19:39:42.773+01:00In the country plots, Italy's spike looks to m...In the country plots, Italy's spike looks to me to be still below the peak of 2016-2017. Perhaps there will be updates next week to this week's data. I didn't see any tabulated form of the data so the eyeball norm is all I have.<br /><br />I've been trying to find US mortality data without much success.<br /><br />John Lee is a pathologist so I would regard him as an expert on these issues.<br /><br />David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-7851952355146000862020-04-02T18:23:41.621+01:002020-04-02T18:23:41.621+01:00SO does that mean you're prepared to retract/c...SO does that mean you're prepared to retract/correct your previous comment about Italian mortality?<br /><br />Above, you said<br /><br />"2. Italy does show a spike the last few weeks but well below the peak in 2016-17."<br /><br />which is clearly not true. They did warn you about the issues of recent weeks and delayed registration.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-15017414583845122912020-04-02T18:01:36.004+01:002020-04-02T18:01:36.004+01:00https://spectator.us/understand-report-figures-cov...https://spectator.us/understand-report-figures-covid-deaths/<br /><br />Here’s the lee link.<br />Checkout euromomo which has been updated through week 13 today.<br /><br />Aside from childish name calling there has been no substantive response to any point made by Ioannidis or lee. I guess treating ‘data’ as gospel is the modelers delusion.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68669050561845334122020-04-02T10:56:44.243+01:002020-04-02T10:56:44.243+01:00"It adds nothing to the analysis."
I ag..."It adds nothing to the analysis."<br /><br />I agree. COVID-19 was the tipping point in all those deaths.<br /><br />Notwithstanding that deniers deny pretty much anything. Like First World Hotel, with its purported 7,351 rooms, they need to open all doors to air out their FUD.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-12477598987215474772020-04-02T06:41:34.018+01:002020-04-02T06:41:34.018+01:00When you talk of health problems it's importan...When you talk of health problems it's important to realise that what you are referring to is just the typical condition of the elderly. I certainly don't know any over-80s who don't have some sort of "underlying health condition" (of those I know well enough that I would know). It doesn't mean they are at death's door, It adds nothing to the analysis. James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-51615609272896476782020-04-02T06:06:39.859+01:002020-04-02T06:06:39.859+01:00Ioannidis is in my book the expert here. A bonus ...Ioannidis is in my book the expert here. A bonus is a track record of being right about biases in science and statistics. Lewis has been right about uniform priors for example just as James was. <br /><br />I am highly skeptical of most of the officially reported numbers we see. We have no idea how many have been infected and had only mild illness or no symptoms (half of all testing positive in Iceland and on the DP). Death certificates are argued by Lee in the Spectator to be highly biased and to overstate Covid19 as a cause of death. I saw a number that 99% of Italian casualties had 1 or more serious health problems and that average age was over 80. Overall mortality for those over 80 in the UK is roughly 10.4% per annum. Certainly much higher if you have diabetes, high blood pressure, congestive heart failure, or COPD.<br /><br />David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-21090625956391385202020-04-01T19:13:24.040+01:002020-04-01T19:13:24.040+01:00Someone should tell Nic Lewis that he is only two ...Someone should tell Nic Lewis that he is only two weeks behind the times. That's like five doublings. Nice post for April Fools Jokers go though.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-12348251894239149752020-04-01T17:27:49.064+01:002020-04-01T17:27:49.064+01:00So who's the expert here then?So who's the expert here then?James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-85391713559624696572020-04-01T17:23:41.295+01:002020-04-01T17:23:41.295+01:00And John Ioannidis plays the same shiny trombone. ...And John Ioannidis plays the same shiny trombone. The nco’s here should stick to pseudo-science and leave music to the experts.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-13427729244885074772020-04-01T07:07:56.147+01:002020-04-01T07:07:56.147+01:00Someone here should stop playing the rusty trombon...Someone here should stop playing the rusty trombone that is Climate Etc., especially if that instrument was just removed from that someone's own backside. Kind of reminds me of your typical Trump sycophant.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68811468745691416632020-03-30T09:27:23.667+01:002020-03-30T09:27:23.667+01:001) It would be reasonable to assume that the death...1) It would be reasonable to assume that the deaths on Diamond Princess reported to be due to COVID, with consistent timing, were in fact due to COVID. Claiming that many of them were really due to other causes, while not impossible, is a bit of a stretch. i.e., this is 'making assumptions as favorable as possible for your point of view'.<br /><br />2) 10 deaths (an extra 2 since Nic's analysis) is not enough to make strong conclusions on mortality, but the last thing you should do is split this data into even smaller subgroups. The age profile of mortality is anyway well constrained by other data.<br /><br />3) Diamond Princess passengers are unrepresentative of general community, even accounting for age profile (e.g. because they are likely to be both healthier and wealthier).<br /><br />4) False positives are accounted for (although this is very uncertain). What other similar thing should one account for?<br /><br />5) What you actually get is wide bounds on possible mortality, so presenting only the central estimate is highly misleading. Given random and systematic errors, the range of plausible answers probably covers an order of magnitude.<br /><br />But even if you believe Nic's low estimate, this still corresponds to a Lombardy situation everywhere unless you flatten the curve: health services overwhelmed and massive excess death, mostly of the elderly.<br /><br /><br />Ben McMillanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207321632374481100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-12985905939503000992020-03-30T02:10:05.628+01:002020-03-30T02:10:05.628+01:00I love the dismissal without any technical reason ...I love the dismissal without any technical reason and don't really take it seriously. "Nic always does this" is not a rational argument.<br /><br />The reason I believe Nic's analysis is because it agrees well with a similar one by John Ioannidis from Stanford who specializes in statistical analysis in medicine. The error bounds are rather large, but the median value he came up with for the US population was 0.125% fatality rate. Two other Stanford professors had a piece in the Wall Street Journal analyzing some other complete data sets such as Vos Italy and came to similar conclusions. Ioannidis has a long you tube video on the subject which is also very good and an antidote to panic.<br /><br />Phil, Nic went to the original sources and has corrected his analysis to make it up to date. <br /><br />Bottom line is that we have inadequate testing data to know much with certainty outside these smaller datasets. Ioannidis wants a large random test program to determine the denominator. If R is as large as you seem to think James, can the number of cases be anywhere near accurate? In the US, official policy has been to test those who need it, i.e., those who present with symptoms or are health care workers. Even so, the positive rate is about 30% amoung those presenting with symptoms meaning 70% have something else. My suspicion is that a very large number have already been exposed and most didn't even know they had it. Until we do random testing we won't know however.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-84162380178660201532020-03-29T21:30:36.259+01:002020-03-29T21:30:36.259+01:00I like the bit where there were 0 deaths in the 60...I like the bit where there were 0 deaths in the 60-69 category and Nic tries to 'adjust' this to account for other causes of death. Done well you could get some reasonable bound on mortality from Diamond Princess data. It would be a very wide bound, obviously, because there aren't enough statistics, so 0 deaths in some category tells you little, and the passengers are unrepresentative of general population (in terms of wealth and health).Ben McMillanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207321632374481100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-40544866498250134532020-03-29T17:02:46.905+01:002020-03-29T17:02:46.905+01:00Of course Nic is wrong. He is fairly skilled at ta...Of course Nic is wrong. He is fairly skilled at taking a partial data set, interpreting it as favourably as possible for his point of view, and ignoring and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. On the bright side, his errors will be revealed rather rapidly, at which point David Young will no doubt come flying in on his pig and agree that Nic's analyses aren't generally to be trusted. If Nic says 0.1% then that's certainly a lower bound of sorts on the truth but unlikely to be a useful estimate.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-82382321298676616472020-03-29T16:20:35.643+01:002020-03-29T16:20:35.643+01:00Nic is wrong.
Start by checking the case deaths on...Nic is wrong.<br />Start by checking the case deaths on the Diamond Princess.<br />Find his errors, don't spread them.<br /><br />Misinformation kills. Don't spread it.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-24799640377374659692020-03-28T20:59:49.331+00:002020-03-28T20:59:49.331+00:00Sorry, my last comment is perhaps confusing about ...Sorry, my last comment is perhaps confusing about excess mortality. For those 60-69 years of age in the UK, 0.99% are expected to die over the course of a years. If all were exposed to covid19, an additional 0.11% would die according to Nic's analysis.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-78429844082041442632020-03-28T20:20:18.981+00:002020-03-28T20:20:18.981+00:00I think James that the problem here is that virtua...I think James that the problem here is that virtually all media is behaving irresponsibly. A few more sane articles are starting to appear. There was one in the Wall Street Journal in the last week analyzing the few reliable datasets we have. They roughly agree with Nic Lewis' results and conclusions.<br /><br />If you take Nic Lewis' estimate of excess mortality based on the Diamond Princess, you get about a 10% excess mortality for those 60-69 years old even if everyone is exposed on a yearly basis. It's somewhat worse for those over 70. The data did not allow conclusions for those under 60, but even the badly biased death rates we see trumpeted in the media are not too worrying for these people. Most of the excess mortality will be amoung the elderly who are already pretty ill with underlying problems and with limited life expectancy. That's not fun and we should try to prevent it if possible, but its not a catastrophe either.<br /><br />South Korea did not shut down their economy and their epidemic appears to be pretty well contained. <br /><br />Finally, given how contagious this virus appears to be, one must ask the question if attempts to limit exposure are even going to work at all. Your modeling indicates we can delay mass exposure but barring a medical breakthrough not prevent it.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-52138113059618241352020-03-28T14:34:53.967+00:002020-03-28T14:34:53.967+00:00Oh, and I forgot to add this:
The first ever test...Oh, and I forgot to add this:<br /><br />The first ever test developed in the world wasn't that close to ideal as you might expect. False negative rate was high, perhaps over 50% at first and improving with time to 3% or less. Dr Li Wenliang tested negative several times before testing positive. The test was good enough to help doctors so was very valuable... but the collected data isn't so valuable.<br /><br />Better testing and better quality data are needed to resolve numbers.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-56323637900105346942020-03-28T14:00:16.990+00:002020-03-28T14:00:16.990+00:00Wuhan data set is very messy.
Definition of case ...Wuhan data set is very messy.<br /><br />Definition of case changed. They were making it up as they went along. Shortages of everything including time.<br /><br />Who was tested depended on when. Ranged from "ICU admitting only" early to "anyone with a fever" later. At least some with just possible exposure. Also not very well documented.<br /><br />Both many deaths and many milder cases were not counted. How many of both is mostly guesswork.<br />Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-80391941104925559662020-03-28T11:43:36.357+00:002020-03-28T11:43:36.357+00:00The lower end of the lower estimate of mortality i...The lower end of the lower estimate of mortality in that Columbia link (on the basis of 10% of cases coming to health services attention, which is consistent with Iceland data), which is 0.24% mortality, and assuming 50% infected, would give 75000 deaths in the UK. Also at least double that number in ICU for a week or so: there are about 4000 ICU beds so that would need to be spread over a year or so (assuming no-one else needed those beds!).<br /><br />That seems roughly consistent with 'Diamond Princess' data too (~1% deaths in unrepresentatively old population). I think also roughly consistent with (lower bound from) Lombardy, where overall mortality is ~0.1% (very large error bars), and probably at most half were infected.<br /><br /><br />Ben McMillanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207321632374481100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-50579140228236380542020-03-28T06:03:02.173+00:002020-03-28T06:03:02.173+00:00Death rate estimates still all over the place, her...Death rate estimates still all over the place, here a post with two apparently credible papers giving widely spaced estimates based on the same Wuhan data set!<br /><br />https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/03/07/coronavirus-age-specific-fatality-ratio-estimated-using-stan/James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.com