Read on Twitter
One seriously has to wonder why some ideas or inputs were not considered in modeling the COVID outbreak.
There are several reputable researchers who had a different take that seems to have been ignored.
Here is Oxford’s /1 https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-may-have-already-infected-half-of-uk-study-says/
There are several reputable researchers who had a different take that seems to have been ignored.
Here is Oxford’s /1 https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-may-have-already-infected-half-of-uk-study-says/
Two medical professors penned this in the WSJ /2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-11585088464
Here’s Dr. Katz from Yale /3 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html
Here’s a Stanford Nobel laureate who accurately predicted outcomes in China. Also said the peak would be sooner /4 https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending/coronavirus-nobel-laureate-says-us-will-have-quicker-covid-19-recovery/AWJN4WAM6VC7NPTBZLDC3JWGUU/
Here’s Dr. Birx saying the most horrific models were skewed. Yet the base assumption in the IMHE model is still there would have been 1-2.2M deaths. Which was the number the media initially latched on to from the Imperial College. /5
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4863965/user-clip-dr-deborah-birx-numbers-potentially-infected-coronavirus
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4863965/user-clip-dr-deborah-birx-numbers-potentially-infected-coronavirus
The professor at the Imperial College ultimately revised his number down based on extreme social distancing policies. /6 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/
Interesting to note, of the 20K deaths he forecasted in the revised model, he projected half would have occurred in the next 12 mo due to other health issues.
Still given the catastrophic prediction in the IMHE model mirrors the Imperial College model, did they just apply /7
Still given the catastrophic prediction in the IMHE model mirrors the Imperial College model, did they just apply /7
the same assumptions based on public social distancing policy? And if so, why the heavy reliance on a model built off a study that Dr. Birx seemed to indicate was inflated?
This becomes even more questionable when you look at ILI data from the CDC. There were 3 spikes /8
This becomes even more questionable when you look at ILI data from the CDC. There were 3 spikes /8
before testing for COVID was widely available. It looks completely different than any other year. And has a peak much later. (Bold red line) /8
Another interesting note from the week ending March 28th /10
Flu like illnesses were frequently above baseline through the season nationwide. Is any model assuming some percentage of these were COVID -19? And then applying the assumed contagion rate to predict asymptomatic sufferers? Back of the napkin math more than 2 million /11
patients were seen over the course of this season for flu like illnesses. That is just the cases that were tracked. Does anyone legitimately believe that at some point beginning in November that some portion of these were not COVID? /12
And while CDC estimates are flagged to note there may be overlap with COVID this is the current model /13
Yet, deaths from pneumonia & flu exceeded baseline & epidemic levels multiple times this year with pneumonia accounting for the vast majority. /14
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2019-2020/data/NCHSData13.csv
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2019-2020/data/NCHSData13.csv
Pneumonia is also one of the most common complications of COVID. /15 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html
Just my humble opinion. There has to be noise in flu like illnesses & in deaths from pneumonia related to COVID 19 beginning before January. According to the diagnostics in the above, COVID causes a unique CT imaging & laboratory profile. An enterprising researcher could /15
Probably review charts & find a much better estimation of seed date than the first documented case in the US.
Because something in the model is clearly off. It already assumes full social distancing. Might want to take a look at the deaths from ARDS & other common COVID /17
Because something in the model is clearly off. It already assumes full social distancing. Might want to take a look at the deaths from ARDS & other common COVID /17
complications. Especially where there are geographic clusters.
You can’t miss the sharp spike in pneumonia related deaths at the end of December & early January. Something is amiss. /end
You can’t miss the sharp spike in pneumonia related deaths at the end of December & early January. Something is amiss. /end
