Read on Twitter
The new MN covid model now estimates 29K deaths.
Dr. Osterholm on Monday: “We're probably in MN, somewhere around the 5% infection level"
If true, the max total deaths in MN would be < 10,000. See math below.
There appears to be a disconnect. 1/2
https://wccoradio.radio.com/articles/dr-michael-osterholm-details-where-minnesota-is-at-with-the
Dr. Osterholm on Monday: “We're probably in MN, somewhere around the 5% infection level"
If true, the max total deaths in MN would be < 10,000. See math below.
There appears to be a disconnect. 1/2
https://wccoradio.radio.com/articles/dr-michael-osterholm-details-where-minnesota-is-at-with-the
In order to explain this difference...
Apparently, the new model assumes less people are infected now, more than 70% of MN will eventually be infected, and/or the overall fatality rate (as % of actual infected) will increase over time. 2/2
Apparently, the new model assumes less people are infected now, more than 70% of MN will eventually be infected, and/or the overall fatality rate (as % of actual infected) will increase over time. 2/2
It is important for MN officials to breakout their model estimates for long term care.
Another possible reason for higher estimates in v3 could be the ongoing impact in LTC.
With about 60k Minnesotans in LTC and 30% of these cases dying to date, the math is troubling.
Another possible reason for higher estimates in v3 could be the ongoing impact in LTC.
With about 60k Minnesotans in LTC and 30% of these cases dying to date, the math is troubling.
@bjbohman Thank you. I welcome different viewpoints, as long as you keep it constructive.
A few key points for consideration...
A few key points for consideration...
Whenever experts model, especially using instable inputs and complex models, it’s best to check the output against what is happening on the ground, basic facts and thresholds, to see if it holds up. And if it doesn’t, explain why.
It is not enough to say, “the model says” and “we are using the best science.” This is a pandemic, and the science has not caught up. Frankly that has been the tension with policy-making over the past months.
If your point is that they are using a higher 1% IFR in the model... ok, then the question is “why” when currently the IFR is much less in MN with a 5% infected population.
If the response is, “it has not spread proportionately yet into the at-risk population” then the question is... “how is that?” when CV19 clearly has been impacting the MN LTC community disproportionately.
Perhaps there are good reasons for the differences.. and I presented some in my 2nd/3rd thread if you read them.
But again, what is happening on the ground matters, reality matters, and model projections need to hold together and be explainable to gain public confidence.
But again, what is happening on the ground matters, reality matters, and model projections need to hold together and be explainable to gain public confidence.
