Is there an actual paper?

If he were to use the calculation he did to figure out UK deaths, that would equate to 88,000 American deaths from COVID-19.

so his revision comes because he originally assumed no comprehensive testing?

I mean I guess it makes sense if you say two weeks ago we weren't going to be able to do testing surveillance whereas we likely could by the end of April

cone said:

---

so his revision comes because he originally assumed no comprehensive testing?

I mean I guess it makes sense if you say two weeks ago we weren't going to be able to do testing surveillance whereas we likely could by the end of April

---

His assumption on how many infected were way off. He originally assumed the number of confirmed cases tracked closely with the total number of cases. Which would we mean a higher fatality rate and it would mean that there's still a large portion of the population yet to be infected. Once you realize there's already a much larger pool of people infected with mild condtions not only does the mortality rate drop drastically, but also rates of hospitalization, etc...

The 16 Mar report showed a range of anywhere from 5,600 to 510,000 for GB. Low end at extreme hammer and dance to the high end of unmitigated.

I'm not sure that's right. The articles say he's supporting the current strict measures, and with those the peak will subside.

Quote:

---

The UK government is aiming to relax restrictions on people's movements only when the country has the ability to test more people for the virus, said Ferguson. Some have criticised the UK for not following the advice of the World Health Organization to "test, test, test". But Ferguson said community testing and contact tracing wasn't included as a possible strategy in the original modelling because not enough tests were available.

He said the UK should have the testing capacity "within a few weeks" to copy what South Korea has done and aggressively test and trace the general population.

New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5. "That adds more evidence to support the more intensive social distancing measures," he said.

---

Lots of spin right now, on all sides.

Neil Ferguson's actual testiomony is here:

He's introduced starting at about 5:58 in the video.

There's a few good questions, but there is a question about ICU modeling around 12:05 and one around 15:30 that's a good listen about estimates of severity and increased ICU capacity.

JB99 said:

---

cone said:

---

so his revision comes because he originally assumed no comprehensive testing?

I mean I guess it makes sense if you say two weeks ago we weren't going to be able to do testing surveillance whereas we likely could by the end of April

---

His assumption on how many infected were way off. He originally assumed the number of confirmed cases tracked closely with the total number of cases. Which would we mean a higher fatality rate and it would mean that there's still a large portion of the population yet to be infected. Once you realize there's already a much larger pool of people infected with mild condtions not only does the mortality rate drop drastically, but also rates of hospitalization, etc...

---

That may be the case, but he doesn't say that:

Quote:

---

His comments come as a team at the University of Oxford released provisional findings of a different model that they say shows that up to half the UK population could already have been infected. The model is based on different assumptions to those of Ferguson and others involved in advising the UK government.

Most importantly, it assumes that most people who contract the virus don't show symptoms and that very few need to go to hospital. "I don't think that's consistent with the observed data," Ferguson told the committee.

---

I read the Oxford paper, and the way it is being reported in the media isn't quite consistent with what the study actually says. Their study is a sensitivity analysis. They used published infectiousness measures (infectious period, R0) and then assumed rates of asymptomatic infections / severity, to see if they could fit a model to the observed deaths in the first 15 days of the outbreak in the UK and Italy.

This tells you if your current model is very sensitive to the assumptions you're making. So, if you assume 10x lower severity and you can't make the math work, maybe your model isn't sensitive to severity, and you can feel better about your severity estimates. They found that the deaths in the first 15 days (pre-lockdown measures) could be predicted by a highly infectious, but very low severity disease.

It doesn't actually make a prediction. It's just throwing up a caution to the strength of the severity estimate based on observed deaths.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I read the Oxford paper, and the way it is being reported in the media isn't quite consistent with what the study actually says. Their study is a sensitivity analysis. They used published infectiousness measures (infectious period, R0) and then assumed rates of asymptomatic infections / severity, to see if they could fit a model to the observed deaths in the first 15 days of the outbreak in the UK and Italy.

This tells you if your current model is very sensitive to the assumptions you're making. So, if you assume 10x lower severity and you can't make the math work, maybe your model isn't sensitive to severity, and you can feel better about your severity estimates. They found that the deaths in the first 15 days (pre-lockdown measures) could be predicted by a highly infectious, but very low severity disease.

It doesn't actually make a prediction. It's just throwing up a caution to the strength of the severity estimate based on observed deaths.

---

Thanks. So they are just showing there's a scenario on the other extreme that can explain things. Bottom line is, we still don't have enough data.

[url] https://www.yahoo.com/news/oxford-study-suggests-millions-people-221100162.html[/url]

Ferguson specifically says they've ruled out the scenarios presented in that paper, but there's still a degree of uncertainty.


(If you want to read it here's a link, its not long)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model%20%2813%29.pdf?dl=0

Bag said:

---

so to be clear the entire world took this original document as gospel, freaked the f out and blew up the economy based on some idiot that wasn't smart enough to assume that there were potentially a large number of people already infected that were showing no signs. We truly are beyond the pale.

Talk about idiocracy, we deserve whatever we get

---

Bag, the CDC's own models showed 4 different scenarios, ranging from 200,000 deaths to 1.7MM deaths. That was completely separate from the Imperial College report. Also, some people are twisting what the latest testimony/models are saying.

Bag said:

---

so to be clear the entire world took this original document as gospel, freaked the f out and blew up the economy based on some idiot that wasn't smart enough to assume that there were potentially a large number of people already infected that were showing no signs. We truly are beyond the pale.

Talk about idiocracy, we deserve whatever we get

---

In Ferguson's defense he never mentioned 6.6 million dead Americans. His study equated the Corona virus to the 1918 Spanish Flu - H1N1 virus. A perfectly reasonable first guess given the crappy input data available. The West Coast group Covid Act Now made a model that showed 6.6 million Americans dead, politicians believed it, made poster boards with those assumptions. See the link: https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/25/inaccurate-virus-models-are-panicking-officials-into-ill-advised-lockdowns/

Thankfully cooler heads may prevail in these uncertain times.

Then rebut it point by point.

And this one also.

I've given you three to read.

All by different authors.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

Need a home test kit like the Census so we can self report en masse and figure this out.

Quote:

---

And this one also.

[url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/][/url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

---

I've already discussed that and posted the actual testimony of Neil Ferguson above.

Ferguson believes, by at least doubling ICU capacity, continuing strict, if not stricter, lock down measures, and ramping up testing capacity, the UK will generally be able to address the quantity of patients. He believes some places will nevertheless be very strained.

(And that, frankly, in itself, is your own rebuttal of the Federalist's opinion that lockdowns are an "ill-advised" Democratic scam.)

94chem said:

---

Need a home test kit like the Census so we can self report en masse and figure this out.

---

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-coronavirus-latest-news-covid-19-antibody-test-ready-in-days/

Fingers crossed. Hopefully we won't be flying blind for much longer.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

And this one also.

[url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/][/url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

---

I've already discussed that and posted the actual testimony of Neil Ferguson above.

Ferguson believes, by at least doubling ICU capacity, continuing strict, if not stricter, lock down measures, and ramping up testing capacity, the UK will generally be able to address the quantity of patients. He believes some places will nevertheless be very strained.

(And that, frankly, in itself, is your own rebuttal of the Federalist's opinion that lockdowns are an "ill-advised" Democratic scam.)

---

The Federalist criticizes ONLY the Covid Act Now 6.6 million dead fear tactic.

Now ask me if I believe mitigation and suppression are wise.

All this really means is China's check cleared.

I hope the Oxford study is correct, but I have to wonder if they are. If half of the UK is already infected, then R0 would be less than one and the rest of new infections and deaths would be going down. Am I missing something here?

Impossible to say now, because they only best-fit it to the first 15 days. Once the shutdown happens you won't know what to attribute a slowdown to...herd immunity, or social distancing?

Antibody testing will tell the tale. Or time, if infectious keep going up.

Bag said:

---

so to be clear the entire world took this original document as gospel, freaked the f out and blew up the economy based on some idiot that wasn't smart enough to assume that there were potentially a large number of people already infected that were showing no signs. We truly are beyond the pale.

Talk about idiocracy, we deserve whatever we get

---

As already pointed out, no.

What part of my interpretation was spin?

The world took the document as the absolute truth, check
The world freaked out, hysteria fueled by 24 hour doom and gloom, check
The us government took the document as gospel and closed America, check
The original document did not account for a potentially huge number of people that might be asymptomatic and in the clear, something any 'scientist' should have accounted for, check

What part of that is spin?