US Politics Thread

[calitennis127]

I went back several pages to find your original post on the IHME, and, if I did find the first one, all you said was that it was a failure. No link. Then the rest has just been shouting and people and asking them if they even know what it is. If you did provide an original link, forgive me, but could you please post it again?

There are a number of mainstream articles about the revisions of the IHME model, including from CNN and the Washington Post. What prompted me to post about the IHME model's flaws were a series of tweets that I saw simply showing what the model's daily projections were versus what the real numbers were.

The tweeter here is Sean Davis, a graduate from Penn's Wharton School with a background in statistical modeling. He has been one of the main critics of the IHME model and has been tracking it closely. Here is an example of how wildly off the mark it has been. It makes me wince when I hear Pence, Fauci, or Birx reference the model as though it has been a reliable basis for the current shutdown policies. That is absolute bullshit. Just look at this example - saying that 12,000 people in Tennessee would be hospitalized on April 12th when the actual number was 567. How can you defend that?



As for the idea that it was social distancing that caused the model to be revised downward, here is the retort to that:

 

[Moxie]

Once again...my mistake for trying to make the dialogue more civil.

Did you read why the Boston Medical staff were furloughed? Due to Covid-19 overload, and lost to revenue on elective procedures:

"Boston Medical Center is furloughing 700 staff members, or 10 percent of its workforce, due to financial losses from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to The Boston Globe.
The hospital has postponed elective procedures to ensure it has the capacity and supplies to treat patients with COVID-19. As a result, it is expecting a sudden and drastic drop in revenue, according to the report.
Kate Walsh, CEO of Boston Medical Center, told The Globe that the hospital has lost about $5 million in revenue per week, and that the furloughs will help save the system about $1 million per week.
"We have reassigned a number of staff members and made the difficult decision to furlough approximately 10 percent of our health system workforce," Ms. Walsh told The Globe."Although furloughed employees will cease to work temporarily, they will remain in active status with the expectation of returning."
Most affected employees are in administrative roles, not front-line caregivers, the medical center said."

It's due to the pandemic, Cali.

 

[Moxie]

There are a number of mainstream articles about the revisions of the IHME model, including from CNN and the Washington Post. What prompted me to post about the IHME model's flaws were a series of tweets that I saw simply showing what the model's daily projections were versus what the real numbers were.

The tweeter here is Sean Davis, a graduate from Penn's Wharton School with a background in statistical modeling. He has been one of the main critics of the IHME model and has been tracking it closely. Here is an example of how wildly off the mark it has been. It makes me wince when I hear Pence, Fauci, or Birx reference the model as though it has been a reliable basis for the current shutdown policies. That is absolute bullshit. Just look at this example - saying that 12,000 people in Tennessee would be hospitalized on April 12th when the actual number was 567. How can you defend that?



As for the idea that it was social distancing that caused the model to be revised downward, here is the retort to that:

You didn't bother to post any substantive article initially (and still haven't, frankly) and I don't know why I had to do my own research. Feel free to post the CNN or Washington Post articles. It really wasn't that easy to find in the mainstream media, from my googling. I gave you an article with subtly. I'm not interested in a couple of tweets, tbh. Not enough nuance in 140 characters. Plus, seriously: Tennessee? (Where, btw, I have family. Conservative Republicans, and they're locked down pretty hard.) Why not Idaho or Montana? Or, what do you say we look at Georgia again in a month from now? And the other graph still dates to April 7th. Given the rate of change day to day since mid-March, that may as well have been the 15th C. Find me something similar that dates to say 20 April, and I'll give it a look. Anyway, it's just the same point, which I addressed, about the IHME model. Yes, erroneous, but you fail to address the more complicated issues about what it means to use a failed model to make policy decisions, esp. vis-à-vis social distancing. Part of the problem is how it will be seen and reacted to by the public, which is a much more complicated discussion. It's not just all about the models being wrong, or projecting too high. Some have projected too low. (In Boston, for example.) Either the real argument is too complicated for you, or politically inconvenient, but stop with the twitter crap.

 

[calitennis127]

Once again...my mistake for trying to make the dialogue more civil.

Did you read why the Boston Medical staff were furloughed? Due to Covid-19 overload, and lost to revenue on elective procedures:

"Boston Medical Center is furloughing 700 staff members, or 10 percent of its workforce, due to financial losses from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to The Boston Globe.
The hospital has postponed elective procedures to ensure it has the capacity and supplies to treat patients with COVID-19. As a result, it is expecting a sudden and drastic drop in revenue, according to the report.
Kate Walsh, CEO of Boston Medical Center, told The Globe that the hospital has lost about $5 million in revenue per week, and that the furloughs will help save the system about $1 million per week.
"We have reassigned a number of staff members and made the difficult decision to furlough approximately 10 percent of our health system workforce," Ms. Walsh told The Globe."Although furloughed employees will cease to work temporarily, they will remain in active status with the expectation of returning."
Most affected employees are in administrative roles, not front-line caregivers, the medical center said."

It's due to the pandemic, Cali.

Yes, I did read the article. Now the question is: are the facilities being cleared out for COVID patients actually being used for COVID patients? In the vast majority of the country, the answer is a resounding NO. These facilities are wide open and empty because the virus is nowhere near as bad as advertised. The IHME's predictions have been off to an embarrassing degree in state after state after state.

Here is another example from Oklahoma City.....this is happening all over the country. Hospitals are shutting down operations to clear the way for COVID patients that never come through the door.

Oklahoma City hospital closing due to coronavirus mandates limiting nonessential procedures

Oklahoma City hospital closing due to coronavirus mandates limiting nonessential procedures - Washington Examiner

A hospital in Oklahoma City is closing temporarily because of a lack of nonemergency surgeries and procedures, according to a new report. INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center will keep its emergency room open but temporarily close for most other procedures, a spokesperson told the Oklahoman. "We...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[calitennis127]

You didn't bother to post any substantive article initially (and still haven't, frankly) and I don't know why I had to do my own research. Feel free to post the CNN or Washington Post articles. It really wasn't that easy to find in the mainstream media, from my googling. I gave you an article with subtly. I'm not interested in a couple of tweets, tbh. Not enough nuance in 140 characters.

So now Mrs. "Please Post Briefer Posts" is asking for "nuance" and detail. It really is remarkable how you just change your positions and complaints on a dime to suit your own argument. The fact is, Sean Davis's tweet about how far off the predictions in Tennessee were embarrassing to you, so you're acting out. There is no defending a model that said 12,000 people would be hospitalized in Tennessee on April 12th when the actual number turned out being 567. So what do you do? Disparage Twitter as if the problem with the IHME model is the succinct nature of messages on Twitter. Sure. Great excuse there. What's your next complaint? That the tweet was unkind in showing the actual graph from the IHME model itself?

If you're angered by someone simply citing the model's claims, maybe you should be angry at the model instead of the people who point out what it said.

Plus, seriously: Tennessee? (Where, btw, I have family. Conservative Republicans, and they're locked down pretty hard.)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? The IHME model made prediction in state after state that was wrong. I'm sorry that you're so offended by me pointing out its outrageous inaccuracies when it came to Tennessee, but those count. Now you want examples of more states where the IHME royally f'd up, here you go. 4 more states in which it was totally wrong, starting with your beloved New York (in addition to Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana). These predictions are what the Fauci-orchestrated polices of the Trump administration were based on:

 

[Moxie]

Before you slipperily shift the conversation to OKC, what if we stay on Boston Medical for a moment:

Boston Medical Center ICU Reaches Capacity Sunday, A First During COVID-19 Crisis

The worrisome milestone comes at a time when state, federal and local officials are warning that the viral outbreak may be entering a surge period in Massachusetts and other states.

www.wbur.org

 

[Moxie]

And Boston hospitals, at large:

Over 100 Employees at Boston-Area Hospitals Test Positive for Coronavirus

Two Boston hospitals each reported that more than 40 employees have tested sick for the new coronavirus Wednesday.

www.nbcboston.com

 

[calitennis127]

Before you slipperily shift the conversation to OKC, what if we stay on Boston Medical for a moment:

Boston Medical Center ICU Reaches Capacity Sunday, A First During COVID-19 Crisis

The worrisome milestone comes at a time when state, federal and local officials are warning that the viral outbreak may be entering a surge period in Massachusetts and other states.

www.wbur.org

Oh wow.....you found one hospital somewhere where the predictions of "overrun hospitals" came true. Now would you like to address the thousands of hospitals where that is not occurring? And would you like to explain why when the IHME model said that there would be 7,100 people hospitalized in Louisiana there were only 1,800 hospitalized? Or why when it said there would be 12,000 hospitalized in Tennesee there were only 567? Or why when it said there would be 72,000 hospitalized in New York there were only 28,000?

All your article says is this:

"Boston health officials say this is the first known case of a Boston hospital reaching ICU capacity during the current COVID-19 crisis.

According to numbers reported Monday by the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, Boston Medical Center has 140 COVID-19 patients with 39 in the ICU. On Sunday, the group says the hospital had 147 COVID-19 patients with 42 in the ICU."

Those numbers hardly match up with the dire warnings of thousands of COVID patients flooding hospitals while thousands more waited outside untreated.

 

[Moxie]

For the record, yes, I do wish you'd be briefer on your palaver, and just let the information do the talking. I have never pretended to be angry or otherwise on any side of the IHME model. Only that I think you use the information politically, and I still stand by that.

 

[calitennis127]

Moxie asked for an article that shows how embarrassingly off the IHME predictions have been. Here is one. The model screwed up so terribly in state after state, including her beloved New York, that it is quite comical:

"The forecast predicted, for example, that the United States would need around 164,750 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients on Saturday. Yet the COVID Tracking Project, a team of journalists and data analysts who collect and tabulate coronavirus data from state tallies around the country, reported only around 22,158 currently hospitalized coronavirus patients nationwide on Saturday.

The discrepancies are also stark when looked at on a state-by-state basis. The model estimated that 65,434 patients would need hospital beds in New York State on Friday. In reality, there were 15,905 hospitalizations in that state by Sunday morning, according to the COVID Tracking Project. "

So let's get this right.....for Saturday April 4th, the model over-predicted the nationwide number of hospitalizations by over 140,000. For Friday April 3rd, it over-predicted the number of hospitalizations in New York State by a whopping 50,000. Do you even care Moxie? Or should we just forget these hilariously off-base projections?

A reminder to everyone else that it is on the basis of this flawed model that the U.S. has shut down its national economy.

Tracking site suggests White House model is overestimating coronavirus hospitalizations
True numbers of Americans hospitalized with coronavirus appear to be tens of thousands lower than model's projections.

Tracking site suggests White House model is overestimating coronavirus hospitalizations

True numbers of Americans hospitalized with coronavirus appear to be tens of thousands lower than model's projections.

justthenews.com

 

[calitennis127]

Only that I think you use the information politically, and I still stand by that.

Lmao.....so now simply citing the numbers of the IHME model's predictions is being "political." Okay then. The fact is, you just have no answer for the IHME model over-predicting national hospitalizations on April 4th by 140,000, or hospitalizations on April 3rd in New York state by 50,000, or hospitalizations in Tennessee on April 12th by 11,500. You have no idea what to say so you're accusing me of being "political."

The model's numbers were so terribly off the mark that there is no defending them. Anyone who bothers to look at them can see that.

 

[Moxie]

Oh wow.....you found one hospital somewhere where the predictions of "overrun hospitals" came true. Now would you like to address the thousands of hospitals where that is not occurring? And would you like to explain why when the IHME model said that there would be 7,100 people hospitalized in Louisiana there were only 1,800 hospitalized? Or why when it said there would be 12,000 hospitalized in Tennesee there were only 567? Or why when it said there would be 72,000 hospitalized in New York there were only 28,000?

All your article says is this:

"Boston health officials say this is the first known case of a Boston hospital reaching ICU capacity during the current COVID-19 crisis.

According to numbers reported Monday by the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, Boston Medical Center has 140 COVID-19 patients with 39 in the ICU. On Sunday, the group says the hospital had 147 COVID-19 patients with 42 in the ICU."

Those numbers hardly match up with the dire warnings of thousands of COVID patients flooding hospitals while thousands more waited outside untreated.

Boston Medical was your example, so I looked into it. I didn't "find" it, you did. And you can keep saying that these numbers don't match up with the "dire warnings," but it doesn't mean that it's not a crisis. And that it's not getting worse. You could stop trying to be "right" for a minute, and try thinking about what's actually happening. I posted above that over 100 healthcare workers in Boston hospitals have tested positive. More than 900 in NYC hospitals. (Positive tests, not just "suspected cases." I could tell you about the 43 teachers in NYC public schools that have died of it, but some of those will surely be too controversial for you.) It is not usual for hospital workers to be so largely infected by one disease. This is a highly infectious virus, and no, it doesn't kill everyone, but it has killed a lot of people. One big problem is that it is new, and none of us has immunity to it. Another is that how deadly it can be is still an unknown. Is it unreasonable to shut down the world's economy, compared to the other options? I don't think we know the best answer to that, but you have seen it sweep across the world pretty fast, with a not insignificant death toll. We haven't just all fallen under the spell of a mass-hysteria. There is cause for alarm. That doesn't mean we can't discuss how and where we might work safely. For sure the whole US isn't locked down as tight as in some of the more affected areas. But let me ask you this: would you get on a plane tomorrow?

 

[Moxie]

Lmao.....so now simply citing the numbers of the IHME model's predictions is being "political." Okay then. The fact is, you just have no answer for the IHME model over-predicting national hospitalizations on April 4th by 140,000, or hospitalizations on April 3rd in New York state by 50,000, or hospitalizations in Tennessee on April 12th by 11,500. You have no idea what to say so you're accusing me of being "political."

The model's numbers were so terribly off the mark that there is no defending them. Anyone who bothers to look at them can see that.

You're beating a dead horse. I already said I understood that the IHME model was inaccurate. Now it's time to debate the implications, which aren't only that they were too high, but in some cases that they were too low. It's more complicated, and you refuse to address that. The problem, as I understand it, is that public policy was being based on them, and they were wavering wildly. So they didn't help policy makers make best choices, but they also failed in terms of telling the public what "social distancing" might and might not do. But the epidemiologists who didn't like the IHME model didn't disagree with social distancing as a solution, only in how it might be eventually construed, using a faulty model. The problem being that if you misuse public trust, you can undo the good work you've done it instruction on social behaviors. The epidemiologists who disagreed with the methodology of the IHME model didn't say it was just completely wrong and there was nothing to be worried about. I believe that most said there was still plenty to be worried about. Just that you were going to betray the public trust and go about things the wrong way with unreliable models. Well, OK, who's fault is it that we used them, then? Trump doesn't think it's his, but Harry Truman would have disagreed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Trump held rallies in March.

Please eat shit.

Kind reminder.

 

[Federberg]

In Taiwan there have been 132 tests per every confirmed case versus in the mighty US of A there have been only 5. Please elect a President that can make America great again..

 

[Federberg]

Kentucky sees highest spike in coronavirus cases after lockdown protests

Kentucky experienced its highest single-day spike in coronavirus cases after protests broke out in the state to lift lockdowns, according to reports. Gov. Andy Beshear announced there were 273 new …

nypost.com

 

[brokenshoelace]

Kentucky sees highest spike in coronavirus cases after lockdown protests

Kentucky experienced its highest single-day spike in coronavirus cases after protests broke out in the state to lift lockdowns, according to reports. Gov. Andy Beshear announced there were 273 new …

nypost.com

Truly shocking that this could ever happen to science-denying cult-following morons.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The model's numbers were so terribly off the mark that there is no defending them. Anyone who bothers to look at them can see that.

Agreed. It's almost as bad as claiming the number will be close to zero by April only to end up with the highest total in the world.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Agreed. It's almost as bad as claiming the number will be close to zero by April only to end up with the highest total in the world.

This is why it's so easy to just shut down right wing racists with one sentence and avoid the follow up nonsense.

 

[Federberg]