Corona Virus and Exponential Growth

@Eladar

Yeah, there is always going to be some mismatch data in an operation of this magnitude. How does someone with such limited capabilities get around that in a consistent way.

I would like to know if anyone has a hypothesis as to what potential features of the IHME models drives the asymmetry in Deaths Per Day across the inflection point? Understanding that seems to be the key as to why our models will underestimate against IHME projections. It must be Hospitalization Driven ( as that is the last remaining part of the model, and it posses the same asymmetry. But why is that the case?

PS I notice you have "3 Alert Moderators !" on your last post? I have noticed rather large numbers of them on many of your other posts, that don't seem violate forum guidelines to me. Is that something you personally can see? Do I have a number of "Alert Moderators !" on my post as well?

@joe-shmo

The problem is systematic. They have changed midstream how deaths are being counted. They did it for political reasons. They needed to inflate the number of deaths to stoke the hysteria to try to make Trump look bad.

Now we know why the model has more deaths after the peak. The first half was confirmed deaths, the other half is all that might have been covid.

Is it honest to change how deaths are counted midstream?

@eladar said
Is it honest to change how deaths are counted midstream?

Its obviously not an ideal situation, but "Worldometers" can do whatever they want. As for the States, reporting standards should have been specified by the Federal Government. Obviously a state level change indicates a lack of directive. Changing the scoring system mid game has to have negative consequences in the accuracy of live data analysis. Its certainly bad practice as far as I know? I think if you have entered this far into it under a certain data collection system, keep doing what you are doing and correct the data afterward, but I'm not a scientist.

Open Question: What do the scientist think?

@ponderable said
Then the UK is faster than the Federal republic of Germany. Here our most recent numbers are from Nov. 2019 (https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/[WORD TOO LONG] ...[text shortened]... normal fluctuation...But if you have Weekly numbers for the UK it could already Show as significant.

This is just office policy. The Office of National Statistics gives provisional data as early as they can. The information is subject to change. They probably have a similar lag as Germany for final data. I think it just means German officialdom don't release their statistics until they're finalised.

@joe-shmo said
Its obviously not an ideal situation, but "Worldometers" can do whatever they want. As for the States, reporting standards should have been specified by the Federal Government. Obviously a state level change indicates a lack of directive. Changing the scoring system mid game has to have negative consequences in the accuracy of live data analysis. Its certainly bad practic ...[text shortened]... correct the data afterward, but I'm not a scientist.

Open Question: What do the scientist think?

They should start another time series. They should report confirmed covid-19 deaths as before and have a separate time series for suspected covid-19 deaths. This is generally good practice when one is changing the way data is collected as one needs some overlap of the data to see what the change means. Is a jump in covid-19 deaths an artifact of the reporting procedure or is it reflective of a real effect?

I think that seeing the number of "Alert Moderator" signs is a subscriber feature.

@DeepThought

What is being done now is intentionally misleading.

@deepthought said
They should start another time series. They should report confirmed covid-19 deaths as before and have a separate time series for suspected covid-19 deaths. This is generally good practice when one is changing the way data is collected as one needs some overlap of the data to see what the change means. Is a jump in covid-19 deaths an artifact of the reporting procedure ...[text shortened]... a real effect?

I think that seeing the number of "Alert Moderator" signs is a subscriber feature.

"They should start another time series. They should report confirmed covid-19 deaths as before and have a separate time series for suspected covid-19 deaths. This is generally good practice when one is changing the way data is collected as one needs some overlap of the data to see what the change means. Is a jump in covid-19 deaths an artifact of the reporting procedure or is it reflective of a real effect?"

Ok, so I guess the question is that being done.

"I think that seeing the number of "Alert Moderator" signs is a subscriber feature."

Ahh, I didn't realize that. I am seeing several of Eladar's posts with very high numbers. We rarely every see up/down thumbing that gets above a four count. I know you think I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like a group of people collaborating to have him silenced. Whatever Eladar says I believe he has the right to say it. Its very childlike behavior to try and prevent it in that manner, instead of just attacking the substance.

@joe-shmo

I have my fan club.

@joe-shmo said
"They should start another time series. They should report confirmed covid-19 deaths as before and have a separate time series for suspected covid-19 deaths. This is generally good practice when one is changing the way data is collected as one needs some overlap of the data to see what the change means. Is a jump in covid-19 deaths an artifact of the reporting procedure o ...[text shortened]... ry childlike behavior to try and prevent it in that manner, instead of just attacking the substance.

I'm basing my statement on the way I can't see them. It's not obvious to me why anyone thinks that what he's said is anything that the moderators would take an interest in.

@deepthought said
I'm basing my statement on the way I can't see them. It's not obvious to me why anyone thinks that what he's said is anything that the moderators would take an interest in.

Right, that is why I thought they were rather suspicious. 9 "Alert Moderators" on an innocuous statement seemed rather fishy. I don't know what they hope to accomplish. But oh well...

Including US data from 15 to 48 (March 15 - April 17) - Worldometers

The quadratic regression coefficients for the Gaussian Distribution:
b, c, d
-0.005486517, 0.504025546, -3.779000319

The distribution coefficients:
m, a, A
0.005486517, 45.93310515, 2433

R² = 0.976

The Cumulative Projected Deaths:

Int[g(x)dx] = G( ∞ ) = 58,210

The latest IHME regression 60,308.

It is noticeable now that IHME has given up on the failing hospitalization factor that was driving the asymmetry and thus driving the totals up. Deaths Per day and Hospitalization Resources now possess a symmetry by inspection. Our comparisons now seem to be converging.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

<code>&int;</code>

@joe-shmo said
@Eladar

Yeah, there is always going to be some mismatch data in an operation of this magnitude. How does someone with such limited capabilities get around that in a consistent way.

I would like to know if anyone has a hypothesis as to what potential features of the IHME models drives the asymmetry in Deaths Per Day across the inflection point? Understanding that see ...[text shortened]... at something you personally can see? Do I have a number of "Alert Moderators !" on my post as well?

I don't know about their model per se. If one attempted to predict infections and used the number of infections to predict the number of deaths then the median time from hospitalisation to admittance to ICU is about a day and the median time to die after admittance to ICU is 6 days. There is a tail, so some people die a couple of months after being infected. This is going to tend to make the deaths curve asymmetric. IMHE takes this into account somehow.

Here is the problem

New York City numbers

Confirmed Dead 368
Confirmed +Might be = 528
Worldometer 627

Based on New York numbers today's deaths is comparable to May 31.