Does no WGI = no DCI for 2021 (Hypothetical)?

[JimF-LowBari]

58 minutes ago, George Dixon said:

a lot of inflated data, esp case count, here in MD estimated to be 40% inflated "cases" are positive tests not individuals 

Hearing that too and not a good way to check imo

[garfield]

3 hours ago, Continental said:

I bet no Sea Monkeys ever died in the mail. 

They always took a long time to deliver, but once you added water it meant hours and hours of tremendous fun disappointment for the whole family. 

Like ants.

Same thing.

[garfield]

1 hour ago, George Dixon said:

my friend tested positive, hospital gave him two more test to verify = three "cases"

Yes, and three tests, too.

MUCH of the data is skewed to almost unusable.

[cixelsyd]

Quote

The virus was already circulating in the northeast (having arrived in New York from Europe sometime in January) before anybody realized it was here. It helped the rest of the country that a number of other states in March took steps then, with very few reported cases, to at least partially lock down for a while, but it was already too late for much of the northeast. New York City was hit so badly that there are parts of that city that actually may have achieved herd immunity.

Just quoting this for context.  Not going to dispute, or vouch for, the accuracy of any of those three sentences at the moment.

Quote

(For a while, there was an argument circulating that the reason deaths were so high in New York was its policies regarding Covid and nursing homes. Even I thought so. But nursing homes in a number of other states with different policies have gotten slammed as well. As of July 10th, for instance, 40% of Texas cases were in nursing homes.)

Your bait-and-switch fails to mask the real issue there.

Nursing homes are always a potential vulnerability because of how the virus singles out the same things that put people in nursing homes (age and pre-existing medical conditions).  But Texas and other states learned from the mistakes made in New York, Pennsylvania, etc. earlier.  Remember when a tremendous surplus of treatment space was commandeered in New York City from both local and federal resources, and state/local leadership left most of it empty while forcing contagious C-19 convalescents back into nursing homes?

Quote

*And back on March 13th, I wrote this: "However, the CDC's worst-case estimates are that anywhere between 200,000 and 1.7 million Americans could die of COVID-19. But a MAJOR point to remember is that those estimates assume no change in behavior or official response. Taking steps like closing schools and crowded events will make a huge difference."

We're easily going to surpass that 200,000. Nobody on DCP at the time was claiming that 200,000 American deaths would be acceptable, and I doubt anyone in the country argued that in March or April. Rather, some people here were arguing that it would never happen and that it was irresponsible for people to offer such predictions. If I recall correctly, someone here even said, in response to one such citation, that it made them suspect the CDC had been co-opted by hysterics spreading disinformation. But now polls find that, depending on the group being surveyed, as many as 57% say that our current death toll of 175,000 is acceptable.

That's just unfathomable to me.

What I find unfathomable is the urge to compare an estimate with 850% margin for error against the running real-time tabulation.

[cixelsyd]

1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:

I understood it to include if general population does nothing. I remember some briefings even saying that. Still don’t see an issue in saying it out loud as long as everyone realizes the details.

Well, if everyone realized that it was an impossible, unrealistic scenario, then they would probably not want to waste time and resources pretending it could somehow happen anyway and preparing for it.

[JimF-LowBari]

6 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Well, if everyone realized that it was an impossible, unrealistic scenario, then they would probably not want to waste time and resources pretending it could somehow happen anyway and preparing for it.

Dude we disagree on worst case numbers being released. I’m not going to argue the point.....

[N.E. Brigand]

4 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

You have the wrong date.  Officials were inviting people to San Francisco Chinatown on February 24th.

Thanks. I thought the San Francisco event was later. But the post to which I was responding said Chinese New Year, so that's the date I looked up.

Feb. 24 is four days before we first started discussing Covid-19 on DCP.

[E3D]

2 hours ago, garfield said:

Yes, and three tests, too.

MUCH of the data is skewed to almost unusable.

Cmon! Your giving "almost unusable" too much credit. 

[E3D]

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Well, if everyone realized that it was an impossible, unrealistic scenario, then they would probably not want to waste time and resources pretending it could somehow happen anyway and preparing for it.

It was all about instilling fear. Why else would anyone think they would need 40 thousand ventilators. When in reality much less. 

Why would they run with those numbers if they knew they were just worst case? Why not show best case numbers? Fear. 

[JimF-LowBari]

11 minutes ago, E3D said:

It was all about instilling fear. Why else would anyone think they would need 40 thousand ventilators. When in reality much less. 

Why would they run with those numbers if they knew they were just worst case? Why not show best case numbers? Fear. 

So just wondering, what should have been the target for preparing for this? Best case? Half way in between? Something else? I was always told prepare for the worse and hope for the best. But seems things not being as bad as feared possible is a bad thing... whiskey tango foxtrot 

And sometimes you have to scare people to wake them the eff up..... and even then...

Edited August 24, 2020 by JimF-LowBari