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

[JimF-LowBari]

13 minutes ago, Fred Windish said:

The response from the start was to let the state governors and their own health officials determine the amount of ventilators, hospital beds, and personal protective equipment needed to deal with their own population. They were deemed closest to the problem. Some governors knew what to do responsibly, others did not.

As requests came in, the Federal government provided help in obtaining and transporting what each needed.  The State of New York went overboard in their requests, but there was no way to monitor the judgment of each and every governor. As such, production of response items was ramped-up by Executive Order. It was a costly and lengthy process. But, there was no other choice given the numbers coming from each state. 

 

Now, we find out the assessment of cases and deaths per state were not only based on a faulty baseline report, but also due to 50 different methods of determining how to medically code each related event.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to know with certainty how many cases and deaths were experienced nationwide. The formulas used to determine state reported numbers varied greatly. 

Yes, this is all quite controversial, but that’s my story . . . . and I’m sticking to it !

😗
 

 

 

 

Controversial because it is closest to hitting the nail on the head I’ve seen today. Add to what you said the problem with not enough test kits, various test kits and reliability of test kits. (Thinking Ohio Guv here). Helluva lot of guess work being thrown into the mix with the unknowable. Another reason imo why playing blame game in numbers is pointless. 
As for NY (particularly NYC) the scare was on because they requested x amount of equipment not knowing if things were going to continue to get worse or level out. Thank goodness it leveled out and dropped as time went on. If they didn’t request enough and things continued to get worse the blow back would have been unimaginable 

Edited August 24, 2020 by JimF-LowBari

[cixelsyd]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

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

I take it from the following that you changed your mind:

1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:

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...

 

55 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

I’ve seen best and worse figures given but not what I was asking.

 

44 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

If people are willing to accuse others of fear mongering with the numbers used, then the accusers should stick their necks out and say What numbers should be been used.

 

21 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

What I’m seeing is any reporting of the worst case scenario, be it possible or not, is fear mongering and never should have been done. So I read slam slam slam but what I DON’T read is opinions on what should have been done. Monday morning quarterbacking in the afternoon..... 

As for the negative extreme as you put it: I’ve seen ranges given from worst to best. Are you saying the worst part of the range should not have been given so people will come out of their basements

To clarify - there is nothing wrong with using the full range of scenarios, best-case to worst-case, for planning purposes.  However:

- I do not see the sense in using impossible-case scenarios for planning.

- When we move past planning and onto public dissemination of information, I still do not think making up impossible scenarios is a good idea, even if you think the public needs to be scared "to wake them the eff up".  You lose credibility with your audience.  Then nothing you say will scare them.

What should they have done?  They should have admitted that people naturally change their behavior during a pandemic, and accounted for that in their estimates.  You know, like a scientist would.

[JimF-LowBari]

10 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

 

What should they have done?  They should have admitted that people naturally change their behavior during a pandemic, and accounted for that in their estimates.  You know, like a scientist would.

Actually I saw that early on. I saw (want to picture Fauci but not sure) saying something like “if no steps are taken... high number... but what we expect is around... smaller range given”. 
What I am seeing in your posts are accusations that only the worse case was given and nothing else. If I’m mistaken let me know.

As for giving that impossible if no steps taken number. You see if as inducing fear. I see it as giving us info on how serious things really are. No different than a doctor telling a patient “if don’t stop smoking....”.

Edited August 24, 2020 by JimF-LowBari

[E3D]

1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:

That’s why they are called predictions. Or do you expect exact numbers on something brand new?

And the answer to my question to what number should have been used is????  If people are willing to accuse others of fear mongering with the numbers used, then the accusers should stick their necks out and say What numbers should be been used.

Nah I think the predictions were based on garbage data and used as the scientific proof positive without any thought given to (+/-) and in reality they were so flawed but were being used as the only  "science". I don't feel the need to answer your questions, but I said it before - there were best and worst case numbers floating out there. Split the difference. But to "panic" and demand 40 thousand ventilators was a mistake and waste of resources. 

[Continental]

16 minutes ago, E3D said:

Nah I think the predictions were based on garbage data and used as the scientific proof positive without any thought given to (+/-) and in reality they were so flawed but were being used as the only  "science". I don't feel the need to answer your questions, but I said it before - there were best and worst case numbers floating out there. Split the difference. But to "panic" and demand 40 thousand ventilators was a mistake and waste of resources. 

I think some of the predictions were based on a prior event at the beginning of the 20th century, which mutated and came back even stronger.  

 

[E3D]

Just now, Continental said:

I think some of the predictions were based on a prior event at the beginning of the 20th century, which mutated and came back even stronger.  

 

You are now talking about a "second wave"? Why did New York give away ventilators if they are worried about a mutation in the disease and it coming back stronger? 

[Continental]

Just now, E3D said:

You are now talking about a "second wave"? Why did New York give away ventilators if they are worried about a mutation in the disease and it coming back stronger? 

Perhaps that question should be directed to New York. 

[JimF-LowBari]

2 minutes ago, Continental said:

I think some of the predictions were based on a prior event at the beginning of the 20th century, which mutated and came back even stronger.  

 

Hey weatherman said it would be nice but now it’s raining. I’m going to make a sign saying he should be fired and stand in front of the tv station..... sound familiar?

[JimF-LowBari]

6 minutes ago, E3D said:

You are now talking about a "second wave"? Why did New York give away ventilators if they are worried about a mutation in the disease and it coming back stronger? 

Helluva second wave if the first wave was “beginning of the 20th century”.....

[E3D]

9 minutes ago, Continental said:

Perhaps that question should be directed to New York. 

Some of the questions I got here could be directed to them as well.