dynato
-
Posts
290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by dynato
-
-
2 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:
Since such a large percentage of the corona deaths are the elderly and vulnerable, do these 12 month death predictions take into account a reasonable estimate of the number of people who were going to die within the next 12 months anyway?
Or do these estimates operate under the assumption that nobody will die, ever, unless of course they contract COVID-19?My grandpa had quadruple bypass heart surgery in 1988. Told his odds of surviving were 10%. Ten years later, Mayo doctors said his heart was too fragile to ever touch again, his pacemaker will never be replaced. That he additionally had a heart murmur (sp?) and was told to expect his heart to explode and die at any moment. In 2008, he had a brain aneurysm and underwent brain surgery. Lost all of his memory except for the name of his wife and has recovered 95% of it back. He is now 82 years old. Humans are resilient and resist death.
The I do not know if the models try to account for naturally occurring/previously established death rates, I assume that is where the confidence intervals come into play. If you are curious to where the USA stands, the CDC has compiled a chart of total deaths in the USA. You are able to remove covid deaths. It shows that there are 25-35% excess weekly deaths compared to prior years. Not saying the excess deaths are covid, not saying its not. Saying explicitly nobody knows.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm -
13 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
The experts will revise the model until it matches actual numbers. Many of us said the variables comparing NY to the rest of NY was not accurate. But you said wait it will happen.
The experts will revise the model to update for actual numbers, then use the newly formed trendline to forecast the future. That is how every model, for every industry works. I did not say EVERY STATE WILL BE NEW YORK. I said, with data to back it up, that the NY averages 30% of the mean with respect to traditional airborne disease deaths (AKA the flu). I suggested it would be a naive approach to blindly assume that New York is an alien state with no comparables and that it would be impossible for other states to not be impacted on a level similar to recent history.
-
16 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
I guess I'm not sure where you were able to infer that I said or suggested that.....but if I had to put money on the 57000 number if Walz and MN just let it rip from day one I would definitely have bet the under.
You brought up the 57,000 deaths as a point of contention, not me. If it didnt matter, don't bring it up next time. MN has 700,000 ages over 65 with underlying conditions that are an easy target for corona. Over 50,000 live in nursing homes and LTC facilities. Double that live in Condos and 55/65+ cooperatives. All I am getting at is letting it rip through that population, which we know it massacres, makes 57,000 deaths a reasonable estimate.
-
Just now, UND1983 said:
Will policy be driven by our numbers if we release them?
If enough people say Hillary will be president, will she be president?
-
5 minutes ago, TheFlop said:
His estimate was closer than the national health experts in the media have thrown out there
National health experts have since revised the numbers downward and slightly upward based on newfound information. Odd that some people on here cannot do the same.
-
3 minutes ago, Bison Dan said:
I find it interesting that most of the same people who believe in all the models for global warming are the same that believe these models. All have been GIGO
Models are not a belief system. They are just numbers and variables thrown into equations and then onto a chart with a list of assumptions. If you think they are wrong, prove it. If you can't prove they are wrong, then you are nothing but a conspiracy theorist.
-
3 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
To the bolded part.........our resident liberal newspaper hack Jim Shaw is waiting for you on line 2.
Also you seem semi-intelligent enough to know there is a difference between a (predictive) model and a study?
And to your last 3 questions......huh?'
Their study is based on models/projections and assumptions of variables with their own definition of what dictates "safe." lol.
The questions were to highlight why you think 57,000 deaths in Minnesota across 12 months with no action taken place is an unreasonable projection. I wanted to hear your personal projection since you are so confident you know the impact of a pandemic on a midwest state that takes no action. Or for you to admit that any number you throw out would be considered a joke too by your own standards.
2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:Numbers in ND today....0, 67 and 1366.
We'll wait to hear from dynato if those numbers are "slightly wrong" and how those numbers works into some logarithmic equation as is pertains to NY and it's demographics per quarter of a mile broken down by age and race.
ND data is not wrong. I trust the data reported to the CDC by state health agencies. To me it means the spread through our population either hasn't happened yet or we are too sparsely populated to where transmission is already mitigated due to low population density. As I guessed before, we should be the last to be impacted and the first to be done. Still holding true.
To treat ND the same as NY would be a bad argument. NY has the largest metropolitan population in the USA. ND has the 176th largest metropolitan population in the USA (1/88 of NY). Leagues different than MN, which is ranked 16th (1/6th the NY metro population fyi).
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:
It was inevitable that there would be a pandemic in the jet age and in the globalized economy. Modern medicine has advanced so far in the past 100+ years, and I submit we would have weathered it societally and economically just fine. It's just unfortunate that it happened in the information age, as well. Too many people given too much information and far too great a platform to spout nonsense and create vulnerabilities for people-pleasing or image-conscious policymakers.
I agree with this. People need to be more conscious of death, but not dismiss it entirely. The problem is indeed a collective problem, your actions can infringe on the health of others, so there needs to be extended caution. The "experts" are medical professionals who are on the side of saving as many life as possible. Give them unlimited funding and they will do as much as they can to save a life. If you don't want them to take your life seriously, let them know at your next medical visit. The problem came when politicians took that same approach to do as much as they can to save a life, which really has never been the case before.
-
5 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:
Ever wonder where the term "flattening the curve" went? Don't even hear that anymore. The purpose of shutting everything down was to not overwhelm the health care system. The curve has been flattened and hospitals are not being overwhelmed. Elective surgeries are being resumed, ventilators are being returned, and hospital workers are being furloughed. So now that the curve has "flattened" there should be no reason for every state to do a slow reopen. All of a sudden now it went from flattening the curve to finding a cure. Since when has that been the solution to fighting diseases?!
I agree with this. The entire shutdown was to prevent healthcare collapse. Once it was evident that was not going to happen, efforts should have switched to opening up with a line of support ready if necessary. The thing that has most politicians spooked is exponential growth, which has proven to be unstoppable once it gains traction. No one can predict when it would be too late to stop, so most states banked on the side of extreme caution.
-
2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
"Slightly wrong"......is that like kind of pregnant? Take it up with Forum Communications. Was right there in black and white.
For the second time.....there was no mention of NY in any way shape or form in the discussion of the article. That fact you feel in interjecting NY into this topic real has zero relevance in this discussion. NY is their own dumpster fire. Has zero to do with MN.
And to reiterate this was just another predictive model.....all of which have been total trash.
Okay. You were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers of the MN model you do not care about. If it was copy and past from forum communications, then they were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers. You need to either post your source so I can fault them instead or check your sources better.
Some models are useful, some aren't. CDC tracks all models for a better forecast. Again, a lot of variables, but we need something to reference and will never go in blind.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.htmlIs the Harvard model which plainly states that ND can open up and should have never shut down trash too?
https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Harvard-study-says-ND-doing-enough-testing-to-control-pandemic-spread-570316681.htmlLet me ask you, what are your projections for a global pandemic with no preventative measures in place for a state with a population of 7 million and a metro population of 3.4 million people? On what basis did you arrive to that number? Will any number be 100% right?
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
I appreciate you regurgitating the highlighted numbers I pointed out. That was very helpful.
.....and what does NY have to do with anything related to MN or the numbers at hand?
That mentality of everywhere at some point is going to be NY is why most of this country is in the mess it is. Focus and stay on point......Minnesota.
Some of the points you mentioned were slightly wrong. I was summarizing their work more clearly so anyone who actually cares doesn't get any wrong ideas about it.
You can't just categorically denounce the MN model projection for a no stay at home 12 month case with no basis or allowance for comparison. Thus NY as a frame of reference for the worst case scenario for deaths. MN will NOT be impacted the same magnitude as NY. They took early drastic caution to ensure that, much like CA did. However, it is absolutely reasonable to assume MN would have been impacted at a slightly lower magnitude than NY had no action been taken. MN trends within 30% of NY when it comes to traditional airborne diseases.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:
The latest (third) predictive model supplying Walz with accurate and reliable "science and data" as published by the MNDOH and the U of M School of Public Health yesterday reveals the following.......
MN would have 6000 fewer total deaths moving forward if the stay at home order was extended to May 31.
MN will now reach 750 deaths per day at it's "first peak" this summer.
MN could see an additional 1400 deaths by the of May.
MN could reach 29000 deaths due to lifting the stay at home order on May 18....8000 deaths more than expected.
If there had been no stay at home order MN was looking at 57000 deaths.
By lifting stay at home order on May 18 ICU demand peaks at 3400 beds. MN hospitals only have a total of 2600 ICU beds. If no stay at home order at all ICU demand would have been at 5000 beds per day.
So to recap what this model provides in terms of "science and data".....lifting the stay at home order will cause (wait for it) the hospitals systems in MN to be overwhelmed, will not continue to flatten the curve and will not save lives.
#saferathome
For clairty: U of MN is looking at v3.0. Scenario 5 is being currently applied.
https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/MNmodel_PPT 5.13.20_FINAL 915AM_tcm1148-431824.pdfFor a 12 month period, they expect 29,000 cumulative deaths in MN. The confidence interval is 16,000 to 44,000. Which means based on the currently available data, as of May 13th, they expect deaths will fall within that range with 95% accuracy.
16,000 deaths across a year is 44 deaths a day. 44,000 deaths in a year is 120 deaths a day for a year. MN is currently averaging 30 deaths a day with an extreme shelter in place. So they expect a 50% to 300% increase in deaths with restriction being lifted. Exponential growth works like that. To me, 14 more deaths per day on average on paper is a realistic and acceptable consequence of lifting restrictions. Is it not?
They expect by the end of May, that they will have between 1400 and 2000 deaths with the same 95% confidence. Again, this is an average of only 40 deaths to 80 deaths a day. So increasing 10 deaths per day for May is realistic and acceptable consequence, which can provide justification for now loosening restrictions. Extending shelter at home to may 31st would see a reduction in 60 deaths across may and 800 deaths across the entire year.
The range they expect for peak ICU demand is 2,000 to 5,200. I read this as peaking at an estimated 3400 on June 29th, trending upwards from May 18th. There are currently 200 ICU beds occupied via COVID patients. A large range of uncertainty and the tables could be labeled better. But enough time to add beds/vents/ staff if it holds true to ensure no hospitals are overwhelmed. Again, this could be considered good justification for opening up pending on your perspective.
If no preventive action was taken, we only have a reference like NYC and Italy to go off of. NYC alone faced massive death tolls. which didn't slow down until a month after restrictions were put in place there. MN's metropolitan population is only 1/5th that of NYC metro. It is home to over 500,00 people aged 65+, of which ~70% has a chronic health condition on average. So that means there are 352,000 vulnerable elders in the MN metro area. If 1/4 of them get infected and only 1/3 of the infected die, that is 29,000 deaths from the metro area alone.
If there had been no action taken in New York City, what do you think the mass causalities would have been extended to?
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
And UNDlawguy liked this one. Lol.
You did like the post that said it was the fault of those who are at the top, and there is only one guy at the top.
He made a post saying if you want to blame someone, blame the politicians and don't excuse their actions. The top can be considered politicians. If you want to blame one single person, you have to put it on the guy at the very top. Again, you connected the final dots for him that trump is at the very top and deserves fault.
-
Just now, UND1983 said:
You liked his post about it essentially being Trumps fault. Guilty by association.
I didn't even like the post you mentioned about it being trumps fault? I liked his post about holding politicians accountable for their actions. Which did not directly mention Trump, ironically you ended up doing that for him.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, UND1983 said:
Dynato and UNDlawguy think differently.
I've already shared my thoughts on excusing the actions of politicians solely because of the source of information they used to make decisions. Not going through that mess again.
-
If only there was a way to measure the aerosol filtration efficiency of different materials.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
Surely there have't been any rigorous peer review studies with an airborne disease or flu strain such as H1N1 with specifically N95 masks?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23571366
There is definitely no way we could know if masks were somehow implemented that it would reduce the impact of covid.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13553.pdf
Perhaps the notion that masks can be used to protect against aerosols if applied correctly is just too daunting to study.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f215/d2555255314e9afe44b0e47a33e318775e81.pdfFor now, without vetted research, it is easier to say they are completely ineffective if they are not 100% effective or worn wrong.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
What are you personally looking for in these numbers? I'm curious.
If ND did 5000 tests today and 137 came back positive what would that do for you other than pointing out like Forum Communications that the 157 positives is a new single day high in the state?
More tests could prove your point that COVID is widespread and rampant in our population, decreasing the crude mortality rate sooner, so Burgum would have better justification to open much sooner. As is, ND has the fourth highest testing per capita, yet we are 30th in positive cases per capita. Burgum likely see this as an indication that covid hasnt moved through our population yet. ND Sandford is rolling out 1200 antibody tests a day, which would also help confirm suspicions, but they said expect more information in the weeks to come.
Running more tests, isolating the sick, will be one of the quicker ways to reduce future positive cases as Old Fella implies.28 minutes ago, TheFlop said:The UK starting to formulate possible work restrictions for the summer. People over 70, pregnant women, and the severely obese could be required to work from home. Just being tossed around the UK for now but I'd suggest that the just one-lifers on this board start plowing in calories or else they might have to leave their house before football season if the US follows suit.
What are your thoughts on immunity passports? Prove you have had the disease and no longer a transmitter, that you are immune to be able enter your workplace. This idea is already circulating in the USA. Fauci already said it is a possibility on national news. I see this as a large threat
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/03/coronavirus-health-passports-for-uk-possible-in-months -
9 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:
The amount of death caused by the lockdown is probably relatively small. 'Extra death' rates tend to correlate to Covid peaks and valleys. If the lockdown is significantly contributing to extra death figures, would not the rate of extra death resemble a slow incline over time as people become more desperate, poor, angry, ill-cared for and isolated? This is not happening though. Not anywhere.
This isn’t just an American phenomenon. Countries all over the world are experiencing increases in excess deaths that correlate to Covid rates; even countries that implemented little or no lock-down restrictions (Sweden, Netherlands). Interesting rough analysis:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
We can look at categories where death has decreased too. In times of economic downturn, that the mortality rate generally decreases. Despite suicides, overdoses, and homicides increasing. It is widely founded that economic downturn decreases deaths due to less automotive accidents, air quality improvements, less workplace injuries, and small impacts like people drinking and smoking less since they cannot afford to. Granted we have economic downturn + pandemic, but the same principle should apply.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953617304495
-
14 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:
No covid so far. Thanks.
As for the preservation of life at all costs, I think the decision-makers are often more focused on stopping Coronavirus at all costs. Unfortunately those 2 aren't necessarily the same thing.
I agree with that. All I know is that I want more information from our decision makers. Why they made certain decisions and when, based on what metrics/thought process. And preferably for it not to be found in their book 10 years down the road.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:
I don't think it's all suicide, murder, and OD. People are having heart attacks and strokes by themselves. People are avoiding the hospitals and missing necessary treatment.
Just 2 weeks ago my girlfriend had to convince her aunt's family to take the aunt into the hospital. They were afraid of her catching the virus at the hospital because she has significant preconditions. After some arm twisting they took her in and found she'd had a heart attack. She'd be dead had she not gone to the hospital.
I'm sorry to hear that. I am happy she is alive. I assume a full recovery and they did not catch COVID while in the hospital?
To be honest, I am still going to have healthy skepticism until I see quantifying data showing something similar to typical hospital visits for XYX during covid months and non covid months. If it was an issue that hospital systems were experiencing, I'd like to believe they would already be implementing widespread information campaigns letting citizens know considering the whole "preservation of life at all costs" thing is big right now. -
2 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:
Possibly. Or it's an indicator the lockdowns are having a significantly negative effect on public health. Probably a combination.
No doubt it is it is a combination, I will not argue against that. There will be more suicides and more domestic homicides. I would be willing to bet money to your favorite charity that negative effects on public health account will only account for a small sliver of the excess deaths being experienced in America. Suicide rates and domestic homicides would have to double, nearly triple to account for all of the excess deaths. To me, that idea is unrealistic until proven otherwise.
-
1 minute ago, UND1983 said:
I asked from or with, not that hard of a question. I realize you didn't understand it last time I brought it up when you gave out an ill-advised lecture about credibility (ironic) but it should be clear now.
It's not a question worth answering if you are going to completely disregard the numbers no matter which way they are reported. According to the CDC, the deaths are an accumulation of death reports from every health jurisdiction. The CDC and health jurisdictions label it as from. The CDC also states that while there are concerns for over counting, the united states is facing 22-36% excess deaths not attributed to corona, an indicator of corona actually being heavily under counted in our health care systems. Again, you either trust the CDC and the health jurisdiction method of reporting deaths or you can continue to ignore this.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, UND1983 said:
From or with? Or both?
Read the note
-
Here is the COVID case fatality rate vs the the 2017-18 flu case fatality rate (the worst flu in recent history). All this data is pulled from the CDC. I've also included data from NYC.gov specifically as a frame of reference. To me, this shows NYC is slowing down, but to also proceed with caution.
Note: if you do not trust the CDC's numbers for flu or covid just ignore this.
-
2
-
2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)
in Community
Posted
Where should they have been put? Is it unlawful and against precedent to send a patient home from the hospital if they do not need hospital services? Is it not the individuals responsibility to gauge what they should do, precautions they should take, and where they should stay?