re: Nate silver: the slowdown in CV19 cases in NOLA is unlike anything we have seen elsewhere

quote:

---

Are you saying that it's reasonable that the economy was shut down causing Trillions in damages without even having an expectation as to how many deaths we would have without social distancing?

Or, maybe you are saying that the IMHE model also had an expection for deaths without social distancing. If so, please provide those values.

---

No, what I am saying is that, clearly, I can assume that deaths will be significantly higher without social restrictions. I don't need a model to tell me that - I have one, the IC, but its really just belaboring the point. The tighter model - the one that will be more accurate because of the controls is the IMHE - so I would lend more weight to it.

quote:

---

I'm saying "not really" in that I'm not accusing everyone in healthcare across the world of fraud like you suggest. You're not being honest if you don't think there are people inflating numbers to take advantage of the money being thrown around.

---

So what percentage of medical professionals around the country and world do you think are producing fraudulent numbers? And by what amount do you think each might be inflating their numbers?

So if we're really being honest, then you are accusing enough people in order for the total results to be significantly incorrect. For there to be even 10% inflation, then you would be accusing roughly 1 in 10 people of inflating their numbers by about 100% each. Or maybe you're accusing 1 in 5 people of inflating their numbers by 50% each? Or are you accusing fully one half of people of inflating their numbers by 20% each?

So tell me, how rampant do you think the fraud is, and how big do you think the fraud is in each case?

quote:

---

Antonio Moss

---

Fair enough. I fricked up when I said 250k as the "lower limit". I was going off of what I recalled right off of the top of my head. I'll say I was close but not close enough.

Having said that, if you take the numbers in the article at face value, as of early April we were still at 100k on the "low end" (I'll put that in quotes now). Now where are we? 30k? 40k?

Another poster summarized what I'm getting at more eloquently than I can manage right now:

quote:

---

If hypothetically, the United States ends up with 40k deaths, is it fair to assume that the assumption that was made to justify the shutdown was HUGELY off the mark? Were they so off the mark, that we wouldn't have made the same decision with more accurate estimates? If so, given that we are talking TRILLIONS in economic damage, whose head should roll?

---

Apologies for my hostility earlier.

quote:

---

If so, given that we are talking TRILLIONS in economic damage, whose head should roll?

---

"We're talking about the greatest economy in the world. One day, I have to shut it down. And it was the right decision."

- Donald Trump 4/11/2020

quote:

---

His probability was based on bad data which is why he didn't see Trump winning.

---

It was based on the data available. "Bad" or not, the probability was based on data.

quote:

---

Look at the key states. He had Hillary 79+% in MI. He had her 77% in PA, and 83% in Wisconsin. These weren't cases where he thought Hillary was a slight favorite and it just tilted the other way. He was very, very wrong.

---

You keep saying "he", as if the projections were simply an opinion of his. The probabilities were based on polls, and possibly other data. You seem to think Nate was just going around assigning random numbers to states based on his feelings.


Edit: Oh, and I didn't see where he gave those states 100% odds of Hillary winning. Because that's the only way that a probability can be "wrong". Like I said, zero understanding of probabilities.

quote:

---

JBE winning national titles and defeating Corona. What a legend

---

In his own mind

quote:

---

the reimbursement for a patient admitted for CV19 was ~$13k, but if they went on a vent it was ~$39k.

---

So the suggestion is that this is some great financial incentive to produce fraudulent reports. The critical data missing is how these amounts differ from hospital stays for other illnesses.

Also, the huge assumption is that these people are defrauding the government out of money with no fear of audits once this is all over. Absolutely ridiculous.

I refuse to believe doctors will put patients on vents for money. Run unnecessary tests? Yep. Keep someone over night? Maybe. Shove a tube down someone’s throat? No. I can’t believe that.

quote:

---

ou don't need to take the word of some CBS journalist trying to summarize was he thinks he head Birx say in a press conference.

---

You're right, but I think you're missing part of the picture here.

What these people say during the press conferences is of real consequence. Perhaps not so much the hack journalists interpretation, true....but the figures they throw out are important even if they don't agree with exactly what the models say. Bear with me.

The reason what they are saying is important, is because it gives us insight as to how they are advising the President and the rest of the people who have to make decisions based on their recommendations. Even if the model has a lower limit of 39k, if Dr. Birx and Fauci are up there haphazardly saying "best case scenario is 100k people die", then that's what the decision makers are hearing, and furthermore, that is what drives public perception -which in turn drives the expected response from the administration.