Did Shoddy Science Shut Down America?

by Kerry Dougherty

Let’s get one thing straight before some of you become apoplectic.

Covid-19 is real. It’s a nasty virus that can make victims desperately sick. It appears to spread faster and do more damage than the seasonal flu. It viciously attacks the elderly and those with underlying medical issues. It’s a killer.

Got that?

Still, it’s time to admit that it looks like the “experts” who drew up harrowing models that predicted a wildfire spread, hospitals at the breaking points and bodies stacked like cordwood from coast to coast were wrong.

Thank God.

First came the Imperial College model, drawn up by a team led by Neil Ferguson, a British mathematical epidemiologist who predicted that if no action was taken the coronavirus would kill as many as 500,000 Brits and 2.2 million Americans.

We heard that number in March and it was terrifying.

It was based on, well, who knows. Last time I checked, this guy had refused to show his work.

This Imperial model and the wildly exaggerated early ones fashioned by the IHME-UW (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington) were cited by panicked government officials who shut down large chunks of America in March and wrecked the best economy in the world.

On Thursday, when the IHME admitted that its prediction that as many as 240,000 Americans would die from the virus was wrong and that the actual number will probably be about 60,000, they conceded that their predictions were about as reliable as the weather forecast.

Sheesh.

And yes, they’d baked “social distancing” into their inflated projections.

Think about it: If the forecasts in mid-March had been for 60,000 deaths would the country have gone into a total lockdown?

Maybe not.

Look, it’s a terrific relief that fewer Americans will likely die of this virus than we were told would perish even a week ago. And yes, tens of thousands of fatalities are still terrible. Those casualties will be someone’s mother, father, husband, wife, child.

But every year similar numbers succumb to the seasonal flu.

When those astronomical coronavirus numbers were unleashed last month, governors around the country began issuing all manner of constitutionally questionable orders, stripping citizens of their rights in the name of a national emergency, some for unconscionably long periods of time.

Schools were out. Churches were closed. Businesses were forced to shutter – many forever. People were forbidden to gather in large groups and ordered to stay in their houses.

Hospitals weren’t overrun in most places but food pantries and soup kitchens were.

Now we learn that the forecasts were bad.

Even the vaunted Dr. Anthony Fauci has been dancing a little two-step this week trying to explain his reliance on these flawed figures.

The Hill reports that Fauci said on NBC’s “Today” show that the models were not even close to being accurate.

“I believe we are going to see a downturn in that, and it looks more like the 60,000 [range] than the 100,000 to 200,000,” Fauci said.

“… Models are really only as good as the assumptions that you put into the model,” he said.

In other words, garbage in, garbage out.

The pandemic is hitting places like New York, New Jersey and New Orleans hardest. Those are densely populated areas where many use mass transit.

But the latest models from the IHME-UW show Virginia reaching its Covid peak on April 20. A full month earlier than predicted just a week ago. Estimates also dropped sharply for hospital beds and ventilators that will be needed to care for the sick in the Old Dominion. Estimated deaths dropped from 1,400 to 891 statewide.

This new information should cause Gov. Ralph Northam to rethink his reactionary decision to order Virginians to stay at home until June 10th – the longest shutdown in the country, last time I checked.

Yet our governor, who never seems able to admit he’s wrong, blithely rescheduled Virginia’s primary elections from June 9th to the 23rd indicating that he’s prepared to keep the order in place.

Because he can, not because he should.

Meanwhile, members of Team Apocalypse try to paint the current situation as black or white: Either we huddle in our houses until a vaccine is available or sacrifice everyone over the age of 65 to save Wall Street.

There is a middle ground and we’d better get there. Fast. Businesses should be able to reopen while incorporating social distancing, masks and other measures.

Those most at risk will have to continue to self-isolate.

Remember, the draconian measures put in place by governors were never intended to end the virus, just to stretch out the infection rate so that hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed.

Instead of harassing people who dare to go to city parks or sunbathe on a beach, it’s time to make solid plans to reopen most parts of the country.

Seventeen million Americans out of work – due in part to shoddy science – is a scandal.

This column was published originally at www.kerrydoughterty.com.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

61 responses to “Did Shoddy Science Shut Down America?”

  1. John Harvie Avatar
    John Harvie

    It was shoddy. The H1N1 will prove to have been much worse.

    Thanks for making your common sense reflections on the news of the day to an audience beyond the Pilot to this long time former Kempsvillean.

  2. Kerry is highlighting here what may be the most important question of all: Did we really need to shut down the economy in order to fight the virus? Can we still change course?

    As an aside, it does not make you “anti-science” to question the scientists…. especially when their views about the science are continually changing, and scientists know next to nothing about economics. A month ago, the nation was all in a panic about the desperate need for ventilators. Now, medical opinion is swinging like a back yard gate. When 80% of patients on ventilators end up dying, maybe we’re doing something wrong. Maybe we’re killing more people than we need to.

    1. Maybe we’re doing something wrong if “80% on ventilators end up dying”? Are you blaming the decision to use a ventilator? Maybe they had oxygenation levels so far impaired by the time they needed mechanical intervention that no better result could have been expected.

      Suppose they had received ventilation assistance sooner to increase the odds? Using what additional supply of ventilators? Anyway, I’ve seen no evidence that earlier mechanical intervention in hospital would head off the immune system’s cytokine storm that is responsible for most of these respiratory failures and resulting deaths. On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence that covid-19 victims who become ill but remain at home without hospital care have higher rates of death than those who seek help.

      1. Acbar, the new thinking, as I understand it, is that intubating patients is highly damaging and doesn’t address the underlying problem. The mortality rate might be higher for people put on respirators. I’ve read speculation that cpap devices, once derided, might be better. But nothing is certain. My key point is that the “scientific” thinking is in flux as doctors get feedback from the real world. The WSJ had an interesting column that noted that there isn’t time for “science” in the sense commonly understood as involving carefully structured clinical trials. What’s happening is more of a trial and error in the field.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          re: ” What’s happening is more of a trial and error in the field”

          emphasis on “in the field” – i.e. people highly educated looking at data and trials, etc… people who know what they are looking at…
          and can interpret to those not so highly schooled – if they will believe it -or not.

        2. No question, intubating a patient can be damaging to the throat and bronchia. The medical trade-off is assumed to be positive or they wouldn’t do it, and of course recent experience could provide reason to reassess that assumption. But I have read nothing to say that reassessment has happened — only, that a CPAP device may be an adequate (if less desirable) substitute in a pinch. We’re talking delivery of oxygen to the blood in a person’s lung crippled by inflammation to the point that he’s drowning in his own fluids — my understanding is, that delivery happens most efficiently and will save more lives under the better controlled, higher pressure, conditions provided by a true ventilator. You mentioned only 20% live after intubation but I’ve been seeing higher numbers.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            let me add to this thread – something about nursing homes (not just Henrico) – also from the WSJ:

            WSJ NEWS EXCLUSIVE
            Virus Strikes at Least 2,100 Nursing Homes Across U.S.
            The new coronavirus has hit more than 2,100 nursing homes and other senior facilities around the U.S., killing over 2,000 people, according to a survey by The Wall Street Journal, an indication the pandemic’s toll in these facilities has been greater than the federal government has reported.

            ……..

            The Journal’s figures suggest the virus’s impact in one of the country’s most vulnerable populations is worse than known, despite efforts to protect the residents. And the numbers almost certainly understate the extent of the epidemic. Not all states provided data, while others didn’t offer a comprehensive picture.

  3. Certainly ok to question scientists, but this draws the exact wrong conclusion. Models run by Imperial College were in response to UK’s herd immunity approach/not locking down. Of course they are wrong once shelter in place starts to have an affect and infections hit an inflection point or two. Similarly, models of today reflect new assumptions based on stay at home realities. If the projected fatalities weren’t coming down (and coming down significantly) because of stay at home, then yes, his view would be right: shoddy science did shut us down unnecessarily.

    A better focus would be on how to get regions back to work that have avoided the worst and can afford to start to return to normalcy.

  4. Remember the ole saying, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistic…oh and modeling.”

    Come on… REMEMBER — modeling of hurricane paths a mere three to five days out usually shows twenty-some paths with the storm making land fall somewhere between Miami and New York. Very Precise.

    1. that’s just more cherry-picking of convenient data; same as Kerry is doing. Of course models of complex systems don’t end up being exactly right (or worse), but if one takes your reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, then modeling is always a waste of time. Would you prefer no hurricane modeling at all or accept that they are meant to be indicative. How authorities react to those models is what the concern should be.

  5. My apologies, I mistakenly referred to Kerry as he, instead of she. Just posted same on her site and realized my error.

  6. Atlas Rand Avatar
    Atlas Rand

    I think this kind of sums it up. Folks better be in for the long haul, or we have to start relaxing things some and let things run their course to a point.

    https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b

    1. An excellent article, a valid point: until herd immunity is reached we can only delay the deaths not eliminate them. Except: that assumes the same health care sooner or later. Delay helps those who would otherwise need health care during a patient overload or while equipment and PPE limitations remain. And delay until easy, rapid testing is widely available and contact tracing is fully staffed and trained will better serve those who want society to get back to normal as much as possible. Delay for those reasons will avoid some deaths, for sure.

      The other reason to buy time is the hope that a vaccine will arrive before the end-state of herd immunity to shut down the pandemic entirely. Or at least, that treatment of pulmonary symptoms will improve with more experience and research.

      Are those benefits worth the economic cost of the delay? Valid questions! But for now, delaying the peak, flattening the curve, seems amply warranted by hospital constraints alone. We should be using this time to get ready for testing and tracing.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        re: ” The other reason to buy time is the hope that a vaccine will arrive to shut down the pandemic. Or at least, that treatment of pulmonary symptoms will improve with experience and research.”

        over a longer period of time (without a vaccine) – more and more will be infected and more and more will have been infected.

        “Are those benefits worth the economic cost of the delay? Valid questions! But for now, delaying the peak, flattening the curve, seems amply warranted by hospital constraints alone.”

        pragmatically, it you can keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed but make no mistake – the sheer economic cost of the health care costs of the pandemic will still be there -plus the damage done to companies who lose workers to the virus.

        If it is not controlled – it will take a toll of workers… and in turn harm those companies that need and depend on them especially the key people. some companies go belly up if they lose key people.

        The irony here is that the lowest paid workers in our economy. Those who cannot afford health insurance or “affordable” housing – and live paycheck to paycheck – are said to be “key” to the economy. That’s ironic for the lowest paid in our economy.

      2. virginiagal2 Avatar
        virginiagal2

        Those are great points. And there are more reasons to reopen in a measured fashion.

        There are multiple treatments in the pipeline, which should be available well before a vaccine. Besides antibodies from survivors, you have multiple different antivirals and other treatments that, once online, can reduce the risk of dying and of permanent damage to lungs and heart. They’re coming online fast, but are not yet widely available.

        We can test to see who has recovered from Covid and is presumably protected. Those people probably can safely go back to work. But we need a little bit more information to make sure we do that safely, and we need more testing capacity.

        If we can get an adequate supply of PPEs, we can have people mask to prevent transmission with pretty good masks. When you can’t buy hand sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, good masks, etc, it’s a bit premature to throw everyone out there.

        Finally, people need to realize that until we have a vaccine, the demand side is going to be greatly affected, regardless of government actions. Individuals and businesses pulled the plug on travel, conferences, restaurants, and entertainment before any government action, and they’re not going back until they feel safe.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I agree. We need to be guided by science and it’s recommendations and it will not matter one whit what govt says if we do not trust it.

          If we go back to work and contagion continues to rage across the country – the economy will be even more damaged and take even longer to recover.

          If people do not have confidence that we can go back to work AND not increase infections – they’ll start to fear getting the virus in restaurants and other public places where people congregate.

          So any decision by elected leaders that is done without employing more testing for virus and more testing for who is now immune will backfire.

          When you fear that the guy who cooked your food in a restaurant might be infected or the HVAC guy who came to fix your unit is infected -no matter what the elected leaders say – it will not matter – you will decide if you are safe or not and if you are not – you’re not going to eat in restaurants and you’re not going to call the HVAC guy unless he is certified virus-free which is not what govt says by pronouncement but what science says and govt repeats.

          Shoddy science? Who is going to believe someone who says “I have decided”?

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It has started already: Gee, not that many people died, so we did not need to listen to the predictions.

    First of all, the IMHE model is just one of many and it is the most optimistic. The creator of the IMHE model agrees with the general approach to modeling: use several models to make your projection or prediction. Second: Any model is dependent on the assumptions and data that is fed into into. When the major assumptions change, i.e. people start staying at home to slow the spread of the virus, the models, if they are good, pick up those changed conditions and their projections change.

    If you (Kerry) want to label it “shoddy science”, first you need to look at the assumptions that went into the model and criticize those. Some statisticians have looked at the IMHE model’s assumptions and questioned them as being too optimistic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/06/americas-most-influential-coronavirus-model-just-revised-its-estimates-downward-not-every-model-agrees/

    That model and others were instrumental in convincing citizens that this was a serious situation and they should stay at home, even if it meant economic hardship. That “shoddy science” saved lives, but we will not be able to say exactly how many. Thank goodness.

  8. hemcomm Avatar

    I don’t think the modeling is shoddy science; rather, I think much of the reporting of the modeling has been shoddy journalism. The scientists are working with the best available data (sometimes with political filtering and pressure), and are almost always honest about the complexity and limits of models. Most major media outlets aren’t interested in all that. They just want a clickbait headline and narrative that keeps people reading. On the upside, this entire event will be a treasure trove of hard data for scientists to improve future models.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Good observation.

    2. dunning-kruger Avatar
      dunning-kruger

      +1
      I’ll add: politicians tripping over top of each other to show they’re “doing something”

    3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      I wish I had seen your comment, and the two replies, earlier.

      I’ll start you with a name, Richard Hamming. Richard Hamming is to computer modeling and simulation what George Washington (well, maybe Madison or Hamilton) is to the country. He was a mathematician at Bell Labs from the 1940s to the 1970s, and developed/worked in the field of Numerical Analysis, which encompasses the techniques of computer modeling used today.

      Mathematically, I remember him for Hamming Windows, and Hamming Nets (the salient properties of neural networks and the basis of the Artificial Intelligence method used by IBM’s Watson software). Those, and his single most famous quote, “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.”

      Among the problems faced by scientists in computer modeling are the inevitable attempt to predict with accuracy (unhappy with “someplace over there”), and/or the deadly pitfall of then believing their own numbers, i.e., taking the “numbers” over the “insight”.

      This would be a deadly pitfall for the scientist, but for the fact that the bottom is lined with the soft squishy bodies of politicians and journalists, who ignorantly shout “shoddy science” whenever they don’t understand the numbers or the insight (which is just about always).

      1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
        Reed Fawell 3rd

        Stop insulting people by stereotyping them. Scientists are no better than anyone else. Nor are they more honest. The sea bottom is filled with ignorant people of all persuasions. And also with highly competent ones who are extremely good at modeling in many professions far beyond science. Your typical businessman, for one of endless examples.

        1. virginiagal2 Avatar
          virginiagal2

          The typical businessman is not extremely good with modeling or mathematics. Doesn’t mean none are, but it’s very much the exception.

          Further, even for those who are very good with numbers, understanding econometrics does not translate into an intuitive understanding of disease modeling.

          1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
            Reed Fawell 3rd

            You are dead wrong. And that is why scientists cannot be fully trusted in any case, but particularly with public policy.

            Nor generals, and admirals, with war, who also are modelers, including some of world’s best.

          2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
            Reed Fawell 3rd

            Translation: the more you really know and learn, the more you appreciate how little you know, and thus you avoid our default state as humans, that of a fool.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Agree with virginiagal2

            The obverse would be to assert that because a scientists is “smart” that he could be a businessman and that’s not true either.

            It takes acquired knowledge in a field to develop skills whether it be business or science but to think that anyone can do what a scientist can do – with like a model is just foolish.

            Modelling is something not even your average scientist can do unless he/she also has specific knowledge of what it is they are modelling.

            For instance, if you want to model a Trident missile – you need to know a LOT about several different things. Other fields are similar, if you want to model a bridge – you have to also know physics… AND most modeling requires significant mathematics, differential equations, etc… models are really graphical representations of equations.

            here’s an example:

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claudio_Struchiner/publication/47676805/figure/fig2/AS:343729496969224@1458962906357/SIR-model-Schematic-representation-differential-equations-and-plot-for-the-basic-SIR.png

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I worked with models much of my career and models are based on data. Models are equations derived from curve-fitting collected data in an effort to predict data that you have not yet collected or unable to collect.

        Models are exceptionally important tools but they have to be understood as to what they can do and what they cannot do – and what they can “somewhat” do.

        Hurricane models are an excellent example of this. There are dozens. And every hurricane season we see them in action.

        Which ones do you “believe”. It depends but ones that have been in use for several years and, in general, are not badly wrong but mostly right are worth relying on. Some not so good much of the time are better when conditions are not typical…

        The point is that models are not crystal balls.. AND models that are not entirely correct are NOT “shoddy science” except to the most simplistic thinking.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          As did I, and even the best are based on simplifying assumptions. They have to be, otherwise the model would be as difficult to use as the system itself. Like I said, the idea is to gain insight.

          In the cases where, oh say, a model is used in a realtime system and we rely on the calculation, e.g., an active controller, we include correcting mechanisms, e.g., feedback.

          Even the simplest system I can pop off the top of my head, a pendulum, usually is modeled as a point mass with no friction or drag, and linear assumptions to get the all familiar harmonic equations. Very usable in a feedback system that controls the attachment point velocity to move the pendulum without inducing sway. But use it in a feed-forward form initial state only, and within seconds it will resemble a carnival ride.

          Our friends at IHME are simply closing the loop with current measurements to correct the output.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” Even the simplest system I can pop off the top of my head, a pendulum, usually is modeled as a point mass with no friction or drag, and linear assumptions to get the all familiar harmonic equations. ”

            yes. real modelling is not for folks unschooled in what is to be modelled. Whether it be a pendulum, a trident missile or a pandemic… all require significant academic knowledge and work experience.

            I worked in a modelling environment – and even among the scientists and mathematics types there were “specialists” like for 3d modelling or 6D modelling… 3d is point mass in a static environment, 6D is 3d objects moving about a 3D frame with things like variable gravity, winds, temperature, etc, etc..

            People could spend weeks, years trying to track down an error source.

            Some are never found, others not quantifiable.. like surface winds at any point in time… etc…

            Nothing is the real world is 100% know-able or measureable.

            Why the coronovirus does things that we don’t expect – will send researchers off for weeks, months, years of work to find out why.

            Some may be found quickly, others may remain mysteries for a long time.

            Expecting a certain level of precision from a new or evolving model is unrealistic.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            3DoF? 6DoF? Degrees of freedom? Argh, a Mechie!

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” Mechie” – I did not know that word… and geeze
            it was something about a RAP guy? what the…

            educate me!

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Mechanical engineer

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Oh. okay… but no… I did database stuff – configuration management for what is known as “data constants”.

            So you’d think things like the semi-major diameter of the earth was one number. Nope. There are a lot of different ones – and guess what happens when you have multiple models for something and they’re all modelling different aspect of a system – but they’re using different numbers for things like semi-major diameter of the earth?
            Well.. they give different answers… and a herd of scientists spend weeks trying to figure out why… duh!

  9. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    Not long ago, Angela Merkel (a trained scientist and Chancellor of Germany) predicted that 70% of Germans would be infected. That’s 50M+ people. At the same time Germany’s leading epidemiologist said 40,000 Germans would be infected. Both made honest estimates. Right now Germany has about 120,000 cases so both estimates look to be wrong. So what?

    Early in an epidemic isn’t it better to look at the worse case possibility? Nobody wants another Spanish Flu type event.

    But after the epidemic has partially played out and is better understood isn’t it better to look again? COVID-19 will not be the modern equivalent of the Spanish Flu.

    The big question is how much risk should be taken through anti-democratic edicts that clearly violate the Constitutional rights of Americans. The fear should be that, once drunk with power, the politicians will continue their authoritarian orgy for a lot longer than need be the case. Of course, the strict requirements of isolation are meant for the little people rather than the politicians who issue such orders.

    The case of Lori Lightfoot, Mayor of Chicago, and her recent haircut …

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/i-take-my-personal-hygiene-very-seriously-chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-violates-her-own-quarantine-advice-to-get-a-haircut/

    Our governor, Ralph Northam, shares a lot in common with Mayor Lightfoot. Both are imperious and more than willing to hand down edicts on their constituents. Both are willing to make absurd statements in order to hide their mistakes. Both were election day mistaakes.

    The question for Virginians is whether we let Northam continue as a tin horn dictator or start demanding a plan to get Virginia back to work. But Northam is a one term governor with the political future of a flea. The real pressure points are Northam’s lackeys in the Virginia Democratic Party – people like Dick Saslaw and Eileen Filler-Corn. Where are they on this issue? Time to start demanding answers from our co-called representatives.

    1. johnrandolphofroanoke Avatar
      johnrandolphofroanoke

      Northam is the perfect front man for Saslaw and Filler/corn. Most Virginians are unaware that those two are the true string pullers.

  10. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    As with all murder-suicide pacts, somebody is always unhappy.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      well yes… we are truly “cheated” when “only” 60,000 died and we were “promised” 100 or 200…

      it’s almost like some of us do not understand what “pandemic” actually means – pandemic, schmandemic… why did we shut down our economy because we believed a bunch of shoddy scientists…. yadda yadda..

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Truly scary how the ignorant masquerade as all-seeing, all-knowing.

        Anyone can count the score in the middle of the game.

  11. The modelers need to tell the public the assumptions they are making in the models. I saw recently that one modeler refuses to reveal information about his model.

  12. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Garbage in, garbage out is such a worn cliche.!no new hround broken here.

  13. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Which way would we have preferred the science to be “wrong”.

    better to undershoot or overshoot?

    Suppose we had not done social distancing – GAWD knows there was no end of the bitchin about it – Kerry about the more vocal herself.

    We’re not over yet… either.

    and the idea that the economy did not have to be shut down – it was pretty much unanimous – bi-partisan in fact.

    and if we stop social distancing and go back to work today – on that premise – we’d be dying by the thousands…. as infection WILL spread like wildfire…

    does anyone think we need to stop social-distancing? come on.. fess up.

    is it a ruse and we don’t need to after all? someone step up…and say so.

  14. IHME did what it could with the data that was available. When you rely on the information released by an autocratic Chinese regime to start with, and then the guesswork driven by the abysmal lack of testing here, it was reasonable to accept those early high mortality estimates.

    But the models weren’t wrong, the data was. We know the deaths, and the hospital crowding, and the shortages all around our health care systems. What we don’t know is, how many asymptomatic cases have there been – including those who knew they were sick but did not display the usual covid-19 attributes and we’re never diagnosed with it? That’s the all-important ‘denominator’ that determines not only the mortality percentage but also whether an individual can safely go back to work and to shop and play and worship without risk – risk to others, risk to himself. We won’t get that data without testing.

    Into this debate Kelly lobs her grenade: “shoddy science.” Excuse me but that’s a cheap shot when every credible health professional studying this disease has bemoaned the lack of hard data and presented a range of estimates based on what little is known, not a single number. She is doing just what our President does to the facts whenever he’s backed into a corner: she attacks the credibility of the source.

    And she’s plain wrong. Our guest columnist says, “On Thursday, when the IHME admitted that its prediction that as many as 240,000 Americans would die from the virus was wrong and that the actual number will probably be about 60,000, they conceded that their predictions were about as reliable as the weather forecast.” False comparison: she’s comparing the high end of the range compiled a week ago by the White House based on a blend of forecasts, with the median number reported now by IHME. And IHME never said “as reliable as the weather forecast”; though she implies they “admitted” it, that’s her characterization.

    IHME’s current US death forecast is a range of ~32,000 to 127,000 dead by June 1 assuming no letup in distancing measures (what she calls the “lockdown”). To be precise, the range of uncertainty shown is to a UI of 95% (UI is a kind of statistical confidence level); it could be even higher or lower at the extremes. IHME states, “At present the forecast, which assumes continued social distancing, only covers the next four months and does not predict how many deaths there may be if there is a resurgence at a later point or if social distancing is not fully implemented and maintained.” Kelly proposes we just go back to work, get back to normal, except that “Those most at risk will have to continue to self-isolate.” I see. Everyone merely resumes a normal life and maybe gets something like a nuisance flu and moves on, except, those of us at high risk or already over the hill should simply know who we are and go hide, or die.

    What’s missing here is any acknowledgement that with a let-up in social distancing (or the failure to implement it in the first place) the death rate will ratchet up again. Yes, there are halfway measures that could allow loosening the current restrictions IF we tame the current surge, IF there is widespread testing to catch the asymptomatic spreaders and quarantine them out of the workplace, and IF we decide to knowingly tolerate a moderate level of additional deaths deliberately incurred as the price to get the economy moving again. Those first two are conditions not yet met. The third is a debate we need to have; at this point the data do NOT yet indicate a risk of death to the average person as low as that from the common flu, let alone to the more vulnerable — and we’ll never know without widespread testing.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” Into this debate Kelly lobs her grenade: “shoddy science.” Excuse me but that’s a cheap shot when every credible health professional studying this disease has bemoaned the lack of hard data and presented a range of estimates based on what little is known, not a single number. She is doing just what our President does to the facts whenever he’s backed into a corner: she attacks the credibility of the source.”

      Yep. She was not a happy camper from the get go.

      You can toss that “shoddy science” also at all those hurricane models.

      and of course at global warming – plenty of that also…

      one thing is different , maybe, not even Kerry nor others are accusing the scientists consensus – as a conspiracy…. that they “cooked” the data so they could lie to us that hundreds of thousands of us would die… not yet..anyhow… that shoe may be dropping…

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        “that shoe may be dropping…”
        just as soon as money can be made.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Excellent commentary and analysis, Acbar.

  15. johnrandolphofroanoke Avatar
    johnrandolphofroanoke

    Maybe next time around AI will replace the experts? Not sure I trust either one.

  16. virginiagal2 Avatar
    virginiagal2

    This is a misinformed and misleading take.

    The model was published. Claiming that it hasn’t been shared is simply false. See https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

    For heaven’s sake, at least google before making inflammatory claims.

    And second, the model is explicitly based on what happens if you have specific behaviors and interventions. If you respond better, fewer people die. Fauci has never claimed that the lower count is because of bad data.

    It’s like being told you are going to have a heart attack if you don’t lose weight, losing weight, and then complaining that you didn’t have to cut back on cheesecake because you didn’t have a heart attack.

    This sort of misinformation is going to get people killed.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” This sort of misinformation is going to get people killed.”

      and does….

      I’m agog at the critics… some of them, no matter what happens, are going to spout off because “their” lives have been “disrupted” .. and SOMEONE has to be responsible for it and by golly they’re going to foul the air about it and if spreading misinformation is an option, why not?

      1. virginiagal2 Avatar
        virginiagal2

        I’m worried about the chance of people I love dying. I know at least one person who has been hospitalized with it, and another who has lost a family member.

        This is a far more serious threat than influenza.

  17. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    There is much data available on the proliferation of shoddy science in America today. Study after study has been done on the subject, including frightening statistics on the explosion of non-reproducible conclusions peer reviewed, published in respectable journals, and often cited by other experts, yet flawed to the point that their conclusions cannot to reproduced by others.

    This problem is real, and there are many reasons for it, but I do not believe those problems necessarily apply to, or have been manifested in substantial part in this particular case, as to major actions taken. Or that at least that it is far too early to make such a major claim with any surety. Here in this case, we most likely are asking science to be far more precise that science can be in its current state and in these particular circumstances. Just like our science still cannot predict with precision the path or outcome of a major war or Hurricane before they happen in their own unique way.

    However, and obviously, much new will be learned here, and much malpractice and abject failure surely will be uncovered, as will great success, competence, and heroism too.

    As to the potential for finding rot under rocks, perhaps we can start with ventilators, most particularly as to their use or misuse in the past.

  18. virginiagal2 Avatar
    virginiagal2

    Also, and this is a nitpick, but New Orleans is not particularly dense. Its population density is lower than Richmond.

    Claiming New Orleans indicates this is a problem for dense population centers is misleading, particularly as the state has a very significant cluster of cases in even less dense Jefferson parish.

  19. CrazyJD Avatar

    Well, ok, I only glanced lightly over many of these posts. That being said, I don’t think anyone mentioned what might be a real advance of the token, the arthritis drug tocilizumab, which is marketed under the brand name Actemra, which is used to fight what are being called immune system cytokine storms, now thought to cause much of the damage to lungs and ultimately death.

    Researchers are looking at treatments to suppress ‘cytokine storms,’ in the lungs increasingly linked to the most severe Covid-19 cases. The out-of-control immune response eventually causes the patients’ lungs to stop delivering oxygen to the rest of organs, leading to respiratory failure and in some cases death, the experts say. The malfunctioning immune system may be driving the rapid decline in lung function experienced by some patients, including younger and relatively healthy ones, after the initial onset of symptoms, doctors say.
    [copied from WSJ]

    Researchers don’t know but suspect that genetics may play a role in younger patients. Now all we need is the genetic marker for same.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      All of these things might be true Crazy but you’d do things differently right now? It sounds like a gambler hoping to get a lucky break.

  20. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    $1 — that’s a bet some GOP governor (DeSantis or Kemp) rescinds before May 2.

    $1 — that’s a bet their state tops the fatality list by June 15.

  21. Cannot seem to find a good definition of Graveyard Mentality, but probably in America we have that disease as well as COVID. I think it means we ignore preparing (eg; for a pandemic) because as a societal characteristic, we loathe spending time and effort on prevention and safety until a major tragedy convinces us, that in hindsight, we actually did need to worry about it. Shades of Boeing 737 MAX.
    We are also a little like that with technology. What is the generic technology principle behind COVID testing? Invented in USA, right? Anyways the fact we were unprepared contributes to the awkwardness of our response.

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Thank you, TBill, for a profound, and highly responsible statement.

      In terms of information, as opposed to facts, these times right now seem to be shifting into whole new sets of possible circumstances, and scenarios, that ignite our minds, imaginations, bias, desires, and selfish impulses, each of us creating our own illusions as to what is going on. I fear this particular post might be one example of that as its thrust seems to be growing nationally by some on the right side of the our politics. And, now I surely expect a counter reaction on the left side of the America’s political spectrum. We all must resist this, and condemn it, on both sides of our divide. And do so with great vigor, and determination, for time is of the essence, and the stakes are high for all of us. If only because there are far too many risks now a play, including not least the obvious fact that growing numbers of our fellow citizens whose lives as they know them seem to be coming apart, and they do not know where to turn to get their lives back, the rug seemingly pulled out from underneath them. So we must stand solid, calm and unafraid, if only for them.

      No one here should be playing irresponsibly on these dangerous times, including joining any particular mob. Not if you care about the future of those you love, things you care about, and the country and its people that gave you such precious gifts.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      “I’d rather be lucky than good.”

    3. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      We seem to do this ALL the time! We doubt/underestimate until things blow up THEN we “learn”…

      we want easy answers, and we do not being disrupted from our lives.

      if we see disaster coming, we sometimes reconsider… but reserve the right to blame “failed” govt for causing all of it.

      rinse, repeat…

    4. Excellent sentiment, one we need to be humble enough to accept.

  22. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    “Did Shoddy Science Shut Down America?”
    If it was shoddy, it was leadership.

  23. virginiagal2 Avatar
    virginiagal2

    Here are graphs of the US IHME data. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

    Please note that the current estimate of deaths through August assumes full social distancing through May, and still, today, has a range up to over 150k deaths.

Leave a Reply