ignoranceprior

Comments

The case for C19 being widespread
FWIW, if UK death toll will surpass 10,000, then this wouldn't fit very well with this hypothesis here.

The UK death toll currently stands at 10,612 according to:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

The case for C19 being widespread
Alternatively, if the Covid-19 deaths in NY state go above 3,333 in the first week of April, that seems like it would also falsify the hypothesis. (NY state has fewer than one third the population of the UK.) Unfortunately I think this is >80% to happen.

On April 4, the death toll in NY state surpassed 3,333. As of April 10, there are 7,844 deaths.

Has LessWrong been a good early alarm bell for the pandemic?

The "Rationalist prepper thread" was actually posted on January 28, not January 20.

The case for C19 being widespread

This is indeed what I meant. Also I was thinking about once-the-dust-settles IFR, not "crude IFR".

The case for C19 being widespread

If the IFR is indeed .003% (the upper end of your range), then assuming the worst case scenario that 100% of the population of the UK gets infected eventually, only .003%*66.4 million = approx 2000 people will die total.

Would you consider the theory falsified if the death toll in the UK surpasses 2000?

The case for C19 being widespread

I'm confused why you assume that 36-68% of the population in the UK is infected. I thought, based on comments here, that those numbers were the output of a model that made highly optimistic assumptions about IFR, not an attempt at estimating the actual proportion of infections.

Do you think this is a realistic range for the proportion already infected in the UK?

The case for C19 being widespread

What is your personal point estimate or credible interval for IFR?

March Coronavirus Open Thread

Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Admits He Was Wrong, Drastically Revises Model (archive)

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, who created the highly-cited Imperial College London coronavirus model, which has been cited by organizations like The New York Times and has been instrumental in governmental policy decision-making, offered a massive revision to his model on Wednesday.

Ferguson’s model projected 2.2 million dead people in the United States and 500,000 in the U.K. from COVID-19 if no action were taken to slow the virus and blunt its curve.
However, after just one day of ordered lockdowns in the U.K., Ferguson has changed his tune, revealing that far more people likely have the virus than his team figured. Now, the epidemiologist predicts, hospitals will be just fine taking on COVID-19 patients and estimates 20,000 or far fewer people will die from the virus itself or from its agitation of other ailments.

Ferguson thus dropped his prediction from 500,000 dead to 20,000.

Author and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson broke down the bombshell report via Twitter on Thursday morning (view Twitter thread below).

“This is a remarkable turn from Neil Ferguson, who led the [Imperial College] authors who warned of 500,000 UK deaths — and who has now himself tested positive for #COVID,” started Berenson.

“He now says both that the U.K. should have enough ICU beds and that the coronavirus will probably kill under 20,000 people in the U.K. — more than 1/2 of whom would have died by the end of the year in any case [because] they were so old and sick,” he wrote.

Thoughts on this?

March Coronavirus Open Thread

Does anyone have thoughts on the recent Oxford study that claims that only a very small minority of infections lead to hospitalization or death, and that >50% of the UK population is already infected?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model%20%2813%29.pdf

Load More