Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TomCADem

(17,387 posts)
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 03:32 PM Mar 2020

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation COVID-19 Projections

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) is an independent population health research center at UW Medicine, part of the University of Washington, that provides rigorous and comparable measurement of the world's most important health problems and evaluates the strategies used to address them. IHME makes this information freely available so that policymakers have the evidence they need to make informed decisions about how to allocate resources to best improve population health.

The IHME's projections of demands on US Hospitals over the next few weeks are pretty sobering. The CDC obviously has done similar projections, but no one is making such projections public except to say that there is a huge need.



http://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

In addition to a large number of deaths from COVID-19, the epidemic in the US will place a load well beyond the current capacity of hospitals to manage, especially for ICU care. These estimates can help inform the development and implementation of strategies to mitigate this gap, including reducing non-COVID-19 demand for services and temporarily increasing system capacity. These are urgently needed given that peak volumes are estimated to be only three weeks away. The estimated excess demand on hospital systems is predicated on the enactment of social distancing measures in all states that have not done so already within the next week and maintenance of these measures throughout the epidemic, emphasizing the importance of implementing, enforcing, and maintaining these measures to mitigate hospital system overload and prevent deaths.


Of course, as noted in this article, there limits to such mathematical models:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/mathematics-life-and-death-how-disease-models-shape-national-shutdowns-and-other

Mathematics of life and death: How disease models shape national shutdowns and other pandemic policies

In their review of U.S. outbreak modeling, Rivers and her colleagues note that most of the key players are academics with little role in policy. They don’t typically “participate in the decision-making processes … they sort of pivot into a new world when an emergency hits,” she says. “It would be more effective if they could be on-site with the government, working side by side with decision makers.” Rivers argues for the creation of a National Infectious Disease Forecasting Center, akin to the National Weather Service. It would be the primary source of models in a crisis and strengthen outbreak science in “peacetime.”

Policymakers have relied too heavily on COVID-19 models, says Devi Sridhar, a global health expert at the University of Edinburgh. “I’m not really sure whether the theoretical models will play out in real life.” And it’s dangerous for politicians to trust models that claim to show how a little-studied virus can be kept in check, says Harvard University epidemiologist William Hanage. “It’s like, you’ve decided you’ve got to ride a tiger,” he says, “except you don’t know where the tiger is, how big it is, or how many tigers there actually are.”

Models are at their most useful when they identify something that is not obvious, Kucharski says. One valuable function, he says, was to flag that temperature screening at airports will miss most coronavirus-infected people.

There’s also a lot that models don’t capture. They cannot anticipate, say, the development of a faster, easier test to identify and isolate infected people or an effective antiviral that reduces the need for hospital beds. “That’s the nature of modeling: We put in what we know,” says Ira Longini, a modeler at the University of Florida. Nor do most models factor in the anguish of social distancing, or whether the public obeys orders to stay home. Recent data from Hong Kong and Singapore suggest extreme social distancing is hard to keep up, says Gabriel Leung, a modeler at the University of Hong Kong. Both cities are seeing an uptick in cases that he thinks stem at least in part from “response fatigue.” “We were the poster children because we started early. And we went quite heavy,” Leung says. Now, “It's 2 months already, and people are really getting very tired.” He thinks both cities may be on the brink of a “major sustained local outbreak”.

Long lockdowns to slow a disease can also have catastrophic economic impacts that may themselves affect public health. “It’s a three-way tussle,” Leung says, “between protecting health, protecting the economy, and protecting people’s well-being and emotional health.”
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Squinch

(50,955 posts)
2. This is absurd. Someone is blowing happy smoke up your ass.
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 03:39 PM
Mar 2020

In New York alone the numbers will be worse than this.

TomCADem

(17,387 posts)
3. Over 500 Deaths a Day By April 8th Is Happy Smoke?
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 03:43 PM
Mar 2020

New York is currently at a 100 deaths a day, so I would not be celebrating 500 deaths in a day as some sort of victory.

TomCADem

(17,387 posts)
5. Based On What? A Gut Instinct?
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 03:46 PM
Mar 2020

You said: "Italy is having 1000 deaths a day. We will exceed that."

The model assumes that social distancing remains in effect. Also, Italy (60 million) has three times the population of New York (20 million). So, you are projecting a worse death rate than Italy?

Squinch

(50,955 posts)
9. If we're both still here in August, we'll talk then and see how the total US number
Sat Mar 28, 2020, 01:36 PM
Mar 2020

compares to 80,000.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)
8. Thanks for posting!
Fri Mar 27, 2020, 04:35 PM
Mar 2020

Great minds and all. I posted a thread about the site at the same time you did (within a minute anyway).

Here's a couple other resources, in case you've missed them:

https://covidtracking.com/ -- a project spearheaded by the Atlantic reporting latest compilation of test totals, cases, pending tests, hospitalizations, and related resources by state. They also grade the quality of the data, which I think is very useful.

https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19_data/ -- data visualizations

TomCADem

(17,387 posts)
10. So far the site's projections have been pretty accurate.
Sat Mar 28, 2020, 08:28 PM
Mar 2020

This is sobering that even with social distancing, thousands of people will die. It also reinforces how the delay in testing really allowed community spread to take foot sort of like closing the barn door after the horses escaped.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)
11. Here's a timeline of failures I put together (with "what could have been")
Sat Mar 28, 2020, 08:41 PM
Mar 2020

It didn't have to be like this. Even with social distancing, we are likely to lose 40,000 to 160,000 Americans. I know a lot of people are projecting far worse, but even the low end, 40,000 is horrible -- and all the more horrible because it didn't have to be like this.

_______________________________________

Timeline of failures -- lost shot at containment
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13168592

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Institute for Health Metr...