Schrodinger’s Politics

Those of you who see 1930s Germany in our President, please note that a lot of us are seeing 1910s Russia and 1940s-1970s China in those who are co-opting the current protests:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/379702/:

Solzhenitsyn would have recognized it: it looks like St Petersburg in 1917. The powerful abandon their duties of stewardship, having absorbed and believed their enemies’ critiques of themselves.

[…]

When the regime changes, the people in charge will be the same ones conducting ideological purges and smashing statuary now. It will be rule by Americans with the aesthetic ethos of the Taliban and the social ethos of Mao’s China. We aren’t there yet — but we are a long way toward it.

Any chance we could avoid either of those two paths? That’d be great.

Ohhh yeah

Not often I get to use the smoker for breakfast (ok, brunch). This, for you normal people out there who don’t recognize it, is a breakfast “fatty.”

I’ll call her Miss Piggy…

Beyond Parody

I was certain this was a Babylon Bee headline. Sadly, no:

Fired FBI director James Comey to teach ethics at Virginia college

But it does continue to support my theory: “never trust a ______ ethics professor.”

The theory: kind of like psychologists, and completely reasonably, they study or teach things that interest them most. But the reason they are interested is because they have a serious problem in that area. So their judgement is… often questionable.

It started with bioethicists in the 2000s who were doing their best to justify everything up to (and more recently including) infanticide. And it’s certainly holding up today.

About the MN Model

OK, so I finally read the whole Star Tribune article about the MN COVID-19 model. Naturally I have things to blather on about.

1) As a recovering controls guy, I’d say the MN model — at least for the ICU beds as seen above, which is the only plot with enough resolution to look at in that article — has the wrong lag and/or damping factor built into their model for the current peak. If it applies (I’m not the only one who thinks it would, but you know, when you have a hammer…) it means the shape, height, and timing of the second peak is a bigger unknown than even they’re suggesting. (They also don’t explain how the phases of the model work, which may change my mind about the above.)

2) I’m fairly sick of this attitude: “We think it’s important to emphasize the consequences of not doing that.” So they don’t produce a more realistic model of what the government might do, they just try to scare everybody. I know that lefties can’t believe this, but putting accurate information out there will produce the best results. Scaring people will cause a kickback that might put that peak in play even if it shouldn’t be.

Sure, produce that graph and have Walz show it, but don’t keep working on the “we sheltered for a month, now god help you all” model.


3) The Washington model doesn’t assume MN is under deep isolation right now, although they’re talking about it as if it does. (My observation in my ~1/wk visits to work and other trips agrees. We’re not reducing anything outside working and school interactions by even 50%, at least not inside the 494/694 loop.)


4) I’m getting wafts of “big, nasty, complex model” off of the MN one, which throws off big alarm bells. At least they’re running it with many of their fudge factors varied.


5) Epidemiologists are annoyingly like engineers: “If you were to ask any epidemiologist what the most common response to any question is, they would say ‘it depends.'”

4/13-4/14 Catching up with MN COVID-19 Projections vs. Actual

(MN has now published some info on their model, but since it’s not usable without spending more time than I intend, I continue to use this one, which seems to be using a more general version of the same sort of modeling. You’ll note a big jump on 4/14, possibly due to MN’s mistaken lumping of two days’ statistics into one release over the weekend, or possibly just a return to “normal” after several days of fewer deaths than originally predicted.)

  • 4/13:
    • Predicted for 4/13 (grabbed @ 9AM on 4/13)
      • 8 deaths (1-21),  76 deaths (53-124) total, 442 projected by 8/4
      • ICU beds needed: 82 (24-192) 
      • peak predicted:
        • 4/27:  12 deaths/day (3-37)
        • peak ICU beds needed: 127 (26-405) on 4/27
    • Actual for 4/13 (reported 11AM 4/14, current as of 4PM previous day)
      • hospitalized:  102 (75 ICU)
      • deaths:  9,  total 79
  • 4/14:
    • Predicted for 4/14 (grabbed @ 9AM on 4/14)
      • 9 deaths (0-36),  88 deaths (71-139) total, 656 projected by 8/4
      • ICU beds needed: 92 (13-315)
      • peak predicted:
        • 4/29:  17 deaths/day (3-58)
        • peak ICU beds needed: 155 (23-548) on 4/30
    • Actual for 4/14 (reported 11AM 4/15, current as of 4PM previous day)
      • hospitalized: 197 (93 ICU)
      • deaths:  8,  total 87

Last Friday’s news today: 4/10 COVID-19 projections vs. data

(MN has now published some info on their model, but since it’s not usable without spending more time than I intend, I continue to use this one, which seems to be using a more general version of the same sort of modeling. You’ll note a big jump on 4/14, possibly due to MN’s mistaken lumping of two days’ statistics into one release over the weekend, or possibly just a return to “normal” after several days of fewer deaths than originally predicted.)

  • Predicted for 4/10 (grabbed @ 9AM on 4/10)
    • 8 deaths (3-21),  56 deaths (42-85) total, 456 projected by 8/4
    • ICU beds needed: 83 (39-162) 
    • peak predicted:
      • 4/26:  16 deaths/day (3-57)
      • peak ICU beds needed: 155 (37-505) on 4/26
  • Actual for 4/10 (reported 11AM 4/11, current as of 4PM previous day)
    • hospitalized: 138 (69 ICU)
    • deaths:  7,  total 57

4/9 COVID-19 MN Projections vs. Reported

(MN has now published some info on their model, but since it’s not usable without spending more time than I intend, I continue to use this one, which seems to be using a more general version of the same sort of modeling. You’ll note a big jump on 4/14, possibly due to MN’s mistaken lumping of two days’ statistics into one release over the weekend, or possibly just a return to “normal” after several days of fewer deaths than originally predicted.)

  • Predicted for 4/9 (grabbed @ 7AM on 4/9)
    • 7 deaths (2-18),  48 deaths (39-66) total, 456 projected by 8/4
    • ICU beds needed: 76 (36-149) 
    • peak predicted:
      • 4/26:  16 deaths/day (3-57)
      • peak ICU beds needed: 155 (37-505) on 4/26
  • Actual for 4/9 (reported 11AM 4/10, current as of 4PM previous day)
    • hospitalized: 143 (64 ICU)
    • deaths:  7,  total 57

4/8 COVID-19 MN Projections vs. Reported

(MN has now published some info on their model, but since it’s not usable without spending more time than I intend, I continue to use this one, which seems to be using a more general version of the same sort of modeling. You’ll note a big jump on 4/14, possibly due to MN’s mistaken lumping of two days’ statistics into one release over the weekend, or possibly just a return to “normal” after several days of fewer deaths than originally predicted.)

  • Predicted for 4/8 (grabbed @ noon on 4/8)
    • 7 deaths (2-18),  41 deaths (36-52) total, 456 projected by 8/4
    • ICU beds needed: 70 (33-138) 
    • peak predicted:
      • 4/26:  16 deaths/day (3-57)
      • peak ICU beds needed: 155 (39-483) on 4/26
  • Actual for 4/8 (reported 11AM 4/9, current as of 4PM previous day)
    • hospitalized: 145 (63 ICU)
    • deaths:  11,  total 50