Curious though that they show so little variability in their model, yet it seems to move all the time. If it has such swings, shouldn't their model reflect their lack of confidence in their inputs and have larger variability bands?
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
Curious though that they show so little variability in their model, yet it seems to move all the time. If it has such swings, shouldn't their model reflect their lack of confidence in their inputs and have larger variability bands?
I think it must be using some kind of typical occupancy/usage rate? Just found a news article saying WI has 2500 intensive care beds and 620 vents and the current listed "available" on that site is 172 ICU beds and 299 vents.
Article goes on to say they normally run at 90% occupancy but have been able to move down to 80% in one hospital and 50% in another the last couple weeks as prep.
Otherwise I would say 172 ICU beds for all of WI seems low to me.
I said it before, but IMO that site is basically useless. Of course, 6 months from now it may be highly accurate.
It is absolutely ridiculous that we don't have the testing thing sorted out yet. It's such a complete and utter failing that will inevitably result in tens of thousands of extra people. A top to bottom failure
I disagree with this in one aspect - the vast majority of people don't get past the headline. So even if the details are the same, there is specific significant value in the "SHELTER IN PLACE" headline.
Reynolds just said she will base further closures based on regions/communities/counties.
Somebody posted that the number of tests performed yesterday was down from the previous day. Which, while seemingly odd, could be a sign that less people presented with symptoms. Which would be a good thing. Of course the medical personnel could also be holding back tests for the expected peak. We have no way of knowing.
I would disagree with "significant value". Idiots are going to be idiots, no matter what you call your restrictions. Anybody who is unaware of how dire the situation is by now is a lost cause.
So this model is getting quite a bit of attention in today's press conference. Reynolds and her staff repeatedly discounted the model on the basis that the assumptions for Iowa are wrong - for example the model says the schools are not closed when they are. But it says right here - literally in the first FAQ - that the model assumes that places that are not doing extreme social distancing measures will be doing so within seven days.
Is her staff just incompetent or do they think we're all that dumb?
I haven't been. But I still hear about them later. It's not hard to put the pieces together on this one.
She didn't say that exactly. She said that she has mentioned before that future closings could be based on verified hot spots.
Unfortunately, I know exactly where they are all day long. They are not quiet.
I think most of them are assuming we don't do research ourselves. It's absolutely hilarious watching these. I'm doing it more for the sheer humor now. Nothing's going to change in my mind now. I think at this point, even if the cases and deaths reach large numbers, she'll just talk about how great of a job we're doing as a state.
You could literally watch the press conference from last week and it'd sound almost word for word the exact same as the one she gave today, yesterday, or the day before.
- Status
