Matrix Games Forums

More of the way people too often behave. Reporting that things are better than they are is usually easier - and cheaper - than actually making them better.

The pandemic ‘sugar pill’ hospital executives sold the Trump administration in 2018

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

As a community, and as for myself, we seem interested in all credible sources and whatever good data and projections we can get. We've used multiple sources over a long time. And we've relied on our internal sources.

I like the U. Washington site because it's widely used, seems credible, and has a track record that I've become comfortable with for US projections (but not, as I noted early this a.m., for European projections).

We aren't mistaking "fast" for "good." None are advocating exclusion of other sources or data. We, or at least I, am taking some time to savor really good news.

Can i just urge everyone to treat UK figures on stuff with a lot of caution.

We are miles behind where we should be in the testing, so our models are based on assumptions, not data (I think Mind messing has stressed this)

We are not alone in that, but we are testing more and more, but are still thousands of people behind the likes of Germany (who appear to have got it right, and have the data to back it up)

Regarding the death tolls, and people going "oh well, its not as bad as originally thought", I suspect that if a close relative gets it then the reality will drive it home more.

Both me and Mrs Encircled parents are perfectly healthy 70+ year olds, and this has us scared to death about them, especially as in the UK our two weeks delay in doing the right thing has could potentially result in many more deaths than if we'd done the right thing at the start.

See attached Reuters report on this

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN21P1VF

Regarding the China virus thing, its clearly is from China, but its also clearly being used as something else (not by forumites) by people who should know better. Maybe in the interests of this all staying civil it might be best just to call it Covid-19?

Just a thought.

Encircled, thanks for that note.

Yesterday, we discussed the UK situation and the high mortality projection (66k) from the Univ. of Washington site we're discussing here. There were posts about reasons to hold off on putting much stock in that, at least yet, but folks reading through the thread know the UK is really in the thick of things at the moment and that the forecast is troubling.

We're pulling for you all.

P.S. I posted this a.m., asking for an update about your PM. There hasn't been a reply yet (lost in the avalanche of posts).

ORIGINAL: witpqs

More of the way people too often behave. Reporting that things are better than they are is usually easier - and cheaper - than actually making them better.

The pandemic ‘sugar pill’ hospital executives sold the Trump administration in 2018

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

So that prompted a pair of genuine question from me, and before pops a blood vessel, it is genuine:

- Are private healthcare institutions incentivized or required by legislation to have extra capacity to contribute towards a pandemic response?
- If not, why would they, given the business motivations for their organisations?

Before people start getting frothy, I'm well aware of the scale and that equipment and PPE are not an exclusively American issue.

Cheers Dan

Its predicting to peak in London (where Obvert is) next week, and up in Lancashire (where I am) about ten days after that.

Either way we are in for a tough month.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Encircled, thanks for that note.

Yesterday, we discussed the UK situation and the high mortality projection (66k) from the Univ. of Washington site we're discussing here. There were posts about reasons to hold off on putting much stock in that, at least yet, but folks reading through the thread know the UK is really in the thick of things at the moment and that the forecast is troubling.

We're pulling for you all.

P.S. I posted this a.m., asking for an update about your PM. There hasn't been a reply yet (lost in the avalanche of posts).

He is essentially stable. Still in intensive care but has not got any worse. They are not giving out a huge amount of info - obviously even as PM you still have patient confidentiality.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

As a community, and as for myself, we seem interested in all credible sources and whatever good data and projections we can get. We've used multiple sources over a long time. And we've relied on our internal sources.

I like the U. Washington site because it's widely used, seems credible, and has a track record that I've become comfortable with for US projections (but not, as I noted early this a.m., for European projections).

We aren't mistaking "fast" for "good." None are advocating exclusion of other sources or data. We, or at least I, am taking some time to savor really good news.

So this is what I'm getting at. What's the criteria for assessing what is credible? What makes the data and projections "good"?

Basically, what does good look like?

These are all key steps that seem to have been missed, and they're key in even fundamental armchair analysis. When you get down to it, "I used X source because it seemed credible" means nothing unless you've a criteria to compare it against.

Q: what do you mean by internal sources?

This caught my eye in the Reuters article just linked by Encircled.

It brings up similar points made by Obvert yesterday and me a week ago.

The math is really questionable.

If "4/5ths" of the UK population of 70 million is infected, and if the death rate is 1%, that means 560,000 dead.

There's the 80% figure we mentioned a few days ago. When 50% to 70% figures were also mentioned, several forumites scoffed. Obvert noted with skepticism the 15% figure used for one jurisdiction (Washington D.C.)

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This caught my eye in the Reuters article just linked by Encircled.

It brings up similar points made by Obvert yesterday and me a week ago.

The math is really questionable.

If "4/5ths" of the UK population of 70 million is infected, and if the death rate is 1%, that means 560,000 dead.

There's the 80% figure we mentioned a few days ago. When 50% to 70% figures were also mentioned, several forumites scoffed. Obvert noted with skepticism the 15% figure used for one jurisdiction (Washington D.C.)

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

That I believe was from the ICL modelling, and was only in the case of complete inaction from the Government (ie no social distancing, closures, ect).

I may be misremembering, however, so happy to be proved wrong.

I worded that poorly. I meant to convey: "revisions that ultimately prove more accurate than current projections."

The Reuters article is from 4/7. I read it because Encircled posted about it. I've seen nothing that suggests that projection is currently in play. I do recall a UK university revised projections from 500k to 20k about 10 days ago.

China's Wuhan lockdown ends, but another begins as local coronavirus cases rise
Apr 08, 2020, 11.27 AM IST

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr


"The Chinese city where the coronavirus epidemic first broke out, Wuhan, ended a two-month lockdown on Wednesday, but a northern town started restricting the movement of its residents amid concerns of a second wave of infections in mainland China."

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

So one point of statistical awareness for folks is around statistical uncertainty.

That predicted figure of say, 1200 likely came with a LOT of uncertainty. That's because predictive modelling is hard and can't account for everything.

In statistical terms, that would have been reported as 1200 +/- 500 (purely back of envelope here). This means that the model is predicating mortality at 1200, but the actual value may range from as low as 700 to as high as 1700.

Stealing an example from earlier, you can see:



Prediction was 421, but the range was 297 to 593, so a +/- of 172.

In short, don't get excited unless the values is outside that confidence interval.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: witpqs

More of the way people too often behave. Reporting that things are better than they are is usually easier - and cheaper - than actually making them better.

The pandemic ‘sugar pill’ hospital executives sold the Trump administration in 2018

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

So that prompted a pair of genuine question from me, and before pops a blood vessel, it is genuine:

- Are private healthcare institutions incentivized or required by legislation to have extra capacity to contribute towards a pandemic response?
- If not, why would they, given the business motivations for their organisations?

Before people start getting frothy, I'm well aware of the scale and that equipment and PPE are not an exclusively American issue.

I haven't time (sorry) so I'll let someone else answer specifically or track that down.

Quite a number of requirements are imposed by law on US businesses. Critical infrastructure and such. Don't know specifically about US hospitals for this, but if you research it keep in mind that receiving federal funds (of various programs) often carries requirements with it (so a business which had no requirements per se might have requirements because of participation in one or more programs).

One thing I am quite confident of, deliberately misreporting to federal authorities is certainly a violation of law. Businesses over a certain size even have to file various employment statistics with the federal government.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

More of the way people too often behave. Reporting that things are better than they are is usually easier - and cheaper - than actually making them better.

The pandemic ‘sugar pill’ hospital executives sold the Trump administration in 2018

Just a few short years after 71% of American hospital executives warned they were ill-prepared for a disease outbreak like the 2014 Ebola virus, 86% were reporting they were prepared and ready, the department’s inspector general declared.

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed that 2018 expression of confidence as grossly misplaced, laying bare a U.S. hospital system that did not stockpile adequate supplies, did not calculate enough ICU beds or ventilators or develop triage strategies for staffing for an outbreak of a virus that quickly spread across a mass population.

“The survey was, in hindsight, a sugar pill that simply told HHS what we wanted to hear without substantially changing the equation of resources and strategies needed to respond to a mass infection,” said a U.S. official involved in the 2018 review. The official was not authorized to speak to the press and agreed to an interview only on condition of anonymity.

On Monday, the same office of HHS inspector general issued a new report from the frontlines of the COVID-19 epidemic painting a drastically different portrait of American hospitals scrambling for supplies they did not stockpile and distressed to the point of breaking.

See how the Registered Nurse is wearing her mask? [X(] No nose protection at all! [:@] Cover the NOSE as well!

We already covered that very thing in posts in here. You are stating and re-stating things, as though novel, that we've already addressed. We know these things.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

So one point of statistical awareness for folks is around statistical uncertainty.

That predicted figure of say, 1200 likely came with a LOT of uncertainty. That's because predictive modelling is hard and can't account for everything.

In statistical terms, that would have been reported as 1200 +/- 500 (purely back of envelope here). This means that the model is predicating mortality at 1200, but the actual value may range from as low as 700 to as high as 1700.

Stealing an example from earlier, you can see:



Prediction was 421, but the range was 297 to 593, so a +/- of 172.

In short, don't get excited unless the values is outside that confidence interval.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We already covered that very thing in posts in here. You are stating and re-stating things, as though novel, that we've already addressed. We know these things.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The Univ. of Washington website projects 66k mortality for the UK. I sure hope that's wildly inaccurate (as previously posted this a.m.). On a hopeful note, yesterday's actual mortality came in at 786, about 550 less than projected. Hopefully that trend will continue, prompting revisions that prove much more accurate.

So one point of statistical awareness for folks is around statistical uncertainty.

That predicted figure of say, 1200 likely came with a LOT of uncertainty. That's because predictive modelling is hard and can't account for everything.

In statistical terms, that would have been reported as 1200 +/- 500 (purely back of envelope here). This means that the model is predicating mortality at 1200, but the actual value may range from as low as 700 to as high as 1700.

Stealing an example from earlier, you can see:

Prediction was 421, but the range was 297 to 593, so a +/- of 172.

In short, don't get excited unless the values is outside that confidence interval.

Then what's the error on the Univ. of Washington predictions, and what is it compared to the true reported value?

Time for lunch. A few things will run through my mind most of the time: The situation in the UK; the situation in New York and how JohnD is faring today; and the good news about US projections today.

At least he shouldn't catch it! And he has a little medical training to boot:

Rand Paul recovers from coronavirus, will volunteer at hospital
The senator tested positive for the virus in March
April 7, 2020

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that he's now tested negative for the coronavirus, after contracting it in March, and that he is now volunteering his services at a hospital.

"I have started volunteering at a local hospital to assist those in my community who are in need of medical help, including coronavirus patients," the senator and ophthalmologist wrote in a tweet that included a picture of him wearing a white doctor's coat and sporting a three-day beard.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... r-hospital