Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
Finally we have some idea what these mysterious metrics are guiding Reynolds' decision-making. I had assumed she had access to some kind of modeling or other information not readily available to the public but this is pretty basic stuff.
Of the four criteria, one is a static number that basically will never move. The other three are indicators that are based on testing, which we know to be a horribly flawed metric that lags days behind reality.
This doesn't really inspire confidence in the decision-making process at all. By the time we meet whatever metrics required to take more serious action, it will be too late.
Of the four criteria, one is a static number that basically will never move. The other three are indicators that are based on testing, which we know to be a horribly flawed metric that lags days behind reality.
This doesn't really inspire confidence in the decision-making process at all. By the time we meet whatever metrics required to take more serious action, it will be too late.
For the record, I don't dislike your post. I dislike her criteria because they are objectively bad criteria.
She has talked extensively about the fact that there are metrics. But unless she broke down and discussed them specifically yesterday, which is one of the few press conferences I've missed, she has gone out of her way to avoid naming their metrics.
We don't have mass transit or high population density, but we do have hundreds of thousands of people with the ability to move and mix freely. While you will pass fewer people on the street, your more likely in Iowa to be repeatedly exposed to the same people over and over. From a probability standpoint, walking past 10 different infected people is no different than walking past 1 infected person 10 times.
We don't have huge apartment buildings with 1000s of people (except for Des Moines, Ames, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Quad Cities, Cedar Falls, Council Bluffs, Sioux City...).
Our percentage of >65yo residents - the ones who are greatest risk of hospitalization and death - is surely higher than in other areas, and does not change as a result of the virus.
The combination of exponential growth, lag in symptoms and lag in testing means that by the time the data shows you have a problem you are too late.
My bad, I thought by criteria you were referring to the last 4 bullet points. You made some cogent points regarding the four "reasons" listed first. You hooked me with your use of "objectively", and I've enjoyed our interactions in this thread (so far, LOL).
My only rebuttal would be, and it's entirely an opinion, that a week ago today we had 23 additional positive results. Assuming the testing criteria have remained static or lessened, and knowing the testing rate has increased, I would optimistically argue that the fact we've less than tripled that number in one week would indicate we're doing something right. I would've bet good money we'd be in the 100s by now, based on the 23 last Saturday. Carry on, fry some fish or something today!
@besserheimerphat
I think the 4 factors are:
% of population greater than 65 years of age
% of identified cases requiring hospitalization
Rate of infection per 100,000 population in the past 14 days
Long-term care facility outbreaks.
I think the 4 factors are:
% of population greater than 65 years of age
% of identified cases requiring hospitalization
Rate of infection per 100,000 population in the past 14 days
Long-term care facility outbreaks.
That isnt really indicative of anything by itself though. It should be an input in a larger risk calculation, which is then used for decision making.
Once a person us infected, the probability of hospitalization should be constant across all Americans - nothing biologically unique to Iowans to make our hospitalization rates different. So we can use US statistics to asses this, not relying only on limited Iowa data. There may be cultural/policy differences, but those are things we can control.
Biggest issue with this one is lag.
Again, the problem is lag. Also, these facilities are inherently easier to contain. The bigger risk is to the general population which doesn't spend 20+ hours per day inside a single building.
I disagree with your second point that it would be the same throughout the U.S. If you look at things like rates of asthma, they are higher in larger cities that have poorer air quality. That one part would say that they would have higher rates of hospitalization than an area with lower rates of asthma. A person in LA would not necessarily be the same as say Huxley (picked a town most would know).
It might be a lagging metric, but you can extrapolate forward as to where it will be. I assume she is projecting from where it is headed today, not where it actually is. What other metric could you use?
I agree that's exactly what you have to do. It would be nice if they gave us that info in the interest of transparency. We don't know if they are acting based on most likely outcomes, or reacting to information as it comes in. People are going to criticize regardless, and it's a difficult balance between transparency and "inciting panic." But I prefer they (whether IA or US) give us all the info/facts. I don't mean to minimize the difficulty of what they are trying to manage.
- Status