Flaws in predictions and bogus numbers
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-nyt-reporter-challenging-the-coronavirus-narrative

Now he’s turned to challenging the narratives on the response to the coronavirus. What Berenson is promoting isn’t coronavirus denialism, or conspiracy theories about plots to curb liberties. Instead what Berenson is claiming is simple: the models guiding the response were wrong and that it is becoming clearer by the day.

Hospitals, of course, are not empty in places like hard-hit New York City, and tales are widespread of overburdened doctors and emergency rooms. Berenson acknowledged as much in the interview Thursday.

But Berenson argues that those models have social distancing and other measures baked into them. As for further proof, he says that outside of places like New York there has not been a national health crisis that was predicted -- nor are there signs that the level of lockdown in various states has made a difference.

“Aside from New York, nationally there’s been no health system crisis. In fact, to be truly correct there has been a health system crisis, but the crisis is that the hospitals are empty,” he said. “This is true in Florida where the lockdown was late, this is true in southern California where the lockdown was early, it's true in Oklahoma where there is no statewide lockdown. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the lockdown and whether or not the epidemic has spread wide and fast.”


https://www.foxnews.com/media/physician-blasts-cdc-coronavirus-death-count-guidelines

Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota family physician who is also a Republican state senator, told "The Ingraham Angle" Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines for doctors to certify whether a patient has died of coronavirus are "ridiculous" and could be misleading the public.

Host Laura Ingraham read Jensen the guidelines, which say: "In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed.'"

Jensen gave a hypothetical example of a patient who died while suffering from influenza. If the patient was elderly and had symptoms like fever and cough a few days before passing away, the doctor explained, he would have listed "respiratory arrest" as the primary cause of death.

"I’ve never been encouraged to [notate 'influenza']," he said. "I would probably write 'respiratory arrest' to be the top line, and the underlying cause of this disease would be pneumonia ... I might well put emphysema or congestive heart failure, but I would never put influenza down as the underlying cause of death and yet that’s what we are being asked to do here."

Already posted

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1057407-guy-thinks.html

GOP propaganda. PARF.

The modelling/related data were obviously exponentially off from the start. Maybe medical folks just don't do it all that well...just like the climate folks (that used to be called weathergirls).

Go back and read the 2nd link - even more damning.

Computer models wrong? Tell me it isn't so!

GIGO

An example given in the CDC guidance PDF.

Scenario III: An 86-year-old female with an
unconfirmed case of COVID–19
An 86-year-old female passed away at home. Her husband
reported that she was nonambulatory after suffering an ischemic
stroke 3 years ago. He stated that 5 days prior, she developed a
high fever and severe cough after being exposed to an ill family
member who subsequently was diagnosed with COVID–19.
Despite his urging, she refused to go to the hospital, even when
her breathing became more labored and temperature escalated.
She was unresponsive that morning and her husband phoned
emergency medical services (EMS). Upon EMS arrival, the
patient was pulseless and apneic. Her husband stated that he
and his wife had advanced directives and that she was not to be
resuscitated. After consulting with medical command, she was
pronounced dead and the coroner was notified.
Comment: Although no testing was done, the coroner
determined that the likely UCOD was COVID–19 given the
patient’s symptoms and exposure to an infected individual.
Therefore, COVID–19 was reported on the lowest line used
in Part I. Her ischemic stroke was considered a factor that
contributed to her death but was not a part of the direct causal
sequence in Part I, so it was reported in Part II.

Their assumptions were so poor from the start...that you didn't even need to take a hard look to see they were insanely high, intuitively. I was posting on a small town site a month ago where the 495 free hospital beds "were never going to be enough (two weeks behind Italy)"..so far, a month later, two in the hospital. I told the folks not to panic...and it was amazing...hundreds of old ladies telling that I was a stupid (ABC and the NY Times told them differently). Lots like a lot of folks here.

Screenshot of PDF. PDF goes into detail on how and why over several pages. This is example 3. Far more than the couple of sentences posted in the Fox link.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1586490005.jpg