« Sandbox - 8apr20 | Main | Hunker Down Diary – 11apr20 (updated 12apr20) »

10 April 2020

Comments

D

CDC's guidance for reporting.

Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19)

"If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should
be specified on the death certificate. In many cases, it is
likely that it will be the UCOD, as it can lead to various life
threatening conditions, such as pneumonia and acute respiratory
distress syndrome (ARDS). In these cases, COVID–19 should
be reported on the lowest line used in Part I with the other
conditions to which it gave rise listed on the lines above it. "

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

Bill Tozer

Somebody calls BS....one man’s opinion.

‘Bullshit Numbers’

You are seeing a lot of covid-19 numbers thrown around. Virtually all of those numbers are bullshit

https://streetwiseprofessor.com/bullshit-numbers/

L

D@4:59, That makes sense if the lower the position of the causal listing, the less cause of death is attributed to the Xirus. Can't be sure from your last line- which suggests that pneumonia and ARDS would be likely entries, rather than heart failure and COPD which are the actual most dangerous underlying conditions to have going in. What am I not getting?

scenes

GeorgeR: I like the exposition of uncertainty in testing regimes. My bet is that a .95 is wildly optimistic for a correct positive test. Since the medical people are basically treating symptoms and not the underlying disease, the whole point of the test appears to be:

. Make people feel better. 'Something is being done about this'.
. Driving public policy decisions.

A couple of things about this latter case.

. The time to measure and institute a public policy decision is larger than the time the epidemic needs to change nature.
. Individual public policy decisions will make less difference than the built-in inaccuracy in measurement. It's hard to tell if they work.

In essence, good public policy become a combination of common sense and throwing everything at the problem.

I spent a few minutes last week pawing through epidemiology papers (praise be to sci-hub and the copyright infringing Russkies) and couldn't help feel that they often are taking a preconceived curve (either calculated, guesstimated, or measured earlier) and are fitting a series of maths to that.

None of this seems well suited to a static treatment what with the the pesky humans at it's base. The importance of initial conditions, change in behavior over time, change in the virus itself over time. It's like weather prediction where clouds have a mind of their own.

George Rebane

scenes 806am - You're right on the mark Mr scenes.

The comments to this entry are closed.