Via WPLG 10, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) “changed its model for Florida significantly, forecasting that the state will have 1,363 deaths from COVID-19 by Aug. 4, far lower than the 4,748 projected earlier this week”:
BREAKING NEWS: Forecast model now predicts fewer #coronavirus deaths in Florida https://t.co/urwDV4hgOG
— WPLG Local 10 News (@WPLGLocal10) April 17, 2020
And that’s a great segue into what this post is really about, which is that the IHME models that we’ve used to make multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions are, in the technical sense, s*it. But don’t take our word for it. Here’s the prestigious medical news website STATE with the takedown:
Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn’t guide U.S. policies, critics say
This is an amazing line:
“That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”
What did we do to ourselves?
“That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”
??? story about the model so many are using to predict Covid-19 cases, from @sxbegle: https://t.co/CNOOPBPgmE
— Erin Mershon (@eemershon) April 17, 2020
“Couple months late to come to this objective reality,” however;
I thought it was like climate denial to criticize the epidemiology models?
Turns out there are honest scientists who are willing to criticize flawed methods and say it to the media.
Couple months late to come to this objective reality.https://t.co/UsSUxXSmza
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) April 17, 2020
Here are the money paragraphs: “No epidemiologic basis”:
According to a critique by researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London, published this week in Annals of Internal Medicine, the IHME projections are based “on a statistical model with no epidemiologic basis.”
“Statistical model” refers to putting U.S. data onto the graph of other countries’ Covid-19 deaths over time under the assumption that the U.S. epidemic will mimic that in those countries. But countries’ countermeasures differ significantly. As the epidemic curve in the U.S. changes due to countermeasures that were weaker or later than, say, China’s, the IHME modelers adjust the curve to match the new reality.
But those charts were so “fancy” and easy to use:
Having fancy charts and an interactive website is the key to epidemiology model uptake.
Like the NY Times election speedometer or other whiz bang real-time analytics, the public gets to see the sausage being made.
No context or expert interpretation necessary!
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) April 17, 2020
Looking forward to EVERY media site following up on this now:
I wonder why the Washington Post or NY Times didn't publish a series of articles from experts questioning the efficacy of epidemiology models used to make policy.
Well, the coast is clear now b/c such criticism can politically hurt Trump and efforts to reopen America.
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) April 17, 2020
***
Related:
Sean Davis gives WaPo journo a reality check over his defense of the IHME model https://t.co/I7r7pABMJT
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 9, 2020
Join the conversation as a VIP Member