Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [EyeRunMD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
EyeRunMD wrote:
Thom wrote:
ike wrote:
Two-state comparisons have little value. It’s usually just data mining or cherry picking in support of a conclusion. There are so many possible two-state combinations that one can almost always find some pair that supposedly proves something. And another pair that proves the opposite. Why not compare ND to ME: they are both rural and cold, yet had very different policies and very different results.


This is at least the 3rd time cherry picking the CA/FL data has come up on this forum. At least twice I've pointed out the data mining aspect. You could easily compare NY and Florida and prove how effective mitigation efforts work. The comparisons raise some interesting questions, but not really reliable conclusions. Real data scientists have built models on mask wearing and restaurant closings that have shown to be pretty damn accurate.


I’m at work so I don’t have time right now to look for these models but I find it hard to imagine a model is a good comparison of modeled data vs real world actual data. Maybe the models are based on actual data (like I said, I can’t look them up right now).

There are also case examples showing masks don’t make a big difference (ie, some of the cruise ship case studies) vs others that do show the effectiveness of masks use. It just goes to show the info is all over the place when evaluating COVID.



I think the models accurately tell you what the model tells you. It can compare, for example, masks and restaurants at half capacity to no masks and restaurants at full capacity. When doing a state by state comparison, (ie "real world actual data") you involve population density, weather, rules compliance, activity types, age, health factors, etc. IOW, you can't look at Florida and assume that the same rates of death and infection would occur in New York City if the same rules were applied.



Both statistical modeling and real world data has to be considered.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The short is that it's a very very crude analysis.

You can't compare Florida and California, without going to a much finer level, looking at geospatial data carefully, doing to propensity score matching (for instance) for age, for comorbidities, for insurance status, etc. The high level analysis is pretty much useless.

Especially since even though there was no lockdown and no statewide mask rule in Florida, many counties implemented their own, and although the governor removed the rules, they were still respected in many areas in Florida.

So, yes, the results in Florida and California are interesting based on the different approaches, but looking at such a high level to understand why is useless.
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
As the public health expert notes, there are other factors such as "population density, the number of multi-generational households and the public cooperating with state laws and mandates" that will affect the statistics.

Yeah, this is just cherry picking. Compare VT with SD for example, strict and very low cases, open and very high cases. Too many confounding factors to conclude CA or FL is better than the other based on policy
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nutella wrote:
EyeRunMD wrote:
Nutella wrote:
So Florida has higher case rates and significantly higher death rates and hospitalization rates. Not really surprising.


Read deeper into the article. The analysis shows this a little different


Yeah, I read it. My post was correct.

Yep, you are correct.
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
EyeRunMD wrote:
Thom wrote:
ike wrote:
Two-state comparisons have little value. It’s usually just data mining or cherry picking in support of a conclusion. There are so many possible two-state combinations that one can almost always find some pair that supposedly proves something. And another pair that proves the opposite. Why not compare ND to ME: they are both rural and cold, yet had very different policies and very different results.


This is at least the 3rd time cherry picking the CA/FL data has come up on this forum. At least twice I've pointed out the data mining aspect. You could easily compare NY and Florida and prove how effective mitigation efforts work. The comparisons raise some interesting questions, but not really reliable conclusions. Real data scientists have built models on mask wearing and restaurant closings that have shown to be pretty damn accurate.


I’m at work so I don’t have time right now to look for these models but I find it hard to imagine a model is a good comparison of modeled data vs real world actual data. Maybe the models are based on actual data (like I said, I can’t look them up right now).

There are also case examples showing masks don’t make a big difference (ie, some of the cruise ship case studies) vs others that do show the effectiveness of masks use. It just goes to show the info is all over the place when evaluating COVID.




I think the models accurately tell you what the model tells you. It can compare, for example, masks and restaurants at half capacity to no masks and restaurants at full capacity. When doing a state by state comparison, (ie "real world actual data") you involve population density, weather, rules compliance, activity types, age, health factors, etc. IOW, you can't look at Florida and assume that the same rates of death and infection would occur in New York City if the same rules were applied.



Both statistical modeling and real world data has to be considered.


It’s just that statistical modeling reminds me too much of the early studies showing how we were all at high risk of exposing others to COVID by going for a run. Ends up, they were “done in a vacuum” and were not comparable to real world situations very well (air flow, change in air direction, dispersion, etc...).
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Francois wrote:
The short is that it's a very very crude analysis.

You can't compare Florida and California, without going to a much finer level, looking at geospatial data carefully, doing to propensity score matching (for instance) for age, for comorbidities, for insurance status, etc. The high level analysis is pretty much useless.

Especially since even though there was no lockdown and no statewide mask rule in Florida, many counties implemented their own, and although the governor removed the rules, they were still respected in many areas in Florida.

So, yes, the results in Florida and California are interesting based on the different approaches, but looking at such a high level to understand why is useless.

Yeah it’s a very crude article, and not in a scientific journal (it’s The DailyMail).

I just find the simple analysis interesting (from a 10,000 ft view) because Florida was slammed by the media (for waiting too late to close the beaches, allowing Spring break, opening up too soon, people not wearing masks, etc...) and California was lauded (for closing down everything, people being good about wearing masks, Gov Lawson taking the initiative, etc...). There are too many variables involved but it’s amazing Florida is not head and shoulders beyond California (especially when you add in the higher percentage of elderly and total black population in Florida.....both higher risk groups).
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [EyeRunMD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Also is a covid death a covid death, one death may not equal another death
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [EyeRunMD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
EyeRunMD wrote:


It’s just that statistical modeling reminds me too much of the early studies showing how we were all at high risk of exposing others to COVID by going for a run. Ends up, they were “done in a vacuum” and were not comparable to real world situations very well (air flow, change in air direction, dispersion, etc...).

Can you point to one of these studies? I don't remember recommendations to not go for a run being based studies, I think it was more speculation on ways to contain the virus. Kind of like the early recommendations that masks weren't needed. We were still trying to figure things out.
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [40-Tude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
40-Tude wrote:
scorpio516 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
Right. Left. Idiots as far as the eye can see.


Imagine how stupid the average American is. Half of the people are dumber than that.


... and some confuse average with median.

if we are talking about "normal" people, they are the same;)
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [tri_yoda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tri_yoda wrote:
40-Tude wrote:
scorpio516 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
Right. Left. Idiots as far as the eye can see.


Imagine how stupid the average American is. Half of the people are dumber than that.


... and some confuse average with median.


if we are talking about "normal" people, they are the same;)

As long as there's a lot of them.
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [EyeRunMD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
EyeRunMD wrote:
Francois wrote:
The short is that it's a very very crude analysis.

You can't compare Florida and California, without going to a much finer level, looking at geospatial data carefully, doing to propensity score matching (for instance) for age, for comorbidities, for insurance status, etc. The high level analysis is pretty much useless.

Especially since even though there was no lockdown and no statewide mask rule in Florida, many counties implemented their own, and although the governor removed the rules, they were still respected in many areas in Florida.

So, yes, the results in Florida and California are interesting based on the different approaches, but looking at such a high level to understand why is useless.


Yeah it’s a very crude article, and not in a scientific journal (it’s The DailyMail).

I just find the simple analysis interesting (from a 10,000 ft view) because Florida was slammed by the media (for waiting too late to close the beaches, allowing Spring break, opening up too soon, people not wearing masks, etc...) and California was lauded (for closing down everything, people being good about wearing masks, Gov Lawson taking the initiative, etc...). There are too many variables involved but it’s amazing Florida is not head and shoulders beyond California (especially when you add in the higher percentage of elderly and total black population in Florida.....both higher risk groups).

some of the same people questioning the analysis were some of the same people comparing the US to much different countries with certainty 8 months ago when the negative comparisons served their purposes
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
tri_yoda wrote:
40-Tude wrote:
scorpio516 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
Right. Left. Idiots as far as the eye can see.


Imagine how stupid the average American is. Half of the people are dumber than that.


... and some confuse average with median.


if we are talking about "normal" people, they are the same;)


As long as there's a lot of them.

N = Between 330,000,000 and 7,900,000,000 ;)
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
EyeRunMD wrote:



It’s just that statistical modeling reminds me too much of the early studies showing how we were all at high risk of exposing others to COVID by going for a run. Ends up, they were “done in a vacuum” and were not comparable to real world situations very well (air flow, change in air direction, dispersion, etc...).


Can you point to one of these studies? I don't remember recommendations to not go for a run being based studies, I think it was more speculation on ways to contain the virus. Kind of like the early recommendations that masks weren't needed. We were still trying to figure things out.

Here is mention of the main “study” that I repeatedly saw referenced to on social media. Many on social media, and news folks, took this info and tried to point out how this shows we should not even be running or cycling together. I was skeptical of the info when the “study” first appeared on the scene. After I saw it was not even real world, and not peer reviewed, it became less relevant

https://www.bicycling.com/...us-viral-simulation/
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [JFHJR] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JFHJR wrote:
EyeRunMD wrote:
Interesting article in the Daily Mail comparing hospitalizations and deaths between CA and FL, two states with drastically different policies towards strict COVID mandates.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/...9-ended-outcome.html


The interesting story will be when a numbers guru quantifies the economic impact and social consequences of the different approaches and finds a way to graph that with deaths/hospitalizations/cases.

Yep. Show the difference in unemployment rate and failed business in each state.

I miss YaHey
Quote Reply
Re: COVID: FL vs CA [Tylertri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tylertri wrote:
EyeRunMD wrote:
Francois wrote:
The short is that it's a very very crude analysis.

You can't compare Florida and California, without going to a much finer level, looking at geospatial data carefully, doing to propensity score matching (for instance) for age, for comorbidities, for insurance status, etc. The high level analysis is pretty much useless.

Especially since even though there was no lockdown and no statewide mask rule in Florida, many counties implemented their own, and although the governor removed the rules, they were still respected in many areas in Florida.

So, yes, the results in Florida and California are interesting based on the different approaches, but looking at such a high level to understand why is useless.


Yeah it’s a very crude article, and not in a scientific journal (it’s The DailyMail).

I just find the simple analysis interesting (from a 10,000 ft view) because Florida was slammed by the media (for waiting too late to close the beaches, allowing Spring break, opening up too soon, people not wearing masks, etc...) and California was lauded (for closing down everything, people being good about wearing masks, Gov Lawson taking the initiative, etc...). There are too many variables involved but it’s amazing Florida is not head and shoulders beyond California (especially when you add in the higher percentage of elderly and total black population in Florida.....both higher risk groups).

some of the same people questioning the analysis were some of the same people comparing the US to much different countries with certainty 8 months ago when the negative comparisons served their purposes

I know reading is hard...but give it a try. It’s not whether you can or cannot compare. It’s about how you compare data across regions.
Quote Reply

Prev Next