Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

coronavirus.ohio.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#41

Post by oneiftwo »

Retric wrote: post #39
centimeter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that’s the case, then I must have a really good selection algorithm, because the people I talk with/pay attention to are pretty uniformly good.

Can you point to any actual posts from these people on the ship’s? As I have seen a lot of horrifically bad statistics by random posters.

There was a comprehensive literature review posted on /r/coronavirus some two months ago that strong (and statistically robust in my opinion as a professional data scientist) indicating that smokers were less likely to be infected with the virus, with possible mechanisms from previous viruses like SARS and MERS.

In fact that was one of the earliest common sources to mention ACE2 receptors. A month or so later there is at least one study looking at nicotine patches as prophylactic and/or treatment for covid. I'm having trouble finding the reddit thread, standby.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#42

Post by slg »

mistermann wrote: post #37
paulgb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any recommendations?

The best I know of: http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?s=covid https://www.arnoldkling.com/ . https://marginalrevolution.com/?s=covid https://marginalrevolution.com/about Those are two blogs that I think everyone should subscribe to. arnoldkling.com is particularly interesting because it seems to have unusually high quality in the comments section.

I opened the first link and went to the post exactly from a month ago to see what it said. This part was strangely fitting considering your original complaint:

>Having said all that, I am also dismayed that laymen put such pressure on epidemiologists to make forecasts. Imagine if it was your job when you see a leaf falling from a tree 40 feet overhead to place your foot on the exact spot where you “forecast” that the leaf will land.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#43

Post by malkia »

Stab in the dark - AFAIK, Testosterone level in males in Prisons is much higher than usual (I can't back up that claim right now, but have been reading posts related to it).

Then there is this - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185012/

just the two clicked together somehow, but might not be related after all..

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#44

Post by slg »

oneiftwo wrote: post #40
slg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the size of the population of amateurs and what is the size of the population of experts? I am guessing the former is a lot bigger than the latter meaning more outcomes to pick from when retroactively trying to assign credit for accuracy.

What special knowledge do you think you need to interpret 5 months of COVID studies? That's almost two semesters of grad school. You don't need a PhD to gain enough knowledge of covid from literature to speculate meaningfully on an internet forum, especially if you already have a graduate degree and practice research, as many people undoubtedly on HN do.

It sounds like you took offense to my comment which wasn't my intent. I was just making a lighthearted stats critique of someone complaining about statisticians.

That said, I think statistics is like most other skills in that you get better at it the more you do it. All things being equal, I would trust the person who has spent more time thinking about a subject.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#45

Post by stx »

burgreblast wrote: post #2

17 days ago we heard that 3,330 inmates tested positive, 96% without symptoms. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980932 There was much speculation, but many people agreed that in 2 weeks we would have super interesting data. It's been 17 days. We have an update from ohio.gov that tested individuals climbed to 7536, 4439 are positive (59%), total 49 deaths (.01) Not an epidemiologist. Does this data fit the Diamo…

Keep in mind this is deaths so far. This number will change as some may take more time to die. So maybe the radio could be around 1% to 2%.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#46

Post by csomar »

burgreblast wrote: post #2

17 days ago we heard that 3,330 inmates tested positive, 96% without symptoms. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980932 There was much speculation, but many people agreed that in 2 weeks we would have super interesting data. It's been 17 days. We have an update from ohio.gov that tested individuals climbed to 7536, 4439 are positive (59%), total 49 deaths (.01) Not an epidemiologist. Does this data fit the Diamo…

What's the average number of natural/usual death, though. You have to subtract that. It might be small/none or substantial.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#47

Post by romaaeterna »

elcritch wrote: post #12
romaaeterna wrote: post #5

30 of the deaths are at PCI, which is basically a nursing home for older prisoners. EDIT: “Marion houses a high number of older individuals, many who have pre-existing health conditions. Pickaway houses our long-term-care center similar to a nursing home, and Franklin is our state prison medical center.” Marion is 25% of the deaths. Pickaway 59%. And Franklin 10%.

Then for the general population below whatever that age is (maybe 65?), you'd get roughly `(51-30)/4449 ≈ 0.47% FR` (non-PCI deaths/total positive). It's a bit unclear as it seems the numbers are changing as test results arrive. For the PCI cohort: 30/1258 ≈ 2.38% (deaths/recovered). The 0.47% FR would seem much more plausible given the spread of the virus and the number of asymptomatic cases that appear to exist fro…

You're hugely overestimating still. You seem to assume that all of the over-65s in the system are at PCI. In fact, only a small fraction of older people, even in late decades, need to be in long term medical care.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#48

Post by elcritch »

romaaeterna wrote: post #47
elcritch wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then for the general population below whatever that age is (maybe 65?), you'd get roughly `(51-30)/4449 ≈ 0.47% FR` (non-PCI deaths/total positive). It's a bit unclear as it seems the numbers are changing as test results arrive. For the PCI cohort: 30/1258 ≈ 2.38% (deaths/recovered). The 0.47% FR would seem much more plausible given the spread of the virus and the number of asymptomatic cases that appear to exist fro…

You're hugely overestimating still. You seem to assume that all of the over-65s in the system are at PCI. In fact, only a small fraction of older people, even in late decades, need to be in long term medical care.

True, it's more of an upper-bounds of sort. There's several preprints from European researchers giving IFR's of 0.08% and 0.37%. So it works pretty well from a Fermi estimation method (https://what-if.xkcd.com/84/) (e.g. Bayesian inference really). Also, the age distribution in prison isn't necessarily the same as that of the general population. There's lots of limitations for a comparison to the general population but it gives some bounds.

I'd think the statistic of "average years of life lost" based on expected average of lifetime. Otherwise not sure of a better statistical way to measure age-adjusted IFR, which would be helpful.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#49

Post by enzv »

ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #17
sdenton4 wrote: post #11

Just as an extra wrench in the works, an unknown number of prisoners have been released or transferred, probably after being deemed higher risk: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/court-ba... So death rates may still be reduced by interventions. Take care, arm chair statisticians.

Can you please not spread the web cancer which is AMP? https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/494266-judge-sa...

Valid point, but please tone down the language.

Re: Ohio Prison Death Updates [pdf]

#50

Post by dmix »

elcritch wrote: post #48
romaaeterna wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're hugely overestimating still. You seem to assume that all of the over-65s in the system are at PCI. In fact, only a small fraction of older people, even in late decades, need to be in long term medical care.

True, it's more of an upper-bounds of sort. There's several preprints from European researchers giving IFR's of 0.08% and 0.37%. So it works pretty well from a Fermi estimation method ( https://what-if.xkcd.com/84/ ) (e.g. Bayesian inference really). Also, the age distribution in prison isn't necessarily the same as that of the general population. There's lots of limitations for a comparison to the general population…

One thing I’m curious about is the influence of people having symptoms being more likely to be tested. As others have mentioned this is only 15% of the total prison population.

I’m also curious how you could account for that if you could. Besides random sampling + tracking individuals afterwards even if they left the prison.

I’ve recently started digging more into statistics and probability theory and looking forward to learning how these biases might be factored in.

Post reply on HN