What If The Models Are wrong?

[Rightguide]

Why isn't the liberal media asking the questions that conservatives are. Because they like advancing the need for totalitarian solutions to society's problems. They live in an alternative universe where they think they can actually survive and maintain their relevance in what's left of the society they're helping to destroy:



Tracking site suggests White House model is overestimating coronavirus hospitalizations

True numbers of Americans hospitalized with coronavirus appear to be tens of thousands lower than model's projections.



By Daniel Payne
Last Updated:
April 5, 2020 - 9:05am


A Web site that tracks actual hospital beds in use suggests the model used by top White House health officials to project the trajectory of the coronavirus has so far overestimated the number of Americans hospitalized by the disease by tens of thousands.

Those projections, popularly known as the "Murray" model after the model's lead author, University of Washington professor Christopher Murray, were explicitly cited by Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House's Coronavirus Task Force, at a press conference in the last week.

Birx told reporters that Murray's model, which predicts a shortage of tens of thousands of hospital beds throughout the country by the middle of April, underscored the task force's "concern that we had with the growing number of potential fatalities" based on the model's projections. Yet a comparison of actual hospitalized patients by state and nationally suggests the model has so far overestimated the number of beds needed to treat pandemic patients.

The forecast predicted, for example, that the United States would need around 164,750 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients on Saturday. Yet the COVID Tracking Project, a team of journalists and data analysts who collect and tabulate coronavirus data from state tallies around the country, reported only around 22,158 currently hospitalized coronavirus patients nationwide on Saturday.

The discrepancies are also stark when looked at on a state-by-state basis. The model estimated that 65,434 patients would need hospital beds in New York State on Friday. In reality, there were 15,905 hospitalizations in that state by Sunday morning, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

More here:

https://justthenews.com/politics-po...avirus-model-has-overestimated-tens-thousands

 

[schism666]

trump is dumb. glad you agree.

 

[Conager]

Models are always inherently "wrong" because they merely attempt to predict an unknown using "knoen" data which is necessarily inaccurate because it is gathered ad hoc during a fluid situation with no agreed upon standards or practices for collection of said data.

Garbage in; garbage out is the only certainty in modeling.

When it comes to data-driven modeling, you can have your guesstimate now and wildly inaccurate, or much later, even after-the-fact, and more finely tuned but too late to be useful.

The biggest concern is that the magnitude of unknowns and uncertainty is not getting any press and the models are not being adjusted in real time as better data comes in impugning the previous assumptions.

Actual numbers never lie, but liars love the imprimatur of gravity that numbers, regardless of their provenance, imbue.

 

[Rightguide]

trump is dumb. glad you agree.

Looks like Murray is dumb for supplying false data to the government. Trump didn't build the model and nobody on your side of geniuses was able to root out the errors either. Looks like you're dumb as well.

 

[hogjack]

So far none of the models has been correct.

Did they just modify and re-name the models used for predicting Microsoft's Zune sales?

 

[schism666]

Looks like Murray is dumb for supplying false data to the government. Trump didn't build the model and nobody on your side of geniuses was able to root out the errors either. Looks like you're dumb as well.

yeah, that's what happened.

 

[Rightguide]

Models are always inherently "wrong" because they merely attempt to predict an unknown using "knoen" data which is necessarily inaccurate because it is gathered ad hoc during a fluid situation with no agreed upon standards or practices for collection of said data.

Garbage in; garbage out is the only certainty in modeling.

When it comes to data-driven modeling, you can have your guesstimate now and wildly inaccurate, or much later, even after-the-fact, and more finely tuned but too late to be useful.

The biggest concern is that the magnitude of unknowns and uncertainty is not getting any press and the models are not being adjusted in real time as better data comes in impugning the previous assumptions.

Actual numbers never lie, but liars love the imprimatur of gravity that numbers, regardless of their provenance, imbue.

So far none of the models has been correct.

Did they just modify and re-name the models used for predicting Microsoft's Zune sales?

Trouble is they're using this faulty model to impose totalitarian restraints that have altered and destroyed the economic lives of millions of formally free people.

 

[hogjack]

Trouble is they're using this faulty model to impose totalitarian restraints that have altered and destroyed the economic lives of millions of formally free people.

Totalitarianism is easier for many people to operate under. It reduces thinking and exhausting ambition.

Plus, very cool annual parades.

 

[Liar]

Always assume you're wrong, and see what happens.

You can prepare for a pessimistic possibility and be wrong.
Or you can prepare for an optimistic possibility and be wrong.

 

[hogjack]

Always assume you're wrong, and see what happens.

You can prepare for a pessimistic possibility and be wrong.
Or you can prepare for an optimistic possibility and be wrong.

By default then, this advice is wrong.

 

[Conager]

Always assume you're wrong, and see what happens.

You can prepare for a pessimistic possibility and be wrong.
Or you can prepare for an optimistic possibility and be wrong.

You are correct, because that is all anyone can do.

The problem is that the modeling being used is doing less than that. They are leaving out the "see what happens" part.

No model survives contact with reality. Not adjusting your model as reality intrudes is malpractice.

 

[AlexSlade]

 

[Conager]

Hey! I take it back.

The IHME model that most people have been using *has* now been adjusted to account (somewhat) to reality as it has occurred.

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/04/06/ihme-sharply-reduces-projected-hospitalizations-data-shows-nys-curve-flattening/

Have not yet found a link to the model itself but here's news reporting on the model and it's changes in the new update.

Predicted number of deaths in New York City is down as is the degree to which they expect the hospitals to be overwhelmed. They are now predicting being "short" half as many beds at the projected peak. Projected deaths are down significantly as well.

 

[Wrong Element]

I'm pretty sure the numbers that the piece attributes to the University of Washington model are not correct, not surprising since the source is a site started by career liar John Solomon.

And it's obvious there are more than 22,000 people hospitalized with the virus nationally. There are 1200 just in Ohio, and we're not even a particularly hard-hit state.

 

[Conager]

I'm pretty sure the numbers that the piece attributes to the University of Washington model are not correct, not surprising since the source is a site started by career liar John Solomon.

And it's obvious there are more than 22,000 people hospitalized with the virus nationally. There are 1200 just in Ohio, and we're not even a particularly hard-hit state.

Thoughts and prayers that you acheive your just prominence.

 

[dp4shelly]

Some models are correct...

So far none of the models has been correct.

Did they just modify and re-name the models used for predicting Microsoft's Zune sales?

The models showed that the glaciers in Glacier National Park would be gone by 2020 and they are gone....right? Oh, what is this? They are not gone? But the world will end in 12 years from global warming right? Or was it that we were going to die from global freezing back when I was in college? Hmmmm. Still, we should trust the models because all experts agree about them. I am sure the China Virus models will all prove to be true in the end.

 

[Lancecastor19]

I know lots of models; they’re not always right, but who cares?

 

[hogjack]

But the world will end in 12 years from global warming right?

Yes. 12 years. Actually, the planet will still exist so "end" really just means no more drive-thrus, beer, or downhill skiing.

So get her ya-yas on soon. The countdown already started. It's like 11 years and 9 months remaining.

 

[dp4shelly]

It sounds pretty creepy

Yes. 12 years. Actually, the planet will still exist so "end" really just means no more drive-thrus, beer, or downhill skiing.

So get her ya-yas on soon. The countdown already started. It's like 11 years and 9 months remaining.

It sounds pretty creepy. Maybe we should hope that the China Virus takes us all out or maybe a global Ebola Virus. It might be a blessing to be put out of our misery now rather than be scorched like ants under a magnifying glass. The models sure look grim.

 

[hogjack]

Maybe we should hope that the China Virus takes us all out or maybe a global Ebola Virus.

This is just another test run for the Communist Party of China's bioweapon labs.

They haven't even unleashed the good shit.

No one will complain because their fireworks are still the industry standard and absolutely seal the deal around July 4th.

 

[dp4shelly]

Its a good thing...

This is just another test run for the Communist Party of China's bioweapon labs.

They haven't even unleashed the good shit.

No one will complain because their fireworks are still the industry standard and absolutely seal the deal around July 4th.

If that is true then it sure is a good thing that we get over 90 percent of our medical supplies, medicines and products from China. If they cook up a nice strain of Ebola or a super lethal version of the Corona Virus then they will know how to cure it and we can count on them to give us a good price. Look at the great prices they put on everything.

 

[Rightguide]

You are correct, because that is all anyone can do.

The problem is that the modeling being used is doing less than that. They are leaving out the "see what happens" part.

No model survives contact with reality. Not adjusting your model as reality intrudes is malpractice.

The Climate Change models immediately come to mind.

 

[Rightguide]

This is just another test run for the Communist Party of China's bioweapon labs.

They haven't even unleashed the good shit.

No one will complain because their fireworks are still the industry standard and absolutely seal the deal around July 4th.

I think once they knew about the outbreak they withheld the information from the United States so it could be purposely introduced here. The Chinese communist government is not our friend.

 

[Bas_van_Fraassen]

The trends are looking hopeful, to my eye, anyway. If we're lucky, total number of infections in USA won't climb much higher than one million.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Why isn't the liberal media asking the questions that conservatives are. Because they like advancing the need for totalitarian solutions to society's problems. They live in an alternative universe where they think they can actually survive and maintain their relevance in what's left of the society they're helping to destroy:



Tracking site suggests White House model is overestimating coronavirus hospitalizations

True numbers of Americans hospitalized with coronavirus appear to be tens of thousands lower than model's projections.



By Daniel Payne
Last Updated:
April 5, 2020 - 9:05am


A Web site that tracks actual hospital beds in use suggests the model used by top White House health officials to project the trajectory of the coronavirus has so far overestimated the number of Americans hospitalized by the disease by tens of thousands.

Those projections, popularly known as the "Murray" model after the model's lead author, University of Washington professor Christopher Murray, were explicitly cited by Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House's Coronavirus Task Force, at a press conference in the last week.

Birx told reporters that Murray's model, which predicts a shortage of tens of thousands of hospital beds throughout the country by the middle of April, underscored the task force's "concern that we had with the growing number of potential fatalities" based on the model's projections. Yet a comparison of actual hospitalized patients by state and nationally suggests the model has so far overestimated the number of beds needed to treat pandemic patients.

The forecast predicted, for example, that the United States would need around 164,750 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients on Saturday. Yet the COVID Tracking Project, a team of journalists and data analysts who collect and tabulate coronavirus data from state tallies around the country, reported only around 22,158 currently hospitalized coronavirus patients nationwide on Saturday.

The discrepancies are also stark when looked at on a state-by-state basis. The model estimated that 65,434 patients would need hospital beds in New York State on Friday. In reality, there were 15,905 hospitalizations in that state by Sunday morning, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

More here:

https://justthenews.com/politics-po...avirus-model-has-overestimated-tens-thousands

That says there's 15k hospitalized in NYC but only 22k nationwide. Do you honestly believe there are only 7 thousand people outside of NYC hospitalized with the virus? You're dumb but you're not that dumb.