What If The Models Are wrong?

[DeluxAuto]

Yes.
Follow the news much?

Even the modelers are saying they're modifying them.

So a model now is different than January? No way!

 

[LupusDei]

When Nate Silver says Coronavirus Case Counts Are Meaningless

The devil is in the details, as always. As one commenter says,

Nate, welcome to the world of ecological modelling where there's always sampling bias, sampling is never possible to do uniformly, interactions abound, rules always change and there are always hidden factors.

 

[SpeareChucker]

That's what I said (have been saying).






:shrug:

 

[LupusDei]

However, as another commenter correctly pointed out his "not-a-model" spreadsheet slapped together to illustrate how different testing strategies would reflect the infection spread differently still can be used to discern trends and effectiveness of containment measures, regardless. Of course, only insofar the data is at least somewhat uniform and isn't maliciously misshapen.

 

[Lancecastor19]

I think I see what notvette's saying here.

During the financial meltdown, Ish was in favor of letting all the "too big to fail" corps... fail...because a free market economy is Snakes & Ladders. Tough shit. Shut up. You lose. Please play again.

Likewise, notvette is advancing the view that we'd be better off had Government left the economy alone and let the virus run its course, though he's not been particularly transparent about it. "Some peoples is gonna die."

Lastly...poop chute.

(compulsory scat reference)

 

[SpeareChucker]

The only relevance here is an observable, studied phenomenon.
A population that knows that it is being observed changes its behavior.
That has nothing to do with any currently instituted protocol or protection.
We have no control group so we cannot establish efficacy one way or the other.

 

[Lancecastor19]

The only relevance here is an observable, studied phenomenon.
A population that knows that it is being observed changes its behavior.
That has nothing to do with any currently instituted protocol or protection.
We have no control group so we cannot establish efficacy one way or the other.

You mean like the high school sex and drugs surveys?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Well, Lance, who gets credit for the virus becoming less virulent?

You know, it is. Truly lethal viruses are self-limiting.
This was never what the hysteria claimed it to be
and I still have to think that the histrionics
were not ever really about "the virus..."

 

[SpeareChucker]

You mean like the high school sex and drugs surveys?

*chuckle*

Even people who abstained from drugs
would put down that they used drugs.
We always considered those surveys
as jokes, but a good way to avoid class...

 

[LupusDei]

The only relevance here is an observable, studied phenomenon.
A population that knows that it is being observed changes its behavior.
That has nothing to do with any currently instituted protocol or protection.
We have no control group so we cannot establish efficacy one way or the other.

True that. Still, the point is that even grossly inaccurate data can reflect reality and be useful.

 

[SpeareChucker]

True that. Still, the point is that even grossly inaccurate data can reflect reality and be useful.

When politics is one of the strange attractors in a chaotic system
all data that is not a recorded death is highly subjective.

We have no control group and no valid, measured population subset/sample.
We have only "suspected cases" and as mentioned earlier
we suspect that more cases than not are not considered
as part of the data.

This means a very bad skew to any model based on current
grossly inaccurate data. Certainly it should not be the basis
for the polity of panicked and urgent policy/legislation(s).

 

[Wrong Element]

So you say the tracking group is wrong, so show us the true number.

From the Covid Tracking Project's site: "Across the country, this reporting is also sparse. In short: it is impossible to assemble anything resembling the real statistics for hospitalizations, ICU admissions, or ventilator usage across the United States. As a result, we will no longer provide national-level summary hospitalizations, ICU admissions, or ventilator usage statistics on our site. We will continue tracking these numbers on a state-by-state basis, but it does not feel responsible to continue to display these US-wide statistics for a general audience. These heavily caveated numbers will remain in the API for advanced data users."


There are upwards of 300,000 active (current patients, not dead and not recovered) cases of Covid-19 in the United States, and that about 20% of cases will project to a point requiring hospitalization is a figure that has held across many countries. So it stands to reason that there are probably 60,000 to 70,000 people currently hospitalized with Covid-19 in the U.S, and it could be a little higher given that we know there are active cases that aren't being recorded.

 

[Lancecastor19]

Well, Lance, who gets credit for the virus becoming less virulent?

You know, it is. Truly lethal viruses are self-limiting.
This was never what the hysteria claimed it to be
and I still have to think that the histrionics
were not ever really about "the virus..."

No...that's not the play.

It's always about gross exaggeration followed by declaration of victory.

Think like Rory for a moment...

"Virus? Phhht...it's a flu bug. I've got it under control."

If that doesn't fly, you just go the other way...

"The virus was Strong & Powerful...possibly the Most Dangerous Threat to America Ever. I beat it. Sure, some of you helped, but I give myself an A+."

 

[LupusDei]

Certainly it should not be the basis
for the polity of panicked and urgent policy/legislation(s).

Now that's where we disagree. For estimates of trends and even setting policies off by a magnitude is considered "good enough" more often than not. The very strength of human intellect is the ability to make decisions on insufficient data. Not necessarily the right ones, granted.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Now that's where we disagree. For estimates of trends and even setting policies off by a magnitude is considered "good enough" more often than not. The very strength of human intellect is the ability to make decisions on insufficient data. Not necessarily the right ones, granted.

Again.
No control group.
This makes fertile ground for post hoc ergo propter hoc.





Think ... Rory ---- lol!

 

[Bas_van_Fraassen]

Again.
No control group.
This makes fertile ground for post hoc ergo propter hoc.





Think ... Rory ---- lol!

Just when I think you couldn't get more disingenuous.

 

[Conager]

When Nate Silver says Coronavirus Case Counts Are Meaningless

The devil is in the details, as always. As one commenter says,

That's what I said (have been saying).






:shrug:

And I: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1520780

And Vat: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1520938

The usual suspects who suffer from chronic innumerate dysfunction will never get it.

Never mind the modeling, basic arithmetic. If presented with a "fraction" problem with a given numerator and no denominator supplied the correct answer is "where is the denominator?"