General COVID-19 talk, NHL remains suspended MOD Warning post #1

[tny760]

It's funny how some here highlight and tout the model when the numbers go down and then dismiss it or be dismissive of it when the numbers in the model goes up.. It's just funny to me

i think it's generally logical to be dismissive of models when they fluctuate by 100% in either direction week to week

frankly i don't know who the f*** to listen to any more and its getting exhausting

 

[KINGS17]

It's funny how some here highlight and tout the model when the numbers go down and then dismiss it or be dismissive of it when the numbers in the model goes up.. It's just funny to me

I don't think it's funny. I questioned the models coming from Ferguson at almost the very beginning, because as someone who uses models in a different line of work, I know how they are used and abused to make decisions. What is sad is about three weeks into this it was obvious the models were off by orders of magnitude, yet those making decisions continued to use them to justify their actions.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

i think it's generally logical to be dismissive of models when they fluctuate by 100% in either direction week to week

frankly i don't know who the f*** to listen to any more and its getting exhausting

The second point is absolutely fair but that's not a modeling problem alone. Dissonance everywhere, no consistent messaging from anyone.

I don't think it's funny. I questioned the models coming from Ferguson at almost the very beginning, because as someone who uses models in a different line of work, I know how they are used and abused to make decisions. What is sad is about three weeks into this it was obvious the models were off by orders of magnitude, yet those making decisions continued to use them to justify their actions.

The models being off isn't a problem because they were based on worst-case scenarios and like i said before it takes a deliberate misunderstanding to attack that.

I DO think you're well within your rights from the previous post to attack continued decision making based on faulty models going forward.

I DONT think remodeling from 66k deaths to 120k deaths based on what we know now and states reopening is nearly as crazy as you're making it sound given trajectories and considering what's happened in lockdown vs. not.

I ALSO don't think "I know better than infectious disease experts worldwide" is a worthy take, with all due respect. They weren't goals/certain outcome statements, they were projections. You work with them so you know that, right?

 

[Fishhead]

Models are easily biased so they aren't going to be accurate unless you have large amounts of data. COVID modeling is going to be very imperfect because these factors. We are just getting to the point where we have enough data to make a decent model, so anything in the beginning is going to be way off. That's why we were seeing ranges like 25,000 - 250,000 for possible deaths. Now it's narrowing a bit, but we still need a lot more data.

I wouldn't suggest listening to anything a politician or an economist states as far as modeling for COVID. Both of those fields have completely different agendas rather than just raw numbers so the bias is inherent. Even ones skilled in statistics are used to different kinds of modelling. Even the best scientists can be biased (purposefully or not), so you are always going to find studies here and there that support what you want them to. Nothing is going to be predicted with certainty, so all we can do to get the best idea of what is happening is to analyze what the biggest majority of models are suggesting. Sure, that 1 out of 100 study could be correct, but it probably isn't and if it is, the other models will follow suit shortly thereafter.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Models are easily biased so they aren't going to be accurate unless you have large amounts of data. COVID modeling is going to be very imperfect because these factors. We are just getting to the point where we have enough data to make a decent model, so anything in the beginning is going to be way off. That's why we were seeing ranges like 25,000 - 250,000 for possible deaths. Now it's narrowing a bit, but we still need a lot more data.

I wouldn't suggest listening to anything a politician or an economist states as far as modeling for COVID. Both of those fields have completely different agendas rather than just raw numbers so the bias is inherent. Even ones skilled in statistics are used to different kinds of modelling. Even the best scientists can be biased (purposefully or not), so you are always going to find studies here and there that support what you want them to. Nothing is going to be predicted with certainty, so all we can do to get the best idea of what is happening is to analyze what the biggest majority of models are suggesting. Sure, that 1 out of 100 study could be correct, but it probably isn't and if it is, the other models will follow suit shortly thereafter.

Totally agreed. We're all just trying to do the best we can with what we have and sort through biases. I just don't see attacking the science as productive personally, because the issue isn't the attempts to model things--it's the actions taken after.

 

[KINGS17]

The second point is absolutely fair but that's not a modeling problem alone. Dissonance everywhere, no consistent messaging from anyone.




The models being off isn't a problem because they were based on worst-case scenarios and like i said before it takes a deliberate misunderstanding to attack that.

I DO think you're well within your rights from the previous post to attack continued decision making based on faulty models going forward.

I DONT think remodeling from 66k deaths to 120k deaths based on what we know now and states reopening is nearly as crazy as you're making it sound given trajectories and considering what's happened in lockdown vs. not.

I ALSO don't think "I know better than infectious disease experts worldwide" is a worthy take, with all due respect. They weren't goals/certain outcome statements, they were projections. You work with them so you know that, right?

Modeling the worst case is not okay when it leads to the kind of drastic measures and the damage those measures have caused. I am hoping for, but have sincere doubts about the economy returning to the level of growth and almost full employment we were experiencing before all this started. I think that destruction will damage more lives long term, but it likely will never be proven.

I never said I know better than infectious disease experts. I did say it was obvious three weeks ago the projections were way off the mark. I also think it is becoming very apparent the wrong people were targeted in the lock down. It became obvious after a period of time the thing to do was to lock down the elderly and people with underlying conditions who are at risk. That would have meant no contact whatsoever for those people and the healthcare workers taking care of them with the outside world.

The decision makers failed those in nursing homes quite badly in the lack of testing done in those institutions and the failure to isolate the people with COVID-19 from people who tested negative. This is still going on, but doesn't seem to be an issue which gets much play in the media. I also think the media continues to do a disservice to the American public by not reporting often enough on the context of the circumstances of those we are losing. What percentage are over 80 years of age? What percentage became infected in an institutional setting? Were proper sanitation protocols being followed at those institutions? Etc.

 

[HeadInjury]

Speaking of Neil Ferguson - he of the 500,000 dead Brits and 1.6 million to 2.2 million dead Americans projection - he just resigned his position after he was caught breaking lockdown rules to have sex with his married lover.

Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover

She looks pretty attractive, I'll give him that.

Just another hypocrite in a position of power.

Behind the pay wall, the article lists some of his prior projections:

• 2002
  
  Predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have been fewer than 200 deaths from the human form of BSE

• 2005
  
  Prof Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. In an interview with the Guardian, he compared it to the 1918 Spanish flu, adding: “There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.” Only several hundred people died worldwide.

• 2009
  
  The Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate of between 0.3 per cent and 1.5 per cent, with his most likely estimate landing at 0.4 per cent. A Government estimate based on his advice was that a reasonable worst-case scenario was the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths. Swine flu killed just 457 people in the UK, with the chief medical officer concluding in 2009 that the actual mortality rate was 0.026 per cent.

 

[KINGS17]

Speaking of Neil Ferguson - he of the 500,000 dead Brits and 1.6 million to 2.2 million dead Americans projection - he just resigned his position after he was caught breaking lockdown rules to have sex with his married lover.

Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover

She looks pretty attractive, I'll give him that.

Just another hypocrite in a position of power.

Geez, you can't make this stuff up. Ferguson probably had a model saying it was okay. In reality I think he knew if he did contract COVID-19 he wasn't going to get seriously ill given his age, etc.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Modeling the worst case is not okay when it leads to the kind of drastic measures and the damage those measures have caused. I am hoping for, but have sincere doubts about the economy returning to the level of growth and almost full employment we were experiencing before all this started. I think that destruction will damage more lives long term, but it likely will never be proven.

I never said I know better than infectious disease experts. I did say it was obvious three weeks ago the projections were way off the mark. I also think it is becoming very apparent the wrong people were targeted in the lock down. It became obvious after a period of time the thing to do was to lock down the elderly and people with underlying conditions who are at risk. That would have meant no contact whatsoever for those people and the healthcare workers taking care of them with the outside world.

The decision makers failed those in nursing homes quite badly in the lack of testing done in those institutions and the failure to isolate the people with COVID-19 from people who tested negative. This is still going on, but doesn't seem to be an issue which gets much play in the media. I also think the media continues to do a disservice to the American public by not reporting often enough on the context of the circumstances of those we are losing. What percentage are over 80 years of age? What percentage became infected in an institutional setting? Were proper sanitation protocols being followed at those institutions? Etc.

I mean, we're mostly agreeing.

The models aren't the problem--they're just an attempt to make sense of the nonsensical with a lack of data. It's the follow-up actions that are critical.

It's also easy to make declarations when you aren't responsible for public policy.

I don't see attacking the science and scientists as productive is all. It just gives justification for OPEN IT ALL UP while we're peaking.

 

[KINGS17]

I mean, we're mostly agreeing.

The models aren't the problem--they're just an attempt to make sense of the nonsensical with a lack of data. It's the follow-up actions that are critical.

It's also easy to make declarations when you aren't responsible for public policy.

I don't see attacking the science and scientists as productive is all. It just gives justification for OPEN IT ALL UP while we're peaking.

I also think the goalposts have moved for some politicians, or they have too large of a blanket in terms of restrictions over too wide an area.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I also think the goalposts have moved for some politicians, or they have too large of a blanket in terms of restrictions over too wide an area.

Yeah. We see agenda-driven action even with GOOD data, right now, we're all flying with still incomplete pictures, and each authority figure is unfortunately free to interpret nearly however they want to. I agree. That's super problematic whether you disagree with what's happening here or with other states--everyone is shades of 'right.'

 

[Fishhead]

There are things to bitch about here in California for sure, but at least:

1. Our numbers are very good compared to other states.
2. We have a more realistic timeline for opening things.

With a few other states opening things up quickly, we are definitely going to get some data of how things will progress once things get back more towards normal. That's fine with me, let them guinea pig for us. If there's no change in infection rates and deaths, great, we can open things quicker. If we see a spike in numbers, we will know which parts of our lives still need to be avoided (concerts, large gatherings, packed theaters, etc.) I don't necessarily think it's prudent to lift restrictions en masse right now, but if other states want to do it, we might as well watch closely and learn from it.

 

[jfont]

Speaking of Neil Ferguson - he of the 500,000 dead Brits and 1.6 million to 2.2 million dead Americans projection - he just resigned his position after he was caught breaking lockdown rules to have sex with his married lover.

Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover

She looks pretty attractive, I'll give him that.

Just another hypocrite in a position of power.

Behind the pay wall, the article lists some of his prior projections:

• 2002
  
  Predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have been fewer than 200 deaths from the human form of BSE

• 2005
  
  Prof Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. In an interview with the Guardian, he compared it to the 1918 Spanish flu, adding: “There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.” Only several hundred people died worldwide.

• 2009
  
  The Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate of between 0.3 per cent and 1.5 per cent, with his most likely estimate landing at 0.4 per cent. A Government estimate based on his advice was that a reasonable worst-case scenario was the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths. Swine flu killed just 457 people in the UK, with the chief medical officer concluding in 2009 that the actual mortality rate was 0.026 per cent.

Speaking of bias
The Daily Telegraph - Wikipedia

The Telegraph has published multiple columns and news articles which promote pseudoscientific views on climate change, and misleadingly cast the subject of climate change as a subject of active scientific debate when in actuality there is a scientific consensus on climate change.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

More hope <?>:

Coronavirus-Neutralizing Human Antibody Discovered

 

[Jason Squirties]

Speaking of bias
The Daily Telegraph - Wikipedia

The Telegraph has published multiple columns and news articles which promote pseudoscientific views on climate change, and misleadingly cast the subject of climate change as a subject of active scientific debate when in actuality there is a scientific consensus on climate change.

 

[crassbonanza]

I'm not even close to a scientist and I still don't understand why people don't understand this--models are hypothetical scenarios, not certainties. Based on what we know, here's what could happen, which is to-be-determined by our actions and interventions. Each one of those diseases you mention had a direct intervention. Covid could have a 99% effective treatment tomorrow and defy everything. I have to feel like it's a deliberate misunderstanding at this point. I'm pretty sure even Fauci said if it looks like an overreaction, we did our jobs.

I work in a physics lab, but am more of an applications scientist. I do not understand why people put full faith in models as being completely accurate and any deviation had to be from intervention. Especially when we are discussing orders of magnitude, to go from 200 million to 282 is not from intervention. Why are we not allowed to question models? Especially when said models are directing public policy. If it was on overreaction then we made most certainly made a mistake. The lockdown is not a decision that is lacking in consequences. This will have far reaching effects from starvation to delayed medical care to mental health issues. This also might be the last time we can utilize the lockdown for a good while once society has to deal with the fallout, so when a disease that actually would necessitate a lockdown comes along there will be stiff resistance.

We followed a rushed paper using a dated model that portrayed the worst case scenario, using data from China that was withdrawn, and it was from a professor who has been wildly wrong on numerous occasions.

Epidemiologists have called out Fergusson in the past and some did at the beginning of this whole situation.

 

[crassbonanza]

Speaking of bias
The Daily Telegraph - Wikipedia

The Telegraph has published multiple columns and news articles which promote pseudoscientific views on climate change, and misleadingly cast the subject of climate change as a subject of active scientific debate when in actuality there is a scientific consensus on climate change.

Is anything they published about Fergusson wrong? or are you just attacking the source?

 

[jfont]

From a former tea party conservative

 

[jfont]

Is anything they published about Fergusson wrong? or are you just attacking the source?

I'm saying a "news' website spouting nonsense about climate change should be taken to task and that its credibility questions.

You didn't deduce that from my post? I thought it would be self explanatory

 

[crassbonanza]

I'm saying a "news' website spouting nonsense about climate change should be taken to task and that its credibility questions.

You didn't deduce that from my post? I thought it would be self explanatory

Bird flu pandemic 'could kill 150m'

Is the guardian ok?

It's kind of hilarious how similar his quotes sound despite this being from 2005, replace bird flu with Covid 19 and you wouldn't realize it.

I also love the 'best case scenario' of 7.5 million deaths world wide, a pretty far cry from 287.

 

[jfont]

Better.. thanks

 

[KINGS17]

Consensus does not equal science.

 

[tny760]

Speaking of Neil Ferguson - he of the 500,000 dead Brits and 1.6 million to 2.2 million dead Americans projection - he just resigned his position after he was caught breaking lockdown rules to have sex with his married lover.

Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover

She looks pretty attractive, I'll give him that.

Just another hypocrite in a position of power.

Neil Ferguson, UK coronavirus advisor, resigns after breaking lockdown rules - CNN

interesting how a certain "source" decides to leave part of the story out. slander the character of your political opponents all they want but when it's their own people, "report" the bare minimum

can't believe what CNN has become the last 10-15 years

 

[jfont]

Neil Ferguson, UK coronavirus advisor, resigns after breaking lockdown rules - CNN

interesting how a certain "source" decides to leave part of the story out. slander the character of your political opponents all they want but when it's their own people, "report" the bare minimum

can't believe what CNN has become the last 10-15 years

I don't know.. reporting that he violated his recommendation and resigning is really not the "bare minimum" to me. I think that's already pretty big. Saying his predictions were wrong.. maybe that is another line and not relevant to the story that he violated the lockdown and resigning.

This is moreso for people here who already hated CNN and gives them reason to hate them some more. Look there's plenty of reasons not to trust a news network but this is not one of them.

Fox news primetime on the other hand...

 

[Bandit]

Neil Ferguson, UK coronavirus advisor, resigns after breaking lockdown rules - CNN

interesting how a certain "source" decides to leave part of the story out. slander the character of your political opponents all they want but when it's their own people, "report" the bare minimum

can't believe what CNN has become the last 10-15 years

What is bothering you? That they didn't mention she was married? This sort of thing goes both ways you know. Last year I discovered my father, who is an avid Fox News watcher, never even heard of "grab 'em by the p***y".