quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
There is absolutely uncertainty in those statistical values (and they also change over time), and as in any field of science, epidemiologists attempt to quantify the possible error in those statistical values.

Ah, got it. It's not a WAG, it's a scientific WAG.


By the way, did you know that 48.7% of statistics are made up? About 24.734% of the time anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

Epidemiology is an actual science. The projections an (honest) epidemiologist makes are not just random numbers pulled out of thin air, they are based on mathematical models that have been developed based on past observations of epidemics. Those mathematical models rely on a number of statistical values that have been estimated from observations of this pandemic.

Just like them Climate change models, right?

Expert, someone that knows a LOT about very little...

Are we seeing the effects of various shelter / stay at home orders? One would expect that, in areas where the orders were followed starting about 2 weeks ago, the incidence rate has peaked is trending downward.

Is that being confirmed? If the rates are not peaking and trending downward as expected, any explanation for why not?

Also, curious about the spring break locations - did they spike in incidence rates after the spring break invasions?

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
Expert, someone that knows a LOT about very little...

A phrase from The Princess Bride comes to mind here

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Just like them Climate change models, right?

I don't believe those either.

But I did teach the boys to swim, just in case.

What a fucking shit show the human race has become.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Just like them Climate change models, right?

I don't believe those either.

But I did teach the boys to swim, just in case.

Did you also quit your job and move to the highest peak in North America?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

Epidemiology is an actual science. The projections an (honest) epidemiologist makes are not just random numbers pulled out of thin air, they are based on mathematical models that have been developed based on past observations of epidemics. Those mathematical models rely on a number of statistical values that have been estimated from observations of this pandemic.

Just like them Climate change models, right?

^^^^This!

Epidemiology is an 'actual science'....Kinda like 'Climate Science'

The 'projections' an (honest) epidemiologist makes are not just random numbers pulled out of thin air, they are based on mathematical models that have been developed based on past observations of epidemics....NOT necessarily this one!

Those mathematical models rely on a number of 'statistical values' that have been 'estimated' from observations of this pandemic.

Sooo, 'Guesstimates'....Just like Climate Change!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Just like them Climate change models, right?

I don't believe those either.
But I did teach the boys to swim, just in case.

Did you also quit your job and move to the highest peak in North America?

No. I don't like getting high.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
But ignoring something doesn't make it go away, it just means you can't make any plans to deal with it.

Do not fucking lecture me about the fundamentals of reality. What happened to all that concern you had earlier about me being upset with you? Well, I wasn't then, but you're pushing it now. You do not- ever- have to inform me of the basics of living in this world. I am not "ignoring" anything; quite the opposite. I am directly addressing this stupid shit about nearly a quarter of a million Americans dead from this virus and am telling you that people throwing around numbers like that are being irresponsible, because it's nothing more than WAGs. Just stop frightening people with this unnecessary throwing out of these grotesque numbers.

Sorry, Para. That clearly didn't come out the way I intended.

I don't mind disagreeing with you, and I don't expect you to drop the hammer on me for disagreeing with you, at least not without warning. I do want to make sure that if you tell me to do something (or not do something) on your forum, I do it (or don't, as the case may be).

Since our last interaction here, I think I've avoided posting any projections of future numbers. I intended to, and will continue that policy.

I guess the point of my post was that I think epidemiology, while not a crystal ball, is capable of generating models that are more than WAGs, and, with the understanding of what they actually mean and their limitations (which the media does not seem particularly interested in communicating), those models can be useful tools for planning both for the government and for the individual citizen.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maladat,

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

How are they to answer? "We don't know?" That wouldn't be reassuring. Wouldn't reflect well on the President's choices for "health experts," either. "We hesitate to say?" Imagine how the public might react to that response. (e.g.: "What are they hiding?!?!") A purposely-lowball number they feel to be hopelessly optimistic? Or the best estimates they feel they can derive?

I know which I prefer.

A normal response would be to give a range of possible numbers because of the variablilty in the models. As better data is collected, that range should narrow. Only talking about the worst case numbers does not help people.

Take hurricane Dorian for example. What a great thread that was. All the overblown predictions, logic and reason were thrown out the window, and yet what happened? Has Orlando recovered? How did our forum member and his family fair on their vacation? And this was with hurricane predictions that regular people have dealt with on a regular basis.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

No. I don't like getting high.

Touché.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
Ah, got it. It's not a WAG, it's a scientific WAG.


By the way, did you know that 48.7% of statistics are made up? About 24.734% of the time anyway.

Practically every value in any field of science has an associated error interval.

Your bathroom scale, like every measuring instrument on earth, is not perfectly accurate. When you tell someone how much you weigh, is it a WAG?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Just like them Climate change models, right?

Got it. You have a problem with climate science models, so let's throw away every field of science that uses mathematical models.

Wait a sec, that's all of them. Oh well, who needed science anyway?

quote:

Wait a sec, that's all of them. Oh well, who needed science anyway?

Purposely obtuse, much?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
Wouldn’t you rather your govt tell you the truth and best guess estimates that they have with the info they have at this time??!! I don’t want some Obama era shit telling me there will be 10,000 deaths when even an infant knows that’s fake news propaganda.

There's no difference in the two. Both are total BS. I personally want neither. Stick to only those things that are proven and known and stop with the BS projections based on nothing. And these elitist experts are some of the biggest BSer's out there right now.

Are you an epidemiologist or MD? I'm not and will readily admit it, but I do know a few things:

1) Pandemics do occur and when they do the result are catastrophic. We know this from history.

2) Medical doctors aren't familiar with every detail about COVID-19, but they do know it's extremely deadly to a segment of the population, and far more of a threat than the "seasonal flu" when or if society doesn't change it's regular habits.

3) According to most of the experts (I'm not one of them, but I do listen to what they have to say.), drastically changing our behaviors can have a major effect on the progress of the infection and greatly reduce the number of deaths by slowing down the rate of infection. If this is true, why wouldn't we be happy to see positive results that include lives saved?

4) I voted for President Trump because I believed he'd work for the PEOPLE (vs Clinton) and would evaluate information presented by the best sources available and make informed decisions. I've seen nothing that would change my mind about the competency of our President or his determination to direct policies that are in our best interest. I hope he's right and the country comes through this with the best possible outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Wait a sec, that's all of them. Oh well, who needed science anyway?

Purposely obtuse, much?

A bit, sure.

However, he gave climate change models as a reason to discount epidemiological models, with no information as to why that would apply to epidemiology but not the mathematical models used in any other scientific field.

Seems I know two people with it in NJ.

Last night, I found out a long time friend, training partner, and elite athlete was on a ventilator for the past two weeks. Barely survived, he’s supposed to have 30% reduced lung function now. This guy was as healthy as they come. 38 year old triathlete, rower, and Iron man competitor.

My other friend is still in isolation at the hospital. He hasn’t returned any texts since yesterday morning.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

Those mathematical models rely on a number of 'statistical values' that have been 'estimated' from observations of this pandemic.

Sooo, 'Guesstimates'....Just like Climate Change!

And this is exactly why I would like to see some of these executive orders issued by various Governors challenged in the highest courts.

What is to stop AOC in 20 years from issuing similar executive orders because of climate change models? It's a slippery slope. There was simply no reliable data to support an order to shelter in place.

Maladaptive my problem with the reporting and Fauci in particular is thus. The models are only as good as the inputs. The inputs are lagging. So when the data churns out, Fauci parrots one item and the media only prints one item. The statistical high. The classic worst case scenario. Fauci and every statistician out there know the probability of hitting that high number is a slim as hitting the low number. Those graphs also come with probabilities. The most likely number is much more toward the lower numbers. Does he point this out? Doesn’t appear to. So instead a steady stream of mathematically unlikely numbers are passed off under conditional language so nobody is actually lying. It’s like saying Pars’s comet may hit this week. Totally true statement. Wildly off the mark but possible.

Responsible reporting would ask those follow up question. They would question the expert. Make him sweat a bit. Doesn’t happen. Cause the fear sells.