I am confused how this outlet is able to get into that roomOriginally Posted by thethe
I am confused how this outlet is able to get into that room
No...but as soon as three days ago when projections were off by tremendous amounts it shows you how bad they charted this virus.
Also, there were other states that showed decreases way before a shutdown could have impacted this.
There is absolutely zero chance a highly contagious virus was loose in NYC for 4 months and less than 2m people contracted it.
Just use basic logic and what you know of the boroughs. No chance.
I think Pence is really good at this
an article from the Atlantic:
Coronavirus Models Aren't Supposed to Be Righthttps://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-right/609271/Every time the White House releases a COVID-19 model, we will be tempted to drown ourselves in endless discussions about the error bars, the clarity around the parameters, the wide range of outcomes, and the applicability of the underlying data. And the media might be tempted to cover those discussions, as this fits their horse-race, he-said-she-said scripts. Let’s not. We should instead look at the calamitous branches of our decision tree and chop them all off, and then chop them off again.
Sometimes, when we succeed in chopping off the end of the pessimistic tail, it looks like we overreacted. A near miss can make a model look false. But that’s not always what happened. It just means we won. And that’s why we model.
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
I dont get it. The White House should be catching this.
Since you are so into Math I assumed you would understand the implicit confidence intervals.
The White House announced 100-240... which implies 170k.
That was what, 4 days ago?
That's where I'm confused. I dont think the data supports this conclusion at all
Well then I have a low degree of confidence that deaths will be 12.5 but I think there is a chance.
Wow this decision... on a "narrow technical issue" SCOTUS says Wisconsin voters waiting for their Absentee ballots under the extended window will only have their votes counted if they go out to the polls during the pandemic. You'll never guess which 5 were in the 5-4 majority. Hint, the winning party was "the Republican National Committee."
A lot can happen in 4 days. Every new day is new data. There appears (unjinx) to be some leveling out since then.
Either projection is consistent with the Imperial College model.
We've been averaging 1000 deaths a day and are almost at 11,000. There is literally no chance of this.
Low degree of confidence.
Tucker Carlson is ****ing brilliant and articulated just how little we know about Covid-19
Any degree = you have been lobotomized.
I had it on in the background from the task force meeting... and he really did make a super compelling argument. I heard a mayor talking about snitching and had to look it up. Makes me ****ing sick to my stomach what our government will do
Agreed that that is crazy but I suspect we will fall in the 30-50K range... which would be ~75% less than the models that were used to shut everything down.
I'm really interested in seeing the total deaths of flu, covid, and pnemonia this year.
The idea that quarantine may have the same infection rate makes perfect sense.
No they wouldn't. I literally posted the numbers above.
Yes that is the update as of today.
I'm certainly hopeful they keep getting close to being correct as they revise dowward
What a shame that hydroxychloroquine wasnt used sooner.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote