sturg33
I
[Tw]1247293239805317121[/tw]
This is allowed but not OANN.
I am confused how this outlet is able to get into that room
[Tw]1247293239805317121[/tw]
This is allowed but not OANN.
So isolation had zero effect on infection rate. Got it, that's good to know.
Coronavirus Models Aren't Supposed to Be Right
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.
I am confused how this outlet is able to get into that room
Saw you just referenced 80k
Since you are so into Math I assumed you would understand the implicit confidence intervals.
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.
We've been averaging 1000 deaths a day and are almost at 11,000. There is literally no chance of this.
Tucker Carlson is ****ing brilliant and articulated just how little we know about Covid-19
Any degree = you have been lobotomized.
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.
No they wouldn't. I literally posted the numbers above.