The Coronavirus, not the beer

The models flat put say they took account for SD.

The models were wrong by 300-800%.

The models have been revised downward every 3-5 days.

The models now tell us we can expect the peak... 10 days ago.

Super helpful!
 
Carp said:
Absolutely rooting for good news. But I can't help feeling sorry for their citizens. Especially if it gets a lot worse there.

Herd immunity, in general, takes much longer to develop than people are assuming. Sure, they may not experience a 2nd wave of new infections in 6 months, which is great in theory, but they are sacrificing a lot of lives in the process. Also, a vaccine could be developed in the coming months, making their entire exercise futile and the loss of thousands of lives unnecessary.
Click to expand...
No offense, but to hang your economic recovery plan on a vaccine being developed in a few months is just plain bad.

Unless Sweden’s strategy results in their hospitals being overwhelmed, it was absolutely the right move. Unless a vaccine magically appears or the disease goes away this summer. Neither of those are likely outcomes.
 
goldfly said:
maybe this version of society should collapse?

but isn't that why you elected the reality star con man? i heard bannon say that etc
Click to expand...

Why would you possibly want this?

You know who benefits the most from that outcome? THE RICH. They will be the ones with the capital to start new businesses and invest in a depressed stock market. Poor migrants who depend on the gig economy will literally die.
 
"at least 6 CEOs were unaware of their participation [In Trump's re-opening taskforce], and declined to participate after they found out"



LOL
 
chop2chip said:
Why would you possibly want this?

You know who benefits the most from that outcome? THE RICH. They will be the ones with the capital to start new businesses and invest in a depressed stock market. Poor migrants who depend on the gig economy will literally die.
Click to expand...

i didn't say what i wanted

i was saying/pointing out that that is what Steve Bannon (thethe loves him) and others have said and why they voted for trump

i do think we could remold a better america out of this

but it won't happen with the idiot we have in charge

that some here try to call a populist. lol


i think the virus/pandemic and shown our country is far from the greatness is tries to claim though
 
goldfly said:
i didn't say what i wanted

i was saying/pointing out that that is what Steve Bannon (thethe loves him) and others have said and why they voted for trump

i do think we could remold a better america out of this

but it won't happen with the idiot we have in charge

that some here try to call a populist. lol


i think the virus/pandemic and shown our country is far from the greatness is tries to claim though
Click to expand...

Are you the dude who calls the cops on his neighbor's for walking outside?
 
sturg33 said:
The models flat put say they took account for SD.

The models were wrong by 300-800%.

The models have been revised downward every 3-5 days.

The models now tell us we can expect the peak... 10 days ago.

Super helpful!
Click to expand...

Apologies for not having the source. But I read yesterday that some of the forecasts at the state level were not even in the 95% confidence level range (i.e., they actualized below). This was from a study done by a university in Australia.

This is literally an unprecedented outbreak and so modeling it is going to be impossible, but that just demonstrates how futile this process can be, and why we need to consider other factors when making policy decisions.

And honestly, I blame this partially on China for not sharing honest data which could have been used to improve these forecasts.
 
that's a weird question to pose from what you quoted

no

my neighbors seem to have people over right now. do you want me to call the cops or something?
 
chop2chip said:
And honestly, I blame this partially on China for not sharing honest data which could have been used to improve these forecasts.
Click to expand...

I think we can have an honest discussion about this in particular, without going the thethe route on this and definitively saying this was China's bioweapon and they leaked it on purpose.

I've said from the beginning in this thread that I never really trusted China's handling of this when they were silencing leakers and journalists and doctors who were speaking out about it when it first started getting bad. Trump and others were using China's "handling" of this in February as a means to downplay the damage done here saying it wouldn't get bad because China already had a hold on it. I was skeptical then and was more concerned about our handling here.
 
goldfly said:
i didn't say what i wanted

i was saying/pointing out that that is what Steve Bannon (thethe loves him) and others have said and why they voted for trump

i do think we could remold a better america out of this

but it won't happen with the idiot we have in charge

that some here try to call a populist. lol


i think the virus/pandemic and shown our country is far from the greatness is tries to claim though
Click to expand...

I just can’t imagine a scenario where government is emboldened with unprecedented surveillance powers, a fractured economy that by nature of telecommuting benefits white collar workers and those with disposable income who can invest, and where people are literally incentivized to isolate and protect themselves.

How is this possibly going to result in a better America? Gandhi could be our emperor and we would be worse off in every possible way.
 
Here's what I posted a week ago about the Imperial College report from 3/16. We are now above the lower bound of the suppression prediction long before its 2 year timeline, so I'm still failing to see the "THEEE MOOOODODDDDELS WERE WRONG" position here.

Metaphysicist said:
I'm still curious about this "all the models were wrroooooong" position sturg keeps repeating. I went back and re-read that Imperial college paper that supposedly snapped the admin into action with it's 2M dead prediction.

It predicted (converting some UK ratios to US for the suppression #s and ranges):

Do nothing: 1,700,000 - 2,400,000 US deaths by October
Suppression*: 24,000 - 210,000 US deaths over 2 years

*Suppression here being:

(1) 14 days quarantine for household with symptomatic cases, 50% compliance,
(2) Closing of some Universities and Schools
(3) General social distancing
(4) And then staggered on-off variations for recurrences over the next 2 years.

I'll repeat again that I have no idea what will end up happening, but I'm unconvinced that this preliminary modelling hasn't born out. It looks like thus far we are basically following the "suppression" option and are (hopefully?) getting the corresponding results.
Click to expand...
 
The Chosen One said:
I think we can have an honest discussion about this in particular, without going the thethe route on this and definitively saying this was China's bioweapon and they leaked it on purpose.

I've said from the beginning in this thread that I never really trusted China's handling of this when they were silencing leakers and journalists and doctors who were speaking out about it when it first started getting bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The bio weapons mularkey is unhelpful. I think it’s certainly a possibility that we should investigate (and hold China accountable if proven), but Ocam’s razor points to this being a guy named Yang who ate a bat.
 
chop2chip said:
Apologies for not having the source. But I read yesterday that some of the forecasts at the state level were not even in the 95% confidence level range (i.e., they actualized below). This was from a study done by a university in Australia.

This is literally an unprecedented outbreak and so modeling it is going to be impossible, but that just demonstrates how futile this process can be, and why we need to consider other factors when making policy decisions.

And honestly, I blame this partially on China for not sharing honest data which could have been used to improve these forecasts.
Click to expand...

We have a group of folks who are so obsessed with not defying experts that they cant acknowledge that they were wrong.

Of course modeling this was hard. But their models were nasty off the mark and we probably should not make our policy decisions blindly from.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Here's what I posted a week ago about the Imperial College report from 3/16. We are now above the lower bound of the suppression prediction long before its 2 year timeline, so I'm still failing to see the "THEEE MOOOODODDDDELS WERE WRONG" position here.
Click to expand...

To be fair, a lower bound of 24,000 (against an upper bound of 240,000) is like saying the range of outcomes for Ozzie Albies batting average is .150 -.350.

Individuals, policy makers, and the media need to do a much better job of interpreting and presenting this information.
 
sturg hasn't actually read any of the models, he just ****posts about them based on what other ****posters on twitter say.

But we should take his word for it that the experts have all been proven wrong, and there was never a problem at all.

Guys, you gotta admit, he makes a compelling case. I'm sold.
 
I still think we'll start opening up parts of the economy next month. Trump is obviously using these CEO's and sports commissioners as a shield/cover to start opening stuff up so if something bad happens he doesn't get all the blame. I think restaurants will open but maintain the 6 foot rule when using tables (so back to half), and if the data continues improving some states will allow full restaurant capacity again by the end of summer. This will be slow walked as it should be.

We're realistically at least 6 months minimum from a vaccine. And then it has to be mass produced and we have to get about 60% of our 380 million people vaccinated for people to start feeling comfortable going out regularly again (probably can be even lower than 60% for consumer confidence). But I don't think we need a vaccine to get things going.
 
chop2chip said:
To be fair, a lower bound of 24,000 (against an upper bound of 240,000) is like saying the range of outcomes for Ozzie Albies batting average is .150 -.350.

Individuals, policy makers, and the media need to do a much better job of interpreting and presenting this information.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not exactly difficult to put a range of outcomes of 10x from each other
 
chop2chip said:
To be fair, a lower bound of 24,000 (against an upper bound of 240,000) is like saying the range of outcomes for Ozzie Albies batting average is .150 -.350.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is like that at all. .150 - .350 is basically the entire range of possible outcomes, where 24k-240k is clearly being contrasted with an order of magnitude larger outcome.

chop2chip said:
Individuals, policy makers, and the media need to do a much better job of interpreting and presenting this information.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with that at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top