The Coronavirus, not the beer

Metaphysicist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dude. Ihme has lowered their models multiple times and you casually describe it as "well, dur, they got more data!"

Imperial put out a model with a range of outcomes from basically 0 to 2 million... with a base case of 130k.

At what point can we honestly assess their accuracy? Why does it make you so angry?
 
sturg33 said:
Imperial put out a model with a range of outcomes from basically 0 to 2 million... with a base case of 130k.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you haven't actually read any of the models you are ****posting about them. Frankly, this isn't even an accurate restatement of what I posted here.

Your inability to understand the idea that a model can predict different outcomes for different conditions is a wonder to behold.
 
Metaphysicist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Point taken. A flippant example, but my general point is eclipsing the lower bound doesn’t prove anything other than you weren’t in the lower 2.5% range of outcomes, which, fantastic, but I didn’t learn anything.
 
sturg33 said:
Ok. Explain the model. Best outcome. Base outcome. Worst outcome.

What did I miss
Click to expand...

Link

Feel free to read it if you would like to liberate us all from our poor understanding. I posted the wildly divergent predictions for intervention and doing nothing, which you somehow read as "one prediction from 0 - 2 million." So I'm not sure how better to explain it to you in a way you won't willfully misread.
 
chop2chip said:
Point taken. A flippant example, but my general point is eclipsing the lower bound doesn’t prove anything other than you weren’t in the lower 2.5% range of outcomes, which, fantastic, but I didn’t learn anything.
Click to expand...

It proves that the models weren't wrong, as sturg keeps shouting. They were saying what we see now is consistent with what we'd expect based on our actions. At this point, the only way the model is "wrong" is if more people die than expected, not fewer.

I'm not trying to say they are precise. They are definitely painting with extremely broad strokes; but this is to be expected (and wanted!) for all the things you said about the underlying data.
 
Metaphysicist said:
It proves that the models weren't wrong, as sturg keeps shouting. They were saying what we see now is consistent with what we'd expect based on our actions. At this point, the only way the model is "wrong" is if more people die than expected, not fewer.

I'm not trying to say they are precise. They are definitely painting with extremely broad strokes; but this is to be expected (and wanted!) for all the things you said about the underlying data.
Click to expand...

This makes sense. Absolutely aligned.

How would you as a policy maker weigh a model that is this imprecise (by design as you implied)?
 
Metaphysicist said:
It proves that the models weren't wrong, as sturg keeps shouting. They were saying what we see now is consistent with what we'd expect based on our actions. At this point, the only way the model is "wrong" is if more people die than expected, not fewer.

I'm not trying to say they are precise. They are definitely painting with extremely broad strokes; but this is to be expected (and wanted!) for all the things you said about the underlying data.
Click to expand...

It gave a range of outcomes from 24,000 to 2.6 million and you are bragging about it being "not wrong"
 
Cute explanation but even more than the death count the biggest scare was the hospitalization rates. Deaths do not come before them therefore you need the hospitalization before the death. Getting hospitalizations that wrong effectively means you were 'right' because you were wrong.

I know I know. You are going to tell me how they started with deaths. Great.
 
93042810_10108729652268888_7610338159070543872_o.jpg



safe_image.php


thank God we have these patriots leading the charge against tyranny
 
Last edited:
[tw]1250553210877730817[/tw]

Classic dumbass

Told the truth on his feelings, backtracks and then goes right back to it after a fake apology
 
sturg33 said:
No I dont live my life in fear praying for the state to protect me.

You and the other karens need to stay vigilant!!
Click to expand...

Funny because Karens are usually the conservative soccer moms who ask to speak to a manager.

Never would have expected that type of behavior from goldy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top