Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/10/20 at 8:36 am to scleeb
Peace out bro’s I’m outta this thread.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:05 am to CorchJay
CorchJay - Stay in the thread. You have some good points. The problem with everyone looking at the model was that the code was written 13+ years ago to model the Flu. It was never adjusted and some of this hysteria is based on that model which was never updated and we won't see near the amount of deaths that it is predicting.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:12 am to 88TIger
Corona Virus Deaths vs Other Pandemics
This was interesting. Cholera in 2010 came out strong...
This was interesting. Cholera in 2010 came out strong...
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 11:13 am
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:21 am to slacker130
The Spanish Flu of 1918 comparison was crazy. If you put it in context, we're fairly lucky not to be dealing with something of that magnitude. And they dealt with it in the middle of a world war. Crazy...
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:58 am to BuckFama334
You're right, there's one that includes the spanish flu on there and it's crazy.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:39 pm to 88TIger
quote:
You have some good points
The problem is not that he believes this may be an overly conservative response. The problem has been that he has brought in clearly wrong information
For example he said suicides would be the biggest killer in America this year and more than the past 30ish years combined
Posted on 4/10/20 at 5:20 pm to GenesChin
Guys quit bringing me up in the conversation I checked out. I made my points and opinions. No need to keep going he’s wrong he’s wrong. Guess we will see who is wrong in the not so distant future.
The 830k suicides was just a modeling just like the coronavirus modeling. Both only as good as the data that is input into them. But to say I’m “clearly” bringing wrong information is just an opinion because we don’t know what is going to happen.
This is the last post I’ll make in this thread so leave me out of it. And I have attacked both political parties points of few so don’t come with the maga role tide crap. Look like children that can’t have a disagreement without insulting someone. You know you’re clearly winning a debate when they try to attack you personally and get off topic. So stay safe everyone.
Lastly remember this day the day my Lord and Savior took upon the sins of the past, the present, and the future so that the entire world could be saved. Have a happy Easter.
The 830k suicides was just a modeling just like the coronavirus modeling. Both only as good as the data that is input into them. But to say I’m “clearly” bringing wrong information is just an opinion because we don’t know what is going to happen.
This is the last post I’ll make in this thread so leave me out of it. And I have attacked both political parties points of few so don’t come with the maga role tide crap. Look like children that can’t have a disagreement without insulting someone. You know you’re clearly winning a debate when they try to attack you personally and get off topic. So stay safe everyone.
Lastly remember this day the day my Lord and Savior took upon the sins of the past, the present, and the future so that the entire world could be saved. Have a happy Easter.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 5:53 pm to CorchJay
quote:
The 830k suicides was just a modeling just like the coronavirus modeling.
There is no model suggesting that 830,000 Americans will commit suicide by the end of the year.
At least no model based on good modeling with good faith assumptions based on this reality.
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 5:54 pm
Posted on 4/11/20 at 7:56 am to GenesChin
quote:I believe that is the point. The modeling for the COVID is wrong. It was written 13+ years ago and based on the flu. It was never updated with changes in medicine of the years...but that is the model folks are running with.
There is no model suggesting that 830,000 Americans will commit suicide by the end of the year.
At least no model based on good modeling with good faith assumptions based on this reality.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 10:10 am to 88TIger
quote:
The modeling for the COVID is wrong. It was written 13+ years ago and based on the flu.[/quote
The UWash model being used is a data driven mathematical model.
They do not revise estimates until they see the changes in the data to reflect it. The error in their model is driven mostly by data limitations
That is why people have been critical of Trump in February very publicly not taking the virus seriously and not emphasizing testing
[quote]was never updated with changes in medicine of the years
We have not had any change in medicine in the past "13 years" that can effectively fight this virus.
Ventilators existed then and now. Otherwise, we have no effective treatment or else this wouldn't be a big deal]
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:17 pm to 88TIger
quote:
The modeling for the COVID is wrong
The current model being widely used is the UWash mathematical data driven model.
That model forecasts based on current data being reported. That is why many modeling experts have been highly critical of Trump administration for lack of testing to provide more data when they know this could be a problem
As for the downward revisions, that occurs once social distancing impact is reflected in the data. We are ~2weeks in for epicenters starting social distancing and we are starting to see the data inputs reflect that
Posted on 4/11/20 at 1:30 pm to GenesChin
quote:By your line of thinking, we don't have a model for this either. There have been advances in medicine over the past 13 years. There are medicines that are helping people get over this virus. And there are people who have it but are not showing symptoms.
We have not had any change in medicine in the past "13 years" that can effectively fight this virus.
Ventilators existed then and now. Otherwise, we have no effective treatment or else this wouldn't be a big deal]
Posted on 4/11/20 at 4:41 pm to 88TIger
quote:
By your line of thinking, we don't have a model for this either. There have been advances in medicine over the past 13 years.
The data reflects advances in medicine. So data driven mathematical models by default take into account medical advances. The critical part of a good functioning model of this category is highly credible data
Which is why testing is so important and brings us to this point
quote:
And there are people who have it but are not showing symptoms.
This is the biggest failure of this entire debacle, not mobilizing to develop a fast test we can administer in volume. This helps both to contain spread + understand what's happening
South Korea for example, whose first case was same as the US, tested hundreds of thousands within a few weeks while the Trump administration was talking about how this would below over.
quote:
There are medicines that are helping people get over this virus.
There are no proven medical treatments that are widespread at this time.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 8:13 pm to Leto II
quote:
Most of the ones I read about were healthcare professionals. I can't blanket say they were not smokers or vapers, but it's probably unlikely.
They may not have been but according to the CDC 90% of hospitalizations had an underlying condition.
The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is 4.6 per 100,000 population, and almost 90% of hospitalized patients have some type of underlying condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 9:41 pm to GenesChin
quote:
As for the downward revisions, that occurs once social distancing impact is reflected in the data.
That’s one factor, but definitely not the entire picture as to why models get revised and debatably not even the dominant factor at play.
As you’ve touched on, good data is imperative for any data driven model, but for a system of exponential growth it cannot be understated how crucial it is if you want your model to be even remotely valuable.
The mathematical models are modeling a phenomena that is very nonlinear and extremely sensitive to initial conditions, and any errors present in the initial dataset would have been amplified substantially upon extrapolation. The confidence intervals reflect this uncertainty and they shrink as you’d expect as more data pours in.
You can see this for yourself if you write a simple least square regression script to map a logistics curve to existing data for total cases with time. If you do this for data gathered in early March, and if you assume we were off by even a few dozens of positive cases a day, upon extrapolation you can find that you were off by millions of cases. This also makes the simplification that I believe the IMHE/UW model makes that the infection curves of other areas will be reflected in our own curve, which is an approach that carries its own implicit errors.
The more sophisticated simulations run into the same issues. The problem is so immensely sensitive to initials conditions and modeled parameters that if you run the simulation far enough you are guaranteed to be incorrect and the only hope of being correct in the near term is to have good initial data and good knowledge of parameters that are hard to quantify such as “levels of adherence to social distancing”.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:16 pm
Posted on 4/11/20 at 10:51 pm to Ross
Yep
and... lest we also fail to mention adequate testing.
In the beginning just getting any data was of primary concern and even this interlaced with all manner of both false negatives and positives (the ya'better just stay home). Add in tales of lost reports and many with week(s) long waits being the norm. Coupled with suspect cases not even being able to get tested due to not enough kits. So no one still truly knows who had mild cases, no cases, or something different (like old fashioned influenza A,B. or C).
So yes, it's highly possible values could have varied widely in either direction. It was definitely a what if decision.
And still we don't have enough numbers. Let's imagine a standard deviation worth doesn't even show symptoms. That could be quite a large number of cases, once exponentiated and framed with confidence values. And vice-versa that could be a large number of no-longer being a major concern (since they too would have already had it).
and... lest we also fail to mention adequate testing.
In the beginning just getting any data was of primary concern and even this interlaced with all manner of both false negatives and positives (the ya'better just stay home). Add in tales of lost reports and many with week(s) long waits being the norm. Coupled with suspect cases not even being able to get tested due to not enough kits. So no one still truly knows who had mild cases, no cases, or something different (like old fashioned influenza A,B. or C).
So yes, it's highly possible values could have varied widely in either direction. It was definitely a what if decision.
And still we don't have enough numbers. Let's imagine a standard deviation worth doesn't even show symptoms. That could be quite a large number of cases, once exponentiated and framed with confidence values. And vice-versa that could be a large number of no-longer being a major concern (since they too would have already had it).
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:35 pm to awestruck
quote:
Damn Coach,
This sports withdrawal's been hard on you. Not only has it made you insufferably mad, it's also made you a little bat shite crazy as well. So here's to hoping the drop in IQ is temporary and it's a miraculous recovery.
Even though your the type that caused this shutdown. One of the know-it-alls who wouldn't limit their actions when asked, so the government was forced into protecting it's populace. . . from the likes of you. The same insufferable bores who now want to say those forecasts don't add up, as if everyone sacrificing for the common good wasn't the reason. Folk's unable to say THANKS to all those who lost a job to help out the nation. The true spreaders of unrest, disease, and discontent. Who's logic is I know better than everyone else.
Oh, and your conspiracy theories and your 'the press' plays better to the walking dead on the political forum. So please take your shite over there. Because such accusations belong where they welcome such shtick as fact. And because you've shown no good reason for bringing your delusional politics in here.
Just gotta post this quote again since I've gone completely "mad" by suggesting the country will be opening back up by the end of the month and completely driven by delusional politics.
Just had to do it but no hard feelings, we're still human brothers, Auburn brothers, and I hope everyone still remains cautious and looking out for themselves along with their fellow neighbors.
Posted on 4/16/20 at 5:50 pm to CorchJay
quote:
since I've gone completely "mad" by suggesting
Saying you think it will open up to some degree by end of month wasn't mad even if I disagree.
Saying things like we'd have 830,000 suicides by end of year is what got you. Or when you supposedly referred to the imperial college model as including social distancing in their 2mil dead scenario (it didn't)
People are calling you out for bringing incorrect facts and conspiracies based on them, not your opinions
This post was edited on 4/16/20 at 5:54 pm
Posted on 4/16/20 at 6:00 pm to GenesChin
Dude you're an idiot. I produced a model about suicides for for a point. Same as the model that was being produced by you/others/CDC. I was correct in my statement about the original opening back up of the country. Some were saying omg we're all gonna die if we don't wait for a vaccine.
So put you're big boy pants on and take it that you along with many others were wrong and tried to make it a political thing.
Still it will be governor Ivey's call on the specific timeline to start phase 1. I just pray no more death, no rebounds, and this goes away quickly even if through herd immunity.
I guess I should close with MAGA, Do it for Dale, and row tide.
So put you're big boy pants on and take it that you along with many others were wrong and tried to make it a political thing.
Still it will be governor Ivey's call on the specific timeline to start phase 1. I just pray no more death, no rebounds, and this goes away quickly even if through herd immunity.
I guess I should close with MAGA, Do it for Dale, and row tide.
Page 6 of 14
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News