wasmania

doesnt this get flagged for politics, or is that a one way street?

This article is a better explanation of my attempt above https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-do-we-overcome-fear-americans-need-confidence-before-life-can-return-to-normal/2020/04/18/0b6ed6b8-80b7-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html

Defensiveness and condescension free discussion https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/14/coronavirus-models-ihme-ic/

Yes I know he understands but I'm being criticized for talking down to the average joe on this site, which I cop to but also want to note that the subject matter is inherently complex. Perhaps my hot button is that some posters seem to want to conflate the nature of the epidemiology beast with malevolent intent and/or sheer incompetence of the epidemiologist. If I didnt feel like I was battling that, perhaps it would be easier for me to tone it down.

there is truth to this, the condescension, driven perhaps wrongly by assuming most questions posed were not really seeking an answer but expressing rage at being bottled up, anger over people from away making decisions that impact them, etc. But the language - this is statistics and science after all. Is the term 'asymptomatic' or 'confidence interval' really just me boasting about my education, or might it be common language that needs to understood (and googled if need be) before an answer is understood. I'm being honest here I'd like your advice on this.

Defending the process of epidemiology is not the same as defending results. The process is scientific method. The results are what they are, objectively calculated given the data at hand but innacurate. If by stating the obvious over and over, that the models are misspecified and wont be as accurate as you want until the data matures is 'defending the models', what do you want, should I join the tantrum and the conspiracy mongering?

not so much advocating as resignedly accepting that our lifestyles will likely need to change until vaccine or effective treatment is developed. Maybe for a deeply rural state like North Dakota people will resist this consequences be damned, but the tone elsewhere, especially in the major cities and among those folks who can choose whether to use public transport, go to big events, travel freely, there is likely to be alot of people who simply will not resume their past behavior. So back to normal may be kind of moot. UND hockey will still sell out. Will Madison Square Garden? Business economics will change given the consumer behavior changes. Calls to 'open up the states' by decree don't seem to get this.

the torches and pitchforks brandished as you chase the unlucky statistician who blundered by speaking college level to people on a college website are spectacular. But agreed it would be better if we all did shut up and invited the real doctors back who are treating the disease.

not very much use except to build planning scenarios that need to be updated constantly until the data is known, and its still being discovered. every day. all over the world.

yes, if you are not spreading disease currently

maybe some compromise that reduces everyone's likelihood of being a killing machine at any given time by 75% or something through a smart test/retest protocol? Paid for by public health and financial support to those needed to isolate for a period of time for the greater good? L

that would be great if we knew it doesnt recur. Hopefully thats the case but it hasnt been proved yet.

no you test negative and you social distance while doing your commerce and go see grandma. get up and do it again the next day.

given the many variables in flux, like availability of robust tests, changes to protocols at events and transportation to accomodate the test process and fairly adjudicate decisions on who is safe and who is not, changes to configurations of meeting places etc. your question is not answerable at this early time without a huge confidence interval around any forecast for when and how much. And this board by and large does not tolerate such things as large confidence intervals. they interpret this as systemic failure in epidemiology and partisan undermining of their preferred despot

testing? massive testing? if you wouldnt mind the inconvenience