wasmania
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by wasmania
-
-
2 minutes ago, Cratter said:
Right now we know how many died with coronavirus.
We wont know how many died from coronavirus til much later.
Epidemiology isnt in the 'how' business. Thats what medical doctors do. Epidemiology is about the mechanics of disease spread and how best to mitigate the spread.
-
4 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
I was honestly asking, I don't know how it works for hospitilization. Take your TDS.
understood. that's why I recommend you. you would present no vetting issues re: prior knowledge. An empty vessel to be filled, as it were.
-
2 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
I missed where you agreed that the model was $$##%&!.
I used to much science in my explanation - I said the the early models are missing dimensions and I gave an example of the lack of knowledge in early models about the impact of asymptomatic people spreading the virus that caused the less dense areas to be over forecast, I said that the modelers are modeling chaos, that they are objective but wrong. that they improve as the data improves but a true post mortem takes a long time - how many different F$%cking ways do you need it told to you.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
Does everyone who gets it end up in the hospital once diagnosed? I honestly don't know....
I think there might be a future for you in the current administration
-
1 minute ago, Nodak78 said:
Yes good models and bad models can change rapidly. This is a bad model that changes rapidly.
I have basically been agreeing with you on the current model quality. might you do me the honor of explaining what your motivations are to be such a blowhard against the epidemiology process?
-
2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
Would be interesting to get a large sample poll of people who are over 75 that have grand/great grandchildren and ask them at this point would you be willing to take the risk of going to see a grand or great grandchild graduate from HS in another 6-7 weeks....basically making it 3+ months you have been locked up?
What percentage do you think would say "yes" I'd personally take that risk?
If they are anywhere near as smart as the armchair blowhards on this site, I think they would be lined up at the high school auditorium tighter than sardines in a can.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Nodak78 said:
Damn right where special we don't pack into a subway like sardines. ND doesn't have a gazillion apartments right on top another. ND is natural for social distancing. NY not so much. Twin cities not so much.
Pretty sure those pork plant workers were pretty tightly situated so there is something of an apples to apples comparison. And yes, I know the Smithfield plant is in South Dakota not North Dakota, because that makes a big difference...
-
23 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
When this is done we can check the model and get the truth. You refuse to look objectively just like the people putting the model. One size doesn't fit all the states. The variables do not correctly measure differences between the states.
I have been trying to explain to you and others that models vary widely as data changes rapidly, which it has been doing. models can be both objective (built using statistical theory and proper data management) and wrong (missing key data points or dimensions that have not been capture or are unavailable at the time the model was developed). It is only way after the fact in a post mortem of the pandemic and full examination of the data over the entire time period can you fully understand what drove the pandemic and why. you want to kill these messengers who are trying to model chaos for reasons I still don't grasp.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
More data. they need to keep twisting variable until it fits the model. Or the person doing model must be on a 3 day drunk.
ok lets just put you in the bucket of people not looking for the truth, only a win for your 'team'.
-
1 hour ago, UND1983 said:
Do you feel that politics are a part of the narratives that are being orchestrated by the major media outlets? Or it strictly how they see things happening?
there are partisan slants unfortunately, some that are partisan and accurate and others that are bullsh$t. But as individuals with a common purpose (that is what we are despite the division sown by politicians and media) we should be trying to get past the rhetoric to get to the truth, rather than be pushed by our favorite pundit into irrational and harmful fighting amongst ourselves.
-
1 minute ago, yzerman19 said:
I still stand by deaths as a bad measure in terms of this virus. It is a lagging indicator. Also, unlike the historical measure of pandemics (which kill indiscriminately and kill kids), it is killing the old and sick at a highly disproportionate rate. This group is especially vulnerable to any pathogen.
I see a nobel laureate physician from HIV research is now calling it man-made. That in an effort to find a cure for HIV, the bug was engineered and accidentally got out of the Wuhan biolab. This was mocked in the beginning and discounted as fake news. Now its getting attention again from a non-partisan researcher. This theory would also lend to the rationale behind all of the lockdowns...if there was intel that this thing was man-made, we had to go to extremes, because we didn't know the heck it would do...a group of Indian researchers also determined it was man-made and they were blacklisted until they renegged...we might never know the truth.
this may end up being true. So a geopolitical conspiracy to hide this unfortunate event might be happening. That is different from a partisan conspiracy to inflate the danger to make you lose your job and the president lose the election.
-
5 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
That was not a model. Static number. ONE POINT in TIME. heck your mensa score it is regressing.
sorry, he made it a model when he took the current death rate and multiplied by 2 with the assumption that the U.S. is half way through.
-
17 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
the above is laughable. his argument centers around a graph of the current U.S. covid deaths to date vs U.S. and global annual flu deaths. His prediction from this (April 10th) is 33000 deaths in U.S. a number we are already passed. So this what you get from an anecdotal forecast by a partisan blogger. Egregiously wrong in the other direction. Perhaps the willingness to accept malice as a reason for scientific error is because you are so used to it from the unscientific partisan ranters that take up space in your head. 'If my guys do it, everyone must!'
-
1
-
-
Just now, Walsh Hall said:
There can be a very fine line between malice, ignorance, and stupidity. It seems, and seemed, completely incomprehensible that the denominator is/was only the folks who have tested positive. Basing the fatality rate and models on the confirmed cases, or low multiples thereof, could very well be slanted more toward malice than ignorance. I find it hard to believe that the architects of the models are stupid, and they should be well aware of what they don't know.
Let's hope the denominator is consist with the study posted above.
stupid is the word used in Hanlon's law, I suggested ignorant as more accurate in this case. When the only data you have comes from early spread in high density areas, it wont do well predicting low density outcomes if the model is data starved. It was learned very late that asymptomatic people were big carriers. If this was known earlier, than a variable like % of people who daily use public transportation would probably be huge in the model and result in low forecasts for places like North Dakota. Not malicious, ignorant of a key dimension.
-
4 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
Therefore your models are #@@)%&=
Some states can open up with low fatalities. protect the elderly, Nursing homes, etc. The rest can get back to work with social distancing. NY and NJ and a few hot spots are a different animal.
See my previous posts agreeing and pointing out that models driven by unknown dynamic phenemona are usually very inaccurate until the dynamism and other unknowns are captured in the data. So this is not a point of contention between us. My question is why cannot this be accepted as truth rather than a rush to say someone is cooking the books for malignant purposes? A version of Hanlon's law below:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (Stupidity meaning the ignorance inherent in early models that lack sufficient data history)
-
1 minute ago, Nodak78 said:
And very low fatality rate.
therefore what.... conspiracy?
-
17 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
Here is a study for you.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf+html
This one suggests way more people are infected than what has been identified through testing. Looks more like a sober explanation but in a scientific lingo many people will be frustrated by.
-
33 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
IHME projection changes for Midwest states.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/04/coronavirus-in-five-states-2.php
I dont understand (rationally) why so many here are desperate to conclude that epidemiological models are a tool in a nefarious plot to keep them unemployed, cause a political downfall of their favorite candidate etc. Bad forecasts are a hallmark of modeling things that are poorly understood or incredibly dynamic. As the data improves the accuracy gets better. I urge you to give equal time to sober explanations of the forecasting process (Johns Hopkins, CDC etc.) , in addition I guess to the blogs and pundits that tell you what you WANT to hear.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
Whoa, big words. Simplify in the future for us common folk.
Dang it. owned again.
-
6 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:
So now we’re comparing being stuck in an abusive relationship to smoking three packs a day or weighing 350 lbs? Or an elderly person with Alzheimer’s and dementia?
I do understand that hypocrisy is a feature of message board addict chatter, not a bug. So when I point it out, I do expect a disengenuous 'literal' interpretation of my post. Thanks for not disappointing me.
-
3 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:
FPD reported a 14% uptick in domestic abuse reports since beginning of March.
But it doesn't matter because they were in a bad relationship before this happened, kind of like having an underlying condition so the covid doesn't count.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:
Cases of Carona in China? Imposibre!the point you make is redundant to many previous, but gotta hand it to you, you made it unique by adding the racism. great job.
-
4
-
-
14 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
And obviously not many do it well.
Ok. I am a data science guy. MBA Stats. 30 years of logistic regression etc for commerce and credit. Models are only as good as the underlying data. How relevant is the past history? how should the current data be sliced by region/age/whatever etc. Many more data hygiene and timing questions. Any honest pro is using models to guide planning and knows full well that ' no plan outlasts contact with the enemy'. You seem to hold them to a higher stand for some reason.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
Got a buddy that's an analytical engineer. His projection timeframe wise for ND to reach the roughly 370 death estimated by IHME is just under 4 years if the current social measures and virus rates were to be kept in place. Not sure if his analysis is any better than IHME or whatever model Walz is going by but was interesting to listen to.
because anybody can do epidemiology.
2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)
in Community
Posted
After you finish wiping your arse with disinfectant and cleaning your kitchen counters with toilet paper, could you respond to Dynato's questions?