Some models work just fine for me, especially after a clear-eyed examination. 😋
“Models” are just video games for scientists...................
Yes, this is a blog.
No, I don’t know the guy; I linked to this article from Steve Kirsch’s Newsletter on Substack (which is VERY well worth your time if you’ve got the least trepidation about The Vax).
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/
ping
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/q-a-why-elife-is-doing-away-with-rejections-70667?
DP: We wanted to take advantage of the change that’s happening anyway in the research ecosystem around people posting preprints and sharing their work early. Once that world becomes the norm—and we do feel that that is the way things are headed—then the obvious next step is, what is the best way of reviewing? I don’t think anyone would claim that the current system of going through multiple journals and rounds of review at different venues makes any sense in this current world where you’re sharing preprints early. And so the eLife model is a way of saying, well, in this new world where research is shared early, what is the best way in which peer review can be applied? And this [new] version, we think, makes the most sense in that world.
The obsession with journal title and the venue in which you publish in biomedical literature really has to end, and we feel that this is an opportunity to do that. . . . Because when work is shared early, then the way it’s reviewed can be radically different. . . . In this model, what we’re saying is that having a single journal title that assigns quality, or assigns that research on the hierarchy, is incredibly inefficient. And so instead, a model where you actually assess and post reviews publicly—it’s a much fairer and faster and more equitable way of publishing...
This is beginning to make sense, now
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/renee-wegryzn-tapped-to-head-arpa-h-70478?
...The new agency will support a broad range of programs aimed at preventing, detecting, and treating a variety of diseases, including cancer, according to the White House’s statement. However, rather than focusing on early research, STAT reports that ARPA-H will investigate higher-level solutions such as commercializing technology. Modeled on DARPA, the new agency is intended to speed the development of treatment and cures for diseases.
Do you think maybe it's all about doing away with the emergency authorization step to make sure everybody's immune system gets marginalized unequally? Based on their perceived lack of success with the covid thing, it sounds a likely strategy to put some muscle (no pun meant) into the program and them patents do put money in their pockets.
“sociologists”
That might be part of the problem...
Some models work just fine for me, especially after a clear-eyed examination. 😋
I’m trying to remember who it was that said, “All models are wrong. Some are useful.”
One of our local TV stations sometimes will before major weather events share the different models they use. I always laugh because for estimated snowfall the models often go from a trace to 8+” and everything in between
Whatever happened to GIGO? Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I’m somewhat of a weather geek. Check out https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/ . Do a screenshot of the forecast 9 days out. Then check the same time period every 12 hours or so as it draws nearer to present. The changes are dramatic. These models are pretty accurate 36 hours out, but all over the map further in the future.