[SeekAndFind]

Nobody, absolutely nobody — neither scientist nor layperson — should place confidence in the predictive power of any model that relies on assumptions that have not been thoroughly tested.

[Buckeye McFrog]

And that’s all they have, assumptions.

Thanks to ChiCom lies and CDC bureaucrat incompetence.

[Fitzy_888]

Amazing Polly | Real World or Simulation
https://youtu.be/cAnSkQojE_4

[sima_yi]

Remember the Great Swine Flu Epidemic of 1976? Neither do I, because it failed to materialize. However, here is the government's prediction based on some model or other.

There is evidence there will be a major flu epidemic this coming fall. The indication is that we will see a return of the 1918 flu virus that is the most virulent form of the flu. In 1918 a half million Americans died. The projections are that this virus will kill one million Americans in 1976.
-- F. David Matthews, secretary of health, education, and welfare (Feb., 1976)

[Willgamer]

I posted this yesterday-

The Pseudoscience of real world models

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3830996/posts

[Yo-Yo]

As things unfold, the COVID-19 infection and mortality models remind me more and more of the Global Climate Change models...

[rightwingcrazy]

“Nobody, absolutely nobody — neither scientist nor layperson — should place confidence in the predictive power of any model that relies on assumptions that have not been thoroughly tested.”

Except when they are used by designated experts to produce professional looking graphs and to make conclusions with unqualified certainty. Then, for sure, you should trust them without question.

[paint_your_wagon]

Any assumptions that are used to create a model should be explicitly stated,

The possible deviations of the model predictions from actual outcomes based on the assumptions should also be clearly presented.

Otherwise it’s just propaganda. Just like the so called climate models we hear about.

[SMARTY]

To repeat myself from another comment I made:

This crisis has made me start to think that a lot of very incompetent and insignificant people unexpectedly got their 15 minutes of fame and instead of proving otherwise, showed us just WHY they’re ‘incompetent and insignificant’.

Political appointees, socially or academically connected clowns and others who slid by or leap-frogged all the benchmarks WE meet daily in OUR jobs... so when the world finally ‘meets’ them, they’re shown up for the misplaced, overrated, overpaid jerks that they surely are.

I listen to them and watch them... and it’s obvious that not one of them could hold a position in the real world without their ‘special’ connections.

Actually- I work around professors all day and am always surprised as how disorganized, out-of-touch, clueless many of them are. I am sure that some of them couldn’t find employment anywhere off campus.

One of them tried to mail an envelope... that was returned to us twice. It was not addressed properly and the same error was repeated twice.

I always thought that part of the definition of ‘functional illiteracy’ was, the inability to address an envelope. Sheesh....!

[Sacajaweau]

death/population or sick/population......

BUT you MUST use random testing for the sick results...and not just test the sick. That's just plain dumb.

And if someone is sick and has a fever....give them the damn meds....just like we do normally for someone that has a fever.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Extrapolations based on assumptions put forth by people with various agendas. Yeah that works for me.

Perhaps we should slaughter some sheep and read the entrails. Anyone got some chicken bones we can toss around and? Magic 8 Balls? Ouija boards?

Sometimes I think half this country is nothing but a cargo cult.

[trebb]

Why not? I thought all them types of predictive models were "settled science"....

/s

[nesnah]

Hurricane “models”

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well people better get to it. To get from 5,000 to 200,000 is a lotta dyin.

[semantic]

Perhaps one of the core modeling assumptions is that we are at the beginning of a CV-19 infection wave, rather than the tail end. That is, the at-risk segment that is currently experiencing the greatest fatality rate is assumed to be a leading, rather than lagging indicator.

So, I think a key question should be asked:: Are those presently dying actually canaries, or are they in fact the caboose?

If we segment the main population as young (school children), adults (working, vacationing), and 'at risk' (older, pre existing), who typically comes into contact first with communicable disease? The middle, right? They come into contact first because they are constantly traveling (local, regional, international), dealing with 10/100s of (new) people every day, shaking hands, dining, socializing, etc.

So, why didn't the great middle get sick (and die) first? Or, did they - just get sick, that is? If those older, pre existing patients who are dying are canaries, how did they precede the middle in contacting the disease? Sure, some older folks go on cruises, but compared to the millions of people coming/going out of airports each day (work, leisure), it's a micro bit.

Conclusion: If the great middle got the virus first, then the die off we're currently experiencing is the caboose. IOW, the tail end of the (invisible) infection wave.

Experts tend to hate anecdotal 'evidence', but there are so many people (like myself) relating how we were very sick during Jan-Feb. I never felt sick-sick, and it never kept me down, but everyday I'd have to clear my lungs from some kind of mysterious lung congestion.

Now Cuomo is stating that he thinks New York may have had CV back in Nov. That's great, because I was in NYC for a week before T-day, and guess who actually got sick-sick shortly after his return to sunny SoCal? (I was completely ok until the mysterious hacking, non-illness appeared 8 weeks later.)

So many questions, so many assumptions. What we really need is an anti-body test, and broad based population sampling to determine past & present levels of infection. "Cases" is still bandied about, even though there couldn't be a less valid statistical measure possible.

[Sam Gamgee]

The models and predictions are all baloney. There is no way to know how many will die as the number of variables are massive. They are just guesses.

Is it true Fauci wants the lock down to continue until the very last case of COVID 19 is detected?

[oldbill]

Modelling 101:

WARNING: This is not for journalists or democrats, who are not capable of understanding math.

Remember algebra?
x+y=2
x-y=0
solve for x and y.

Remember that you for two variables you needed two equations to solve.
For three variables you needed three.
Etc. Etc.

Now lets get a little more complicated:
Solve for all the variables in these equations.
2x+4y-cosz+3w(r+2s-4t)=85
(cosx+siny)(2z-14w) + 2r+12t=15

You can’t - you need 7 equations for 7 variables.
Well, that’s what you need to do when you are modelling complex phenomena, like weather, climate, corona virus, etc - many variables, not enough equations.

So you make assumptions, like “make t a constant” or assume r+s approaches 0.

Of course it gets more complicated than that, with other goodies like partial differential equations and complex math functions, but that’s the essence of modelling.

In some cases you get answers close enough to the solution to be workable and useful, like the hurricane model definitely will hit Florida, but you can’t say exactly where, but the people of Texas know enough to have a sigh of relief.

Now if the model wrongly assumes or ignores one or more of those variables, like the age demographic component or the dietary levels of vitamin z, the model becomes meaningless.

Bureaucrats then have to resort to coming up with other guesses and excuses, to look good, and to bamboozle an ignorant media, using terms like “leveling the curve” or “hockey sticks”.

Welcome to Modelling.

By the way - my coronavirus model?
In the USA, 36,326 dead, 498,603 infected, and 35 democrat congressmen voted out of office.