The Peril of Running a Country Based on “Models”

DB Daily Update ^ | Gregg Updike

[EyesOfTX]

There are models, and then there are models. I build models of ships as a hobby, I strive for accuracy, and after consulting up to a dozen sources I probably have the most accurate models of various navies possible for a reasonable price. The models, however do not talk to me so I have no actual confirmation that my model ships are absolutely accurate.

I can’t remember the actual name of the Bill and Melinda Gates ‘model’ that the CDC is using exclusively, I don’t care – it doesn’t matter, but for the sake of discussion I’ll call it the CNN model.

Apparently all the ‘experts’ at the CDC are using only the CNN model, which is like saying the pundits are only using one political poll from the MSM (D) to be able to determine the odds of who is going to win a political race. At this point the CNN ‘model’ is as accurate and as biased as a MSM (D) political poll.

Why can’t we at least use the RCP (Real Clear Politics) method where they average numerous polls, however flawed they might be, as a means to get a clearer picture of what is really happening with the spread and impact of this ‘pandemic’? It would also show which models are the most accurate.

Better yet, how about actually inputting actual and broad based data into the model, rather than worse case agenda driven speculation! Typically a collaboration of anything – ‘diversity’ of ideas if you will – will generate a better and more accurate result; otherwise we may well get a highly inaccurate outlier, which is what appears to be happening.

It is a given that our political polling is generally skewed to the left to drive rather than reflect public opinion, with the majority of polls going that way, while the Rasmussen poll typically shows right of center results and it has an enviable and historically accurate record. Rasmussen is often shown as an outlier but since it is included in the RCP equation it drives the data towards a more accurate reflection of real public thought. We apparently have no such counter ‘model’ showing ‘diversity’ in fighting this economy-crippling ‘pandemic’.

The real question is how come we are not using data from several ‘models’? How come the methodologies used in this one ‘model’ are not better shown? Even the largely flawed methodology of the MSM political polls is usually available to be analyzed where they oversample Democrats, or they poll all adults, or registered voters instead of likely voters.

It has been said statistics don’t lie, but statisticians do, and GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) results in flawed results – so why are we continuing to follow this paradigm regarding this ‘pandemic’ when so much is at stake and the ‘experts’ are wrong so often? By any logical and objective analysis the ‘experts’ and their one ‘model’ fits all system has been consistently and grossly wrong. That being the case, the ‘pandemic’ modeling that EVERYONE at the CDC seems to relying on must be extremely flawed.

By the way, this GIGO standard is also used in most if not all ‘Climate Change’/’Global Warming’ theoretical ‘models’ to produce the desired apocalyptic and dire results. This becomes the left’s template by which they produce ‘solutions’ to another unseen enemy. The ‘solution’ always calls for the destruction of our capitalistic economic system via draconian world taxes and major behavioral changes. Ever notice how dictatorial communist systems or developing countries are never called to reform their ‘carbon footprint’ in the name of “saving the planet”?

Their ‘expert’ opinions derived from their opaque crystal ball are and will always be wrong when GIGO is inputted, which has produced dire economic results for millions of people. So why are we determining the future of a twenty plus TRILLION dollar economy and the fate of 328 million people’s livelihood and health using such a flawed one size fits all system?

Two reasons for putting so much credence in this poll, I mean ‘model’:

One, it is just the way bureaucracies everywhere have always done things – never think out of the box, and be slow to react to new facts, opinion, input, and legitimate presidential orders; and

Two, an absolute hatred for the current president: Donald Trump. If as much effort was put forth by the MSM (D) in calling out the officials on all levels who are responsible for being so unprepared and not ensuring adequate equipment, rather than pointlessly bashing Trump’s efforts at every opportunity, we would be in much better shape.

That is an absolute reality, because ever since he became president his agenda has been opposed and he has been maligned and demonized by his vast array of opponents. In their minds he can do nothing right, and ALL his programs and ideas are failures, and will lead to disaster. Add in a generous supply of slanderous accusations and fraudulent investigations and you get the current situation where the goal is not to work together in any way, but to hamstring Trump and make sure he get a little as possible accomplished.

The fact is Trump and his policies have been proven correct and beneficial to the country virtually every time while the MSM (D) and their ‘experts’ have been proven wrong. I can’t remember when our media and their ‘expert’ opinions have been right in any meaningful way on any story.

The other purpose of all this misinformation, doom and gloom pessimism leveled at the outsider Trump is to send a powerful message to any future reform-minded person that they better not dare try to invade the District of Corruption’s turf. This is the war that is actually being fought: Who runs and controls this country – the entrenched unelected bureaucrats of the Deep State and their Globalist Allies or We the People?

Any intelligence analyst worth his salt, or ‘journalist’ or ‘news’ organizations for that matter, would never use only one source for information, no matter how trusted. Anything the MSM (D) puts out concerning Trump is nothing better than supermarket tabloid trash and in most cases worse. Real analysis involves gathering and vetting even proven correct sources from as wide a spectrum as possible.

A competent and objective analysis of any problem requires constant scrutiny. Reliability and accuracy of sources is always questioned and confirmed. Look at any detective in any crime documentary and you will see that the facts must mesh with the evidence. If one irrefutable fact clears a suspect, the suspect is cleared regardless of the other circumstantial evidence that makes him appear guilty. In other words, if any switch in a circuit is turned off, the light doesn’t come on.

Anyone can be wrong or make an honest mistake once in a while, but to be so consistently wrong in vital areas where people’s mental, physical, emotional, and economic health and livelihood hinges on them getting it right, is at best unforgivable, and most likely criminal.

[semimojo]

Truly.

I don't know why we insist on listening to fancy trained "experts" when we have rando internet pundits to rely on.

[humblegunner]

Does Gregg Updike know you are putting his material on your blog?

[Da Coyote]

Some models work fine.
Other models (climate change and Wu Flu) have the value of a rusted Yugo.

[9422WMR]

But what if they are “Super Models”? 💁‍♀️👙

[SmokingJoe]

Models schmodels.
We don’t need no steenking models.

[SMARTY]

Like a GOSPLAN?

[dp0622]

Pelosi is gonna be sad there won’t be a need to buy more votes, er, help 150 million individuals with another check to get through this.

[Retain Mike]

The below articles I linked to should make people skeptical about the announcement of possible deaths and infections derived from models during the course of this virus. Any computer model developed for an open system such as the spread of the virus can and most likely will be terribly wrong. An open system is one possessing a large number of ill defined, unknown, uncontrollable, and poorly measured variables. Developing a model requires one to make definitive assumptions about how each known variable will be treated mathematically in the model. That process alone means choosing among a near infinite number of realities. But then one presses enter and the computer compounds or depreciates the importance of each variable for the following day, month, quarter, etc. The further one moves forward, the less likely the model result will bear any resemblance to the reality obtaining at any later time.

I would never pretend to know about biology or medicine. The comment results from taking 500 level quantitative methods level courses in graduate school and understanding the pitfalls of designing models for any subject. I think it must take a huge amount of arrogance not to offer caveats along with results.

How deadly is the coronavirus? It’s still far from clear https://spectator.us/deadly-coronavirus-still-far-clear-covid-19/

Virus Cases https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

[enumerated]

Why are they exaggerating this? I can think of three reasons:

The bigger of a deal this pandemic is, the bigger of a deal the ‘experts’ are.
The more scary the threat, the more important they think they are.

Another reason for all the hyperbole is that they believe their social distancing strategy will save the day, and that we are children who need to be scared into compliance.

And yes, a third reason is that they realize the worse the perceived outcome, the better chance the Democrats have of unseating President Trump.

Those are three likely reasons for the Left’s obvious hyping of worst case scenarios for this outbreak. But the key point here is not why they are exaggerating it, but the fact that they are exaggerating it.

It may be obvious to you and me - but there are actually a lot of Americans being fooled by this - even fearbros on FR.

No matter how much less severe this outbreak turns out to be than their fearful projections, you can bet they will never admit they exaggerated or that they were wrong. No, they will just say “thank God we forced you all to stay home and lose your jobs, your businesses and your 401Ks - that is what saved the day”.

Somehow, we have to hold them accountable for this fear mongering and deception.

[SmokingJoe]

Thanks.

[Mr. K]

I am a computer programmer.

I can program ‘models’ to give you any output you want using the same data.

[Retain Mike]

You are welcome.

[Secret Agent Man]

A-FRICKEN-MEN.

[Freee-dame]

I can program ‘models’ to give you any output you want using the same data.

I wonder who wants the outcome we seem to be getting ... lots of deaths, crashed economy while money still flows to elites and government check-receivers, businesses destroyed for many small business owners. very scary.

[Cooter]

These models help highlight the folly of central planning

[semimojo]

Any computer model developed for an open system such as the spread of the virus can and most likely will be terribly wrong...Developing a model requires one to make definitive assumptions about how each known variable will be treated mathematically in the model.

But generally the people doing the models acknowledge the uncertainty. The problem is lay people and the media misinterpreting the information.

For example, the famous Imperial College Study was criticized as of overstatement and people pointed to their prediction of 550k deaths in the UK and 2.2M in the US.

In reality, they modeled 80 different scenarios representing different intervention strategies and the timing of those interventions.

Their estimate of deaths in the UK ranged from 5,600 to 550,000 depending on those factors but all you hear about is the 550K, which was worst case assuming no mitigation at all.

I think it must take a huge amount of arrogance not to offer caveats along with results.

And I challenge you to find me a scientific Covid-19 model where they didn't provide those caveats. They all document their assumptions, which is what a caveat is.

[IndispensableDestiny]

But generally the people doing the models acknowledge the uncertainty. The problem is lay people and the media misinterpreting the information.

Yes.

The disease models they are using are all variations of the classic SIR model (S for the number of susceptible, I for the number of infectious, and R for the number of recovered or deceased (or immune). The writer states that all the modelers are using the same model, but gives no evidence.

Model output changes over time because the modelers feed back real world observations. Some of the SIR type models assume acquired immunity (like for measles), some do not (seasonal flu and the cold).

For myself, I am not playing around with predictive disease models; I am not an epidemiologist, I haven't seen one on Free Republic. I do know how to fit empirical data to various equations that describe disease outbreaks (or other phenomena). I stick what I know.

[minnesota_bound]

Here is the current model for climate change and virus epidemics.
https://youtu.be/HMxJtMoTnx8?t=26

[Retain Mike]

I challenge you to find any report to the public which acknowledges less than certainty about the number of lets say respirators required.