What Happens When the Coronavirus Models are Wrong?

American Thinker.com ^ | April 20, 2020 | Brian C. Joondeph

[Kaslin]

As we hunker down under social distancing and stay-at-home orders, the Chinese coronavirus continues to extract a human toll in actual illness, as well as under-reported socio-economic costs. Many businesses are closed, people are not working, not earning an income, unable to socialize with friends and family.

The human tragedy that follows the virus will be horrific. Drug addiction, alcoholism, mental health issues, domestic violence, homelessness, and suicides may extract a toll far worse than the virus. Yet these costs are given scant attention, leaving the focus on ICU beds, hydroxychloroquine, and death counts.

When will the restrictions be lifted? How long until life returns to some semblance of normal? The answers will come from state governors and the president, but how do they know? They have advisors, like the basketball player and scarf queen, who use models, which are simply educated guesses based on certain data and assumptions.

Models aren’t a bad thing, but they have their limits. They follow the expression, “garbage in, garbage out.” Models are used to forecast everything from the weather to stock prices.

For example, models are used to predict hurricanes. Recall the spaghetti line plots preceding every hurricane, each squiggly line based on a particular hurricane model. Some veer into the Gulf of Mexico, others hit South Florida, and others head north to the Carolinas or out to sea. At most, only one line will be correct, but each is based on a model.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“That the model numbers changed between no social distancing and social distancing is not an argument against social distancing, but an argument in favor of it. What happened with social distancing in place is not evidence of how fine things would have been without social distancing.”

Absolute bullshit. The 2.2 million deaths were without social distancing, 240,000 were with those measures in place. The numbers have been constantly revised down since then. The models were crap, and allowed politicians to go nuts and implement ridiculous policies that added nothing to public health but are crushing the economy. Reasonable measures could have limited exposure to those most at risk and slowed the inevitable spread of the disease. Instead, we’ve “cured” the patient by killing him.

[IrishBrigade]

‘Of course we could do what this idiot advocates. Just stop modeling and using models.’

except that the ‘idiot’ never advocated any such thing...

‘Let’s stop forecasting hurricanes.’

he never advocated that either...he asked the completely valid question ‘what if the models are wrong’; and while we’re on the subject of hurricanes, a wrong model takes on immense significance when it predicts the movement of the storm to the north and it instead stalls right over your area and floods you out...

[canuck_conservative]

That the model numbers changed between ...

The model numbers changed because the modellers changed their method.

So if you're using these continually-revised-after-the-fact "forecasts" to justify the modellers' competence, sounds like YOU are guilty of a little circular logic yourself.

Maybe the modellers just got it wrong? Maybe they used sloppy statistics? That's a much simpler explanation for the wacked forecasts.

[dhuls]

#OUAN Open up America Now!!

[logi_cal869]

Alright, Covidiot. Clearly you are a ‘social distancing cheerleader.’

Riddle me this:

What happens when “social distancing” (an oxymoron) ends?

You’re going to be banging the drum for a longer lockdown?

Kool-Aid is more dangerous than China Flu.

[pepsi_junkie]

Your line of reasoning is that if the model was wrong it was that it failed to adequately account for the impact of social distancing. Of course, you seem to dismiss the idea that the model was wrong from the get go. But that’s also a possibility. Either way, the model was wrong, the results it predicted have not materialized anywhere.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

What is the basis for your conclusory assertion that the cause of the models over-estimating deaths is that:

"individuals trying to protect themselves did a far better job of social distancing than those running the models presumed>

I see absolutely no logical basis for that assumption. Just for starters, "those running the models" have repeatedly told us that we are not being sufficiently diligent in terms of social distancing. They are constantly reprimanding the public for doing too much shopping, congregating where they shouldn't, etc.. If anything, we have been doing much less social distancing than they recommended. And that is according to them.

That leaves one other logical explanation for why the deaths have been so far under their predictions -- this diseases has a much lower mortality rate than they assumed. That is likely due to the huge numbers of asymptomatic people that are not included in the models when computing the death rate. It may also include people who are so resistant to the virus for other reasons that they simply never get it at all at measureable levels. Or perhaps it is that it requires prolonged, close exposure to acquire it in the first place.

This is supported by what has happened in places like Sweden, which have managed to plateau while still maintaining normal work and social lives. It may well be that modified herd immunity -- and "social distancing light" is the best approach to this that balances mortality with other economic and social considerations.

[minnesota_bound]

What Happens When the Coronavirus Models are Wrong?
The democrat party dictators will be sad.

[UCANSEE2]

When I want to see a bunch of models, I watch this.

[zeugma]

What happens? Nothing at all. If deaths are low, they’ll claim “look how many lives we’ve saved!”. If deaths are high, it’s just an excuse to continue their insanity. It’s a no-lose scenario for them.

[Fledermaus]

When they are wrong? They are always wrong. Only suckers and morons believe the “models”.

[Fledermaus]

It’s all bullshit. No one can prove social distancing does anything.

I can just as easily claim we didn’t get 5 million deaths because the government forced us to stand on one leg twice a day.

[AndyJackson]

What happens when “social distancing" ends

Social distancing gives you time to get aggressive testing and track and trace and quarantine of infected individuals in place. Longer term this gives time to develop vaccines or for the virus eventually to mutate to the point where it is "just the flu."

Travis has a picture that has it about right.

[AndyJackson]

Your line of reasoning is that if the model was wrong it was that it failed to adequately account for the impact of social distancing.

Are you a total idiot or do you believe in the germ theory of disease?

[pepsi_junkie]

You are a real ass. The model predicted far more deaths WITH social distancing, your whole argument was that the model is awesome and only is wrong because social distancing is better than they expected. Okay, or their totals without social distancing was wrong and the rest follows. Either way it was wrong and it’s still wrong. Models aren’t perfect and this one sure isn’t. But go on insulting people for no reason, really helps sell us that you’re a thinker.

[AndyJackson]

You are an ignorant unthinking ill-educated dolt

[pepsi_junkie]

Coming from you that’s a compliment. Now go sneak off to a nearby park with some breadcrumbs and rant and rave to the pigeons.

[AndyJackson]

1.You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe the germ theory of disease is correct?

2. If so, what does the theory predict about the likelihood of transmitting a disease from one person to the next as distance between them increases.

3. More precisely can you write down an approximate mathematical model for how the probability changes with distance?

4. What do you think the principal uncertainties are in such a model?

5. How are those uncertainties relevant to the present circumstance?

[AndyJackson]

You going to answer my questions? Or are you just making snide ignorant remarks because you don’t understand how models are constructed and how they are used.

[pepsi_junkie]

1.You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe the germ theory of disease is correct?
Is this a real question? Who denies it?

2. If so, what does the theory predict about the likelihood of transmitting a disease from one person to the next as distance between them increases.
Duh, I dunno. I'm just an idiot like you said. It goes up if you spit on your hand and rub it on the other guys tongue? Or perhaps I should say there will be fewer infections. Of course, smart guys like you don't need a model to tell you that, it's common sense. But a model would be useful if it could accurately predict (a) how many infections I could expect without such mitigation and (b) how such mitigation would reduce that number so that it would support reasoned decisions in how effective such mitigation would be. Saying 'we'll have a bajillion without them and only a gazllion with them' is what we got, and it doesn't actually match up does it? Even after they adjusted it down three times.

3. More precisely can you write down an approximate mathematical model for how the probability changes with distance?
No. I'll guess it's something like the inverse square of distance. But that's just a guess, my experience generating models are physics based and have to do with electromagnetic effects taking into account stochastic performance of nonlinear materials, not biological science. Please, write down your equation. I can say that if my models had produced results that turned out to be orders of magnitude off from what measurements ultimately yielded I'd have been somewhat embarrassed. That seems not to be a problem though for these modelers.

4. What do you think the principal uncertainties are in such a model?
Stuff the model maker doesn't know. Which is lots and lots about this virus.

5. How are those uncertainties relevant to the present circumstance?
The models were built lacking adequate source data for the fundamental characteristics of the element being modeled based primarily on the experiences in Italy which is turning out to be quite an outlier. So they are garbage. They will be generically correct (distance = fewer infections! yay!) but way off on specifics. And so they are.

So I'll ask you a question. The value of a model is how well it reflects the real data it was meant to model. If it doesn't, it's worthless. Do you disagree? Is there any scenario where you'd say 'these models didn't really help'?