I think the notion that the CDC is intentionally inflating the covid death rate is rather bizarre, but I have to admit, the discrepancies in this model do lend some evidence to that line of thinking.
Agree, the CDC (probably) has no malicious intent here. But they can't do an in depth autopsy on every person, and any given death is almost always due to a cascade of failures.
It's like "did falling kill him, or was it the sudden stop?". Maybe it was covid. Maybe covid weakened the system and the flu was there also.
The real discrepancy is that 80%+ of people who get it don't show symptoms, so are never tested. If that number is actually closer to 95% then the model would be pretty accurate.
This is one of the only times in the last decade anyone’s given a shit about the CDC. It’s in their financial best interests to pump up the numbers and predictions. They’re literally getting paid to say it’s bad, so of course they’re going to say it’s bad.
It’s alarmingly easy to predict how all government programs or agencies will go.
They succeeded? Great! They take full credit. They now demand more money.
Did they fail? Of course! But it wasn’t their fault. They now demand more money.
I’m not sure why anyone even bothers to ask them how they’re doing or what they think. Those are the two options. It’s like asking somebody if they think you should fire them or give them a raise. Even a retard would choose the latter.
If the NY numbers are 400% too high... and that is the worst case scenario corrupting the entire model... we’re locking down the country for between 25-51k dead... which is a typical flu season.
Africa did the same thing when they were getting aids number. Died in an auto accident with HIV - HIV was cause of death. Many of the people dying wouldn't have survived to see 2021. 99% of the deaths in Italy had at least 1 comorbidity.
Strange thing is, the hospitalization numbers in that model are so far off, but the number of fatalities is almost spot on. Something is clearly out of whack.
It also is due to funding. Hospitals are incentivized to code deaths according to what brings in the most reimbursement. Guess what cause of death pays the most right now?
Probably a mismatch between the assumptions in the model and the way they are actually counting the deaths, or counting the people who are hospitalized.
Modeling is often just junk science. They where projecting 2200 deaths a day for 90 days. (200000) No where in the world indicated that was even remotely probable.
Predictive modeling outside of exact sciences like physics is mostly bullshit. There is a joke that “the greatest success of a predictive model is if successfully predicts the past” because the way that models tend to be “tested” is against past data, and they are notoriously shit for predicting the future.
A major reason for this is that after the variables for a model are chosen, there is a process called “calibration” which basically means that the person making the model pulls numbers out of their ass, and sets those numbers as the coefficients that affect the relative importance of the variables. In feedback models (all global warming and disease spread models) even a slight change in coefficients can lead to huge changes in output as errors are magnified with each feedback cycle.
In other words, the person making the model must already know exactly how the system behaves before the model is created to be able to properly calibrate the model. This problem is avoided in physics where calibration comes from precise theory, but in any less precise application it’s circular logic and total bullshit. If people actually understood how the “experts” made their predictions, nobody would listen this claptrap.
I do a lot of modeling in fluid dynamics, and often times the client will act like it is the holy grail.
Like no, this will tell you what an ideal system will do under the given parameters you input. Whether that is reflective of reality is another matter.
Personally I use them to gauge worst case and order of magnitude.
If your worst case model is saying 2 mil dead in America, then logically it will be some fraction of that. So, saying you alleviate 90% of the problem is still 200 k dead.
The problem as I see it is we weren't provided the error bars or any sort of definition of likely outcomes, or a description of how various mitigations would affect likely outcomes which could subsequently be used to validate or falsify the model. A prediction of 2 million deaths with an error range of +0 and -1.8 million in my opinion isn't a particularly good model for determining public policy.
I hope you're right. Unfortunately the treatment is being held up due to political bullshit and people have been panicked into thinking they can never go back to work.
One of the things a good professor would teach you in a data analytics class is to set you personal prejudices and notions aside and strictly interpret what the data is telling you. Apparently, that is too much to ask of these experts.
Don't you understand that they predict wayyyyy fucking high so that people are conditioned to listen to the government? When this is over, and 11ty billion people AREN'T dead they'll say... "see it was because of the social distancing and rights we TEMPORARILY took from citizens." They'll claim the victory. Next time this happens, people will abide by the government. This is conditioning.
I live in NYC, I know a lot of people who got covid early. Those models were all without the lockdown. No idea if they were good models in the first place, but it doesn't make sense to say that a month of lockdown wouldn't change the outcome.
There is no evidence that the lockdown is even going to change anything. It's never been tried. We've shut everything down based completely on conjecture.
That's the great thing about predictions and models. If they're wrong, it's "because of all the great work we did". It's how they can get away with making dire predictions about climate change. You think aoc is going to admit she was ever wrong after we all die in 11 years?
So 12.5k admissions over and above usual hospital traffic means we're over reacting, is that what you're saying?. I guarantee you have no concept of healthcare planning. Nearly 1400 Americans dead in NY from one illness in about 2 months and you think the world is over reacting.
Anyone who still thinks this is no worse than the flu, that all these governments around the world are deliberately screwing their economies should just shove their heads down the toilet and stop being oxygen thieves.
I remember being on this site and people laughing that there were only 59 deaths from COVID-19. Now there's 9500 deaths. Sometimes its best to just tune out the dimwits here.
That's why the CDC told doctors to assume deaths are from the China Flu. There was an under supply of deaths so they wanted to flood the market.
I think the notion that the CDC is intentionally inflating the covid death rate is rather bizarre, but I have to admit, the discrepancies in this model do lend some evidence to that line of thinking.
Agree, the CDC (probably) has no malicious intent here. But they can't do an in depth autopsy on every person, and any given death is almost always due to a cascade of failures.
It's like "did falling kill him, or was it the sudden stop?". Maybe it was covid. Maybe covid weakened the system and the flu was there also.
The real discrepancy is that 80%+ of people who get it don't show symptoms, so are never tested. If that number is actually closer to 95% then the model would be pretty accurate.
This is one of the only times in the last decade anyone’s given a shit about the CDC. It’s in their financial best interests to pump up the numbers and predictions. They’re literally getting paid to say it’s bad, so of course they’re going to say it’s bad.
It’s alarmingly easy to predict how all government programs or agencies will go.
They succeeded? Great! They take full credit. They now demand more money.
Did they fail? Of course! But it wasn’t their fault. They now demand more money.
I’m not sure why anyone even bothers to ask them how they’re doing or what they think. Those are the two options. It’s like asking somebody if they think you should fire them or give them a raise. Even a retard would choose the latter.
Why would the asymptomatic need a hospital bed?
If the NY numbers are 400% too high... and that is the worst case scenario corrupting the entire model... we’re locking down the country for between 25-51k dead... which is a typical flu season.
Maybe the lockdown is the reason the numbers are lower then the model?
Where I live they put out numbers every day with charts and you can see the effect different policies have on the growth rate.
Africa did the same thing when they were getting aids number. Died in an auto accident with HIV - HIV was cause of death. Many of the people dying wouldn't have survived to see 2021. 99% of the deaths in Italy had at least 1 comorbidity.
It's not bizarre , it's politics. The truth is stranger than fiction. Believe me.
You might say this epidemic is rigged.
They used a flu pandemic model. Many countries did. They have to scare the population into following the new "rules" they want to impose.
Strange thing is, the hospitalization numbers in that model are so far off, but the number of fatalities is almost spot on. Something is clearly out of whack.
Might be how they are classifying corona-deaths.
Any death can be classified as Covud19, especially if it makes the hospital money
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
It also is due to funding. Hospitals are incentivized to code deaths according to what brings in the most reimbursement. Guess what cause of death pays the most right now?
Probably a mismatch between the assumptions in the model and the way they are actually counting the deaths, or counting the people who are hospitalized.
Man with corona goes skydiving without parachute and dies.
Cause of death? Corona virus
A model is only as good as it's inputs. They probably have bad data or faulty assumptions baked into the model.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful"
Sounds like my engineering professors.
Modeling is often just junk science. They where projecting 2200 deaths a day for 90 days. (200000) No where in the world indicated that was even remotely probable.
Predictive modeling outside of exact sciences like physics is mostly bullshit. There is a joke that “the greatest success of a predictive model is if successfully predicts the past” because the way that models tend to be “tested” is against past data, and they are notoriously shit for predicting the future.
A major reason for this is that after the variables for a model are chosen, there is a process called “calibration” which basically means that the person making the model pulls numbers out of their ass, and sets those numbers as the coefficients that affect the relative importance of the variables. In feedback models (all global warming and disease spread models) even a slight change in coefficients can lead to huge changes in output as errors are magnified with each feedback cycle.
In other words, the person making the model must already know exactly how the system behaves before the model is created to be able to properly calibrate the model. This problem is avoided in physics where calibration comes from precise theory, but in any less precise application it’s circular logic and total bullshit. If people actually understood how the “experts” made their predictions, nobody would listen this claptrap.
I do a lot of modeling in fluid dynamics, and often times the client will act like it is the holy grail.
Like no, this will tell you what an ideal system will do under the given parameters you input. Whether that is reflective of reality is another matter.
Personally I use them to gauge worst case and order of magnitude.
If your worst case model is saying 2 mil dead in America, then logically it will be some fraction of that. So, saying you alleviate 90% of the problem is still 200 k dead.
The problem as I see it is we weren't provided the error bars or any sort of definition of likely outcomes, or a description of how various mitigations would affect likely outcomes which could subsequently be used to validate or falsify the model. A prediction of 2 million deaths with an error range of +0 and -1.8 million in my opinion isn't a particularly good model for determining public policy.
Nah I agree, Fauci just seems to be doing his job as a professional.
I hope you're right. Unfortunately the treatment is being held up due to political bullshit and people have been panicked into thinking they can never go back to work.
Now think of climate models 50 years into the future.
Ok so can we go back to work? What is the hold up?
Yeah I’d like to start making money again. This shit didn’t happen with H1N1.
Politics.
Even further off than "global warming" models
GW is the highest bar of all. Don't forget, 12 more years and we're ALL dead.
Exactly. We should all be celebrating since we are doing so much better than what the models predicted.
Now let's fucking get back to work.
When the media brings in an "expert" it means "this prick here says what we want said."
"Expert".
One of the things a good professor would teach you in a data analytics class is to set you personal prejudices and notions aside and strictly interpret what the data is telling you. Apparently, that is too much to ask of these experts.
I'm an optimist. I'm going to presume the reason there were not 50K hospitalizations in NY by April 1 is due to the actions of our President.
Don't you understand that they predict wayyyyy fucking high so that people are conditioned to listen to the government? When this is over, and 11ty billion people AREN'T dead they'll say... "see it was because of the social distancing and rights we TEMPORARILY took from citizens." They'll claim the victory. Next time this happens, people will abide by the government. This is conditioning.
I live in NYC, I know a lot of people who got covid early. Those models were all without the lockdown. No idea if they were good models in the first place, but it doesn't make sense to say that a month of lockdown wouldn't change the outcome.
There is no evidence that the lockdown is even going to change anything. It's never been tried. We've shut everything down based completely on conjecture.
I know one thing it's going to change, potentially catastrophically, and that's the economy.
There's a very good reason why it's never been tried.
Cancer deaths are dropping like a rock now.
Democrats Outraged!
CNN - How Curing Cancer Can Lead To White Supremacy.
It's not surprising, really. The CDC is just another govt. agency, and like most gov.t agencies, they are incompetent.
Thank you! It's good to be here
That's the great thing about predictions and models. If they're wrong, it's "because of all the great work we did". It's how they can get away with making dire predictions about climate change. You think aoc is going to admit she was ever wrong after we all die in 11 years?
We're not even at half that for the entire country right now.
CDC: Everyone should wear facemasks
Also CDC: Why can't we find facemasks for our doctors and nurses?
My God, there are a whole lot of people need to be in prison for this hoax they've successfully perpetrated. Motherfuckers, all of them.
So 12.5k admissions over and above usual hospital traffic means we're over reacting, is that what you're saying?. I guarantee you have no concept of healthcare planning. Nearly 1400 Americans dead in NY from one illness in about 2 months and you think the world is over reacting.
Anyone who still thinks this is no worse than the flu, that all these governments around the world are deliberately screwing their economies should just shove their heads down the toilet and stop being oxygen thieves.
“Expert”
April fool's!
I'm getting kind of sick of this America -killing, 1929-style depression-causing sitting around! Let's give it another week and see what happens.
I remember being on this site and people laughing that there were only 59 deaths from COVID-19. Now there's 9500 deaths. Sometimes its best to just tune out the dimwits here.