I think I can say a few things about models that will move he ball forward. Junk them all. Clean up the stats expressing the actual facts, and make decisions based on those and history. Stop pretending that you can mathematically model things you can't. And stop pretending those models are sacred, because science.
The thing is, there were other experts who were not predicting doom and gloom but none of those voices were being amplified by the media. The only voices we were supposed to listen to were the Bill Gates funded experts, especially those at the IHME. Terrifying to think one super rich nerd was able to drive public policy. Like you said, they threw out a ton of research and historical data to instill panic in the public and push for measures that were likely counterproductive. I don't blame Trump- he's being informed by the "experts" around him. But when those experts aren't giving him the full picture like they are supposed to do, and I seriously doubt Fauci and Birx (whose spouses are Dem operatives) were, I've got a problem with that.
You seem to forget how many people on the right were saying the same shit Gates-n-Fauci was, but they are being left out to give this impression that it was just some one-sided push.
Just remember, the original models were largely based on what we were seeing in Italy and France. Before statistics piled up here, we had to assume a similar effect may have happened here. Sure, we mitigated well and have a better heath care system, but ultimately the models were revised because of that.
If they were still using the original models, we could sound the alarm.
Italy gets destroyed by infectious respiratory diseases every year. It's a topic of study. Assuming a similarity with Italy was not sound at any point. the "models" should have accounted for the obvious, or else they were always going to be wrong.
What of the UK? Their numbers aren’t good compared to ours.
I think Trump made the right decision based on what he was looking at in real time. Fortunately, we are revising down and will open back up for business sooner than originally thought, but at no time should we have let this virus rip unmitigated throughout our populace.
I wasn't aware that France and the UK were hit as hard as Italy. I'm only talking about Italy, and how no one at any point should have been using it as a modeling example.
Scott says some useful things and sometimes it’s like he ignores his own stated logic and says unuseful things, and comes up with some twisted way to justify it.
Scott admits he is all for the models being unrealistic because they scare people into doing what he, and the model-makers, would like to see the public do. Thing is, some experts say the lockdown is counterproductive and actually led to more cases than there otherwise would have been- because the virus looks to be transmitted via close social contact in confined spaces, not by people going to the beach or park. And we have examples like Japan and Sweden pointing to that possibly being the case.
Agree 100%. Not to mention, what about the next time something comes around and people don't listen because they remember what happened the last time. Don't overhype things- just provide honest information and let people make their own informed decisions.
Yeah, prediction models, if you can understand English, does not imply "100% certain that x will be the result".
Hurricane predictions certainly are subject to change as data emerges to alter the model.
It's like getting mad because you invest a lot of money in a hot stock that is forecast to give you a high return, but 3 years later the company goes under and you lose your shirt. Or yelling at the weather guy because he forecasts 70 and sunny on Saturday, but 3 days later it is now 50 and rain.
We could have 30 million unemployed by the end of the month and no telling how many small businesses destroyed for good. The official number is currently 16.6 million unemployed, though the real number is undoubtedly higher, perhaps 20 million or so, given almost all the states are unable to process the numbers they're seeing and in some instances people have been trying for days to file with no luck. Not to mention all the self-employed and gig workers who can't get unemployment. The Imperial and IHME models, which we now know definitively were horseshit, drove public policy and have led to this. And before you try to credit the lockdown for working and being why the Bill Gates funded IHME was wrong, the IHME model factored that in and still wildly overestimated the impact on hospitals. There were other experts and other models saying different things- but the media and Fauci kept relying on IHME, the "gold standard" model, to formulate public policy. It was a disastrous decision. So yeah, you can and should be mad when something is relied on that results in the destruction of the economy- why wasn't Fauci listening to the people at Yale or Stanford who were saying something far different?
I think I can say a few things about models that will move he ball forward. Junk them all. Clean up the stats expressing the actual facts, and make decisions based on those and history. Stop pretending that you can mathematically model things you can't. And stop pretending those models are sacred, because science.
The thing is, there were other experts who were not predicting doom and gloom but none of those voices were being amplified by the media. The only voices we were supposed to listen to were the Bill Gates funded experts, especially those at the IHME. Terrifying to think one super rich nerd was able to drive public policy. Like you said, they threw out a ton of research and historical data to instill panic in the public and push for measures that were likely counterproductive. I don't blame Trump- he's being informed by the "experts" around him. But when those experts aren't giving him the full picture like they are supposed to do, and I seriously doubt Fauci and Birx (whose spouses are Dem operatives) were, I've got a problem with that.
Well said.
Do you know what the MS in MSNBC stands for?
Took me a second to remember. Good point!
Yeah, there's probably a bunch of younger pedes who don't know, so I'm gonna say it.
MICROSOFT
You seem to forget how many people on the right were saying the same shit Gates-n-Fauci was, but they are being left out to give this impression that it was just some one-sided push.
Gates is a very special actor in all of this, so no, no one on the right is like him.
But if you were to do that, you'd have to throw out the entire climate change hysteria.
Oh, wait ...
You don't say?
Just remember, the original models were largely based on what we were seeing in Italy and France. Before statistics piled up here, we had to assume a similar effect may have happened here. Sure, we mitigated well and have a better heath care system, but ultimately the models were revised because of that.
If they were still using the original models, we could sound the alarm.
Italy gets destroyed by infectious respiratory diseases every year. It's a topic of study. Assuming a similarity with Italy was not sound at any point. the "models" should have accounted for the obvious, or else they were always going to be wrong.
And France?
What of the UK? Their numbers aren’t good compared to ours.
I think Trump made the right decision based on what he was looking at in real time. Fortunately, we are revising down and will open back up for business sooner than originally thought, but at no time should we have let this virus rip unmitigated throughout our populace.
I wasn't aware that France and the UK were hit as hard as Italy. I'm only talking about Italy, and how no one at any point should have been using it as a modeling example.
They were using the aggregate of all of those countries and more combined. It wasn’t based on just Italy.
Italy shouldn't have been used in said aggregate.
99% said it. Must be true Cuz liberal science.
Scott says some useful things and sometimes it’s like he ignores his own stated logic and says unuseful things, and comes up with some twisted way to justify it.
He also believes in global warming so....
He's been alone in his house too long. He's throwing all of his own "persuasion" rules out of the window to not appear wrong as well
That reply is pure, refined gold.
How useful can they possibly be if their aim isn’t accuracy?
Models will always show what the author wants. If they aren’t happy they will keep tweaking it until they are.
Maybe the point of their use is to invoke fear rather than to inform.
Scott admits he is all for the models being unrealistic because they scare people into doing what he, and the model-makers, would like to see the public do. Thing is, some experts say the lockdown is counterproductive and actually led to more cases than there otherwise would have been- because the virus looks to be transmitted via close social contact in confined spaces, not by people going to the beach or park. And we have examples like Japan and Sweden pointing to that possibly being the case.
Using fear to strip people’s rights is wrong.
A useful lie is still a lie.
Forget the, ‘ends justifies the means’ crap.
Agree 100%. Not to mention, what about the next time something comes around and people don't listen because they remember what happened the last time. Don't overhype things- just provide honest information and let people make their own informed decisions.
That’s the thing. At this point the government has learned it can do this and people will allow it. That’s ripe for abuse.
That his persuasion of course.....
Scott is like everybody, people will believe what they want to believe.
So what exactly did he say?
Yeah, prediction models, if you can understand English, does not imply "100% certain that x will be the result".
Hurricane predictions certainly are subject to change as data emerges to alter the model.
It's like getting mad because you invest a lot of money in a hot stock that is forecast to give you a high return, but 3 years later the company goes under and you lose your shirt. Or yelling at the weather guy because he forecasts 70 and sunny on Saturday, but 3 days later it is now 50 and rain.
We could have 30 million unemployed by the end of the month and no telling how many small businesses destroyed for good. The official number is currently 16.6 million unemployed, though the real number is undoubtedly higher, perhaps 20 million or so, given almost all the states are unable to process the numbers they're seeing and in some instances people have been trying for days to file with no luck. Not to mention all the self-employed and gig workers who can't get unemployment. The Imperial and IHME models, which we now know definitively were horseshit, drove public policy and have led to this. And before you try to credit the lockdown for working and being why the Bill Gates funded IHME was wrong, the IHME model factored that in and still wildly overestimated the impact on hospitals. There were other experts and other models saying different things- but the media and Fauci kept relying on IHME, the "gold standard" model, to formulate public policy. It was a disastrous decision. So yeah, you can and should be mad when something is relied on that results in the destruction of the economy- why wasn't Fauci listening to the people at Yale or Stanford who were saying something far different?