China studied over 3,000 severely infected patients on chloroquine in various forms. All did well. That data was trustworthy. Incomplete, but still a helpful indicator. That we completely ignored.
If you want to say that US Officials took to heart Chinese data that was bad, and ignored Chinese data that was good, then I will point out all US Officials are grossly incompetent. Perhaps the barbaric practice of killing them all is too extreme, but "heads must roll" in the figurative sense.
If you have a different explanation for this striking difference I'd love to hear it.
It's not necessarily a conspiracy. For those it is not, they are so fully possessed by the leftist ideology that all their errors are born out of a fundamentally broken ability to determine truth.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that when you try to model something that's never been actually observed and demonstrated in the real world, chances are you're going to get it wrong.
No one should be surprised that the models were very wrong. They should be angry that public officials made such bad decisions based on models they knew were not very solid.
China was criminally negligent in giving us the virus to begin with, but it was UNSPEAKABLY evil to not share every fucking ounce of data as soon as they had it.
Social distancing isn't just a quantifiable input that's either accounted for or not accounted for. It's a matter of both degree of compliance (how compliant are people in general, how slowly/quickly do people become compliant and get frustrated and start slacking off on compliance, and what subgroups are more/less compliant) and, given the early unfamiliarity with the specific features of the virus, degree of effectiveness of social distancing in preventing transmission.
I just got home from a trip to Walmart in a rural county with a number of reported cases that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, in a state that still doesn't have a stay-at-home order, and there was a huge range of precautions being observed by shoppers. Some people were behaving perfectly normally -- no masks, no apparent effort to maintain greater than usual distance from other shoppers -- and others were wiping down their carts with sanitizing wipers at the entrance (even though the greeter was clearly telling everyone that the carts inside had all been disinfected already), wearing masks and not entering an aisle until they had a clear shot through it without having to pass closely next to any other shoppers (and this Walmart has not implemented the one-way aisles that some Walmart stores have). How the heck do you plug that into a model, when every state and county will have an unpredictably different pattern?
I think they certainly know that social distancing will reduce transmission and deaths, but quantifying that effect for a new virus with a lot of unknown characteristics, in a country with very diverse demographics, is little more than an educated guesstimate. My point is that the big divergence between the initial predictions generated by these models, and how the numbers have played out in reality, is not a sign of conspiracy or incompetence. I think the creators of the models consciously built in a "better safe than sorry" bias, and people may criticize them for that due to the economic damage that resulted from federal and state governments using the models to guide their actions. But imagine how much harsher the criticism would be if the model-builders had not built in that bias, and the virus subsequently progressed in a pattern closer to what the better-safe-than-sorry bias predicted.
They tell me it has already been disinfected and I tell them to pound sand. Am I going to trust the safety of my children and myself on some Somalian fuckstick who is supposed to be sanitizing carts, or myself?
And it's perfectly understandable that some people are going to see it that way. Also perfectly understandable that others won't. In my case, I'm healthy, live alone, and the greeter/disinfecter was an older white woman (I'd guess late 60s/early 70s) who spoke English with a native midwestern accent. It was a few of the incoming customers who were nonwhite, didn't seem to understand what she was saying, and looked worried that they might unwittingly be breaking some rule. I wondered how much they understood of all the pandemic-related information that's been whirling around for the past few weeks.
I read something boob ring said on this topic, desperately trying to justify this:
at first we tested everyone that died at home. those days are long gone. We don't have the ability to do that much testing. We know we are under reporting covid-19 deaths.
I could probably put that in quotes and be correct. I didn't because it's off the top of my head and it could be merely an accurate paraphrase instead of a direct quote.
NYC fucked up bad by not limiting travel and keeping schools open too long at the same time. Fucking idiots. Do one or the other. Don’t just do nothing. Damn.
China studied over 3,000 severely infected patients on chloroquine in various forms. All did well. That data was trustworthy. Incomplete, but still a helpful indicator. That we completely ignored.
If you want to say that US Officials took to heart Chinese data that was bad, and ignored Chinese data that was good, then I will point out all US Officials are grossly incompetent. Perhaps the barbaric practice of killing them all is too extreme, but "heads must roll" in the figurative sense.
If you have a different explanation for this striking difference I'd love to hear it.
It's the same thing as media "mistakes".
They all go the same way.
It's not necessarily a conspiracy. For those it is not, they are so fully possessed by the leftist ideology that all their errors are born out of a fundamentally broken ability to determine truth.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that when you try to model something that's never been actually observed and demonstrated in the real world, chances are you're going to get it wrong.
No one should be surprised that the models were very wrong. They should be angry that public officials made such bad decisions based on models they knew were not very solid.
China was criminally negligent in giving us the virus to begin with, but it was UNSPEAKABLY evil to not share every fucking ounce of data as soon as they had it.
They based them on Italy and China.
Why is so hard for you to realize that we're being lied to on a grand scale, and this clearly indicates nefarious purposes?
I'd love to see your proof of this.
Because reusing a framework is what happens when you have people trying to explain something they've never seen before but need some answers fast?
I model shit for a living. Want me to research everything and come up with unique coefficients and driver's? Need time.
Want you answer tomorrow? I have this old model for something similar I can tweak and try to fit data into, and get you something.
See exhibit b here.b
Social distancing isn't just a quantifiable input that's either accounted for or not accounted for. It's a matter of both degree of compliance (how compliant are people in general, how slowly/quickly do people become compliant and get frustrated and start slacking off on compliance, and what subgroups are more/less compliant) and, given the early unfamiliarity with the specific features of the virus, degree of effectiveness of social distancing in preventing transmission.
I just got home from a trip to Walmart in a rural county with a number of reported cases that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, in a state that still doesn't have a stay-at-home order, and there was a huge range of precautions being observed by shoppers. Some people were behaving perfectly normally -- no masks, no apparent effort to maintain greater than usual distance from other shoppers -- and others were wiping down their carts with sanitizing wipers at the entrance (even though the greeter was clearly telling everyone that the carts inside had all been disinfected already), wearing masks and not entering an aisle until they had a clear shot through it without having to pass closely next to any other shoppers (and this Walmart has not implemented the one-way aisles that some Walmart stores have). How the heck do you plug that into a model, when every state and county will have an unpredictably different pattern?
I think they certainly know that social distancing will reduce transmission and deaths, but quantifying that effect for a new virus with a lot of unknown characteristics, in a country with very diverse demographics, is little more than an educated guesstimate. My point is that the big divergence between the initial predictions generated by these models, and how the numbers have played out in reality, is not a sign of conspiracy or incompetence. I think the creators of the models consciously built in a "better safe than sorry" bias, and people may criticize them for that due to the economic damage that resulted from federal and state governments using the models to guide their actions. But imagine how much harsher the criticism would be if the model-builders had not built in that bias, and the virus subsequently progressed in a pattern closer to what the better-safe-than-sorry bias predicted.
They tell me it has already been disinfected and I tell them to pound sand. Am I going to trust the safety of my children and myself on some Somalian fuckstick who is supposed to be sanitizing carts, or myself?
And it's perfectly understandable that some people are going to see it that way. Also perfectly understandable that others won't. In my case, I'm healthy, live alone, and the greeter/disinfecter was an older white woman (I'd guess late 60s/early 70s) who spoke English with a native midwestern accent. It was a few of the incoming customers who were nonwhite, didn't seem to understand what she was saying, and looked worried that they might unwittingly be breaking some rule. I wondered how much they understood of all the pandemic-related information that's been whirling around for the past few weeks.
Good points.
Also keep in mind they are counting everything possible as covid19 deaths. This is with padded stats.
I read something boob ring said on this topic, desperately trying to justify this:
at first we tested everyone that died at home. those days are long gone. We don't have the ability to do that much testing. We know we are under reporting covid-19 deaths.
I could probably put that in quotes and be correct. I didn't because it's off the top of my head and it could be merely an accurate paraphrase instead of a direct quote.
If?
IF?
Bruh. They done BEEN wrong.
Shit in > Shit out
We could end it now end up with the total dead lower than normal flu
Minus of course the dead caused by the lockdown
I model shit for a living. Modeling and estimation fucking sucks when you have this many unknowns.
NYC fucked up bad by not limiting travel and keeping schools open too long at the same time. Fucking idiots. Do one or the other. Don’t just do nothing. Damn.