Page 709 of 709 FirstFirst ... 209609659699705706707708709
Results 17,701 to 17,725 of 17725
  1. #17701
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    49,930
    It would be a shame to see another huge outbreak in NYC.
    Or at the next trump rally tbqh

  2. #17702
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    ABSOLUTELY FALSE. STATS 101. Making a decision based on wrong data is worse than making one with no data
    Nobody made a claim the data was wrong. That's you premise.

  3. #17703
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    That's simply not true. Plenty pick the model that best supports their narratives. So if you think the infections will be 110M, and they are 100x fewer, what good is a model? Couldn't you just ask a 3rd grader to think of the biggest number they could and go with that and probably be more accurate?
    Of course it's true. We're arguing from the point of parties being interested in mitigating the problem, not people trying to advance narratives. You don't need a model for lying, you can just make up any number.

    Your complain made sense if you disputed it when it came about, not months later. Under what conditions was that 110M estimate reached? Let's see the parameters and the data when that model was put together, then we can discuss margins of error or sampling errors.

    What model do you have a beef with right now? Pick a model right now, and call it bull like you're calling the 110M right now with the current data set, then we can evaluate.

  4. #17704
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    75,335
    Of course it's true. We're arguing from the point of parties being interested in mitigating the problem, not people trying to advance narratives. You don't need a model for lying, you can just make up any number.

    Your complain made sense if you disputed it when it came about, not months later. Under what conditions was that 110M estimate reached? Let's see the parameters and the data when that model was put together, then we can discuss margins of error or sampling errors.

    What model do you have a beef with right now? Pick a model right now, and call it bull like you're calling the 110M right now with the current data set, then we can evaluate.
    Everyone is trying to advance a narrative, both sides. You don't need to make anything up. You just pick the model with the numbers you need. If you want to scare people, you say 100million. Then when it's 1.8 million you look like a hero. If you want to calm people, you show the cherry picked model that supports your narrative. The left wants to show Trump has killed every human on the planet and the right wants to show Trump rode in on a white horse (with a black name, let's be fair) and saved the world from the evil Chinese.

    I don't have a beef with any model. People calling for concrete actions based on faulty modeling and insisting the models are correct, those I have a problem with. When you're right - blame it on Trump. When you're wrong - blame it on the modeling. When is it ever just you? (rhetorically speaking)

    Models that are wrong by a factor of 100x are useless, and even more they are likely dangerous.

    (anecdote) - I used to do business with some South American countries. Each quarter they'd have to project their earnings and each quarter they'd blow away their projections by as much as 200%. Now that seems great, they are out performing, but what's really happening is they are sand bagging the predictions to beat them easily, to both remain employed and to raise their own stock prices. Their predictions were more than worthless, they were costly. I didn't have an issue with the models. I had an issue with the people making decisions based on what was obviously highly questionable predictions, because it benefited them personally to accept them.
    Last edited by DMC; 13 Hours Ago at 08:48 PM.

  5. #17705
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    34,309
    Chanting "I can't breathe" may literally turn into their last words


  6. #17706
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    Everyone is trying to advance a narrative, both sides. You don't need to make anything up. You just pick the model with the numbers you need. If you want to scare people, you say 100million. Then when it's 1.8 million you look like a hero. If you want to calm people, you show the cherry picked model that supports your narrative. The left wants to show Trump has killed every human on the planet and the right wants to show Trump rode in on a white horse (with a black name, let's be fair) and saved the world from the evil Chinese.

    I don't have a beef with any model. People calling for concrete actions based on faulty modeling and insisting the models are correct, those I have a problem with. When you're right - blame it on Trump. When you're wrong - blame it on the modeling. When is it ever just you? (rhetorically speaking)
    Picking models for narratives is a double edged sword, and I think we can agree with that. It actually happened to Trump before he eventually had to recognize that 100k was well within the ballpark, and this was serious. That's why nobody uses models from twitter.

    There are true and tested models for infectious diseases that have been used for years on Ebola, Flu, SARS, etc... and they're only as good as the data they're fed, AND all of them include a margin of error.
    So if you were doing nothing, they will report 100M, if you tell it you've been doing social distancing, then it's going to come down a lot. It's not magical thinking, it's called mathematics. When you have a virus with an exponential growth profile, the numbers escalate pretty quickly, and what you do to mitigate that, or if you have a vaccine, or if you have a therapeutic treatment, or if the virus is affected by weather, etc they all influence the numbers over time.

    It's incredibly easy to dispute statistical models in retrospect if you don't know how they were calculated to begin with. Thus my question on who has a beef with which model right now, because as soon as a couple of weeks have gone by, weather changes, these protest episodes happen, and then you have to feed that data in and get new numbers.
    Was it wrong two weeks ago? No, it was within the parameters and information it had at the time. Does the concrete decisions made on those values 2 weeks ago were somehow incorrect because now the model looks different? No, they're not, they were informed decisions based on the information you had available at the time.

    We also make decisions that we know will influence the model in positive ways, like social distancing, mask usage, etc, and then we wait for both reality and the model to reflect that.

  7. #17707
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    34,309
    Good work guys


  8. #17708
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    75,335
    Picking models for narratives is a double edged sword, and I think we can agree with that. It actually happened to Trump before he eventually had to recognize that 100k was well within the ballpark, and this was serious. That's why nobody uses models from twitter.

    There are true and tested models for infectious diseases that have been used for years on Ebola, Flu, SARS, etc... and they're only as good as the data they're fed, AND all of them include a margin of error.
    So if you were doing nothing, they will report 100M, if you tell it you've been doing social distancing, then it's going to come down a lot. It's not magical thinking, it's called mathematics. When you have a virus with an exponential growth profile, the numbers escalate pretty quickly, and what you do to mitigate that, or if you have a vaccine, or if you have a therapeutic treatment, or if the virus is affected by weather, etc they all influence the numbers over time.

    It's incredibly easy to dispute statistical models in retrospect if you don't know how they were calculated to begin with. Thus my question on who has a beef with which model right now, because as soon as a couple of weeks have gone by, weather changes, these protest episodes happen, and then you have to feed that data in and get new numbers.
    Was it wrong two weeks ago? No, it was within the parameters and information it had at the time. Does the concrete decisions made on those values 2 weeks ago were somehow incorrect because now the model looks different? No, they're not, they were informed decisions based on the information you had available at the time.

    We also make decisions that we know will influence the model in positive ways, like social distancing, mask usage, etc, and then we wait for both reality and the model to reflect that.
    But wasn't Trump supposed to know and thwart it all before it took hold?

    There's more than one model. That's my point. I can use the more extreme example or the most conservative estimate depending on what echo chamber I belong to.

  9. #17709
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    75,335
    She's white, ing Karen. Of course she'd say that. Forced herd immunity imo.

  10. #17710
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    But wasn't Trump supposed to know and thwart it all before it took hold?

    There's more than one model. That's my point. I can use the more extreme example or the most conservative estimate depending on what echo chamber I belong to.
    They're all in the same ballpark with the same data though. None of them are 15 down to zero.

    And yes, what you did in the early phase of contagion also has an impact on the overall longevity, especially when contagion is exponential. If you let pockets spread freely early on, you're probably going to be battling with this longer.

    I don't expect Nancy the hairdresser in Yuma, AZ to understand how models work, she'll probably get the initial estimate, and then complain two months later how the model hit or missed. But I know you know better.

    I'm not even arguing that some outlets might A) weight the error rate towards more dramatic/conservative or B) outright lie (at which point arguing about the 'model' is a waste of time).

    I'm discussing making decisions with sound model/data, which I believe this administration did in large part thanks to Birx scaring the out of Trump by telling him he could have 2 million dead americans in his hands. Was she wrong? I don't know that she was when that was said and we were doing nothing but downplaying it. I certainly would like to see the data/estimates back then.

  11. #17711
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    75,335
    They're all in the same ballpark with the same data though. None of them are 15 down to zero.

    And yes, what you did in the early phase of contagion also has an impact on the overall longevity, especially when contagion is exponential. If you let pockets spread freely early on, you're probably going to be battling with this longer.

    I don't expect Nancy the hairdresser in Yuma, AZ to understand how models work, she'll probably get the initial estimate, and then complain two months later how the model hit or missed. But I know you know better.

    I'm not even arguing that some outlets might A) weight the error rate towards more dramatic/conservative or B) outright lie (at which point arguing about the 'model' is a waste of time).

    I'm discussing making decisions with sound model/data, which I believe this administration did in large part thanks to Birx scaring the out of Trump by telling him he could have 2 million dead americans in his hands. Was she wrong? I don't know that she was when that was said and we were doing nothing but downplaying it. I certainly would like to see the data/estimates back then.
    Not sure what ballpark you play in. 110M vs 1.8M seems like maybe you're not playing baseball. Are there 18 bases?

    They don't have the same data. They have the data that someone plugs into the model, cherry picked data from cherry picking people, each with their own agendas.

  12. #17712
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    Not sure what ballpark you play in. 110M vs 1.8M seems like maybe you're not playing baseball. Are there 18 bases?

    They don't have the same data. They have the data that someone plugs into the model, cherry picked data from cherry picking people, each with their own agendas.
    I'll even advance it could very well be the same model. You're simply comparing two different points in time with different cir stances. I suspect one is without doing absolutely nothing, and the other is with lockdowns, distancing, masks, etc.

    Projection of data for one and the other are very different, because cir stances and mitigation are different. But we didn't do nothing, we actually did all the other stuff, and the model actually held up pretty well.

    I'll have to look back at one of my posts in April when I said, looking at the reference model being used by the government, that it looked like we would be reopening around June 1st. That was actually fairly spot on.

  13. #17713
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    110,882
    We can all agree Trump's model was way off.

  14. #17714
    Less is More
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    12,156
    Picking models for narratives is a double edged sword, and I think we can agree with that. It actually happened to Trump before he eventually had to recognize that 100k was well within the ballpark, and this was serious. That's why nobody uses models from twitter.

    There are true and tested models for infectious diseases that have been used for years on Ebola, Flu, SARS, etc... and they're only as good as the data they're fed, AND all of them include a margin of error.
    So if you were doing nothing, they will report 100M, if you tell it you've been doing social distancing, then it's going to come down a lot. It's not magical thinking, it's called mathematics. When you have a virus with an exponential growth profile, the numbers escalate pretty quickly, and what you do to mitigate that, or if you have a vaccine, or if you have a therapeutic treatment, or if the virus is affected by weather, etc they all influence the numbers over time.

    It's incredibly easy to dispute statistical models in retrospect if you don't know how they were calculated to begin with. Thus my question on who has a beef with which model right now, because as soon as a couple of weeks have gone by, weather changes, these protest episodes happen, and then you have to feed that data in and get new numbers.
    Was it wrong two weeks ago? No, it was within the parameters and information it had at the time. Does the concrete decisions made on those values 2 weeks ago were somehow incorrect because now the model looks different? No, they're not, they were informed decisions based on the information you had available at the time.

    We also make decisions that we know will influence the model in positive ways, like social distancing, mask usage, etc, and then we wait for both reality and the model to reflect that.
    Fergusons death predictions have happened for years. The model has been highly criticized.

    Imperial are trying to have their cake and eat it. Reports of random results are dismissed with responses like “that’s not a problem, just run it a lot of times and take the average”, but at the same time, they’re fixing such bugs when they find them. They know their code can’t withstand scrutiny, so they hid it until professionals had a chance to fix it, but the damage from over a decade of amateur hobby programming is so extensive that even Microsoft were unable to make it run right

  15. #17715
    Less is More
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    12,156
    Fergusons death predictions have happened for years. The model has been highly criticized.

    Imperial are trying to have their cake and eat it. Reports of random results are dismissed with responses like “that’s not a problem, just run it a lot of times and take the average”, but at the same time, they’re fixing such bugs when they find them. They know their code can’t withstand scrutiny, so they hid it until professionals had a chance to fix it, but the damage from over a decade of amateur hobby programming is so extensive that even Microsoft were unable to make it run right
    But this isn't the point, the problem of current manipulation of data only serves to extend fear and mislead the public with daily cases and daily fatality numbers. Not really much you can argue with if you believe in science or math

  16. #17716
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    Fergusons death predictions have happened for years. The model has been highly criticized.

    Imperial are trying to have their cake and eat it. Reports of random results are dismissed with responses like “that’s not a problem, just run it a lot of times and take the average”, but at the same time, they’re fixing such bugs when they find them. They know their code can’t withstand scrutiny, so they hid it until professionals had a chance to fix it, but the damage from over a decade of amateur hobby programming is so extensive that even Microsoft were unable to make it run right
    Then bring a better model. It's easy to criticize and not provide a better alternative. Microsoft worked with the University of Washington, which uses a similar model, on the visualization tool that ended up being this site:

    https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

    which IIRC, is the model the US government ended up using. And it's been pretty spot on. We discussed some of the numbers where off for hospitalization at some point, and eventually, as more data came in, it was adjusted. That's just how statistical models work.

  17. #17717
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    But this isn't the point, the problem of current manipulation of data only serves to extend fear and mislead the public with daily cases and daily fatality numbers. Not really much you can argue with if you believe in science or math
    This is a conspiracy theory though. Because I can ask you to back up the contention that there's manipulation of data, but you clearly cannot.

  18. #17718
    十万二千一百七人が死んでいる baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    76,208
    Chanting "I can't breathe" may literally turn into their last words

    Make up your mind man. Before these protests you were all about life having to go on and just open everything up.

  19. #17719
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    75,335
    I'll even advance it could very well be the same model. You're simply comparing two different points in time with different cir stances. I suspect one is without doing absolutely nothing, and the other is with lockdowns, distancing, masks, etc.

    Projection of data for one and the other are very different, because cir stances and mitigation are different. But we didn't do nothing, we actually did all the other stuff, and the model actually held up pretty well.

    I'll have to look back at one of my posts in April when I said, looking at the reference model being used by the government, that it looked like we would be reopening around June 1st. That was actually fairly spot on.
    Unless Vy thought that we would do absolutely nothing, you're basically saying he took the most liberal estimate and ran with it. How is that any different than what I said? It makes you wrong for two reasons (not you specifically), 1) wrong in numbers 2) wrong for the negative nancy outlook on American response

  20. #17720
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    22,392
    Unless Vy thought that we would do absolutely nothing, you're basically saying he took the most liberal estimate and ran with it. How is that any different than what I said? It makes you wrong for two reasons (not you specifically), 1) wrong in numbers 2) wrong for the negative nancy outlook on American response
    Post the pictures of men you wish you were and you can keep the money you owe me, gravy boat

  21. #17721
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    75,335
    Then bring a better model. It's easy to criticize and not provide a better alternative. Microsoft worked with the University of Washington, which uses a similar model, on the visualization tool that ended up being this site:

    https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

    which IIRC, is the model the US government ended up using. And it's been pretty spot on. We discussed some of the numbers where off for hospitalization at some point, and eventually, as more data came in, it was adjusted. That's just how statistical models work.
    As more data comes in, you have the results, you don't need the model. This reminds me of Hollinger with the point diff calculations and said at the end of the year they always predicted who would be in 1st. Well , by then you know already so sure. What do they do for you in January?

  22. #17722
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    75,335
    Broken record schtick only 30 other posters here wore out and discarded already.

  23. #17723
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    22,392
    I think you mean everyone is resigned to the evidence of your fatness, man cow

  24. #17724
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    129,393
    Unless Vy thought that we would do absolutely nothing, you're basically saying he took the most liberal estimate and ran with it. How is that any different than what I said? It makes you wrong for two reasons (not you specifically), 1) wrong in numbers 2) wrong for the negative nancy outlook on American response
    I can't speak for him, but I don't think he thought we would do nothing. What I suspect is that he took the projections when we were actually doing nothing, and they looked pretty bad. Guessing what we were going to do at that point is a bit of futurology.

    As more data comes in, you have the results, you don't need the model. This reminds me of Hollinger with the point diff calculations and said at the end of the year they always predicted who would be in 1st. Well , by then you know already so sure. What do they do for you in January?
    There are projections in there. The last results update seems to have been on May 19th as I write this. Starting from May 20th, it reads 'Projected'. You can also see the margins of error increase as you project further (as it's logical).

  25. #17725
    Less is More
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    12,156
    This is a conspiracy theory though. Because I can ask you to back up the contention that there's manipulation of data, but you clearly cannot.
    I've already explained to you the manipulation of data.

    1. Daily case reporting lag
    2. Hotspot chasing
    3. Daily fatality reporting lag.
    4. Multiple positives by same person counts as multiple positives
    5. Probable cases
    6. Weekly all cause fatality in line with average all cause fatality.
    -------
    After all of that you still have the fact that both wuhan and Italy had the same data regarding at risk and fatality. At risk was 65plus with preexisting and fatality was 2x flu. Not to mention its a seasonal virus and follows a seasonal curve.... how much more do you need. Not a conspiracy, just poor analysis by you it seems.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 16 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 16 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •