Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Webmaster

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, mission27 said:

100% agree he's a world class moron but its going to be hard to not include him in coordination efforts when he mayor of our largest city + the epicenter 

cuomo has pretty much sidestepped him at all times and it didnt really seem to matter whether or not he participated at all

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

yes, a predictive model that exists in your head is based on unrealistic assumptions and that you are incapable of describing in terms that would be useful for laymen 

are you an academic by any chance?

I will stick to my models that people love and that are accurate and easy for the average Joe of FF to understand

cool, you have a model?

have it predict something quantitative for me.

 

 

oh wait... you don't have a model.   the fact that "Joe FF" likes stupid dumbed down erroneous BS doesn't change the fact that it is stupid, dumbed down erroneous BS.   McDonalds has sold Trillions of hamburgers; clearly they must make the best one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SlevinKelevra said:

cool, you have a model?

have it predict something quantitative for me.

 

 

oh wait... you don't have a model.   the fact that "Joe FF" likes stupid dumbed down erroneous BS doesn't change the fact that it is stupid, dumbed down erroneous BS.   McDonalds has sold Trillions of hamburgers; clearly they must make the best one.

 

That's an excellent comparison 

The MoLs are like a Big Mac.  Simple, easy to understand, a lot of weird *** **** going on behind the scenes but the finished product is outstanding and loved by all. 

Your model is like a hypothetical perfect cheeseburger that doesn't exist and tastes like garbage. 

Personally, I'll take the Big Mac tbh, but I'm not trying to be critical.  You be you.  I believe the MoLs are helpful to people who are curious how their state or country is doing compared to other states and countries and where they are along the life cycle of the outbreak.  As long as people keep telling me its helpful to them I'll keep posting it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mistakey said:

cuomo has pretty much sidestepped him at all times and it didnt really seem to matter whether or not he participated at all

Yeah hopefully that continues although I'm concerned he may be a pain in the butt and try to keep things closed longer than needed to grab attention.  Its sort of a lowest common denominator thing.  Places can't open up until feds, state, and city are all on board so we need cooperation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, you might want to let these idiots know their assumptions are terrible

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Kermack-McKendrickModel.html

 

since they're still being used today

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28289254

OMG, look at the equation(s) 4-1 in this manuscript.   what in the world, there's actual people who do this for a living who think spatially diffuse advective SIR models are appropriate.

But you're right, they're just stupid academics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SlevinKelevra said:

also, you might want to let these idiots know their assumptions are terrible

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Kermack-McKendrickModel.html

 

since they're still being used today

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28289254

OMG, look at the equation(s) 4-1 in this manuscript.   what in the world, there's actual people who do this for a living who think spatially diffuse advective SIR models are appropriate.

But you're right, they're just stupid academics. 

I'm not saying the math is wrong I'm saying the parameters are wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mission27 said:

That's an excellent comparison 

The MoLs are like a Big Mac.  Simple, easy to understand, a lot of weird *** **** going on behind the scenes but the finished product is outstanding and loved by all. 

Your model is like a hypothetical perfect cheeseburger that doesn't exist and tastes like garbage. 

Personally, I'll take the Big Mac tbh, but I'm not trying to be critical.  You be you.  I believe the MoLs are helpful to people who are curious how their state or country is doing compared to other states and countries and where they are along the life cycle of the outbreak.  As long as people keep telling me its helpful to them I'll keep posting it.

i honestly would have no issue with you if you were

1) transparent

2) honest

 

but claiming you have a "model" (fail), it's accurate (fail), and not disclosing its methods (fail)  

 

I'm just making an effort to make sure Joe FF knows that's what you're  giving them.

 

c'est la vie

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

I'm not saying the math is wrong I'm saying the parameters are wrong...

you said all the assumptions are wrong;  the governing differential equations are assumed to be right.

so , are all the assumptions wrong or not?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SlevinKelevra said:

i honestly would have no issue with you if you were

1) transparent

2) honest

 

but claiming you have a "model" (fail), it's accurate (fail), and not disclosing its methods (fail)  

 

I'm just making an effort to make sure Joe FF knows that's what you're  giving them.

 

c'est la vie

We've been pretty transparent 

MoL scores measure spread by looking at trailing average new case counts vs. active cases on an N day lag and we make manual adjustments as need for smugness, etc.

It is a model... it is a simplified conceptualization of a complex system that takes data and estimates an unknown (rate of spread) based on that data.  It is not a forecast though.  It is backward looking.

It is helpful to folks who are curious how their state or country are doing.  It is not meant to predict how many new cases we will see tomorrow or the next day, although by looking at trends in MoLs (given MoLs are much more stable and useful than the raw data) you can make predictions, all of which have turned out to be accurate

Edited by mission27
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to drop it though tbh.  The reason we haven't talked more about the methodology is exactly to avoid this sort of juvenile argument about the model.  If people have specific questions feel free to PM us.  I think folks generally find it helpful, as evidenced by the universally positive feedback we've received, but if you have a better model and can translate it into human talk we welcome all competition. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mission27 said:

I'm going to drop it though tbh.  The reason we haven't talked more about the methodology is exactly to avoid this sort of juvenile argument about the model.  If people have specific questions feel free to PM us.  I think folks generally find it helpful, as evidenced by the universally positive feedback we've received, but if you have a better model and can translate it into human talk we welcome all competition. 

its not juvenile.  its literally what goes on in any paper defense ever.  its rigor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in order to know where you are going, you have to know where you have been. Nothing shows where regions have been in an easily digestible format better than the MoL does. We aren’t predicting future MoL scores, but there have certainly been identifiable trends when looking at the data. We hope the public policies put in place keep the trends going, but we make no guarantees of future performance. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pwny said:

And Brazil stops part of their study.

Weird. 

The dose is the difference between a therapeutic and a poison. That's true of everything, including water.
The doses used to treat other diseases were considered safe enough.
But when they increased the dose high enough to kill corona, it can become toxic for your heart.
This is not some new revelation, it was a known risk listed on the drug label from the very beginning

This is why smart people don't take medical advice from any of the carnival barkers on TV or the internet.  :)

Note: I am not aware of any peer - reviewed clinical study in the History of Medicine that reported 100 % success rate. It just doesn't happen.
So when you see that reported, smile a knowing smile and move on.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mistakey said:

its not juvenile.  its literally what goes on in any paper defense ever.  its rigor.

Where I come from the accuracy of your model is measured in the number of 0s at the end of your bank account tbh

Either way, its not worth arguing about, if people find the MoLs useful (most do) great, if not they are free to ignore our 1 post a day updating those numbers.  If folks have specific questions feel free to PM us, but I'm not going to spend time and clutter this thread up arguing with someone who clearly has an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the MoL.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...