Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[TLO]

2 minutes ago, theJ said:

No i'm saying the advice given in the stock thread in general is way more dangerous than MOL posting about some random company stock in here.

There's some serious advice given in there by people who may or may not know what they're doing (some obviously don't).  Like i said before, i want to take some people by the throat in that thread.  But we're not making a big deal of that why exactly?

Not to mention the argument was literally that people would lose their life savings by listening to us talk about Gilead

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, mission27 said:

But the way we are measuring the outbreak (case growth % basically) is the way most public health officials look at this and make decisions about next steps.  Yes it is backward looking.  But essentially: once new case growth is low enough, generally as measured using trailing 7 day averages, you start to relax distancing measures and if you see new case growth start to spike you press pause again.  That's how Birx, CDC, state departments of health, etc. are looking at this and describing this and its pretty standard practice.  Relying on forward looking projection models is difficult given the huge amount of uncertainty and error bars there and we saw that with the disaster that was the White House's trumpeting of IHME. 

I'm happy to add language to the effect of "the MoL is not a forward looking model" but at the end of the day I think backward looking data is the most important component of making decisions about the future.

So is it a metric just for tallying of cases, or is it a metric that is designed to help shape the public policy?

 

Your disclaimer states one thing, but you're arguing here the other.

[TLO]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

So is it a metric just for tallying of cases, or is it a metric that is designed to help shape the public policy?

 

Your disclaimer states one thing, but you're arguing here the other.

It’s a metric for tallying cases. The tiers are summarizing where public policies of these countries tend to be at or are trending towards. You’re smart enough to see the difference here. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 minutes ago, theJ said:

No i'm saying the advice given in the stock thread in general is way more dangerous than MOL posting about some random company stock in here.

There's some serious advice given in there by people who may or may not know what they're doing (some obviously don't).  Like i said before, i want to take some people by the throat in that thread.  But we're not making a big deal of that why exactly?

I see what you mean by dangerous, I guess for me the difference is that in the financial situation for the bad advice to move beyond the reader, there has to be a sales pitch and a 3rd person who willingly buys in. All that you need to happen for a 3rd infection is a bit of bad luck.

[mistakey]

4 minutes ago, TLO said:

Not to mention the argument was literally that people would lose their life savings by listening to us talk about Gilead

 Could.  Maybe they wont.  Point is if every time you post about remdesivir you own portions of the company while youre still posting mols i wont complain about this anymore and thats a promise

[mission27]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

2 minutes ago, mission27 said:

But the way we are measuring the outbreak (case growth % basically) is the way most public health officials look at this and make decisions about next steps.  Yes it is backward looking.  But essentially: once new case growth is low enough, generally as measured using trailing 7 day averages, you start to relax distancing measures and if you see new case growth start to spike you press pause again.  That's how Birx, CDC, state departments of health, etc. are looking at this and describing this and its pretty standard practice.  Relying on forward looking projection models is difficult given the huge amount of uncertainty and error bars there and we saw that with the disaster that was the White House's trumpeting of IHME. 

I'm happy to add language to the effect of "the MoL is not a forward looking model" but at the end of the day I think backward looking data is the most important component of making decisions about the future.

So is it a metric just for tallying of cases, or is it a metric that is designed to help shape the public policy?

 

Your disclaimer states one thing, but you're arguing here the other.

Its meant as a metric to inform people who are generally curious about how their country or state or another country is doing.  That's it.  While I strongly believe it is a valid way to look at things and similar to how public policy makers are looking at this and making decision, I dont believe TLO, myself, or anyone who reads the MoL is a governor or head of state.  And if they were and they were taking advice from someone on a football forum my advice would be to please stop and consult a professional. 

As we've said before that's not some kind of cop out, we aren't saying we should be impervious to criticism because its a 'joke' or anything like that and we think the way we are looking at this is valid, but I also hope we all recognize that there is a higher standard of professional qualification to be an adviser to a governor or head of state vs. the standard that should be applied to people posting their opinions on a message board on the internet. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, TLO said:

It’s a metric for tallying cases.

Per the disclaimer, agreed. 

2 minutes ago, TLO said:

The tiers are summarizing where public policies of these countries tend to be at or are trending towards.

Can you explain this then:

Quote

Tier 4: Aggressive growth, still likely have not peaked in single day cases, and likely a week or two minimum from peak in deaths (however many of these countries are still slowing down)

"Still likely have not peaked in single day cases" is a projection. "A week or two minimum" from a peak in deaths.

 

I could start digging for "could move up to Tier X" comments that we all littered throughout, but it was clearly a ranking that you had along with social distancing recommendations.

[mistakey]

3 minutes ago, TLO said:

It’s a metric for tallying cases. The tiers are summarizing where public policies of these countries tend to be at or are trending towards. You’re smart enough to see the difference here. 

But thats the point.  You claim you dont proscribe any health related Solutions but in the header of your text you in fact say “safe to relax social distancing” which gives people the idea that it could be safe for them to stop doing so

how do you not see this

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Its meant as a metric to inform people who are generally curious about how their country or state or another country is doing.  That's it. 

What do you mean "is doing"? So now this is a score designed to measure a public response?

[mistakey]

2 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Its meant as a metric to inform people who are generally curious about how their country or state or another country is doing.  That's it.  While I strongly believe it is a valid way to look at things and similar to how public policy makers are looking at this and making decision, I dont believe TLO, myself, or anyone who reads the MoL is a governor or head of state.  And if they were and they were taking advice from someone on a football forum my advice would be to please stop and consult a professional. 

As we've said before that's not some kind of cop out, we aren't saying we should be impervious to criticism because its a 'joke' or anything like that and we think the way we are looking at this is valid, but I also hope we all recognize that there is a higher standard of professional qualification to be an adviser to a governor or head of state vs. the standard that should be applied to people posting their opinions on a message board on the internet. 

You on the other hand would like no standard apply for u

[candyman93]

Moderna is showing promise

[mission27]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

What do you mean "is doing"? So now this is a score designed to measure a public response?

You are not actually this dense 

What is the goal?  Slow growth, flatten the curve.  We are measuring growth in the epidemic.  It’s an independently verifiable metric.  Alongside that independently verifiable metric we also post opinions and analysis.

Its similar to if I posted a list of everyone’s batting average on August 1st and then added commentary about who I thought was going to win the batting title or MVP.  

If your criticism was “that’s not transparent” I’d tell you it’s hits / at bats

If your criticism was “is it a metric or a projection” I’d tell you batting average was a backward looking metric and we are also providing our opinions on where each players batting average will move over time and other things 

If your criticism like mbtl was “someone might go out there and blow their life savings on player x to win the batting title in Vegas” I’d tell you you were an idiot 

Its a circular conversation.  We address one complaint and it just circles back to the next one instead of actually addressing what we are saying.

[mission27]

7 minutes ago, mistakey said:

You on the other hand would like no standard apply for u

The standard I’d like applied to myself and TLO is the standard applied to everyone which is be respectful, follow the forum rules, and so on 

When we start resorting to personal attacks and spreading conspiracy theories we should be silenced but we should not be silenced for giving opinions that are frankly all extremely mainstream, inoffensive and harmless at the end of the day 

[TLO]

15 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Per the disclaimer, agreed. 

Can you explain this then:

"Still likely have not peaked in single day cases" is a projection. "A week or two minimum" from a peak in deaths.

 

I could start digging for "could move up to Tier X" comments that we all littered throughout, but it was clearly a ranking that you had along with social distancing recommendations.

Based on our metric, if your number is high (tier 4), countries haven’t peaked In cases or deaths.

Thats an identifiable trend based on the data from countries with lower MoL numbers, not us making recommendations. 
 

i will grant that the tiers could be worded better/differently to the extent that it’s a summary of what we are seeing of countries in a given group/analysis of the trends and not our  official public health recommendation

Edited May 18, 2020 by TLO

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, TLO said:

Based on our metric, if your number is high (tier 4), countries haven’t peaked In cases or deaths.

You don't know this without a forward thinking component, which you have repeatedly claimed doesn't exist.

 

@mission27  @TLO you asked "what could we do". Here is what you can do. Identify the goal of your metric, include that in your disclaimer, and adhere to that goal throughout the entire post. If the metric is actually just for tallying cases, then don't make predictions or public policy suggestions. If the metric is intended to grade public policy, then at least be honest about its intent in the disclaimer.