COVID-19

[taxi1]

We are going to have good, hard data on how the virus responds to control measures come May. What it does without them, how long it takes for them to influence trends. Couple that with ubiquitous testing and we will have actionable intelligence and stuff we can do with it.

Here’s another forecast I’ll make, we’ll see how this ages.

With masks and PPE and people out and about, the virus will continue to be shared, but at lower doses. I think the dose of virus matters, with weak dosing resulting in not so bad illnesses for more people, and the immunity can spread at a lower level of community pain. Some will still get real sick. But this is how it will go down. My forecast.

 

[IKE]

We are going to have good, hard data on how the virus responds to control measures come May. What it does without them, how long it takes for them to influence trends. Couple that with ubiquitous testing and we will have actionable intelligence and stuff we can do with it.

Here’s another forecast I’ll make, we’ll see how this ages.

With masks and PPE and people out and about, the virus will continue to be shared, but at lower doses. I think the dose of virus matters, with weak dosing resulting in not so bad illnesses for more people, and the immunity can spread at a lower level of community pain. Some will still get real sick. But this is how it will go down. My forecast.

This seems to jibe with the small bit of medical reading I've done. I thought some data already show a correlation between viral load and mortality. This is why hospital workers are at such a risk.

Physiologically, this makes sense to me. If you're going to be infected, you want enough virus to cue your immune system, but not so much your systems are overwhelmed before antibodies are created in sufficient numbers. Most natural systems have a time constant. You wanna flatten the curve in each individual too.

 

[SlickAg]

I'm not sure what I did to warrant the shout out here, but I'll bite. I'm not prepared to say he's wrong, but nothing in the Fox News article tells me he's right. As usual with media bites about models, there is ZERO talk of the uncertainty of the input variables, assumptions, or sensitivity of output metrics. There's nothing to evaluate except a bald assertion that deaths-per-day has peaked or will soon.

The reason I'm suspicious of many models is that the sensitivity analysis is often overlooked (or at least, not reported). It's far too easy these days to put vast amounts of data into a computer and have it shit out a prediction, but it's a lot harder to do a professional job with the math, science, and underlying assumptions (I'm also a mild skeptic about anthropogenic global warming, so there's that...)

The level of detail and study required to make a good pandemic model means none of us lay folks could hope to verify his model, certainly not via interview or news article. The only thing I can do is wonder if he's the authority I'd trust, given his willingness to appear on such a fair and balanced news channel. I can also hope that the NIH/CDC teams vet their models.

So you’re the type of person who has to get their news from CNN or MSNBC in order to trust it? That checks.

I’m sorry his bonafides don’t live up to your standards because he would (gasp) allow himself to be interviewed by those fascists at Fox.

[Insert all of the eye roll emojis here]

 

[Python]

So you’re the type of person who has to get their news from CNN or MSNBC in order to trust it? That checks.

I’m sorry his bonafides don’t live up to your standards because he would (gasp) allow himself to be interviewed by those fascists at Fox.

[Insert all of the eye roll emojis here]

I do get confused when a credible source loses credibility because of what network they choose (or get invited) to speak on.

 

[taxi1]

The reason I'm suspicious of many models is that the sensitivity analysis is often overlooked (or at least, not reported). It's far too easy these days to put vast amounts of data into a computer and have it shit out a prediction...

Amen

It gets worse for these predictions, because it involves predicting people’s behavior, but the behavior is influenced by the prediction. Holy shit, 240,000 dead? I’m staying home! Where’s my mask! Which of course influences the prediction (everyone is staying home, wearing a mask...60,000) which leads to FTS, I’m going drinking with my buddies (2,000,000 dead) Etc.

 

[Spekkio]

Not to rain on your parade or whatever, but who DO you trust? Seems like there’s lots of armchair epidemiologists, infectious disease specialists, and the like these days.

I’d love to know why you feel as though even though he’s been vetted and trusted by a major research university, you have your doubts. Are you an MD, PhD, sort of dude? Or did you just sleep in a holiday inn express last night.

Your appeal to authority being infallible is amusing. I simply posed a reasonable question based on the facts of the most recent pandemic before COVID-19 (although I was off by a 0 typing on my phone the point still stands).

The smart people in this thread know that you can't distill this down to 'a number,' and that the point of modeling is to explore the relationship between variables and not to predict the future. 'All models are wrong but some are useful.'

There's also this thing called peer review and validation, which couldn't possibly have happened between the time he got his numbers and gave his interview.

I'm not an epidemiologist, but I do understand stats and numbers. This doc's claim doesn't match the available data. There could be a reasonable, scientific answer for why this is, but he doesn't explain it

 

[SlickAg]

Your appeal to authority being infallible is amusing. I simply posed a reasonable question based on the facts of the most recent pandemic before COVID-19 (although I was off by a 0 typing on my phone the point still stands).

The smart people in this thread know that you can't distill this down to 'a number,' and that the point of modeling is to explore the relationship between variables and not to predict the future. 'All models are wrong but some are useful.'

There's also this thing called peer review and validation, which couldn't possibly have happened between the time he got his numbers and gave his interview.

I'm not an epidemiologist, but I do understand stats and numbers. This doc's claim doesn't match the available data. There could be a reasonable, scientific answer for why this is, but he doesn't explain it

You should apply for a job there so you can go unf**k his program.

Interesting that you talked about my appeal to authority being infallible. Earlier when I talked about our nation’s collective love of models and how we sort of bet on the wrong horse, I was accused of trying to normalize death by the Coronabros.

Now, because I agree with the guy who’s funded by Bill Gates, employed by UW, and whose model is used by Drs. Fauci and Birx to come up with national policy, I’ve been classified by you as “not a smart person in this thread”.

But you’re smarter than him, because he didn’t justify his opinion to you personally. Because you know statistics and numbers. Got it.

 

[Jim123]

"Chicken soup for the soul" has a nice ring to it.

"Bat soup for the immune system" not so much.

 

[Pags]

"Chicken soup for the soul" has a nice ring to it.

"Bat soup for the immune system" not so much.



View attachment 25102

It's a good alternative when the store is out of pangolin stew.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

“Corona bro”...come on dude. Do I reply to your hyperbole? Your ad hominem is telling me you’re not worth my time.

I hope I’m not the only one enjoying the irony here. You go straight to pointing out fallacies when you jumped in with this straw man:

Not surprised that one of the side effects of social distancing successfully flattening the curve is people demanding to stop all restrictions because clearly "we just overreacted." Fuck it, let's go back to normal. We won.

See how much easier it is when you just make up a ridiculous assertion to argue against?

Also, it’s “drivel” not “dribble”. Basketball is gone.

 

[IKE]

So you’re the type of person who has to get their news from CNN or MSNBC in order to trust it? That checks.

I’m sorry his bonafides don’t live up to your standards because he would (gasp) allow himself to be interviewed by those fascists at Fox.

[Insert all of the eye roll emojis here]

Nope. Wrong again. I'm not a populist or leftist. I don't really care for any news network. My reasoning can best be summarized by watching Anchorman 2. I happen to be a Capitalist, which means I want your type to lay off my personal life, the Left to lay off my money, and the Libertarians to pick a principle and quit buying such big umbrellas.

I didn't say I don't trust him, but yes, agreeing to appear on Fox, especially if it's Hannity or O'Reilly (is he still a thing?) OR appearing on MSNBC with Olbermann or Maddow lowers your credibility or at least my trust in your ability to pick your battles.

 

[Python]

I didn't say I don't trust him, but yes, agreeing to appear on Fox, especially if it's Hannity or O'Reilly (is he still a thing?) OR appearing on MSNBC with Olbermann or Maddow lowers your credibility or at least my trust in your ability to pick your battles.

I genuinely don’t get this part. Even if you consider it poor judgement to go on one of those networks, it shouldn’t and doesn’t have any relevance to professional credibility. If Einstein were alive today and talked relativity on MSNBC or FN, it would be foolish to say he’s no longer as credible. I personally don’t think it’s foolish in and of itself to pick one network or another, but even if it were I can’t connect the dots from that to scientific legitimacy.

 

[IKE]

I genuinely don’t get this part. Even if you consider it poor judgement to go on one of those networks, it shouldn’t and doesn’t have any relevance to professional credibility. If Einstein were alive today and talked relativity on MSNBC or FN, it would be foolish to say he’s no longer as credible. I personally don’t think it’s foolish in and of itself to pick one network or another, but even if it were I can’t connect the dots from that to scientific legitimacy.

But why appear on one of those two networks? In my opinion, both Fox and MSNBC have a history of slanting the news and twisting comments, so why endorse, support, or otherwise condone their behavior. Because you've been paid? Because you think getting your particular message out is worth the sacrifice? Because you think you can out-maneuver them on air?

I think I agree with you that appearing on a slanted network doesn't impugn the credibility of the work itself, and maybe not of the person, but it does make me question motivations, which lie right next to credibility.

 

[Python]

But why appear on one of those two networks? In my opinion, both Fox and MSNBC have a history of slanting the news and twisting comments, so why endorse, support, or otherwise condone their behavior. Because you've been paid? Because you think getting your particular message out is worth the sacrifice? Because you think you can out-maneuver them on air?

I think I agree with you that appearing on a slanted network doesn't impugn the credibility of the work itself, and maybe not of the person, but it does make me question motivations, which lie right next to credibility.

I agree with your opinion that they are slanted. I disagree that appearing on them necessarily makes it more likely to have an agenda, or that it means that you personally endorse their biases. I’d imagine that if I were one of these people, I’d say it’s the second explanation you gave: it’s about getting the message out.
I’m not naive enough to think that everybody going on those networks doesn’t have an agenda, but I’m not cynical enough to assume that somebody is guilty of that until proven innocent.
I believe it’s more important to look at substance over delivery medium. I’ll agree to disagree.

 

[JTS11]

...I keep hearing a vaccine is more than a year out. The economy cannot survive another year of this. Ugly and crude as it is, herd immunity is the best option now. Keep the most vulnerable safe ( many of whom are not employed ) and let the rest of America get back to work.

Maybe we should up our antibiotic game? What if Fauci and all those other 'experts' are barking up the wrong tree? I dunno, just spitballing.

But why appear on one of those two networks? In my opinion, both Fox and MSNBC have a history of slanting the news and twisting comments, so why endorse, support, or otherwise condone their behavior. Because you've been paid? Because you think getting your particular message out is worth the sacrifice? Because you think you can out-maneuver them on air?

I think I agree with you that appearing on a slanted network doesn't impugn the credibility of the work itself, and maybe not of the person, but it does make me question motivations, which lie right next to credibility.

FoxNews (except for Sean, Laura, and the crew at F&F's) are a bunch of libs. OANN is the new hotness.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1249093268920467457

Check out OANN's WH correspondent Chanel Rion:

Pro-Trump network hires Seth Rich conspiracy theorist who promoted a book by a Holocaust denier

www.mediamatters.org

She seems like a straight-shooter