• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

COVID-19

Spekkio said:
This is a prime example on how to blow up graph axes to exaggerate your point. I also like the shift of hospitalizations per 1M population when the CDC normalizes to 100k.

0.01% of Vermont residents are in the hospital, but the graph is pegged high so it must be bad.
Click to expand...
It’s also a prime example of how vaccine rates increasing hasn’t decreased the hospitalization rates.

I’m more interested in the booster line’s interesting relationship with the hospitalization line, but you’re free to focus on whatever you’d like to.
 
SlickAg said:
It’s also a prime example of how vaccine rates increasing hasn’t decreased the hospitalization rates.

I’m more interested in the booster line’s interesting relationship with the hospitalization line, but you’re free to focus on whatever you’d like to.
Click to expand...
Vermont had strict lockdowns and has a sparse population, which is why the graph didn't peg higher last winter.
 
Spekkio said:
I wonder when the current administration will realize that this guy is going to almost single-handedly lose them the next election.
Click to expand...
November 9th, if I had to guess.

Ask me again in another week or two once this omicron thing fizzles out the way I expect. Either that or come two weeks I might be eating my words as all those surplus ventilators are getting pressed into emergency service.
 
I'm a big fan of Phil Greenspun...

philip.greenspun.com

Coronascience charts

A reader sent me the following Trust in Science page: The Spectator folks track the predictions of Science against actual outcomes. This is enabled by the fact that the UK rejected Science’s …
philip.greenspun.com philip.greenspun.com

One thing that is interesting about Coronascience is how fragile it is and how dependent on suppression of criticism. Astronomers don’t need Facebook, Twitter, and Google to suppress speech from people who believe in astrology. Astronomy’s credibility comes from a track record of successful predictions, not from silencing dissent. After two years of what we are told is enormous progress in Coronascience, however, the predictive ability of those who call themselves “Scientists” is minimal and the public’s faith in “The Science” can be maintained only by banning from Twitter, Facebook, et al., those who point out apparent contradictions.
 
ChuckMK23 said:
I'm a big fan of Phil Greenspun...

philip.greenspun.com

Coronascience charts

A reader sent me the following Trust in Science page: The Spectator folks track the predictions of Science against actual outcomes. This is enabled by the fact that the UK rejected Science’s …
philip.greenspun.com philip.greenspun.com

Astronomy...
Click to expand...
A huge difference between astronomy and coronascience is coronascience is sociology as much as hard science. People's behavior is as important as the biology and physics. Making a prediction influences behavior, which can make the prediction wrong unless you accounted for the impact of the prediction on the behavior change in your prediction.

A better analogy is economics and pricing.
 
ChuckMK23 said:
One thing that is interesting about Coronascience is how fragile it is and how dependent on suppression of criticism. Astronomers don’t need Facebook, Twitter, and Google to suppress speech from people who believe in astrology. Astronomy’s credibility comes from a track record of successful predictions, not from silencing dissent. After two years of what we are told is enormous progress in Coronascience, however, the predictive ability of those who call themselves “Scientists” is minimal and the public’s faith in “The Science” can be maintained only by banning from Twitter, Facebook, et al., those who point out apparent contradictions.
Click to expand...
One thing that is interesting about astronomy is that they've been doing it for millenia, and they also still get stuff wrong. Astronomers mostly did not have to contend with the likes of Facebook or Twitter, but they've had their fair share of zealots and misinformation. See Galileo and the heliocentric model.

That said, this is by no means to compare Galileo to MTG in literally any way, shape, or form. She's more like the Church in this analogy. To say that the vaccines do not reduce the spread of COVID based on her anecdotal evidence is provably false, and considering her public position is irresponsible and dangerous to the public health. The vaccines are surely less effective (or more precisely not as effective for as long) than was initially hoped or expected, but they remain far better than doing absolutely nothing.

Too bad we're gonna miss out on more MTG gems like this:

1641601630452.png
 
taxi1 said:
A huge difference between astronomy and coronascience is coronascience is sociology as much as hard science. People's behavior is as important as the biology and physics. Making a prediction influences behavior, which can make the prediction wrong unless you accounted for the impact of the prediction on the behavior change in your prediction.

A better analogy is economics and pricing.
Click to expand...
I think on balance economists have a better handle on human behavior than public health officials. And if our Covid gurus nailed the science as well as the typical physicist, maybe their sociology problem would not be as bad as it is. Hubris was the problem from the start. The CDC and the "experts" spoke with a level of confidence that was not warranted. And they should have known that. Now, their credibility is lower than whale dung. Even this late in the game they have not been able to roll out the 5 day mask change without missteps and the booster policy contradicts other experts in the administration. I hardly think looking for a second opinion or more info from sources other than the government makes you a kook given the record. On the other hand, if you believe everything the CDC and White House puts out then you are naive. I for one, do not dismiss government conclusions on the science or their recommendations. I just like to hear from other people in the field.

I was in the UK frequently when Mad Cow Disease broke out. The public blindly accepted everything the government said and there was little to no dissent on the government policy dealing, or not dealing, with it. The results were devastating.
 
wink said:
I think on balance economists have a better handle on human behavior than public health officials. And if our Covid gurus nailed the science as well as the typical physicist, maybe their sociology problem would not be as bad as it is.
Click to expand...
Based on our (in)ability to predict the 2008 crash or any other crash, and how the economy during the pandemic has defied lots of predictions, I’d have to disagree.

And physicists have any easy job. The laws of physics don’t change over time, they just get discovered. The Covid virus not only was new with unexpected properties, it also has continually changed. Delta was a whole new pandemic, and now Omicron is another new pandemic with significantly different properties.

I will say the CDC, or our government, wasn’t truly prepared to deal with this sort of fast moving, evolving beast, and tried to address with hard science only what is really a sociology problem. A pandemic is a sickness of the community, and behavior is everything. Look at the difference in outcomes across the planet for the exact same set of viruses, the exact same biology and physics.

This wasnt the big one. It wasn’t the Omicron contagiousness combined with SARS V1 mortality that it could have been from day 1, and that will probably hit some day. Best we learn something from this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top