4 ms·
"We are physicists, computer scientists and mathematicians, not epidemiologists or virologists. Therefore this should NOT be viewed as predictions on the crisis
by neaden 7y ago
"We are physicists, computer scientists and mathematicians, not epidemiologists or virologists. Therefore this should NOT be viewed as predictions on the crisis, but rather as a technical tool to test various theories and assumptions in order to make more informed decisions."
This really should be at the top in bold. This is not a prediction, do not treat it like one, this is just a thought experiment.
- c0nsumer 7y agoHear hear. There are FAR too many "look how I modeled the data" things out there that are both super-optimistic and super-pessimistic. It's great that people are interested in modeling data, but it's far too easy for folks to think they are sound models and read more into them than they should. Heck, just yesterday someone started replying to a FB thread of mine with a bunch of Excel screenshots saying how things will be, and when questioned about how he came to that his sole response was "it's just math".
- pranade 7y agoThanks for the feedback. 100% agree, we will make that bolder and bigger so it's super clear
- neaden 7y agoThank you for your responsiveness on this.
- arthurcolle 7y agoIt doesn't render properly on mobile btw. Safari on iOS
- starpilot 7y agoRelated: > The best thing you can do to fight COVID-19 is nothing. Stop writing that paper. Don't put it on the arxiv. > In recent days we've seen an influx in papers on the arxiv modeling the spread of COVID-19. Many of these are relatively simple papers clearly written by physicists using simple SIR models, some basic curve fitting, and even Ising models to model the spread of COVID-19. > I'm writing to ask you, from the bottom of my heart, to cut that shit out. > This is not an unexplained X-ray line from the galactic center. This is not the 750 GeV diphoton excess. This is not something where the first paper to correctly guess the peak number of COVID-19 cases on the arxiv gets a Nobel prize. People's lives are at stake and you're not helping. At best, you make physicists look bad. Epidemiology, as a field, already exists. Any prediction from a physicist tinkering with equations pulled from Wikipedia is not going to be a better prediction than that of professional public health experts whose models are far more sophisticated and already validated. > At worst, people die. https://www.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/fsfdn2/the_best_thing_you_can_do_to_fight_covid19_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/fsfdn2/the_bes...
- drcode 7y agoI would love to be able to trust what the CDC and WHO are saying on these issues, they are in charge of the official narratives on coronavirus. Unfortunately, they have performed poorly since January, forcing us all to rely on outside sources to help shape our opinions on this issue. It is primarily their fault that models created by outsiders are getting so much attention at this time.
- Analemma_ 7y agoThat's a non sequitur though. The fact that the CDC and WHO have made mistakes does not imply that the models of J. Random Asshole are worth anything.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y agoI'd tend to agree with you that big orgs make mistakes, and of course they do, they're humans, not divine. Calling everyone else J. Random Asshole and thus inevitably crap is a step too far the other way I feel.