3 ms·

Note that this article is from March 31st, and while that wouldn't normally be very long ago things are moving extremely quickly.

by jefftk 7y ago

moate 7y ago
In the 9 days since we still have models that are all over the place. Nate Silver covers the difficulty in predictive modeling of pandemics in his book "The Signal and the Noise" and in the years since it was written not much has changes to they're basically rehashing the points he made then.
CodeWriter23 7y ago
Well, politically things are moving quickly too. Bottom line, all the “science” failed to engage The Cautionary Principle when they should have known that what they did know was likely outweighed by what they didn’t.
- jefftk 7y ago
  I can't tell what you think should have happened differently here
mcguire 7y ago
"Meanwhile, a report from Imperial College London that made headlines for its dire, modeling-based forecasts predicted about 2.2 million U.S. deaths from the coronavirus, if nobody changes their everyday behavior." On the other hand, they're still quoting that study, which was very out of date well before the 31st.
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  Do you (or anyone else) have any resources for a critique/comment of that report? I'm interested since I tried reading it and I think I lacked a finer understanding.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    I do not have any specific critiques about it, although I remember seeing the authors had some follow-up work. But the important caveat about that model is that it assumes everyone does nothing. It has been a rather long time since everyone stopped doing nothing, so even if it is entirely correct, it has not been relevant since well before this article was written.
tunesmith 7y ago
The main shift I've noticed (as a layman) is that people are thinking the illness is more contagious and less fatal than first thought. That explains the downward revisions in future deaths, but it also means that physical distancing is more effective and more important than first thought. Because a carrier that stays home is infecting ~5 less people rather than ~2 less people. The thing I'm worried about today is population centers deciding to relax mitigation before they've vastly increased testing capacity.
- sharken 7y ago
  Physical distancing is important if you are old (>65 years) or have a pre-existing condition. The remainder should treat Corona as they do with the common flu, that is what the data is telling us. References https://www.globalresearch.ca/swiss-doctor-covid-19/5707642 https://www.globalresearch.ca/swiss-doctor-covid-19/5707642 https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_17_marzo-v2.pdf https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-C... (Italian)

Note that this article is from March 31st, and while that wouldn't normally be very long ago things are moving extremely quickly.

by jefftk 7y ago

Note that this article is from March 31st, and while that wouldn't normally be very long ago things are moving extremely quickly.

moate 7y ago

In the 9 days since we still have models that are all over the place. Nate Silver covers the difficulty in predictive modeling of pandemics in his book "The Signal and the Noise" and in the years since it was written not much has changes to they're basically rehashing the points he made then.

CodeWriter23 7y ago

Well, politically things are moving quickly too. Bottom line, all the “science” failed to engage The Cautionary Principle when they should have known that what they did know was likely outweighed by what they didn’t.

jefftk 7y ago
I can't tell what you think should have happened differently here

mcguire 7y ago

"Meanwhile, a report from Imperial College London that made headlines for its dire, modeling-based forecasts predicted about 2.2 million U.S. deaths from the coronavirus, if nobody changes their everyday behavior." On the other hand, they're still quoting that study, which was very out of date well before the 31st.

lbeltrame 7y ago
Do you (or anyone else) have any resources for a critique/comment of that report? I'm interested since I tried reading it and I think I lacked a finer understanding.
- mcguire 7y ago
  I do not have any specific critiques about it, although I remember seeing the authors had some follow-up work. But the important caveat about that model is that it assumes everyone does nothing. It has been a rather long time since everyone stopped doing nothing, so even if it is entirely correct, it has not been relevant since well before this article was written.

tunesmith 7y ago

The main shift I've noticed (as a layman) is that people are thinking the illness is more contagious and less fatal than first thought. That explains the downward revisions in future deaths, but it also means that physical distancing is more effective and more important than first thought. Because a carrier that stays home is infecting ~5 less people rather than ~2 less people. The thing I'm worried about today is population centers deciding to relax mitigation before they've vastly increased testing capacity.

sharken 7y ago
Physical distancing is important if you are old (>65 years) or have a pre-existing condition. The remainder should treat Corona as they do with the common flu, that is what the data is telling us. References https://www.globalresearch.ca/swiss-doctor-covid-19/5707642 https://www.globalresearch.ca/swiss-doctor-covid-19/5707642 https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_17_marzo-v2.pdf https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-C... (Italian)