3 ms·

I was strongly convinced by criticisms of that model leveled here: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/our-best-people-are-working-on-this

I was strongly convinced by criticisms of that model leveled here: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/our-best-people-are-working-on-this-problem.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/ou...

mzs 7y ago
That is not an impartial source: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/re-starting-the-economy.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/re... Also the claims of "Rif A. Saurous" are dubious, the first of many: "… it’s deeply implausible on its face that WA had R=.24 on 10 April and R=1.4 on 17 April." That's the week Easter happened and the mobility data from Apple in fact does show people in Seattle traveling more that week: https://imgur.com/a/bCK7O86 https://imgur.com/a/bCK7O86 Another recent gem: When Will The Riots Begin? - Marginal REVOLUTIONmarginalrevolution.com › marginalrevolution › 2020/04 › when-will-th... 4 days ago - The economy was doing well, Trump had charisma but was erratic and ... Meanwhile the elites are laughing about binging Tiger King on Netflix.
- jdminhbg 7y ago
  I'm sorry, but MR is a mainstream, reliable source. The author has a column in Bloomberg, previously in the NYT, and is widely cited. The rt.live model is very bad, and you should take those criticisms seriously.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  What is an impartial source to you - someone who has no other opinions on related topics?
  - mzs 7y ago
    One is just data, plots, functions, methods, links to a peer reviewed paper, and cautions where dragons may lie in its results. It makes no policy suggestions. The other is an email from a person not disclosing a real name making dubious claims of which even the first is not fact checked. Further the site makes policy suggestions routinely. One of those is much more likely to be arguing in bad faith.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I don't think it makes sense to have a heuristic of summarily rejecting any analysis from people who make policy suggestions.
      - mzs 7y ago
        I don't either, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the arguments made in one fell to immediate scrutiny, wanting to affect policy likely shows why though. In stats there's a smell test, arguments made without numbers.

mzs 7y ago

That is not an impartial source: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/re-starting-the-economy.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/re... Also the claims of "Rif A. Saurous" are dubious, the first of many: "… it’s deeply implausible on its face that WA had R=.24 on 10 April and R=1.4 on 17 April." That's the week Easter happened and the mobility data from Apple in fact does show people in Seattle traveling more that week: https://imgur.com/a/bCK7O86 https://imgur.com/a/bCK7O86 Another recent gem: When Will The Riots Begin? - Marginal REVOLUTIONmarginalrevolution.com › marginalrevolution › 2020/04 › when-will-th... 4 days ago - The economy was doing well, Trump had charisma but was erratic and ... Meanwhile the elites are laughing about binging Tiger King on Netflix.

jdminhbg 7y ago
I'm sorry, but MR is a mainstream, reliable source. The author has a column in Bloomberg, previously in the NYT, and is widely cited. The rt.live model is very bad, and you should take those criticisms seriously.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
What is an impartial source to you - someone who has no other opinions on related topics?
- mzs 7y ago
  One is just data, plots, functions, methods, links to a peer reviewed paper, and cautions where dragons may lie in its results. It makes no policy suggestions. The other is an email from a person not disclosing a real name making dubious claims of which even the first is not fact checked. Further the site makes policy suggestions routinely. One of those is much more likely to be arguing in bad faith.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't think it makes sense to have a heuristic of summarily rejecting any analysis from people who make policy suggestions.
    - mzs 7y ago
      I don't either, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the arguments made in one fell to immediate scrutiny, wanting to affect policy likely shows why though. In stats there's a smell test, arguments made without numbers.