3 ms·

I think you should put "this is just a toy" in bold text on top. The real work is in doing a good job of fitting the model parameters, but you leave this, the

I think you should put "this is just a toy" in bold text on top. The real work is in doing a good job of fitting the model parameters, but you leave this, the most crucial work, as comments in the source on some other page? : /

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
What? This is not "just a toy". And we did not leave out the work of choosing parameter values - we made a large effort to select reasonable default values for all the parameters. Also, what are you referring to with this "comments in the source on some other page"? Which page? Which comments?
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  > [...] our historical estimates are simple "back of the napkin" type calculations. We refer to the source code for details on historical estimates. The exact parameter values together with their uncertainties makes a serious model. Providing a set of differential equations with 11 mysteriously chosen values makes it little more than a toy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    > > [...] our historical estimates are simple "back of the napkin" type calculations. We refer to the source code for details on historical estimates. > Providing a set of differential equations with 11 mysteriously chosen values makes it little more than a toy. I'm guessing you think that historical estimates were created with the model, by running the model with super secret 11 parameters? This is not the case. Historical estimates were not created with the model. Historical estimates were created with simple "back of the napkin" type calculations, like it says in the text you quoted, and the calculations are linked right next to that text. Also, what exactly is mysterious about the chosen parameter values? For example, if you click the question mark tooltip near R0 parameter, you will get a detailed description about how we calculate the default value for it. What is mysterious about it?

baobabKoodaa 6y ago

What? This is not "just a toy". And we did not leave out the work of choosing parameter values - we made a large effort to select reasonable default values for all the parameters. Also, what are you referring to with this "comments in the source on some other page"? Which page? Which comments?

SiempreViernes 6y ago
> [...] our historical estimates are simple "back of the napkin" type calculations. We refer to the source code for details on historical estimates. The exact parameter values together with their uncertainties makes a serious model. Providing a set of differential equations with 11 mysteriously chosen values makes it little more than a toy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > > [...] our historical estimates are simple "back of the napkin" type calculations. We refer to the source code for details on historical estimates. > Providing a set of differential equations with 11 mysteriously chosen values makes it little more than a toy. I'm guessing you think that historical estimates were created with the model, by running the model with super secret 11 parameters? This is not the case. Historical estimates were not created with the model. Historical estimates were created with simple "back of the napkin" type calculations, like it says in the text you quoted, and the calculations are linked right next to that text. Also, what exactly is mysterious about the chosen parameter values? For example, if you click the question mark tooltip near R0 parameter, you will get a detailed description about how we calculate the default value for it. What is mysterious about it?