5 ms·

Levitt has racked up quite a consistent track record of bad science and confidently wrong predictions over the past 9 months. It's not surprising that the comm

Levitt has racked up quite a consistent track record of bad science and confidently wrong predictions over the past 9 months. It's not surprising that the community has lost faith in him. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/02/qa-michael-levitt-on-why-there-shouldnt-be-a-lockdown-how-hes-been-tracking-coronavirus/ https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/02/qa-michael-levitt-o...

dvt 6y ago
This is just disingenuous, as just about everyone's been wrong when it comes to predictions or claims on COVID-19: from the WHO, to the CDC, to Fauci. I don't really fault anyone for making bad predictions, either (as long as they're made in good faith and not just to drum up controversy) -- it is a novel situation after all.
- mturmon 6y ago
  I think it's the confident, bad predictions. From the linked article: > TSD: What do you predict to happen in the coming months regarding COVID-19 in the U.S.? > ML: I think it’s going to end up with less deaths than what I thought. In March, I thought there would be a total of 220,000, but there will be less than that. Right now it is around 155,000 in the U.S., and I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000. --- The article is dated August 2, and so these confident predictions are not looking too good at all. I'm not cherry-picking, there's a lot more in the article, like: > I think that when we come to look back, we’re going to say that wasn’t such a terrible disease. This just doesn't seem to be a person who has a good perspective on public health or public policy. --- And finally, ML's remarks about the Swedish death rate are not correct, as pointed out editorially in the article.
googthrowaway42 6y ago
I'm not sure why you posted this article when it doesn't impeach his credibility at all.
- IvyMike 6y ago
  It illustrates his history of "confidently wrong predictions".
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Can you point to where in the article you see this "confidently wrong prediction"?
    - mturmon 6y ago
      See nearby: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24843584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24843584
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        We're sitting at 220k right now so I don't see how that is such a terrible estimate when dealing with a highly multiplicative event like a pandemic. An estimate of 10k or 1M would be something extremely off, not 170k vs 220k. You should familiarize yourself with power law processes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
        IvyMike 6y ago
        When he said "I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000.", if he had added "plus or minus 1.5M" that would have been clearer. Edit: In other words, when his prediction is given with an implied error of +/- 5000, that speaks to a level of confidence that as you point out, anybody familiar with power law processes would not dare to give.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        His 'predictions' sound like an old paper I read that predicted Farr's law that AIDs would disappear in the mid 90's. Digging, found a paper from 2007 shitting on it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1906780/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1906780/ Pubmed reference. Abstract predicts 200,000 cases total. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2308183/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2308183/ I'm left with the opinion that Michael Levitt is basically a stupid person.

dvt 6y ago

This is just disingenuous, as just about everyone's been wrong when it comes to predictions or claims on COVID-19: from the WHO, to the CDC, to Fauci. I don't really fault anyone for making bad predictions, either (as long as they're made in good faith and not just to drum up controversy) -- it is a novel situation after all.

mturmon 6y ago
I think it's the confident, bad predictions. From the linked article: > TSD: What do you predict to happen in the coming months regarding COVID-19 in the U.S.? > ML: I think it’s going to end up with less deaths than what I thought. In March, I thought there would be a total of 220,000, but there will be less than that. Right now it is around 155,000 in the U.S., and I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000. --- The article is dated August 2, and so these confident predictions are not looking too good at all. I'm not cherry-picking, there's a lot more in the article, like: > I think that when we come to look back, we’re going to say that wasn’t such a terrible disease. This just doesn't seem to be a person who has a good perspective on public health or public policy. --- And finally, ML's remarks about the Swedish death rate are not correct, as pointed out editorially in the article.

googthrowaway42 6y ago

I'm not sure why you posted this article when it doesn't impeach his credibility at all.

IvyMike 6y ago
It illustrates his history of "confidently wrong predictions".
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  Can you point to where in the article you see this "confidently wrong prediction"?
  - mturmon 6y ago
    See nearby: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24843584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24843584
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      We're sitting at 220k right now so I don't see how that is such a terrible estimate when dealing with a highly multiplicative event like a pandemic. An estimate of 10k or 1M would be something extremely off, not 170k vs 220k. You should familiarize yourself with power law processes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
      - IvyMike 6y ago
        When he said "I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000.", if he had added "plus or minus 1.5M" that would have been clearer. Edit: In other words, when his prediction is given with an implied error of +/- 5000, that speaks to a level of confidence that as you point out, anybody familiar with power law processes would not dare to give.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        His 'predictions' sound like an old paper I read that predicted Farr's law that AIDs would disappear in the mid 90's. Digging, found a paper from 2007 shitting on it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1906780/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1906780/ Pubmed reference. Abstract predicts 200,000 cases total. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2308183/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2308183/ I'm left with the opinion that Michael Levitt is basically a stupid person.