5 ms·

>a forecast that goes out 6+ months is silly. Sure is, which is why it's odd we've been bombarded with endless graphs with months of predictions, over the past

>a forecast that goes out 6+ months is silly. Sure is, which is why it's odd we've been bombarded with endless graphs with months of predictions, over the past 2.5 years.

hamburglar 4y ago
We have? I’ve certainly been bombarded with graphs showing trends, but six month predictions? Where are you seeing these? Can you point me to some?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jryhjythtr 4y ago
  Sure. https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isc... There are plenty that stretch out for a year.
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    A naive google search is ... not a helpful reference.
    - jryhjythtr 4y ago
      Why not? It's the most efficient way I could think of, to display the sheer quantity, timeline, and content of the "Covid predictions" that we were shown in the UK. They are easily clickable, to show the original context (typically a news story or press release). You'll also note that practically all of them extend for at least 6 months. Also, you "asked for some". There they are - there's a lot of them.
      - hamburglar 4y ago
        Well to be frank I clicked a handful of them and got tired of trying to decipher graphs that didn’t end up supporting this claim.
        jryhjythtr 4y ago
        Reminding ourselves that you asked to be "pointed to some (graphs predicting more than 6 months)": It is not clear when the image in first result was published, but given that it includes error bars for dates from March 2020 onwards, I would assume this is the result of modelling performed earlier than March 2020. It covers until October 2020. Result number two is a direct link to this paper: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-res... It was published in March 2020, and predicts data till March 2021 Result number three is a direct link to this news story (with an ironic headline, given result number 4 below): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334 It was published in November 2020, and predicts data until July 2021 Result number four is a direct link to this news story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148 It was published in July 2020, and predicts data until July 2021 This is the garbage that was fed to the UK populace on a daily basis - it was like the "modellers" had taken charge. Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation?
        hamburglar 4y ago
        > Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation? I accept that they exist. I don't accept that we were "bombarded" with them. This is, of course, a US perspective, so perhaps your mileage may vary.
slenk 4y ago
Doesn't seem odd for news outlets, unfortunately.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  Hyped up drama sells newspapers. Unfortunately.
Finnucane 4y ago
For ebola?
yamtaddle 4y ago
How've I not noticed this? I've instead seen a whole lot of graphs with no prediction whatsoever and lots and lots of people in positions of authority who seem totally unable to extrapolate from those in their heads, resulting in idiotic back-and-forth on various restrictions for the first 18 or so months of the pandemic. Shit like schools releasing plans ahead of the school year that they then immediately ignore because otherwise they'd have to close in the first two weeks of school, when it was fucking obvious the numbers would be like that around that time, just from looking at the graph and knowing more-or-less how disease spreads. Or "Ok stop masking and open up restaurants wait oh shit it's going up again I thought the tiny dip we saw would continue forever, for no good reason". Just baffling levels of data-illiteracy. But not a lot of long-term prediction graphs. Who was publishing those? [EDIT] Wait, I did see total-deaths-at-time-X predictions with/without measures, and with/without vaccination at high rates. That's true. [EDIT EDIT] Is there a tone issue or is my having seen vanishingly few graphs for all of COVID that tried to predict trends more than a week or two out an outlier experience, and those were in fact extremely common in, perhaps, media I didn't look at? Truly, the main problem I saw locally was an astonishing near-complete failure to consider trends and likely projections, over and over again and often by the same people, who seemed weirdly incapable of learning a very clear lesson, rather than too many projections looking too far out.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  My guess is a tone issue. It’s hard to even tell that you’re saying you haven’t seen long term graphs - the first sentence comes across as sarcastic when followed by long sentences complaining about other problems.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    I thought: > I've instead seen a whole lot of graphs with no prediction whatsoever made it pretty clear, but maybe not. And the rest was expressing that the actual on-the-ground problem I saw, and the single biggest problem with my state & local-level response to the whole thing, was a complete lack of attention to future trends, not too much. But perhaps that doesn't come across very well. Mea Culpa.
ASalazarMX 4y ago
I guess as it transformed from epidemic to pandemic to endemic, it became increasingly predictable. The duration and peaks of the last waves could even be predicted by months indeed, as measures and behaviors remained practically unchanged. Not one of these predictions encompassed six months, though.
- jryhjythtr 4y ago
  >Not one of these predictions encompassed six months, though. I beg to differ. Here's a sample of what we got, on a daily basis, in the UK: https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isc... Plenty of those are dated from the early months of 2020.
  - ASalazarMX 4y ago
    I stand corrected if that was the case. I followed WHO and Mexican predictions, and more speculative ones if the authors were honest about the speculation.

>a forecast that goes out 6+ months is silly. Sure is, which is why it's odd we've been bombarded with endless graphs with months of predictions, over the past 2.5 years.

hamburglar 4y ago

We have? I’ve certainly been bombarded with graphs showing trends, but six month predictions? Where are you seeing these? Can you point me to some?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jryhjythtr 4y ago
Sure. https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isc... There are plenty that stretch out for a year.
- hamburglar 4y ago
  A naive google search is ... not a helpful reference.
  - jryhjythtr 4y ago
    Why not? It's the most efficient way I could think of, to display the sheer quantity, timeline, and content of the "Covid predictions" that we were shown in the UK. They are easily clickable, to show the original context (typically a news story or press release). You'll also note that practically all of them extend for at least 6 months. Also, you "asked for some". There they are - there's a lot of them.
    - hamburglar 4y ago
      Well to be frank I clicked a handful of them and got tired of trying to decipher graphs that didn’t end up supporting this claim.
      - jryhjythtr 4y ago
        Reminding ourselves that you asked to be "pointed to some (graphs predicting more than 6 months)": It is not clear when the image in first result was published, but given that it includes error bars for dates from March 2020 onwards, I would assume this is the result of modelling performed earlier than March 2020. It covers until October 2020. Result number two is a direct link to this paper: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-res... It was published in March 2020, and predicts data till March 2021 Result number three is a direct link to this news story (with an ironic headline, given result number 4 below): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334 It was published in November 2020, and predicts data until July 2021 Result number four is a direct link to this news story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148 It was published in July 2020, and predicts data until July 2021 This is the garbage that was fed to the UK populace on a daily basis - it was like the "modellers" had taken charge. Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation?
        hamburglar 4y ago
        > Will you accept that graphs predicting more than 6 months of results were in common circulation? I accept that they exist. I don't accept that we were "bombarded" with them. This is, of course, a US perspective, so perhaps your mileage may vary.

slenk 4y ago

Doesn't seem odd for news outlets, unfortunately.

tinus_hn 4y ago
Hyped up drama sells newspapers. Unfortunately.

Finnucane 4y ago

For ebola?

yamtaddle 4y ago

How've I not noticed this? I've instead seen a whole lot of graphs with no prediction whatsoever and lots and lots of people in positions of authority who seem totally unable to extrapolate from those in their heads, resulting in idiotic back-and-forth on various restrictions for the first 18 or so months of the pandemic. Shit like schools releasing plans ahead of the school year that they then immediately ignore because otherwise they'd have to close in the first two weeks of school, when it was fucking obvious the numbers would be like that around that time, just from looking at the graph and knowing more-or-less how disease spreads. Or "Ok stop masking and open up restaurants wait oh shit it's going up again I thought the tiny dip we saw would continue forever, for no good reason". Just baffling levels of data-illiteracy. But not a lot of long-term prediction graphs. Who was publishing those? [EDIT] Wait, I did see total-deaths-at-time-X predictions with/without measures, and with/without vaccination at high rates. That's true. [EDIT EDIT] Is there a tone issue or is my having seen vanishingly few graphs for all of COVID that tried to predict trends more than a week or two out an outlier experience, and those were in fact extremely common in, perhaps, media I didn't look at? Truly, the main problem I saw locally was an astonishing near-complete failure to consider trends and likely projections, over and over again and often by the same people, who seemed weirdly incapable of learning a very clear lesson, rather than too many projections looking too far out.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
My guess is a tone issue. It’s hard to even tell that you’re saying you haven’t seen long term graphs - the first sentence comes across as sarcastic when followed by long sentences complaining about other problems.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  I thought: > I've instead seen a whole lot of graphs with no prediction whatsoever made it pretty clear, but maybe not. And the rest was expressing that the actual on-the-ground problem I saw, and the single biggest problem with my state & local-level response to the whole thing, was a complete lack of attention to future trends, not too much. But perhaps that doesn't come across very well. Mea Culpa.

ASalazarMX 4y ago

I guess as it transformed from epidemic to pandemic to endemic, it became increasingly predictable. The duration and peaks of the last waves could even be predicted by months indeed, as measures and behaviors remained practically unchanged. Not one of these predictions encompassed six months, though.

jryhjythtr 4y ago
>Not one of these predictions encompassed six months, though. I beg to differ. Here's a sample of what we got, on a daily basis, in the UK: https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+covid+predictions&tbm=isc... Plenty of those are dated from the early months of 2020.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  I stand corrected if that was the case. I followed WHO and Mexican predictions, and more speculative ones if the authors were honest about the speculation.