|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Mar 26, 2020 15:54:10 GMT -6
By the way, that article about Ferguson's revision to his estimate was total fake news. The original estimate in the paper for shutdown / suppression was 5,600-48,000 deaths and he's now at 20,000.  |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Mar 26, 2020 15:59:51 GMT -6
That tweet is fake news, the Nature study is not. Seasonal flu has a fatality rate of around 0.1%. The nature study puts the symptomatic case fatality rate (sCFR) at 1.2-1.4%. They also estimate the influence of the number of people who are asymptomatic. If 50% of people go on to develop symptoms, the sCFR is 1.4%. If 95% of people do, the sCFR is 1.2%. That would imply - I think, could be wrong - that 50% of people get symptoms, and sCFR is 1.4%, a total rate of 0.7%. And for 95%, total rate would be ~1.14%. So, on one, who the hell knows why the WHO ever said 3.4%. On the other hand, this ~10x worse than the number for the flu. On the third hand, this is a very nice study, but its done from the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan and everyone agrees that data might be sketchy, so I assign 2 grains of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 26, 2020 16:03:39 GMT -6
I know I'm not the only one leery of statisticians, the numbers and the conclusions they draw. They seem to be able to make the numbers do whatever they want them to do. Kinda like how Spotify, Google, etc. can't make money because they pay artists too much. Seriously. They have the stats to prove it.  |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 26, 2020 16:17:53 GMT -6
I know I'm not the only one leery of statisticians, the numbers and the conclusions they draw. They seem to be able to make the numbers do whatever they want them to do. Kinda like how Spotify, Google, etc. can't make money because they pay artists too much. Seriously. They have the stats to prove it. I held this view too (it is the sort of cultural go-to take) until I took some statistics/probability classes. It’s other people who use stats to say things the underlying math doesn’t say who are shucksters. The math is perfectly circumspect. It’ll tell you what the figure is and how certain or uncertain it is about it. An example of a statistical answer would be “well, I can’t tell you exactly what it is but I can tell you there’s a 90% chance it’s between ____ and ____.” Sometimes somebody will come along and try to use it to say something else but that’s not the statistician’s fault. His/her math is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 26, 2020 16:38:16 GMT -6
I know I'm not the only one leery of statisticians, the numbers and the conclusions they draw. They seem to be able to make the numbers do whatever they want them to do. Kinda like how Spotify, Google, etc. can't make money because they pay artists too much. Seriously. They have the stats to prove it. I held this view too (it is the sort of cultural go-to take) until I took some statistics/probability classes. It’s other people who use stats to say things the underlying math doesn’t say who are shucksters. The math is perfectly circumspect. It’ll tell you what the figure is and how certain or uncertain it is about it. An example of a statistical answer would be “well, I can’t tell you exactly what it is but I can tell you there’s a 90% chance it’s between ____ and ____.” Sometimes somebody will come along and try to use it to say something else but that’s not the statistician’s fault. His/her math is correct. OK. Fair enough. Let's put it this way - people with their agenda's can have their statisticians bend the results or the type of calculation to get the numbers they want. Or word that different. I think you know what I mean. make the numbers say what you want them to say. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 26, 2020 16:43:07 GMT -6
Alright, few thoughts. Sorry if I'm a babbling idiot. Just a bunch of different things in my head. I'll try to section off a bit. All of my posting is just op ed. I have no background in anything useful and no real political affiliation (but don't really trust the government to do what's right for the masses).
First, anyone seen this? www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.htmlDefinitely interesting and I'm sure the conspiracy theorists are all over it like white on rice. This biggest takeaway that I see from the article is this comment though... We are all taking measures to contain this virus now, but what about when these measures stop? We'll be right back at square 1 with the hospitals being over capacity again. The government won't shut the economy down for 3 weeks, reopen for 3 weeks, and rinse/repeat. Eventually, we are going to get overwhelmed.
Insufficient testing.Right now, some sick people are being tested for the virus. This doesn't give us sufficient data to project from. There needs to be a significant selection of population tested at random. Sick, healthy, whatever, to obtain data about the actual current state of the virus. We could already be at a massive outbreak with 50% of the population infected, but non-symptomatic. Also, how many people died in October from this virus and doctors just didn't know they were infected. Or 2 years ago. Or whenever. Doctors just chalked it up to seasonal flu. Or Pneumonia. Or old age. Or whatever. It's a new virus. When was a test even developed? Again, just spitballing thoughts.
The economy.Everything is fucked. I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm a paycheck to paycheck guy. Everyone in my shoes (or worse shoes since I at least still have my main job) is in disaster mode right now. I don't understand how widespread shutdowns are going to work. We are crippling the economy and people are going to lose everything. My local coffee shop is shut down and had to start a gofundme in hopes that they'll be able to reopen. www.gofundme.com/f/cafe-la-france-emergency-fundThis woman is about to lose everything she's worked for. I've still had a couple in studio sessions and have some mixing projects right now, but I can only survive with my studio through April. If I can't get bookings, I'll have to close. I've seen some stuff floating around about small business loans etc, but if I have to pay back some business loan to keep me afloat, I won't be able to stay afloat because I was barely floating before. Add in a shutdown loan that I need to pay back and I can't survive. All of the full time musicians are out of work. All service people are out of work. Good luck collecting in those industries. My mom and girlfriend have both been laid off during the shutdown. GF can't afford her mortgage payments with the layoff and being between tenants in her rental unit (new tenant is supposed to move in May 1 if she survives the apocalypse). Then, once the economy is totally tanked and the shutdown is lifted, businesses will open back up and won't have patrons because everyone lost all of their extra income during this lockdown. At that point, the virus will start spreading again and we're back to the same cycle. We're supposed to just trust that the government is going to help us out through this? I would guess that the number of government officials who have lived paycheck to paycheck in their lifetime is close to 0. I don't think they truly understand the dire situation that a lot of us are in right now. I also think that many of the officials are probably happy to see the lower class being exterminated.
Again, sorry to be a babbling idiot and bleak. These are all valid points, and I've thought about them a lot. I don't understand how the government didn't already put a pause on all bills. All these coffee shops, bars, studios, etc should be on hiatus, same as any other emergency. All the out of work people should be pausing all real estate payments. All small businesses get a bridge payment (landlords are small business too, survive without receiving rent or paying mortgages on property). Its not that hard, but somehow it is way too hard. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 26, 2020 17:09:14 GMT -6
I held this view too (it is the sort of cultural go-to take) until I took some statistics/probability classes. It’s other people who use stats to say things the underlying math doesn’t say who are shucksters. The math is perfectly circumspect. It’ll tell you what the figure is and how certain or uncertain it is about it. An example of a statistical answer would be “well, I can’t tell you exactly what it is but I can tell you there’s a 90% chance it’s between ____ and ____.” Sometimes somebody will come along and try to use it to say something else but that’s not the statistician’s fault. His/her math is correct. OK. Fair enough. Let's put it this way - people with their agenda's can have their statisticians bend the results or the type of calculation to get the numbers they want. Or word that different. I think you know what I mean. make the numbers say what you want them to say. Yeah for sure. Crooks can cook the books in any corner of any discipline. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 26, 2020 17:34:23 GMT -6
I know I'm not the only one leery of statisticians, the numbers and the conclusions they draw. They seem to be able to make the numbers do whatever they want them to do. Kinda like how Spotify, Google, etc. can't make money because they pay artists too much. Seriously. They have the stats to prove it. I held this view too (it is the sort of cultural go-to take) until I took some statistics/probability classes. It’s other people who use stats to say things the underlying math doesn’t say who are shucksters. The math is perfectly circumspect. It’ll tell you what the figure is and how certain or uncertain it is about it. An example of a statistical answer would be “well, I can’t tell you exactly what it is but I can tell you there’s a 90% chance it’s between ____ and ____.” Sometimes somebody will come along and try to use it to say something else but that’s not the statistician’s fault. His/her math is correct. Funny thing is that was the opposite. I was very trusting until I took Statistics.. And then I worked with people who's jobs it was to work with statistics.. And now I don't trust statistics at all. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 26, 2020 17:45:18 GMT -6
I held this view too (it is the sort of cultural go-to take) until I took some statistics/probability classes. It’s other people who use stats to say things the underlying math doesn’t say who are shucksters. The math is perfectly circumspect. It’ll tell you what the figure is and how certain or uncertain it is about it. An example of a statistical answer would be “well, I can’t tell you exactly what it is but I can tell you there’s a 90% chance it’s between ____ and ____.” Sometimes somebody will come along and try to use it to say something else but that’s not the statistician’s fault. His/her math is correct. Funny thing is that was the opposite. I was very trusting until I took Statistics.. And then I worked with people who's jobs it was to work with statistics.. And now I don't trust statistics at all. Sounds to me like you don’t trust those people. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 26, 2020 17:54:41 GMT -6
Funny thing is that was the opposite. I was very trusting until I took Statistics.. And then I worked with people who's jobs it was to work with statistics.. And now I don't trust statistics at all. Sounds to me like you don’t trust those people. When it comes to people's jobs depending on the statistics saying certain things.. Always bet on the statistics saying exactly what is needed to keep their jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 26, 2020 18:00:55 GMT -6
Sounds to me like you don’t trust those people. When it comes to people's jobs depending on the statistics saying certain things.. Always bet on the statistics saying exactly what is needed to keep their jobs. I absolutely do count on that. But again that’s a people issue, not a math issue. Maybe it’s a distinction without a difference in this case since most consumers of news aren’t going to go learn statistics and programming and double check every analysis they hear about. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 26, 2020 18:10:00 GMT -6
When it comes to people's jobs depending on the statistics saying certain things.. Always bet on the statistics saying exactly what is needed to keep their jobs. I absolutely do count on that. But again that’s a people issue, not a math issue. Maybe it’s a distinction without a difference in this case since most consumers of news aren’t going to go learn statistics and programming and double check every analysis they hear about. Oh no, it's never a math issue, it's an interpretation issue. It's an issue of bias, so yeah it's ultimately a people issue. I've seen people do some really, really bad work and overlook all kinds of data or observations just to get what they wanted out of it. I've also seen people cluelessly bumble through the data and create results that would be impossible, yet completely believe that they were infallible in their work. I've also seen good people do great work and get completely trashed by those around then who wanted different results. You know what happened? The first one lost the company a million dollars. The second got a person fired after management thought the other person had messed up based on the first guys results.. the third situation worked out eventually, but nobody was ever punished for the academic bullying. Ultimately nobody ever questioned these folks because they were considered "experts". People just blindly followed what they said. None of those are the norm but I'd bet lying if I said it didn't happen very often. That's why I try to stick to the design portion of engineering, and let the mathematical centric folks do their thing without me. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 26, 2020 18:12:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 26, 2020 18:13:17 GMT -6
is there math without people? Theoretically, of course, but without people, we don't get the math stats.
It's VERY clear on both extreme sides of this Covid issue that there's either faulty mathematicians, blundering idiots, or a decided skewing of the "facts / stats" to meet their sides agenda's. Neither is helpful, and potentially, if we fall where I think we will, the most damaging of the stats will have come from the "end of the world as we know it" krew.
Again, children having to live thru this insanity....may heaven bless them, cause they are gonna get seriously warped and anxious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 26, 2020 18:14:11 GMT -6
dont disregard the video because of who tweeted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 26, 2020 18:23:43 GMT -6
is there math without people? Theoretically, of course, but without people, we don't get the math stats. It's VERY clear on both extreme sides of this Covid issue that there's either faulty mathematicians, blundering idiots, or a decided skewing of the "facts / stats" to meet their sides agenda's. Neither is helpful, and potentially, if we fall where I think we will, the most damaging of the stats will have come from the "end of the world as we know it" krew. Again, children having to live thru this insanity....may heaven bless them, cause they are gonna get seriously warped and anxious. I have no doubt that however this shakes out, we’ll all see it as the Other Side’s fault and we’ll be sure we’re giving it a fair, objective shake. No ones immune from that urge (myself included). As far as the math though, the data has been changing in real time. That the models change with it is a feature not a bug. They should change. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 26, 2020 18:40:31 GMT -6
is there math without people? Theoretically, of course, but without people, we don't get the math stats. It's VERY clear on both extreme sides of this Covid issue that there's either faulty mathematicians, blundering idiots, or a decided skewing of the "facts / stats" to meet their sides agenda's. Neither is helpful, and potentially, if we fall where I think we will, the most damaging of the stats will have come from the "end of the world as we know it" krew. Again, children having to live thru this insanity....may heaven bless them, cause they are gonna get seriously warped and anxious. I have no doubt that however this shakes out, we’ll all see it as the Other Side’s fault and we’ll be sure we’re giving it a fair, objective shake. No ones immune from that urge (myself included). As far as the math though, the data has been changing in real time. That the models change with it is a feature not a bug. They should change. True and true. It's a quick changing scenario - no doubt. I'm just biding my time for the "hell on earth" scenario in....less than 2 weeks. One thing is for SURE. Time will show exactly how things will play out. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 26, 2020 18:51:13 GMT -6
I have one over-riding thought regarding the whole statistics business, and it's this: if YOU or someone you love gets COVID-19 and dies, the odds are 100%. Just today, the husband of a high school classmate and Facebook friend is sick as hell and waiting on a test result. Will he die? Obviously, I certainly hope not, "odds are" he will survive. But his symptoms are classic COVID, running a 103 fever, and he tested negative for Flu. And we are hitting 60 years old and are all too close to the "high risk" (translation: higher mortality) age group. I can only guess the terror being experienced by my friend and her family, not to mention the husband.
Argue stats if you want. But they are 100% meaningless to the 100% dead.
There's a well-known quote often attributed to Josef Stalin that goes something like: "The death of one person is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." I hope, as a society, we don't become like Uncle Joe. Now, there was a killer.
Stay well my friends, and be careful out there!
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 26, 2020 19:04:02 GMT -6
is there math without people? Theoretically, of course, but without people, we don't get the math stats. It's VERY clear on both extreme sides of this Covid issue that there's either faulty mathematicians, blundering idiots, or a decided skewing of the "facts / stats" to meet their sides agenda's. Neither is helpful, and potentially, if we fall where I think we will, the most damaging of the stats will have come from the "end of the world as we know it" krew. Again, children having to live thru this insanity....may heaven bless them, cause they are gonna get seriously warped and anxious. Good question. The answer is no, of course. Math is a human construct to help organize the understanding of the world around us. The problem is that it's also a human construct, so there's always error. Remember PEMDAS? Doing arithmetic in a certain order, because doing it a different order gets you a different result.. Why? Because it was created in a order and people never go back to fix things once they're established. Why does some high level math need multiple dimensions in order to be solved? Because new data that doesn't jive with old theory doesn't change the direction of the person working the problem, they just create more complexity to explain the error. Such is the way of science. Science truly makes our lives better, but it's slow, it's clunky, and there's a lot of failure behind the scenes in addition to the politics and un-fun aspects of it. But most of all, it's just people working with the devices of science created before them, but that makes them ultimately bound by these devices too. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 26, 2020 19:05:01 GMT -6
sick as hell and waiting on a test result. Will he die? Obviously, I certainly hope not, "odds are" he will survive. But his symptoms are classic COVID, running a 103 fever, and he tested negative for Flu.! I've got a close friend in the same boat. Active, early 40's, healthy until : 104 fever, came on out of nowhere, quick acting, double pneumonia, negative for "flu". Tested and waiting for results. Keeping a positive attitude here. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 26, 2020 19:24:29 GMT -6
sick as hell and waiting on a test result. Will he die? Obviously, I certainly hope not, "odds are" he will survive. But his symptoms are classic COVID, running a 103 fever, and he tested negative for Flu.! I've got a close friend in the same boat. Active, early 40's, healthy until : 104 fever, came on out of nowhere, quick acting, double pneumonia, negative for "flu". Tested and waiting for results. Keeping a positive attitude here. Me too, but it's tough. Suddenly everything is in question. Everything. Best of outcomes to your friend! |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Mar 26, 2020 19:36:32 GMT -6
That quote doesn’t actually mention the Imperial study. And it’s not a faulty model. Look, lots if estimates have said 40-70% will contract the virus. www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/11/up-to-150-million-americans-are-expected-to-contract-the-coronavirus-congressional-doctor-says.html20% is a reasonable number to expect. If it’s less than that over the next year, it’ll be amazing. Dr Brix is messaging for non-panic and that’s fine. But flu outbreaks which are less infectious like 2009 H1N1 infect more than 20%. H1N1 in 2009 was 24% of the world. But that’s over the course of a year+. It’s silly to say that Italy should have x or y projections and therefore the prediction is false. That’s just messaging. No one has predicted big time infection rates in week 12 of an outbreak (except an Oxford study, but to get there they modeled the disease to be much much much less severe). The comment about antibody testing is spot on though. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 26, 2020 19:39:04 GMT -6
I've got a close friend in the same boat. Active, early 40's, healthy until : 104 fever, came on out of nowhere, quick acting, double pneumonia, negative for "flu". Tested and waiting for results. Keeping a positive attitude here. Me too, but it's tough. Suddenly everything is in question. Everything. Best of outcomes to your friend! Yes, it's rough no doubt about it. But we both have a strong faith in God, a positive attitude, and great friends and family surrounding and supporting him. I wish your friend a full and speedy recovery. We'll see if this just ends up being a bad case of Pneumonia or if it's the #2 case of C-19 in our town. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Mar 26, 2020 19:41:01 GMT -6
I have no doubt that however this shakes out, we’ll all see it as the Other Side’s fault and we’ll be sure we’re giving it a fair, objective shake. No ones immune from that urge (myself included). As far as the math though, the data has been changing in real time. That the models change with it is a feature not a bug. They should change. True and true. It's a quick changing scenario - no doubt. I'm just biding my time for the "hell on earth" scenario in....less than 2 weeks. One thing is for SURE. Time will show exactly how things will play out. Yes and if the drastic measures work and the medical system can handle the load and doesn’t collapse we’ll have the usual bogus uproar of “sEe?? iT wAs aLl juSt FAAaaAaKe nEWs!” the same way the guy who gets talked into stepping away from the gas pump while he’s lighting his cigarette has the luxury of saying “wHat tHE hEll tHEre wAS nO DanGeR aFtER aLL!” when it doesn’t explode. (Not my analogy, but it fits) It’ll still be worth it. Putting up with fraudulent posturing is worth less dead people in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 26, 2020 19:58:03 GMT -6
There will be no stopping fraudulent posturing I'm afraid.... On either side....  |
|
