| ummm.... on 13:44 - Dec 18 with 710 views | eireblue |
| ummm.... on 13:33 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
Could you be more specific? For example, have they omitted the predictions where SAGE have been accurate? I'm interested in the truth rather than any political agenda so i'd genuinely like to know. |
Define accurate.
Some of the models for some of the time periods are reasonably accurate.
The purpose of a model is to do better than guessing.
What’s your guess on how many excess deaths there will be between now and end of January?
Do you want a Government to protect the lives of citizens by guesswork, especially with a growth profile that is exponential and the worst outcomes are 3 weeks behind real time data? |  | |  |
| ummm.... on 14:15 - Dec 18 with 638 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 13:31 - Dec 18 by bluelagos |
Thanks for the clarity and I presume from answer you have no experience modelling diseases. None at all. Zilch. (Do correct if I am wrong)
Am happy to defer to those who have experience and who understand how to model unknowns, and how to present the uncertainty they create in their models. |
I've said i will apologize and say not one more word on covid if i'm wrong.
Really it should be the professionals doing that but there you go. |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 14:15 - Dec 18 with 630 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 13:35 - Dec 18 by ZXBlue |
Where is the context? They are clearly pursuing the agenda that its all a fuss about nothing. Along with a moronic cadre of tory mps. |
No that's more vague. I wanted something specific. | |
| |
| ummm.... on 14:28 - Dec 18 with 712 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| ummm.... on 13:27 - Dec 18 by eireblue |
If you had to decide on whether your actions would result in the difference between 1000’s and 10’s of deaths, seems reasonable to take all information available, and not simply go for a gut instinct, hope for the best and then get it wrong. |
The decisions are summed up "let them pile high". |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 15:02 - Dec 18 with 578 views | Pinewoodblue |
| ummm.... on 13:13 - Dec 18 by Swansea_Blue |
A lot's lost in the translation with this. E.g. the models may be suggesting a range of deaths according to different assumptions including, for example, a worst case scenario with no control measures. Newspapers jump on the worse case scenario as if it's a prediction. We then do something (lockdowns, maks, social distancing) and the actuals are lower than the upper most modelled ranges. Cue outrage at how the models are wrong and the scientists useless, especially from the selfish libertarian types such as those at the Spectator.
Models can't be wrong in that sense - they are used for what-ifs and to explore likely impacts of changes in the inputs, such as expected transmissibility, whether or not there are measures in place, etc. They're not supposed to be foolproof predictions (otherwise the scientists wouldn't piss about with viruses - they'd be cashing in on the lottery each week). They're the best guide we have and super important to trying to understand how things may develop, but still only a guide. |
It is the modern way to work to worst case senario. The problem is the way media make it seem, to those less educated, to be what is most likely to happen.
It is also impossible to compare how different Countries are doing as there are so many variables. UK tests more than most, the more you test the more you find. UK reports 30+% of positive cases show no symptoms.
All you can really do is look at percentage changes to see if cases are rising, or falling. |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 16:01 - Dec 19 with 373 views | blueconscience |
| ummm.... on 12:59 - Dec 18 by ZXBlue |
Insuffifient time has passed for SA to be assessed.
SA people are younger and much fitter than we are. Far less obesity. |
They are also only 20-25% vaccinated |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
