The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

And who’s to say the guy RedDenver was trying to shame didn’t make his “best case scenario”.  See how that works. 
 

BTW…subsequent revisions to the model were wrong by quite a bit also.  AFTER lockdown measures were in place.  
 

It’s ok to say the expert models were wrong.  It’s ok to say random twitter personality Politimath guess was wrong.  But if your gonna shame one, you better shame the other too.  Otherwise your being hypocritical like Red

So, was it the "worst case scenario"?  It's Ok to admit that it was since you typed that in a previous post.

 

If it was, was there anything done to not make the worst case scenario to happen?

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, was it the "worst case scenario"?  It's Ok to admit that it was since you typed that in a previous post.

 

If it was, was there anything done to not make the worst case scenario to happen?

Have I disagreed that it was worst case?  What am I supposed to “admit”?
 

Is there anything that happened for the other persons prediction to be wrong?  

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, was it the "worst case scenario"?  It's Ok to admit that it was since you typed that in a previous post.

 

If it was, was there anything done to not make the worst case scenario to happen?

Did they give a prediction based on strong mitigation measures?  If not, why not?  Did they assume we would have none?

[Lorewarn]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

So what’s the difference between someone predicting worst case scenario from someone predicting best case scenario?   They are both wrong.  It’s funny you only defend one of the wrong predictions. 

 

You're comparing a supposed financial adviser on twitter's hunch to actual scientific models using data to make predictions. That's one difference, at least. Another difference is that the models predicting high death rates early on were based on continuing a trajectory with no intervention, a pretty big mitigating factor, and twitter twat man's prediction isn't based on anything.

 

It's funny you literally always do the exact same thing you criticize others of doing, which in this case, "It's funny you only defend one of the wrong predictions (by whipping up another one to pay attention to instead).

 

 

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

And who’s to say the guy RedDenver was trying to shame didn’t make his “best case scenario”.  See how that works. 

 

Who's to say? Uh, the man himself is to say:

 

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I forgot to add that you're straight up wrong or lying about the "best-case" scenario. The predictions were 10,000 deaths for mid range and 20,000 deaths for the high range, so the opposite of what you're claiming:

 

Even the "we f#&%ed up" prediction that is supposed to be approaching worst-case is off by a factor of 7. But keep defending this non-sense.

 

 

He defines his guesses as 10k being mid-range, 20k high, 100k super duper catastrophic high. No best case scenario in there. See how that works?

 

 

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s ok to say random twitter personality Politimath guess was wrong.  But if your gonna shame one, you better shame the other too.  Otherwise your being hypocritical like Red

 

It's ok to say random twitter personality Politimath guess was wrong. But if you're* gonna shame one, you better shame the other too. Otherwise you're* being hypocritical like @Archy1221.

 

Come on buddy, it's okay. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

17 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Have I disagreed that it was worst case?  What am I supposed to “admit”?
 

 

So, how do you know it's wrong and the specific number that it's wrong by?

[Archy1221]

18 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

You're comparing a supposed financial adviser on twitter's hunch to actual scientific models using data to make predictions.

And both were pretty far off base, but only one was brought up by the original poster.  Hmmmmmm

 

20 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

Another difference is that the models predicting high death rates early on were based on continuing a trajectory with no intervention, a pretty big mitigating factor,

And the the model revisions????  After mitigation…go on…

 

21 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Who's to say? Uh, the man himself is to say:

So let’s say his best case number was 1,000.  That puts his incorrect guess at 690,000ish vs the incorrect expert guess at 1,500,000ish.  
 

23 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

It's funny you literally always do the exact same thing you criticize others of doing, which in this case, "It's funny you only defend one of the wrong predictions (by whipping up another one to pay attention to instead).

What’s funny is your reading and comprehension skills.  What did I defend other than to say he was wrong but not more than the expert prediction.  I didn’t  defend his method, his algorithm or lack there of.  In fact I’ve said twice that if you shame one then shame both, I never said don’t shame him at all.  
Quite different than your incorrect comprehension.  But we all are used to that I guess. 

 

30 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

It's ok to say random twitter personality Politimath guess was wrong. But if you're* gonna shame one, you better shame the other too. Otherwise you're* being hypocritical like @Archy1221.

Cute but it doesn’t fit.  You gave it the old college try which is commendable.  

[Archy1221]

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, how do you know it's wrong and the specific number that it's wrong by?

Because we know the prediction and we know the current number of recorded deaths at each day from early on till now.   At that point it’s basic math skills. 

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Because we know the prediction and we know the current number of recorded deaths at each day from early on till now.   At that point it’s basic math skills. 

Was there anything done to not have the worst case scenario happen?

[Guy Chamberlin]

The pertinent question at the time was "how seriously should we take this?"

 

In which case one side was very, very wrong.

 

 

It's like judging Adrian Martinez only by his QBR rating. 

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The pertinent question at the time was "how seriously should we take this?"

 

In which case one side was very, very wrong.

Yep. Funny watching Archy try everything to avoid the obvious conclusion: 2.2 million as a worst-case was indeed above the actual 700k, as you'd expected for a worst-case scenario. Then try to call the tweet best-case (it wasn't) and then switch to subtracting the numbers despite the obvious conclusion that 100k as a worst-case was terribly wrong as it was not above the actual 700k. And those predictions were trying to inform public policy and behavior at the time - and it's very clear which one was closer to reality if we had done nothing, so one was far, far better at informing public policy than the other. But Archy can't be wrong, so here we are.

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Then try to call the tweet best-case (it wasn't)

When did I say that? Because if I did it would be wrong 

 

editing post as I saw you said tweet and not the lancet prediction.  I did say how do know it wasn’t best case prediction by Politimath. 

[Archy1221]

@RedDenver will you be be providing the relevant posts to back up your assertion that the tweeter was a Covid denier anytime soon?  

[Archy1221]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

then switch to subtracting the numbers despite the obvious conclusion that 100k as a worst-case was terribly wrong as it was not above the actual 700k.

Ackshully I used the basic math of subtraction at the very beginning

[BigRedBuster]

@Archy1221 will you be answering my question anytime soon?

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

@Archy1221 will you be answering my question anytime soon?

I’m waiting for @RedDenver  I asked that one first. 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

I’m waiting for @RedDenver  I asked that one first. 

Why?  Mine doesn't have anything to do with his.  It's a simple question really.  It's been in the news for over a year and heavily debated.

 

Was there anything done to not have the worst case scenario happen?