IHME not looking so great - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: IHME not looking so great (/thread-19588.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: IHME not looking so great (/thread-19588.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: IHME not looking so great - burger - 05-04-2020
(05-04-2020, 09:05 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-04-2020, 04:33 PM)burger Wrote: This is a better model than the original in many ways, but I don't think these predictions are going to hold up. Too many questionable assumptions.
Then why is it a "better" model? Do you think its predictions are going to be closer i.e. smaller "error" in an RMS sense or absolute error sense?
It's a process model. They're using real data to estimate the parameters for the effects of social distancing. This has the potential to be useful in limited circumstances where the social distancing measures are static.
The problem is that things constantly changing, so the model will always be playing catch-up, so to speak. That makes the predictions likely to be inaccurate. But I'll still take this over the earlier version which was mostly disconnected from reality.
RE: IHME not looking so great - pefloresjr - 05-05-2020
The IHME model and numbers were at the top of the CDC website when the numbers were lower and "good" for Trump's elections chances. Now that the numbers have been adjusted, they have been removed from the website. This is alarming. CDC should not be governed by political priorities.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: IHME not looking so great - OutsiderFan - 05-05-2020
(05-05-2020, 12:16 AM)pefloresjr Wrote: The IHME model and numbers were at the top of the CDC website when the numbers were lower and "good" for Trump's elections chances. Now that the numbers have been adjusted, they have been removed from the website. This is alarming. CDC should not be governed by political priorities.
Cheers,
Pete F.
Alarming doesn’t even begin to cut it. You combine this with the fact the WH is trying to block people on its Covid committee from testifying to Congress, plus firing IGs who know where bodies are buried, and we have crossed a rubicon from pure incompetence to scandal. We now have evidence to prove the Executive Branch is aware of things it is trying to hide from the public that impact our personal health.
Reporters are soon going to be moving from simply trying to inform the public about what is going on, to scouring the likes of the CDC, IC, WH for leakers willing to disclose some truly ugly things. It’s really going to get especially bad for the administration when the House starts holding hearings not with administration types, but the most renowned experts in health and science who contradict and challenge things the Executive Branch has said and done, mixed in with former CDC, HHS and other people who can speak to what has gone on that we don’t know about.
Will be interesting - in a can’t stop watching this slow motion train wreck kind of way - to see if our terrible movie winds up in front of a SCOTUS already not meeting in person because of fears from the virus, having to rule on if witnesses can be blocked from testifying to Congress about the virus scaring SCOTUS.
What a time to be alive, for now.