Author
Topic: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas
(Read 767855 times)

longhorn320 · « **Reply #3444 on:** May 04, 2020, 04:56:22 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on May 04, 2020, 04:46:33 PM

So... It changed a little today. They're now projecting 134,475 total deaths by Aug 4.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

I think that projection is reasonable

In order to go from 67000 to 134475 in 92 days you would have to avg about 750 a day which would be less then half our current daily average

so its very possible IMHO

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3445 on:** May 04, 2020, 05:02:52 PM »

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/coronavirus-immune-response/610228/?fbclid=IwAR29KTGlilpUxuohpdXMeYZZA4hDFOg6FE5z5ypygKzkjqu3T4Ea0H-yw3o

Well, they are a bit late getting there, IMHO. Maybe they don't update the web site often. And I still don't understand why they think this would recede anyway over time.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3446 on:** May 04, 2020, 05:15:01 PM »

Quote from: longhorn320 on May 04, 2020, 04:56:22 PM

I think that projection is reasonable

In order to go from 67000 to 134475 in 92 days you would have to avg about 750 a day which would be less then half our current daily average

so its very possible IMHO

Yeah, but if the projection is just following the trend, it's not particularly useful as a prediction.

As I said last week, it's reactive rather than predictive. Which doesn't make it useless, but it's not as useful as people want it to be.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3447 on:** May 04, 2020, 05:19:19 PM »

I can see a model starting out very rough and getting better with more data. I'm not sure why they projected numbers near 60,000 ever though, and this is an enormous change, not a slight modification.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3448 on:** May 04, 2020, 05:34:13 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 04, 2020, 05:19:19 PM

I can see a model starting out very rough and getting better with more data. I'm not sure why they projected numbers near 60,000 ever though, and this is an enormous change, not a slight modification.

I'm not anti-model. I know there are a lot of people very distrustful of models because sometimes they tell them things they don't want to hear.

But there are good models and not very good models, and this one doesn't seem great.

But the bigger problem was how us laymen were using the model. Everyone loved it when it said there'd be <100K deaths while the prediction the gov't was using was 100-240K. And then when it dropped to 60K, state governments and POTUS were saying "look at what a wonderful job we're doing"! Do you think they're going to be saying that today?

utee94 · « **Reply #3449 on:** May 04, 2020, 05:46:21 PM »

I'm not anti-model either. Heidi Klum is one of my favorites.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3450 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:11:32 PM »

All models are wrong, some models are useful.

FearlessF · « **Reply #3451 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:19:21 PM »

data is data

the data isn't wrong it's just not greatly useful

I assume data is being reported differently from state to state, even from hospital to hospital or even from different staff in the same hospital

folks developing models are using different data

definitions of "confirmed case" are different - definitions of deaths or "cause of deaths" are different

data is ALL over the place

perhaps this is a large reason we haven't developed cures for cancer and other breakthroughs through research - data isn't false, it's just not nearly as useful or as straighforward as it could be.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3452 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:21:07 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on May 04, 2020, 06:19:21 PM

data is data

the data isn't wrong it's just not greatly useful

I assume data is being reported differently from state to state, even from hospital to hospital or even from different staff in the same hospital

folks developing models are using different data

definitions of "confirmed case" are different - definitions of deaths or "cause of deaths" are different

data is ALL over the place

perhaps this is a large reason we haven't developed cures for cancer and other breakthroughs through research - data isn't false, it's just not nearly as useful or as straighforward as it could be.

Data is data. It takes a lot of work to turn it into information.

FearlessF · « **Reply #3453 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:23:06 PM »

takes much more work when the data is not consistent or even reliable

bayareabadger · « **Reply #3454 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:24:24 PM »

Quote from: utee94 on May 04, 2020, 05:46:21 PM

I'm not anti-model either. Heidi Klum is one of my favorites.

If someone had an original Model-T, I'd gladly take it.

And then sell it to some collector for all the cash.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3455 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:26:16 PM »

Data ARE data, but some data are false, some are misleading, etc.

There is nothing magic about having data unless you are on Star Trek TNG. I'm stating the obvious.

You might drop a cannon ball and a feather and generate data about the rate at which eat falls and conclude light objects fall slower than heavier ones.

You might look at the sun rising and setting and conclude it goes around the Earth.

You might make some measurement and get data and later realize your instrument was improperly calibrated. It happens. I have choked on my share of BAD data.

FearlessF · « **Reply #3456 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:32:00 PM »

it just seems to me that possibly a federal jurisdiction could set some guidelines for data reporting so that the data gathered from New York would be very similar to data from California and the rest of the nation

seems that would make the data more uniform and useful

but, youse guys are the knowledgeable

if New York is over reporting deaths and California is under reporting deaths, it seems tough to get good data

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3457 on:** May 04, 2020, 06:33:42 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on May 04, 2020, 06:23:06 PM

takes much more work when the data is not consistent or even reliable

Yes, MUCH more work.

Which is why there are over 15,000 open jobs on linkedin for data scientists: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search/?keywords=data%20scientist

Anyone can figure out what it means with data that's consistent and reliable.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

longhorn320

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

Cincydawg

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

Cincydawg

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

utee94

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

Cincydawg

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

FearlessF

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

FearlessF

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

bayareabadger

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

Cincydawg

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

FearlessF

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Coronavirus discussion and Quarantine ideas