- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Experts finally admitting that Tigerdroppings was right all along
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:33 am to Penrod
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:33 am to Penrod
quote:
It has been extremely consistently wrong.
actually we have fallen within the range of projections everyday for like the last week
we were just on the low end of the projections, so now they have narrowed the range of projections to fit the low end
0
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:34 am to Antonio Moss
quote:I estimated that the us would have between between 200 and 2 million deaths.
Nearly every single metric has fallen within the range (including projected peaks).
My estimate, in your eyes, was a good model.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:37 am to Penrod
quote:
OMG, no. two days ago it was saying we needed 6,000 hospital beds for COVID patients. The actual data was about 1500. It has been close on deaths because it is updating the deaths real time! A child can be right that way.
No, it projected a range for hospital beds, ICU beds, and ventaliator usage back on March 26th and ICU and ventilator usage fell within that range. That range has significantly narrowed as of this morning because this is the first time its been updated since then and we now have two weeks with of additional data.
Death projections were made on March 26th, April 1st, and April 5th. Louisiana's deaths by day fell within the projected range every day save for one (it was one below the projected range.) The model narrowed on April 1st and again April 5th.
The change in peak deaths also fell within the projected range.
All of these fell towards the booth of the range. That is obviously a great thing and could be expected given the strigent regulations put into place to reduce spread.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:38 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Nearly every single metric has fallen within the range (including projected peaks).
You are the one who misunderstands what those ranges mean. Anywhere in that band does not constitute a correct answer. They generate multiple curves. Data that falls on a low curve followed by data on one of the high curves does not constitute "in the range". It means their curves are bullshite. Further, the actual data absolutely has fallen outside that entire gi-friggin-gantic band.
This is global warming all over again. The experts models are:
1. always way wrong
2. always wrong in the same direction
3. always "fixed" just now such that back modeling works out perfectly
4. followed by always wrong again...and guess in which direction. You guessed it. More hysteria!!!
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:39 am to Penrod
quote:
Data that falls on a low curve followed by data on one of the high curves does not constitute "in the range". It means their curves are bullshite.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:40 am to TejasHorn
quote:
Send everyone back to work, reopen all the restaurants, etc. on May 1.
...and we'd be right back in the same place (probably worse) by May 15.
Exactly, hospitals easily handling the case load. Only people who were close to death actually dying.
Oh, there is one way we would not be in the same place - we'd have the economy going again.
Looks like Sweden was right.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:41 am to EllEssYou45
quote:
Were those projections before or after preventative measures were taken?
Those predictions took social distancing factors into consideration. No excuses.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:41 am to Penrod
quote:
You are the one who misunderstands what those ranges mean. Anywhere in that band does not constitute a correct answer. They generate multiple curves. Data that falls on a low curve followed by data on one of the high curves does not constitute "in the range". It means their curves are bullshite.
That isn't how any of this works.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:42 am to Penrod
quote:
Data that falls on a low curve followed by data on one of the high curves does not constitute "in the range".
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:42 am to Privateer 2007
quote:
My wife thinks your all jackasses.
Yet, every time shite happens she's asking me what are they saying on TD
I mean, these two things aren't mutually exclusive...
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:42 am to Penrod
quote:
Penrod
You're that idiot who bitches about seatbelt laws, then cites a reduction in deaths from car accidents as proof that they weren't needed in the first place.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:43 am to terriblegreen
quote:
The hospitals are now saying they will be fine... In other words, they won't run out of beds. I think we are definitely passed the worst of this. However, expect restrictions to continue for a while.
that's the whole issue with the policy. we have to keep doing this for a while
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:44 am to Antonio Moss
quote:This is my issue with the projections and you. The "range" has been ridiculous
Nearly every single metric has fallen within the range (including projected peaks).
You have used the hurricane cone as an analogy so I will as well. Their ranges have been the equivalent of having the hurricane cone ranging from west texas to Miami....
No shite it fell in the range
And thats fine, you have huge ranges because the truth is you(the experts) dont have a clue. That is not a big deal, but when you dont have a clue and you have a range wide as the grand canyon, just be honest you dont have a clue and not keep pointing to the upper end of the range only This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 8:47 am
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:45 am to Privateer 2007
quote:
My wife thinks your all jackasses.
Yet, every time shite happens she's asking me what are they saying on TD
Same here.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:47 am to Penrod
quote:
Data that falls on a low curve followed by data on one of the high curves does not constitute "in the range". It means their curves are bullshite.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:48 am to EllEssYou45
quote:
Were those projections before or after preventative measures were taken?
The curves vary based on the effectiveness of the precautions. High-end ranges assume that precautionary efforts were ineffective, low end assumes significantly effective. March 26th projections are really wide because of how compounding those effects could be over time.
Narrowing occurred on the April 1st projections because the data was able to account for the effectiveness of social measures better than March 26th.
The further narrowing again this morning gives us more exact effectiveness.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:49 am to EllEssYou45
Love auto analogies. Choosing to be fat and unhealthy is like going through life without putting on the seatbelt. Who’s to blame when those people get in a wreck a die?
Yet I’m being “reckless” because I let my 6 yo play with another 6 yo in our neighborhood once a week.
Yet I’m being “reckless” because I let my 6 yo play with another 6 yo in our neighborhood once a week.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:51 am to Penrod
This site is rarely "right" about anything.
Up until yesterday, it thought masks are a joke.
Up until last year, 95% of 'em hated Orgeron.
If you use the collective think here to form an opinion, you are pretty soft.
Up until yesterday, it thought masks are a joke.
Up until last year, 95% of 'em hated Orgeron.
If you use the collective think here to form an opinion, you are pretty soft.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:52 am to BuddyRoeaux
quote:
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again.
Tigerdroppings is the quickest on the scene and the most reliable news.
It’s why I can’t ever get off this site. Best for news and it isn’t close
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News