- 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: Fauci predicts millions of coronavirus cases in US and 100,000-200,000 deaths
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:18 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:18 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
I'm not rummaging through your pile of shitty posts to prove a point. If you want to sit there and pretend like you haven't quoted the projected totals at anyone who disagreed with you for the past month, be my guest.
1
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:23 pm to White Roach
quote:
President Trump has said in at least two of the past three days that the death toll would have been much higher if we had done nothing.
I'm sorry but the data just doesn't bare that out. Eight states have remained open this whole time and are currently below the national average in total cases and deaths per capita. Before you report with "muh population density," those numbers can be adjusted and have been adjusted by a mathematician to account for this. Wilfred Riley did statistical regression math and came to the conclusion that lockdowns had virtually no effect on how severe or not severe the outbreak has been.
Here's a link to his conclusions:
LINK
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:30 pm to RB10
quote:I haven’t. Not one time.
If you want to sit there and pretend like you haven't quoted the projected totals at anyone who disagreed with you for the past month, be my guest.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:48 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
Fauci
Getting real tired of this dork.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:49 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Here comes Doctor Baw to explain why this expert in the field is wrong.
You're not actually defending this hack, are you?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:54 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Wilfred Riley did statistical regression math and came to the conclusion that lockdowns had virtually no effect on how severe or not severe the outbreak has been.
There are some pretty significant issues with his data. First, he is using pre-peak numbers in the less populated states against post-peak numbers in a lot of states - Louisiana is the most obvious here.
Second, he excludes New York as an "outlier" yet doesn't remove the low extreme because it aids his conclusion. I don't understand how if you are making an argument that population density isn't a significant indicator of effectiveness you then excluded the most densely populated region of the outbreak.
Just to add, this will obviously help the lockdown states in "deaths per million" but will absolutely through wrench in trying to isolate population density.
Finally, he touts the "success" of Sweden's lack of a lockdown but ignores the fact that in one of his main metrics (deaths per one million), Sweden is considerably higher than the U.S. average in lockdown states.
ETA: I would like to see someone try to quantify port states or international hubs. It seems instinctive that this would play a significant role in the introduction and spread of the disease.
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:56 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
There are some pretty significant issues with his data. First, I don't like it.
Second, I don't like it.
Finally, I don't like it.
FIFY
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:58 pm to RB10
Nah man. I'd love for this shite to be over. But shitty analysis is shitty analysis.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:59 pm to RB10
quote:why don't you instead counter the points he made?
FIFY
Come on man
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:07 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Nah man. I'd love for this shite to be over. But shitty analysis is shitty analysis.
You're another one who had no problem plastering the models and projections all over this board even though people were questioning the methods and underlying data. Interestingly enough, the people questioning it turned out to be correct.
Now you take issue with this because he "doesn't balance it by removing the low extreme" to match the outlier of NYC? What would be the low extreme you want him to remove? 99% of rural America?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:10 pm to RB10
quote:
You're another one who had no problem plastering the models and projections all over this board even though people were questioning the methods and underlying data. Interestingly enough, the people questioning it turned out to be correct.
No, they didn't. They just ran with what talking heads like Candace Owens said despite the fact that they were completely and utterly false.
Being wrong and claiming victory isn't the same as being correct.
quote:
Now you take issue with this because he "doesn't balance it by removing the low extreme" to match the outlier of NYC? What would be the low extreme you want him to remove? 99% of rural America?
If you are trying to isolate the effectiveness of population density, it doesn't make any sense to remove the most densely populated area of the country.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:18 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
No, they didn't. They just ran with what talking heads like Candace Owens said despite the fact that they were completely and utterly false.
Being wrong and claiming victory isn't the same as being correct.
The early projections of millions dead were wrong. Very wrong, in fact. Why? Because they were basing the models on very bad baseline data.
What Candace Owens, or any other "talking head" had to say is irrelevant.
quote:
If you are trying to isolate the effectiveness of population density, it doesn't make any sense to remove the most densely populated area of the country.
"The state-by-state number of deaths varied from 16,251 (New York) to two (Wyoming), with the average figure for deaths being 642."
This is why New York was removed. Outliers like that skew data. If you need proof look no farther than the early projections that were so terribly off mark.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:28 pm to RB10
quote:
The early projections of millions dead were wrong. Very wrong, in fact. Why? Because they were basing the models on very bad baseline data.
Like I said, utterly false.
The IMHE never predicted "millions dead" - not even close.
The Imperial College model was the one that had a high run of 2.2 million deaths if absolutely no restrictions were put into place.
To my knowledge, the Imperial College model for the U.S. has never been revised.
The IMHE used assumed social restriction measures from the outset and it's initial model on March 26th had a U.S. death range of 141,995 to 39,174 with a median run of 82,141.
The IMHE never predicted "millions dead"
The lasted IMHE model estimates U.S. deaths between 123,157 and 48,058 with a median run of 67,641.
So in one month, with five updates, the median death run of the IMHE has changed a grand total of 14,500 deaths.
quote:
What Candace Owens, or any other "talking head" had to say is irrelevant.
Except for the fact that she and Brit Humes are the ones that tweeted out that "models" had revised from 2 million deaths to 100,000 deaths to 50,000 deaths. And everyone on this board ran with it despite it not being close to accurate. She was using the high end of one model (Imperial College) which was never revised and confusing it with the high end of another model (IMHE) and then confusing the high end of the IMHE with the IMHE median run.
In fact, you just stated it in this thread ten minutes ago.
At no point during this entire ordeal has a model "revised" down from 2 million to 100,000 to 50,000.
It's literally never happened and yet it is gospel in these parts.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:29 pm to RB10
If it keeps going the way it is, we'll be at 100k by May 20th, which is inside a month. It could easily be 400k for 2020 total.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:29 pm to RB10
quote:
"The state-by-state number of deaths varied from 16,251 (New York) to two (Wyoming), with the average figure for deaths being 642."
This is why New York was removed. Outliers like that skew data. If you need proof look no farther than the early projections that were so terribly off mark.
I said it would help the lockdown states in terms of deaths per million.
Where it messes up the analysis is when you try to isolate population density.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:33 pm to BeepNode
quote:
If it keeps going the way it is, we'll be at 100k by May 20th, which is inside a month.
The good news is it appears we are past peak in the major outbreaks (and nation as a whole) so that should slow the death numbers.
I predicted 110,000-120,000 deaths by December 31st.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:42 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
There are some pretty significant issues with his data.
coming from
quote:
Antonio Moss
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:46 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I'm sorry but the data just doesn't bare that out. Eight states have remained open this whole time and are currently below the national average in total cases and deaths per capita. Before you report with "muh population density," those numbers can be adjusted and have been adjusted by a mathematician to account for this. Wilfred Riley did statistical regression math and came to the conclusion that lockdowns had virtually no effect on how severe or not severe the outbreak has been.
So is it your assertion that we should have just kept on living life as usual. If we didnt shut down concerts, festivals, conferences, sports leagues, hundreds of megachurches, parades, schools, nightclubs, funerals, weddings, etc, the numbers would still be the same as they are now? You don't honestly believe this do you?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:50 pm to BeepNode
quote:
If it keeps going the way it is, we'll be at 100k by May 20th, which is inside a month. It could easily be 400k for 2020 total.
If states continue to tie every death possible to Covid-19, we will probably hit a million.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:58 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Like I said, utterly false.
The IMHE never predicted "millions dead" - not even close.
The Imperial College model was the one that had a high run of 2.2 million deaths if absolutely no restrictions were put into place.
To my knowledge, the Imperial College model for the U.S. has never been revised.
The IMHE used assumed social restriction measures from the outset and it's initial model on March 26th had a U.S. death range of 141,995 to 39,174 with a median run of 82,141.
The IMHE never predicted "millions dead"
The lasted IMHE model estimates U.S. deaths between 123,157 and 48,058 with a median run of 67,641.
So in one month, with five updates, the median death run of the IMHE has changed a grand total of 14,500 deaths.
It's not worth it. RB argued for pages and pages in a thread that the IHME projection of 60k (at that time) was the high run instead of the median.
ETA: OYE in 3.2.1
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 4:00 pm
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News