- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
0
Posted on 4/6/20 at 9:53 am to Tigahs24Seven
quote:
60k H1N1 deaths of a lot of young people and .
H1N1 deaths in the US were estimated to be about 12,500. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
CDC.gov
quote:
Obama played golf and did NOTHING
Trump was still golfing less than a month ago. Link
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 9:55 am
Posted on 4/6/20 at 9:55 am to Tiguar
quote:
A big problem with this website is it was dinging alabama for not having an "official" stay at home order.
I doubt that. They added the stay at home order for Georgia too and their projection actually went up by a 100 deaths.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 9:57 am to 1BamaRTR
what I'm saying is we have basically had a stay at home order since like mid march and have been blunting the spread but the website didn't know that because it wasn't in law
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:04 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Alabama's initial model was made prior to most social restrictions
That’s not why. Mississippi’s numbers only dropped by a 100 when they added their stay at home order to their site. Georgia’s stay at home order was added the same time as Alabama and their numbers actually went up by a 100.
quote:
based on extremely limited data.
Alabama was not the only state with extremely limited data. Mississippi had comparable cases. Missouri and South Carolina had also not implanted stay at home order with a more comparable population and total cases/death. Yet Alabama was projection was several thousands more than any of them.
There was something wrong with Alabama’s numbers. Last Monday it was around 2K then it spiked to 9500 2 days later.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:16 am to Penrod
quote:
One thing folks should understand about this model is that it does not address what happens when we stop distancing. I doubt it will be a very big deal, but it's not zero.
It assumes we continue to social distance through May, which would be the recommendation. Still no large gatherings, stay 6 ft apart, wear a mask if you're at risk, wash hands, etc. But you can open restaurants, theaters, etc., at 50% capacity and spread people apart like we've done with grocery stores limiting entrants.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:40 am to ashy larry
2009 H1N1 could have killed up to 600k worldwide
Oh so sorry...i missed a zero...
Worldwide up to 600,000deaths 80% of which were UNDER 65 years old and Obama did NOTHING.
The world still has a way to go to catch ip.
Oh so sorry...i missed a zero...
Worldwide up to 600,000deaths 80% of which were UNDER 65 years old and Obama did NOTHING.
The world still has a way to go to catch ip.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:41 am to Scruffy
quote:
What we have been doing as far as social distancing is sufficient to have caused a 90% reduction in estimated deaths?
That is a massive drop.
No nail salons or barber shops, obviously
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:42 am to upgrayedd
quote:
No nail salons or barber shops, obviously
that damn healthy gym crowd i tell you.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:45 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
based on extremely limited data
If your data is limited, you don't present the findings as if they're accurate.
quote:
It's like none of you have ever lived through a changing Hurricane cone of impact.
There's a reason NHC doesn't put a 14 day cone out for a tropical wave off the coast of Africa. They don't have enough data.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 11:50 am to Tigahs24Seven
quote:
2009 H1N1 could have killed up to 600k worldwide
Why do people consistently compare past pandemics while using the lowest estimates for Covid and the highest estimates for every other disease?
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:11 pm to Golfer
quote:
If your data is limited, you don't present the findings as if they're accurate.
The ranges nationally and Louisiana have been accurate, although extremely large.
quote:
There's a reason NHC doesn't put a 14 day cone out for a tropical wave off the coast of Africa. They don't have enough data.
Which is fine if you have time to make changes and recommendations prior to the effect. But with infectious disease spread, you can't wait 14 days for more complete data to make policy initiatives.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:28 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
The ranges nationally and Louisiana have been accurate, although extremely large.
You will die between now and 10,000 years from now.
You will make between $0 and $72 trillion in your lifetime.
Both are accurate ranges. But extremely large. The point still stands if you are going to use a data-driven approach to make your decisions, you don't make them off inaccurate, or lacking, data
quote:
Which is fine if you have time to make changes and recommendations prior to the effect. But with infectious disease spread, you can't wait 14 days for more complete data to make policy initiatives.
If we're going to continue the analogy. If it's tropical season and there's a tropical wave with an inaccurate projected path, you don't issue a mandatory evacuation for the entire gulf coast. You properly inform those that *could* be impacted and update them as the data improves.
Our politicians have essentially evacuated the entire Gulf and Atlantic seaboard.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:30 pm to Golfer
quote:
If we're going to continue the analogy. If it's tropical season and there's a tropical wave with an inaccurate projected path, you don't issue a mandatory evacuation for the entire gulf coast. You properly inform those that *could* be impacted and update them as the data improves.
Our politicians have essentially evacuated the entire Gulf and Atlantic seaboard.
Complete nonsense.
You can evacuate an area in 3 days so it makes sense to wait until you have the best data.
You can't wait to act on infectious disease spread. If we would have waited until April 1st, this shite would have flooded the hospitals.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:34 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
You can evacuate an area in 3 days so it makes sense to wait until you have the best data.
So you agree that using the best data is important?
quote:
You can't wait to act on infectious disease spread. If we would have waited until April 1st, this shite would have flooded the hospitals.
Not at all what I'm implying.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:39 pm to Golfer
quote:
So you agree that using the best data is important?
At the time, yes, of course.
Models always become stronger and more reliable as quality data is added.
No one can dispute that.
quote:
Not at all what I'm implying.
Then I'm not sure what the argument is.
We had a wide range based on limited data - it has been accurate but wide. We had policy created on the data because time was of the essence.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:43 pm to Golfer
There is no sense in arguing with him. He is going to die on the hill with the UW model no matter what. All I know is this. The UW model projected an upper range of deaths for AL of about 9,500 by end of April. That is like 1 in every 500 state residents dead. Any reasonable scientist or modeler should have taken a step back at that point and realized that something was seriously wrong. The fact that they didn't and ran with these ridiculous numbers for so long tells you that nothing they say can ever be relied upon.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:46 pm to SloaneRanger
quote:
There is no sense in arguing with him.
Why?
I try to address every point with something substantive to back it up.
I've been closely following the Louisiana and U.S. models and nearly every single data point has fallen within the projected ranges.
ETA:
quote:
The UW model projected an upper range of deaths for AL of about 9,500 by end of April. That is like 1 in every 500 state residents dead. Any reasonable scientist or modeler should have taken a step back at that point and realized that something was seriously wrong.
That upper range for Alabama was created before any data had come from Alabama and was based almost entirely on the model of expected outcomes based on Wuhan numbers if preventive measures in Alabama were completely ineffective.
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:50 pm to SloaneRanger
quote:
There is no sense in arguing with him. He is going to die on the hill with the UW model no matter what. All I know is this. The UW model projected an upper range of deaths for AL of about 9,500 by end of April. That is like 1 in every 500 state residents dead. Any reasonable scientist or modeler should have taken a step back at that point and realized that something was seriously wrong. The fact that they didn't and ran with these ridiculous numbers for so long tells you that nothing they say can ever be relied upon.
Why should they have realized that was wrong?
Obviously to you and I it *seems* wrong, because we certainly don't think 1 in every 500 residents will die. But based on the math - was it clearly off?
Posted on 4/6/20 at 12:50 pm to SloaneRanger
And what sucks is sites like AL.com wrote articles and trying to spread the word about it. I just heard one person I know tell a bunch of other people that “Alabama is going to be by far the hardest hit state per capita according to projections”.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News