- 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 4/8/20 at 9:30 am to The Spleen
quote:Yikes.
while this once is barely into its second month of spread.
How many times do we have to show data that proves that this thing was widespread in February? Even now the state is trying to point out that the “confirmed” cases coming through now were from tests and patients first seeing symptoms in mid-March. And those are just the CONFIRMED cases. Which is a small fraction of actual cases out there.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:30 am to uscpuke
quote:
Models are so wrong (and therefore non-useful) that meteorologists are embarrassed for you.
Bad answers are not useful, I agree.
But one should always update with more information. And when one does so, we shouldn't hold their previous wrong answer against them simply because of lack of information.
This goes with individuals as well. People that refuse to update their opinions when better information is presented at the worst.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:30 am to Pettifogger
Tigers247 predicted 50 total US deaths 
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:31 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Again, no dog in this fight. I don't really want to argue anymore, just sharing the data as we get it.
Yet you got your 100 screenshots ready to go...
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:31 am to uscpuke
quote:
Lots of modeling apologists. You cannot put out these ridiculously overstated numbers and expect people to take you seriously next time
Yes. Yes you can.
And I’d argue that you have to. For officials, governments, and people to take it seriously. Like meteorologists I doubt they enjoy scaring people, but as Salmon has said in this thread they can only model based on data given. It’s not pandemic modelers fault if they are given shite data. blame the media and the internet for the fear mongering aspect.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:31 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Apples to oranges.
Flu numbers aren't really models. They just take every pulmonary related death during a certain time of year and call it flu.
Both are estimations based on limited data. Seems similar enough to me.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:31 am to uscpuke
quote:
Yet you got your 100 screenshots ready to go...
Not what I'm talking about...
I didn't want to argue the models or about their accuracy. Just sharing them.
I do want to call out morons on the OT though, that is just good ole fashioned fun.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:33 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I do want to call out morons on the OT though, that is just good ole fashioned fun.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:36 am to RB10
quote:
Both are estimations based on limited data. Seems similar enough to me.
Ok
and if we got better flu data and it showed that only 1/10th of flu deaths are actually flu related?
all the "its just the flu" guys may not like the answer if we got better data on flu deaths
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:39 am to Salmon
quote:
Ok
and if we got better flu data and it showed that only 1/10th of flu deaths are actually flu related?
all the "its just the flu" guys may not like the answer if we got better data on flu deaths
"If"
All the "it's 10x more deadly" people wouldn't like the answers if they were testing everyone who was showing symptoms for Covid-19 either. They aren't though. We already know that.
This post was edited on 4/8/20 at 9:42 am
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:40 am to RB10
It's almost certainty that flu deaths are over estimated based off limited information
its also funny how the flu range is 12k - 60k and y'all always seem to use the high range when making these arguments
its also funny how the flu range is 12k - 60k and y'all always seem to use the high range when making these arguments
This post was edited on 4/8/20 at 9:43 am
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:42 am to Salmon
You could also make the claim that the estimate of people who get the flu is also overestimated. Since the majority used in the calculation aren’t confirmed cases.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:42 am to Salmon
quote:
It's almost certainty that flu deaths are over estimated based off limited information
See edit above. Same logic applies to Covid-19.
This isn't the "gotcha" you want it to be.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:43 am to RB10
I'd compare flu numbers to the COVID numbers from late March. That's how accurate they likely are. Completely pulled out of their arse.
We're getting more and more real data from the mass testing for COVID, while flu is just going to be what it is. The COVID stuff isn't perfect obviously, but it is fun to watch it improve every couple of days.
Hopefully it encourages our government to open the economy back up on May 1st.
We're getting more and more real data from the mass testing for COVID, while flu is just going to be what it is. The COVID stuff isn't perfect obviously, but it is fun to watch it improve every couple of days.
Hopefully it encourages our government to open the economy back up on May 1st.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:44 am to RB10
quote:
All the "it's 10x more deadly" people wouldn't like the answers if they were testing everyone who was showing symptoms for Covid-19 either. They aren't though. We already know that.
We'll know the CFR pretty damn well soon enough with the antibody testing.
Will be interesting, that's for sure. I do wonder if hundreds of thousands of people had it and don't know. I assume so.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:44 am to RB10
quote:
All the "it's 10x more deadly" people wouldn't like the answers if they were testing everyone who was showing symptoms for Covid-19 either. They aren't though. We already know that.
Yes. If everyone was tested for COVID the CFR would drop.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:44 am to RB10
quote:
This isn't the "gotcha" you want it to be.
I'm not the one trying the "gotcha"
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:46 am to Pettifogger
quote:well any intelligent person that wants to be right would know, bad data isn't data. Therefore it wasn't just, oh shucks we had bad data.
There is going to be a ton of this, even though most of those projections were probably based on lack of/bad data rather than anything else.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:48 am to CarRamrod
quote:
well any intelligent person that wants to be right would know, bad data isn't data. Therefore it wasn't just, oh shucks we had bad data.
which is why you update as soon as you get better data
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News