- 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
re: Nate silver: the slowdown in CV19 cases in NOLA is unlike anything we have seen elsewhere
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:44 pm to Antonio Moss
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:44 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
these deaths would have compounded upon one another and COVID deaths would exponentially higher?
You must win a lot of lotteries.
I would guess that things would have been worse, but I can't quantify how much worse. Hell, I can't definitively state that things would have actually been worse.
You state it as a definitive fact. "Exponentially worse," is the phrase that you used...impressive.
Are you on JBE's advisory board for tax increases? If so, are you the guy that said LSU football would be shut down? Your foresight is impressive!
3
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:45 pm to ashy larry
quote:
Do you know what the word forecast means? It's an estimate. Like when the weatherman said there was 60% chance of rain the other day and it didn't rain at my house. He wasn't wrong, bc he didn't say it WOULD rain. He said there is a 60% chance of it happening. How do people not understand this?
I do understand it. And, you cut off the rest of my quote because you need to build a strawman.
His 55/45 probabilty resulted in his probability being wrong...but the result was reasonable given the close probability he assigned. In fact, Florida was very close. I'd suggest that Silver would tell you that he wasn't surprised to see Trump winning Florida.
But, he didn't see Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin coming. I'd suggest that Silver would tell you that he was very surprised to see Trump win all 3 of those states.
Pretty much everyone admitted that polling was flawed. Even Silver. Here is an article on 538 days after trying to figure out what went wrong. Seeing you guys pretend that he was "right" because he gave Trump chance is humorous.
538
He underestimated Trump's chances. He did so because the data he used in his model was flawed.
So, bringing this back to the CV19 conversation, with TRILLIONS on the line, how flawed was the data used in the models that we based our decisions on. How flawed were the models themselves?
This post was edited on 4/13/20 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:48 pm to AlceeFortier
quote:
Think about it.....flu can kill.....but not in these numbers.
We will see if that is the case. But as of now, you are stating a falsehood.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:48 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Well, that's fine but there is no other way to answer the question.
You acknowledge that there was some value that they used to drive the decision, right? If you don't know what that is, that's fine. I don't know either. But, any reasonable person should agree that knowing that number is extremely important. Do you agreee?
quote:
I guess maybe IC unless there were internal models that haven't been released.
What did the IC project? I'm not familiar with it. Can you fill me in?
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:49 pm to jimmy the leg
The initial projections at this point are embarrassingly wrong. Even using best case scenarios.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:51 pm to moneyg
quote:
I understand probabilities better than you do. Let's get that out of the way.
quote:Ok. How is any of that "wrong"? As they say in sports, "that's why we play the games".
Polling data that Silver based his model on, showed that there was a 77% chance she'd win Pennsylvania. That equates to close to a +4 in polling. Michigan was similar. Wisconsin was worse +5.
quote:
If your point is that Silver recognized Trump had a chance, I'm not disagreeing.
quote:
I'm saying that thinking he had a 1 in 3 chance was way off the mark. He was probably a slight favorite heading into election night.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:57 pm to CptRusty
quote:
There's a video in the link.
Her exact words are: "if we do things together, well, almost perfectly, we could get in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 fatalities"
Start around the 3:00 mark.
The journalist did not misrepresent her statement at all.
I just watched. She was responding to worst case scenarios:
Gutherie asked - "Fauci said we could see 100K-200K deaths in the U.S., is this the worst scenario?"
Birx - "The worst case would be to do nothing which we believe could be 1.6-2.2 million deaths in a worst-case scenario. We have never tried to do social restrictions in this country but we believe that with these restrictions we could bring that number down to 100K-200K . . ."
"that number" = worst case scenario
then she gets cut off.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:59 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The initial projections at this point are embarrassingly wrong. Even using best case scenarios.
I would agree. The high end of those projections were broadcast on the MSM and via social media platforms with seeming regularity.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 3:59 pm to moneyg
quote:
I don't know either. But, any reasonable person should agree that knowing that number is extremely important. Do you agreee?
I think it's less important than the figures that account for social restrictions.
quote:
What did the IC project? I'm not familiar with it. Can you fill me in?
1.6-2.2 million deaths worst case if there were no restrictions.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:00 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
You must win a lot of lotteries.
Nope, just have a basic understanding of math
quote:
I would guess that things would have been worse, but I can't quantify how much worse. Hell, I can't definitively state that things would have actually been worse.
If that's what you want to go with
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:04 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Ok. How is any of that "wrong"? As they say in sports, "that's why we play the games".
It's like this. If you had a coin in your hand, and I gave it a 3:1 chance of it landing on heads when you flip it, by your logic it would I would not be wrong. In fact, I would be very wrong. Trump winning isn't what made Silver "wrong". Making Hillary close to a 3:1 favorite is what made him wrong.
Silver's prediction was very far off from reality because it was based on polling data that was very flawed. Even Silver admitted that. You can argue otherwise if you want.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:06 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
1.6-2.2 million deaths worst case if there were no restrictions.
They were predicting hundreds of thousands with best case scenario.
Maybe we should admit the data used for the models might have not been great.
This post was edited on 4/13/20 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:09 pm to moneyg
quote:
I do understand it
quote:
His 55/45 probabilty resulted in his probability being wrong
quote:And who wasn't surprised that he won all 3? But it's not surprising at all that he won at least 1 of them. Actually 538's odds gave Trump about a 49% chance of winning at least 1 of those 3 states.
But, he didn't see Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin coming. I'd suggest that Silver would tell you that he was very surprised to see Trump win all 3 of those states.
quote:You seem to think that whenever an underdog wins, his chances were "underestimated". This betrays your lack of understanding of probabilities.
He underestimated Trump's chances.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:12 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
I think it's less important than the figures that account for social restrictions.
The figures with social restrictions do not shed any insight into the quality of the decision to shut down the economy on their own. To make a reasonable decision, especially one that has such a negative impact, you have to have as clear of a picture as possible as to the expected outcomes of not implementing social restrictions. This should be obvious.
quote:
1.6-2.2 million deaths worst case if there were no restrictions.
Just to clarify, since there is an argument going on in this thread parsing words, that is a range of the "worst case scenario" with no social restrictions? What is the range for "best case scenario" for no social restrictions?
Or, are you saying 1.6 is best case, 2.2 is worst case?
And, what did the IC project predict with Social restrictions? Can you fill me in on the best and worst case scenario?
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:18 pm to Korkstand
quote:
His 55/45 probabilty resulted in his probability being wrong
You are confused because you are a simple thinker. His model predicted a Hillary win in Florida. It was wrong. However, given that it only made Hillary a 55/45 favorite, it was only marginally wrong. And, that was my point. The degree to which his model was wrong was minimal in Florida. It was much more significant in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. And, it was significant overall.
quote:
And who wasn't surprised that he won all 3? But it's not surprising at all that he won at least 1 of them.
Those who didn't believe the polling weren't surprised.
quote:
Actually 538's odds gave Trump about a 49% chance of winning at least 1 of those 3 states.
And, let's see how honest you will be. What percentage chance did 538 give Trump to win ALL 3?
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:19 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They were predicting hundreds of thousands with best case scenario.
Link?
quote:
Maybe we should admit the data used for the models might have not been great.
The main model - the IMHE - has been pretty solid since March 30th with a few exceptions.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:19 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
I would guess that things would have been worse, but I can't quantify how much worse. Hell, I can't definitively state that things would have actually been worse.
I won't cherry pick and instead will go with the entire statement.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:20 pm to Antonio Moss
Keep watching, she clearly agrees with 100-200k as a "best case" scenario like 20 seconds after the part you quoted.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:21 pm to moneyg
quote:Giving 3:1 odds on a coin flip would be grossly inaccurate and would fly in the face of available data. Giving such odds would not make you "wrong", it would make you incompetent. 538's election odds aligned with available data.
It's like this. If you had a coin in your hand, and I gave it a 3:1 chance of it landing on heads when you flip it, by your logic it would I would not be wrong. In fact, I would be very wrong.
quote:So now let's reverse your logic. I give you 1:1 odds on each of 4 coin flips. You flip 3 heads and 1 tail. Was I "wrong"? Would I have been "right" had I given heads 3:1 odds?
Trump winning isn't what made Silver "wrong". Making Hillary close to a 3:1 favorite is what made him wrong.
This post was edited on 4/13/20 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 4/13/20 at 4:26 pm to moneyg
quote:About 0.8% to win all 3. And if you think such a probability was "wrong", then you will only be further showing that you do not understand probabilities.
And, let's see how honest you will be. What percentage chance did 538 give Trump to win ALL 3?
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News