• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst Case Pandemic Prognostion Model Slashs Predction w/ 96% fewer deaths

Jack Hays said:
Doesn't absolve the authors of their responsibility.
Click to expand...

Their responsibility is as scientists and public health experts to produce reliable models, and to inform decision makers. Their responsibility does not extend to correcting lazy morons or hacks too lazy to read the study or who dishonestly summarized its findings. That buck stops with the dumb/lazy hacks.

You're determined to smear these people and still haven't shown any indication you've read their study. I don't get it.
 

I'm not smearing anyone. I'm only noting two things: 1) their own belated decision that they needed to intervene in the public discourse, and 2) Nic Lewis's persuasive critique of their work.
 
Jack Hays said:
We'll see who is more accurate in the end. My money's on Lewis.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less what your opinion is, because you didn't even read the UK model, and are making bets from a position of near total ignorance. :shrug:
 
JasperL said:
I couldn't care less what your opinion is, because you didn't even read the UK model, and are making bets from a position of near total ignorance. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Tsk tsk. Anger doesn't make anything better.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not smearing anyone. I'm only noting two things: 1) their own belated decision that they needed to intervene in the public discourse, and 2) Nic Lewis's persuasive critique of their work.
Click to expand...

First of all, Ferguson was asked to testify before parliament, and did. It's hardly an indication they needed to "intervene in public discourse" because their mission, their reason to exist in these times as a COVID 19 advisory body, is to inform decision makers like parliament, which they did when asked. They did not appear on Fox News with Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity to correct those idiots.

And Lewis is "persuasive" to you because it contradicts the actual experts and Judith Curry posted in on her website. It's not because you've evaluated the competing claims, because you haven't.
 

You're arguing facts not in evidence. Ferguson chose his own words.
 
Jack Hays said:
Read Lewis. You'll see.
Click to expand...

You lose Jack. If you refuse to debate it, and just appeal to authority that matches your view, you lose.
Why do you choose to lose, and not debate Jack?
Better yet, why not....after being thoroughly corrected by the quality work these posters did for you in showing you your errors, why didn't you thank them and move on? That's a win-win.

I really must know. Why do you do it?
 

Another mind-reader, I see. I'm familiar with the Imperial College UK team's work. That's why I'm confident the Lewis critique is crushing. The larger question though is the UK team's irresponsibility in letting the worst-case public narrative run so long. No one has tried to defend that; they only claim it wasn't the authors' responsibility. Not good enough.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're arguing facts not in evidence. Ferguson chose his own words.
Click to expand...

What words did he choose? Can you quote him? The words where he does not walk back anything?



And good for NRO for publishing some accurate observations about this affair. It didn't take a lot of work - the author.....read the original study. But still it's more than our resident right wingers could manage.

Coronavirus Pandemic: Neil Ferguson Didn't Walk Back His COVID-19 Predictions | National Review

 
A genuine question, Jack: Do you know what this means? This is not a trick question. I am trying to determine whether you understand how statistical modeling works so as to address any substantive argument you might present.
 

As your commentary has been increasingly dominated by non-substantive handwaving, false claims that I haven't read source material, there isn't much point it responding to those aspersions.

However, I stand by my criticisms over the report's messaging by his team and find Ferguson's explanation for his dramatic down-grading of the crisis forecasts on the basis of "locking down" failing to clear up the "confusion".

That said, you are correct in one respect: I have not found a transcript of his most recent testimony AND the video clip I found has insufficient audio quality (at least for my hearing). Therefore, if he provided a convincing explanation in that hearing I am unaware of it.

Finally, there are other reasons and contrary opinion that cast doubt on the assumptions used in this paper, but that is a separate subject.
 

As I posted much earlier, every model needs an exit strategy. Ferguson followed his. The point is not whether the model did or did not include less dire forecasts as possibilities; it did. The point is that the modelers were content for quite a while to let a worst-case-based public narrative run without offering any challenge.
 
Jack Hays said:
Another mind-reader, I see. I'm familiar with the Imperial College UK team's work. That's why I'm confident the Lewis critique is crushing.
Click to expand...

:2rofll:

That's so ignorant it's funny. The only way you can be confident his "critique" is "crushing" is to compare his CFRs as calculated (including where he came up with observed values and chopped 30% off the top!) to real world outcomes, and you cannot do that because you do not have that data - no one does.

The larger question though is the UK team's irresponsibility in letting the worst-case public narrative run so long. No one has tried to defend that; they only claim it wasn't the authors' responsibility. Not good enough.
Click to expand...

No, we put the blame where it belongs, on stupid reporters and TV talking heads who like you were too lazy to read the cited study, which was helpfully and I'm sure deliberately written in a way easy for any reasonably intelligent person to understand - even you!
 
I don't believe, my friend, that you have any appreciation for how ridiculous a statement that actually is (notwithstanding the total walkback it represents).
 
NWRatCon said:
A genuine question, Jack: Do you know what this means?This is not a trick question. I am trying to determine whether you understand how statistical modeling works so as to address any substantive argument you might present.
Click to expand...

Those are forecast ranges.
 

NWRatCon said:
I don't believe, my friend, that you have any appreciation for how ridiculous a statement that actually is (notwithstanding the total walkback it represents).
Click to expand...

As you wish. Now that you've resorted to insults the discussion is no longer on the level I prefer.
 
Jack Hays said:
As you wish. Now that you've resorted to insults the discussion is no longer on the level I prefer.
Click to expand...
In other words, "I got nothin'." (Never did)
 
Jack Hays said:
I have explained my view. You don't like it. That's all.
Click to expand...
Still, nothin'. I get it. I expected it. I'll not continue it. Be well.
 

Thats always been the problem with modeling. The ones who made it werent sure of their own outcomes so they put out multiple possibilities just to cover their asses, and they will immediately just ignore the ones that didnt come true and say they were right all the time. It's pure bull****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…