Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Crissi]

Right just don't make a model that assumes that the virus will keep evolving forward in time as it has in the past. It won't, the situation will change in ways that cannot be factored into a model and it is dangerous to assume that we can rely on historical generalizations.

Good models should have variables that are changeable, so that the model reflects real time. Models are not ever meant to say 'This WILL happen", only "This will likely happen based on these current variables". If something changes, then the model needs to be adjusted. If the virus has shown to be evolvable, then that needs to be included.

Frankly, I just dont think you understand how proper modeling, and problem solving, work in general because you are considerably misunderstanding what modeling is, and what the purpose is.

[PC2]

let me guess. you were sleeping during physics classes (or you didnt never meet quantum physics)?

Nah, if you have an argument for something then make it so we can compare and contrasts. If it's not about the virus or epedimiology then make it a PM that way it's not off-topic.

[szechuan]

Nah, if you have an argument for something then make it so we can compare and contrasts.

He did, you're clearly a Science Denier.

[Acidbaron]

At the rate of growth it won't be long until its thousands per day.

As for where you live no its not fearmongering. You don't recognize what's going on. You have 400 reported cases right now. When Italy initiated its lock down there were only 9,000 cases. Now there are 53,000.

If your country leaves initiating its lock down until it also has thousands of confirmed cases then it will already be too late, and in 2-3 weeks time it will be in exactly the same place as Italy.

The lockdown needs to happen now before the disease can reach a point where its able to escalate out of control. That means not locking down tomorrow or the day after, but today, now.

Every 2 days it doubles more or less.

[cubby]

Yeah it is because projection can't tell you how the future will unfold because it has no way factoring in what new behaviours and solutions people will implement tomorrow, next week, next month, etc.

- - - Updated - - -



No you're misunderstanding my point, I'm saying math and statistics can't be used to tell you the future. It's been a common misconception century after century that "if we just get more data then society will be predictable", unfortunately that is based on a misunderstanding and will never be right.

So far you've spewed this anti-science crap, with no links, no cites, no logic - just your feels that people who spent their lives working with communicable diseases know less than you do.

Until you show us more than your *feels*, we'll just keep pointing out your anti-science stances, and watching your tautological tantrums.

[Egomaniac]

We will do random surveys to see how many were infected, as WHO have a protocol in place for that, anti-bodies to test, and some countries have signed up for it.

Similarly as polling it will not be 100% accurate - but good enough to understand if we currently had 300k cases, 1 million, or more.

My point was that we would never have truly accurate numbers. What we will have will be an approximate...probably a range between X and Y...but we will never know the exact number.

[Forogil]

Surveys that require tests are very expensive, so it will not happen.

Countries have already signed up for them. Those tests are cheap - anti-bodies instead of PCR.

Searching online found that there already seems to be manufacturing of them for no more than 2$ (in bulk orders, of course), so I assume those surveys are either happening soon or already started.

[Gaidax]

MoH announced that a big spike in confirmed cases next several hours, as apparently testing labs are still working in reduced capacity during weekend.

Expectations is about 300 more cases added to current 900-ish.

[Forogil]

My point was that we would never have truly accurate numbers. What we will have will be an approximate...probably a range between X and Y...but we will never know the exact number.

There is very little where we have exact knowledge, we manage anyway.
At least it will be more useful than currently having 265,361 confirmed cases.

[PC2]

Good models should have variables that are changeable, so that the model reflects real time. Models are not ever meant to say 'This WILL happen", only "This will likely happen based on these current variables". If something changes, then the model needs to be adjusted.

Frankly, I just dont think you understand how proper modeling, and problem solving, work in general because you are considerably misunderstanding what modeling is, and what the purpose is.

If you update the variables at each timepoint then all you're doing is modelling the present moment, which is fine. But there's no scientific basis for imagining a new posterior/anterior value beyond the current value.

[ercarp]

They reported our first death in Finland today. We have 512 active cases, the majority of them are in my area as far as I know.

[PC2]

He did, you're clearly a Science Denier.

Nah I'm pro-science, anti-prophecy. If you think you know the future that is fine, just don't claim that your future knowledge is a scientific authority that can't be wrong. That's called dogmatism.

[callipygoustp]

Nah I'm pro-science, anti-prophecy. If you think you know the future that is fine, just don't claim that your future knowledge is a scientific authority that can't be wrong. That's called dogmatism.

Ignoring science does NOT make you pro-science.

Contradicting science with "feels > reals" arguments does NOT make you pro-science.

[Dentelan]

LOL. Few hours ago my friend told me he got corona, like already a week. He s not giving a fuck even a bit, *Feels like flu, i dont care, i just stay home. Why i didnt tell? you didnt asked*
Roflmao.

[cubby]

Nah I'm pro-science, anti-prophecy. If you think you know the future that is fine, just don't claim that your future knowledge is a scientific authority that can't be wrong. That's called dogmatism.

But you said previously, and we we're all pointing out how wrong you are, here:

No that's prophecy-based nonsense that's probably derived from "pattern projection". How many people actually get infected depends on how effective people are at finding new solutions tomorrow, the day after, and so on. Which is unpredictable in principle.

Anyone else feels the *WHOOSH* as those goalposts flew by?

You'll let us know where any of us said those models couldn't be wrong, won't'cha?

[szechuan]

Nah I'm pro-science, anti-prophecy.

Yet you keep on saying Scientific Projections are Prophecy.

[Crissi]

If you update the variables at each timepoint then all you're doing is modelling the present moment, which is fine. But there's no scientific basis for imagining a new posterior value beyond the current value.

You're modeling the present variables, not the present moment.

Again, you're missing the point. Modeling is "If the current conditions hold, what is the most likely outcome in X period of time". If a condition suddenly changes, then you model that over X period of time.

and literally every scientist will disagree with you on it not being scientific. Because from my own interactions with epidemiologists, this is how it is done and it is scientific.

[Belize]

Nah I'm pro-science, anti-prophecy. If you think you know the future that is fine, just don't claim that your future knowledge is a scientific authority that can't be wrong. That's called dogmatism.

So question for you, is calculating where an object lands after it falls using math science, or prophecy?

[Endus]

If you update the variables at each timepoint then all you're doing is modelling the present moment, which is fine. But there's no scientific basis for imagining a new posterior/anterior value beyond the current value.

This is just objectively false, a refusal to accept basic scientific methodology, and fundamentally, the idea that our perceptions and observations are a reliable and quantifiable description of reality. Which is the basis of science.

You're rejecting those utterly basic principles of the entire field, every time you pull this anti-science horseshit.

Nah I'm pro-science, anti-prophecy. If you think you know the future that is fine, just don't claim that your future knowledge is a scientific authority that can't be wrong. That's called dogmatism.

No, you're entirely anti-science. As much so as flat-earthers or creationists. You reject the idea that reality is observable and quantifiable, and that things like physics obey natural laws and constants. Literally, the entire concept of science itself.

The moment you concede that observations can quantifiably describe reality, and that physics and chemistry and such follow definable patterns and rules, then projections and modelling naturally follow upon that as a natural extension of those premises. You can't claim modelling is "prophecy" without rejecting those earlier premises, the roots of scientific theory itself.

[Acidbaron]

To be honest this back and forth is rather tiresome, if he wants to believe he knows better let him? He does not seem open to the idea of remotely being wrong.

Thread is going rather off topic.