This is basically how Eskimo Hut works. Not sure I could have survived this plaque without it.
So Italians invented glory holes for wine?
That tracks.
Wow! Eskimo? How long before they have to change the name? Inuit Igloo, maybe.
Strangely, this is also how Mother gives Mike Pence his annual birthday treat.
3 Likes
Meanwhile, if you’re wondering why TV new has taken to ignoring Trump’s daily propaganda sessions…
Must be all that deadly, deadly testing…
Thank you for asking, Texifornia,
It has taken a while to plow through articles that have examined the Imperial College of London (ICL) model and longer to begin to grasp some of them. I make no claims to understand code and critiques of how it is written, much less how to critique it. I am no expert.
But some basic common sense may apply here, as exemplified in this takeaway for a contestant that was being “chopped” (Ck #10 mistake)
- “If you had tasted your dish, you would have known it needed some salt.”
My references are experts that have critiqued Dr. Ferguson’s COVID-19 paper. Since this is science, can experts disagree? Serious contra views are most welcome, since truth is what we should be after. I have searched in vain for articles defending Ferguson’s study. I may well be mistaken, but Imperial College appears to be the only entity defending his work - referenced in other links that will follow.
Thanks for asking - it has made me learn more about COVID.
Best regards,
Snuff
Snuffy, it might help if you could identify your references instead just linking to the food network. I did a ten second google search and found an article in Nature magazine defending Ferguson’s coding (which was the subject of many critiques).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y
But mostly I also don’t see the relevance of what you are saying. The Ferguson model anticipated what would happen if no steps were taking to abate the spread of the virus. Steps were taken, which changed that. Even if the model wildly overshot what would happen, we know the reality have what happens when you don’t adequately handle the virus on a national level because we live in America and have witnessed the virus infect well over 5,000,000 people and kill over 170,000, which is really bad. It would have been worse if individuals, businesses, and local governments didn’t take actions to limit the spread (half-assed as some of those actions may be). So what’s the point about wailing over a model that assumed something which human will changed?
Here’s a useful New England Journal of Medicine article about how you should view covid-19 epidemiological models:
Never mind. I see your reference is The Heritage Foundation. Explains a lot.
Please stop engaging that right wing crackpot. Maybe he’ll leave when no one takes his bait.
As someone who “codes like a physicist”, i can assure you can make a useful scientific model and ignore all modern software engineering practices,
1 Like
(1.) What flaws are you referring to?
Here goes. First, Ph.D. input - from two:
(https://www.heritage.org/staff/kevin-d-dayaratna)
Per his 18 May 20 Heritage Foundation article, [Dr. Dayaratna] mentions " that he asked (Dr.) Ferguson and his colleagues for their model on multiple occasions to see how they got their numbers, but they never replied to my emails."
So he and a colleague made forecasts using a publicly available COVID-19 epidemiological model. His concerns are outlined in the article:
…The Imperial College code provides different answers using the same inputs. In particular, the same assumptions can provide results that differ by 80,000 deaths over a span of 80 days…
…It is fundamentally important for models used in policy to be made publicly available, have assumptions clearly stated, and have their robustness to changes to these assumptions tested. Models also need to be updated as time goes on in line with the best available evidence.
Bottom line: The Imperial College model didn’t meet any of these criteria. And sadly, its model was one of the inputs relied on as the basis for locking down two countries…
(The Heritage article provides links to the codes and assumptions used by Dr. Dayaratna, along with a link to Dr. Ferguson’s paper.)
In his 29 Apr 20 Daily Wire interview, Professor Johan Giesecke echoed some of the same concerns. Dr. Giesecke was the State Epidemiologist for Sweden between 1995 to 2005, then served as the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
I think it’s not very good, and the thing that they miss a little is that any models for infectious diseases —they’re very popular, many people do them — they’re good for teaching, they seldom tell you the truth because — I make a small parenthesis — which model could have assumed that the outbreak would start in northern Italy, in Europe, Difficult to model that one…
The paper was never published scientifically;
it’s not peer-reviewed, which a scientific paper should be;
it’s just an internal departmental report from Imperial.
And it’s fascinating; I don’t think any other scientific endeavor has made such an impression on the world as that rather debatable paper…
There is more, so…
(1.) What flaws are you referring to? (to be cont.)
Best regards,
Snuff
I used to really like their board games as a kid, especially the civil war game. And Dogfight. I spent hours playing Dogfight and never won a single game. Battle-Cry | Board Game | BoardGameGeek
Can you site any reputable source? The Heritage Foundation is a far right wing political organization, not a scientific or medical organization. Do you understand the difference?
Are you claiming that there would be fewer deaths without government action? If so, what is the scientific (not political) basis for that position? If not, what is your point?
Why are you so cavalier about 170,000 deaths? Does it not matter because they are disproportionally black and elderly? Does it not matter because you don’t personally know anybody who has dies?
How many deaths before it will matter to you? Will it ever matter enough for you to hold Trump accountable for his failures?
TY, Bench, for the two links! I have skimmed both and found both useful, as you said.
While the Nature article feels familiar, but I skimmed several articles recently, the NEJM is new to me and provided some updated time lines on when the Imperial College secret sauce was made public.
I have to complete my response on the flaws, etc., including introducing a software engineer and a
“normal person” who explains things in a way that I can understand:
…I’m not a professional statistician, though I know a bit about it. Nor do I write computer software.
In fact I’m a professional historian, which means that above all else I ask questions.I also worked in secondary education for a decade, where I was continually subjected to predictive modelling that was always wrong and always based on a vast number of assumptions that ignored reality. I became used to dismantling what we were presented with, and what I saw many of my colleagues accepting at face value…
There are a couple older posts that I want to respond to 1st - it takes me a while.
Then, I plan to focus on your articles.
Much obliged!
Snuff
PS: I don’t care about the source, it’s whether what’s said stands up to scrutiny. If the sources I have provided are false, I want to know it.
PSS: We have a granddaughter spending the night w/ us, so I am done for a while…
I used to play Broadside with my brother for hours.
I always thought that series of games was the best work the Heritage Foundation ever did. I guess they were owned by Milton Bradley then, and the games they play now aren’t nearly as trustworthy.
1 Like
There’s a significant difference between preeminent scientific and medical sources like Nature and NEMJ on one hand and right-wing propaganda sites like Daily Wire and Daily Caller on the other. Given that you choose not to distinguish between the two, I am going to take Jim’s sound advice.
3 Likes
Go the fuck away, Snuffy. Away.
1 Like
He (I’m assuming it’s a he) didn’t bother responding when countered before. People were civil and helpful, even me (mostly); he claimed it was too much information for him to take in.
But when there was new opening, he was ready with the science-free talking points as if the previous conversation hadn’t happened. He’s trolling.
1 Like