Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on May 12, 2020 11:55:39 GMT -5
Let's see. Those scientists that initially told us 150,000 to 240,000 US lives would be lost. Then reduced it to about 80,000. Then reduced it to 62,000. And now we are over 80,000. What is their best guess today? What's the point of your post, Ed? Should we not be relying on any of these so-called guesses? You been heading out and running around without a mask?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 12, 2020 12:51:23 GMT -5
Let's see. Those scientists that initially told us 150,000 to 240,000 US lives would be lost. Then reduced it to about 80,000. Then reduced it to 62,000. And now we are over 80,000. What is their best guess today? What's the point of your post, Ed? Should we not be relying on any of these so-called guesses? You been heading out and running around without a mask? I think it's worth noting that the numbers that Ed's posting were not all from a single model and some were from Donald Trump himself.
|
|
One
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 192
|
Post by One on May 12, 2020 13:14:28 GMT -5
Let's see. Those scientists that initially told us 150,000 to 240,000 US lives would be lost. Then reduced it to about 80,000. Then reduced it to 62,000. And now we are over 80,000. What is their best guess today? I hate to even engage with you but I have to ask: What is the point of your question? Should we not be relying on mathematical models to assess what is happening now and what might happen next? Should we not update those models as additional facts, data, and information about a novel virus and how it affects the community become available? Also, you say "those scientists". To which scientists are you referring? Only one model that I'm aware of lowered its initial number to approximately 80,000 - - the University of Washington model. That said, you may be correct that others did so as well, which is why I ask to which scientists is your post referring. And, if you read the UW folks' own explanation of their model, their main purpose was to assist localities with assessing the number of hospital resources (beds, ICU beds, and ventilators) that would be needed to deal with the first wave of the virus. Its primary purpose was not to predict the number of positive cases or deaths, although they did model those numbers as well. The UW model also assumed that stay at home orders would be universally implemented in the US and also maintained through the month of May. So of course the UW modelers had to update their model as states either did not implement universal stay at home orders, or lifted them before the end of May, because the assumptions they built into their model no longer applied to the facts on the ground. Finally, many models created by epidemiologists have widely disagreed with the UW modeling of deaths and positive cases and never proposed a number as low as the UW model did. So, again, what is the point of your question?
|
|
One
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 192
|
Post by One on May 12, 2020 13:16:05 GMT -5
I type too slowly. Kudos to Filo and TC for getting to the point.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 12, 2020 13:18:25 GMT -5
Let's see. Those scientists that initially told us 150,000 to 240,000 US lives would be lost. Then reduced it to about 80,000. Then reduced it to 62,000. And now we are over 80,000. What is their best guess today? What's the point of your post, Ed? Should we not be relying on any of these so-called guesses? You been heading out and running around without a mask? Purpose of my post was to say that scientists are not infallible so what they say should be viewed with some skepticism. Their ability to predict the future in this virus has been shown to be lacking; yet many say we should do what they tell us to do. As to your snarky remark about me: I am 87 years old with serious heart trouble so I have been staying home with food and other stuff home delivered. I have only been out once where a mask was required - doctor's appointment and they handed me a mask though I had brought my own.
|
|
One
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 192
|
Post by One on May 12, 2020 13:31:44 GMT -5
What's the point of your post, Ed? Should we not be relying on any of these so-called guesses? You been heading out and running around without a mask? Purpose of my post was to say that scientists are not infallible so what they say should be viewed with some skepticism. Their ability to predict the future in this virus has been shown to be lacking; yet many say we should do what they tell us to do. As to your snarky remark about me: I am 87 years old with serious heart trouble so I have been staying home with food and other stuff home delivered. I have only been out once where a mask was required - doctor's appointment and they handed me a mask though I had brought my own. I would argue that what should be viewed with skepticism is broad reliance on any single prediction/model by some dimwit on twitter (I'm not referring to you, Ed) who wants to point to that number to serve his or her own purposes, without explanation or understanding of the context in which the prediction/model was made and the assumptions that went into designing the model that produced the number (and of course, how all of that necessarily changes as the facts on the ground differ over time from the assumptions).
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,577
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on May 12, 2020 13:33:44 GMT -5
What's the point of your post, Ed? Should we not be relying on any of these so-called guesses? You been heading out and running around without a mask? Purpose of my post was to say that scientists are not infallible so what they say should be viewed with some skepticism. Their ability to predict the future in this virus has been shown to be lacking; yet many say we should do what they tell us to do. As to your snarky remark about me: I am 87 years old with serious heart trouble so I have been staying home with food and other stuff home delivered. I have only been out once where a mask was required - doctor's appointment and they handed me a mask though I had brought my own. You do understand the number of variables involved in these predictive models, correct? I don’t think anyone is claiming they are infallible. But when it comes down to relying on what “scientists” suggest we do as opposed to politicians who have vested interests in how the populace acts and views them, I think we should err on the side of doing what the scientists suggest. After all, none of them ever said that it will disappear like a miracle or that we should think of injecting disinfectants. So yeah, I think the “scientists” have the more credible approach.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 12, 2020 14:00:17 GMT -5
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on May 12, 2020 14:14:18 GMT -5
You seem to have forgotten that, with the exception of everything, Ed does not agree with or support Trump at all.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,141
|
Post by SSHoya on May 13, 2020 6:35:10 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
COVID-19
May 13, 2020 9:54:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 9:54:12 GMT -5
Let's see. Those scientists that initially told us 150,000 to 240,000 US lives would be lost. Then reduced it to about 80,000. Then reduced it to 62,000. And now we are over 80,000. What is their best guess today? The thing about this argument is if we had listened to the scientist in the first place we would have faired much better, had much less death, be better off financially, and closer to getting back to normal.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
COVID-19
May 13, 2020 10:42:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by EasyEd on May 13, 2020 10:42:56 GMT -5
Let's see. Those scientists that initially told us 150,000 to 240,000 US lives would be lost. Then reduced it to about 80,000. Then reduced it to 62,000. And now we are over 80,000. What is their best guess today? The thing about this argument is if we had listened to the scientist in the first place we would have faired much better, had much less death, be better off financially, and closer to getting back to normal. Your opinion.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 13, 2020 10:44:30 GMT -5
The thing about this argument is if we had listened to the scientist in the first place we would have faired much better, had much less death, be better off financially, and closer to getting back to normal. Your opinion. No, it's the comparable experience of South Korea and Germany.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on May 13, 2020 10:46:37 GMT -5
The thing about this argument is if we had listened to the scientist in the first place we would have faired much better, had much less death, be better off financially, and closer to getting back to normal. Your opinion. Are you suggesting that ignoring the early warnings, failing to prepare, continuing to fail with basic things like testing and tracing, and pushing for a premature "reopening" was the right move? What is your opinion?
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,577
Member is Online
|
COVID-19
May 13, 2020 11:05:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hoyajinx on May 13, 2020 11:05:24 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that ignoring the early warnings, failing to prepare, continuing to fail with basic things like testing and tracing, and pushing for a premature "reopening" was the right move? What is your opinion? Of course. We all know the right is completely anti-science. The Earth is 6,000 years old, and dinosaur bones were put here by the almighty to test our faith. Those are facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 11:14:53 GMT -5
The thing about this argument is if we had listened to the scientist in the first place we would have faired much better, had much less death, be better off financially, and closer to getting back to normal. Your opinion. *My opinion that’s backed by logic and evidence.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,141
|
Post by SSHoya on May 13, 2020 12:10:22 GMT -5
Great story in the darkest of times. Trump would likely call the Choctaws "losers." More than 170 years ago, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma didn’t have much. The tribe suffered devastation starting in 1831, when it became the first of many Native American tribes to be forcibly removed from its homeland in the Southeastern United States in the deadly Trail of Tears to areas known as “Indian Territory.” Disease, starvation and severe winter weather took the lives of at least 4,000 Choctaws and thousands of other Native Americans in what some historians have called the “Indian Holocaust.” Sixteen years after they arrived in what is now Oklahoma, the Choctaws tried to rebuild their lives. At a tribal meeting, they heard of families struggling to survive Ireland’s infamous Potato Famine. They took up a collection, pooled together $170 and sent it a group collecting money in New York. www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/05/13/coronavirus-irish-fundraiser-native-american/
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
COVID-19
May 13, 2020 13:01:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by EasyEd on May 13, 2020 13:01:30 GMT -5
*My opinion that’s backed by logic and evidence. Again, another opinion.
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,577
Member is Online
|
COVID-19
May 13, 2020 13:53:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hoyajinx on May 13, 2020 13:53:02 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 13:57:02 GMT -5
*My opinion that’s backed by logic and evidence. Again, another opinion.
|
|