By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Coronainsanity

Spartanmack said:
how do we measure what would have happened if we did nothing?
Click to expand...
Project, not measure. Imperial College London projected, based on whatever early data they had at the time, that if we did nothing, huge numbers of people would die. Mostly I've heard about it from anti-science people that try to argue that those early projections of what might have been possible in a scenario that didn't happen are evidence that scientists shouldn't be listened to.
 
Gulo Blue said:
Project, not measure. Imperial College London projected, based on whatever early data they had at the time, that if we did nothing, huge numbers of people would die. Mostly I've heard about it from anti-science people that try to argue that those early projections of what might have been possible in a scenario that didn't happen are evidence that scientists shouldn't be listened to.
Click to expand...

To have done nothing seems like an extremist position to me.

To have assumed that shelter in place orders for almost everyone would need to be in effect for six months or a year as soon as those orders started coming out around the middle of March also seems like an extremist position to me.

Anyway, we didn’t do nothing and we’re a little over a month into an age of pretty stringent restrictions; the current order for LA County are through May 15.

That will be two months.

I think, by definition, project is kinda the opposite of the verb to describe looking back in history to a point in time and hypothesizing about outcomes had things been done differently.
 
Last edited:
Gulo Blue said:
Project, not measure. Imperial College London projected, based on whatever early data they had at the time, that if we did nothing, huge numbers of people would die. Mostly I've heard about it from anti-science people that try to argue that those early projections of what might have been possible in a scenario that didn't happen are evidence that scientists shouldn't be listened to.
Click to expand...

Imperial College projected huge numbers then a week later revised them by more than 50% to the downside. I remember quoting the reduction early on in this or another thread when on of the IC scientists testified before parliament after the revision.

It's not evidence that scientists shouldn't be listened to, but it's certainly evidence that we shouldn't rely solely on their projections since they're not particularly reliable, especially early on when little is known about the virus.

Also, we don't know how reliable the death toll is either given that deaths "with" Coronavirus are being counted as deaths "from" Coronavirus and in some places, Coronavirus is being listed as "probable" cause of death when no testing was done if there is reason to believe Coronavirus was involved.
 
Last edited:
tinselwolverine said:
To have done nothing seems like an extremist position to me.

To have assumed that shelter in place orders for almost everyone would need to be in effect for six months or a year as soon as those orders started coming out around the middle of March also seems like an extremist position to me.

Anyway, we didn?t do nothing and we?re a little over a month into an age of pretty stringent restrictions; the current order for LA County are through May 15.

That will be two months.

I think, by definition, project is kinda the opposite of the verb to describe looking back in history to a point in time and hypothesizing about outcomes had things been done differently.
Click to expand...


It was even more extremist than that. They had language in the paper about how not even they believed that everyone would just continue to go about their business in the absence of government orders. The point of the paper was simply 'this is serious and we need to take action'.


But I still think it's fair to call what they did a projection because they did it in the past. They were looking forward.
 
Spartanmack said:
Imperial College projected huge numbers then a week later revised them by more than 50% to the downside. I remember quoting the reduction early on in this or another thread when on of the IC scientists testified before parliament after the revision.

It's not evidence that scientists shouldn't be listened to, but it's certainly evidence that we shouldn't rely solely on their projections since they're not particularly reliable, especially early on when little is known about the virus.

Also, we don't know how reliable the death toll is either given that deaths "with" Coronavirus are being counted as deaths "from" Coronavirus and in some places, Coronavirus is being listed as "probable" cause of death when no testing was done if there is reason to believe Coronavirus was involved.
Click to expand...


Given the situation, you're just trying to get the correct range in the number of zeros so you get people at the right levels of government thinking about it at the right scale. It served the purpose it was intended for. Unfortunately, it will live on to also serve political arguments in contexts it never intended to address.
 
Spartanmack said:
It's not evidence that scientists shouldn't be listened to, but it's certainly evidence that we shouldn't rely solely on their projections since they're not particularly reliable, especially early on when little is known about the virus.
Click to expand...

New things are being learnt (British) all the time.

The antibody studies done in LA, NorCal and New York could bring a sea change regarding how the lethality of this pandemic should be viewed, and inform the appropriate direction going forward.
 
tinselwolverine said:
New things are being learnt (British) all the time.

The antibody studies done in LA, NorCal and New York could bring a sea change regarding how the lethality of this pandemic should be viewed, and inform the appropriate direction going forward.
Click to expand...

right, I believe when more is known, the evidence will show we overreacted. That's not a criticism, it's understandable that extreme measures were taken because we didn't know how bad it was or could be or who is more susceptible. But as we learn more and evidence shows we can protect the population with more targeted isolations or other measures, it will be problematic if these extreme restrictions aren't loosened.

Also, what Whitmer did in Michigan was just plain dumb. Good intentions or not, she actually increased risk to people with her hairbrained restrictions on who could sell what.
 
Spartanmack said:
right, I believe when more is known, the evidence will show we overreacted. That's not a criticism, it's understandable that extreme measures were taken because we didn't know how bad it was or could be or who is more susceptible. But as we learn more and evidence shows we can protect the population with more targeted isolations or other measures, it will be problematic if these extreme restrictions aren't loosened.

Also, what Whitmer did in Michigan was just plain dumb. Good intentions or not, she actually increased risk to people with her hairbrained restrictions on who could sell what.
Click to expand...


The fact that it got as bad as it did demonstrates that we underreacted. When facing exponential growth, you want to nip it in the bud by going after it hard and early. Proof is in the numbers. There's no reason for the US to be so bad in comparison to other nations.
 
Modeling is modeling -- like PECOTA numbers. One pandemic forecasts the next. And there are assumptions--big assumptions. The Ro number for the Imperial College NPI study was 2.3 or so, with the objective of getting it down to < 1. That meant to it, mitigation and suppression, and more than once. It was, IMO, pretty accurate in percentage-reduction of especially hospitalizations and deaths, based on the measures taken.

This study is dated 3-16. Soon after, the SAH orders and other measures were instituted.
 
Gulo Blue said:
The fact that it got as bad as it did demonstrates that we underreacted. When facing exponential growth, you want to nip it in the bud by going after it hard and early. Proof is in the numbers. There's no reason for the US to be so bad in comparison to other nations.
Click to expand...

That's not proof that we underreacted. the fact it got as bad as it did shows we most likely acted too late, not that we underreacted. And part of the reason we were late was because China lied about it for weeks if not months and it was politicized from day 1. After Trump's travel ban from China, everyone was screaming about racism, the next day Pelosi introduced legislation to limit his ability to implement more bans and she and De Blasio were encouraging people to go out and join huge crowds at major events in their cities. It's still a political blame fest.

Also, I don't think it's so bad in comparison to other countries. I believe it was way worse in China than we've been told and I don't believe all the deaths being attributed to Corona Virus in the US are actually from Coronavirus - some bureaucrat from Chicago literally admitted this much about that City's numbers the other day.
 
Spartanmack said:
That's not proof that we underreacted. the fact it got as bad as it did shows we most likely acted too late, not that we underreacted. And part of the reason we were late was because China lied about it for weeks if not months and it was politicized from day 1. After Trump's travel ban from China, everyone was screaming about racism, the next day Pelosi introduced legislation to limit his ability to implement more bans and she and De Blasio were encouraging people to go out and join huge crowds at major events in their cities. It's still a political blame fest.

Also, I don't think it's so bad in comparison to other countries. I believe it was way worse in China than we've been told and I don't believe all the deaths being attributed to Corona Virus in the US are actually from Coronavirus - some bureaucrat from Chicago literally admitted this much about that City's numbers the other day.
Click to expand...


Nitpicking.
We have intelligence agencies and shouldn't just rely on what other nations tell us.
Focusing on who was screaming over the travel ban is also 24 hr cable news partisan nonsense; it was a blip on my radar.

The travel ban was too late anyway.
Nobody trusts China's numbers.
 
Mitchrapp said:
Many POTUS born into wealth?
Click to expand...


Most Presidents bullshit and weasel around in a way that I would expect would serve them well if they were average Joes. Most of them, maybe all of them in my lifetime, if they were middle managers where I work, they'd do fine-to-great. They could answer to a boss.
 
Gulo Blue said:
Can you imagine this guy if he wasn't born into wealth?
Click to expand...

I understand. I wonder about the Kennedys in that context. Mary Jo would not have suffocated in the back of a 69 Olds, for example. John and Bobby would not have taken headshots.

John-John would not have augered into a cliff in his small aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
34,773
Messages
1,129,092
Members
977
Latest member
businesstalkmag

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top