After Repeated Failures, It’s Time To
Permanently Dump Epidemic Models
Issues & Insights,
by
Michael Fumento
Original Article
Posted By: RockyTCB,
4/18/2020 8:22:13 AM
“The … crisis we face is unparalleled in modern times,” said the World Health Organization’s assistant director, while its director general proclaimed it “likely the greatest peacetime challenge that the United Nations and its agencies have ever faced.” This was based on a CDC computer model projection predicting as many as 1.4 million deaths from just two countries.
So when did they say this about COVID-19? Trick question: It was actually about the Ebola virus in Liberia and Sierra Leone five years ago, and the ultimate death toll was under 8,000.
With COVID-19 having peaked (the highest date was April
Reply 1 - Posted by:
franq 4/18/2020 8:39:08 AM (No. 383506)
True. Preaching to the choir, I fear.
15 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
jacksin5 4/18/2020 8:44:08 AM (No. 383514)
"Garbage in, Garbage out" is always at play with computer modeling. Insuffiscient data will always skew results. MMGW is a prime example.
16 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Daisymay 4/18/2020 8:58:20 AM (No. 383527)
I think we would be stunned if we found out the REAL number of Virus deaths. The fact that Hospitals were calling All DEATHS Covid 19 related really did not give us the accurate information we needed. I suspect the numbers were much lower. These "Models" have screwed things up from the beginning! It's time to go with actual numbers. And yes, there were a lot of folks who tested positive, but MOST of them didn't get sick, or if they did, it was like the normal Flu. This whole "crisis" got way out of hand!!
23 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
aasilver 4/18/2020 9:08:21 AM (No. 383541)
"All models are wrong" is a common aphorism in statistics; it is often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful". It is usually considered to be applicable to not only statistical models, but to scientific models generally. The aphorism is generally attributed to the statistician George Box, although the underlying concept predates Box's writings.
7 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
red1066 4/18/2020 9:11:21 AM (No. 383542)
The problem with the epidemic models, is that they depend on data obtained over many months. Viruses move at lightning speed, and we now see what damage that can create when decisions by those in charge are made depending on data that changes the model almost on an hourly basis. Add in the moves by the people in charge who refuse to change as the model changes, and over time, people get restless and frustrated.
7 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Quigley 4/18/2020 9:29:41 AM (No. 383559)
At some point the actual deaths will be reported and somebody will analyze them for corona caused vs with corona.
This episode will be remembered for the pain it caused, unlike much news that is forgotten, for example when a dim criticizes a republican in May and then excuses a fellow Dim for the same thing in June.
No, this episode will be remembered because people lived it and in MANY cases suffered it.
And I don’t believe that the public will believe that the death count was reduced by 90% because of the shut down.
I believe some deep scepticism will emerge.
What it will focus on is another matter. There will probably be some strong opinions that our health officials failed us. Probably some opinion aginst bloviating experts in general. Perhaps some skepticism of the Dims’ behaviour.
Of course, the usual suspects who blast Trump for not doing enough will probably blast him for over reacting.
Will the Deep State emerge as a player?
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 4/18/2020 9:43:37 AM (No. 383573)
It's also past time to eliminate and dump the msm.
12 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 4/18/2020 10:06:41 AM (No. 383596)
It's time to dump the incompetents at CDC that developed and touted the models. Start at the top of the organizational chart and work down.
15 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
jalo1951 4/18/2020 10:18:04 AM (No. 383606)
I can only assume that the same people who poled Hillary would win in a landslide (100,000,000 to 0) are handling the numbers for this virus mess.
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
HotRod 4/18/2020 10:25:00 AM (No. 383616)
Models can be useful in studying a phenomenon that has already occurred, provided the accumulated data is put in without error. Models are not very good at predicting the future, when only old data is available. There is too much room for bias and subjectivity.
Even the weather models have problems. They are getting better because of the similarity and repetitive nature of the input data, but they still can't be totally accurate. They predict the chance of rain, for example, for a defined area, such as you part of the state, but not your specific location. It may rain five miles from you, while you enjoy sunshine.
Climate change models? They are only good for scaring people out of their tax money, and giving more power to politicians and bureaucrats!!
12 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
franq 4/18/2020 11:47:05 AM (No. 383708)
In the end, all the high-sounding models, whether done on a napkin or Cray computer, are based on assumptions.
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
DVC 4/18/2020 11:53:34 AM (No. 383714)
Please bundle up the fraudulent 'climate models' with them and have a nice bonfire.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
bamboozle 4/18/2020 12:22:41 PM (No. 383745)
To my way of thinking, the most important numbers might be: number of hospital and ICU admissions (since we don't want to overwhelm the system), the number of deaths, and the real number of infected patients (which is probably unknowable). We need also to consider death and morbidity caused by the denial of normal medical care to a vast number of patients due to the premature raising of the drawbridge by the healthcare organizations.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 4/18/2020 12:45:20 PM (No. 383776)
#2, you are exactly correct....and certainly much of the critical data was not there, certainly "insufficient".
But WORSE was the false data coming out of China.
Where have 21,000,000 Chinese cell phones suddenly gone?
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
bighambone 4/18/2020 12:50:31 PM (No. 383785)
Since the Chinese COVID-19 virus arrived in the USA and perpetrated an unprecedented pandemic, it has been a moving target for politicians and public health officials. Both entities have had to proceed based upon the data and information available to them before they made their governmental or public health decisions. No doubt everyday that data and information becomes more comprehensive and informative with new decisions constantly having to be made and altered.
Remember it is not the fault of any US politicians or public health officials that the COVID-19 virus was able to enter and make headway in the USA. The fault lies squarely with the secretive Communist Government of China that allowed thousands of infected Chinese to fly out of China direct to many foreign countries and regions, especially to European and USA destinations, without letting on to the world that the COVID-19 virus was so highly contagious and was being spread through human to human contact. All that has been facilitated greatly through globalization. Even after the US Government figured out that they were dealing with a potentially very serious contagious viral public health threat to the USA, with President Trump initially responding by shutting down all travel from China to the USA, with globalist politicians like Joseph Biden immediately publicly charging that Trump was a racist and a xenophobe for doing so.
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Deepthinker 4/18/2020 1:16:48 PM (No. 383821)
I could write a great deal on this subject. (RELAX! I shall restrain myself)
Years ago , (back when "models" were referred to as "computer simulations") I did some work and study in the area at the University of Toronto under the supervision of the Dept of Industrial Engineering.
Many of the most important issues are not in the mathematical manipulations and can be well understood by intelligent non-mathys.
Two big ones are:
1 Large systems of equations are very prone to having instabilities where a tiny change in one factor can have a big effect on the results. When you are using numbers that have considerable uncertainty built in, the risk is obvious. (By contrast, in the models used at oil refineries there are many things we know with great precision--like how much tank storage we have for swing inventory and the constraint that imposes.) The bigger the system being modeled, the bigger the risk of this effect.
2. The whole point of these models is to focus on particular variables. This means that you are intrinsically assuming other factors to be irrelevant. With industrial processes and well controlled lab experiments you can check many of your assumptions. When you are modelling uncontrolled processes in "nature" you are very blind to what you may have missed.
This is one of my soap boxes. I try not to bore people too much.
8 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 4/18/2020 1:44:55 PM (No. 383857)
They err hugely on the side of caution, it’s the nature of their beast.
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DVC 4/18/2020 2:26:47 PM (No. 383893)
Excellent points, #16. And when you cannot do the required experimental work to measure the coefficients for each variable (hold the temperature of the Pacific Ocean constant for a year while varying solar input plus and minus 10%.....OOPS) ALL your coefficients are guesses.
Twenty or fifty 'guesstimated' coefficients later you have a climate model.....which is garbage.
And this doesn't even mention that there are certainly many variables which you didn't even grasp were important and weren't even included in the model, guesstimated coefficient or not. And yes, we called our engineering work, computer simulations, too.
7 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
EQKimball 4/18/2020 3:04:07 PM (No. 383906)
Perhaps the one good thing about the absurd modeling results is that more people will be skeptical of the hysterical climate models that provide a basis for liberal politicians and scientists to demand more money to save the planet.
6 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 4/19/2020 9:35:10 AM (No. 384338)
#16 wins the internet ,today!
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "RockyTCB"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)