Our country is in big trouble going forward. There is heavy partisanship in the middle of a pandemic. Politics on holding back aid to desperate Americans because one side isnt going to get all the pork and voting modifications they want in a bill. These people are power hungry and arent working for the people
SomeBaseballDad posted:>Alex Berenson has been analyzing the data on the crisis on a daily basis for weeks and has come to the conclusion that the strategy of shutting down entire sectors of the economy is based on modeling that doesn’t line up with the realities of the virus.<
NYT isn't a Trump safe harbor.
Maybe, but he is a reporter. Where are the epidemiologists and doctors saying that the models and the response is wrong? Why should they all be "political"? Surely if there are some out there saying something different, the media (on one side or the other) would find them? Not just some reporter who has been "analyzing the data on a daily basis." Heck, we've all been doing that, on here.
edcoach posted:There is heavy partisanship in the middle of a pandemic.
There was partisanship during the Depression. And during the Flu Pandemic in 1918. And during every crisis. It's only after the fact that a narrative gets written about what solved the problem. That's called history. Think about it, how long did the Depression last? We've been in lockdown for what, 3 weeks?
They are making major adjustments to them daily...isn’t that the definition of saying they were wrong?
Yep there has been partisanship throughout history and it's sickening
baseballhs posted:They are making major adjustments to them daily...isn’t that the definition of saying they were wrong?
No, that's the definition of them saying that conditions are changing daily, and they are getting more data daily. No-one has seen this disease before, and no-one has actually experienced lockdowns that we are having. So, if they create a model by estimating that in a lockdown, transmission will drop from 2 to 1, but then they discover that what is actually happening is that it is dropping from 2 to .5, then the outcome changes. And that's just one piece of it.
In the meantime, they are desperately trying to figure out what will happen when the lockdowns end. My guess is that no-one has any idea. So, they're going to be wrong again.
Goose,
having trouble with this link https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...560&download=yes
Is it possible to correct?——Thx
anotherparent posted:baseballhs posted:They are making major adjustments to them daily...isn’t that the definition of saying they were wrong?
No, that's the definition of them saying that conditions are changing daily, and they are getting more data daily. No-one has seen this disease before, and no-one has actually experienced lockdowns that we are having. So, if they create a model by estimating that in a lockdown, transmission will drop from 2 to 1, but then they discover that what is actually happening is that it is dropping from 2 to .5, then the outcome changes. And that's just one piece of it.
In the meantime, they are desperately trying to figure out what will happen when the lockdowns end. My guess is that no-one has any idea. So, they're going to be wrong again.
So, they were wrong? Asking for a friend.
Models get updated as scientists get new information. That's how science (and Bayesian statistics) work - it doesn't mean the model is wrong, just incomplete. Not updating the model to incorporate new information would be wrong.
CTbballDad posted:anotherparent posted:baseballhs posted:So, they were wrong? Asking for a friend.
😭😭😭😭😭😭
I can see this thread going another page or two debating the definition of “wrong”
CTbballDad posted:I can see this thread going another page or two debating the definition of “wrong”
Just shoot me now!
RJM posted:adbono posted:CTbballDad posted:I can see this thread going another page or two debating the definition of “wrong”
Just shoot me now!
Here you go. You’ve been shot.
Perfect. Thanks!
anotherparent posted:SomeBaseballDad posted:>Alex Berenson has been analyzing the data on the crisis on a daily basis for weeks and has come to the conclusion that the strategy of shutting down entire sectors of the economy is based on modeling that doesn’t line up with the realities of the virus.<
NYT isn't a Trump safe harbor.
Maybe, but he is a reporter. Where are the epidemiologists and doctors saying that the models and the response is wrong? Why should they all be "political"? Surely if there are some out there saying something different, the media (on one side or the other) would find them? Not just some reporter who has been "analyzing the data on a daily basis." Heck, we've all been doing that, on here.
edcoach posted:There is heavy partisanship in the middle of a pandemic.
There was partisanship during the Depression. And during the Flu Pandemic in 1918. And during every crisis. It's only after the fact that a narrative gets written about what solved the problem. That's called history. Think about it, how long did the Depression last? We've been in lockdown for what, 3 weeks?
Michael Levitt, a Nobel laureate, has said the models are wrong. There is a March 24th article in the LA Times where he predicted we would get through this much quicker and without as many deaths as predicted. The head of data sciences at Stanford has made similar comments. There are others who have ripped the models for making assumptions off of bad or incomplete data.
But Levitt works for Fox.
Has anyone seen this?
Californians may have developed some herd immunity to coronavirus last year, Stanford team theorizes
smokeminside posted:But Levitt works for Fox.
So we aren’t going to get through it quicker and with fewer deaths than expected?
RJM posted:Has anyone seen this?
Californians may have developed some herd immunity to coronavirus last year, Stanford team theorizes
I was wondering if part of the reason was population density and the fact that CA drives everywhere instead of subway and NY possibly eating out more because of tiny apartments with small kitchens etc. Herd immunity makes sense to me.
Ummm... Can someone explain to me how the following is logical?: "Your model predicts too many deaths, because it is based on bad or incomplete data. My model is correct--although it also relies on bad or incomplete data, because there is no other kind of data available right now." ALL of the models pile assumption on assumption--and they are the best we can do.
Many of the models we are seeing now are going to be wrong. And all the models predict future events that are highly dependent on actions by third parties the model makers can't control (the timing of lockdown orders in 50 states plus DC and PR, for instance). I think one major problem is that we really can never know for certain if Fauci, et al.'s recommendations were too conservative; but we will get very stark evidence if we remove lockdown orders too soon.
There is no getting around that we are making very important decisions under conditions of radical uncertainty. You can pick your favorite predictions and I can pick mine--but I do hope both will come from folks who actually have relevant training and qualifications. (Yeah, the experts may all be wrong. But when you break your leg, you don't call a plumber--not even a really good, really smart one.)
Geezmom posted:RJM posted:Has anyone seen this?
Californians may have developed some herd immunity to coronavirus last year, Stanford team theorizes
I was wondering if part of the reason was population density and the fact that CA drives everywhere instead of subway and NY possibly eating out more because of tiny apartments with small kitchens etc. Herd immunity makes sense to me.
I wonder how much of this is an artifact of testing policies or other issues? Texas has a lower (measured) infection rate per capita than California. And NY has roughly 10x the infection rate of Florida, 6x the rate in Pennsylvania and Illinois.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...us-cases.html#states
Like I said above--radical uncertainty... It would be great if the article RJM linked to is correct. Someday if we are able to do widespread testing of asymptomatic folks, we may know.
--Edited to fix emoji auto-inserted into link.
d-mac posted:Michael Levitt, a Nobel laureate, has said the models are wrong. There is a March 24th article in the LA Times where he predicted we would get through this much quicker and without as many deaths as predicted. The head of data sciences at Stanford has made similar comments. There are others who have ripped the models for making assumptions off of bad or incomplete data.
Thanks. I'd point out that Leavitt is a chemist, but you'd say I'm quibbling. He is not doing any predictive modelling, he's not looking at cause and effect, or means of disease transmission, he is only looking at the raw data and predicting whether the numbers are going up or down. He was dead wrong about Iran (yes, I said "wrong"). On March 30, he said that New York had turned a corner (Daily Mail article), which it had not.
More to the point, Leavitt says that social distancing works, that it worked for China, and that he agrees with those calling for strong measures, especially social-distancing, immediate social isolation, and more testing and detection. So while he may be "right" in hindsight about total deaths, he doesn't seem to have anything predictive to say. He says that with distancing, it's not as bad as the models predicted - well, that IS exactly what the models predicted.
The point of predictive modelling is to say what you think will happen, to guide future action. Leavitt and everyone else have said that we have to lock down to control this. We did, and it's being controlled. What if the original models had not been so dire? Then no-one might have locked down, and the worst-cases might have come true.
CTbballDad posted:So, they were wrong? Asking for a friend.
We never spend 6 pages on here arguing about things, do we?
O.k., so how about this comparison to a model that we all know and love (and argue about endlessly), Perfect Game rankings? With thousands of players, those rankings (except for the top 200, maybe) are also models:
- they are based on mathematical formulas that weight a variety of inputs
- the inputs change for each player all the time
- the rankings change all the time, until the draft after the players' senior year
So, are those models "wrong" in freshman HS year? junior HS year? Are they "right" at the end of senior year? Are they predictions, or do they measure past results? Do they influence actions?
Thank goodness the original coronavirus predictions were wrong. They were wrong because we changed our behavior.
Another article to argue about.
baseballhs posted:Another article to argue about.
This is a technique and makes logical sense. It was Britain's original plan that they quickly dumped when epidemiologists there warned it would overwhelm the health system and cost an extra 250,000 lives.
anotherparent posted:CTbballDad posted:So, they were wrong? Asking for a friend.
We never spend 6 pages on here arguing about things, do we?
O.k., so how about this comparison to a model that we all know and love (and argue about endlessly), Perfect Game rankings? With thousands of players, those rankings (except for the top 200, maybe) are also models:
- they are based on mathematical formulas that weight a variety of inputs
- the inputs change for each player all the time
- the rankings change all the time, until the draft after the players' senior yearSo, are those models "wrong" in freshman HS year? junior HS year? Are they "right" at the end of senior year? Are they predictions, or do they measure past results? Do they influence actions?
Thank goodness the original coronavirus predictions were wrong. They were wrong because we changed our behavior.
So that’s a “yes”
Regarding PG, never attended, thus argued. However, I don’t think their ranking are based mathematical formulas. Quite the opposite, as I believe they are more subjective inputs from scouts. They’re not entering measurables, which spits out a ranking number.
Based on your incessant posts, you come across as someone who wants to impose your opinion and have everyone agree with you. Let me save you the keyboard strokes and let you know that’s not going to happen, and that’s OK.
CTbballDad posted:anotherparent posted:CTbballDad posted:So, they were wrong? Asking for a friend.
We never spend 6 pages on here arguing about things, do we?
O.k., so how about this comparison to a model that we all know and love (and argue about endlessly), Perfect Game rankings? With thousands of players, those rankings (except for the top 200, maybe) are also models:
- they are based on mathematical formulas that weight a variety of inputs
- the inputs change for each player all the time
- the rankings change all the time, until the draft after the players' senior yearSo, are those models "wrong" in freshman HS year? junior HS year? Are they "right" at the end of senior year? Are they predictions, or do they measure past results? Do they influence actions?
Thank goodness the original coronavirus predictions were wrong. They were wrong because we changed our behavior.
So that’s a “yes”
Regarding PG, never attended, thus argued. However, I don’t think their ranking are based mathematical formulas. Quite the opposite, as I believe they are more subjective inputs from scouts. They’re not entering measurables, which spits out a ranking number.
Based on your incessant posts, you come across as someone who wants to impose your opinion and have everyone agree with you. Let me save you the keyboard strokes and let you know that’s not going to happen, and that’s OK.
I agree on the PG rankings. If you don’t regularly attend their events you likely won’t be ranked very high, if at all. I just saw a list of their FL underclass all Americans. Pretty sure it included every single kid that went to one of their showcases.
Yep, I'm tired of posting about this, can't seem to help it. It's because I'm still so mad that baseball was cancelled, and trying to make sense of it. I did try to start some topics about baseball, but those didn't get much response...
For the most part, we are still in "healthy debate" mode but this thread is starting to tilt further toward political bias. I suggest we stick to references that are not from a heavy left or heavy right source. There are more neutral fact-based news sources if one is actually open to that and, better yet, stick to the direct source links from the experts.
Otherwise, we might as well just blame the whole coronavirus on 5G 
!! (one of my wife's friends sent her one of those conspiracy clips)
Pedaldad posted:baseballhs posted:Another article to argue about.
This is a technique and makes logical sense. It was Britain's original plan that they quickly dumped when epidemiologists there warned it would overwhelm the health system and cost an extra 250,000 lives.
Sweden seems to be the country that is actually doing this still:
https://time.com/5817412/sweden-coronavirus/
I could see some communities in the US doing it, just trying to keep the spread slower. However, I think that it also shows that more deaths will be the likely result.
The expectation is that in a few months when the second wave hits, we will be better set up to handle it (both in hospital capacity and hopefully better treatments).
cabbagedad posted I suggest we stick to references that are not from a heavy left or heavy right source.
And those would be????
SomeBaseballDad posted:cabbagedad posted I suggest we stick to references that are not from a heavy left or heavy right source.
And those would be????
Pretty easy to research... tons of information available on the topic. AP News is one example. The same research will also bring light to which have the most bias. Of course, you have to consider the source in the research as well.
I have made a concerted (and often painful) effort the last several years to continue listening to everything from CNN to Fox and then fact-checking mostly with what I see and hear with my own eyes and spending most of my time with those outlets that tend to just report the facts without the opinionated commentary. I wish more would do the same. It just seems so logical and necessary in today's world. IMO, if you rely on one source as 90+% of your news information, you are most likely getting politically biased information often distorting the facts.
I find 100% of news outlets to engage in some degree of fake news. About 80% of those I find to be left leaning and of that percentage about 50% suffering from TDS.
SomeBaseballDad posted:I find 100% of news outlets to engage in some degree of fake news. About 80% of those I find to be left leaning and of that percentage about 50% suffering from TDS.
I don't think the labels by themselves are useful. Your idea of "bias" and mine are almost certainly different. Which is ok with me, but unless you or I point to a particular article and explain why we consider it inaccurate or slanted, then we're likely to just talk past each other.
IMO, one of the most difficult things about the current situation is that very, very few of us--including those writing for the media--have the expertise to evaluate the limited evidence that is out there. (For the record, I do not have said expertise.) Even when we read what seems to be an objective report about some new model or scientific study, how often do we (or can we) go find the actual study and try to independently evaluate its conclusions? I'm reminded of what Lincoln said about the two sides in the Civil War each claiming that God was on their side: "Both may be, and one must be, wrong."
SomeBaseballDad posted:I find 100% of news outlets to engage in some degree of fake news. About 80% of those I find to be left leaning and of that percentage about 50% suffering from TDS.
If I come across a news source in my news aggregator or a friend’s Facebook post I’m not familiar with I check it at Allsides or Media Bias Fact Check. These two sites seem to be reasonably accurate in judging information sites. They not only tell you how far they lean but how factually accurate they tend to be.
RJM posted:SomeBaseballDad posted:I find 100% of news outlets to engage in some degree of fake news. About 80% of those I find to be left leaning and of that percentage about 50% suffering from TDS.
If I come across a news source in my news aggregator or a friend’s Facebook post I’m not familiar with I check it at Allsides or a Media Bias Fact Check. These two sites seem to be reasonably accurate in judging information sites. The not only tell you how far they lean but how factually accurate they tend to be.
I had never heard of allsides. Great site. I even got to rate my bias, which I already knew....
Gunner Mack Jr. posted:RJM posted:SomeBaseballDad posted:I find 100% of news outlets to engage in some degree of fake news. About 80% of those I find to be left leaning and of that percentage about 50% suffering from TDS.
If I come across a news source in my news aggregator or a friend’s Facebook post I’m not familiar with I check it at Allsides or a Media Bias Fact Check. These two sites seem to be reasonably accurate in judging information sites. The not only tell you how far they lean but how factually accurate they tend to be.
I had never heard of allsides. Great site. I even got to rate my bias, which I already knew....
Agree on Allsides… great resource, RJM, thanks! Assessments match very closely with the most accurate of what I have found elsewhere, methods are sound and so is the summary message...
"AllSides Media Bias Ratings help you identify different perspectives so you can know more, understand others, and think for yourself."
"By making the political leanings of hundreds of media sources transparent, AllSides frees people from filter bubbles so we can better understand the world — and each other."
The question was asked and answered... now can we get back to "less political"?
RJM posted:If I come across a news source in my news aggregator or a friend’s Facebook post I’m not familiar with I check it at Allsides or Media Bias Fact Check. These two sites seem to be reasonably accurate in judging information sites. They not only tell you how far they lean but how factually accurate they tend to be.
Neat site, RJM. Never heard of Allsides. I checked out a few articles and it's pretty apparent how one-sided the national media lens is.
OK Cabbage. Now we'll keep the left versus right going..but apply it to hitters and pitchers. 
This is an awesome political site. Used to be a good baseball website too.
If you find Allsides helpful, that's ok with me. But their methodology boils down to what they call a "patented media bias detection and display technology." In other words, it's a black box. And the company is for-profit, so I assume they are getting paid by the sources they aggregate. Nothing wrong with that--it's true of any news feed. But I'm contrarian enough to mistrust someone who tells me they are going to rate for me how each article I read leans politically and present me a spectrum they consider "balanced." There are a lot of hidden value judgments implicit in their categorizations. I guess I'm more comfortable reading a range of sites that just admit they are trying to sell space for ads.