Purpleanga

Sorry I don’t share the rainbows and sunshine view, it’s still a public forum right? I think we all need to prepare for reality that there’s going to be mass furloughs. In the meantime no need to refresh Tsa daily numbers to give you false hope. I hope I’m very wrong though!

4V14T0R

So you're guaranteeing mass furloughs so we shouldn't have data that we can track as a metric for the return of our industry? That doesn't track. There may very well be mass furloughs, but having the data that serves as a good indicator for the return to a healthy airline industry is extremely helpful to many. It's a public forum right? We can talk about it if we do choose.

Excargodog

you can call this a right wing plot all you like, but there are plenty of reputable scientists (not to mention software engineers) who are calling this scientific malpractice of the first order:

https://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2020/0...l-covid-model/

An excerpt:


As for your second assertion, every individual event is an ‘n of one’ experiment. Nobody can ever say with certainty what one might have found on the road not taken. But this is NOT the first time this modeler has badly missed the mark, nor is this anything unique in the history of epidemics OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE SHUT DOWN THE ECONOMY LIKE WE HAVE. strangely, the human race prevailed without ever doing this previously and the places that didn’t shutdown, or shutdown to a far lesser degree, certainly haven’t experienced the apocalyptic scenarios predicted by the model either.

And it is ludicrous to tout supposed gains - that can never be reliably tested - and ignore very real costs of schoolchildren losing a third of a school year of instruction, Medical screening tests for cancer not done for three months (We discover 3 million serious cancers a year through such things as Pap smears, mammography, screening colonoscopies, none of which have been Since this started), a quarter million kids SO FAR who haven’t gotten their TDaP immunizations in the US since nobody is doing well baby checks, and a litany of other things, medical as well as economic.

So before you hail this guy as a savior, a guy who has now resigned in disgrace after being caught sneaking a girlfriend in in violation of the rules he ordained for others, look at the other side of the balance as well. Look at the harm these policies have caused.

velosnow

Neither called it a plot nor presumed he was a savior of any sort.

Excargodog

Then analyze it OBJECTIVELY and stop with the demonizing the messenger. If you can REFUTE what a source says - any source - go for it. But just blowing off valid criticism because it comes from a source you aren’t fond of is not the act of someone who believes in science.

As Galileo said about the Earth moving around the Sun, “It does move,” even if the authorities of the day made that belief heretical. The science doesn’t change, whatever the political or religious beliefs of the scientist.

Tom Bradys Cat

Well put. Hard to write in such prose when mashing my phone. You have eloquently summerised a key argument.

My wife continually says..stop arguing with the internet. I say, this is the modern form of protest. Discourse must be had and positions must be made with the hope of enacting change.

To those on the sidelines I say make your voice heard.

velosnow

It isn't me refuting the science though. Go re-read what I wrote, the criticism isn't valid. Imperial College produced a model, some folks ran with the worst case scenario (from both angles) and that wasn't applied correctly. Models change and adapt to new data, that's called science. In this case, the governments reluctantly and slowly followed the advice of actual experts (not dinguses like you & me) and decisions were made. You can believe those were the wrong decisions, that's your prerogative.

Excargodog

You attempted to refute information based solely on the assumed biases of those providing the information. That isn’t science, that’s merely arrogance and bigotry. A scientist would have investigated the allegation and independently assessed the veracity of it, not simply disparaging the source. You have no business lecturing anyone - not even dinguses - about science. Not with that attitude.

But the facts are there for anyone that wants to seek them. The man had a long history of producing models that grossly overstated the risk, it wasn’t just coronavirus. The countries that did not follow his advice on lockdown for coronavirus did not fare statistically any worse than the countries that did. After six weeks of stalling, he finally admitted that his coronavirus “model” was a recycled influenza model from 13 years previous. The computer model program, when it was eventually pried out of his hands (which could be done because it had been paid for by government grants) was judged to be a poorly written coding disaster with multiple glitches and little documentation by software engineers. And he was eventually forced to resign from the British government body managing their Coronavirus response when he was caught breaking the rules that HE HAD ADVOCATED for a tryst with someone else’s wife.

You are free to try to refute any of the above if you believe them to be incorrect. I await your research and documented rebuttal with bated breath.

Phins2right

An effective model is never stochastic.
An effective model must be seeded with ground truth data.
An effective model can be run on any CPU and will yield the same results. Even in the case of running parallel processing ala the super computer

Ferguson's model failed at all the standard tests of a reliable, stable, meaningful model. It's well documented by computer scientist who've run the model in their labs.

For the lay person. Say we created a model to test the effects of fertilizer on an apple tree. Say we seeded a model with our known data - basically apple trees produce apples.
When we provide an input, the model should yield results of and relating to apples.
Ferguson's model, when inputted with apples, would produce a pear. Then a peach, then an orange, then a gorilla etc. It was always producing random results. He and his team new this so they, admitted by none other than Ferguson himself, averaged the random results. His model was nothing more than an expensive random number generator.

In science, more aptly the scientific method, results must be able to be replicated. Ferguson's model, when fed the same inputs, produced different results each and every time it was run.

The model also would return non-deterministic outputs when ran on different CPUs. When confronted, the Ferguson group said, oh no just run it on this type of INTEL processor (single CORE like that in an IBM PC XT). Nothing else. (has to due with numerical methods and how different CPU chips calculate [floating point] and conduct their rounding)

In a "real" model if you get varying outputs, given the same inputs, that is cause for investigation.Imagine you want to explore the effects of some policy, like compulsory mask wearing. You change the code and rerun the model with the same seed as before. The number of projected deaths goes up rather than down. Is that because:

• The simulation is telling you something important?
• You made a coding error?
• The operating system decided to check for updates at some critical moment, changing the thread scheduling, the consequent ordering of floating point additions and thus changing the results?

You have absolutely no idea what happened.

In a correctly written model this situation can’t occur. A change in the outputs means something real and can be investigated. It’s either intentional or a bug. Once you’re satisfied you can explain the changes, you can then run the simulation more times with new seeds to estimate some uncertainty intervals.

In an uncontrollable model like Ferguson's you can’t get repeatable results and if the expected size of the change is less than the arbitrary variations, you can’t conclude anything from the model. And exactly because the variations are arbitrary, you don’t actually know how large they can get, which means there’s no way to conclude anything at all.

Ferguson's model is BTW about 15,000 lines of code - that is minuscule for this type of effort. Wind models like GFS are magnitudes of 10 lines of code.

We shut down the world based on a shoddy model that was originally designed to determine the rate of hoof-and-mouth disease propagation (inaccurately BTW) in cattle in England. Wow.

Again this is all out there for research. John Carmack. Martin Armstrong and the Swiss to name a few

md11pilot11

Looks like I was off, but in a good way! New record today. This is a fun game!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk