04-17-2020, 01:18 PM
knieft - "The question is one of balance."
Again, what exactly is the point you are making? The National Review ("Conservative News, Opinion, Politics, Policy") has an ideological ax to grind, which they've applied in their criticism of the IHME (even though the White House endorsed it as the model they've used for their predictions and planning).
Some of it is valid criticism of the model (wide ranges of predictions, bad matches to reality even on the same day of the model updates) and some of it is political (social distancing being an explanation for the low numbers is "nonsense" - no support needed for such an assertion apparently). And of course the number of deaths predicted will likely go down as current deaths being fed into the model continue to drop (wait till we "liberate" some states and see what happens then.)
Point is that the beloved IHME model is getting it from all sides. It's neither worked well as a predictive tool for planning (Cuomo's "absurd" calls for 40,000 ventilators was based on this and similar model predictions) nor as a ultimate guide for where things are actually at for a given date.
Given how much adoration this model was being given here for its predictions, just thought it important to contextualize how the model is actually doing from a variety of opinions and expectations.
Again, making clear the context, nuance, and complexity of reality as opposed to the maps with pretty shapes being made and believed without question.
Again, what exactly is the point you are making? The National Review ("Conservative News, Opinion, Politics, Policy") has an ideological ax to grind, which they've applied in their criticism of the IHME (even though the White House endorsed it as the model they've used for their predictions and planning).
Some of it is valid criticism of the model (wide ranges of predictions, bad matches to reality even on the same day of the model updates) and some of it is political (social distancing being an explanation for the low numbers is "nonsense" - no support needed for such an assertion apparently). And of course the number of deaths predicted will likely go down as current deaths being fed into the model continue to drop (wait till we "liberate" some states and see what happens then.)
Point is that the beloved IHME model is getting it from all sides. It's neither worked well as a predictive tool for planning (Cuomo's "absurd" calls for 40,000 ventilators was based on this and similar model predictions) nor as a ultimate guide for where things are actually at for a given date.
Given how much adoration this model was being given here for its predictions, just thought it important to contextualize how the model is actually doing from a variety of opinions and expectations.
Again, making clear the context, nuance, and complexity of reality as opposed to the maps with pretty shapes being made and believed without question.