Wuhan Corona Virus Coming Soon? (Now Here)

[Guest]

Those models have no credibility...

What models do?

[ironyak]

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.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

“The question is one of balance.

Yes, let’s pick a point of balance between acceptable economic losses and deaths.
We can all agree on those exact numbers, right?

[Guest]

the beloved IHME model.. ..It's neither worked well as a predictive tool.. ..nor as a ultimate guide..

But it's still a great means by which one can measure the executive's success! Look ma, my numbers are smaller than theirs!

[knieft]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ironyak

Again, what exactly is the point you are making?

---

That you are cherry picking. Not just links, but quotes from links.

Cheers,
Kirt

[Guest]

Hey Kirt, maybe you got some quotes, some links you'd like to share?

[ironyak]

Only if every possible related link and all the text from every article is included. Otherwise it's just cherry-picking...

[TomK]

So, below is a question for those dealing with COVID-19 statistics on PW. It's not my question, it's from elsewhere, but am interested to see answers (please, without googling):

The examination is designed to demonstrate whether a person is carrying the virus or not.

The exam has only two outcomes, positive or negative.

If a testee has the virus the test has a 95% probability of giving a positive result.

For those not carrying the virus the test has a 95% probability of giving a negative result.

What is the probability that an individual - selected at random, tested, and obtains a positive result - actually carries the virus?

[ironyak]

TomK - The examination is designed to demonstrate whether a person is carrying the virus or not.

It looks like your forgot some crucial info for your problem (or at least the good Reverend Thomas might say so) but sure, someone take a crack at it.

[PaulW]

0.95 * x + 0.05 * (100 - x)
where x is the actual percentage of the population that has the virus.