Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you really want to start understanding what goes on behind the curtain you have to first understand that the "experts" are almost always wrong. A lot of this is intentional in various forms of propaganda and disinformation.
But the majority of the public continues to believe the "experts" lol..........
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,954 posts, read 5,566,270 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by heart84
If you really want to start understanding what goes on behind the curtain you have to first understand that the "experts" are almost always wrong. A lot of this is intentional in various forms of propaganda and disinformation.
But the majority of the public continues to believe the "experts" lol..........
What’s wrong with letting the bean counters run everything? It’s been that way for 40 years. Nothing bad has happened. Unless you consider the near total loss of our ability to make anything.
Oh I know, I was attempting to use levity in my agreement with your premise! Which is also to say, the bean-counters have really f’d us all; capitalism taken to its logical conclusion is all about profit at the expense of others, nothing more.
Last edited by subaru5555; 05-20-2020 at 08:36 PM..
Reason: grmmrz
Everything the "experts" got wrong about the Coronavirus pandemic:
It has been suggested that Professor Neil Ferguson report msy have been out by as much as 20%, however does this eve matter.
20% out in terms of the US would mean at the lower end 1.8 million deaths rather than the 2.2 million that Fergusons report cited, whilst in terms of the upper scale it would have meant up to around 2.6 million deaths. So
In the UK it might have meant 400,00 deaths instead of 500,000 or 20% the other way which would have been 600,000.
On a global scale it might have meant 30 million deaths instead of 40 million or in terms of 20% deaths the other way, up to 50 million.
However does it realy matter as it's still a significant amount of deaths and in terms of Imperial they published numerous Covid-19 reports as well as video Q&A sessions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Critic
In the two months since it was published, the Imperial College paper and computer model for Covid-19 have been widely criticized for, among other things: the poor quality of its code, its opaqueness, the variability and instability of its predictions, the lack of QA, the long delay before it was made available and the apparent polishing of the code by Microsoft engineers before it was fit to be seen in public. As recently as the past few days, fresh attacks have been made in the Telegraph and Spectator
Were these criticisms to be partly or even entirely true, they’d still be almost completely beside the point. They amount to claims that the model’s predictions might have been out by ~20%. When the paper was published in mid-March uncertainties of such a size were utterly irrelevant to the consequent decisions.
To worry about 20% differences in mortality under those circumstances is like sitting in a beach bar, knowing a tsunami is headed your way and debating whether the incoming wave will be 12m high or only 10m. In either case, it won’t affect your decision on whether to have another piña colada.
Last edited by Brave New World; 05-21-2020 at 04:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.