Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#56,226
#56,226
TennTradition said:
Normally I would agree with you.

Somehow, this guy was arguing the model due to its architecture wasn’t deterministic. I need to understand that. On the same computer, do I get a different answer every run? Was that intentional?

Or is it a compiling issue on different machines? If so, how did it compile on Ferguson’s lab’s computers.
Click to expand...

The simplest explanation that comes to mind is that there are seeded processes running in the model, where the seed must be specified to reproduce the results.
 
#56,232
#56,232
VolStrom said:
So what you're saying is that the number of deaths from covid-19 is insignificant in the long term? Just trying to dumb your doctor speak down a little.
Click to expand...

No - but I guess if you define long-term long enough they are insignificant - for example compared to normal deaths over even a year. But I don’t think that’s a worthwhile argument to make.

AllVol was essentially suggesting that many of the COVID deaths that have occurred in the last few months are deaths that would have happened anyway over the next 3-6 months (and thus those deaths were essentially pulled forward and the result is that 3-6 months from now we’ll see lower deaths than normal).

I understand what he’s getting at and agree it’s an interesting line of thought.

In summary: We’ll watch deaths / month going forward and if deaths become consistently lower than normal that will suggest AllVol’s point was right.

In more detail:
My point was in order to know if they were pulled forward, it would need to be limited to the next 3-6 months. Because if the argument is instead - “well those deaths would have occurred in the next few years anyway” - then that gets very difficult to measure. There are about 50k deaths a month. Let’s say half the COVID deaths were ones that would have occurred within the year anyway. That’s 44k. And there are 6 months left. That’s 7k a month or so fewer deaths we should be seeing a month for the rest of the year than we normally see. That is likely detectable over baseline noise. But if that jumps to the deaths would have happened in the next 12 months, well you cut that excess down to 3-4K a month, which is harder to see over normal month to month noise (but even that number I think you’d see in the data). As the period you think those deaths were pulled forward from gets longer, the harder it is to see the result in the data.
 
#56,241
#56,241
BowlBrother85 said:
He is not the one posting tweet after tweet from Clay Travis, and calling him "the voice of reason".
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell Travis is only making a few obvious points:
1.) With more testing comes more positive tests
2.) More testing positive is showing this virus is causing lower and lower death and hospitalization rates
3.) Based on this trend this virus isn’t anything to really worry about if you are under 60 and in good health.
4.) Based on this what we have done has been beyond stupid

Which of the above do you dispute?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Rickyvol77, TrumpedUpVol and 4 others
#56,244
#56,244
TennTradition said:
That still seems intentional, no?
Click to expand...

I would think so. The most common use is for randomly generated numbers. I have also worked with some algorithms that make use of them to generate random starting points in a matrix or random selection of observations in a dataset.
 
#56,249
#56,249
https://thetexan.news/pharmacy-boar...xychloroquine-prescriptions-reversing-course/


Dr. Ivette Lozano, who has been in medical practice for over 20 years, was shocked to learn in March that she would be required to share her patient’s diagnosis with the pharmacist before prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin would be dispensed.

On March 20, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy issued a new rule that no prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin could be dispensed without a diagnosis “consistent with evidence for its use.”

“Never before have we had to turn in a diagnosis with a prescription,” Lozano told The Texan. Lozano has seen about five to six patients per week for coronavirus. “They see a dramatic improvement within six to eight hours,” Lozano said.
 
#56,250
#56,250
volfanhill said:
As far as I can tell Travis is only making a few obvious points:
1.) With more testing comes more positive tests
2.) More testing positive is showing this virus is causing lower and lower death and hospitalization rates
3.) Based on this trend this virus isn’t anything to really worry about if you are under 60 and in good health.
4.) Based on this what we have done has been beyond stupid

Which of the above do you dispute?
Click to expand...

1+2+3 do not equal 4.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top