Using Calpreps to set public policy, suspend constitutional rights

[badrouter]

Local and state departments of health are using predictive models to justify draconian lockdowns. The models are understood to have severe limitations and flaws, largely because they are based on assumptions the modelers choose to include. They've been shown to be wrong at nearly every turn as they relate to predicting outcomes from the Sars-Cov-2 virus. We are watching, in real life, legislators basically using Ned's calpreps model to justify ordering people to remain isolated in their homes as the economy tanks for an indefinite number of months.  🤦‍♂️

[DarterBlue]

8 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Local and state departments of health are using predictive models to justify draconian lockdowns. The models are understood to have severe limitations and flaws, largely because they are based on assumptions the modelers choose to include. They've been shown to be wrong at nearly every turn as they relate to predicting outcomes from the Sars-Cov-2 virus. We are watching, in real life, legislators basically using Ned's calpreps model to justify ordering people to remain isolated in their homes as the economy tanks for an indefinite number of months.  🤦‍♂️

There is nothing wrong with using predictive models per se. They are used in all types of endeavor from the mundane (forecasting the weather) to the abstruse. The value of a model is predicated both on its construction (is it mathematically and scientifically sound) and on the assumptions that go into it. To the extent the models being used relating to Covid-19 don't work well or at all (the same applies to Calpreps to a degree), the fault lies not with modeling as an endeavor, but with either the construction or assumptions.

With that said, not all situations are amenable to effective modeling. It could be that there are just too many variables that are constantly changing, or that there is just too much auto correlation among the variables.  

[Troll]

34 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

There is nothing wrong with using predictive models per se. They are used in all types of endeavor from the mundane (forecasting the weather) to the abstruse. The value of a model is predicated both on its construction (is it mathematically and scientifically sound) and on the assumptions that go into it. To the extent the models being used relating to Covid-19 don't work well or at all (the same applies to Calpreps to a degree), the fault lies not with modeling as an endeavor, but with either the construction or assumptions.

With that said, not all situations are amenable to effective modeling. It could be that there are just too many variables that are constantly changing, or that there is just too much auto correlation among the variables.  

when the models are good they are good....and vice versa 🙄

Generally when all the models from an agency fail (like every single one), then it is usually a sign that those models were 'bought off' with human intentions...general science practices and models usually doesn't bat 1,000 at being wrong or skewed otherwise...

just sayin...

BTW: who bought off the who ?

[DarterBlue]

2 minutes ago, Troll said:

BTW: who bought off the who ?

You talking about the band or the organization?😀

[Troll]

7 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

You talking about the band or the organization?😀

The organization..

you know the one that was ENTIRELY wrong (like worse than T lol) on their 'advise' for this pandemic...🤔

Where do they get their funding ???

$$$$$$$

#1 contributor   is the US Gov...

#2 contributor is ____________   (before the likes of even Germany or Great Britain )

But I wouldn't be fooled that they appear in action, to be owned by the chinese....it's not them @ #2 either.

 

Most stuff is really not hard at all.....if you just follow the money

$$$

 

PS...loved their 'solution' was for everyone to give them a 10% tax, and then they could be in control, and by the way they will need that money right now, in the middle of all this...😵

 

 

[DarterBlue]

4 minutes ago, Troll said:

you know the one that was ENTIRELY wrong (like worse than T lol) on their 'advise' for this pandemic...🤔

A lot of countries and organizations were wrong on their assessment of this pandemic ... I suppose as this one has health in its name, it bears more culpability? 

[Troll]

Just now, DarterBlue said:

A lot of countries and organizations were wrong on their assessment of this pandemic ... I suppose as this one has health in its name, it bears more culpability? 

They have not only been the ones 'most actively involved' in all this for the last decade, but they just ran a drill a few months before all this....with the conclusion essentially....that no one will ever be ready or take this stuff seriously, until we have a 'real pandemic'....

So if anyone is 'supposed' to bear culpability (may or may not be the case here), you might look in the direction of those who seek to assume the responsibility, and have acted on it, whether or not you even believe it is their task...

[The Guru]

3 hours ago, badrouter said:

The models are understood to have severe limitations and flaws, largely because they are based on assumptions the modelers choose to include.

So the dictionary definition of a model.

Thanks for the drunk history lesson.

[badrouter]

3 hours ago, The Guru said:

So the dictionary definition of a model.

Thanks for the drunk history lesson.

or, why they shouldn't be used as essentially the sole justification for draconian lockdowns.

[The Guru]

13 hours ago, badrouter said:

or, why they shouldn't be used as essentially the sole justification for draconian lockdowns.

I think you should understand models first before you comment. That's their express purpose. To inform decisions about the future.

The White House put out guidelines for re-opening and it includes a provision that a state have 14 days of declining infections before re-opening.

Not one state has met the guidelines.