happyone Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 22 minutes ago, Ridgerunner said: I'm talking about now, not the past. And in the past almost all my comments about Trump were in response to attacks on him. I didn't originate the conversations. In the future on this thread I intend to be quiet about Trump. I hope everyone else will too. Besides, there is a thread for that now 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robwin Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 20 minutes ago, happyone said: Based on this opinion, to which I agree, then obviously the person or persons who designed the model wanted to show the worst possible outcome, which then would make those in power or those using those models to assert the most drastic measures possible--which they did--a lock down of the world. But as the models numbers projections decreased, as data improved as some would advocate, the question then should be asked: as the numbers project a marked decrease of death based on our new model, then why were not the strictest confinement measures also relaxed and new measures adopted to protect those most at risk and allow the world to begin to rebuild the economies that were being destroyed???? Why keep up the fear rhetoric??? So basically you are saying the/some models were biased towards a certain goal, well as they are written by humans they are bound to be biased really as its only, in the end, someones views. Likewise the new model is also biased to accommodate those goals. As they say in all computer programmes though rubbish in, rubbish out or in my language bollocks in and bollocks out lol. But in the end whatever actions are or not taken it isn't the computer that has the final say but man so they can ignore all models and just implement whatever policy the current government subscribes to. Which obviously can be right or wrong. Your second point about relaxation of the original measures as deaths reduce is a valid one but perhaps many want to err on the side of playing safe, who the hell knows what goes in politicians minds, just as bad as trying to understand women, either of them are just bloody illogical 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgerunner Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 16 hours ago, moos54 said: I just read this in relation to the news of the coronavirus and it comes from a beginning of study done in the United States, it is rather interesting for those who think that it was the miracle product Twice as many deaths "and" no benefit "with hydroxychloroquine. It is an American medical study involving several hundred patients who states: "We have found no evidence that hydroxychloroquine, associated or not with azithromycin, reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients. covid-19. " And there is worse: mortality, which rises to 11% in the "control" group (benefiting from the usual treatment), reaches 22% in patients treated with the hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin combination, and even 28% in those that are only treated with hydroxychloroquine. "These results underscore the importance of awaiting the results of current, prospective, randomized and controlled studies before generalizing the use of these drugs" against covid-19, conclude the authors. I think you need to read what Dr. Didier Raoult said about that study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robwin Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ridgerunner said: I think you need to read what Dr. Didier Raoult said about that study. Rather than keep refering to these so called experts don't you have an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgerunner Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, Robwin said: Rather than keep refering to these so called experts don't you have an opinion? On the matter of the validity of the study, Dr. Raoult's opinion carries much more weight than mine. This is in his area of expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moos54 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 4 hours ago, Ridgerunner said: I think you need to read what Dr. Didier Raoult said about that study. So for you the opinion of a single doctor who does not test in the rules of medicine is better than the opinion of a whole armada of doctors around the world who make them a real test? i think the first real numbers don't lie but I suppose you prefer to believe this professor because your president immediately believed in this product, except that now we see that it was not necessarily the right choice it's still strange that his own scientific advisor is not very keen on having this drug as a treatment but at the same time who he is to give his opinion? I even believe that this famous president avoids to date to mention the name of this drug as being the miracle product Ridge it might be time to stop making sheep and have your own ideas instead of blindly following someone else's 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moos54 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Ridgerunner said: On the matter of the validity of the study, Dr. Raoult's opinion carries much more weight than mine. This is in his area of expertise. except that his expertise is completely distorted because he has no point of comparison, so in his study he is unable to say if it is this drug that works or if patients recover on their own by fighting the virus and for the moment the scientific community which makes tests on a larger scale than its own, gives conclusions which go rather against this drug science is not magic, it is not enough to say that it works for this to be really the case, besides there are lots of other clinical trials that are currently being tested and that are promising 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 27 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 5 hours ago, Robwin said: So basically you are saying the/some models were biased towards a certain goal, well as they are written by humans they are bound to be biased really as its only, in the end, someones views. Likewise the new model is also biased to accommodate those goals. As they say in all computer programmes though rubbish in, rubbish out or in my language bollocks in and bollocks out lol. But in the end whatever actions are or not taken it isn't the computer that has the final say but man so they can ignore all models and just implement whatever policy the current government subscribes to. Which obviously can be right or wrong. Your second point about relaxation of the original measures as deaths reduce is a valid one but perhaps many want to err on the side of playing safe, who the hell knows what goes in politicians minds, just as bad as trying to understand women, either of them are just bloody illogical You were doing fine until you mentioned women pal😀 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robwin Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 46 minutes ago, Dave 27 said: You were doing fine until you mentioned women pal😀 Perhaps that's why everything is fucked up? Get women involved and the menstrual cycle and all logic goes out the bloody window 🤣🤪 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 27 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 35 minutes ago, Robwin said: Perhaps that's why everything is fucked up? Get women involved and the menstrual cycle and all logic goes out the bloody window 🤣🤪 That's a bit of a strong statement to make yes/no.I assume you are joking?.I'm sure Ash and some of the other ladies on here will have an opinion on this. This is the 21st century pal in case you haven't noticed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alladino Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 9 hours ago, Robwin said: What is a model? it is simply a computer programme designed by one or a group of humans therefore the model will have a leaning somewhat towards the opinons of the humans that wrote it. Therefore any model from where ever is only the views of the particular people/person who designed it. Therefore models are only extensions of their views. This is why different models produce varying results. Which one can be relied upon? God knows. You pretend it as if the modeller is trying to represent a pre-made opinion. Normaly, the scientists do the exact opposite and try to bring these models as close to reality as possible. Each model contains assumptions. These assumptions are not simply made up, but derived from existing knowledge. Sure, this knowledge is not very accurate at the beginning of a pandemic, but over time it will be enhanced. An essential ability of these models is to break down complex relationships into partial effects that can be described and valued. Anyway, one thing should be clear to you, the decisions made by politicians and their advisers are largely based on observation and not so much on the models. This applies in particular to the measures taken in the USA, because they had the knowledge from other countries like those in Europe. I think that even without a single of this complex models, similar measures would have been taken. Simply because this was the best way to prevent an overburdening of the health care system like we saw in northern Italy, for example. One thing where the models really help is to understand the influence of different effects and countermeasures. Something that will help us a lot in the time after the first look down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letsdothis Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 10 hours ago, Ridgerunner said: What good is a model for setting medical and economic policies if it's numbers are no where close to being accurate? I live in the real world, not the hypothetical world of some computer geeks. When a model predicts 240,000 deaths in the U.S. with mitigation, and the actual number is only somewhere between 50-60 thousand; how can you call that a reliable model? You know, I don't get you. I believe you're just pretending to be as dumb as a box of rocks because I don't believe anyone of your age could possibly be as dumb as this post would seem to indicate. I certainly hope my belief is correct. This subject has been explained multiple times in this topic in extremely simple terms that anyone could understand. Any model is only as accurate as the data that is available to it at that moment in time. They're not grossly inaccurate or wrong or unreliable. They are only as reliable as the current data allows them to be. And how could they be anything else? They're based entirely on the currently available data because no one can predict the future. No one has a magic crystal ball that will give them exact, 100%, perfectly accurate data. No one can predict the future; certainly no one in this topic and not even the experts like Dr. Fauci, although he is certainly more knowledgeable than we are. And then, you had to go and spin my words, manipulate what I said, put words in my mouth and even quote dubious facts not in evidence. I never said these models were reliable. I've only ever said they were as accurate as the currently available data allowed them to be. And that will always be true. The hope is, each successive model will become more accurate, more reliable as the virus evolves, as the data evolves. Then you said, "the actual number is only somewhere between 50-60 thousand." Where is that data coming from? We're only a hair's breadth, about one day, away from 50,000 deaths in this country. We're averaging between 2,000-2,500 new deaths every day. That's approximately 10,000 new deaths every 4-5 days. And we haven't even reached the peak of the devastation this virus is going to heap on us. Can you give me a link to something that proves those numbers for the US? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts