The second wave of Covid
-
I think that some will consider the second wave to be horrific tsunami while others consider the second wave to be a minor ripple.
-
@Horace said in The second wave of Covid:
I suppose there will be an increase in infection statistics here and there
How is this a prediction? This is already happening.
-
@Horace said in The second wave of Covid:
I am anticipating no more lock downs...
So you’re predicting no school closures in 20-21 year, no reversal on any policies regarding gathering sizes, establishment types, capacity reductions, etc?
-
@Horace said in The second wave of Covid:
... but I am guessing that the social impact of the virus is all but over.
This is your boldest prediction, unless I’m misunderstanding it. I take this to mean bottom-up behavioral changes rather than imposed rules. Those are winding down and won’t return?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The second wave of Covid:
I think that some will consider the second wave to be horrific tsunami while others consider the second wave to be a minor ripple.
Ok, sure, but “the virus will remain politicized along the same lines as now” is perhaps the least controversial option one could hold. It’s fine, just promise us you won’t think yourself prescient when it remains true.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in The second wave of Covid:
@Horace said in The second wave of Covid:
I suppose there will be an increase in infection statistics here and there
How is this a prediction? This is already happening.
It's less a prediction and more defensive scaffolding against trivial claims that I'm wrong.
-
jon, before we play the game of "reframe Horace's predictions to maximize the likelihood that they'll be wrong", would you like to show some good faith and offer a prediction of your own that avoids the two pitfalls you've shown us here - obviousness or incorrectness?
-
I am going to be optimistic and say that like SARS, the COVID-19 will die out on its own and there will not be a second wave!
-
I did before in the second week of April, and reiterated them when you asked me to do so last month. I stand by them.
-
Actually you asked me to repeat them in late April. The ones that have come true seem obvious now but if you find the skepticism with which they were greeted in the original thread (in early April) you can see that’s just hindsight bias.
-
Regarding your last two predictions, it's true that when I took them literally they’re pretty much guaranteed to be false, but the purpose was to show you have vague they were.
Mine are all measurable.
-
- active cases won't peak in April, despite models
- Effective reproductive rate stays above one
- People will think it's beat and relax and it'll go even higher
- when we look back at the end of the year, April will not be the month with the most cases or the most deaths.
The most interesting (to me) prediction is that even though these things will likely be true, our social reaction will be minimal. I think this has mostly to do with the demographics who are legitimately at risk. It is slowly seeping in that the vast majority of the folk who keep this country running are not in the high risk category and it has occurred to them by now that they can go about their business.
It would not strike me that your predictions were heterodox, but ok I trust that they are. I will await the results of our earlier disagreement about future national virus stats and whether they conform better with NYC or with the CDC model.
-
That was your proposal, I didn't take the other side of the bet. I gave a specific range that the IFR would fall into.
You think it's likely true that sometime this fall we'll see a month worse the April? How is that consistent with 'I suppose there will be an increase in infection statistics here and there'?
-
Keep in mind the predictions are two months old. They don't seem heterodox now.
-
@jon-nyc said in The second wave of Covid:
That was your proposal, I didn't take the other side of the bet. I gave a specific range that the IFR would fall into.
You said the CDC model was obviously wrong, and were backed up by scientifically minded people who reminded us that science has the giggle test and NYC makes the CDC model fail that. I predicted that the CDC model would be closer to the reality of our future national statistics than the NYC numbers. That constitutes a literal and testable disagreement about future results.
You think it's likely true that sometime this fall we'll see a month worse the April? How is that consistent with 'I suppose there will be an increase in infection statistics here and there'?
I'm just trusting you that it's likely true. If it is true, it only makes my real prediction "bolder", which is that our social reaction will remain minimal.
-
@Horace said in The second wave of Covid:
You said the CDC model was obviously wrong
Yes.
I predicted that the CDC model would be closer to the reality of our future national statistics than the NYC numbers.
Yes you did, and you invited me to take the other side of the bet. I specifically declined to do so, rather I gave you my own prediction. I forget what lower bound I used, the upper bound was .75%.
-
earlier bit quoting Jon that Jon accidentally deleted
Ok then, you are riding that line between thinking a model is obviously wrong because it doesn't conform with a certain subset of the data, while allowing that the model is closer to the truth than that subset.
