Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis is the kind of guy who would start a round of golf, score an eagle on the first hole, and project confidently that he'll finish at 36 under par.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis is the kind of guy who would start a round of golf, score an eagle on the first hole, and project confidently that he'll finish at 36 under par.

I see others not even playing the round and using rounds they have never played as proof of their prowess. In every game only the finished ones count as won or lost. You can't use imagined games as a factor.

Any disease is 'Schrodinger's disease'. If you are still sick you are either died from it or survived it. But until you 'open the box' (the disease has come to a conclusion with the patient) you don't know. Only resolved cases can concretely be verified as dead or alive. If you can tell me how someone who currently is sick with the latest virus out of Asia is going to resolve with 100% accuracy then someone at WHO would like to have a talk with you.

People can blather all they want about who is still sick. But until they have either died from it or survived it you can't count them as resolved. And only until it is resolved you can't count them as dead from it or alive/survived it because they are still sick.

All Bob is doing is counting resolved cases. Yet everyone gets their panties in a wad because everyone is obviously an expert as to how anything should be counted.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I'm simply saying someone is showing their numbers based on a specific data point. Nothing wrong with that. Well, unless your ego has trouble fitting into a football field.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Curtis is the kind of guy who would start a round of golf, score an eagle on the first hole, and project confidently that he'll finish at 36 under par.

I see others not even playing the round and using rounds they have never played as proof of their prowess. In every game only the finished ones count as won or lost. You can't use imagined games as a factor.

Any disease is 'Schrodinger's disease'. If you are still sick you are either died from it or survived it. But until you 'open the box' (the disease has come to a conclusion with the patient) you don't know. Only resolved cases can concretely be verified as dead or alive. If you can tell me how someone who currently is sick with the latest virus out of Asia is going to resolve with 100% accuracy then someone at WHO would like to have a talk with you.

People can blather all they want about who is still sick. But until they have either died from it or survived it you can't count them as resolved. And only until it is resolved you can't count them as dead from it or alive/survived it because they are still sick.

All Bob is doing is counting resolved cases. Yet everyone gets their panties in a wad because everyone is obviously an expert as to how anything should be counted.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I'm simply saying someone is showing their numbers based on a specific data point. Nothing wrong with that. Well, unless your ego has trouble fitting into a football field.

warspite1

So who has claimed to be an expert? who claims to know exactly what to do with the largest variable we have? What's it got to do with ego? Ego? I don't give a stuff about ego. Like most people I have a family to protect and knowledge is a vital commodity (same as it ever was). So its got nothing to do with proving what an 'expert' everyone is, and everything to do with trying to get sensible, non-alarmist, but as accurate as possible information.

ORIGINAL: rico21

This thread is interesting for the variety of these opinions.
Personally, if if I want to hear: "blablabla, don't worry blablabla everything will be better tomorrow blablabla but not today ...".
I turn on the TV.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Bob used two data points. Same data points that people who are more qualified than anyone on this board. If you want to use different data points fine. Not my call. But when people call someone wrong because of the factual data points they use and continue down that line then I have to question their motives.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If you are looking for the data points that tell you the risk of a people group in a particular area getting this virus then you need to look at local data, not global, not national but local. It varies greatly by where you are. You need to look at what is happening where you are, certainly not global. I'm certainly not an expert but even I know this.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

...

Bob used two data points. Same data points that people who are more qualified than anyone on this board. If you want to use different data points fine. Not my call. But when people call someone wrong because of the factual data points they use and continue down that line then I have to question their motives.
...

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Lobster

...

Bob used two data points. Same data points that people who are more qualified than anyone on this board. If you want to use different data points fine. Not my call. But when people call someone wrong because of the factual data points they use and continue down that line then I have to question their motives.
...

There are two problems with his 'data' points and how he combines them. First, the infected N is too low, we know this not least as (for eg) the UK stopped proper testing unless you were admitted to hospital. So going back to my table above, we only have the ratio between disease+hospital admission and outcome.

Second, lets make the heroic assumption that his data is correct and complete. We know/strongly fear, that this thing is going to infect most people - hence all the various states trying to delay this so as to keep some functioning society as it works through the population. His numbers can only be applied to that near complete population group if (and only if) the sample of infected is typical of the wider population. Its not. Which is why statisticians then apply all sorts of moderating factors to come up with estimates using the data from the sample (and that is what he has) to the full population.

Ignoring this expertise and process is pretty obtuse.

ORIGINAL: z1812

From the reading I have done, I don't see that it will ever be possible to arrive at a "true" fatality percentage. There are many who get the virus, recover at home, and never report. Therefore any results are skewed.

The best anyone can do is follow the established protocols and protect themselves and their families.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Bob used two data points. Same data points that people who are more qualified than anyone on this board. If you want to use different data points fine. Not my call. But when people call someone wrong because of the factual data points they use and continue down that line then I have to question their motives.

warspite1

Not sure I understand this point. Motives? I can't speak for anyone else but I've given my motives. I want to protect my family and I want to know the truth. Simple, No hidden agenda, no hidden reason, just simply a family man wanting to know what we are dealing with - good or bad.

As for calling someone wrong for using two factual data points? Please. Put it this way (and this isn't supposed to be a perfect analogy because there isn't one); I want to know the answer to 1 + ? + 3. I don't know what ? is but I have a range and I know its not 0. But what I will do is simply add 1 and 3 and totally ignore ?. There. I won't explain what the range of ? is. I won't suggest what method I've used and where my treatment of ? fits in. I shall simply ignore it. In so doing I have 'two factual data points' so the answer must be right, yes? No, its not right. And I just don't get why that is so difficult. And then to suggest that saying its wrong means there must be some ulterior motive? Really? Wow. No. It simply means I know the answer is wrong. I don't know by how much (I'm not an expert) but I do know its wrong. I have no motive for that other than I want to know the correct number so don't want the incorrect number spouted as gospel. There. That's my motive.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If you are looking for the data points that tell you the risk of a people group in a particular area getting this virus then you need to look at local data, not global, not national but local. It varies greatly by where you are. You need to look at what is happening where you are, certainly not global. I'm certainly not an expert but even I know this.

warspite1

His numbers aren't designed for that though - whether global or local - it's just a scary overall % based on incomplete data.

ORIGINAL: balto

Now see, this scare me. Corona virus..,pffthh, it is just another virus at my age. But in PA, will this cancel the World Board Gaming Championships (WBC) in Seven Springs PA from July 25, 2020 to August 2, 2020?? Jeezus, I have been studying and playing Terraforming Mars since December for the tournament!!

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: balto

Now see, this scare me. Corona virus..,pffthh, it is just another virus at my age. But in PA, will this cancel the World Board Gaming Championships (WBC) in Seven Springs PA from July 25, 2020 to August 2, 2020?? Jeezus, I have been studying and playing Terraforming Mars since December for the tournament!!

[:D] Aye. Tis a dark time indeed.

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: balto

Now see, this scare me. Corona virus..,pffthh, it is just another virus at my age. But in PA, will this cancel the World Board Gaming Championships (WBC) in Seven Springs PA from July 25, 2020 to August 2, 2020?? Jeezus, I have been studying and playing Terraforming Mars since December for the tournament!!

[:D] Aye. Tis a dark time indeed.

[:(] We're all playing a real time, real world game of Pandemic.