60,000 rounds to 100,000. Who thought a model could be more accurate than that?
-
-
To clarify: if it turns out to be in the tens-of-thousands and not the hundreds-of-thousands range provided by the experts’ models, then the point being made that the models upon which we based our decision-making were bad would be a correct assessment, right?
-
I don't think that's necessarily true. Exponential growth means that small innacuracy in the model can translate into a much larger difference in absolute numbers.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
In other words, useless.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is the original IHME model. It's 95% uncertainty interval was between 38k and 162k.https://web.archive.org/web/20200327021435/http://covid19.healthdata.org/ …
-
The only person who predicted 100k to 250k was Trump during one of his press conferences, and he was just making shit up then.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.