This is exactly what happened. Now the UW model has been readjusted to predict 134k deaths total. The new model still suffers from the same flaw: it assumes something will change in May/June to cause the epidemic's trajectory to suddenly change direction and get under control.https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/1256297472407662593 …
-
-
That's what throws me off with these models: they don't appear to acknowledge that how the future turns out is a consequence of our actions. They start from the assumption that the curve will go flat, and then they fit a curve that fits past data plus this unjustified assumption.
Show this thread -
A better model would be presented as a set of possible actions taken by the fed govt / state govts / the public, and outcomes conditioned on these actions. This would involve actually modeling transmission and economic/social activity, rather than fitting a curve.
Show this thread -
And don't get me started on the "cubic model" from the WH (cubic fit in Excel?) predicting 0 deaths in two weeks
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think it's odd for a non-physics model to assume improved effectiveness over time when people are involved. It seems like the changes address some issues of decreasing effectiveness. How would u evaluate the drop over time in comparison to previous epidemics/other models?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The model methodology attempts to use a gaussian distribution based on Wuhan. Unfortunately, we in the us are not locking down like Wuhan, and mutations may be making it more contagious.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.