Huge problem in the 2016 election, with sites running model outputs with digits after the period as if they could have such precision! Plus showing probability models/odds to people used to polls, who thus got confused. I’m certain it affected voting behavior. @AdamJKucharski
-
-
But it is possible to continuously learn from new data and update forecasts.https://twitter.com/jamesannan/status/1246446287152693248 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
(Well, in any case I hope the message gets clearer, but also without measures to control things back down as society opens up, it's a very frustrating conversation to begin with).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's imperative to look at a whole host of metrics, as you say Zeynap - this drive to find the one "silver bullet" obscures the muddled truth. One I like is number of tests per positive case. As you can see below, different regions of the US are in very different places.pic.twitter.com/CGTDlnaDN1
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What a great thread! How do you balance the dangers of false precision against the need to make a compelling case for continued action, though? People find numbers compelling, and those arguing we should do less to fight the virus have plenty of their own.
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.
