Re: [Phys-L] modeling is hard

[bernard cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

> They have refused to put forth a model.  Fools rush in where
> angels fear to tread.
>   


From a lurking horological  colleague:  


https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/frsd16/the_best_thing_you_can_do_to_fight_covid19_is/.compact. 


bc   Thinks our efforts, limited to phys-l, not dangerous.     And still desires Taiwanese data.  

BTW:     Sam Smith publishes mortality rates w/o understanding meaninglessness.  I’ve attempted to correct him.  

https://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2020/04/virus-stats-thursday.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+prorevfeed+(UNDERNEWS).  


> On 2020/Apr/01, at 22:56, John Denker via Phys-l <phys-l@mail.phys-l.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks --
>
> Modeling the pandemic is either really easy or really hard.
> -- The easy part is this:  Any model tells you that the outcome
> is exquisitely sensitive to public policy aka interventions
> aka suppression efforts aka mitigation strategies.
> -- Obtaining any more-quantitative predictions is therefore
> next to impossible.
> -- Actually it's even worse than that.  Even if you knew
> what decisions would be made, there would still be multiple
> hurdles to overcome, as laid out in this article from our
> friends at FiveThirtyEight:
>   https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-hard-to-make-a-good-covid-19-model/
>
> They have refused to put forth a model.  Fools rush in where
> angels fear to tread.