The bolded part is the kind of thing that makes me nuts. The statement that any number above 1.0 means the virus is spreading exponentially is literally true, but very misleading."BERLIN/PARIS, May 11 (Reuters) -
* * *
Germany's Robert Koch Institute reported that the "reproduction rate" - the number of people each person infected with the coronavirus goes on to infect - had risen to 1.1. Any rate above 1 means the virus is spreading exponentially.
German authorities had taken early steps to ease lockdown measures just days earlier, a stark illustration that progress can swiftly be reversed even in a country with one of the best records in Europe of containing the virus so far.
It follows a new outbreak in night clubs in South Korea, another country that had succeeded in limiting infections."
I mean, I can play this game too, using actual experts in the field of virology rather than a baseball guy. All from long threads worth reading.
CongratulationsI mean, I can play this game too, using actual experts in the field of virology rather than a baseball guy. All from long threads worth reading.
I know we’re all big soccer fans, but does anyone feel this to be a bit premature? I get that Germany seems to have a better handle on the virus than we do but does it feel a bit misguided?
And “baseball guy” is doing a lot of work here.I mean, I can play this game too, using actual experts in the field of virology rather than a baseball guy. All from long threads worth reading.
Nate silver is the equivalent of a first year grad student taking a course and thinking their grasp of numbers is sufficient to understand what they mean. He doesn’t. He knows stats but he doesn’t know the significance; he’s not a statistician who works with virologists, so claiming he should be good at it is disingenuous.And “baseball guy” is doing a lot of work here.
Nate Silver’s an expert in statistics, which is a big part of what epidemiologists do. In fact it is not unusual for epidemiologists to partner with pure statisticians to analyze and crunch data and build models.
And I don’t really get the point of those threads, which seem to suggest that a complete reopening is bad. That’s just a straw man. Nobody is talking about going straight back to January without passing “Go” and collecting $200. Even in Georgia, where the governor was ridiculed, the changes were incremental. Maybe they will be followed by an increase in cases and have to get rolled back, maybe not.
My only point in posting Silver is to counter the false narrative that the pandemic is getting worse in the country. The numbers are getting better, although more slowly than people would like.
To summarize:
1. The notion that the country’s efforts to contain the pandemic is in “free fall” is false.
2. The notion that we are choosing only between a complete reopening and a complete shutdown is false.
And “baseball guy” is doing a lot of work here.
Nate Silver’s an expert in statistics, which is a big part of what epidemiologists do. In fact it is not unusual for epidemiologists to partner with pure statisticians to analyze and crunch data and build models.
And I don’t really get the point of those threads, which seem to suggest that a complete reopening is bad. That’s just a straw man. Nobody is talking about going straight back to January without passing “Go” and collecting $200. Even in Georgia, where the governor was ridiculed, the changes were incremental. Maybe they will be followed by an increase in cases and have to get rolled back, maybe not.
My only point in posting Silver is to counter the false narrative that the pandemic is getting worse in the country. The numbers are getting better, although more slowly than people would like.
To summarize:
1. The notion that the country’s efforts to contain the pandemic is in “free fall” is false.
2. The notion that we are choosing only between a complete reopening and a complete shutdown is false.
Nate silver is the equivalent of a first year grad student taking a course and thinking their grasp of numbers is sufficient to understand what they mean. He doesn’t. He knows stats but he doesn’t know the significance; he’s not a statistician who works with virologists, so claiming he should be good at it is disingenuous.
Caitlin Rivers, a Fcking expert on this who’s at Johns Hopkins and has led the way on the private side, flat out said that a lock down isn’t meant to be long term solution but that it cannot be lifted if the parameters aren’t in place to mitigate the situation so we don’t repeat what got us here - testing, tracing, isolate - are not up to speed and ready, and without it every area opening, even a little, risks going back to square one. Nate Silver is only interested in test numbers, and he has no comprehension of the other layers of the equation - tracing programs are not there. If people are balking at masks and not shopping, you think isolating will go over well?
Joel Miller presents the counter argument that numbers are decreasing because of the lock downs, and they wouldn’t if we didn’t have them, so take them away and what do you think will happen...... it’s dispelling the notion that numbers as the catalyst don’t tell the whole story, and that’s where Nate Silver fails - he’s using data without an understanding.
And Nate’s other Fck up problem is that he’s grouping the entire country together to get an average, but I posted an article above showing 10 new cities with massive increases in infections with another 10 more that the experts are watching closely. That report got buried by the WH - why, because it’s showing that areas are in free fall.
If you want to believe we’re doing better than we are, that’s your prerogative. The experts say differently.
It's wrong to say "the country" is doing better -- especially with the lack of travel around the country right now, we should be looking at cities and regions, not at a country-wide response. Because things are getting better here in the northeast and getting worse elsewhere. But because our outbreak was so much worse than everyone else's, the numbers show things getting better, even if it's not getting better in other areas of the country.
Can't read the article, but are they talking about a separate tournament disconnected from the regular season entirely? If so, I don't like that idea at all. I'd rather they knock out a bunch of regular season matches until teams can return home. I'm not really appealed by a one-off tournament at an empty field. At least I have built an emotional connection to the league play.
I guess this gives them a smooth out if they really they can't do this for the rest of the year and need to bail again.
Some of the details in here are ridiculous -- only a week of full team training before starting some sort of a 4-5 week tournament in Orlando in June and July ... but MLS is certainly at least trying to make a comeback. Considering how important fans are to the league's bottom line, it's nice to see they aren't just closing up shop for the year.
Revealed: Details, dates of MLS’s proposal to return to play in Orlando
The league's proposal has not yet been formally adopted and faces a significant amount of skepticismtheathletic.com
Correct. Whole thing is certainly embryonic. It’s a way to get play started in a controlled environment. Apparently, Disney is also talking to the NBA about something similar.They're talking about a 4-5 week tournament and they're not sure what it would count towards. Maybe regular season, maybe US Open Cup qualification to CCL -- that part doesn't appear to be flushed out. The bigger issue to me is one week of full team training before you start playing games, which seems absurdly short.