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.
