Originally Posted by
Rob Waskis
Haven’t changed your numbers? You’re all over the map.
First you said “The seasonal flu typically kills around 30,000 people each year”.
Then, when we had 22,000 deaths you said "you already have as many deaths *right now* as in a fairly standard flu season".
I called you out and said, “The mean estimated deaths for 2010-2019 is just over 33,000”.
You then doubled down and said, “That makes the current COVID-19 numbers "pretty typical" for a flu season in my book -- certainly not atypical.”
--- So what’s a typical/standard flu season? Is it 30K, or just somewhere between zero and infinity?
Your argument has flip-flopped so many times I don't even know what it is anymore.
Way back when, said “my view of this situation is data-driven and quantitative”.
--- Got it, you have firmly established your position as someone who relies on data to make decisions.
But then you made a bunch of posts and got called out for using phrases like, “This is almost certainly true… The need for a ventilator will usually be… I haven't been able to find the exact numbers… I think I found one very small study… I also recall another Chinese study… which presumably means… But both of these suggest… reasonable first approximation”.
--- So maybe you don’t need firm data to draw conclusions and make inferences.
But then you said “But we have concrete *data* from multiple countries about the infectiousness and lethality of the virus, so we *know*”.
--- So concrete data is now important again.
But then you made a prediction on fatalities “with obviously significant uncertainty”.
--- So maybe the data isn’t that concrete after all and that’s not important.
But then you said “you can NEVER take the total number of deaths *known*on day X, subtract the number *known* on day X-1 and call that a daily death count for day X. … You just get a meaningless mess when you do that.”
--- So we’re back to needing really exact data.
But then you pivoted again and data integrity became less important when you said “Obviously, this is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation to gain some intuition… happens at ~70%… roughly 50%... typical IFR of 0.07%... around or below 0.01%... between 19 million and 68 million… relatively low… a large percentage… about 230 million… around 5.7x… maybe 3.8x… around 21.7x higher… around 920,000…”
--- So do we need perfectly accurate data or not to draw conclusions professor? Make up your damn mind.