Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 3,404
There were epidemiological modellers around the world who did a much better job than ours.You and everybody else didn’t know the most likely case for a very long time.
There were epidemiological modellers around the world who did a much better job than ours.You and everybody else didn’t know the most likely case for a very long time.
Perhaps we should employ them, should they have enough immigration points to come.There were epidemiological modellers around the world who did a much better job than ours.
We don't predict that a parachute will fail to open every jump, yet we do use reserve 'chutes.
They also will have predicted that they always open.Very true, but we should at least predict that they will open once or twice. SAGE's models would have pretty much said that they never open they were that far out.
Were there? And did these countries take a different view to the restrictions needed?There were epidemiological modellers around the world who did a much better job than ours.
The most likely case.
You can appeal to authority all you want but when scenarios that are described as plausible are out by magnitudes of 10, they deserve to be criticised.
Very true, but we should at least predict that they will open once or twice. SAGE's models would have pretty much said that they never open they were that far out.
You're attempting to hide failure behind meaningless phrases and appeals to authority; perhaps it would work with the less perceptible.I don't think you understand the messing of "uncertainty". Or "dynamic modelling".
A factor of ten was the difference in case rates within a week during omicron growth.
But, by all means, keep on shouting about how your understanding is better than that of experts, if it makes you feel good about yourself.
If they're anywhere near as arrogant as you
I don't believe I know better, I'm criticising their performance.You believe you know better than world experts; I'm arrogant.
Got it.