WANTED: Rational Coronavirus Analysis

#61
It certainly is isn't it certain that certainity is certainly ratinally certain is certain global elites is or certain isn't it elites certainity if certain certainity it is certain that certainity while certainly certain is certain global elites is certain is it elites certainity certain certainty. It certainly sounds as if global elites rational is it not is it is it not it is for certain elites global certain or certainity cert certius certiquque certman the certicor. because certain global elites globalicum eliitcum certicum globi globi elititi rationally get it elites.
...yes, probably.
 

noetsi

Fortran must die
#63
Another way of saying we need to concern ourselves with known unknowns, but don't really know how or why.
Reading articles on uncertainty in statistics can be really strange. You know there could be a problem, but you don't what it will be. Simulations seem to make sense. See how much your answer will change if the variables change.

The more difficult question is when they will change and for how long.
 

hlsmith

Less is more. Stay pure. Stay poor.
#64
I am pretty good with known unknowns or hypothetical unknowns these days. Everything translates into a missing data problem (model misspecification, confounding, selection bias, information bias and oh yeah missing data).
 
#66
Another way of saying we need to concern ourselves with known unknowns, but don't really know how or why.
I am pretty good with known unknowns or hypothetical unknowns these days. Everything translates into a missing data problem (model misspecification, confounding, selection bias, information bias and oh yeah missing data).
On the unfathomable ‘unknowableness’ of our strange new world … Are You Ready for the “No One Could Have Known” Routine? (8/22)

Par for the course in 2020...
Unknowableness also applies to our political process. Luckily, we have proven-reliable avenues to mitigate unknowableness, with the pandemic shutdown and coinciding social-justice unrest now roiling our world...

...In his mystical and divine way, Carnac the Magnificent will ascertain the answer to the question, without ever having seen the question…​

1599654948926.png
You can play this fun Carnac the Magnificent game at home ... here's the first envelope: Answer: "Seven"... (9/9). Now, here's the second envelope: Answer: “Two hundred million”… (9/20).

--------[ WAIT ... THERE'S MORE!!! ]-------

Here's another topic that borders on unknowable ... please consider: Why Herd Immunity is a Distraction (9/11).

The intoxication of pandemic power: Fauci, Cuomo … and Jerome Powell (9/13). “A man’s gotta know his limitations…” [Dirty Harry].

Remember the imminent criticality of ventilators? These machines represent a turning point in medical history: keeping patients alive (9/14). But there are inevitably tradeoffs … “Futility is the most common ethical dilemma in the modern ICU. The question guiding care becomes not just how to save lives, but when to allow deaths.”

Expect more of this 'un-information' -- who really needs knowableness? -- as low COVID numbers trickle in, and government officials try to continue to rationalize their shutdown decisions: The Nashville mayor’s office avoids reporting the low incidence of COVID in the area’s bars and restaurant workforces and customers (9/16).

Considering what's known, let’s revisit the uncomfortable question of Cui bono? … or, who benefits from the pandemic-through-pandemonium: the China class, of course (9/15).

A study of COVID fatalities with (mild) ‘celebrity status’ -- as the control parameter -- has a similar median age of death as earlier studies: 83 years (9/23). Few passed away in the prime of their careers, nor conditioning (9/28). If only to give the COVID threat much needed public visibility, Tom Hanks and/or his wife would have been the perfect fatality ‘poster child’, but no such luck.

The “settled science” of Coronavirus is the new Marxism/Leninism … and if you question it, you can get a free one-way trip to the Gulag (9/28; the complex nuances of "settled science" are reviewed below).

1601323636116.png
 
Last edited:

noetsi

Fortran must die
#67
Covid 19 is messing up everything (well my time series continue to work, I have no idea how). And our political process is collapsing. Essentially the distribution is changing.
 
#68
Covid 19 is messing up everything (well my time series continue to work, I have no idea how). And our political process is collapsing. Essentially the distribution is changing.
Can’t argue there … even abstractions like public opinions are changing dramatically, as your time series continues to work.

Gallup recently polled Americans on their viewpoints on a wide range of industries in 2020 (9/8), tracking the percentages of favorable, neutral or unfavorable opinions. Gallup uses the metric of relative favorability (% very/somewhat positive) of twenty disparate industry, and compares 2020 to 2019 for the industries that are the most impacted by the COVID crisis:

1599937743234.png

Healthcare and farming had the biggest boost in favorability, due to their ongoing essentialness.

The discretionary industries of travel and sports fared the worst in their drop in public opinion. Travel probably sagged in support since it’s basically irrelevant until further notice. Perhaps sports industry favorability is eroding due to the kabuki-theater-with-no-audience nature of televised games and the social-justice campaigns of the various US professional leagues. The article notes that the biggest drops in sports viewer-favorability -- find detailed charts with demographic breakdown on previous link -- were Republicans (-46% drop, year-minus-year) and the mid-range age group (35 to 54, -44%).

Does trolling -- with no one noticing --
still constitute 'trolling'..???


The industry-favorability data developed and presented by Gallup is done on a percentage basis, and then those percentages are used in subsequent calculations, like with the above year-to-year changes by demographic. In an earlier TalkStats post (which actually spurred this thread), the following was proposed, in reference to percentage characterization used in calculations:

THEORY: Linear characterization of nonlinear functionality convolutes calculations, at best, and, at worst, corrupts capability and understanding, greatly increasing the probability of error and misprojection when utilizing that linear data in subsequent operations.

Instead of just subtracting same-basis numbers, like Gallup does, to show the linear magnitude of change, let’s look at their industry-favorability study from a nonlinear ratio standpoint for the five industries highlighted for their changes 2019 to 2020. The relevant metric here will be ratio of the positive- to the negative-impression percentages. (The neutral-impression percentages are assumed to be constant year-to-year, allowing for the calculation of the negative-impression percentages in 2019 for the industries.)

The chart below includes the favorability ratio for years 2020 and 2019, as well as the relative change in that metric from 2019 to 2020, for each industry. While the Positive/Negative-ratio data allows the same basic observations as the Gallup tables (above, and at link) of which industries are viewed favorably, this study also facilitates a better understanding of the system dynamics:

1600101233260.png

Embracing the nonlinear nature of phenomena -- in this case, public opinion -- and so describing them with rational numbers (i.e., ratios) allows for optimal analyses. It's safe to say that much of the Coronavirus analyses out there have been irrational and sub-optimal.
 
Last edited: