Covid-19 Discussion
08-05-2020
, 03:19 PM
08-05-2020
, 06:03 PM
08-05-2020
, 06:41 PM
Texas' 3 and 7 day moving averages seem to be trending the right way (SEEM).
But this really re-enforces we must watch what is going on.
because if your positivity rate is soaring form 1 in 8 tested showing positive to now 1 in 6 showing positive, and YET your total New Cases is going down that suggests you are testing less.
Hard to correlate any other potential reason.
But this really re-enforces we must watch what is going on.
because if your positivity rate is soaring form 1 in 8 tested showing positive to now 1 in 6 showing positive, and YET your total New Cases is going down that suggests you are testing less.
Hard to correlate any other potential reason.
08-05-2020
, 07:44 PM
08-05-2020
, 08:47 PM
The FALLACY of Results Based Thinking.
A Case Study of Peter Navarro.
Peter Navarro is one of Trump's Economists and often speaks in defense of the organization.
He is often brought up as one of the loudest voices on the Trump team, who warned Trump of the dangers of the Covid19 and was ignored.
He has a Doctorate in Policy Sci and Economics so he is obviously a very smart guy.
That said, twice now since Sunday I have seen making the mistake of applying forms of Results Based Thinking to suggest he is correct or will be proven correct in the future.
As a poker player people who use Results Based Thinking and do not understand why it does not make them right irk me.
Example 1 : On Sunday News show Peter was making an argument of why he was potentially to be believed over Dr Fauci. He said 'at the very start of Covid I predicted we would have a vaccine in less than a year, when Fauci was saying 18-24 months. We will see who ends up closer to right.
- Fauci is using the scientific method and prior history to peg a range based on all available data. It is the RIGHT thing to do and to convery.
- Peter is making a guess. Never in the history of man have we made a vaccine so quickly. There is no rationale to make thje projection other than to guess.
- Similarly I could have guessed 3 months.
While it possible a vaccine might come in 3 months or 12 months that does not make us RIGHT, in a way that makes Fauci wrong. we made outlier guesses, Fauci was correct to give his projection based on the science. Just because we got our result does not make us right.
Example 2 - Just now Peter again was being interviewed. He has been one of the biggest proponents of Hydroxy and still tries to argue his opinion is as valid as any other on the topic.
When pressed and pressed he finally conceded based on the 5 full studies, that right now the science does NOT support its use.
But he said, 'let me leave with you this'. Months or a year from now, if we do have new studies that show Hydroxy works and we could have been administering it all this time and saving countless lives, those lives will all be on you. We know there is almost no harm if Hydroxy is administered by a doctor so why not take it'.
- that again is an example of results based thinking. If it turns out his guess, ends up right, ...then you were wrong to not follow it
That is not how science works, nor should it. There are literally thousands of medicines that taken under doctor supervision would likely do no harm to people. That does not mean if we have thousands of people saying 'try them, it cannot hurt' we should try them. And if one later turns out to be very effective, that the person who guessed it was correct.
Dr Fauci is correct NOW saying do not take it, even if it proves in later studies to be effective. Science acts on the information it has NOW and updates later with new info. It is not WRONG to not have enough info now to recommend it, or if countering data comes in later to change a prior formed view.
Sorry for the long read, but this type of thinking really irks me, and I can just see Peter Navarro and Trump touting as if they were right on claims like this if the data changes, when they were not right.
YOU ARE NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE A GUESS YOU MADE TURNS OUT RIGHT. THAT IS THE FALLACY OF RESULTS BASED THINKING.
A Case Study of Peter Navarro.
Peter Navarro is one of Trump's Economists and often speaks in defense of the organization.
He is often brought up as one of the loudest voices on the Trump team, who warned Trump of the dangers of the Covid19 and was ignored.
He has a Doctorate in Policy Sci and Economics so he is obviously a very smart guy.
That said, twice now since Sunday I have seen making the mistake of applying forms of Results Based Thinking to suggest he is correct or will be proven correct in the future.
As a poker player people who use Results Based Thinking and do not understand why it does not make them right irk me.
Example 1 : On Sunday News show Peter was making an argument of why he was potentially to be believed over Dr Fauci. He said 'at the very start of Covid I predicted we would have a vaccine in less than a year, when Fauci was saying 18-24 months. We will see who ends up closer to right.
- Fauci is using the scientific method and prior history to peg a range based on all available data. It is the RIGHT thing to do and to convery.
- Peter is making a guess. Never in the history of man have we made a vaccine so quickly. There is no rationale to make thje projection other than to guess.
- Similarly I could have guessed 3 months.
While it possible a vaccine might come in 3 months or 12 months that does not make us RIGHT, in a way that makes Fauci wrong. we made outlier guesses, Fauci was correct to give his projection based on the science. Just because we got our result does not make us right.
Example 2 - Just now Peter again was being interviewed. He has been one of the biggest proponents of Hydroxy and still tries to argue his opinion is as valid as any other on the topic.
When pressed and pressed he finally conceded based on the 5 full studies, that right now the science does NOT support its use.
But he said, 'let me leave with you this'. Months or a year from now, if we do have new studies that show Hydroxy works and we could have been administering it all this time and saving countless lives, those lives will all be on you. We know there is almost no harm if Hydroxy is administered by a doctor so why not take it'.
- that again is an example of results based thinking. If it turns out his guess, ends up right, ...then you were wrong to not follow it
That is not how science works, nor should it. There are literally thousands of medicines that taken under doctor supervision would likely do no harm to people. That does not mean if we have thousands of people saying 'try them, it cannot hurt' we should try them. And if one later turns out to be very effective, that the person who guessed it was correct.
Dr Fauci is correct NOW saying do not take it, even if it proves in later studies to be effective. Science acts on the information it has NOW and updates later with new info. It is not WRONG to not have enough info now to recommend it, or if countering data comes in later to change a prior formed view.
Sorry for the long read, but this type of thinking really irks me, and I can just see Peter Navarro and Trump touting as if they were right on claims like this if the data changes, when they were not right.
YOU ARE NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE A GUESS YOU MADE TURNS OUT RIGHT. THAT IS THE FALLACY OF RESULTS BASED THINKING.
08-06-2020
, 01:17 AM
08-06-2020
, 02:30 AM
Quote:
The FALLACY of Results Based Thinking.
A Case Study of Peter Navarro.
Peter Navarro is one of Trump's Economists and often speaks in defense of the organization.
He is often brought up as one of the loudest voices on the Trump team, who warned Trump of the dangers of the Covid19 and was ignored.
He has a Doctorate in Policy Sci and Economics so he is obviously a very smart guy.
That said, twice now since Sunday I have seen making the mistake of applying forms of Results Based Thinking to suggest he is correct or will be proven correct in the future.
As a poker player people who use Results Based Thinking and do not understand why it does not make them right irk me.
Example 1 : On Sunday News show Peter was making an argument of why he was potentially to be believed over Dr Fauci. He said 'at the very start of Covid I predicted we would have a vaccine in less than a year, when Fauci was saying 18-24 months. We will see who ends up closer to right.
- Fauci is using the scientific method and prior history to peg a range based on all available data. It is the RIGHT thing to do and to convery.
- Peter is making a guess. Never in the history of man have we made a vaccine so quickly. There is no rationale to make thje projection other than to guess.
- Similarly I could have guessed 3 months.
While it possible a vaccine might come in 3 months or 12 months that does not make us RIGHT, in a way that makes Fauci wrong. we made outlier guesses, Fauci was correct to give his projection based on the science. Just because we got our result does not make us right.
Example 2 - Just now Peter again was being interviewed. He has been one of the biggest proponents of Hydroxy and still tries to argue his opinion is as valid as any other on the topic.
When pressed and pressed he finally conceded based on the 5 full studies, that right now the science does NOT support its use.
But he said, 'let me leave with you this'. Months or a year from now, if we do have new studies that show Hydroxy works and we could have been administering it all this time and saving countless lives, those lives will all be on you. We know there is almost no harm if Hydroxy is administered by a doctor so why not take it'.
- that again is an example of results based thinking. If it turns out his guess, ends up right, ...then you were wrong to not follow it
That is not how science works, nor should it. There are literally thousands of medicines that taken under doctor supervision would likely do no harm to people. That does not mean if we have thousands of people saying 'try them, it cannot hurt' we should try them. And if one later turns out to be very effective, that the person who guessed it was correct.
Dr Fauci is correct NOW saying do not take it, even if it proves in later studies to be effective. Science acts on the information it has NOW and updates later with new info. It is not WRONG to not have enough info now to recommend it, or if countering data comes in later to change a prior formed view.
Sorry for the long read, but this type of thinking really irks me, and I can just see Peter Navarro and Trump touting as if they were right on claims like this if the data changes, when they were not right.
YOU ARE NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE A GUESS YOU MADE TURNS OUT RIGHT. THAT IS THE FALLACY OF RESULTS BASED THINKING.
A Case Study of Peter Navarro.
Peter Navarro is one of Trump's Economists and often speaks in defense of the organization.
He is often brought up as one of the loudest voices on the Trump team, who warned Trump of the dangers of the Covid19 and was ignored.
He has a Doctorate in Policy Sci and Economics so he is obviously a very smart guy.
That said, twice now since Sunday I have seen making the mistake of applying forms of Results Based Thinking to suggest he is correct or will be proven correct in the future.
As a poker player people who use Results Based Thinking and do not understand why it does not make them right irk me.
Example 1 : On Sunday News show Peter was making an argument of why he was potentially to be believed over Dr Fauci. He said 'at the very start of Covid I predicted we would have a vaccine in less than a year, when Fauci was saying 18-24 months. We will see who ends up closer to right.
- Fauci is using the scientific method and prior history to peg a range based on all available data. It is the RIGHT thing to do and to convery.
- Peter is making a guess. Never in the history of man have we made a vaccine so quickly. There is no rationale to make thje projection other than to guess.
- Similarly I could have guessed 3 months.
While it possible a vaccine might come in 3 months or 12 months that does not make us RIGHT, in a way that makes Fauci wrong. we made outlier guesses, Fauci was correct to give his projection based on the science. Just because we got our result does not make us right.
Example 2 - Just now Peter again was being interviewed. He has been one of the biggest proponents of Hydroxy and still tries to argue his opinion is as valid as any other on the topic.
When pressed and pressed he finally conceded based on the 5 full studies, that right now the science does NOT support its use.
But he said, 'let me leave with you this'. Months or a year from now, if we do have new studies that show Hydroxy works and we could have been administering it all this time and saving countless lives, those lives will all be on you. We know there is almost no harm if Hydroxy is administered by a doctor so why not take it'.
- that again is an example of results based thinking. If it turns out his guess, ends up right, ...then you were wrong to not follow it
That is not how science works, nor should it. There are literally thousands of medicines that taken under doctor supervision would likely do no harm to people. That does not mean if we have thousands of people saying 'try them, it cannot hurt' we should try them. And if one later turns out to be very effective, that the person who guessed it was correct.
Dr Fauci is correct NOW saying do not take it, even if it proves in later studies to be effective. Science acts on the information it has NOW and updates later with new info. It is not WRONG to not have enough info now to recommend it, or if countering data comes in later to change a prior formed view.
Sorry for the long read, but this type of thinking really irks me, and I can just see Peter Navarro and Trump touting as if they were right on claims like this if the data changes, when they were not right.
YOU ARE NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE A GUESS YOU MADE TURNS OUT RIGHT. THAT IS THE FALLACY OF RESULTS BASED THINKING.
08-06-2020
, 07:04 AM
08-06-2020
, 11:35 AM
