China Coronavirus

[Rossfan]

Professor Wobbler taking over from Professor Smurf

Meanwhile there's lorryloads of cash out there

https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/investors-clamour-to-lend-a-record-66bn-to-ireland-in-cash-saturated-bond-market-39273976.html

[thewobbler]

A friend of mine reckons there will maybe be 5 or 6 waves never mind 2. He's a doctor too who's reading all the medical papers on it and this is what they seem to think. Definitely moving the right direction but this shit is far from over yet.

See this is the stuff that drives me potty. Epidemiology experts, it seems, have finally calmed down a little with their "the end is nigh" predictions. But a doctor who has read some medical papers, and has combined inherent bias with outdated thinking, won't let the bone go.

Doctors, with the greatest respect to them, are only marginally more qualified in their opinions here than Ashley Cole and Raheem Sterling are.

Spot on wobbler - Cole & Sterling , the lazy fucks, only completed 4 years at medical school before concentrating on the soccer.

Hence the use of "marginally".

Tim Harford has a wonderful chapter in one of his books about the value of "expert" predictions. Statistically, experts are only slightly more useful at predicting the future in their discipline than the man in the street. Now that is not to undermine the usefulness of that margin: we are almost always better off following the opinions of someone with a better record.

But doctors aren't experts on epidemiology. They may be more well read in general than a premiership footballer, but their chances of being right are only marginally improved, and at that, only if they can approach the subject without bias.


Some people on this board could do with analysing what they read, not accepting what they read.

[Taylor]

A friend of mine reckons there will maybe be 5 or 6 waves never mind 2. He's a doctor too who's reading all the medical papers on it and this is what they seem to think. Definitely moving the right direction but this shit is far from over yet.

See this is the stuff that drives me potty. Epidemiology experts, it seems, have finally calmed down a little with their "the end is nigh" predictions. But a doctor who has read some medical papers, and has combined inherent bias with outdated thinking, won't let the bone go.

Doctors, with the greatest respect to them, are only marginally more qualified in their opinions here than Ashley Cole and Raheem Sterling are.

Spot on wobbler - Cole & Sterling , the lazy fucks, only completed 4 years at medical school before concentrating on the soccer.

Hence the use of "marginally".

Tim Harford has a wonderful chapter in one of his books about the value of "expert" predictions. Statistically, experts are only slightly more useful at predicting the future in their discipline than the man in the street. Now that is not to undermine the usefulness of that margin: we are almost always better off following the opinions of someone with a better record.

But doctors aren't experts on epidemiology. They may be more well read in general than a premiership footballer, but their chances of being right are only marginally improved, and at that, only if they can approach the subject without bias.


Some people on this board could do with analysing what they read, not accepting what they read.

Ridiculous statement wobbler when trying to prove a point.

[thewobbler]

We will have to disagree Taylor.

If you're willing to place the opinions of a doctor on a pedestal, it should be because they've got expertise.

All you know about this particular doctor is that he's a friend of someone on an anonymous message board. He could have finished training last week, and is now specialising in oncology. Or he could be 25 years qualified, specialising in pulmonary care, with a career full of published articles on his specialism.

As pointed out previously, if he's the latter, he still only has a marginally improved chance of forecasting the future in his discipline than the man on the street. If he's the former, he is no more qualified that the man on the street.

This is not a "ridiculous" viewpoint. This is the real world.

[Milltown Row2]

What's your expertise wobbler?

[Taylor]

You are entitled to your opinion off course wobbler so we will disagree.

That a doctor is only 'marginally' better qualified than Sterling (who got a tattoo of a gun on his leg) & Cole (who done the dirt on Cheryl) is something that IMHO is ridiculous.

Back to your point about experts etc you have a point in that we dont know who to believe - some of the opinions of WHO have been discredited recently.

And as for the UK scientists guiding the course of action - just wait until they are thrown under the bus.

[five points]

All depends on who qualifies as an expert. A general practitioner doctor is unlikely to be an expert on epidemiology. A epidemiologist is unlikely to be an expert on general practice medicine.

Some of the people who are presented as experts on TV, radio and the newspapers would be better described as pundits.

[Rossfan]

Medical people are "pundits" while random posters on an internet forum are....?

[five points]

Medical people are "pundits" while random posters on an internet forum are....?

...random posters on an internet forum.

[macdanger2]

Tim Harford has a wonderful chapter in one of his books about the value of "expert" predictions. Statistically, experts are only slightly more useful at predicting the future in their discipline than the man in the street. Now that is not to undermine the usefulness of that margin: we are almost always better off following the opinions of someone with a better record.

What was the basis of this analysis? Does it cover all fields of expertise? Or just economics?

[thewobbler]

What's your expertise wobbler?

In this matter (like most) absolutely none.

And as such I would sincerely hope that nobody would give credence to my opinions on this matter. Which is why you'll find I don't really have opinions on the matter at hand, over and above encouraging people not to believe what they read, especially if you're prone to reading only stuff you agree with.

[thewobbler]

Tim Harford has a wonderful chapter in one of his books about the value of "expert" predictions. Statistically, experts are only slightly more useful at predicting the future in their discipline than the man in the street. Now that is not to undermine the usefulness of that margin: we are almost always better off following the opinions of someone with a better record.

What was the basis of this analysis? Does it cover all fields of expertise? Or just economics?

If I remember right, it was focused largely on political and economic predictions / forecasting, but the underlying studies featured experts from a wide field of disciplines.


——

Back on point. TommyGunn is entitled to promote the thoughts of this doctor, as I assume he knows him well, and trusts that he is smart, perceptive and grounded.

Anyone else promoting the thoughts of same doctor - with no insight into his intelligence, perception, politics or preferences - may as well promote the thoughts of Kevin De Bruyne.

(KdB might actually be right anyway, not because he knows more, but because he could have a more perceptive view on the influence of external factors, or it could be because a broken clock is right twice a day)

[RadioGAAGAA]

If I remember right, it was focused largely on political and economic predictions / forecasting

Neither of which are sciences.

[Smurfy123]

Follow the facts not the science
Wobblers 100% correct
The fact is men like radio Milltown Ross has everything cancelled until 2021. Because they read it somewhere. I take it the spike in America was because they are going about their business as normal before they even slowed the curve
We are easing things slowly when affectively we have it crushed.
Those men on furlough looking it to go on forever

[macdanger2]

Tim Harford has a wonderful chapter in one of his books about the value of "expert" predictions. Statistically, experts are only slightly more useful at predicting the future in their discipline than the man in the street. Now that is not to undermine the usefulness of that margin: we are almost always better off following the opinions of someone with a better record.

What was the basis of this analysis? Does it cover all fields of expertise? Or just economics?

If I remember right, it was focused largely on political and economic predictions / forecasting, but the underlying studies featured experts from a wide field of disciplines.

Economic predictions are notoriously difficult.

There are many fields where expert predictions are virtually guaranteed to be much better than the person on the street e.g. Cancer prognosis from an oncologist compared to a farmer or predicted performance of a heifer from a dairy farmer compared to an oncologist.

On the whole, I take your point though that simply being a doctor doesn't make you an expert in virology / epidemiology. Being a virologist / epidemiologist does though