This one will be short. I'm getting pretty irritated hearing democrats insist we cannot open the economy without more testing.
What do they think testing will add? We know how many are presenting themselves for assistance, hospitalized, in the ICU, and die. Suppose we knew the status of everyone else in the country? Let's take the situations one at a time.
First, let's suppose testing showed everyone has either got the virus or has had it. Would we open? Yes. No one is left to overload our hospital system.
Second, let's suppose no one that is outside the hospitals shows active infections. Some number show they have had it. Would we open? Yes. No one is left to infect the others.
Now suppose the situation is fifty/fifty. Say half the population outside the hospitals either have the virus or have had it. Further, assume that half is split evenly. Would we open? Yes. The hospitalization rate and mortality rate are so low, we can handle any future cases.
What do they expect to find that would justify keeping the economy closed?
About the only thing I would find of use, from an opening standpoint, is an unusually high rise of asymptomatic cases in a locality. Any rise is more severe cases can be detected when patients ask for doctor assistance. That might imply a soon-to-be hot spot breakout, and would justify a local lock down. But the same thing can be identified through rising doctor and hospital visits with lesser testing.
So any insistence on saturation testing is just drivel.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Friday, April 17, 2020
COVID-19 Weird Data
This post is all about anecdotal reports and my inferences. I'll talk about possibilities, some that may sound like conspiracies, but I don't have a high confidence in any of the data or the conclusions I may draw below. Take it for what it's worth.
First, we have China with its 85,000 total cases and 3,500 deaths. Only one hot spot breakout (Wuhan and its province), a two month lock down, and the virus seems to disappear. Why? How is that possible for a reportedly quickly spreading virus significantly more contagious than the flu? Especially when a third of the city of Wuhan left before the lock down.
Next we have Sweden. Effectively no government ordered mitigation or lock downs. Sure, individuals may take safety precautions. But videos show the malls, shops and restaurants all open and well filled. But their mortality rate is not significantly different than that in the US and nations where mitigation occurred. And their hospitals are not overrun. How can this be?
The epicenter seemed to move from Wuhan to southern Europe to the New York metropolitan area. Sure, international travelers were likely to seed hot spots in those areas and probably in that order. But there are lots of big cities around the world that get international travelers. And China is a big exporter of everything, including travelers. Why haven't we seen other big hot spots? Sure, we instituted lock downs. But those are pretty poor lock downs. Everyone goes out for food. The streets in New York look empty, but the roads in the rest of America where we don't use public transportation are almost as crowded as ever. There's plenty of opportunities for an aggressive virus to spread through the rest of the world. But where are those big hot spots?
Then there's the ever-falling model mortality rate in the US chasing the actual mortality rate. Sure, the models are too complex to be accurate, but you would have thought one of them would have been in the ball park. Kind of like pollsters; someone ought to have guessed the actual outcome. Yet, there doesn't seem to be anyone that claims their model was close. Why?
If the data peculiarities were limited to China, I could accept that China is lying or hiding something. Some say they couldn't hide big break outs or a vaccine or an effective therapeutic. I'm not so sure about that. They control the media, communications, and their Internet portal. With international travel stopped, they could hide anything.
Let me focus on the 'rest of the world' for a moment. They saw China, Europe, and the US be cut off from all international travel and effectively quarantined. They have limited resources for testing, and probably average to poor hospital systems. Why would they do extensive testing and reporting to the WHO? So they can be the next epicenter? Or get their own border shutdown for international travel? With no testing, no vaccines, and no therapeutics, will they just treat patients for their symptoms like they've been doing for years? Unless they want COVID-19 crisis support from other countries, they are not going to report themselves into the next 'epicenter.' They are going to do as much mitigation as they can and get by.
Finally, apparently their is a California study where they tested asymptomatic volunteers. They found a 50 to 84 fold increase of those with antibodies over the reported number of cases. Keep in mind, the US is generally only testing those with severe COVID-19 symptoms. The California study suggested a very much greater spread of the virus than currently reported. And those numbers would drop the mortality percentage way down.
So something is wrong with our understanding of the virus and how it is spread. If it weren't for Sweden, you might say we don't really understand the effectiveness of various mitigation techniques. And actually, I'm pretty sure we don't.
Those mortality models we see in the US should have included models of how the virus affects the human body once it is gets there, how the virus is spread from human to human, how the mitigation measures slow the spread, and how the mitigation varies from region to region. Way too many variables and unknowns to create an accurate model. And the data is just not there to do good validation of a model.
But like I said earlier, somebody should have gotten a model in the ball park, just from random chance.
What I'm hoping is that the virus is at least as contagious as the experts suspect, but that it's mortality is way lower, and the various mitigation techniques' effectiveness is less than anticipated. You'll see why in a moment.
Suppose the elderly or those with comorbidities (serious chronic diseases) are really the only ones, for the most part, that are going to have serious problems and potential death. Those people are, or should be, hiding. Some won't be able to (no family support structure) and some won't be willing to give up their few remaining years of freedom to hide in their homes. Some may feel they've had a good life and if the Lord wills it, they are ready to move on.
But my point is that, given that assumption, there is only a certain percentage of the population that is going to be hospitalized. Say 10% of the population is at risk. 75% of those are hiding. So 2.5% of the population has a high risk of getting the virus. Only some of those are going to come in contact with infected people. And it will happen over time, with either a short peak or a flattened peak.
We would see small rises in cases, hospitals able to handle the load, and just a few moderate hot spots once mitigation (hiding of the susceptible) takes place.
If you don't get that high persistent fever, or serious trouble breathing, or endless painful coughing, you won't go to the hospital or get a test. If the virus is spreading rapidly, and the symptoms for 90 to 98% of the infected do not rise to that level, we can get by.
That might explain most of the weird data. New York and southern Europe got hit before the susceptible population went into hiding. The susceptible in Sweden saw what was happening in time and went into hiding on their own. In China, the Wuhan lock down made the situation obvious to everyone. But they also locked down a lot of other cities--cities that never reported monumental cases like Wuhan. Once could explain that by a combination of timely hiding and Chinese information control.
New York city and northern Italy suggest the contagion rate must be about as high or higher than believed. So we are left with the mortality rate and mitigation/hiding effectiveness as critical unknowns. Let's hope the mortality rate is really low and that those susceptible are successfully (and will continue to be) hiding.
First, we have China with its 85,000 total cases and 3,500 deaths. Only one hot spot breakout (Wuhan and its province), a two month lock down, and the virus seems to disappear. Why? How is that possible for a reportedly quickly spreading virus significantly more contagious than the flu? Especially when a third of the city of Wuhan left before the lock down.
Next we have Sweden. Effectively no government ordered mitigation or lock downs. Sure, individuals may take safety precautions. But videos show the malls, shops and restaurants all open and well filled. But their mortality rate is not significantly different than that in the US and nations where mitigation occurred. And their hospitals are not overrun. How can this be?
The epicenter seemed to move from Wuhan to southern Europe to the New York metropolitan area. Sure, international travelers were likely to seed hot spots in those areas and probably in that order. But there are lots of big cities around the world that get international travelers. And China is a big exporter of everything, including travelers. Why haven't we seen other big hot spots? Sure, we instituted lock downs. But those are pretty poor lock downs. Everyone goes out for food. The streets in New York look empty, but the roads in the rest of America where we don't use public transportation are almost as crowded as ever. There's plenty of opportunities for an aggressive virus to spread through the rest of the world. But where are those big hot spots?
Then there's the ever-falling model mortality rate in the US chasing the actual mortality rate. Sure, the models are too complex to be accurate, but you would have thought one of them would have been in the ball park. Kind of like pollsters; someone ought to have guessed the actual outcome. Yet, there doesn't seem to be anyone that claims their model was close. Why?
If the data peculiarities were limited to China, I could accept that China is lying or hiding something. Some say they couldn't hide big break outs or a vaccine or an effective therapeutic. I'm not so sure about that. They control the media, communications, and their Internet portal. With international travel stopped, they could hide anything.
Let me focus on the 'rest of the world' for a moment. They saw China, Europe, and the US be cut off from all international travel and effectively quarantined. They have limited resources for testing, and probably average to poor hospital systems. Why would they do extensive testing and reporting to the WHO? So they can be the next epicenter? Or get their own border shutdown for international travel? With no testing, no vaccines, and no therapeutics, will they just treat patients for their symptoms like they've been doing for years? Unless they want COVID-19 crisis support from other countries, they are not going to report themselves into the next 'epicenter.' They are going to do as much mitigation as they can and get by.
Finally, apparently their is a California study where they tested asymptomatic volunteers. They found a 50 to 84 fold increase of those with antibodies over the reported number of cases. Keep in mind, the US is generally only testing those with severe COVID-19 symptoms. The California study suggested a very much greater spread of the virus than currently reported. And those numbers would drop the mortality percentage way down.
So something is wrong with our understanding of the virus and how it is spread. If it weren't for Sweden, you might say we don't really understand the effectiveness of various mitigation techniques. And actually, I'm pretty sure we don't.
Those mortality models we see in the US should have included models of how the virus affects the human body once it is gets there, how the virus is spread from human to human, how the mitigation measures slow the spread, and how the mitigation varies from region to region. Way too many variables and unknowns to create an accurate model. And the data is just not there to do good validation of a model.
But like I said earlier, somebody should have gotten a model in the ball park, just from random chance.
What I'm hoping is that the virus is at least as contagious as the experts suspect, but that it's mortality is way lower, and the various mitigation techniques' effectiveness is less than anticipated. You'll see why in a moment.
Suppose the elderly or those with comorbidities (serious chronic diseases) are really the only ones, for the most part, that are going to have serious problems and potential death. Those people are, or should be, hiding. Some won't be able to (no family support structure) and some won't be willing to give up their few remaining years of freedom to hide in their homes. Some may feel they've had a good life and if the Lord wills it, they are ready to move on.
But my point is that, given that assumption, there is only a certain percentage of the population that is going to be hospitalized. Say 10% of the population is at risk. 75% of those are hiding. So 2.5% of the population has a high risk of getting the virus. Only some of those are going to come in contact with infected people. And it will happen over time, with either a short peak or a flattened peak.
We would see small rises in cases, hospitals able to handle the load, and just a few moderate hot spots once mitigation (hiding of the susceptible) takes place.
If you don't get that high persistent fever, or serious trouble breathing, or endless painful coughing, you won't go to the hospital or get a test. If the virus is spreading rapidly, and the symptoms for 90 to 98% of the infected do not rise to that level, we can get by.
That might explain most of the weird data. New York and southern Europe got hit before the susceptible population went into hiding. The susceptible in Sweden saw what was happening in time and went into hiding on their own. In China, the Wuhan lock down made the situation obvious to everyone. But they also locked down a lot of other cities--cities that never reported monumental cases like Wuhan. Once could explain that by a combination of timely hiding and Chinese information control.
New York city and northern Italy suggest the contagion rate must be about as high or higher than believed. So we are left with the mortality rate and mitigation/hiding effectiveness as critical unknowns. Let's hope the mortality rate is really low and that those susceptible are successfully (and will continue to be) hiding.
COVID-19 and the US Reopening
Yesterday, I gave my off-the-cuff quick reaction to the presidential reopening plan. My primary problem was the criteria to move to the first or next phase. My second problem is anticipated issues with a pseudo-random (I exaggerate) regional reopening.
Before I get into the problems with the plan, I want to present a few ideas to think about.
PROBLEM 1
Let's look more closely at the gating criteria. There's one for symptoms, one for cases, and one for hospitals.
Before I get into the problems with the plan, I want to present a few ideas to think about.
- The original goal was to flatten the curve. This was to slow the spread of the virus so that hospitals were not overrun and people would not die for lack of care or ICU beds or ventilators. The goal was not to reduce the number of cases or to eliminate the virus. I think the 'flattening' goal has gone by the wayside, and Governors are trying to eliminate the virus.
- How about a simple reopening plan like everyone without serious illnesses under the age of 45 go back to work now (except for hot spots). Compare the risks of that simple plan to one were we have a patchwork of regional or state plans as in the President's proposal.
- I've seen reports that the chemicals needed to do testing are about to run out due to the worldwide run on the items. If that's true, we'll have to scale back testing instead of expanding it.
PROBLEM 1
Let's look more closely at the gating criteria. There's one for symptoms, one for cases, and one for hospitals.
- SYMPTOMS: "Downward trajectory of influenza-like illnesses (ILI) reported within a 14-day period AND Downward trajectory of covid-like syndromic cases reported within a 14-day period."
- CASES: "Downward trajectory of documented cases within a 14-day period OR Downward trajectory of positives tests as a percent of total tests within a 14-day period (flat or increasing volume of tests)."
- HOSPITALS: "Treat all patients without crisis care AND Robust testing program in place for at-risk healthcare workers, including emerging antibody testing."
According to the President's plan, you need to meet all three criteria before entering Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3.
I'm not too worried about the HOSPITALS gate criteria. Protecting hospital workers should be doable. I'm not sure what they mean by "without crisis care." Is this not a crisis? Are not all COVID-19 patients being treated under the states' crisis plans? Maybe they mean without withholding care to those least likely to survive because care has to be rationed? That seems most likely to me. But the wording is just horribly ambiguous.
The SYMPTOMS and CASES criteria are also poorly worded. What is a "Downward trajectory ... within a 14-day period?" In physics/ballistics, a downward trajectory means the item drops continuously throughout the path. So the most common usage would mean a continuous drop in [cases] over a 14-day period. I would assume you could throw out a couple of days where you had increases. But that is a truly idiotic criteria--until you get near saturation, it's very difficult for a spreading virus to produce ever smaller numbers of cases and symptoms. Either they are using another interpretation, or they are idiots that don't want the economy to reopen.
Let's take SYMPTOMS. This is essentially the reported number of cases with flu-like symptoms AND the reported number of cases with COVID-19 symptoms. If testing keeps rising and more people interact, you almost cannot, under any circumstances, meet this gate criteria until herd immunity is reached. Though, it might happen if summer causes the virus to recede. That's why I think they don't mean a downward trajectory for 14 days. Maybe they mean at the end of any 14-day window, the end number is less than the starting number. But that too is ridiculous, since it looks only at instantaneous values that may not represent a trend.
The CASES gate criteria is a little better. You still have problems with the "downward trajectory" terminology, but this time it's an OR situation; i.e. either of two situations is enough to meet the criteria. The first criteria is just a downward trajectory of documented cases. I expect that means cases where the patient has tested positive for COVID-19. But again, if testing increases as the virus spreads, this one is hard to meet.
The second criteria is a downward trajectory of positive tests as a percent of total tests, but they add a parenthetical of flat or increasing volume of tests. The parenthetical suggests that if the number of tests executed drops, you cannot meet this criteria. Except for the parenthetical, I kind of like this criteria. Testing and cases can still increase (what you might expect), but if the percent of tests that are positive drops, you can still go into the next phase.
My take away is that the SYMPTOMS criteria is tough to meet. The CASES criteria might be a little easier. The HOSPITALS criteria should be fine anywhere except a small county hospital. But the terminology, if taken literally, would make the criteria almost impossible to meet.
Also, there is no criteria that requires a state, region, or locality to fall back to a previous phase. Yet that would seem pretty likely if hot spots break out.
I would assess a grade of D- for the gating criteria. The ridiculously ambiguous terminology means every decision maker will read them however they want. If they try to use them rigidly, they won't be able to open their economies.
PROBLEM 2
Let's start by thinking about an option that the President did not present. Opening the entire country using a consistent set of criteria. An example would be Scott Adam's "everyone under 45 without serious illness could go back to work now." You would have problems with senior managers not being available--giving companies a lot of second thoughts. And he didn't describe how/when the others would go back to work. But his 'all under 45' plan has the benefit of all businesses potentially restarting at once except for those in hot spot break out areas. Manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, service industries and consumers all start back together. There are no major supply chain issues except for an initial delay. Products and services start flowing and most consumers start buying.
Now we go to the President's plan. Let's make some assumptions that may or may not be true. Either way, they will be representative of what could happen. Let's say the northeast states maintain their lock downs for another month and a half, maybe through mid summer. They've been hit the hardest and are afraid to open up. The west coast does a partial opening. They want to be safe, and they are used to telling their citizens what they can and cannot do with endless freedom-crimping laws. They keep closed what they call non-essential businesses. Florida has so many elderly residents that they keep some kind of lock down. The rest of the country goes lighter, and opens more, but it's hit and miss. Big cities stay locked down. Blue states tend to retain tighter restrictions.
Now let's go into businesses in some of those states. Assume you are a retail shop that is reopening, and you get your key items from a manufacturer in the northeast. That manufacturer is closed because his state either retains a lock down or considers those products non-essential. The retail shop has no product to sell until the manufacturer reopens or they can find an alternate supplier.
Let's look at a bigger business. Say one that produces military aircraft. The big business is an integrator. They sourced parts from around the country so that every senator and many congress persons would all have something to lose if they cancel the aircraft program. But their suppliers in the northeast and on the west coast cannot deliver. The big business cannot keep their production line open.
Now turn to the leisure travel industry -- people on vacation. I'll only look at in-country travel for this issue. You cannot go to Disney World or Disney Land or any of the theme parks near them. I didn't make an assumption about national parks, but let's assume they open or close depending on their state and it's phases. So some parks will be open. But most people are going to drive to get to them. What happens if they are starting from a locked down state or need to go through one? It's probably safe if you stay on the interstates (for tickets), but try and get a hotel room in a locked down state (ha). Most of the popular beaches will also be closed. Will Las Vegas open? It's in a blue state near California. Vegas has lots of crowds. I doubt it. Camping at your local state park seems the most likely option. If your state doesn't think that hookups and picnic tables present too big of a risk of spreading the virus (Texas thought so).
My conclusions are that this plan has the potential for chaos where supply chains are broken and the public is very limited in how they can use their vacation time.
If I were a governor, I might use the Phases approach to specify what people and businesses should do. But I would make my own gate criteria. Most people won't have access to the data to tell whether the gate criteria are being met anyway. And the President didn't try to make his plan mandatory for anybody.
It looks some regional groupings of governors are going to try and do a coordinated reopening (or continued lock down). My guess is it's going to be a chaotic free-for-all that makes no one happy.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
COVID-19 US Fed Reopening Plan
This will be a short one and I could be wrong. I’ve only briefly seen the charts on TV. What bothers me is there is a gate for transitioning from one phase to another, including before you start Phase 1. The gate includes at least one criteria that I don’t think can be met. Number of cases need to go down for 14 days. Maybe they mean new cases. But the problem is they keep expanding testing. Thus, they will keep finding more and more cases as the virus spreads. If you have any, even small hotspots pop up or even small resurgence, any state will fail the gate.
Maybe I don’t understand the gate criteria. To me they look like BS for any state with major cities.
Worse, if one state is still in Phase 1 but somebody from a Phase 2 or 3 state wants to do non-essential travel, they couldn’t go to a Phase 1 state. It’s like the concealed carry state-by-state rules. You can’t take your weapon on a trip because you don’t know the local rules.
And what happens if you get a decent sized hotspot but are in any phase? There was no criteria to fall back a phase or to state-wide lock down. I want my country back, not a hodgepodge of chaos. I can understand city hotspot lockdowns. But this? Crap.
Maybe I don’t understand the gate criteria. To me they look like BS for any state with major cities.
Worse, if one state is still in Phase 1 but somebody from a Phase 2 or 3 state wants to do non-essential travel, they couldn’t go to a Phase 1 state. It’s like the concealed carry state-by-state rules. You can’t take your weapon on a trip because you don’t know the local rules.
And what happens if you get a decent sized hotspot but are in any phase? There was no criteria to fall back a phase or to state-wide lock down. I want my country back, not a hodgepodge of chaos. I can understand city hotspot lockdowns. But this? Crap.
COVID-19 and Life’s Missed Opportunities
I’ll give you a bit of background and then get into a day on a thru hike. I’m now 64. A few years ago I retired early so I could try to hike the Appalachian Trail. I figured I didn’t have that many good years left where I could do something like that. My career was military and engineering, and I had never had more than two weeks off at a time. I pretty much fell in love with backpacking and the outdoors. My wife, not so much. So I’ve spent about 3 months on the AT and CDT.
Last fall, I was starting to plan another CDT section, when family plans changed. Well, I ended up buying a Mercedes Sprinter cargo van and putting it in the shop for conversion to a camper van. I figured I could boondock out west in BLM land or national forests and do long day hikes. But still sleep in a soft bed!
Well, the van is still in the shop. And if it’s finished, I’m not so sure it will be safe (or allowed in some places) to take it out.
So, I’m sitting here at home getting more and more upset about another spring going by without backpacking or hiking. The news is infuriating. Most of the movies and shows are social justice crap. I’m staying in bed way too long trying to avoid the irritations. Here’s a rather long view of a day on a thru hike...
I’ve spent a month planning and getting ready. My pack’s going to be 23-25 lbs with food and water. I’ve been doing 5-8 mile hikes several times a week to get in shape. But don’t usually carry over 15 lbs. I’ve got anxiety about getting to the trail. It’s a 23 hr bus ride to the AT and about a 16 hr ride to the CDT. I HATE bus rides and especially bus stations—both are crowded, dirty, and uncomfortable. By the way, I don’t like crowds, and I hate shelters and hostels— trying to sleep with strangers all around you making weird noises. And being in my sixties, I usually have to get up to relieve my bladder.
Anyway, you make it to the trail and you are ecstatic. The first day or two on either trail is a killer. The state park steps up the mountain on the AT are plain tough. The heavy water load on the CDT makes you feel like you are carrying a bag of heavy rocks. Those first couple of days are exhausting, and I’ll skip them.
A few days in, you aren’t really noticing the weight any more. You get a rhythm going up the hills or mountains. I’ll start after dinner on one of those good days. I stopped about 5:00 pm, pitched my tarp, fixed dinner and ate. By six o’clock, I’ve drunk about as much water as I could. I plan to go to sleep about dark (8:00 to 9:00 pm).
At six, I stop drinking water. The plan is to take a leak about 9:00 so I can last through the night. I didn’t bring a pee bottle to save the extra 2 oz of weight. I usually work on the day’s photos and blog for a couple of hours. Sometimes I use my MP3 player and listen to music.
I’ve either set up my tarp (preference if I don’t expect lots of rain) or my Zpacks Altaplex tent. The tent is better for bugs and rain, but you don’t get the open feel of the outdoors. The tarp is pretty close to cowboy camping with a rain safety measure. And the tarp/bivy combo is a couple of ounces lighter than the tent.
I’ve blown up my 2.5 inch air mattress and put it in the bivy. My down quilt goes in the bivy on top of the mattress. I’ve got a small ground cloth under the bivy, and I drag my pack under the tarp. The tarp is set up like an A-frame with one end lower for weather considerations.
When I get in the bivy under the quilt, I can lay on my back and see the stars, clouds, or the tops of trees. Laying on my side I can see the forest or desert floors under the edges of the tarp. I tend to roll from side to side all night, stretching my back and legs when I’m laying on my back. I don’t get aches or pains from hiking, but my hips will get sore on the air mattress. Rolling over helps. I don’t think I fully wake up, but I am aware of rolling over.
You here the sounds in the forest or the yipping of coyotes in the desert. I don’t fear the animals or the night or being alone. It’s all just relaxing and great. I do occasionally see a spider near my bag and I don’t like those. The pattern of rain, the boom of thunder, or the flash of lightning are all relaxing. At least until the sound and flash from lightning get too close. The wind can be relaxing or an irritant. Too strong, and you have to hide your mouth or cover up from the cold. The desert wind has sand in it, and you have a hard time keeping it out of your mouth and nose.
The night is refreshing, but the sore hips and full bladder make me ready for the day. You watch the forest or desert appear out of the darkness. I hate to use a headlamp, so I wait till I can see a bit under the tarp, and crawl out of the bivy. I’ve usually slept in my hiking clothes without a jacket. If it was cooler I will also wear my wind shirt. And if it is near freezing or below, I will add a down jacket.
So I change into my cold morning hiking layers, rub some lubricant around my toes and put my shoes on. Now I put everything I can into the pack, leaving out any breakfast, and of course the tarp and ground cloth. Then I get out from under the tarp and do my morning toiletries. If it’s not too cold, I’ll eat a quick breakfast (no cooking). Otherwise, I’ll warm up on the trail and then stop for a breakfast bar. I’m usually off within about a half hour of getting out of the bag. And it’s usually about sunrise. In the forest though, you never see the actual sun rise.
On most days, I’m feeling really good. I almost never get blisters or have aches and pains. I don’t take Ibuprofin. My feet do not get sore. I will get tired. And occasionally, I’ll feel a muscle ache around a knee or ankle, though it will usually disappear quickly. I have gotten ‘hurt’ on two of my trips. On the AT, I tried walking without letting my feet splay out—and I pulled a muscle above my ankle. NEVER try to walk differently! On the CDT, I misjudged the risk on a deep, sandy, steep Jeep trail. I slid onto my rear and then my pack rotated me around, and I pulled my knee. Both injuries caused me to get off the trail. The moral of those stories, be careful!
But back to the trail. You try to drink a lot of water before you leave camp. If possible, there is a water source nearby to refill your bottles. On the AT the water sources are a pleasure. On the CDT, at least in New Mexico, they are disgusting. Since I am out there for fun and not desperate to complete a thru, I worry little about mileage. On the other hand, I do pay attention to the guides to be sure I don’t run out of water.
On the AT, it always seemed that heading out of camp meant going up a mountain. So you concentrated on warming up and getting your body going at speed. On the CDT, the biggest challenge seemed to be keeping on the trail. Sometimes it seemed more like bushwhacking.
But on both trails, the scenery was enchanting and always changing. The flowers, cacti, moss and trees always seemed to change and create new patterns. You spread your consciousness between trail obstacles, observing the scenery, sounds, and animals, getting your body through the current physical challenge, and whatever’s in your own mind. Sometimes you think about food (at a restaurant!), a shower, a favorite song, or what’s ahead on the trail. You tend to zone out and get in a rhythm. It’s just you and the creator’s greatest creations.
If you are not comfortable with your own company, you probably need to hike with others. But for the most part there is no fear, just a feeling of happiness. Of course, you do get a bit of a rush when you come around a corner and see a moose, buffalo, snake or bear. Luckily, the bear was far off. The others required action to avoid. I’ve only felt uncomfortable about one fellow hiker. He pulled out this huge Bowie knife in a shelter and set it down next to his bag. He said it was for bears.
Occasionally I see a fellow hiker on the trail. Most will give you a happy greeting. Some of the older ones will stop and chat for a few minutes. I joined up with another hiker for most of my CDT miles. It was nice to have someone to talk to, but I think I still prefer the freedom of solo hiking.
About every hour to an hour and a half, I like to stop for five minutes and have a snack. I usually try to find a log or rock to sit on, but if it’s not muddy, just sitting on the ground is fine. I try to take the weight off my leg muscles.
These were attempted thru hikes, so they were not casual strolls through the forest or desert. While I love the scenery, they also were not park discovery trails. I tried to go just below my top speed. With hills, roots, and rocks, I often didn’t get anywhere near my top speed. But I usually got hot and sweaty; though use of layers minimized sweat staying on me.
By lunch time, I was usually still feeling pretty strong. My favorite lunch is peanut butter and jelly on a tortilla, a big one. Normally, I would take my time, about twenty minutes. This included taking the pack off. By about 2:00 pm, I usually started to feel the strain and would be getting tired. It wouldn’t be a wall, I just couldn’t go as fast, and really didn’t look forward to long uphills.
Usually, by 4:00 to 4:30, I would start looking for a good stopping place for the night. If possible, I would try to get near the next water source. On the AT, I liked mountain tops. Open spaces were hard to find. On the CDT, usually any moderate open space near some trees would do.
One critical factor for setting up my tarp is a flat spot. I’ve made the mistake several times of thinking a spot was flat enough only to find my head was downhill or my bivy was moving downhill every time I rolled over. Putting down my ground cloth and laying down on it is now my regular practice.
I set up the tarp as soon as I get to camp. If water is nearby, I get it. Then I cook my dinner. An alcohol stove is my favorite. I only boil water, and never put food in my pot. All food is in a ziplock bag. I do take whey protein powder and drink a shake with dinner. The entree is usually a freeze dried meal. Most times I also have freeze dried fruit. Water and vitamins complete the meal.
If it’s raining, I will cook under the edge of the tarp. But I will also eat a lighter meal to avoid the mess.
As I mentioned earlier, I try to drink a lot of water with dinner, or by 6:00 pm. I also drink a lot while hiking. Dehydration is not fun on the trail, and it also isn’t good while trying to sleep.
After blogging, listening to music or just light napping, I get ready to sleep. That is usually a trip to the bushes, then changing into my sleeping attire, and adding more foot lube to the toes before putting on clean socks. The clean socks are usually put on with the last light.
Usually three to seven days like this will go by before I get to a town. The last day or so, lots of thinking involves anticipation of good food, a shower, and a soft bed. There’s also a bit of anxiety about the availability of a hotel or hostel. When I can, I try to call a day before I get into town to get a reservation.
Typically, I pick up a resupply box from the post office, shower, and go to a restaurant. Oh, the real food! Then you also have to find a laundry. You do your clothes while attired in your rain coat and pants. If you don’t pick up a box, you will need to go to a grocery to stock up. You will also, about every other town, need to look for stove alcohol or a canister. Then you get to lounge on a soft bed, watch TV, and catch up on uploading your blogs.
If you are taking a zero, you will stay two nights. Oh the luxury! If you are not young, zeros help with muscle recovery.
Leaving town is the worst part of a stop. It’s almost always uphill with a pack full of food (heavy). And places to stop for the night can be less than ideal.
Those stops can be expensive. Even so, when you come off the trail, you will most likely be somewhat depressed. The joy on the trail is not like anything you have at home or on the job. You really don’t want to head home. Of course, if you did the complete thru over six months, you will likely feel differently—being totally exhausted.
Back home, you just want to hit the trail again!
Last fall, I was starting to plan another CDT section, when family plans changed. Well, I ended up buying a Mercedes Sprinter cargo van and putting it in the shop for conversion to a camper van. I figured I could boondock out west in BLM land or national forests and do long day hikes. But still sleep in a soft bed!
Well, the van is still in the shop. And if it’s finished, I’m not so sure it will be safe (or allowed in some places) to take it out.
So, I’m sitting here at home getting more and more upset about another spring going by without backpacking or hiking. The news is infuriating. Most of the movies and shows are social justice crap. I’m staying in bed way too long trying to avoid the irritations. Here’s a rather long view of a day on a thru hike...
I’ve spent a month planning and getting ready. My pack’s going to be 23-25 lbs with food and water. I’ve been doing 5-8 mile hikes several times a week to get in shape. But don’t usually carry over 15 lbs. I’ve got anxiety about getting to the trail. It’s a 23 hr bus ride to the AT and about a 16 hr ride to the CDT. I HATE bus rides and especially bus stations—both are crowded, dirty, and uncomfortable. By the way, I don’t like crowds, and I hate shelters and hostels— trying to sleep with strangers all around you making weird noises. And being in my sixties, I usually have to get up to relieve my bladder.
Anyway, you make it to the trail and you are ecstatic. The first day or two on either trail is a killer. The state park steps up the mountain on the AT are plain tough. The heavy water load on the CDT makes you feel like you are carrying a bag of heavy rocks. Those first couple of days are exhausting, and I’ll skip them.
A few days in, you aren’t really noticing the weight any more. You get a rhythm going up the hills or mountains. I’ll start after dinner on one of those good days. I stopped about 5:00 pm, pitched my tarp, fixed dinner and ate. By six o’clock, I’ve drunk about as much water as I could. I plan to go to sleep about dark (8:00 to 9:00 pm).
At six, I stop drinking water. The plan is to take a leak about 9:00 so I can last through the night. I didn’t bring a pee bottle to save the extra 2 oz of weight. I usually work on the day’s photos and blog for a couple of hours. Sometimes I use my MP3 player and listen to music.
I’ve either set up my tarp (preference if I don’t expect lots of rain) or my Zpacks Altaplex tent. The tent is better for bugs and rain, but you don’t get the open feel of the outdoors. The tarp is pretty close to cowboy camping with a rain safety measure. And the tarp/bivy combo is a couple of ounces lighter than the tent.
I’ve blown up my 2.5 inch air mattress and put it in the bivy. My down quilt goes in the bivy on top of the mattress. I’ve got a small ground cloth under the bivy, and I drag my pack under the tarp. The tarp is set up like an A-frame with one end lower for weather considerations.
When I get in the bivy under the quilt, I can lay on my back and see the stars, clouds, or the tops of trees. Laying on my side I can see the forest or desert floors under the edges of the tarp. I tend to roll from side to side all night, stretching my back and legs when I’m laying on my back. I don’t get aches or pains from hiking, but my hips will get sore on the air mattress. Rolling over helps. I don’t think I fully wake up, but I am aware of rolling over.
You here the sounds in the forest or the yipping of coyotes in the desert. I don’t fear the animals or the night or being alone. It’s all just relaxing and great. I do occasionally see a spider near my bag and I don’t like those. The pattern of rain, the boom of thunder, or the flash of lightning are all relaxing. At least until the sound and flash from lightning get too close. The wind can be relaxing or an irritant. Too strong, and you have to hide your mouth or cover up from the cold. The desert wind has sand in it, and you have a hard time keeping it out of your mouth and nose.
The night is refreshing, but the sore hips and full bladder make me ready for the day. You watch the forest or desert appear out of the darkness. I hate to use a headlamp, so I wait till I can see a bit under the tarp, and crawl out of the bivy. I’ve usually slept in my hiking clothes without a jacket. If it was cooler I will also wear my wind shirt. And if it is near freezing or below, I will add a down jacket.
So I change into my cold morning hiking layers, rub some lubricant around my toes and put my shoes on. Now I put everything I can into the pack, leaving out any breakfast, and of course the tarp and ground cloth. Then I get out from under the tarp and do my morning toiletries. If it’s not too cold, I’ll eat a quick breakfast (no cooking). Otherwise, I’ll warm up on the trail and then stop for a breakfast bar. I’m usually off within about a half hour of getting out of the bag. And it’s usually about sunrise. In the forest though, you never see the actual sun rise.
On most days, I’m feeling really good. I almost never get blisters or have aches and pains. I don’t take Ibuprofin. My feet do not get sore. I will get tired. And occasionally, I’ll feel a muscle ache around a knee or ankle, though it will usually disappear quickly. I have gotten ‘hurt’ on two of my trips. On the AT, I tried walking without letting my feet splay out—and I pulled a muscle above my ankle. NEVER try to walk differently! On the CDT, I misjudged the risk on a deep, sandy, steep Jeep trail. I slid onto my rear and then my pack rotated me around, and I pulled my knee. Both injuries caused me to get off the trail. The moral of those stories, be careful!
But back to the trail. You try to drink a lot of water before you leave camp. If possible, there is a water source nearby to refill your bottles. On the AT the water sources are a pleasure. On the CDT, at least in New Mexico, they are disgusting. Since I am out there for fun and not desperate to complete a thru, I worry little about mileage. On the other hand, I do pay attention to the guides to be sure I don’t run out of water.
On the AT, it always seemed that heading out of camp meant going up a mountain. So you concentrated on warming up and getting your body going at speed. On the CDT, the biggest challenge seemed to be keeping on the trail. Sometimes it seemed more like bushwhacking.
But on both trails, the scenery was enchanting and always changing. The flowers, cacti, moss and trees always seemed to change and create new patterns. You spread your consciousness between trail obstacles, observing the scenery, sounds, and animals, getting your body through the current physical challenge, and whatever’s in your own mind. Sometimes you think about food (at a restaurant!), a shower, a favorite song, or what’s ahead on the trail. You tend to zone out and get in a rhythm. It’s just you and the creator’s greatest creations.
If you are not comfortable with your own company, you probably need to hike with others. But for the most part there is no fear, just a feeling of happiness. Of course, you do get a bit of a rush when you come around a corner and see a moose, buffalo, snake or bear. Luckily, the bear was far off. The others required action to avoid. I’ve only felt uncomfortable about one fellow hiker. He pulled out this huge Bowie knife in a shelter and set it down next to his bag. He said it was for bears.
Occasionally I see a fellow hiker on the trail. Most will give you a happy greeting. Some of the older ones will stop and chat for a few minutes. I joined up with another hiker for most of my CDT miles. It was nice to have someone to talk to, but I think I still prefer the freedom of solo hiking.
About every hour to an hour and a half, I like to stop for five minutes and have a snack. I usually try to find a log or rock to sit on, but if it’s not muddy, just sitting on the ground is fine. I try to take the weight off my leg muscles.
These were attempted thru hikes, so they were not casual strolls through the forest or desert. While I love the scenery, they also were not park discovery trails. I tried to go just below my top speed. With hills, roots, and rocks, I often didn’t get anywhere near my top speed. But I usually got hot and sweaty; though use of layers minimized sweat staying on me.
By lunch time, I was usually still feeling pretty strong. My favorite lunch is peanut butter and jelly on a tortilla, a big one. Normally, I would take my time, about twenty minutes. This included taking the pack off. By about 2:00 pm, I usually started to feel the strain and would be getting tired. It wouldn’t be a wall, I just couldn’t go as fast, and really didn’t look forward to long uphills.
Usually, by 4:00 to 4:30, I would start looking for a good stopping place for the night. If possible, I would try to get near the next water source. On the AT, I liked mountain tops. Open spaces were hard to find. On the CDT, usually any moderate open space near some trees would do.
One critical factor for setting up my tarp is a flat spot. I’ve made the mistake several times of thinking a spot was flat enough only to find my head was downhill or my bivy was moving downhill every time I rolled over. Putting down my ground cloth and laying down on it is now my regular practice.
I set up the tarp as soon as I get to camp. If water is nearby, I get it. Then I cook my dinner. An alcohol stove is my favorite. I only boil water, and never put food in my pot. All food is in a ziplock bag. I do take whey protein powder and drink a shake with dinner. The entree is usually a freeze dried meal. Most times I also have freeze dried fruit. Water and vitamins complete the meal.
If it’s raining, I will cook under the edge of the tarp. But I will also eat a lighter meal to avoid the mess.
As I mentioned earlier, I try to drink a lot of water with dinner, or by 6:00 pm. I also drink a lot while hiking. Dehydration is not fun on the trail, and it also isn’t good while trying to sleep.
After blogging, listening to music or just light napping, I get ready to sleep. That is usually a trip to the bushes, then changing into my sleeping attire, and adding more foot lube to the toes before putting on clean socks. The clean socks are usually put on with the last light.
Usually three to seven days like this will go by before I get to a town. The last day or so, lots of thinking involves anticipation of good food, a shower, and a soft bed. There’s also a bit of anxiety about the availability of a hotel or hostel. When I can, I try to call a day before I get into town to get a reservation.
Typically, I pick up a resupply box from the post office, shower, and go to a restaurant. Oh, the real food! Then you also have to find a laundry. You do your clothes while attired in your rain coat and pants. If you don’t pick up a box, you will need to go to a grocery to stock up. You will also, about every other town, need to look for stove alcohol or a canister. Then you get to lounge on a soft bed, watch TV, and catch up on uploading your blogs.
If you are taking a zero, you will stay two nights. Oh the luxury! If you are not young, zeros help with muscle recovery.
Leaving town is the worst part of a stop. It’s almost always uphill with a pack full of food (heavy). And places to stop for the night can be less than ideal.
Those stops can be expensive. Even so, when you come off the trail, you will most likely be somewhat depressed. The joy on the trail is not like anything you have at home or on the job. You really don’t want to head home. Of course, if you did the complete thru over six months, you will likely feel differently—being totally exhausted.
Back home, you just want to hit the trail again!
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Scott Adams, COVID-19 and Easter Services
I'm starting to lose my interest in watching Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist). Early on in the Wuhan virus crisis, he stated that he wanted to present a positive outlook and avoid negativity. He says we are all in this together. And for the most part he follows that. But sometimes he's a bit inconsistent.
Let's take an example or two. Remember when President Trump talked about how hydroxychloroquine was a promising therapeutic? And a day or two after, several democratic governors decided to outlaw the use of the drug for COVID-19 patients? I think Nevada was the first place, and it's governor said that he wouldn't allow the use of an untested and dangerous drug for COVID-19 patients (paraphrased). Well, for some reason Scott was asked about it, and he speculated that it must be because they didn't want a run on drugs that were needed for malaria and lupus. He completely ignored the actual statement. It was pretty obvious to all that the democratic governors were trying to oppose anything that might make President Trump look good. I think since then Scott has talked about the media's drive to oppose the drug. Of course soon after that the democratic governors said of course, they were restricting hydroxychloroquine to avoid shortages for lupus and malaria patients.
I guess a bigger peeve I have with him is that he does not discuss democratic push back on President Trump's initiatives. In fact, while we all may be subject to the impact of the virus, we are NOT "all in this together." And Scott seems to downplay any Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
But that is his choice.
What I really wanted to focus on today, was his comment about attending Easter Service. Somebody, I think, asked him what he thought of people doing an in-person service. He made statements (paraphrased) that it was the equivalent of someone killing their grandmother or attending Satanic services. And I've made it sound way worse than Scott did, so I hope he forgives my awful paraphrasing--but both "killing grandmother" and "Satanic services" were in there.
But I think his statements are nuts and pretty much unforgivable. First, let's look at the government and CDC's guidelines. Wash your hands frequently, stay six feet or more apart, and where masks when you are going to be near others. They also say no large gatherings; which I took as meaning stop gatherings because people don't stay six feet apart. I'll also add in the nearly universal dining-in ban. Our local restaurants had started eliminating tables to get the six feet distance before our state's dining-in ban was ordered. I've assumed the ban was to avoid multiple people touching tables and chairs where someone has coughed. But I also occasionally cough when I eat too much (a variation on indigestion).
So, can churches meet those guidelines? Sure, except for the <10 person gathering, but they can even meet the intent of that. First, make services by reservation so you know and can limit how many will attend. Have a 6' to 6' line to get in to the service. Mark available seats and have one usher. All seats will be at least 6' from every other one with perhaps some near doubles for couples. This might reduce seats from say 300 to 30 or so. You would have say 5 services in a day. Plenty of time in-between to allow leisurely entry and exit. No exiting cars while anyone is near. Everyone wears masks, gloves, and preferably long sleeved shirts and pants. All pews are wiped down between every service. Eliminate hymnal singing (minimal air movement) and prayer books. Use projectors as needed. Have more presentations, prayers, and individual singers on stage. Skip the schmoozing before and afterwards and keep the services succinct. Anyway, if the government's guidelines are correct, it can be done safely.
Now think about the people that want to come. I reduced the 300 to 150 (over 5 services) since I'm guessing at least 50% would rather not take any risk and attend services.
But Scott said attending was essentially killing your grandmother. But suppose your grandmother is in isolation? The precautions I describe above are at least as effective as going to the grocery or Home Depot.
Your grandmother might even attend herself. If she's 87, she might want to attend Easter and hear the resurrection story one more time in her life.
Then there's the single person or couple that is isolated at home, working from home or out of work, and only going to the grocery. They may get to chat with another grocery shopper that don't know for a few seconds. They hear nothing but bad news on the TV. Trump is killing the country with his bad decisions. Going to church is uplifting and often gives hope. Saying they cannot go violates the constitution and is just morally wrong. Sure, the elite think a psychologist is better than a pastor, but most people cannot afford online sessions with a psychologist. And the psychologist is unlikely to speak about God and their faith.
Anyway, it should be a person's choice. Assuming the church takes adequate precautions. Worshipers could attend without risk of killing their grandmother. Most will not be Satan worshipers. Scott should apologize.
Let's take an example or two. Remember when President Trump talked about how hydroxychloroquine was a promising therapeutic? And a day or two after, several democratic governors decided to outlaw the use of the drug for COVID-19 patients? I think Nevada was the first place, and it's governor said that he wouldn't allow the use of an untested and dangerous drug for COVID-19 patients (paraphrased). Well, for some reason Scott was asked about it, and he speculated that it must be because they didn't want a run on drugs that were needed for malaria and lupus. He completely ignored the actual statement. It was pretty obvious to all that the democratic governors were trying to oppose anything that might make President Trump look good. I think since then Scott has talked about the media's drive to oppose the drug. Of course soon after that the democratic governors said of course, they were restricting hydroxychloroquine to avoid shortages for lupus and malaria patients.
I guess a bigger peeve I have with him is that he does not discuss democratic push back on President Trump's initiatives. In fact, while we all may be subject to the impact of the virus, we are NOT "all in this together." And Scott seems to downplay any Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
But that is his choice.
What I really wanted to focus on today, was his comment about attending Easter Service. Somebody, I think, asked him what he thought of people doing an in-person service. He made statements (paraphrased) that it was the equivalent of someone killing their grandmother or attending Satanic services. And I've made it sound way worse than Scott did, so I hope he forgives my awful paraphrasing--but both "killing grandmother" and "Satanic services" were in there.
But I think his statements are nuts and pretty much unforgivable. First, let's look at the government and CDC's guidelines. Wash your hands frequently, stay six feet or more apart, and where masks when you are going to be near others. They also say no large gatherings; which I took as meaning stop gatherings because people don't stay six feet apart. I'll also add in the nearly universal dining-in ban. Our local restaurants had started eliminating tables to get the six feet distance before our state's dining-in ban was ordered. I've assumed the ban was to avoid multiple people touching tables and chairs where someone has coughed. But I also occasionally cough when I eat too much (a variation on indigestion).
So, can churches meet those guidelines? Sure, except for the <10 person gathering, but they can even meet the intent of that. First, make services by reservation so you know and can limit how many will attend. Have a 6' to 6' line to get in to the service. Mark available seats and have one usher. All seats will be at least 6' from every other one with perhaps some near doubles for couples. This might reduce seats from say 300 to 30 or so. You would have say 5 services in a day. Plenty of time in-between to allow leisurely entry and exit. No exiting cars while anyone is near. Everyone wears masks, gloves, and preferably long sleeved shirts and pants. All pews are wiped down between every service. Eliminate hymnal singing (minimal air movement) and prayer books. Use projectors as needed. Have more presentations, prayers, and individual singers on stage. Skip the schmoozing before and afterwards and keep the services succinct. Anyway, if the government's guidelines are correct, it can be done safely.
Now think about the people that want to come. I reduced the 300 to 150 (over 5 services) since I'm guessing at least 50% would rather not take any risk and attend services.
But Scott said attending was essentially killing your grandmother. But suppose your grandmother is in isolation? The precautions I describe above are at least as effective as going to the grocery or Home Depot.
Your grandmother might even attend herself. If she's 87, she might want to attend Easter and hear the resurrection story one more time in her life.
Then there's the single person or couple that is isolated at home, working from home or out of work, and only going to the grocery. They may get to chat with another grocery shopper that don't know for a few seconds. They hear nothing but bad news on the TV. Trump is killing the country with his bad decisions. Going to church is uplifting and often gives hope. Saying they cannot go violates the constitution and is just morally wrong. Sure, the elite think a psychologist is better than a pastor, but most people cannot afford online sessions with a psychologist. And the psychologist is unlikely to speak about God and their faith.
Anyway, it should be a person's choice. Assuming the church takes adequate precautions. Worshipers could attend without risk of killing their grandmother. Most will not be Satan worshipers. Scott should apologize.
Thursday, April 9, 2020
Scott Adams and COVID-19 Modeling
Since the crisis started I’ve been watching Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) religiously. He live streams on Periscope twice a day. Most of his views are really great.
But today he made a general claim that models are built to be used for persuasion, not to be accurate. I believe he has an MBA and did some modeling for businesses he worked for. He states that he never claimed his models, and their predictions, were accurate, just useful for his bosses to make decisions.
I will concede that there may be ‘modelers’ that do not expect accuracy. I will also concede that the output of models in certain domains, can be used for persuasion. In particular, I believe the President’s Coronavirus Task Force used the COVID-19 mortality predictions to persuade US citizens to modify their behavior.
I will also concede that modelers expect early versions of their models to be inaccurate or less than valid in their modeling of reality.
However, every model I built I expected to be accurate, or at least have a reasonably reliable margin of error. I also believe every modeler in the physical sciences tries to, and in many cases expects, their models to be accurate. I cannot say what modelers expect from their models in the social sciences. I’m also not sure what doctors and medical research might have in the way of model expectations.
The point is, most modelers create their models (or simulations) either to understand how something works or to predict future behavior of the reality being modeled. They all want their models to be accurate.
Now the degree of accuracy, or the margin of error, is going to vary and depend on a lot of things. Let’s take a look at how a model is built.
First you start with some understanding of how your relevant portion of the world (what you are modeling) works. You might only have a theory. But you identify all of the variables or factors that that you believe have significant affects on the model. Usually, you are aware of some variables that you know are relevant, but probably have insignificant effects.
You put together equations that show the relations between the variables, inputs and outputs. Sometimes you will need to simplify variables or relationships. Say, you know a variable depends on another variable or factor, but you are not sure how. So you ‘assume’ for that version of the model that that dependency does not exist.
Maybe you even leave out variables you suspect are significant so you can more easily create early versions of the model.
Next, you code up a simulation that lets a computer run a model over time, or any other variable. The scientist, engineer or modeler should have collected some data from the real world. That is, given a set of inputs, what outputs are observed over time?
The modeler wants to validate that their model is accurate (or determine how far off from reality it is). So they run their simulation with the real world input. If the simulation produces the same output, one can claim the model is validated for the range of that tested input.
More often than not, there is a difference between the expected (real world) output and what the model’s simulation produces. In most cases, the modeler knows that either some of their assumptions are wrong, their relationship are not correct (bad theory) or they have not included all of the relevant variables.
So they modify their model and simulation and try again. And again, and again... (:-)
Now shift to models of a spreading, new virus. You’ve got billions of people that behave differently, and whose immune systems respond differently to the virus. You’ve got data taken from countries and regions where you don’t understand those differences. The data is unreliable due to incomplete testing, different doctors’ guidance to patients, imperfect logging, and even government behaviors that hide real data for political purposes. And to top it all, you’ve only got an early theory about how the virus works in the body and how it spreads.
No modeler is going to expect a model in that situation to be accurate. The modelers are going to try and build in error bars to reflect the uncertainties in their model. We saw big error bars on TV.
And of course as new data comes in, they are going to update their models in an attempt to increase accuracy. But which part(s) of the model are most in error? Is it how it spreads, the effectiveness of social distancing, or how the virus attacks the body? They are going to do iterations of the model until their output is as close to observed reality as possible. In this case, the mortality rate is probably what they are trying to hit first. But we see beds, ICU and ventilator predictions still off.
My point is, no real modeler was going to trust the 100,000 to 240,000 mortality prediction. You might expect the error bars to capture reality, but with such big error margins, I doubt anyone had much confidence in the model.
My point is, that every modeler hopes and tries to create accuracy. They usually know when their models are not accurate. Did you see anybody interview the modelers and ask them? Of course not. None of them were going to go on national TV and say what they know about their models.
One final thought. Do you think virus propagation and top level medical results (mortality, ICU, etc.) over 30 days is a tougher job than earth environment predictions over 100 years? There are a lot of gullible people out there. Are you one?
But today he made a general claim that models are built to be used for persuasion, not to be accurate. I believe he has an MBA and did some modeling for businesses he worked for. He states that he never claimed his models, and their predictions, were accurate, just useful for his bosses to make decisions.
I will concede that there may be ‘modelers’ that do not expect accuracy. I will also concede that the output of models in certain domains, can be used for persuasion. In particular, I believe the President’s Coronavirus Task Force used the COVID-19 mortality predictions to persuade US citizens to modify their behavior.
I will also concede that modelers expect early versions of their models to be inaccurate or less than valid in their modeling of reality.
However, every model I built I expected to be accurate, or at least have a reasonably reliable margin of error. I also believe every modeler in the physical sciences tries to, and in many cases expects, their models to be accurate. I cannot say what modelers expect from their models in the social sciences. I’m also not sure what doctors and medical research might have in the way of model expectations.
The point is, most modelers create their models (or simulations) either to understand how something works or to predict future behavior of the reality being modeled. They all want their models to be accurate.
Now the degree of accuracy, or the margin of error, is going to vary and depend on a lot of things. Let’s take a look at how a model is built.
First you start with some understanding of how your relevant portion of the world (what you are modeling) works. You might only have a theory. But you identify all of the variables or factors that that you believe have significant affects on the model. Usually, you are aware of some variables that you know are relevant, but probably have insignificant effects.
You put together equations that show the relations between the variables, inputs and outputs. Sometimes you will need to simplify variables or relationships. Say, you know a variable depends on another variable or factor, but you are not sure how. So you ‘assume’ for that version of the model that that dependency does not exist.
Maybe you even leave out variables you suspect are significant so you can more easily create early versions of the model.
Next, you code up a simulation that lets a computer run a model over time, or any other variable. The scientist, engineer or modeler should have collected some data from the real world. That is, given a set of inputs, what outputs are observed over time?
The modeler wants to validate that their model is accurate (or determine how far off from reality it is). So they run their simulation with the real world input. If the simulation produces the same output, one can claim the model is validated for the range of that tested input.
More often than not, there is a difference between the expected (real world) output and what the model’s simulation produces. In most cases, the modeler knows that either some of their assumptions are wrong, their relationship are not correct (bad theory) or they have not included all of the relevant variables.
So they modify their model and simulation and try again. And again, and again... (:-)
Now shift to models of a spreading, new virus. You’ve got billions of people that behave differently, and whose immune systems respond differently to the virus. You’ve got data taken from countries and regions where you don’t understand those differences. The data is unreliable due to incomplete testing, different doctors’ guidance to patients, imperfect logging, and even government behaviors that hide real data for political purposes. And to top it all, you’ve only got an early theory about how the virus works in the body and how it spreads.
No modeler is going to expect a model in that situation to be accurate. The modelers are going to try and build in error bars to reflect the uncertainties in their model. We saw big error bars on TV.
And of course as new data comes in, they are going to update their models in an attempt to increase accuracy. But which part(s) of the model are most in error? Is it how it spreads, the effectiveness of social distancing, or how the virus attacks the body? They are going to do iterations of the model until their output is as close to observed reality as possible. In this case, the mortality rate is probably what they are trying to hit first. But we see beds, ICU and ventilator predictions still off.
My point is, no real modeler was going to trust the 100,000 to 240,000 mortality prediction. You might expect the error bars to capture reality, but with such big error margins, I doubt anyone had much confidence in the model.
My point is, that every modeler hopes and tries to create accuracy. They usually know when their models are not accurate. Did you see anybody interview the modelers and ask them? Of course not. None of them were going to go on national TV and say what they know about their models.
One final thought. Do you think virus propagation and top level medical results (mortality, ICU, etc.) over 30 days is a tougher job than earth environment predictions over 100 years? There are a lot of gullible people out there. Are you one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)