What can we take away from COVID Models

[Boyd Baumgartner]

While it's fun to grab some popcorn and watch the culture wars between the doomsday preppers versus the cosmopolitan anti-vaxxers as a re-imagined WWF Saturday Night Main Event, it's been interesting to watch statistical models get thrown in the spotlight. I like to see how they're framed by officials and news outlets and received by the public as this is probably pretty similar to what we deal with in our industry.

SB.jpg

Steve and Boyd, at last years IAI

Is it an imperfect overlay? Sure. Epidemiology gets the benefit of actual incidents being observed and having a contagion that actually spreads through a population in real-ish time. Fingerprints, in theory spread through a population, but at a much slower rate (birth rate to be exact) and it makes updating models subject to much different timelines. Additionally, there are more precise tests for identifying a virus, namely antibodies, so virology models one up us here too in terms of specificity whereas we get latent impressions instead of antibodies and our identification is constructed by Examiners.

All of that being said, there are some overlapping items. First, models are "..really just fancy estimates, and results vary by what factors the modelers put in. Some models updated on a daily basis may seem disconcerting to average folks searching for certainty." You are what you eat, or garbage in garbage out so to speak.

Secondly, statisticians are like photographers, they fall in love with their models. It's important to remember that statistical models can give a false sense of certainty. This goes back to the quote attributed to George Box that 'All models are wrong, but some are useful'. You could even apply the section of that link on parsimony to the OSAC articulation document if you really wanted to get fancy, but I digress.

Lastly, there's the politics of it all. I'm using politics as a shorthand for evangelism here. Especially as it relates to efficacy. What did it mean to flatten the curve and why would the semantics and goalpost now change?. Is there an equivalent to the statistical models in our own industry other than the fact that such complex models need evangelists to preach their advocacy or rebuke them?


What have you noticed?

[Dr. Borracho]

Boyd asks,

What have you noticed?

I have noticed that we are in the midst of a Darwinian evolutionary event at two levels:

1. Genetic evolution: Wherein those will propogate more who have DNA that resists the nuevo corona virus a little better, whereas those who are more genetically susceptible to the virus will die off at a greater rate and produce fewer offspring.

2. Social evolution: Wherein those whose tribal affiliation leads them to cluster without masks while they scream and sputter spittle on each other as they protest, pick up the nuevo corona virus at a higher rate and remove themselves from the gene pool as an example to survivors who wear their freakin' masks and stay the freak at home.

I asked about this hypothesis to a biologist in our midst who is well known to all and an instructor of many, and she replied,

I think you have it SPOT ON!

[Boyd Baumgartner]

tsk tsk Doc, Social Darwinism is so passé.

You missed out on the millennial populism angle to the story though. The kids are calling it #boomerremover, which covers both your dimensions in one nice convenient hashtag.

Kids....they're so thoughtful.

[Dr. Borracho]

Thin the herd? Cull out the old and sick?
Okay, X-er. Your time's coming, too.