this thread continues the discussion from
http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.ChancesForAPandemic
and
http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.ChanceForAPandemic2
>><<
the data is at:
http://www.fluwikie2.com/uploads/Forum/survey2.doc
it’s in “word-“ format , not computer-readable.
It took me lots of time to convert the data. Here are the values:
probability of pandemic [starting?] within 6 months:
0,0,0,0,0,0,5,5,5,6,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,15,15,
15,17,20,20,20,20,20,20,25,25,25,25,25,25,25,25,25,25,25,
25,25,25,30,30,33,33,40,40,40,40,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,
50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,
50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,55,70,75,75,75,
75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,80,90,100,100
mean=40.4,deviation=23.8
probability of [at least one] a pandemic [starting] within 12 months:
10,10,10,14,15,15,20,20,25,25,25,25,25,25,25,30,30,30,30,40,40,40,
40,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,
50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,60,60,67,70,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,
75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,75,
75,75,75,75,75,80,80,80,80,80,80,80,90,90,90,90,90,100,100,100,100,
100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100
mean=62.2 , deviation=24.3
With random data I would have expected a deviation of 26.2 for X
and 29.9 for Y, so this is only slightly better than random.
Let X be the random variable representing the 1st dataset
and Y the one for the 2nd dataset.
Then - assuming each day has same likelyhood for the start
of a pandemic within 12 months - we would expect the
distribution of Y to be the same as 100-(100-X)*(100-X)/100.
In that case I had an expected mean of 58.8 and 28.3 so people
seem to think that a start of a pandemic in months 7–12 is a bit
more likely than start in months 1–6. As I said, I’d expect the
deviation from expert’s estimates to be smaller and even more
decreasing when they start discussing and improving their estimates.
Guenther,
And all those numbers mean what?
Lily, you needn’t read all the post, i.e. not those about the
statistical details. Read just the conclusions.
I hope that we will finally agree on some conclusions.
My point is, that we should form panels as in 1976
and make the experts give us their estimates for the
probability of a pandemic within some time-range,
say 1 year or 3 years. And also their estimates for
the number of expected deaths.
Most experts refuse to give such estimates with some “we don’t know,
no one can predict this” - excuse and most people here also seem indeed to think that such estimates are useless, where I disagree.
JoeW expects (he even said: this will happen) that expert-estimates
would have too big a spread (deviation,SEM) to be useful and I doubt
this and think this spread could be reduced by subsequent discussion
and new, improved estimates.
I think, we should insist on these estimates and require the politicians
to call for them and fund the little project which won’t cost a lot.
If there are other opinions, I’d like to hear their arguments why this
could be too expensive to be tried or even harmful when the public
gets these data.
These are assumptions GS makes for himself based on no meaningful clinical data. IE, they are b**8shi88. He has these outbursts every so often. I advise you all to study adjustment reactions. The desire for surety is one of the signs that we want something more than news.
Guenther, posting as “anonymous” isn’t fooling any of us who have been around for a while.
Melanie has never come up with any reasonable argument about this
just opposition. She won’t enter a discussion, just disturb a thread.
See the forum archive. (link below)
She seems not to understand a lot about this issue,
see her remarks in this thread.
She said she is risk communicator but apparantly doesn’t want to
communicate the pandemic risk here, relying on some “no data”-excuse.
She still claims to know much better than others how likely a pandemic
is and how much preparation should be done.
She should also clarify about the anonymity and privacy rules of the fluwiki.
Most of the editors and moderators are anonymous too. She resorts to personal
attacks on “Guenther” or gs who had been urged here earlier to
reveal his identity. Apparantly mostly for the purpose of personal
arguing and troll-marking instead of addressing the arguments.
gs had been attacked inappropriately before here and on curevents.
Melany seems to indend to continue on this here.
The old posts had been deleted now but are still available. See:
http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Profiles.Gs
I appreciate Melany’s efforts for the fluwiki and many of her other posts
which are often useful. But I think she is just _wrong_ and unlogical
here about this issue and doesn’t want to admit nor discuss about it.
Melanie, do you think public expert probability estimates are just bad for
the future of the fluwiki or your job as risk-communicator ?
Why don’t you argue about it ? Isn’t the issue itself much more important
than the fluwiki or your job ?
Picking a number, setting a date and predicting the end of the world is a species specific pass time. Such games usually heighten hysteria in the short run and result in a loss of credibility in the long run.
that’s why I want the experts to work on it and not leave it to the Armageddon-prophets
We tend to over prioritize new threats and ignore old threats. A highly publicized serial killer in California raises anxiety in Florida. We Floridians worry about getting murdered while we light up another cigarette.
Pandemic is in the rear view mirror. It bears watching. It will at some point overtake us. Pulling over and running for the hills at this point may be prudent or it may be premature. It is difficult to tell. Therein lays the cause of our anxiety. It may not be possible to know what to do until it is too late. Our survival may, to a large extent, depend on the luck of the draw.
It is interesting that the 45% on flu wiki matches the 40% from here. This paper had 15% probability form flu scientists and 60% from nonscientisits for an aggregate of 40%. But…
For comparison purposes this was the published question.
What is the probability that H5N1 will become an efficient human-to-human transmitter (capable of being propagated through at least two epidemiological generations of affected humans) sometime during the next 3 years?
% sure pandemic will be in next six months (Median = 45%) on the wiki survey. And the estimates were all over the place. Still, the idea is that the crowd is better than the individual expert. But the surveys are too small to get the number you want.
As in all surveys, the question (and the order in which you ask it) is crucial.
IMHO, the only sure thing we know is H5N1 is an issue now, and some flu virus will create the next pandemic. When-who knows?Period.
no, the 45% (mean=40%) is for 6 months while the 40% (mean=39)is for 3 years. And as you say, the question was quite different, even much weaker, although a pandemic without h2h is also possible but somehow unlikely (?). By taking the crowd, you eliminate effects from biased individuals or individuals who don’t say what they really think.
Grace, can you elaborate, what you mean with “period” ?
anonymous – at 08:07 “…and not leave it to the Armageddon-prophets”
But doesn’t that take all the fun out of it?
Seriouslynow; predictions, odds, chances, etc., none are cause effecting and when so many different people have so many different opinions & conclusions, any thing you come up with is just a guess is it not?
EOD, statistics will show the relevance. Numbers were clearly preferred over the unexact predictions being made actually. If numbers were useless, then so were unclear predictions and arguments to justify those.
Hi Grace et al. Interesting conversation.
I think maybe that part of the problem is that emotions sneak into all discussions and predictions in respect to H5N1. Personally, I continually have to reinforce the existing and circumstancial evidence to myself such that I am no dissuaded by my emotions. I can state unequivocally that 100 % of flu wikians do not want a pandemic ever. Unfortunately that sometimes interferes with cool hard scientific logic and analysis.
It should be remembered that a few months ago two virologists stated, without reservation, that H5N1 was one or two mutations away from pandemic potential; one was on the record and one was meant to be kept in private. Other virologists have made the same comment in the context of other discussions. We must assume that, although there is no way to tell because our knowledge is incomplete, there must have been a good reason for a number of scientists to come to the conclusion approx. at the same time.
It should be remembered that these conclusions were made before the geographic expansion of H5N1, and clusters in Turkey, Azerbizan , infections in Egypt, Iraq and Africa etc. In retrospect there predictions in Nov 2005 - Jan 2006 look accurate.
Some don’t like the fact that a scientist would ascribe human intelligence to H5N1, but I think it helps in analyzing and preventing the underestimating of its inherent intelligence. So…lets see what the virus has done in the past 6 months and is doing today.
The infection at Q. Lake started the geographic expansion and new infections are continuing a year later, Guandong Province where H5N1 originally incubated and emerged is also indicating new infections…what this means is that basically the virus has the ability to mutate and change faster than immunity can be acquired to the old strains. This is unusual as a virus that is going away would not hit the same area twice let alone continually over several (9) years.
The virus is entrenched but look where it is entrenching…in countries with Governments and populations that cannot react to remove it….and will never be able to react and remove it. The virus has specifically targeted the segment of the population that will allow it to continue to adapt not only in humans but several other animal species at the same time. There are several countries in the area where there is not only secrecy but no reporting of any kind…countries with no bird flu next to countries with outbreaks…and we have no way to tell or find out what is happening…and the virus is now in Africa where it can continue to incubate silently.
About the time the virologists were stating only two mutations were required, there were a number of skeptics saying that there was a barrier that would prevent a human pandemic. I would be interested in Dr. Butcher et al’s opinion today, from a scientific perspective only, as to what the current opinion of skeptics is now. Is it unchanged or has it been modified in any way.
I believe we are in a transition zone where there are going to be waves of infection and waves of emotion. We don’t want there to be a pandemic and we must ensure that our emotions don’t result in an underestimating of the real risk. It seems Governments and agencies and planners are afflicted with the same problem.
anonymous- I’m interested in the poll of experts, but I think it is mainly a survey of human anxiety levels. I feel my anxiety is confirmed by the experts, regarding timing and fatality estimates. However, having read as much as possible on H5N1, I have come to see how little the experts know themselves about the pandemic process. So this effort of making average expert predictions, does not create a real authority of prediction; it just documents for posterity how right or wrong we are at the current time.
What’s the fatality rate in chickens? If people were birds, what type of bird would we be? Anothers words, who knows how lethal the strain will be for us until we have the strain.
anonymous – at 09:23 - Period meant end of story for me. I can’t deal with overthinking the chances- if I accept 100% chance of a pandemic caused by some flu virus, arrival date unknown then I can deal with things better. I’m prepped as much as I can. Now I work on teaching others in my community.
I guess, what I’m asking is:
Some types of birds die off in large numbers. Why are we so special that worst case scenarios have been placed at only at 1% or 2.5%?
Watch Dog, we’re not. It’s mostly only 1/2.5% because that’s all that TPTB can deal with, wishful thinking not logic IMO.
We really cannot know how bad the next pandemic will or won’t be. Assuming it will be relatively mild could end up being a costly mistake.
Anonymous: You talk about being logical and using logical procedures and yet do not accept the idea that in order for an estimte to be useful it must (from a scientific perspective) be based on operationaly defined highly reliable variables. The logic I displayed for you is not mine it is the result of hundreds of years and thousands of hours of theory generation and empirical validation with “dummy” data and with real world data. Simply put if you want a good estimate you must meet the requirements of science.
Calulating an SD based upon unknown variables is not meaningful. We can use the weight of an individual (among other variables) to predict obesity. We cannot usefully use his neighbors opinion.
TomDVM Teleological reasoning is, a form of reasoning that is often fruitful so long as one does not assume an underlying purposiveness in the universe. At least that is the conclusion from several philosophers of science including Carl Popper (I believe). It is a sophisticated for of thinking that is often misunderstood by those not well trained in the sciences.
Hi GS!
Don’t worry about the chances for a pandemic. It is obvious they are quite large. If we have one, then the chance was 100%, if not 0%.
We can’t know the odds for something we have no historical data on.. .This virus has acted as no other. What can we base the odds on?
When my #4 had to have heart surgery…I asked the surgeon…What are the odds he will…DIE!? He told me 1%. He could tell me that based on thousands of similar surgeries. Even that figure of 1%, probably wasn’t accurate. It may have been much higher in children, that also had other anomalies, such as kidney problems or a genetic defect. The mortality rate would probably have been higher on children from impoverished homes, who may have been malnourished or lived in stressful situations. The 1%, may even have been lower, in a group of children, with a less severe defect. Statisitcs can change, depending on how they ae interpreted…but they all have one thing in common…data! We have none for H5N1. We have to go with what we know now….NO treatment, no medications, no vaccine…and a killer virus.
You are a very smart man. I think you care deeply about us all. I was so glad you were helping review all those sequences, because just maybe it would have been you, who would unlock it’s code. Be proud of what you have to offer…it’s far more than I have to give anyone here! Give yourself back your name…GS or Guenther and be proud of all you have contributed and keep right on doing it! At the same time…keep prepping! My heart isn’t in it right now, but I’m getting ready to drop another boat load of $$$$$ at Sams, anyway!
With regard to your prior comment about odds making note that odds makers do in fact use moderately reliable information (past history. Gambling casinos use known probability theory. If you want to see how well that works look at Las Vagas. All those casinos were built with losers’ money. That is how well it works when you use the principles I previously discussed.
Losers lose because they randomly win, and assume that luck with favor them, in the long run it rarely works out that way. They know the odds of keeping people there for as long as possible and make it as pleasant an experience as possible, good lavish food, comfortable accomadation, extra oxygen pumped in and no clocks. Its the odds, but only because people are foolish enough to imagine they are special. (Only a very few can do it). I don’t know what the odds here mean, as far as the time frame. For businesses and governments it seems that they can prioritize better, for us, I don’t know. I do know that I feel immobilized sometimes. I think and think and think this over, not because of statistics, but the human element, and how life could change. Naturally I am comfortable while I do this, but those poor souls in Indonesia are the ones caught in the middle of natures manifestations. Yet on the whole I think they aren’t immersed in this as we are, but live day to day. In the end they are better equiped to handle this in that way. They could have projected, prepared, and what difference would it have made in the long run.
Ah, yes, the old “probability of a pandemic” debate. I know it well. This is a very tough nut to crack. The idea of polling to arrive at an average probability estimate is a strategy that works well when there is a well defined data set that feeds into the debate and people can agree that this is what to base their estimates on. The idea here is that the “wisdom of the crowd” represented by the average estimate is going to be better than most individual’s personal estimates.
The problem is that every so often emotional biases creep into the system and estimates start heading for the extremes. I think this is one of those situations, but it is still an important exercise anyway. Why? Because we need to keep the question in the forefront, to stimulate debate, so that people will constantly strive to a) look for better/more data; b) question/examine assumptions underlying the data and the questions; and c) examine their own opinions and others for the aforementioned biases. In other words, this process becomes very much like a communal science project.
This is healthy. I think it has leant additional motivation to the scientists working for the WHO and CDC and other organizations to continually refine their strategies, to give us newer and better data. Take, for example, the continual and growing demand that people make the gene sequences publicly available. Why? Because those are good data, and more data lead to better inferences. Take as another example the continuing demand for updated serological data. Why? Same reason. Take as yet another example the continual demand of the WHO and others that reporting be made more transparent. Same reason again.
So while we debate this question (What is the probability of a pandemic?) don’t get lost in the emotionality of the question itself, just keep reminding yourselves that the reason to ask the question is not to get an immediate and correct answer, but is rather to illuminate the inadequacies of our own knowledge, to underscore what we need to place the correct emphasis on. The debate and the answers will be continually updated.
With any luck, by having a vigorous debate we will end up correctly anticipating the onset of the pandemic itself, rather than being caught off guard. Or maybe it’ll never happen, in which case we’ve dodged a major bullet. But we won’t we able to say either way until after the threat has passed (which it may never do).
Anonymous, we use numbers for many purposes and not all of these uses are scientific. Just becasue you collect data, it does not make the data useful. If I ask you if you would let a black man live next store it tells me about your prejudices not about the actual event. When you ask people the likelihood of a pandemic, what are you really asking about?
Michael Donnelly makes a good point and that is what we are doing, IMO. Keep the problem up front and look at it. Look for better ways to determine what is going on and what we can do about it. The estimates, currently are useful. The process is priceless.
Should be the estimates are useless not useful. Typing to fast as usual.
I agree, the threat will be with us a long time after this, if nothing else because of the emotional effects on survivers, and possible physical manifestations that remain( neurological). If it does play out and humans die off as the birds do now, the herd will have been effectively thinned, but at what a horrific cost. Thanks Micheal for your analysis of the rational behind this debate. G.S. has a mathemeticians mind, and will always look at numbers. Others of us being almost completly intuitive in our thought processes, I am in that group. Then the happier blend of both and all the graduations in between. Perhaps with all these together something worth while can emerge.
Morning Lily, you always make my day better, including surprising insights into who you are as a person.
Lily, JoeW, that’s the idea, and I resist dumping on , yelling at or banning our anonymous friend because of it. He actually contributes invaluable insight, ;-)
bump
Some food for thought and my unsolicitated opinion… ;)
Kurzweil’s Law http://tinyurl.com/m8a2c
More of a generic theory on evolution, but interesting in its application to technology…
But to biology and chance: A successful mutation, assuming favorable chaos within the environment, will take off at an exponential rate. That much everyone can agree - that new successful populations of a species - explode. (Ex. rabbits in Oz, tree snakes in SE Pacific, or zebra mussels in the US Great Lakes, etc.)
But there is no certain time frame for this to occur. We understand and comprehend ones that occur with our lifespans best, but the flu outdates all of us.
Taking the “S curve” model - where are we? Has the curve yet to begin? Or has it been in motion since before 1918?
How can we know this? Can we guess at human behavior, weather, and mutative opportunity? Sure. But I can’t imagine that we really know whether we are before the onset of the explosive curve - or whether it is already started because just the existance of the strain may be a forgone conclusion that it will stumble across a mutation enabling that “explosion”.
In short, our view or scope of time is so minute, (days, seasons and years vs. decades, centuries and epochs) - that to draw a predictive tangent line - we can only take what is measurable and place it in some scale we can comprehend.
But we have to recall that our scope is critically limited. Thus, using past events to predict future events (to any degree of precision) is like drawing a tangent line to a point.
That isn’t to say, that we won’t be able to look back, like folks have since 1919, and learn more about the spread and evolution of viruses and tell ourselves, “Hey, we should’ve known “x”…”
However, it is unfair to anyone to create “percentages of likelyhood” based on summations of “gut feel” because it ignores historical perspective and relies upon the very momentary impression of the mind (regardless of how advanced their opinion).
That’s right: the purpose of doing science isn’t to get perfect answers/knowledge, it’s to start from the best answers/knowledge possible given the current data, and then to get incrementally better answers knowledge over time by refining the data and our explanations of them. Sooner or later you’ll reach a point where your answers/knowledge are “good enough” in a pragmatic sense, i.e. they become something you can act on with confidence.
In a way this is a process I was hoping to put in place for the questions of effective preventives and treatments with my Open Access Database proposal, but I’m thinking that may be unrealistic after all. But, all the same, in a sense we’re already there with a lot of questions about the h5N1/bird flu. Indeed, the FluWikie can only exist because we do have some good knowledge. It’s just that with the particular question of the probability of a pandemic, we’re operating at “the hairy edge” as I like to call it, and emotions can get the better of us. Still, it doesn’t mean it’s an insoluable problem in principle, at least not IMHO.
TTFN
Michael Donnelly – at 14:45
I agree and I don’t discount the pursuit of knowledge either. It’s just predicting -anything in detail - from a useful distance in time is hairy business.
To have a useful prediction, you need as complete as is useful past information, a complete picture in current time, AND a thorough understanding of how the “predictable process” functions. Otherwise you aren’t too much better than a bunny who woke up on an alien ship lost in space trying to drive to Alburqueque… or any Chicago weatherman.
(And these guys have historical data, present radar imagery, and a decent understanding of weather as a process - but chaos always stumps them to the point that somedays, 100% chance of rain falls flat.)
Q-man- re: “Kurzweil’s Law http://tinyurl.com/m8a2c
Each paradigm follows an “S-curve,” which consists of slow growth (the early phase of exponential growth), followed by rapid growth (the late, explosive phase of exponential growth), followed by a leveling off as the particular paradigm matures.
The other required resource is the “chaos” of the environment in which the evolutionary process takes place and which provides the options for further diversity. In biological evolution, diversity enters the process in the form of mutations and ever- changing environmental conditions”
My heart kinda stopped when I read this..in the context of Indonesia…..the environment certainly has chaos now..the curve is about right……
You’re asking the likelihood of a pandemic in a certain time frame?
1. What data set are you basing your estimate models on? Only a handful of meaninful data sets exist on flu pandemics. Record keeping in 1918 was pretty sketchy, so the data is circumspect.
2. How are you validating the data that you collect? The question itself merits scientific (or at least objective) evidence, but you seem to be conducting a personal opinion poll ala McLean’s magazine
The chances of a pandemic coming? 100% This year in birds: 100% This year in people: 1–99%
Hi Grace, I seem to be following on your heels lately: a good place to be.
This thread is getting more interesting by the minute. One side of the argument I disagree with is that we have little information to go on. I respectfully disagree.
H5N1 has been known since the 1950′s so we know pretty well what it did for the first forty-years…and then we have phase 11…what it has done since 1996 when it became the precursor to the unprecedented (mortality rates) virus it is today. We have nine years of solid data to work with, albeit incomplete, that has been more than enough to make a reasonable prediction of future events.
On top of that more evidence, released six months ago for the first time, indicates that this virus is virtually identical in phentotypic expression to H1N1 in 1918 (previous to Sept 2005 it was thought that pigs had to be involved as an intermediary step). Therefore, we have that historical data as well to work with…
…I think the argument should be reversed…at this point the onus should be on the skeptics to give us a shred of evidence as to why a pandemic is not in our near future.
The valid question is not whether we will have a pandemic. That question has been answered…the answer is yes.
The real questions are when and how bad and the how bad question has probably been answered as well.
Grace RN – at 15:31
Yes. It does.
But, take heart that, as far as we know, it isn’t a certain and forgone conclusion.
Yes, a thin rationalization - but all I’ve got right now. :)
Ironically, when I pasted that segment in - I was attempting to illustrate that though we know of models to follow in evolution that are predictable - it all still relies on a degree of complete randomness to “ignite”… but randomness is - by definition - unpredictable… like a dandelion seed falling on a landmine… (unless it’s my lawn the landmine sits in - then I’m screwed.)
Anyway…
anonymous- Can you come up with a probability on your own, perhaps by asking different questions? Or working with a different set of people? I don’t know- that’s why I’m asking. I just think that you might try a different approach and get answers that are more helpful to you. I am the last person in the world to advise someone on statistics or probabilities, but I do see you getting more frustrated, which isn’t going to make people give you any more helpful answers. If you can’t beat the info out that you want, maybe you could coax it out in smaller bits and then put it together yourself.
lugon starts an inmersion process to really, really try and look at things through the eyes of someone who insists in getting probabilities.
Ok, so I want the experts to tell me how likely they think a pandemic would be in the next year, and how likely they think a bad pandemic would be in the next year. The questions are presented in two rounds. On the first day, each question has 5 possible answers: “0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, 76–100%, I don’t know”. A few days later, the same questions but the answers don’t have the “I don’t know” and they are urged to give exactly one number, even if totally unsure (and then another question pops up asking how sure they are). They are told they can try one reply, leave it written for one hour, then look back at it and try another, etc. But they must provide a reply or else they will have their toenails uprooted without anesthetics.
Let’s assume we already have those numbers. Some widely respected person has sent the above questions to a huge panel of scientists and other people who have been looking into the data (and lack of it) from past pandemics and the present situation. They are virologists, epidemiologists, public health people, reputed members from the press, risk communicators, and also a hundred from fluwikie’s most frequent posters, and another hundred from other sites. All in all, we asked the above questions to five thousand people, making sure they knew their responses would be totally anonymised. No countries or ages or field - just a world-wide compilation of their replies (or maybe not?).
It would be interesting to have those replies. Replies might be close to one another or not; they might be close to one another but with a low degree of confidence; they might be widely different but with lots of self-confidence; there are quite a few combinations. We would then get into the issue of believing the value of such replies: if 10% of the experts say it would be soon and hard, but the remaining 90% speak out differently, then what do we do? And yes, I agree that if 90% agree it will be both soon and hard, then that’s a group recommendation we can’t ignore.
I guess what I’m getting at is:
lugon is exhausted after this exercise of trying to see a different point of view. Not sure if succeded. Move forward or park it on the side?
On the other hand, it may well happen that this issue is not about probabilities at all. What do “probabilities” imply? Are there other ways to look at the world without using probabilities?
My brain hurts a bit, but I remember this book about the nature of chaos, where the author described a two-sloped roof as seen from above. Such a roof is really a square with a straight line across the square. It’s easy to see that if a ball is placed on one side, the ball will fall towards that side; likewise for the other side.
Now, if we place the ball directly on the line then we can’t predict too well, because we can’t measure where the line and the ball are relative to each other. So the lack of accuracy of our measurement forces us to accept that there’s a stripe of uncertainty on both sides of the straight line. Such a stripe is really narrow if our measurement tools are really good.
Now, imagine the line is not a straight one, but a winding one. Worse still, a fractal one. One that changes direction all over the square. Then the uncertainty stripe covers maybe 90% of the whole square.
It may be the case that some very real things behave in such a way that we must say “boy, this is inherently unpredictable”.
I don’t know if this is the case, of course, because I’m not even a demi-god.
:-?
Even gods didn’t know outcomes. They watched, and threw their weight in to alter events and outcomes, But they often outsmarted themselves, and just screwed things up for their favorites. Being the favorite of a god is not always good fortune.
Perhaps we need a reader of entrails. I see that we have finished off May without the earthquakes in southern California, that a Filipino seer predicted.
I think many are missing an important factor.
Thread like these are helpful to people who have not finished prepping, like myself, because we are trying to figure out:
A. Do we max out all the credit cards today?
or
B. Do we slowly prep over the next year or two?
or
C. Somewhere in between?
Even though there is never an answere to a thread like this one, this thread helps me to decide how fast to prep. And right now I’m prepping as fast as my spare cash will allow. If I hit a “tipping Point” then I would put supplies on a credit card to survive.
Lily,
“Even gods didn’t know outcomes” Well said.
lugon,
“On the other hand, it may well happen that this issue is not about probabilities at all. What do “probabilities” imply? Are there other ways to look at the world without using probabilities?”
You are right, of course. It is not about probability but about how much certainty we need in our daily lives to feel secure.
anonymous,
When you go to bed every night, what is your probability estimate that you will wake up and still be alive tomorrow? Do you calculate that every night? If not, why not? Isn’t that the most important question, whether you will be alive to see another day?
If you can live for however many years you have lived multiplied by 365 etc, so many many times you have missed this most important question, what makes you think the probability estimate of a pandemic is more important?
If you can live with not knowing whether you will be alive tomorrow, can you live with not knowing the probability of a pandemic?
I offer these questions in all sincerity for your wellbeing.
In other words, how much time do I have because I’m not ready. I know there’s no answere but it still helps to hear what people have to say. One side makes me fell good about my prepping and the other side makes me feel good because I know I’m not ready yet.
When I am stumped for an answer I either flip a coin, or say things like if the light turns red, I’ll do this, and if green I won’t. It works almost half of the time.
I agree with Tom DVM at 15:44. The onus should be on the skeptics to disprove that H5N1 is not “it”. Whereas we who acknowledge the likelihood of this particular strain of panflu have the data, the timing, and the momentum on our side of the ledger.
And we are not ghouls who would welcome this catastrophe whereas it is a very basic human instinct to shrink from a horrible reality.
That very basic instinct to “wall off death” is skewing the probabilities to the downside. And by not taking that final step of accepting panflu’s near certainty you are allowed not to feel certain feelings or required to take certain actions that you are currently putting off.
Watch Dog – at 16:54
I think there is an inherent value to forming your own informed position. Regardless of what great arguments we all come up with, a person will need to be prepared to some degree based upon their own sense of risk.
The reason I say so is because - like the virus infestations we’ve seen - opinions on this matter come in clusters.
Either you better start digging a 3rd basement or go out and kiss your neighborhood poultry. Overall there is a balanced view point, but, if taken the wrong way, a thread like this has as much potential to misdirect you as inform you.
Coming to this thread (or any other one asking for divination (scientific or metaphysical)) on a “bad” day or a “good” day may skew your view.
So - to anyone reading this thread: keep in mind this is an academic discussion and probability is just the chance something will happen - not the certainty.
FWIW.
And if I don’t like what the coin or the traffic light tells me, I do exactly the opposite, and take the risk of being wrong on my own.I know if I don’t like the chance toss of the coin that it is the wrong answer.
This is more than academic. To me it’s a life and death situation. I believe the pandemic is coming, I just don’t know when. I’d like to think that I will have enough time to finish prepping so I come here for motivation and peace of mind.
Then you should give anonymous an estimate. Your own.
Just a small consideration on mathematics I recall from astronomy. After all we are working on a very small-scale organism and a very big world it is part of, like the Earth in the Universe.
The Earth orbits roughly 93 million miles from the Sun in vastly empty space. But in 1908 a comet exploded in an airburst 6 to 10 kilometers above the Earth’s surface over Tunguska, Russia with the energy of between 10 and 15 megatons of TNT. It felled an estimated 60 million trees over 2,150 square kilometers. Two hours later and it would have been over Europe instead of uninhabited swamps and steppes. What were the odds?
The point of this is just because there likelihood of something occurring seems remote that does not stop it from occurring in Nature. None of us wants a pandemic, and the odds of just the right combination seem nearly impossible to bring together.
Somehow things do come together, however. Sometimes we dodge the bullet by as little as a couple of hours. If we are to be an adult race mankind has to learn from experiences and relate those experiences to other aspects of life before bad things happen.
How fast does the H5N1 virus replicate itself in a host cell? How many host cells is it occupying at any given moment? How many of those hosts cells may be infected by another less deadly but more human-compatible virus that could recombine in that host? How many of those virus will be able to spread to another susceptible host? The odds would seem pretty staggering, except that as the numbers keep going up, even with a minute chance for a “hit”, when enough combinations are tried one is going to unlock the prize and a fully transmissible human-to-human H5N1 stain will be in the world.
Then the numbers won’t matter any more about probability. The concern will then be how long until it plays itself out.
Would it not be wonderful if everything in life where black and white. However, it is not. All those who live in a world of logic and numbers need to come to turms with the qray space. In this matter, the gray space outweighs the black and white. Incomplete information and to many varibles are the problem. Let’s not forget the human influence. Good luck if you still feel the need to calculate. At this point, I’ve gone back to animal instinct. gina
Lily - at 16:39
What “earthquake in southern California, that a Filipino seer predicted”?? Good god woman, don’t jinx us! We’ve still got a day and a half before the month is over! ;-)
(Not worried though, I’m prepped to the gills for a little old earthquake. a measly 2 weeks without aid? kid stuff)
I would suggest our “warrior anonymous stubborn probabilist” (wasp?) two courses of action:
Truly sorry. I thought there were only 30 days in May. On the New Year of the Dog?? I googled up a lot of predictions. That was one of them.I don’t even recall the others.
What is the chance for a May 31st?
It’s always kind of comforting to review old predictions of doom that never came to pass.
Actually it predicted a lot of earthquakes and volcanic erruptions. So we had those in Indonesia in May. I’m sure the Filopino seer counts it as a slight miscalculation in his vision.
May 31st hasn’t happened yet so I say there’s a 1 to 99% chance.
I’m with Lugon, lets take this seriously for a while.
First if you simply ask people the chances of a pandemic and they provide an answer we do not know what they are basing their prediction on. Therefore, the estimate is nothing more than the average intuition. At this point, it makes little difference if the people we are asking are layman or “experts.” If you can’t tell me what you are basing your estimate on then we do not know what we are measuring; your fear, your intuitive knowledge, or some data set that only you have access to (This approach was abandoned when we left religion for the scientific method). In order for the estimate to be meaningful and useful, we need to know what you are using to predict.
Let us assume the people say that they are using the history of virus progression and that they can tell us that viruses evolve in some specified way over some specified time. Fine we have some thing to work with. Now can you tell me how similar is H5N1 to other viruses and we learn that H5N1 is indeed similar. In this case, we do not need an “expert” we need access to the data. Are the prior findings reliable and general enough to create a post hoc prediction of an epidemic? Can we create some form of regression or other type of multivariate model that accounts for a large portion of the variance in prediction?
In this way, we could predict if there will be an epidemic in a country under some set of specified conditions. A pandemic is another problem. We would need the data on at least the last pandemic and how it spread, time frames, and then interpolate to day’s potential mechanisms and populations.
All of these things can be done and perhaps should be done. In fact, I would bet that someone, somewhere is doing it. The answer will not come from asking experts unless we buy into the pattern recognition model.
JoeW,
“Let us assume the people say that they are using the history of virus progression and that they can tell us that viruses evolve in some specified way over some specified time. Fine we have some thing to work with. Now can you tell me how similar is H5N1 to other viruses and we learn that H5N1 is indeed similar. In this case, we do not need an “expert” we need access to the data. Are the prior findings reliable and general enough to create a post hoc prediction of an epidemic? ”
Your approach is sound in theory, but the problem, as I have always said but never managed to convince our friend-who-chooses-to-become-anonymous, is that we do not have the data. Not that we do not have the RAW data, but we do not have similar precedence to help us interpret the data.
Estimating probability requires information on previous similar events. their outcomes, and clear correlation between the two eg if x then y. For example, we know that drinking is associated with increased risk of motor accidents. With plenty of data from prior accidents, we can say that if your blood alcohol is above a particular level, then your chance of having an accident is increased by such and such a percent.
We can do the same thing for other risk/contributing factors. For example, can you predict someone’s income at 35 from their IQ at 12? If you have enough data of IQ, income etc, and there is clearly documented proof of correlation, then yes, you can calculate the probability of someone having a particular income if you know their IQ. Both of these examples are dependent on sufficient prior data PLUS demonstration of clear correlations before you can make such predictions.
With H5N1, the situation is unprecedented. The world has never been able to observe the behaviour of an avian virus adapting to different species in real time. Since there was no precedence for the current observed events, we cannot use these events to tell us what is the likelihood of a pandemic, at least not with the degree of accuracy or confidence to call it ‘probability estimate’.
The best we could do is just intuitive educated guesses, but that does not seem to satisfy ‘anonymous’.
Lugon, JoeW, et all.
OK - I was taking it seriously, but let me put Lugon’s marvelous hat of perspective changing…
ouch - it’s small… ;)
Ok, I find it difficult to add anything someone hasn’t already said. My, this hat is great!
But really, maybe there is something to sampling these questions over time. If it was kept random and included regular folks (for an emotional baseline), then it may have some merit.
I could see some value in noting th ebb and flow of the predictions correlated to news worthy and unnoticed events…
ok - hat burning…
FWIW
I understand the statement that we don’t know because H5N1 is unprecedented as annon 22 stated.
But honestly, I do not understand how anyone could look at the 1918 similarities which in my mind are unbelievably similar, the events from 1996–2006 and then correlate them with the number of times that this virus has made…”liars out of all of us” (retiring head of CDC in Asia I think).
How many times have we been told it is eradicated or other heard of this viruses quick demise. Each time the experts have been proven wrong.
If the virus is endemic (entrenched) as stated by the WHO. It ain’t leaving and will have it’s effect on humans at some point in the future…one way or another.
Excellent point, Tom. Something I have been wondering about too. My question has and remains to be:
What is the percentage that this flu is going to “die out” on its own at this point in the game?? I know we don’t have firm stats on this, but we do have records on flu activity in the past. Based on this, how many flus have died out after reaching the limited H2H level?
If the answer is zero, then we know this one isn’t going out either. If we know that, then we know this thing has a hundred percent chance of going pandemic.
If we can take some of the data from the 1918 pandemic, maybe we could figure out how long it took between family clusters (no sustained H2H) and the REAL thing. This information has to be available - I would think. It happened in 1918 - not hundreds of years ago.
I would think that this would be a good data model to replicate for prediction purposes.
I liked the question “if people were birds, what kind of birds would we be?” Personally, with house guests arriving and the bathrooms not clean yet, I’d have to say I’m a grouse. (Sure don’t want to be a swan these days!) :)
Janet. Exactly…I couldn’t have said it any better.
Tom and Janet,
Let’s not go back to talking about how some people are flu-deniers. What we are talking about on this thread is whether it is possible to give a numbered probability estimate.
Despite what we know about 1918, 1968 etc, we do not have any quantitative data as to what the viruses were doing prior to the start of the pandemic. Since we do not have information about what (and how much ie quantitative data) had to happen before, we cannot compare it to what is happening today to give an estimate of the chances at a particular point in time, which is what is being asked here.
This is not a flu problem, or policy problem, or credibility or moral problem. This is a problem of not having comparable precedence.
Janet,
“If we can take some of the data from the 1918 pandemic, maybe we could figure out how long it took between family clusters (no sustained H2H) and the REAL thing. This information has to be available - I would think. It happened in 1918 - not hundreds of years ago.”
What we know about 1918 was mostly AFTER it had already achieved efficient h2h. There are some scattered stories about the year before but those are very hazy.
In any case, even if we do know, that is only a sample of one pandemic. To make real probability estimates, you would need larger samples.
AND you would need to find ALL the instances where the virus behaved in a certain way (and I don’t even know what parameter to measure!) and find out how many of these instances resulted in a pandemic. Unless we know this, we cannot say ‘if the virus does x amount of this then it will have y chance of causing a pandemic by such and such a date.’
annon 22. Who said anything about “flu-deniers. Who said anything about a policy problem or a credibility problem or a moral problem.
Science, for all eternity, has been based on speculation…no speculation - no science.
The problem we have had for the past ten years is regulatory actions based on poor science. Maybe they should have been doing a little more speculation to realize that just because high pathogenic viruses all worked one way in the past was not a garuntee that they would work one way in the future.
Everyone one all sides of the issue must speculate…the problem is one side won’t come to the table and the WHO public relations people won’t come on flu wiki because their positions are indefensible…we would eat them for lunch.
“This is a problem of not having comparable precedence”
This reminds me of different historical events where a leader had “vision”. It is times like this that true leaders have “vision” and step forward to lead people to safety. It’s hard to be a leader in times like this because….”This is a problem of not having comparable precedence”
Only time will resolve this one.
Tom,
“the problem is one side won’t come to the table and the WHO public relations people won’t come on flu wiki” These ARE the flu-deniers. However that’s not the point.
I am all for speculating. But, this thread asked a very specific question, what is the probability estimate etc etc.
My point is it is not possible to get such exact parameters. That coming up with percentage in numbers creates a false sense of precision that does not exist. And that it is not beneficial to personal wellbeing to be obsessed with chasing such numbers from ‘experts’.
Most people reading this thread have a sense of heightened danger, enough for them to take action and do a lot of things. Most also admit to a lot of uncertainty.
That is probably the healthiest approach. And I’m not saying you’re not like that, just trying to send a message (for the umpteenth time) to our anonymous friend to let go of this chase.
As Dem would say, “Plan for the worst; hope for the best.”
Without numbers.
Watch Dog,
“This reminds me of different historical events where a leader had “vision”. It is times like this that true leaders have “vision” and step forward to lead people to safety. It’s hard to be a leader in times like this because….”This is a problem of not having comparable precedence”
Only time will resolve this one.”
You’ve hit it on the head. True leaders do NOT need to wait for such calculations to realize its time to take the lead.
Deniers or procrastinators hide behind numbers.
Watch Dog. I agree. We also don’t have comparable precedence for an asteroid or global warming but just because they don’t have the precedence, doesn’t mean I am going to stand still while it’s coming in.
There are lots of events without precedence….think Asian Tsunami. Man, if we are only going to consider indisputable evidence based on historical precedent, we are in BIG trouble…
…and if we are going to put science in a corner where we are not allowed to speculate…the human race is finished.
Scientists have made amazingly correct predictions about the nature of the universe based on mathematics, theory, and intuition. These predictions were later borne out by direct observation. Let’s not sell ourselves short on “seeing” to the end of this process that is in play.
“Comparable precedence” did not short-circuit the accuracy of their predictions.
Given the above, the chances for a H5N1 panflu are either “yes” or “no”, no inbetween.
Tom & MM,
you guys still don’t get my point. I ame NOT proposing we should wait for evidence, but the OPPOSITE. We should NOT have to be perfectly sure to ACT AS IF A PANDEMIC IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
anon_22: Roger, Okay. : )
:-)
Olymom – at 23:04
“if people were birds, what kind of birds would we be?”
I asked this question because in chickes it seems bird flu is close to 100% lethal. And other bird species have a better survival rate. I’ve read that it is not in the bird flu’s best interests to kill it’s host but there are a lot of other species for it to thrive in and who is to say that we won’t be the chickens?
So I wonder….“if people were birds, what kind of birds would we be?”
The form of speculation used by science is the creation of hypotheses that can be tested. Hypotheses are usually based on descriptions or vague hunches from the creative mind.
We could collect data on the number of clusters preceding the 1918 Flu. From this description we could hypothesize and test to determine if there were xx clusters preceding the 1958 and 1968 pandemics (?) not sure what to call them.
We could collect information on the exponential growth of clusters preceding the 1918 pandemic and then hypothesize that this growth pattern would predict the 1958 and 1968 pandemics.
We could determine how quickly the pandemic moved from place to place in 1918 and then hypothesize a similar move for 1958 and 1968.
If there are no data from 1918, we could track influenza outbreaks for different years and form hypotheses for similar conditions for epidemic outbreaks of regular influenza.
Some of this data must have been collected in the past, if only for the development and spread of “regular” influenza.
I would think that epidemiologists would have tracked hospitalizations and other types of variables, such as treatments and their effects. Simply knowing the dates of hospitalization tells us a great deal about the development of any influenza epidemic.
Does anyone know where this data might be stored.
The H5N1 Pandemic may be unlike any other epidemic but it does seem that it shares some communalities and that we could study these common factors that preceded prior epidemics.
I am not suggesting that numbers be used to deny anything. Perhaps they can be used to get some “better” ideas concerning when H5N1 is likely to hit and how quickly it is likely to spread under prior conditions.
I can see Anon_22’s point (is she really only 22 years old – I guess that is not PC. It is cute!) but I suspect that there may be more data out there and that someone has already analyzed it.
/:-}
From psychological studies of “good” leaders it has been found that they are not necessarily all that bright. They are consensus builders and are exceptionally good at collecting all available information from the best available sources and then having the uncanny ability to act on it at the right time. The point is that good leaders need good data, the more the better.
With regard to “regular” influenza, I believe that new flu shots are needed annually because each year there is a new (genetically mutated ?) strain. There must be at least 80 odd strains of influenza available for study. Reviewing the development and spread of these “non-lethal” versions would provide useful infoamtion.
None of this suggests or implies that there is nothing to prepare for. It does sugest that maybe we could get a better idea of what will develop by looking at what has happened.
JoeW, thought you might find this interesting…maybe a few others too:-)
“Vaccinate or not? Treat or not? Study looks at tricky health decisions”
Imagining things from another’s perspective may help in making medical choices
……….ANN ARBOR, Mich. — “If a deadly bird flu reaches America, which would you choose: To get a risky experimental vaccine now, or to forego that risk but face an even greater risk of dying in the epidemic? What would you choose for your child? What if you were in charge of public health for your community?
A new study probes how we make such tricky decisions, and how our decisions might change dramatically if we step back and put ourselves in the shoes of others.
The findings may help individuals who face tough health choices, and decision-makers who make choices for larger groups. It may also help illuminate situations where individuals make medical decisions that go against the advice from experts and authorities, and help guide doctors in advising patients…”
more… http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/uomh-von052506.php
Neat study, Thanks MaMa. I have always believed in asking my physician what he would do if it were him (in my case) or his family member if the decision applies to my family. In this way I get his professional and personal opinion. The study certainly highlights the emotional reactions we have from or different prspectives and attendant responsibilities.
Hopefully, most people have enough sense to obtain multiple perspectives and learn to listen to the “less unemotional” opinions of others.
“They are consensus builders and are exceptionally good at collecting all available information from the best available sources and then having the uncanny ability to act on it at the right time.”
Ok, so lets say the time is now and you are the leader. People have turned to you and have asked you:
What is the “Chance for a Pandemic”? As a leader, how do you respond to your people right here and right now? Of course you have collected all available information from the best sources. How will you use your uncanny ability to act on it? What is your response as a great leader?
I have an easy out, I am not a great leader and have always refused all positions of leadership when offerred.
As an ordinary guy, I would say — “Its gonna happen and sooner rather than later.” That is as specific as I can get.
In defference to the young in spirit Anon_22 I am actually an “old guy” of 62.
JoeW
I thought it would be a good question for everyone because I think we all struggle to provide leadership to anyone reguarding birdflu. It’s a much harder question if you imagine that you have to respond as a leader.
Well. I can’t say I have refused all positions, I have been elected to a few. But I can unequivocally say I am not a good (let alone great) leader.
anon_22 – at 23:30
Deniers or procrastinators hide behind numbers.
yeah, and physicists hide behing math ;-)
Where would science,economics be without numbers ?
JoeW – at 01:37
Its gonna happen and sooner rather than later.
if giving numbers to estimate this is meaningless,
then statements like this are even more meaningless.
Yeah, I got that and I was just kidding around — sorry did not mean to rain on your parade. It is a good question. If I really was that great leader, I think I would quit and run away becasue I doubt that I could carry the weight of making that decision. If I could not run away, I would be conservative and do whatever it takes to save as many people as possible. More information is needed. Where are my consorts ?>???
anonymous – at 01:47
Ok, so lets say the time is now and you are the leader. People have turned to you and have asked you:
What is the “Chance for a Pandemic”? As a leader, how do you respond to your people right here and right now? Of course you have collected all available information from the best sources. How will you use your uncanny ability to act on it? What is your response as a great leader?
Medical Maven – at 23:32
‘’Scientists have made amazingly correct predictions about the nature of the universe based on mathematics, theory, and intuition. These predictions were later borne out by direct observation. Let’s not sell ourselves short on “seeing” to the end of this process that is in play.
“Comparable precedence” did not short-circuit the accuracy of their predictions. ‘’
yes.
Given the above, the chances for a H5N1 panflu are either “yes” or “no”, no inbetween.
ahh, no.
Watchdog, 50% for a H5N1 pandemic within 10 years
Where are my consorts ?>??? :)
Interesting times to say the least.
so many posts, I can not answer them all.
I still disagree with many posts but I also feel our
views are approaching.
No data : we do have some data about H5N1. We even have the complete
genetic code.
There are many problems with fewer data where we are making
predictions and nobody would ever get the idea to say there
were no data. E.g. sport events or share prices.
We don’t need 5000 estimates, just 50 and not from fluwikians
but from experts. We already have evidence that people here
estimate the pandemic probability much higher than experts.
e.g. Tuft’s experts vs. “experts”, the fluwiki survey vs.
Webster’s “even chance” (no time frame) (“most scientists believe
that Webster’s 50% could be too high”)
If giving numbers for probability estimates were meaningless,
then all the other unclearly worded predictions must be
meaningless too. Yet these are made frequently in interviews.
anon_22, we do know what the 1968 virus came from. It reassorted
from known previous viruses.
no comments yet on the main point :
Why it was possible in 1976 to give expert estimates
and even was recommended in its aftermath to refine these
by additional questions , and why this should not be possible
in 2006, when the threat is much bigger and the dataset much larger.
Why can’t we form the panels now as was done in 1976 ?
anonymous – at 01:54
You response was clear and to the point. That’s exactly how it should of been answered.
What makes you think that “experts” can forcast a pandemic? Have they had any successes in the past? Is there a track record? Are you asking “experts” to gamble with the lives of 6 billion people?
Whay have you not addressed this post?
The SEE (standard error of estimate) is derived from the dispersion of scores within a distribution and yields information about the location of a particular score. That is it tells us how far a person’s estimate is likely to deviate from the measure of central tendency (usually the mean).
The SEM (Standard Error of Measurement) is derived based upon the reliability of the measuring device. It answers the question, “Do we get the same measurement each time we measure?” It is used to determine if one is measuring “length” with a “rubber ruler” or with a “stainless steel ruler.”
One uses some set of variables to construct an estimate of a pandemic. These variables constitute a measuring device and we would have to determine (or at least consider) the reliability of the device used to measure. In general, it is known that one must have devices with rtt >.89 to be useful. To achieve this level of reliability all variables used in the construction must be quite reliable or there must be a lot of items with moderate levels of reliability and a small SEE. A lot is here defined as 16+ items (variables).
To determine the usefulness of any estimate we need to now what is being used and the reliability of the observations. At this time neither of these conditions are being met and what we have is “pattern recognition.” In which the variables are not identified, per se but in which some people are better at seeing the pattern than others. Who these people are is not necessarily constrained to virologists and epidemiologists. There could be others and policy maker need to listen to those who have been good at forecasting in the past. Hell, it might be a gypsy for all I know and the person probably does not use a numerical estimate. They just say “its gonna happen.” On hindsight we find they were right and we do not know (and neither do they) which variables they used.
Simply put we need better data.
You read it as you found the data referred to. You want to argue for the sake of argument. Two can play that stupid game.
>Anonymous: You talk about being logical and using logical
>procedures and yet do not accept the idea that in order
>for an estimte to be useful it must (from a scientific perspective)
>be based on operationaly defined highly reliable variables.
I never heard about this. Do you have any referrence ?
Nor do I see any reason why “variables”
should be necessary. What kind of variables BTW. ?
>The logic I displayed for you is not mine it is the result
>of hundreds of years and thousands of hours of theory generation
>and empirical validation with dummy data and with real world data.
then I suspect, you interpret the impletations incorrectly.
>Simply put if you want a good estimate you must meet the
>requirements of science.
maybe you can give an example of what exactly you mean ?
>Calulating an SD based upon unknown variables is not meaningful.
SD = standard deviation ? But we have no standard normal distribution
here
>We can use the weight of an individual (among other variables)
hmm, variable is what is usually known as “random variable” in math-texts,
i.e. just a function from the sample space into the reals ?
>to predict obesity. We cannot usefully use his neighbors opinion.
we just have one random variable here : the predictions.
>TomDVM Teleological reasoning is, a form of reasoning that is
>often fruitful so long as one does not assume an underlying
>purposiveness in the universe. At least that is the conclusion
>from several philosophers of science including Carl Popper (I believe).
>It is a sophisticated for of thinking that is often misunderstood by
>those not well trained in the sciences.
>mom11 – at 10:51
>Hi GS!
>Don’t worry about the chances for a pandemic. It is obvious
>they are quite large. If we have one, then the chance was 100%, if not 0%.
no.
>We can not know the odds for something we have no historical data on.. .
wrong. You can invent a new game and we can often _calculate_
the chances from the rules without having historical data.
>This virus has acted as no other. What can we base the odds on?
>When my #4 had to have heart surgery I asked the surgeon
>What are the odds he will DIE!? He told me 1%. He could tell me
>that based on thousands of similar surgeries. Even that figure
>of 1%, probably was not accurate. It may have been much higher
>in children, that also had other anomalies, such as kidney problems
>or a genetic defect. The mortality rate would probably have been
>higher on children from impoverished homes, who may have been
>malnourished or lived in stressful situations. The 1%, may even
>have been lower, in a group of children, with a less severe defect.
1% was the odds, which he could reasonable assign to the event
given his state of knowledge and the data available to him at that time.
>Statisitcs can change, depending on how they ae interpreted
>but they all have one thing in common data! We have none for H5N1.
wrong. The Melanie-error.
>We have to go with what we know now.NO treatment, no medications,
>no vaccine and a killer virus.
when you say “no”, I assume you mean: “little”
>You are a very smart man. I think you care deeply about us all.
>I was so glad you were helping review all those sequences,
>because just maybe it would have been you, who would unlock it’s code.
>Be proud of what you have to offer it’s far more than I have to give
>anyone here! Give yourself back your name GS or Guenther and be proud
>of all you have contributed and keep right on doing it!
and what do you think would have happened if GS had started
this thread ? It would have been thrown to dungeon just after
a few posts by these female catlovers.
You thing GS is smart, yet you differ on his main issue.
So you must think you are smarter.
>At the same time keep prepping! My heart is not in it right now,
>but I am getting ready to drop another boat load of $$$$$ at Sams, anyway!
>JoeW – at 10:52
>With regard to your prior comment about odds making note that
>odds makers do in fact use moderately reliable information
>(past history. Gambling casinos use known probability theory.
>If you want to see how well that works look at Las Vagas.
>All those casinos were built with losers money. That is how
>well it works when you use the principles I previously discussed.
I can’t see where any of those principles went in. But then,
I probably didn’t understand what you meant.
50% within 10 years. Now that says a lot. You believe that no one knows and that is your point.
I enjoyed the perspectives and reasonings here !
Now imagine we were back at the height of the SARS outbreak, with images of forcefully quarantined communities in China, quarantined hospitals in Canada, news about new cases in France, etc. We were then in the beginning of the S-curve all right. The authorities managed to quell the outbreak, even in China, and the virus disappeared. Even if it has a natural reservoir, it hasn’t shown itself since two years. Had we had this discussion about probabilities then, I would have thought a worldwide pandemic was almost inevitable. That’s why I now feel I am still on the fence, prepping to some extent, yes, but not very nervous about it.
I predict a 100% Probability of a Pandemic within the next 50 years. The way we prepare now will affect the way we develop our preparedness culture. The way we prepare for earthquakes has changed over time as will our hurricane preparedness. Each time we get smoted by one of these natural and cycling events, we change. Just by virtue of low probability (105 let’s say) but high impact (20M dead lets say) should be all we need to prepare like it’s sooner than later. The Tell Me Yes Or No crowd should focus less on a % and more on the certainty that it will happen, and if the fanaticism and dollars are not used now, they can be rolled over into the next watch. We may blow some bucks here, but what we want to build is a long term culture of preparedness.
JoeW – at 02:03
What makes you think that “experts” can forcast a pandemic? Have they had any successes in the past? Is there a track record? Are you asking “experts” to gamble with the lives of 6 billion people?
JoeW, we should try it. What can we lose ? If the SEM is too large,
OK then we are where we are not. We could try to discuss and improve it then.
But not trying at all - _that_ is gambling with the lives of billions.
>>Anonymous: You talk about being logical and using logical >>procedures and yet do not accept the idea that in order >>for an estimte to be useful it must (from a scientific perspective) >>be based on operationaly defined highly reliable variables.
>I never heard about this. Do you have any referrence ? >Nor do I see any reason why “variables” >should be necessary. What kind of variables BTW. ?
Obviously you know little about science. References were given. When you do not know what a variable is or why they are needed you are quite ignorant of the scientific process. Get educated, come back and maybe there will be something to talk about. Good night.
JoeW – at 02:08
50% within 10 years. Now that says a lot. You believe that no one knows and that is your point.
I don’t understand what you want to say.
I’m no expert. I have no access to the secret databases. I can only
estimate from what I read here and on the web.
Don’t overestimate my estimate. It’s just one out of many.
But I do claim it’s more reasonable than the average estimate
in your survey. (62% within one year)
guenther,
I have limited time for this debate, but you are making the error of thinking that there is a mathematical result which is going to be something you can plug into an equation. There isn’t.
We have no data. Period. Plug that in to your mathematical head.
We can’t do predictions without data. Period.
I’m not trying to be obfuscatory, nor are the scientists I work with. There are just no data and all we can do are make guesses. If that is satisfying to you, guess away, but these are guesses based on ghosts and phantoms. If that is what you want, guess away.
That and $2.00 will get you a bet at Pimlico. If you have really good data, I recommend the trifecta box, it pays 6:1.
My 0.02c worth is the things that can happen are definitely going to happen; date is the variable. We’ve all seen the natural disasters and human caused tragedies, from depression to war. Even though my doctor doesn’t think there is much risk, H5N1 is sending out very clear warning signs which will be 100% obvious later. Like most things. Even if probability is taken as low, consequence is catastrophic, therefore attention to the risk is way more than significant. You don’t really need the numbers.
long tread. I’m starting a new one.
me at 02:12: (corrected typos and further explanations)
JoeW, we should try it (asking experts for probability estimates,
forming panels as in 1976). What can we lose ? If the SEM (or deviation)
is too large, OK then we are where we are now. We could try to discuss
and improve it then. But not trying it at all - _that_ is gambling with
the lives of billions. Sorry, if I’m not so familiar with your psycological
nomenclature - it’s not what you usually find in math-texts.
New thread (not tread) [[http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.ChanceForAPandemic4 | here]]
Well . . . is it here?
YES!!
PH pulls it off!