Two other long-run models have also entered the forecasting fray. The first, from the Los Alamos National Laboratory , is a-like model. It has tended to be more pessimistic than other forecasters. Youyang Gu, a young graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, built another after seeing themodel that has recently been more accurate than forecasts from many established outfits.
Although long-run forecasts will always be subject to larger errors than short-run projections, they have been getting smaller. An analysis byfinds that all models succumbed to large forecast errors in their early stages. Across the three models, projections made on April 12th for the death toll two weeks ahead had an average absolute error of 17%. Those made at the beginning of May for the next two weeks had an average error of just 4%.
There are several reasons why forecasts got off to a bad start. First, the early models suffered from an absence of good historical numbers. The first models extrapolated patterns from the virus’s path through Wuhan and Italy, where the transmission rate was lower than in America. Second, the stabilisation of the death rate, which is now falling gradually, has made forecasting easier.
With better data and improved models, the forecasts made today should prove more accurate—either by luck or design—than earlier ones. Yet future estimates remain widely divergent. Theexpects total deaths to stabilise in July at 140,000, whereas Mr Gu expects the virus to persist into August, at which time there will have been nearly 200,000 deaths. Either total would mean that covid-19 would have exacted a truly terrible toll.Sources: Covid19-Projections.
Good work!
BlanikZ 'If military leaders-and that includes Navy brass-were gifted with the same accuracy of foresight that they are with hindsight, then the assault of Peleliu should never have been attempted.' Admiral Jesse B. Oldendorf... it applies everywhere.
That I totally agree, depending what contributing factors he used. I would like to see the specific evidence which he has compiled in detail. Interesting!
Models are as useful as the assumptions and factors used. Even if nearly accurate, they may change over time. Trump stupidity, for example, may go even worst.
⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️🟪 🚧✅ 🟪⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️
What is the typically accepted rate of a good model?
Too many or too few?
ian_mckelvey Hey, let's do global temperature 10 years from now. See what happens.
RT : Our data analysis shows that across three prominent models, projections made on April 12th for the death toll two weeks ahead had an average absolute error of 17%
All models are wrong but some are useful
That's just cause everyone was 'good'. Keep it up! Lol
Tenho 300 milhões de dolares para receber no BRasil e ainda mais 5 bilhões de dolares com certeza!
Once again Democrats lies to there people, about shut down, for reasons to cut the curb, now that it happened, they changed the deal. Like a toll bridge , after the bridge is paid for, now the toll is for maintenance. Forever . Socialist back stabbed.
US moral authority. GONE. US leadership role. GONE. Time for a new UN permanent five based on statistics. Those that protected their citizens the best. Those that place human life over corporate profits. Wouldn't that we a nice change
Today, 5-23-20, CDC reported over 1,800 deaths which would be far above every projection for this date.
Always assuming the data is accurate - highly doubtful in the US
😂😃🤣😂🤣😃 not as deadly as flu ..how quaint your analists are
Now do this for projections made on March 18th
Such bs... omg
Trump said, Plague Over!!!!
Not another Word - - Plump-er Trump-er's! The ECONOMIST get's the last word on the foolish - - but - - given argument!
It's severity on the economy
piersmorgan
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »