Osterholm warns about pandemic

[sharon sanders]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

gsgs - We disagree on many things. This is only one.

I have worked with numbers for years and I am telling you, categorically, that it is impossible to predict mathematically with any accuracy a pandemic. Period.

If people think they can do this, then they probably think they can personally influence when sequences get released too.
</IMG>

[Goju]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

Historically, i have never been in a car accident. I have never had my house burn down... yet i research countless hours and pay thousands of dollars for good insurance plans.

Prepping is the only kind of insurance you can buy for a pandemic which is a natural phenomenon. They happen regularly. That is fact.

There are still too many voices like gsgs giving people a reason not to take out that valuable peace of mind.

[gsgs]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

How can a prediction be non-accurate anyway ?
Don't know, what you mean with "mathematically".
There is no suitable mathematical model to predict pandemics in a way, that every expert would have to agree on that number.
Like we predict earthquakes or weather or such.
Pandemic prediction is more controverse, but that's the only difference.
It surely can be done and is being done.

Now I would like to hear, whether you think
that it is also impossible to predict with any accuracy
economical indices. (Period or not.)

[gsgs]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

goju, gsgs is always telling his friends to prep for a pandemic
although he had permanently been ridiculed about this.

Your arguments above only work for silly people.
You could as well advice people in Chicago to prep for an earthquake.
(a natural phenomenon, happens regularly (that is fact))

It depends on how likely that event should be considered.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

No - I do not think that most economists are accurate. This is proven. Most are inaccurate. If you put 4 economists into a room you will get 5 opinions. You can watch any of the business channels and see opposite forecasts for the exact same set of financial data.

This is why I am telling you that you can not accurately predict a pandemic using a set of assumptions put into a mathematical equation. There are too many variables and unknowns. If you are waiting for an accurate forecast before you prepare, then you will be too late. The pandemic will have already started.

I will not debate this issue any further no matter how many times you post.

[gsgs]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

that's OK. I hope you don't mind if I debate with others.
(You wrote earlier:
"We are very interested in your ideas on probabilites ...")

[sharon sanders]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

Yes - I like discussing anything mathematical, but to encourage people not to prepare because of some inaccurate or non-existant probability calculation is reckless.

[gsgs]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

so, now the probability of a pandemic is "nonexisting" ?
I never heard about nonexisting probabilities in any context.
This could make an interesting paradoxon, when some future
events had existing probabilites and some others
had nonexisting probabilities.
However, probability estimates are subjective and as such
they exist at the very moment where the subject in question
specifies it to us. Well, they exist before that, but then
we will see it.
And this has been done, although not often enough IMO.
So these probabilities do "exist".

Can such an estimate be "inaccurate" ? Well, maybe when someone
specifies a range for his probability estimate rather than a number.
But then a range would not be called a probability estimate.
Instead of saying 40%-50% you could as well say : 45% .
That's a well-defined real number and it is "accurate".
It could be possible or even likely that the subjective estimate would
change when the person rethinks the issue - but that's another matter.
If this is meant with "inaccurate", then OK, an estimate for the
probability of a pandemic -say in the next 3 years- would be
"inaccurate" in this sense. How inaccurate ? We could measure
this, when we have enough estimates by enough experts.
We would also find out, whether there is some "trend" or "meaning"
in the estimates or whether it's complete guesswork like e.g.
estimating the outcome of a 3rd class football match between
two teams which you never heard about.

But then it would also be meaningless and misleading and dishonest
to make any public statement about that football-match like
"team A has good chances because my name happens to begin with A"
or such.
But inexact statements about the likelyhood of a pandemics and warnings
are being made by the experts. That proves that they think, they have
a meaningful estimate which is not complete guesswork.
Yet they don't want to specify that estimate and prefer to leave
us in the dark. That's unethical.
They could tell us, that they are uncertain about the estimate and that
the estimate might change later when they rethink the matter,
but they _should_ give us a number.
And this number should still be better than our own estimate,
since we are not experts.

Having such numbers will provoke others to give their numbers too.
It will provoke discussion about which numbers are more reasonable.
Gamblers and betters and traders will join to express their feelings
about the estimates which could also be useful since many people,
even experts have no good "feeling" about likelyhoods and probabilities,
while OTOH the gamblers have no feeling about the virological
expertise.
So, I'd hope for a useful discussion about the pandemic probability
which will lead politicians and individuals to finally base their
preparations and plannings upon.

You can underprep, but you can also overprep. Let's not base this decision
on political or private considerations, let's make it more objective
and scientificially profound by expert estimates.
When they differ, then we'll take the mean or the median.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

Yes - I like discussing anything mathematical, but to encourage people not to prepare because of some inaccurate or non-existant probability calculation is reckless.

I said probability calculation.........

[Marcie]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

Florida1, after reading gsgs's last post, I don't think there is much reason to worry that he will influence any rational person to not prepare. To continue to debate this with gsgs is to "cast pearls before swine" (forgive me, gsgs, I do not think you are a pig). IMHO, sometimes people are so fearful of even the idea that the worst-case scenario could come to pass that their mind will come up with any rationalization for the case that it won't happen. Take care, gsgs.

[gsgs]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

sorry about missing the calculation.
You wrote: "it is impossible" "with any accuracy" earlier, I had this in mind.

Well, I didn't announce discussion about some calculations
just subjective estimates.
It makes sense however to split the problem into subproblems
and check the estimates by some calculations.
E.g. when you think H5N1 will go pandemic in the next 5 years
with 50% probability and each year has same likelyhood then you can't
very well make it 20% for the first year ;-)

BTW. this is somehow surprising but I can make a good statistics that it's the females who usually oppose this "probability-estimates"-thing.
Very significant ! This could make another interesting study...

[sharon sanders]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

"BTW. this is somehow surprising but I can make a good statistics that it's the females who usually oppose this "probability-estimates"-thing.
Very significant ! This could make another interesting study..."

Typical. When losing an argument, change the subject.

I have been insulted by the best. You are an amateur in this field.

I am proud to be a female.

[Niko]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

gsgs,

I am curious...If you got your wish - all "experts" that you respect came together and came up with a % probability of a pandemic in whatever time period. How would your behavior change? What effect would it or should it have on the preparations by individuals, communities, local and national governments, and on the international level?

What % would make you walk away from all this flu talk and go on with your life without concern for a pandemic or any disaster for that matter?

[gsgs]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

>gsgs,
>
>I am curious...If you got your wish - all "experts" that you respect came
>together and came up with a % probability of a pandemic in whatever time
>period. How would your behavior change? What effect would it or should it
>have on the preparations by individuals, communities, local and national
>governments, and on the international level?
>
>What % would make you walk away from all this flu talk and go on with your
>life without concern for a pandemic or any disaster for that matter?

I could refer you to my answer in other threads
or maybe I should make a faq...
Well, it's not primarily for me, of course, but for the politicians
to decide how much to spend for antivirals vaccines, preparation,
WHO. And for us all to convince friends and local politicians.
It's just much more convincing when there had been quite a debate
among experts and they finally agreed on some number than
one Webster or Osterholm saying something and then others disagree.

Also, I usually ask for both, a probability estimate for a pandemic
and an expectation value for the number of deaths, both within
-say- 5 years.
OK, when my personal probability to die from an accident or from normal
flu were larger than to die from panflu then I wouldn't care
for myself about panflu-preparation.
If a pandemic were certain this year but with 99% not worse than 1957
then I wouldn't care a lot. I would still prep a bit and not go out
so much but not spend time here in forums.
If a 1918-like pandemic were >50% this year, then I would probably
relocate. (Except people here were finally doing something...)

[Niko]

Re: Osterholm warns about pandemic

I could refer you to my answer in other threads
or maybe I should make a faq...

Thank you for your detailed response. I thought it important you to clarify in this thread. Although you may have expressed your opinions other places, it was relevant to your posts on this thread and also for the benefit of those who may not have been privy to your other posts here and elsewhere