OSUmetstud

That is true.

Why is that Ben Israel character getting some much play? He's not an epidemiologist. There's no way that social distancing doesn't matter. It literally flies in the face of like a 100 years of germ theory.

It's why they call it the "flu burden" because the flu deaths are modeled in such a way that deaths indirectly related to the flu are incluced there too.

Those percentages look like proportion of deaths not fatality rate for each cohort.

Idk. You seem like a dude who mainly cares about Americans.

I mean we've had triple the deaths of swine flu...

I think some of this might be a function of fatalities from days previous being recorded for that day. So you end up seeing deaths lag longer than the modeling thinks they should.

Sorry that was IFR. I think that study also assumed a relatively low Ro at 2.2-2.6. Some studies I have seen have shown it as high as 5.7. There was a lot of questions about the German antibody study specificity from what I saw. The Iceland CFR of 0.4% might be the best case scenario imo. But even there, the population is homogeneous and healthy, very unlike a place like NYC or the Bible Belt where the fatality rate would undoubtedly be higher.

Well sure, I agree. That study didn't use the reported CFR at the time either which i believe was 3.4%.

Yes, one study that showed no interventions showed 2 million dead. I don't understand how that's particularly relevant since we have done lots of intervention. It had an estimated CFR of 0.9%. I haven't seen enough to think that CFR is completely unreasonable. Have you?

Which models are we discussing? One study, from University of College London that supposed 2 million could die in the US without any intervention. I've seen anywhere from 60-80K modeled on IMHE through August with all the interventions in place and the model that the Trump Admin discussed had 100-240K. I'm not sure what time frame the last estimate was for, though. We're at 32K and it's tough to say we've peaked yet given we're not at the top of the curve.

Spain is through the apex as of this morning. They have more recoveries than new cases.

I think the most meaningful thing for this would actually be to grade yourself vs. climatology. This applies to everyone of course, not just you. The whole point of this exercise should be to get skill over climatology in the long hall.

The Icon is so good at tropical forecasting that the NHC doesn't even run statistics on it.

This is the third leading story on fox. Much more responsible. Canadian ex-PM 'rooting' for Hurricane Dorian to slam Mar-a-Lago

indeed

I'm grateful for those who know how to embed tweets, otherwise I wouldn't be able to see any of Ryan Maue's. He blocked me a few months back.

BUF's is cold Sunday I believe (Jan 17th 1982). -37F. Also the week before set the record for the lowest wind chill for an NFL game...the AFC Championship game in Cincy "Freezer Bowl" on jan 10th 1982.

faint green glow to the northeast. Didn't even know anything was going on tonight so no confirmation bias lol. Kp is 5 and the map shows it pretty close so I don't think I'm seeing things.

christ..my heart sank for a minute. overall, pretty funny though after you get over the initial shock

I didn't feel like a fish out of water when I left SUNY Oswego to work in Bermuda...synoptic 1 and 2, the forecast game, and the student website all helped hone forecasting skills. However, I still learned a hell of a lot about forecasting while working in Bermuda for 3 1/2 years. Isohume is right that forecasting is a bit of an art. This is why knowledgeable amateurs can occasionally outforecast meteorologists.

the euros might disagree

If at some point in the future vets are so numerous that they completely block out all non-vets from being considered, then I'd consider a change in policy. Right now, that just isn't even close to the case. It seems like vets do block some of the panels...but probably not most...and definitely not all. Experience still does matter in vets vs. non-vets. If a vet is just a vet with a BS met degree..he would not make GS-09 grade. Therefore, non-vets at GS-09 would still be considered on equal footing to a vet or vets that were referred at GS-07 and GS-05. The MIC is not required to choose a vet in a case like that. For example, I was referred to Spartanburg, SC and Charleston, WV at GS-07 and GS-09, but not at GS-05. Vets were qualified at GS-05 so they were referred, while non-vets at that grade were not. Gold candidates at GS-07 and GS-09 were referred to the MIC.

I don't have a problem with the way vets preference is done. Each and every one of has a choice of joining the military and serving in a forward area and putting your life on the line. This is a policy wherein the government gives back to the vets for their sacrifice. If you don't like it...you can sign up tomorrow and get your vet preference in a few years. Now, I think there certainly is some potential for better candidates being overlooked in deference to a veteran...but I think it's a small price to pay. Having a better resume doesn't even really make you a better forecaster, anyway.

not a big deal in the sense I'm not going to b**ch about those who served in war getting preference. several hundred is a little bit of a stretch..the most i've heard is 430...and those tend to be highly sought after east coast locations. Buffalo had 116 last winter. I actually haven't been blocked from the last several applications I've sent in. The downsizing of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations could be concerning for the non-vets trying to get in over the next couple years, though.