Bird Flu

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, we have mounds of evidence that coin flips are independent of one another. There is no such evidence -- at least not that I know of -- that flu epidemics are.


[/ QUOTE ]
Independent or not, there is likely some probability model that approximately fits the behavior of flu epidemics. In any case, the good Dr. is assuming that there is, and I am willing to grant him that.

To put the question a different way, if someone who understands probability, say BruceZ, were to make the statement: "Given probability model X, we are overdue for event Y," what attitude toward this statement is most justified?

a) "BruceZ is right, of course."
b) "BruceZ is speaking loosely, he really means alternate statement Z."
c) "BruceZ has lost his mathematical marbles."

Also, if b), what might statement Z be?

[With apologies to Bruce [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]]

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
it is valid to say that each year's flu is not an independent outcome. there is a sequence of events that will lead up to the next pandemic. however, i really don't know how much this actually effects the outcome. so if we go 50 years without a pandemic the odds of one happening would be higher than if we just had one 2 years ago but i don't know if there is any way to say if it is 2% higher or 50% higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the underlying distribution is somehow such that the probability is increasing with time would that be enough to justify saying "we are overdue"? Or is there some other circumstance that would justify it?

Basically I just want to know what my attitude toward a government official who makes this statement should be.

[jnglegeo]

Interesting thought.....We have had an assasination or attempted assasination of every president voted in at the beginning of every even numbered decade going back to lincoln...(Reagan-1980 Kennedy-1960..etc..) Does that mean we are overdue for one now too?

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
To put the question a different way, if someone who understands probability, say BruceZ, were to make the statement: "Given probability model X, we are overdue for event Y," what attitude toward this statement is most justified?

a) "BruceZ is right, of course."
b) "BruceZ is speaking loosely, he really means alternate statement Z."
c) "BruceZ has lost his mathematical marbles."


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Certainly, there do exist models where the concept of overdue makes perfect sense. In these models, events are not independent -- so that a dry spell will indeed make an event more likely.

Wheather or not one of these models fits with a flu epidemic is, again, a matter to be empiracally determined.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

Certainly, there do exist models where the concept of overdue makes perfect sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that's the case, I have to cut Dr. Omi a little slack. Thanks.