2Año
... because the comparison of a simulation with reality always coincides and everything then also occurs in the same way ? Why has no one ever thought of doing it in the same way?
•
22
•2Año
@Barsten Without simulations, we would not have come through the pandemic so relatively well... 😉
••
2Año
@Barsten...so rather speculate wildly without any simulation at all and only with a senseless look into the past than invest sensibly ? ...Do you even know what the "GPO principle" is ? Then you would understand my question in the post ... 😉
••
2Año
@AlexBloch according to WHO we did not come through the pandemic well but probably WHO is wrong and you are right: https://www.24hamburg.de/politik/who-evaluates-corona-virus-germany-pandemic-rules-measures-omicron-delta-health-comparison-europe-karl-lauterbach-minister-91535561.html I cannot remember a constellation in the past comparable with the current situation in which there was a worldwide pandemic, lockdowns, supply bottlenecks, overvaluations, a war of aggression, the risk of another war and a commodity-based economic war which could now form the basis for a simulation. Probably my memory is not so good... ... and yes, I know the principle, but I do not think it is applicable because of the above reasons.
••
2Año
@Barsten You are already anticipating the result of a simulation as a guess. I would rather have an exact analysis by simulation, which represents the (possible) variants in the best possible way... whereby no decimal places matter 😉 .
••
7Lun
@Barsten p.s.
One more thing about "according to the WHO, we didn't get through the pandemic well":
"not well" can always be said/determined with hindsight. But you live in the here and now, back then during the pandemic it was the "here and now" in terms of knowledge.
I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately doing the wrong thing back then. But if it wasn't described so negatively afterwards as "not good", but instead honestly as Lauterbach says "according to the best possible knowledge at the time", then that would be an objective assessment instead of a polemic.
In exactly the same way, scientifically based simulations should also be used in the financial sector according to "the best knowledge currently available".
And the better the "current knowledge" is (based on past experience and financial logic), the more probable/accurate the results of such future simulations will be.
Far removed from any vague forecasts or speculation by gamblers or crash prophets!
One more thing about "according to the WHO, we didn't get through the pandemic well":
"not well" can always be said/determined with hindsight. But you live in the here and now, back then during the pandemic it was the "here and now" in terms of knowledge.
I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately doing the wrong thing back then. But if it wasn't described so negatively afterwards as "not good", but instead honestly as Lauterbach says "according to the best possible knowledge at the time", then that would be an objective assessment instead of a polemic.
In exactly the same way, scientifically based simulations should also be used in the financial sector according to "the best knowledge currently available".
And the better the "current knowledge" is (based on past experience and financial logic), the more probable/accurate the results of such future simulations will be.
Far removed from any vague forecasts or speculation by gamblers or crash prophets!
••