It appears the EpidemicsRunner software toolkit has been made open source. It was developed by a crossfunctional team of the German Goethe Center for Scientific Computation Universität and has apparently been used in real life settings as guidance tool.
The EpidemicsRunner allows the user to run various algorithms used in epidemiologial modeling. The main feature is its in build editor and support an optimization framework, which allows the user to adjust model parameters to existing data.
It has been designed for ease of use (but still full of features) because its original purpose was as a quick response tool for e.g. local authorities. The vision: A non expert user can quickly generate various scenarios based on local data and decide local measures until expert knowledge arrives.
The tool has been used in various capacities. In order to inspire learning and maybe even help others, it has been made open source.
You can use and modify it however you want. You can also import only the headers to your own C++ program.
If you want to use the GUI, a build script is provided in the EpidemicsRunner folder. All features of the GUI are active if you put it in the plugin folder of the UG4 framework.
I don't mean any disrespect by asking this, but asking why this was done in C++ implies you believe some other option would have been better; or at least it gives me that impression. What language should this have been done in, in your opinion?
There's no license on the codebase, could someone add an OSI-approved license to this codebase? UG4 itself is LGPLv3 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html), so licensing this under the same terms would make sense.
This is great. First visible commit is on Mar 12th. The front-end is HTML? Hope we start to see more gov apps being built as web apps hosted in the cloud. With WebAssembly, the C++ code should be usable directly.
Taking something from someone else is wrong. Doing it for the good of others doesn't correct this theft. The degree that this happens in a society represents the level to which civilisation is broken and corrupted.
Open source examples aren't communism, there's no threat of force. It relies on decentralized collaboration and natural willingness to create and share. There's a solid legal framework in place that promotes use, improvement and extension with low cost to all parties.
So would you say all things funded through taxation are wrong ? Not trying to be snarky, just wondering if that's the logical conclusion to that axiom.
well that's one way to see it.
however, in germany, we don't want to have homeless and extremely poor people, so we solve it by taking money away from the rich and middle class. for some people it might be called communism, for germans and in general europeans however that's just the baseline they expect from a functioning state.
So I guess Nestle is communist? People who took land from natives are communists as well. In a way, every capitalist corp which takes resources from other countries is communist.
If you think communism = taking away things from people, I guess you don't know political ideologies that well :)
We have communist parties in Germany such as the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany or the German Communist Party. However they have no almost support. Communism is about the ownership of the means of production as in people are not allowed to own factories. You will find almost no German who supports that. Not even the Linke supports that and instead hides behind a nebulous "overcoming capitalism".
Living in Germany I have to say that no one predicted anything remotely correct regarding Corona. It is mostly anxiety and panic driven and short sighted and working against people not with the people.
Corona brings live and death questions to the doors of normal people and also plays havoc with our political parties. It is embarrasing to observe to watch them for the most part. Seems for some of them the first problem they really have to work on instead of only talking about it.
Also from Germany, I have to disagree. The models pretty much nailed the 4th wave down to a T. Missed it by one or two weeks. Based on the assumption nothing was dine against it. Nothing was done against it. The models are good, they are just not used to prepare or base decisions upon them.
Same here in NL. Scientific data routinely gets ignored during policy making, either because the data did not originate here and we're supposedly somehow special or because it didn't fit the preferred outcome. The results are predictable.
> no one predicted anything remotely correct regarding Corona.
That is simply not true. The RKI (Germany's main institute for disease control and prevention) almost exactly predicted the current Covid numbers back in July [1]. The top left of the picture on page 7 shows the prediction under the assumption that 65% of Germans get vaccinated; currently 68% of Germans are vaccinated.
Probably depends on the input parameters. Lots of calls for freedom days and such as well as a general removal of measures probably changed the model conditions considerably.
I personally think that for such a chaotic, human system, a prediction from six-months previous is pretty good if it's within a few weeks and probably less than an order of magnitude.
You are confusing what the politician said with the models.
Even now parties like the FDP are blocking the possibility of lockdowns just for the sake of it and not based on any scientific model.
As southern European and living here for about half of my lifetime, the whole management reminds me of the usual mess of Portuguese governments.
I actually never expected that somehow my home country would be able to manage better at decisions, instead of the yes/no/but-elections-are-coming that we had here.
"The best and brightest built a state of the art forecasting model and it says I should do X" sells much better than "I assume this year will be exactly like last year and last year we should have done X".
Basing your decisions on complicated scientific methods inspires confidence in many people, even when there is no benefit.
It also mitigates responsibility for decision makers, because they can claim that they would have made the perfect decision if only the model's predictions would have been perfect as well.
The CMakeLists.txt is very poor. Just use find_package(Threads REQUIRED) and do target_link_libraries(... Threads::Threads), and use target_compile_features or target properties to set the C++ version. Right now the CMakeLists.txt requires the user to set that, at which point you might be better off with a Makefile...
52 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadIt appears the EpidemicsRunner software toolkit has been made open source. It was developed by a crossfunctional team of the German Goethe Center for Scientific Computation Universität and has apparently been used in real life settings as guidance tool.
Images, description and source code can be found on https://github.com/devanshr/epidemics
The EpidemicsRunner allows the user to run various algorithms used in epidemiologial modeling. The main feature is its in build editor and support an optimization framework, which allows the user to adjust model parameters to existing data.
It has been designed for ease of use (but still full of features) because its original purpose was as a quick response tool for e.g. local authorities. The vision: A non expert user can quickly generate various scenarios based on local data and decide local measures until expert knowledge arrives.
The tool has been used in various capacities. In order to inspire learning and maybe even help others, it has been made open source.
You can use and modify it however you want. You can also import only the headers to your own C++ program.
If you want to use the GUI, a build script is provided in the EpidemicsRunner folder. All features of the GUI are active if you put it in the plugin folder of the UG4 framework.
jonpoljargo.de
If you don't mind why was the software written in C++?
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I hope you all hang for your war crimes at the upcoming tribunal.
Get fucked commies.
Also try to assume that they are acting in good faith.
Open source examples aren't communism, there's no threat of force. It relies on decentralized collaboration and natural willingness to create and share. There's a solid legal framework in place that promotes use, improvement and extension with low cost to all parties.
If you think communism = taking away things from people, I guess you don't know political ideologies that well :)
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Corona brings live and death questions to the doors of normal people and also plays havoc with our political parties. It is embarrasing to observe to watch them for the most part. Seems for some of them the first problem they really have to work on instead of only talking about it.
Ordinary Differential Equation model, Partial Differential Equation model, Finite Difference model, etc.
Science worked fine. Politics did not. This is not specific to Germany.
That is simply not true. The RKI (Germany's main institute for disease control and prevention) almost exactly predicted the current Covid numbers back in July [1]. The top left of the picture on page 7 shows the prediction under the assumption that 65% of Germans get vaccinated; currently 68% of Germans are vaccinated.
[1]: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Archiv/2021/Au...
The prediction expected a bell curve peaking at the end of December, at around 400 7d incidence, assuming ~65% vaccinated.
We are at then end of november, ~68% vaccinated, and the 7d incidence is already above 400, and still rising.
We can only hope that they got the shape right, the timing slighly off and the peek not too off.
I personally think that for such a chaotic, human system, a prediction from six-months previous is pretty good if it's within a few weeks and probably less than an order of magnitude.
I actually never expected that somehow my home country would be able to manage better at decisions, instead of the yes/no/but-elections-are-coming that we had here.
Remember that simulation of covid from UK with all the pomp and bravado? Not even close to reality.
By the way, all simulations have the same relationship to reality as cartoons. This is just philosophy 101.
Basing your decisions on complicated scientific methods inspires confidence in many people, even when there is no benefit.
It also mitigates responsibility for decision makers, because they can claim that they would have made the perfect decision if only the model's predictions would have been perfect as well.
On the contrary. When you fully understand something, there's no longer a need for a model.