|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 13, 2023 22:33:21 GMT
However in my version of science, we look for evidence after making hypotheses. After making a hypothesis, you're supposed to attempt to disprove your hypothesis. If you fail to disprove your hypothesis, then you have a theory. What you describe is not real science, ie, make a hypothesis, and then look for evidence to support it. But that does explain a lot about the coronauthoritarians over the last few years. Thank you for confirming what I suspected. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 13, 2023 23:15:37 GMT
To repeat Did you intend to present any data or arguments? Perhaps they were lost by the software somewhere. I cannot see yours. Yes, I read your nonsense the first time. It's not any less ridiculous simply because you repeat it. Sure, let's "present the data." We're talking about death toll here, just death from all causes, just a body count. This isn't rocket science. www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/03/united-states-deaths-spiked-as-covid-19-continued.htmlYou've said that the increase in total deaths from all causes from 2019 to 2020 was "one-sixth of one percent." Total deaths in 2019 (all causes) was: 2,854,838 as shown on census.gov. Total deaths in 2020 (all causes) was: 3.390,029 as shown on census.gov. That's an 18.75% increase from 2019 to 2020. This isn't politics. It's just math. Now then, speaking of "blind faith", which conspiracy website is telling you that those aren't really the total deaths for 2019 or 2020 or which alternative math is telling you that's not an 18.75% increase in total deaths between 2019 and 2020? At least you tried. I am so proud of you for that much. You did make a sort of glaring mistake though, let's fix that. What you have shown is the change in the death count. What you need to show is the change in the death rate. Why? The population in 2019 was not the same as the population in 2020. Let's simplify the math to illustrate a point. Suppose for 2019 and 2020 the death count went up ten percent and the population increased by ten percent. What was the change in that death rate? The correct answer is zero, there was no change whatsoever in the death rate. death rate (a) = death count (a) / population (a) death rate (b) = death count (b) / population (b) death count (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) (a ten percent increase) population (b) = 1.1 x population (a) (a ten percent increase) death rate (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) / 1.1 x population (a) (by substitution) Dividing the numerator and the denominator by the same "1.1" we get death rate (b) = death count (a) / population (a) (no change) The moral of the story is that the death count does not consider the population, and the population has a significant effect on the number of deaths. In other words there were likely zero deaths from some new cause. If the death rate went up by ten percent, which it does not in this model, then those deaths are from some change in the causes of death. Either the old causes took more lives or there was some new cause. The bad news is that this opens up a whole new can of worms. While the the census can give us the population parameter for the census year, it is necessary to estimate the population in the nine years between one census and another. When you see differences in data on various websites, it can be because researchers are somewhat free to estimate the population in the years between one census and another. There are some brutally simple ways to estimate the population where necessary. One way is to take the difference in population count between two census years, divide that by ten and add that one-tenth each year between. A better yet still brutal way is to take the percentage change from one census to another, raise that number to the power of one-tenth, then use that as the percentage change each year. Because I have so much more talent in mathematics than most of you here, I could easily "estimate" the population in 2019 to wipe out all the increase you see in the death rate. I would not do that though. It would not be a realistic estimate. I am admitting that there was likely some increase in the death rate, just not very significant. Now then, speaking of "blind faith", which conspiracy website would hire you? Do you speak for IMDB1? |
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 13, 2023 23:54:15 GMT
Yes, I read your nonsense the first time. It's not any less ridiculous simply because you repeat it. Sure, let's "present the data." We're talking about death toll here, just death from all causes, just a body count. This isn't rocket science. www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/03/united-states-deaths-spiked-as-covid-19-continued.htmlYou've said that the increase in total deaths from all causes from 2019 to 2020 was "one-sixth of one percent." Total deaths in 2019 (all causes) was: 2,854,838 as shown on census.gov. Total deaths in 2020 (all causes) was: 3.390,029 as shown on census.gov. That's an 18.75% increase from 2019 to 2020. This isn't politics. It's just math. Now then, speaking of "blind faith", which conspiracy website is telling you that those aren't really the total deaths for 2019 or 2020 or which alternative math is telling you that's not an 18.75% increase in total deaths between 2019 and 2020? At least you tried. I am so proud of you for that much. You did make a sort of glaring mistake though, let's fix that. What you have shown is the change in the death count. What you need to show is the change in the death rate. Why? The population in 2019 was not the same as the population in 2020. Let's simplify the math to illustrate a point. Suppose for 2019 and 2020 the death count went up ten percent and the population increased by ten percent. What was the change in that death rate? The correct answer is zero, there was no change whatsoever in the death rate. death rate (a) = death count (a) / population (a) death rate (b) = death count (b) / population (b) death count (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) (a ten percent increase) population (b) = 1.1 x population (a) (a ten percent increase) death rate (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) / 1.1 x population (a) (by substitution) Dividing the numerator and the denominator by the same "1.1" we get death rate (b) = death count (a) / population (a) (no change) The moral of the story is that the death count does not consider the population, and the population has a significant effect on the number of deaths. In other words there were likely zero deaths from some new cause. If the death rate went up by ten percent, which it does not in this model, then those deaths are from some change in the causes of death. Either the old causes took more lives or there was some new cause. The bad news is that this opens up a whole new can of worms. While the the census can give us the population parameter for the census year, it is necessary to estimate the population in the nine years between one census and another. When you see differences in data on various websites, it can be because researchers are somewhat free to estimate the population in the years between one census and another. There are some brutally simple ways to estimate the population where necessary. One way is to take the difference in population count between two census years, divide that by ten and add that one-tenth each year between. A better yet still brutal way is to take the percentage change from one census to another, raise that number to the power of one-tenth, then use that as the percentage change each year. Because I have so much more talent in mathematics than most of you here, I could easily "estimate" the population in 2019 to wipe out all the increase you see in the death rate. I would not do that though. It would not be a realistic estimate. I am admitting that there was likely some increase in the death rate, just not very significant. Now then, speaking of "blind faith", which conspiracy website would hire you? Do you speak for IMDB1? Adorable first line. Insecurity noted. So what you're saying is, you understand that the 2019 and 2020 U.S. death counts are exactly what's reported there, and you understand that the increase there is 18.75%. BUT you're saying that this increase in death count, the largest in 100 years, was due to a freak, unprecedented increase in population from 2019-2020. Is that it? I get from your wall of blather that you like hearing yourself talk, but before giving me another wall of that stuff, I'd like to know with a simple yes or no if this is actually your argument. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 14, 2023 0:00:52 GMT
At least you tried. I am so proud of you for that much. You did make a sort of glaring mistake though, let's fix that. What you have shown is the change in the death count. What you need to show is the change in the death rate. Why? The population in 2019 was not the same as the population in 2020. Let's simplify the math to illustrate a point. Suppose for 2019 and 2020 the death count went up ten percent and the population increased by ten percent. What was the change in that death rate? The correct answer is zero, there was no change whatsoever in the death rate. death rate (a) = death count (a) / population (a) death rate (b) = death count (b) / population (b) death count (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) (a ten percent increase) population (b) = 1.1 x population (a) (a ten percent increase) death rate (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) / 1.1 x population (a) (by substitution) Dividing the numerator and the denominator by the same "1.1" we get death rate (b) = death count (a) / population (a) (no change) The moral of the story is that the death count does not consider the population, and the population has a significant effect on the number of deaths. In other words there were likely zero deaths from some new cause. If the death rate went up by ten percent, which it does not in this model, then those deaths are from some change in the causes of death. Either the old causes took more lives or there was some new cause. The bad news is that this opens up a whole new can of worms. While the the census can give us the population parameter for the census year, it is necessary to estimate the population in the nine years between one census and another. When you see differences in data on various websites, it can be because researchers are somewhat free to estimate the population in the years between one census and another. There are some brutally simple ways to estimate the population where necessary. One way is to take the difference in population count between two census years, divide that by ten and add that one-tenth each year between. A better yet still brutal way is to take the percentage change from one census to another, raise that number to the power of one-tenth, then use that as the percentage change each year. Because I have so much more talent in mathematics than most of you here, I could easily "estimate" the population in 2019 to wipe out all the increase you see in the death rate. I would not do that though. It would not be a realistic estimate. I am admitting that there was likely some increase in the death rate, just not very significant. Now then, speaking of "blind faith", which conspiracy website would hire you? Do you speak for IMDB1? Adorable first line. Insecurity noted. So what you're saying is, you understand that the 2019 and 2020 U.S. death counts are exactly what's reported there, and you understand that the increase there is 18.75%. BUT you're saying that this increase in death count, the largest in 100 years, was due to a freak, unprecedented increase in population from 2019-2020. Is that it? I get from your wall of blather that you like hearing yourself talk, but before giving me another wall of that stuff, I'd like to know with a simple yes or no if this is actually your argument. Thanks. Some of the increase in deaths can be explained by your anti-covid measures. If I seal people in their apartments to keep them from catching covid, and their apartment building catches fire while they're trapped inside, then that would increase the death count. There were also many suicides and drug-related deaths due to your lockdowns and the resulting economic devastation. You have blood on your hands, Drac. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on May 14, 2023 0:02:29 GMT
Is there such a thing as "blind faith" in science? Can it be harmful? If it can exist, it almost certainly does, hope that helps. However, it is each individual's choice on whether to have blind faith or educate themselves. The best way is going to college to study science but obviously not everyone can or will do that. You can use your own time to educate yourself, course books are available to the public and there are plenty of reputable scientists who have written books for the layman. I recommend against going on the internet because you won't have the foundation to evaluate and what you see and may easily be led down a path such as the idiot anti-vaxxers and covid conspiracists. It is equally possible to have blind faith in politicians and Qanon conspiracy hoaxes then go on the internet looking for idiots to validate your misplaced blind faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on May 14, 2023 0:04:30 GMT
I just watched a pretty long interview with University of Ghent professor of psychoanalytic psychotherapy ... Psychology, the science with no successes. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 14, 2023 0:05:15 GMT
I'm glad to see you didn't die. I was starting to wonder when you had no answer for this > imdb1.freeforums.net/post/343196You are obviously still dodging the real issue. Where is the death toll that would indicate a pandemic in the United States? You know, 'science" that would indicate a pandemic here, where is that? I do not know where you got the impression I take advice on science from this board. You aren't even politically informed, much less scientifically informed. Have you seen the theories on the death toll in the United States since the 1950s? Very fascinating. In the 50s and 60s it was about 0.96. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s it dropped somewhat dramatically and consistently -- almost straight line consistently. Then in 2009 it leveled off at about 0.81 then from 2013 it began a steep climb that lasted through 2020. Here is the interesting part. It appears likely that advances in technology allowed people to live longer lives, causing the death toll to go down in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Living longer however does not mean living forever and the people who live longer eventually have to die. Everyone dies eventually. So when there is a pause in the development of new technology the death rate must go back up as they eventually die. In 2020 it was very near where it was in the 50s and 60s. Where is your science on that? I realize that is missing a lot of details, but it does make a little sense, at least. You are right. It only makes a little sense, which in your version of science, right on! However in my version of science, we look for evidence after making hypotheses. For any particular reason for the death rate to drop, it either continues to drop, levels off or rises. If the reason continues the death rate continues at the low rate. Your idea that the death rate rises only happens if the reason for the drop ends, for example if suddenly we no longer used antibiotics. In wombat science we ask for a hypothesis on why the US death rate increased from 2013. It wasnt covid. In olaf science we are free to make wild guesses. Fail. Also in my version of science we start by being careful about word definitions. An epidemic is a regional disease outbreak, meaning physical region like North America, not just the Panhandle or Apalachia. Note no mention of deaths. From the Greek 'pan-' meaning 'all', pandemic means global epidemic, not confined to the USA. Again for you, Fail. Like we didn't have enough bad science from the left already, you have more. It's like Christmas for me. The glaring mistake in your "thinking" is failing to recognize the connection between the death rate and the birth rate. There is no advance in technology that can break that connection. No matter how wonderful or long your life is, you will be born exactly once and die exactly once (your body anyway, what happens to your "spirit" is not considered here). There is a "one-to-one correspondence," as teachers often put it, between births and deaths. Okay where an individual country is concerned there can be immigration and emigration, which can be extremely complicating, but for the purposes of illustration by a simple model let's assume immigration and emigration are zero for whatever reason. Consider some "new' antibiotic. It causes life expectancy to increase. On its introduction the death rate drops, no surprise. Then you happen along and suggest that as long as that technology is continued as is, the death rate will continue to drop. But wait, it cannot drop to zero. In fact it cannot drop below the birth rate for any indefinite amount of time. So much for your plan. In fact in the long run the antibiotic will have absolutely no effect on the death rate, which is entirely, in the long run anyway, dependent on the birth rate. Thank you for admitting that almost no one who "got" covid died from it. Some people don't seem to understand the significance of that. If they do not die it becomes a matter of statistical analysis how severe the disease is. While we are being careful with words and their meanings "statistical analysis" is not "science" anymore than Wombat science is science. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 14, 2023 0:12:37 GMT
Yes, there can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 0:40:19 GMT
Adorable first line. Insecurity noted. So what you're saying is, you understand that the 2019 and 2020 U.S. death counts are exactly what's reported there, and you understand that the increase there is 18.75%. BUT you're saying that this increase in death count, the largest in 100 years, was due to a freak, unprecedented increase in population from 2019-2020. Is that it? I get from your wall of blather that you like hearing yourself talk, but before giving me another wall of that stuff, I'd like to know with a simple yes or no if this is actually your argument. Thanks. Some of the increase in deaths can be explained by your anti-covid measures. If I seal people in their apartments to keep them from catching covid, and their apartment building catches fire while they're trapped inside, then that would increase the death count. There were also many suicides and drug-related deaths due to your lockdowns and the resulting economic devastation. You have blood on your hands, Drac. This will be for nothing since you'll just ignore it: Suicides in 2019: 47,511 Suicides in 2020: 45,979 Drug overdose deaths in 2019: 62,172 Drug overdose deaths in 2020: 68,630 Fire deaths in 2019: 3,515 Fire deaths in 2020: 3,720 So the above represents 0.15% of 3,390,029 deaths. Your conspiracy theories caused a worse spread and many more people to drown in their lungs during the onset of the pandemic when it was most important to flatten the curve. Hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. alone could've been saved if not for your type of ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 14, 2023 1:04:34 GMT
At least you tried. I am so proud of you for that much. You did make a sort of glaring mistake though, let's fix that. What you have shown is the change in the death count. What you need to show is the change in the death rate. Why? The population in 2019 was not the same as the population in 2020. Let's simplify the math to illustrate a point. Suppose for 2019 and 2020 the death count went up ten percent and the population increased by ten percent. What was the change in that death rate? The correct answer is zero, there was no change whatsoever in the death rate. death rate (a) = death count (a) / population (a) death rate (b) = death count (b) / population (b) death count (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) (a ten percent increase) population (b) = 1.1 x population (a) (a ten percent increase) death rate (b) = 1.1 x death count (a) / 1.1 x population (a) (by substitution) Dividing the numerator and the denominator by the same "1.1" we get death rate (b) = death count (a) / population (a) (no change) The moral of the story is that the death count does not consider the population, and the population has a significant effect on the number of deaths. In other words there were likely zero deaths from some new cause. If the death rate went up by ten percent, which it does not in this model, then those deaths are from some change in the causes of death. Either the old causes took more lives or there was some new cause. The bad news is that this opens up a whole new can of worms. While the the census can give us the population parameter for the census year, it is necessary to estimate the population in the nine years between one census and another. When you see differences in data on various websites, it can be because researchers are somewhat free to estimate the population in the years between one census and another. There are some brutally simple ways to estimate the population where necessary. One way is to take the difference in population count between two census years, divide that by ten and add that one-tenth each year between. A better yet still brutal way is to take the percentage change from one census to another, raise that number to the power of one-tenth, then use that as the percentage change each year. Because I have so much more talent in mathematics than most of you here, I could easily "estimate" the population in 2019 to wipe out all the increase you see in the death rate. I would not do that though. It would not be a realistic estimate. I am admitting that there was likely some increase in the death rate, just not very significant. Now then, speaking of "blind faith", which conspiracy website would hire you? Do you speak for IMDB1? Adorable first line. Insecurity noted. So what you're saying is, you understand that the 2019 and 2020 U.S. death counts are exactly what's reported there, and you understand that the increase there is 18.75%. BUT you're saying that this increase in death count, the largest in 100 years, was due to a freak, unprecedented increase in population from 2019-2020. Is that it? I get from your wall of blather that you like hearing yourself talk, but before giving me another wall of that stuff, I'd like to know with a simple yes or no if this is actually your argument. Thanks. To answer your "yes or no" question, what I am saying is that the increase is small, so small in fact that it does not suggest any pandemic. It really does not require the large population increase such as you imagine. I stand by my claim that it was an increase of one-sixth of one percent, and that is using population estimates you are probably using if any.
The "wall of blather" is your rambling since you apparently still do not understand the difference between a count and a rate. I like to tell the truth. You apparently have a problem recognizing it. The amazing thing about the death rate is not how much it changed in 2020, but how little it changes ever. If of all the people who go to the grocery store one percent of them buy M&Ms, we would expect that number to fluctuate year to year, even more than one percent up or down. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 14, 2023 1:05:13 GMT
Some of the increase in deaths can be explained by your anti-covid measures. If I seal people in their apartments to keep them from catching covid, and their apartment building catches fire while they're trapped inside, then that would increase the death count. There were also many suicides and drug-related deaths due to your lockdowns and the resulting economic devastation. You have blood on your hands, Drac. This will be for nothing since you'll just ignore it: Suicides in 2019: 47,511 Suicides in 2020: 45,979 Drug overdose deaths in 2019: 62,172 Drug overdose deaths in 2020: 68,630 Fire deaths in 2019: 3,515 Fire deaths in 2020: 3,720 So the above represents 0.15% of 3,390,029 deaths. Your conspiracy theories caused a worse spread and many more people to drown in their lungs during the onset of the pandemic when it was most important to flatten the curve. Hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. alone could've been saved if not for your type of ignorance. Me? You forced people to crowd together early on. You closed small businesses, and then forced everyone to crowd together in chain stores. You also had curfews in place so that people couldn't be in these stores sporadically throughout the day, but instead had to all be there at the same time. How is that conducive to 'flattening the curve'? |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 14, 2023 1:11:47 GMT
Some of the increase in deaths can be explained by your anti-covid measures. If I seal people in their apartments to keep them from catching covid, and their apartment building catches fire while they're trapped inside, then that would increase the death count. There were also many suicides and drug-related deaths due to your lockdowns and the resulting economic devastation. You have blood on your hands, Drac. This will be for nothing since you'll just ignore it: Suicides in 2019: 47,511 Suicides in 2020: 45,979 Drug overdose deaths in 2019: 62,172 Drug overdose deaths in 2020: 68,630 Fire deaths in 2019: 3,515 Fire deaths in 2020: 3,720 So the above represents 0.15% of 3,390,029 deaths. Your conspiracy theories caused a worse spread and many more people to drown in their lungs during the onset of the pandemic when it was most important to flatten the curve. Hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. alone could've been saved if not for your type of ignorance. You seem to keep forgetting what a really small death rate 1.0226 percent is. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on May 14, 2023 1:12:18 GMT
Adorable first line. Insecurity noted. So what you're saying is, you understand that the 2019 and 2020 U.S. death counts are exactly what's reported there, and you understand that the increase there is 18.75%. BUT you're saying that this increase in death count, the largest in 100 years, was due to a freak, unprecedented increase in population from 2019-2020. Is that it? I get from your wall of blather that you like hearing yourself talk, but before giving me another wall of that stuff, I'd like to know with a simple yes or no if this is actually your argument. Thanks. There were also many suicides and drug-related deaths due to your lockdowns and the resulting economic devastation. You have blood on your hands, Drac. LOL so much for your half-arsed attempt to explain a hypothesis. Good luck with any evidence At least you didn't actually claim to know anything about science unlike your lamebrain buddy, who is embarrassing himself every time he tries. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 14, 2023 1:21:28 GMT
Some of the increase in deaths can be explained by your anti-covid measures. If I seal people in their apartments to keep them from catching covid, and their apartment building catches fire while they're trapped inside, then that would increase the death count. There were also many suicides and drug-related deaths due to your lockdowns and the resulting economic devastation. You have blood on your hands, Drac. LOL so much for your half-arsed attempt to explain a hypothesis. Good luck with any evidence At least you didn't actually claim to know anything about science unlike your lamebrain buddy, who is embarrassing himself every time he tries. You thought the scientific method was to find evidence to support one's hypothesis. Will you acknowledge that is incorrect? The scientific method is to put one's hypothesis under strict scrutiny, and attempt to disprove it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on May 14, 2023 1:26:12 GMT
You are right. It only makes a little sense, which in your version of science, right on! However in my version of science, we look for evidence after making hypotheses. For any particular reason for the death rate to drop, it either continues to drop, levels off or rises. If the reason continues the death rate continues at the low rate. Your idea that the death rate rises only happens if the reason for the drop ends, for example if suddenly we no longer used antibiotics. In wombat science we ask for a hypothesis on why the US death rate increased from 2013. It wasnt covid. In olaf science we are free to make wild guesses. Fail. Also in my version of science we start by being careful about word definitions. An epidemic is a regional disease outbreak, meaning physical region like North America, not just the Panhandle or Apalachia. Note no mention of deaths. From the Greek 'pan-' meaning 'all', pandemic means global epidemic, not confined to the USA. Again for you, Fail. Like we didn't have enough bad science from the left already, you have more. It's like Christmas for me. The glaring mistake in your "thinking" is failing to recognize the connection between the death rate and the birth rate. There is no advance in technology that can break that connection. No matter how wonderful or long your life is, you will be born exactly once and die exactly once (your body anyway, what happens to your "spirit" is not considered here). There is a "one-to-one correspondence," as teachers often put it, between births and deaths. Okay where an individual country is concerned there can be immigration and emigration, which can be extremely complicating, but for the purposes of illustration by a simple model let's assume immigration and emigration are zero for whatever reason. Consider some "new' antibiotic. It causes life expectancy to increase. On its introduction the death rate drops, no surprise. Then you happen along and suggest that as long as that technology is continued as is, the death rate will continue to drop. But wait, it cannot drop to zero. In fact it cannot drop below the birth rate for any indefinite amount of time. So much for your plan. In fact in the long run the antibiotic will have absolutely no effect on the death rate, which is entirely, in the long run anyway, dependent on the birth rate. Thank you for admitting that almost no one who "got" covid died from it. Some people don't seem to understand the significance of that. If they do not die it becomes a matter of statistical analysis how severe the disease is. While we are being careful with words and their meanings "statistical analysis" is not "science" anymore than Wombat science is science. OMG you are embarrassing. Perhaps you should one day do some real work with statistics instead of just spending 5 minutes reading a Wikipedia article. This is not a good forum to explain complex statistical interactions by mentioning a few extraneous factors and jump up and down screaming "AHA". Thank you for admitting that almost no one who "got" covid died from it. You could start by trying to prove this fatuous statement. Hint: don't use the 3 years supply of international data amassed by thousands of covid researchers who came to the opposite conclusion. While we are being careful with words and their meanings "statistical analysis" is not "science"
LOL I just noticed this classic that I first wiped rjfmes nose with in past years. Theoretical physics, drug and vaccine efficacy, meteorology, climate science and several other areas of (ahem) science require statistical analysis as a basic exploration tool. |
|
