|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on May 14, 2023 1:38:39 GMT
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. I suppose having never thought about science till now, you would have to pick to pieces statements instead of understanding them. When one voices a hypothesis one usually has seen some bit of evidence which suggests a certain line of reasoning, leading to the formation of said hypothesis. That evidence could well be looking at statistics to look for a possible pattern. You are correct that the next step is to research evidence to strengthen, modify or disprove that hypothesis. However one doesn't usually pull a hypothesis out of thin air like trying to pull a fart out of your arse with your hands.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 14, 2023 1:48:30 GMT
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. Exact data on how many people died "from" covid is difficult to obtain because of the 'comorbidity" issue. Even with that though the estimates range from 2 to about 4 percent of covid "cases" resulting in death. When you got all frantic about the definition of a pandemic I assumed you were recognizing how few people died from covid. When I speak of science I mean science ceteris paribus. I suppose you'll need to look that up. How many died can be a matter of a simple count, a "parameter." What they died from is a medical opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 1:57:00 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. 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. You can't answer my question because you just realized your argument went down in flames, and now what we have here is an empty post that includes "I stand by my claim", but your claim is being pulled out of your ass, based on absolutely nothing. You said this in your previous post: "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."That is you making the argument that the percentage increase in death count in 2020 must've been due to a similarly high population increase in 2020, is it not? Of course I know the difference between count and rate, since what I've been describing here as your false claim is you claiming that a higher 2020 death total came from a freak increase in population in 2019-2020 where more people were dying per day in that bigger population.
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 2:04:07 GMT
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'? Cool story bro. Yeah you and people like you - hundreds of thousands of deaths is what you caused that could've been saved, because you insisted there should've been no precautions in a pandemic where precautions is what would lower the spread of a virus. It's that simple. What I did is insist on wearing masks, social distancing, getting vaccinated - the very things that end any pandemic at all.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 14, 2023 2:16:14 GMT
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'? Cool story bro. Yeah you and people like you - hundreds of thousands of deaths is what you caused that could've been saved, because you insisted there should've been no precautions in a pandemic where precautions is what would lower the spread of a virus. It's that simple. What I did is insist on wearing masks, social distancing, getting vaccinated - the very things that end any pandemic at all. How was cramming everyone into the same few big box stores conducive to social distancing?
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 14, 2023 2:18:22 GMT
Anyone who understands science would not have “blind faith” in it.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 14, 2023 2:20:14 GMT
Throughout human history many if not most scientists happily collaborated with civil or religious authorities at the expense of scientific integrity. That's just human nature. Nowadays we live in an age when free expression or unbounded persuit of information are often pure poison to a career in science. Make your own conclusions. Spoken as an ignorant person who knows nothing about science. We live in an age of dunces who have blind faith in conmen.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 14, 2023 2:22:50 GMT
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'? Cool story bro. Yeah you and people like you - hundreds of thousands of deaths is what you caused that could've been saved, because you insisted there should've been no precautions in a pandemic where precautions is what would lower the spread of a virus. It's that simple. What I did is insist on wearing masks, social distancing, getting vaccinated - the very things that end any pandemic at all. Maybe you should get a lawyer and sue, sue, sue!
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 2:26:54 GMT
Cool story bro. Yeah you and people like you - hundreds of thousands of deaths is what you caused that could've been saved, because you insisted there should've been no precautions in a pandemic where precautions is what would lower the spread of a virus. It's that simple. What I did is insist on wearing masks, social distancing, getting vaccinated - the very things that end any pandemic at all. How was cramming everyone into the same few big box stores conducive to social distancing? Oh, you mean something I never condoned and which you're lying about since in fact stores had social distancing rules? Well, the answer to your false question is, "cramming everyone" together during a pandemic is always a bad idea. Let me guess, now comes something about protests.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 14, 2023 2:29:43 GMT
How was cramming everyone into the same few big box stores conducive to social distancing? Oh, you mean something I never condoned and which you're lying about since in fact stores had social distancing rules? Well, the answer to your false question is, "cramming everyone" together during a pandemic is always a bad idea during a pandemic. Let me guess, now comes something about protests. The morons crammed their churches out of pure spite, the true Christian virtue, and a lot of them died too.
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 2:34:47 GMT
Cool story bro. Yeah you and people like you - hundreds of thousands of deaths is what you caused that could've been saved, because you insisted there should've been no precautions in a pandemic where precautions is what would lower the spread of a virus. It's that simple. What I did is insist on wearing masks, social distancing, getting vaccinated - the very things that end any pandemic at all. Maybe you should get a lawyer and sue, sue, sue! No, but you and your ilk should reflect on your mistakes and understand the error of your ways before you cause many more preventable deaths on the next big pandemic that hopefully won't come. I hear that humans can be good at reflecting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 2:36:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 14, 2023 2:37:58 GMT
Maybe you should get a lawyer and sue, sue, sue! No, but you and your ilk should reflect on your mistakes and understand the error of your ways before you cause many more preventable deaths on the next big pandemic that hopefully won't come. I hear that humans can be good at reflecting. Guilt trip based on lies won't work, Drac. Why don't you try "Global Warming" again?
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 2:54:17 GMT
No, but you and your ilk should reflect on your mistakes and understand the error of your ways before you cause many more preventable deaths on the next big pandemic that hopefully won't come. I hear that humans can be good at reflecting. Guilt trip based on lies won't work, Drac. Why don't you try "Global Warming" again? Guilt trip? You replied to me and I replied back with my honest opinion. Don't whine now about the reply you get when you ask for one, let alone assume it means I give a crap about making you feel guilty about something or that I'd expect you would in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 14, 2023 3:01:36 GMT
How was cramming everyone into the same few big box stores conducive to social distancing? Oh, you mean something I never condoned and which you're lying about since in fact stores had social distancing rules? Well, the answer to your false question is, "cramming everyone" together during a pandemic is always a bad idea. Let me guess, now comes something about protests. If you supported shutting down small businesses, then you supported cramming everyone into the big box stores. If you're going to claim that this policy was justified by 'science', then explain how.
|
|