|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 14, 2023 3:07:56 GMT
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. You can't reason with them. They are a different kind.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 14, 2023 3:15:54 GMT
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. Herald wants more deaths. He's got to get global population below 500,000,000.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 14, 2023 3:16:17 GMT
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. You can't reason with them. They are a different kind. Define reason. And if we are so different, do we need to be segregated away in order to protect you and your children?
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on May 14, 2023 3:17:47 GMT
Is there such a thing as "blind faith" in science? Can it be harmful?... ... ... Having established that blind faith in science is a severe problem does that mean religious people never make bad choices in the name of their religion? Of course not, there is bad religion in addition to bad science. Lately there is more bad science, but it can be close to a tie.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 14, 2023 3:22:34 GMT
You can't reason with them. They are a different kind. Define reason. And if we are so different, do we need to be segregated away in order to protect you and your children? ^^ Looks like more drama.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 14, 2023 3:26:08 GMT
Define reason. And if we are so different, do we need to be segregated away in order to protect you and your children? ^^ Looks like more drama. And more dodging.
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 3:39:16 GMT
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. As already explained, "cramming everyone" is a lie, as is the lie that closing small businesses caused such "cramming" in big box stores. People were buying what they needed online and big stores had social distancing rules. The closing of things like movie theaters and restaurants didn't cause more people to run to the supermarket or Home Depot. So what you believe is that the way the spread of a virus is lowered is by doing absolutely nothing. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 14, 2023 4:18:01 GMT
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.
To be exact that was me trying to show you that your argument is invalid because it does not consider population. It is merely to show the importance of including a number you ignored. What else you got from it is your own doing.
Notice how reasonable the estimate of the population is for 2019. I chose it to fit the other numbers which are almost exactly what the US Census Bureau reports. It is apparently the population estimate they used, but did not report. Year Population # Deaths % Deaths 2020 331499281 3390029 1.0226 2019 331495355 2854838 0.8612 1 / 6 1.0226 / 0.8612 1.0226 – 0.8612 0.16666666 1.1874129 ("up 18.75%") 0.1614 (less than one-sixth of one percent)
You never got one-sixth of one percent because you used the death count seen in column 3 instead of the death rate seen in column 4.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 14, 2023 4:29:19 GMT
Is there such a thing as "blind faith" in science? Can it be harmful?... ... ... Having established that blind faith in science is a severe problem does that mean religious people never make bad choices in the name of their religion? Of course not, there is bad religion in addition to bad science. Lately there is more bad science, but it can be close to a tie.
I suspect your confusion is in having to accept that both parties are messed up bad. Both parties are messed up bad, believe me. It's been bad religion fighting bad science for decades now. Correcting bad religion requires good religion and correcting bad science requires good science. That is why we haven't been getting anywhere, neither bad religion nor bad science is going to correct anything. I suspect you won't be able to understand that either though.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on May 14, 2023 4:46:44 GMT
I suspect your confusion is in having to accept that both parties are messed up bad. Both parties are messed up bad, believe me. It's been bad religion fighting bad science for decades now. Correcting bad religion requires good religion and correcting bad science requires good science. That is why we haven't been getting anywhere, neither bad religion nor bad science is going to correct anything. I suspect you won't be able to understand that either though. Comparing Science to Religion is pure lunacy.
You are the one who still hasn't understood this.
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on May 14, 2023 5:51:13 GMT
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.
To be exact that was me trying to show you that your argument is invalid because it does not consider population. It is merely to show the importance of including a number you ignored. What else you got from it is your own doing.
Notice how reasonable the estimate of the population is for 2019. I chose it to fit the other numbers which are almost exactly what the US Census Bureau reports. It is apparently the population estimate they used, but did not report. Year Population # Deaths % Deaths 2020 331499281 3390029 1.0226 2019 331495355 2854838 0.8612 1 / 6 1.0226 / 0.8612 1.0226 – 0.8612 0.16666666 1.1874129 ("up 18.75%") 0.1614 (less than one-sixth of one percent)
You never got one-sixth of one percent because you used the death count seen in column 3 instead of the death rate seen in column 4. No pal, that was you dancing around your own population argument that I was repeating back to you, because you know that your suggestion that there was a freak increase in population from 2019-2020, is false. So to recap: An 18.75% increase in total deaths in 2020 is correct and NOT due to a freak increase in population causing that. Now you're telling me that this huge increase in number of deaths in 2020 is irrelevant because we should instead just look at that death total as a tiny percentage of the total number of living people in the U.S. Is that it? Do I seriously need to explain how goddamn stupid this is?
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 14, 2023 6:00:21 GMT
I suspect your confusion is in having to accept that both parties are messed up bad. Both parties are messed up bad, believe me. It's been bad religion fighting bad science for decades now. Correcting bad religion requires good religion and correcting bad science requires good science. That is why we haven't been getting anywhere, neither bad religion nor bad science is going to correct anything. I suspect you won't be able to understand that either though. It's the bad religion that is saying the science is bad because science means the bad religionists can no longer claim they, and only they, have the truth as they have for thousands of years. No one else is complaining about it.
|
|
|
Post by Swimm on May 14, 2023 6:18:07 GMT
Is there such a thing as "blind faith" in science? Can it be harmful? Before covid the internet discussion boards were replete with people who were adamant that "faith" was not the right word to use with "science." They complained that we should call it "confidence" in science because confidence has a very different character than faith. They said science was especially "rational" and had the ability to "correct itself." Covid "proved" or at least seems to strongly indicate two things. One, there is blind faith in science, and two it can be harmful (shut down the economy). While it might well be true that "science" is rational and subject to constant critical review by experts, that is the "ideal" concept of science. It is what science is "supposed" to be in an ideal sense. It is not necessarily what the real world masses believe is science. So the question becomes can the masses untrained in science commandeer science and thus deprive it of its ideal qualities? That is exactly what covid suggests, we might at this point say "proves." Careful examination of the death toll by qualified statisticians does not indicate a pandemic. If you believe you can dispute that, proceed, I am usually here several hours a day. That is so far anyway, I might get banned for offering "misinformation" or what I call "classes in statistics." Rather, untrained amateurs took various data items out of context, fueling the panic. Distributing the blame can be difficult. Shouldn't the "experts" have advised the amateurs to be more responsible? I am surprised at how Fauci conducted himself. I would think a doctor could have done better. He appeared too concerned about Trump to remain clear headed. There were however lots of good citizens, many of them doctors, telling the truth from the very beginning. The people more fond of science than capable of science would not heed them though. It might be fair to give much blame to the internet. In the early days of the internet many people were excited about the "new and improved" democracy possible with the internet. No more waiting years to vote, just turn on the computers and let the opinions fly. It has become obvious over time though that too many people on the internet speak "out to turn" and outside their fields of expertise. It is basically a monster now that grades its own papers. Having established that blind faith in science is a severe problem does that mean religious people never make bad choices in the name of their religion? Of course not, there is bad religion in addition to bad science. Lately there is more bad science, but it can be close to a tie. ' Of course. Remember the summer riots? Suddenly Covid was generous enough to give immunity to the blacks and its allies while they were out in mass destroying the city. Their studies said this was not only the right move but there was no risk of super spreading. But of course hand full of MAGA's getting together or people wanting to open up their business were magically super spreader events.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 14, 2023 7:53:07 GMT
Is there such a thing as "blind faith" in science? Can it be harmful? Before covid the internet discussion boards were replete with people who were adamant that "faith" was not the right word to use with "science." They complained that we should call it "confidence" in science because confidence has a very different character than faith. They said science was especially "rational" and had the ability to "correct itself." Covid "proved" or at least seems to strongly indicate two things. One, there is blind faith in science, and two it can be harmful (shut down the economy). While it might well be true that "science" is rational and subject to constant critical review by experts, that is the "ideal" concept of science. It is what science is "supposed" to be in an ideal sense. It is not necessarily what the real world masses believe is science. So the question becomes can the masses untrained in science commandeer science and thus deprive it of its ideal qualities? That is exactly what covid suggests, we might at this point say "proves." Careful examination of the death toll by qualified statisticians does not indicate a pandemic. If you believe you can dispute that, proceed, I am usually here several hours a day. That is so far anyway, I might get banned for offering "misinformation" or what I call "classes in statistics." Rather, untrained amateurs took various data items out of context, fueling the panic. Distributing the blame can be difficult. Shouldn't the "experts" have advised the amateurs to be more responsible? I am surprised at how Fauci conducted himself. I would think a doctor could have done better. He appeared too concerned about Trump to remain clear headed. There were however lots of good citizens, many of them doctors, telling the truth from the very beginning. The people more fond of science than capable of science would not heed them though. It might be fair to give much blame to the internet. In the early days of the internet many people were excited about the "new and improved" democracy possible with the internet. No more waiting years to vote, just turn on the computers and let the opinions fly. It has become obvious over time though that too many people on the internet speak "out to turn" and outside their fields of expertise. It is basically a monster now that grades its own papers. Having established that blind faith in science is a severe problem does that mean religious people never make bad choices in the name of their religion? Of course not, there is bad religion in addition to bad science. Lately there is more bad science, but it can be close to a tie. ' Of course. Remember the summer riots? Suddenly Covid was generous enough to give immunity to the blacks and its allies while they were out in mass destroying the city. Their studies said this was not only the right move but there was no risk of super spreading. But of course hand full of MAGA's getting together or people wanting to open up their business were magically super spreader events. Canada had curfews. Because apparently the virus was more catchable after 9 pm.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on May 14, 2023 9:13:08 GMT
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. When I speak of science I mean science ceteris paribus. I suppose you'll need to look that up
FFS of course I do. I failed Latin 60 years ago at school although I was Dux in Mathematics and Chemistry. Only a low self esteem dickhead would boast about having looked up Wikipedia for a translation to use a rare version of "all things being equal", which makes no sense anyway. How many died can be a matter of a simple count, a "parameter." What they died from is a medical opinion.
What does this even mean? I blame the ridiclous American partisan antics duting the pandemic where people were trying to disprove everybody else who belonged to a different party. Nowhere else did we play ring a rosy with death rates for no reason. When you got all frantic about the definition of a pandemic I assumed you were recognizing how few people died from covidYou have shown on several occasions your poor comprehension. You don't need to try to 2nd guess people who aren't American because we aren't GOP/DEM enemies. Exact data on how many people died "from" covid is difficult to obtain because of the 'comorbidity" issue. Only if you are trying to score points. There are several methods, and each has its uses. The current most useful method (because it is for planning purposes, not for an election or debating gambit)is to estimate excess deaths from the expected death rate. It gives a higher death rate than the rates estimated in 2020 but is consistent over almost all countries.
|
|