Bad News Thread

dad4 said:
Knowing the link to cramped housing helps you avoid drawing a bad policy conclusion from your LA data.

Unless you ignore it. Then you learn nothing, and it is that much harder to enact useful policies.

I don't think anyone has predictions as accurate as you want. They can tell you that cases will be higher with indoor dining than without. They can tell you that the choir practice is a bad idea. But they can't tell you what cases will be in 8-12 weeks.

Sorry. If someone had that crystal ball they'd use it.
Click to expand...
No need to get defensive and offer an insincere apology. My point is simply that experts in epidemiology have been given too much influence on policy. As you state, they don't have a crystal ball and their advisements are not without other costs that have been underrepresented in policymaking.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
No need to get defensive and offer an insincere apology. My point is simply that experts in epidemiology have been given too much influence on policy. As you state, they don't have a crystal ball and their advisements are not without other costs that have been underrepresented in policymaking.
Click to expand...
You are essentially saying that you shouldn't have to wear your winter coat unless the weather man can accurately predict rain 3 weeks from now.

The two are not linked. We have enough evidence to know that masks reduce transmission. Can we act on that evidence, or do we need to wait for some really accurate 8 week case count forecasts?
 
dad4 said:
I was pointing to WI/MI because it's the kind of n=2 cheap shot BIZ keeps pushing. It's not valid when I do it, either. Or when you do it with LA, as above.

I think a WI/MI fall 2020 comparison would be interesting. You'd have to look at their policies, street view estimates for mask usage, mobility data, and so on. Not sure how much it would say, but it would tell us more than spring 2021.
Click to expand...
Oh please. Your hysteria was solely based on cases that were dependent on PCR test. It doesn't get any messier than that. Now you wanna go granular to substantiate your shallow analytics. Pathetic.
 
dad4 said:
You are essentially saying that you shouldn't have to wear your winter coat unless the weather man can accurately predict rain 3 weeks from now.

The two are not linked. We have enough evidence to know that masks reduce transmission. Can we act on that evidence, or do we need to wait for some really accurate 8 week case count forecasts?
Click to expand...
You really should just move on to the climate. You can beat CNN to the punch if you start now.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Oh please. Your hysteria was solely based on cases that were dependent on PCR test. It doesn't get any messier than that. Now you wanna go granular to substantiate your shallow analytics. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to write a coherent explanation of your "r^2" analysis.

We can talk stats once you manage that. Until then, you might not want to throw shade on other people's analytics.
 
dad4 said:
I was pointing to WI/MI because it's the kind of n=2 cheap shot BIZ keeps pushing. It's not valid when I do it, either. Or when you do it with LA, as above.

I think a WI/MI fall 2020 comparison would be interesting. You'd have to look at their policies, street view estimates for mask usage, mobility data, and so on. Not sure how much it would say, but it would tell us more than spring 2021.
Click to expand...

So just take the time period which works for you? I seem to recall the CDC doing that too....
 
Grace T. said:
So just take the time period which works for you? I seem to recall the CDC doing that too....
Click to expand...
I don't think you follow. The spring time period works great for me. If I were comparison shopping, I'd be perfectly happy to look at spring: MI opens restaurants, MI has a huge spike. WI has flat restaurant policy, no spike. All done. A simple, easy, dishonest proof that restaurants cause a huge spike. All ready for Twitter.

However, it isn't valid. You don't get to compare growth rates when one area has 50% more seroprevalence than the other. The high immunity area is not at all comparable to the low immunity area.
 
Grace T. said:
Ventura County today announced vaccines are available to anyone who wants one without appointment, just walk in.
Click to expand...
So am I missing something? The Today show said 100m Americans are fully vaccinated and another 140m have had their first shot. So 240m will be fully vaccinated in the next few weeks (some may opt out of second shot but will still be "significantly" vaccinated). If we have a population of 328m and it looks like approx 65m are below current vaccination age, that would mean 91% of those eligible for vaccinations will be vaccinated in a few weeks. To me that's an incredible response...maybe my and Kickingandscreaming's debate about vaccine hesitancy is irrelevant.
 
watfly said:
So am I missing something? The Today show said 100m Americans are fully vaccinated and another 140m have had their first shot. So 240m will be fully vaccinated in the next few weeks (some may opt out of second shot but will still be "significantly" vaccinated). If we have a population of 328m and it looks like approx 65m are below current vaccination age, that would mean 91% of those eligible for vaccinations will be vaccinated in a few weeks. To me that's an incredible response...maybe my and Kickingandscreaming's debate about vaccine hesitancy is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It isn’t “another” 140 million. The 140 million already includes the 100 million. Slowing down and nowhere near herd immunity.

It’s uneven. Some places are nearing 60% of all adults. Some are down near 30%. So, some places will end up herd immune. And some will not.
 
dad4 said:
It isn’t “another” 140 million. The 140 million already includes the 100 million. Slowing down and nowhere near herd immunity.

It’s uneven. Some places are nearing 60% of all adults. Some are down near 30%. So, some places will end up herd immune. And some will not.
Click to expand...
I double checked the Today episode show because I thought the same thing and they clearly said 100m fully and another 140m 1st shot, including a graphic saying the same thing. So now looking at the CDC website it looks like NBC was incorrect as CDC is reporting 105m fully vaccinated and 147m with "at least one dose". That's an incredibly egregious error for NBC to make, and peculiar in light of the fact that their known for always portraying the "worst case scenario" when it comes to Covid. I guess shame on me for believing a story from network news.
 
dad4 said:
Still waiting for you to write a coherent explanation of your "r^2" analysis.

We can talk stats once you manage that. Until then, you might not want to throw shade on other people's analytics.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to calculate the R-squared. Not that a calculation is needed to show a correlation between deaths and hysteria generated cases.
 
dad4 said:
It isn’t “another” 140 million. The 140 million already includes the 100 million. Slowing down and nowhere near herd immunity.

It’s uneven. Some places are nearing 60% of all adults. Some are down near 30%. So, some places will end up herd immune. And some will not.
Click to expand...
I've seen your second graf to be true too. I know of a place in the Bay Area where upwards of 90% people are vaccinated at least partially. It's a popular place for retired Berkeley profs to end up, so no surprise there :) .
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Still waiting for you to calculate the R-squared. Not that a calculation is needed to show a correlation between deaths and hysteria generated cases.
Click to expand...
Enlighten me. Explain your great R^2 wisdom.

For now, I am going with the simpler explanation. BIZ has no clue what to do with a correlation coefficient or how to interpret one. He saw a link on Twitter which talked about how R^2 “proves“ something, and ever since then he’s been dropping the phrase into his posts to try to sound more informed than he really is.
 
Glitterhater said:
I've seen your second graf to be true too. I know of a place in the Bay Area where upwards of 90% people are vaccinated at least partially. It's a popular place for retired Berkeley profs to end up, so no surprise there :) .
Click to expand...
I suspect the hills above gourmet ghetto are pretty safe by now. Nice spot. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top