Bad News Thread

You’re good with numbers, can you please list the 2017 2018 2019 and then 2020 total deaths in the United States from all causes?
Your search search engine works the same as mine.

Tends to be just under 3 million. We are running about 20% over that.

Are you actually playing the "not many people have died" card? I thought we had a serious discussion going here.
 
Your search search engine works the same as mine.

Tends to be just under 3 million. We are running about 20% over that.

Are you actually playing the "not many people have died" card? I thought we had a serious discussion going here.
No....I understand why you assume that, but I’m looking for straight imperial data.
 
You’re good with numbers, can you please list the 2017 2018 2019 and then 2020 total deaths in the United States from all causes?
[/QUOT
Your search search engine works the same as mine.

Tends to be just under 3 million. We are running about 20% over that.

Are you actually playing the "not many people have died" card? I thought we had a serious discussion going here.
Me too. How 'bout that r-squared that you've been avoiding like it was the Corona virus?
 
No....I understand why you assume that, but I’m looking for straight imperial data.
Empirical? Try the CDC website.

I have not found a good way to include the problem of late diagnosis of long term diseases. It is important, but it isn't even clear which way it cuts.

Does late diagnosis mean we over-reacted, and scared people into needlessly delayed screenings?

Or does late diagnosis mean we under-reacted, and let the problem get so large it forced other things aside as we diverted resources to covid cases?

Or both?

BIZ- why r-squared? If you are correlating to an exponential growth rate, even a small change can be very significant. Even if it looks small, you have to actually run it forward in the model before you can dismiss it.

I've been paying more attention to p values in the CDC studies. Like when they say restaurants are linked to higher covid cases with p<0.01 .
 
Empirical? Try the CDC website.

I have not found a good way to include the problem of late diagnosis of long term diseases. It is important, but it isn't even clear which way it cuts.

Does late diagnosis mean we over-reacted, and scared people into needlessly delayed screenings?

Or does late diagnosis mean we under-reacted, and let the problem get so large it forced other things aside as we diverted resources to covid cases?

Or both?

BIZ- why r-squared? If you are correlating to an exponential growth rate, even a small change can be very significant. Even if it looks small, you have to actually run it forward in the model before you can dismiss it.

I've been paying more attention to p values in the CDC studies. Like when they say restaurants are linked to higher covid cases with p<0.01 .
Maybe do some qualitative analysis. But you're siloed so your hysteria is pretty easy to dismiss. Due process has been denied because of your ilks cowardice.
 
Fair question. But you and I can't answer it.

The answer depends on things like " how much can you reduce transmission with a particular NPI?" and " what is the impact of an x percent reduction in transmission?".

Without a common view of those two questions, you can't begin to say how many deaths were inevitable. And we do not share a view on either.
The point is the lockdowners have avoided these questions entirely. What’s more many can’t be answered by just fauci but need to be answered by economists, social workers, addiction specialists, pediatricians and psychologists.
 
The point is the lockdowners have avoided these questions entirely. What’s more many can’t be answered by just fauci but need to be answered by economists, social workers, addiction specialists, pediatricians and psychologists.
What the lockdowners can't explain is that why a yr into it why does TX, FL, CA all have roughly the same numbers.

@dad4 likes to say why look at just 3 states? I say those 3 states have about 90 million people...enough to say CA screwed the pooch. They may as well have sent kids to school and had biz open. They got nothing from the closure covid related, but screwed kids, the poor, biz etc..all while ending up in the same place as TX/FL who did the opposite.

If 90 million people is not a large enough sample size what pray tell is???
 
What the lockdowners can't explain is that why a yr into it why does TX, FL, CA all have roughly the same numbers.

@dad4 likes to say why look at just 3 states? I say those 3 states have about 90 million people...enough to say CA screwed the pooch. They may as well have sent kids to school and had biz open. They got nothing from the closure covid related, but screwed kids, the poor, biz etc..all while ending up in the same place as TX/FL who did the opposite.

If 90 million people is not a large enough sample size what pray tell is???
Southern CA has a worse variant and more cramped housing. These two offset much, but not all, of the benefit of having better covid policies.

CA north of Sacramento, Oregon, and Washington do not have these problems and look much better.

There. Now you have an explanation. Are you going to think about it this time, or will you keep pretending the explanation doesn’t exist?
 
The point is the lockdowners have avoided these questions entirely. What’s more many can’t be answered by just fauci but need to be answered by economists, social workers, addiction specialists, pediatricians and psychologists.
That’s why Trump brought in Atlas. He is well published in the Public Policy Arena.
 
Southern CA has a worse variant and more cramped housing. These two offset much, but not all, of the benefit of having better covid policies.

CA north of Sacramento, Oregon, and Washington do not have these problems and look much better.

There. Now you have an explanation. Are you going to think about it this time, or will you keep pretending the explanation doesn’t exist?
What’s worse about the alleged variant?
 
What’s worse about the alleged variant?
His explanation as to why his preferred policy fails changes constantly.

By the way FL in theory also has a worse variant vs the typical one in the US.

The goal post is apparently not set. It varies constantly.

He and others can't really explain why their policy prescriptions don't work in the real world. They talk models/math...but when we look at actual data the story is different.

One can deal in theory. The successful people adapt to real world data.
 
What’s worse about the alleged variant?
Alleged? It’s been sequenced and they test for it.

The problem is higher R. Same problem as the UK variant, but different mutations that cause it.
 
Alleged? It’s been sequenced and they test for it.

The problem is higher R. Same problem as the UK variant, but different mutations that cause it.

Can you believe I used to think Izzy was one of the smart guys here? But I used to debate a guy on a math forum who thought there was something wrong with the definition of the number 7.
 
Really? He got the better of fauci in that exchange. Forced him to basically only the South Africa variant is a concern, got him to say basically any new variant needs new protocols so masking forever and ended with “I disagree”.

Got the better of him? Paul was acting like a bully (a privilege Senators have enjoyed since the advent of televised hearings), not allowing Fauci to answer his question (that was really more of a speech than a question). I'm guessing you didn't watch the whole thing where a different Senator politely allowed him to make a full response.

 
Got the better of him? Paul was acting like a bully (a privilege Senators have enjoyed since the advent of televised hearings), not allowing Fauci to answer his question (that was really more of a speech than a question). I'm guessing you didn't watch the whole thing where a different Senator politely allowed him to make a full response.

I’ll pull a fauci and say “I disagree” :cool:
 
Paul asked the wrong question, Fauci tried to clearly explain why it was the wrong question, and Paul cut him off.

Not only was Paul wrong, but he was rude while being wrong. That is no way to treat someone who is there as a resource to help you.
 
Back
Top