Yeah you do have a tendency to run that car around in a circle. At least it’s cute
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
You're the one who is avoiding the question.
I answered you: your bias.
Actually I think it is you who refuse to believe the actual facts on the ground.
Read the article. Look at the graphs as the compare what CA has done vs FL.
In light of everything our officials have taught us about how this virus spreads, it defies reality that Florida, a fully open and popular travel destination with one of the oldest populations in the country, currently has lower hospitalizations and deaths per million than California, a state with much heavier restrictions and one of the youngest populations in the country. While it is true that, overall, California does slightly better than Florida in deaths per million, simply accounting for California's much younger population tips the scales in Florida’s favor.
Florida has zero restrictions on bars, breweries, indoor dining, gyms, places of worship, gathering sizes, and almost all schools are offering in-person instruction. California, on the other hand, retains heavy restrictions in each of these areas. At the very least, Florida's hospitalizations and deaths per million should be substantially worse than California's. Those who predicted death and destruction as a consequence of Florida's September reopening simply cannot see these results as anything other than utterly remarkable. Even White House covid advisor Andy Slavitt, much to the establishment’s embarrassment, had no explanation for Florida’s success relative to California. Slavitt was reduced to parroting establishment talking points after admitting that Florida’s surprisingly great numbers were “just a little beyond our explanation.”
--
We can see that, relative to Floridians, Californians have consistently been doing a better job of avoiding social behaviors that allegedly fuel the spread of covid-19. Moreover, at no point was there a drastic change in behavioral patterns after December 17 indicating that Floridians had suddenly begun avoiding activities purportedly linked to covid transmission.
A quick glance at each state's "social distancing score" also indicates, yet again, that Californians have been doing a better job avoiding activities meant to facilitate the spread of covid-19. Additionally, Google's covid mobility reports, as of February 16, 2021, show that Californians partake in fewer retail and recreational visits—restaurants, cafes, shopping centers, theme parks, museums, libraries, and movie theaters—as well as fewer grocery store and pharmacy visits, which include farmers markets, food warehouses, and speciality food shops.
--
Moving on from the Florida-California comparison, national metrics also highlight the lack of correlation between the intensity of states' NPIs—methodology for determining this can be found here—and deaths per million.
--
Similar case patterns across fifty states is hardly an indicator of a government capable of influencing the course of the virus. Instead, research published in Evolutionary Bioinformatics shows that case counts and mortality rates are strongly correlated with temperature and latitude, a concept known as “seasonality,” which, once recognized, largely explains the failure of the past year’s NPIs.
Meanwhile, we can look at seasonally congruent regions to see whether or not varying degrees of behavioral mandates have had any noticeable impact on cases. What we find, thanks to seasonality, is that regardless of the timing or existence of mask mandates and other behavioral mandates, similar regions follow similar case growth patterns.
--
For the firm believer in NPIs, these simultaneous and nearly identical fluctuations between cities within the same state and states having similar climates are inexplicable. After accepting seasonality as one of the driving factors behind case fluctuations, we can start speaking of "covid season" as pragmatically as we speak of "flu season."
--
Some of you may be wondering about the "holiday surges" that were supposed to have ravaged our hospitals following Thanksgiving and Christmas. Well, they never happened. Not only did the rate of covid-19 hospitalization growth decline after Thanksgiving, hospitalizations peaked less than two weeks after Christmas and have been sharply plummeting since! At the very least we should have seen a rapid increase in the hospitalization growth rate in the few weeks following Christmas.
---
Almost a Year Later, There’s Still No Evidence Showing Governments Can Control the Spread of Covid-19 | Mises Institute
The covid lockdowners still have no explanation for why California and Florida—with such different covid policies—have similar covid death rates. The Whitemises.org
Your article is from some right wing crackpot site that proudly talks about "why the capitol riots scared the elite". ( Apparently they think the elite are the bad guys and the good guy is the man who used a fire extinguisher to smash in a police officer's skull. )
If you want to be taken seriously, don't post cherry picked pseudo science from Q-Anon cheering loons.
How about Nature or the American Journal of Epidemiology? You know, where the grown ups post.
Desert Hound
DA
He is just posting the data amigo.
What did he post?
The fact that FL is open and CA is not and yet the outcomes are similar.
Do you dispute that?
What else did he post?
Oh yeah stats/data from Carnegie Mellon which shows what people are doing? What are those stats? That people in CA have been going out far less vs FL. And why is that important? Because despite Californians not going out as much as people from FL, the end result covid wise has been about exactly the same.
Do you discount him writing about what stats from Carnegie Mellon show? He is posting their info.
Anything wrong with Carnegie Mellon?
The charts/dates regarding rises and falls of covid activity he posted comes from Johns Hopkins. He posts links and images directly from that. You can look at the data/images yourself.
So what part of John's Hopkins stats are you now saying are false?
In other words all the sources used for the article come from highly respected institutions. He is not referencing psuedo science is he?
Other sources include for instance the google covid 19 mobility reports.
So it is disengenous on your part to say I don't like the author and thereby pretend that he is using psuedo science websites for his stats. He is not.
You simply don't have an answer why your preferred solution/options over this past year have not been effective.
The goal post is right where it always was: Rt <1.0, long term.
Hüsker Dü
DA
You base your skepticism on data that has been purposely shaped to support a certain agenda. We all do in some way, but some of us look beyond the sources that strictly adhere to our preferred and predetermined outcomes. That, and those that self-declare what they are, are often mistaken.
That's hilarious coming from your side since that's all the experts and pro-lockdowners have done throughout all this, and a result have been proven wrong repeatedly. Our side has it easier: we just raised the questions that often times made you guys look foolish and anti-science. Our agenda is simply skepticism.
Again, not what you said.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Again by trying to stick known fact, “reality”(and yes as science progresses some hypothesis change), you see that as a “bias”? A bias against conspiracy driven drivel perhaps.
The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories
Analysts are tracking false rumours about COVID-19 in hopes of curbing their spread.
www.nature.com
Hüsker Dü
DA
Side? You guys? Care to explain comrade?
Again by trying to stick known fact, “reality”(and yes as science progresses some hypothesis change), you see that as a “bias”? A bias against conspiracy driven drivel perhaps.
The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories
Analysts are tracking false rumours about COVID-19 in hopes of curbing their spread.
That's exactly the issue. There isn't a whole lot of "fact". To dad's point, we don't really even understand a lot of the factors that are driving Rt<1. Instead, we have a bunch of experts that are speculating on things and calling them "facts" (even going so far as to put out propaganda based studies like the CDC mask study dad cited a few weeks ago to justify their priors). We have experts that threw out years and years of pandemic planning to do lockdowns and ordering masking (even though there's no RCS and can't be proving that masks help with COVID on a macro level). We had experts that told everyone to lockdown and socially distance, but when the BLM protests came those were "important" and the prior advice was disgarded. We even had scientists that came up with the new Biden school guidance based on "input from stakeholders" (read the teachers union) even though it is wholly absent in science, was contradicted by the CDC director's prior advice, and has been widely disregarded by even blue states like NY, Massachusetts and California, and then in a propaganda fit was masked as a school "reopening" plan while really it was a school closing plan (and they would have gotten away with it too but not for quick spotting people like our own dad4).
We on the anti-lockdown side are only skeptics. We raise the questions the experts can't. We aren't headed in a particular direction because we aren't vested in the outcome (remember the 20% threshold limits...the anti-lockdowners quickly acknowledged herd immunity thresholds were much higher when proven wrong). We were among the first to say we have a problem coming, when the experts had their head in the sand. We are the pro-science and pro-data. We are Galileo, you are the church.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Better safe than sorry
Hüsker Dü
DA
Again you derive your data from conspiracy driven fly by nights. Your stance is heretical to humankind not to any fairytales. They use you for clicks and revenue, they’ll tell you what you want to hear. Life is tough, tough love is not the easy road but the prudent one. Toughen up.
Take your pick:
-Lockdowners v. antilockdowners
-Team panic v. team reality
-Blue pillers v red pillers
-Husker/espola/EOTL/dad4 v. Grace/Hound/Kicker/Alf
No, "better safe than sorry" is antiscience. Those of are the words of the scared and panic, and the pandemic has proved scared and panic are just as dangerous and destructive. And what's worse is even when proven wrong y'all dig your heels in (witness dad4's epic just now of goalpost moving and throwing up every justification he can think of rather than "yeah, maybe I did overestimate the impact, but it's still stupid".)
Way to keep those stakes burning.
Did you intend that to mean something?
went right over your head didn't it. No surprise there.
It appears to me that whatever meaning you had in your head evaporated by the time it got to your fingers.