Bad News Thread

Grace T. said:
Biden isn't exactly off to a rip roaring start in my book. Yesterday, he said that Fauci has been offered the chief medical advisor role. He also came out for a 100 day mask policy. He should know better than that after 2 weeks to slow the spread. If it actually works, he might be forced to extend it and by saying really forcefully he really promises only 100 days he's backed himself into a corner. But more likely (given Europe) it doesn't work and he's embarassed or has to turn around and blame people. Regardless, there isn't any science behind the 100 in 100 days and it's basically a sales slogan (he's probably hoping to catch the drop due to vaccine distribution and declare his policy a victory). Then there was his statement that schools should reopen, but it will cost billions of dollars to retrofit them all with new ventilation systems (so assuming he'd get the money, they'd do this over the summer or something so Fall 2021 for school reopenings).

I'm not exactly disappointed though or saying he's done. None of the other democratic leaders around the world (whether left or right) have done much better.
Click to expand...
Meh. The vast majority of the population is either subject to a mask mandate or wearing them voluntarily. He's just playing to his base.
 
dad4 said:
You, on this board, have demonstrated a level of mathmatical sophistication roughly at a high school pre-calculus level.
Click to expand...
You say that like its a bad thing? If you said that to me I would take it as a complement. I took 2 years of Calculus in HS (from a HS teacher that wrote his own calculus book) and 1 year in college. I can't even tell you what calculus is, but I think it involves the sigma sign? I have mad algebra skills though!

Just a reminder that the virus isn't a math problem, we went through this before with all the claims of exponential growth, that never materialized. Or Keepermom2 prediction of running out of ICU beds based on math. The virus does as it pleases regardless of math.
 
dad4 said:
You said you are ”one of them“. “Them“, in this context, means people who forecast epidemics and epidemic control measures for a living.

It does not mean anyone who does comparisons.

You, on this board, have demonstrated a level of mathmatical sophistication roughly at a high school pre-calculus level.

Before you are qualified to do “comps“ of this sort, you need stats, biostats, multivariate calc, differential equations, non linear differential equations, and at least two classes in biological dynamical systems.

Then, and only then, will you be even remotely qualified to do a “comp” of the kind you are trying to do.
Click to expand...

I actually finished BC calculus with honors and a 5 on the AP test. I took basic statitstics in college as well. I know someone as vaunted as you with such a math degree that you can teach mathematics looks down on us lower math peons. I'll admit it's not my forte. For more complicated comps, we have MBAs that run the numbers. That's not where the trick is. The trick is getting the feel for it and if it's right. Ever see the movie margin call?....it's the difference between the guys running the numbers amd the Jeremy Irons character. But in any case, that's not the situation you are citing. But don't tell me I don't know how to do a comp....it's one of the things I do, thank you very much, and do quite well actually.

Your problem is that your proposition is harder to defend than mine. To show that masks aren't working, I only have to point to the numerous situations in which they aren't. You not only have to show why we should distinguish that, but also show a circumstance where they are. I then only need to show a reason why your cited circumstance (YOUR comp) doesn't work....to distinguish it away. It's not "fair" but your job is actually harder than mine. And if I were in your shoes (a teacher) I'd have to give you a failing grade for your efforts so far....because we look everywhere around the world and masks are a failing proposition.

By the by, for a guy who is horrified by ad hominem attacks you sure do engage in a lot of them. Guess tournament hypocrisy isn't your only hypocrisy.
 
Grace T. said:
I actually finished BC calculus with honors and a 5 on the AP test. I took basic statitstics in college as well. I know someone as vaunted as you with such a math degree that you can teach mathematics looks down on us lower math peons. I'll admit it's not my forte. For more complicated comps, we have MBAs that run the numbers. That's not where the trick is. The trick is getting the feel for it and if it's right. Ever see the movie margin call?....it's the difference between the guys running the numbers amd the Jeremy Irons character. But in any case, that's not the situation you are citing. But don't tell me I don't know how to do a comp....it's one of the things I do, thank you very much, and do quite well actually.

Your problem is that your proposition is harder to defend than mine. To show that masks aren't working, I only have to point to the numerous situations in which they aren't. You not only have to show why we should distinguish that, but also show a circumstance where they are. I then only need to show a reason why your cited circumstance (YOUR comp) doesn't work....to distinguish it away. It's not "fair" but your job is actually harder than mine. And if I were in your shoes (a teacher) I'd have to give you a failing grade for your efforts so far....because we look everywhere around the world and masks are a failing proposition.

By the by, for a guy who is horrified by ad hominem attacks you sure do engage in a lot of them. Guess tournament hypocrisy isn't your only hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I’d actually pegged you as having taken calc and basic stats in college but forgotten it. Leaves you functioning at a pre-calc level, which is too weak for what you’re trying to do here.

The trouble comes when you see a phrase like “not statistically significant.”. You can’t remember the definition of “not statistically significant’, so you read it as “not significant”. That omission changes the meaning entirely, and gives you completely the wrong idea.
 
dad4 said:
I’d actually pegged you as having taken calc and basic stats in college but forgotten it. Leaves you functioning at a pre-calc level, which is too weak for what you’re trying to do here.

The trouble comes when you see a phrase like “not statistically significant.”. You can’t remember the definition of “not statistically significant’, so you read it as “not significant”. That omission changes the meaning entirely, and gives you completely the wrong idea.
Click to expand...

Somewhat on point I'd say. I have an almost eiditic memory but it's beginning to fail over the years, and I have found myself struggling harder through the number sheets recently. In any case, you are right I couldn't produce the underlying math, but I'm competent enough to read the MBAs' analysis of it and make projections based on it. Though you caught me, it's not my favorite thing to do and I groan when I have to see it.

I undersand what "not statistically significant means". You are making the opposite fallacy though and assuming that because there is a difference, it means its significant. That's not how anyone interpreted the study, and I even showed you an exposition (from an MD no less) showing you why you are wrong. I also showed you in the same interpetation why that's a very bad place to even start the inquiry. Because the study started with instructions given to people on how to wear the mask. Because the study handed out surgical masks and the instruction was to replace often. And because the study didn't take into account the cloth masks and bandanas that people wear. The acutal real world circumstance are WORSE than the study, so if you are starting from not statistically significant it's bad. That's why all you blue pillers are so anxious to dunk on the study, and everyone outside your bubble knows it. And that's from a middle of the road, fair critique that I cited...I could cite others but you'd dismiss them as partisan sources.

But that's the problem with you. You are clinging for dear life so terrified to that blue pill that you engage in goalpost moving, straw men, mischaracterizing others statements, and even cry ad hominem when you yourself start engaging in it (and started it). You are so terrified of losing your blue pill and the illusion of control that you'll do anything and everything to alter the reality around you and preserve your illusion. It's sad.
 
Grace T. said:
Somewhat on point I'd say. I have an almost eiditic memory but it's beginning to fail over the years, and I have found myself struggling harder through the number sheets recently. In any case, you are right I couldn't produce the underlying math, but I'm competent enough to read the MBAs' analysis of it and make projections based on it. Though you caught me, it's not my favorite thing to do and I groan when I have to see it.

I undersand what "not statistically significant means". You are making the opposite fallacy though and assuming that because there is a difference, it means its significant. That's not how anyone interpreted the study, and I even showed you an exposition (from an MD no less) showing you why you are wrong. I also showed you in the same interpetation why that's a very bad place to even start the inquiry. Because the study started with instructions given to people on how to wear the mask. Because the study handed out surgical masks and the instruction was to replace often. And because the study didn't take into account the cloth masks and bandanas that people wear. The acutal real world circumstance are WORSE than the study, so if you are starting from not statistically significant it's bad. That's why all you blue pillers are so anxious to dunk on the study, and everyone outside your bubble knows it. And that's from a middle of the road, fair critique that I cited...I could cite others but you'd dismiss them as partisan sources.

But that's the problem with you. You are clinging for dear life so terrified to that blue pill that you engage in goalpost moving, straw men, mischaracterizing others statements, and even cry ad hominem when you yourself start engaging in it (and started it). You are so terrified of losing your blue pill and the illusion of control that you'll do anything and everything to alter the reality around you and preserve your illusion. It's sad.
Click to expand...

p.s. there's a reason they have people like me (or with differing degrees, such as psychologists, law, finance and even fine arts) look at the comps and make the calls. They've found the numbers people like you are really bad at it. One of my mentor's (the one that gave me my first break) was a wiz at them....had a BA from a no name college somewhere, worked her way up from the secretarial pool in a boys only club industry, and was looked down by the numbers guys that someone like her got to judge their work....she was a great at it (always right).
 
Grace T. said:
Somewhat on point I'd say. I have an almost eiditic memory but it's beginning to fail over the years, and I have found myself struggling harder through the number sheets recently. In any case, you are right I couldn't produce the underlying math, but I'm competent enough to read the MBAs' analysis of it and make projections based on it. Though you caught me, it's not my favorite thing to do and I groan when I have to see it.

I undersand what "not statistically significant means". You are making the opposite fallacy though and assuming that because there is a difference, it means its significant. That's not how anyone interpreted the study, and I even showed you an exposition (from an MD no less) showing you why you are wrong. I also showed you in the same interpetation why that's a very bad place to even start the inquiry. Because the study started with instructions given to people on how to wear the mask. Because the study handed out surgical masks and the instruction was to replace often. And because the study didn't take into account the cloth masks and bandanas that people wear. The acutal real world circumstance are WORSE than the study, so if you are starting from not statistically significant it's bad. That's why all you blue pillers are so anxious to dunk on the study, and everyone outside your bubble knows it. And that's from a middle of the road, fair critique that I cited...I could cite others but you'd dismiss them as partisan sources.

But that's the problem with you. You are clinging for dear life so terrified to that blue pill that you engage in goalpost moving, straw men, mischaracterizing others statements, and even cry ad hominem when you yourself start engaging in it (and started it). You are so terrified of losing your blue pill and the illusion of control that you'll do anything and everything to alter the reality around you and preserve your illusion. It's sad.
Click to expand...
Reread your second paragraph. You're still conflating statistical significance with significance.

Statistical significance is not how you measure the strength of a potential correlation. If you want to do that, you need different tools and a much larger study.
 
Grace T. said:
p.s. there's a reason they have people like me (or with differing degrees, such as psychologists, law, finance and even fine arts) look at the comps and make the calls. They've found the numbers people like you are really bad at it. One of my mentor's (the one that gave me my first break) was a wiz at them....had a BA from a no name college somewhere, worked her way up from the secretarial pool in a boys only club industry, and was looked down by the numbers guys that someone like her got to judge their work....she was a great at it (always right).
Click to expand...
Says the woman who has been wrong on masks since March and still won't admit it.
 
dad4 said:
Reread your second paragraph. You're still conflating statistical significance with significance.

Statistical significance is not how you measure the strength of a potential correlation. If you want to do that, you need different tools and a much larger study.
Click to expand...

You've just accused me of doing the opposite of what you originally accused me of (which is what you were doing to begin with). Seriously dude...words really aren't your strength at all.

And BTW, yes I agree we would need different tools and much larger study. Unfortunately, though this is the one we have, it's not a very great starting point for your argument and as I've established you have the burden of proof given real world circumstances.
 
Grace T. said:
Mask mandates everywhere, the world burning around you and you have the tenacity to say that. :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

The blue pill is powerful stuff.
Click to expand...
Could be the blue pill. Maybe a 5 on BC calc 30 years ago is more important than listening to the people who teach graduate seminars in biostatistical modeling methods.

Or you could be completely out of your depth.

Hard to say, really.

Is it time for you to insult me for being a math teacher again? Or for my reading comprehension? It's kind of like Dostoyevsky predicting the red/black patterns.
 
dad4 said:
Could be the blue pill. Maybe a 5 on BC calc 30 years ago is more important than listening to the people who teach graduate seminars in biostatistical modeling methods.

Or you could be completely out of your depth.

Hard to say, really.

Is it time for you to insult me for being a math teacher again? Or for my reading comprehension? It's kind of like Dostoyevsky predicting the red/black patterns.
Click to expand...

It's the blue pill. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It's funny that the more someone pokes at it in your grasp the hornier you become.

You never did answer why you are ashamed of being a math teacher? I happen to think it's a nobel profession. It just explains why you are sometimes challenged by the verbal aspect of things, much as you've pointed out how much better you are at the math. No shame in it.
 
The CDC is now recommending masks inside the home in certain circumstances. If someone is infected (makes sense), has a known close contact (hmmm...o.k.), has a potential exposure related to occupation (so wait...supermarket workers who live with other people now are being advised to wear masks 24/7???), or has been in crowded public settings (so wait....anyone on an airplane, bus, subway, or protest is being advised to a wear a mask???? can't see anyone taking advice on this). What do you think dad....good advice?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334945079958462465
 
Grace T. said:
...

You never did answer why you are ashamed of being a math teacher? I happen to think it's a nobel profession.
Click to expand...
Mathematics is not a Nobel profession. Fields medal. But not the Nobel. Downright discriminatory if you ask me.

But it's the ignoble prize I'd really want.
 
Grace T. said:
The CDC is now recommending masks inside the home in certain circumstances. If someone is infected (makes sense), has a known close contact (hmmm...o.k.), has a potential exposure related to occupation (so wait...supermarket workers who live with other people now are being advised to wear masks 24/7???), or has been in crowded public settings (so wait....anyone on an airplane, bus, subway, or protest is being advised to a wear a mask???? can't see anyone taking advice on this). What do you think dad....good advice?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334945079958462465
Click to expand...
Does the virus know who owns the building?

Makes sense for short term unavoidable exposure, but breaks down for cohabitation.

Then you get beyond what I can follow. Perma masks in the home mean a moderate reduction in viral load over a very long time interval. I haven't seen the research on that, and I would have trouble comprehending it if I did.
 
Grace T. said:
It's the blue pill. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It's funny that the more someone pokes at it in your grasp the hornier you become.

You never did answer why you are ashamed of being a math teacher? I happen to think it's a nobel profession. It just explains why you are sometimes challenged by the verbal aspect of things, much as you've pointed out how much better you are at the math. No shame in it.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that he was ashamed to be a math teacher. He pointed out that you were belittling math teachers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top