Any data/math whizzes here?

[midnightpulp]

tholdren will probably try to chime in, which would be :lol

I digress. I ain't no data scientist nor really that proficient at higher level math (since it bored the shit out me), but I feel I have a keen common sense and a good logical "eye." Battling these Covid truthers has got me a bit more into data (like real data, beyond looking at basketball reference and advanced stats), but I'm still a novice. That said, I wanted to examine lockdown efficacy in the primary EU countries + UK.

I created this scatter plot in hopes to reveal a correlation. What you're looking at here is how hard (stringency) a country locked down on the first day of their reported death. Insofar, that is all what this plot is looking at (it's not examining stringency of lockdown after the first death was recorded). Note: Don't be thrown off by the bottom range. Higher means less stringent. I was lazy and just clipped the template off OurWorldInData.

https://i.imgur.com/kSObudo.png

I'm curious where a data person might draw their trend line. I know Splits is a data guy, but he ain't around. I know BaselineBum is post-grad level math, so I'm throwing out the bat signal.

[midnightpulp]

Forgot about Dok Will Hunting

[spurraider21]

Chris (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656)
FrostKing

[midnightpulp]

Added some data viz and fixed the bottom numbers so they aren't inverted.

https://i.imgur.com/ai9dxZy.png

[Will Hunting]

Forgot about Dok Will Hunting (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17032)
Relationship between the two looks more parabolic than direct tbh, I wouldn’t draw a trend line.

[Will Hunting]

Chris (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656)
FrostKing (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=51741)
:lol

[DarrinS]

Add Japan

[tholdren]

BwahahahahhahahahahahHHh

[DarrinS]

It would be interesting to see this plot for US states. Perhaps, the top 15 or so states with largest populations.

[midnightpulp]

Relationship between the two looks more parabolic than direct tbh, I wouldn’t draw a trend line.

Right on. Would you say there's a correlation between lockdown measures and death mitigation? I've been told by truthers that the correlation is low to non-existent. To me, the correlation seems clear, but I know data interpretation is not always straightforward.

[tholdren]

Literally as bad as using raw data case count. Actually worse

[baseline bum]

Add Japan

When did they join the EU?

[tholdren]

beahahahahhahahahahahaha


Just using eyeballs to determine correlation.

Shut this gossip down

[midnightpulp]

beahahahahhahahahahahaha


Just using eyeballs to determine correlation.

Shut this gossip down

No. Countries that had an initial "lockdown index" of 40 or above all fared better than countries that were late to lockdown. Explain the block of countries is the far right block that all had indexes under 20 and suffered the worst?

[spurraider21]

It would be interesting to see this plot for US states. Perhaps, the top 15 or so states with largest populations.
so much salt

[tholdren]

No. Countries that had an initial "lockdown index" of 40 or above all fared better than countries that were late to lockdown. Explain the block of countries is the far right block that all had indexes under 20 and suffered the worst?

There's nothing to explain. You're using undefined terms with your data.

Additionally, as I stated before you are using an eyeball instead of math to determine a correlation. And you are using one piece of data.

This is as worthless as you thinking case counts raw matter, without figuring out age or detail (ab/pcr/date of onset) etc. It's worthless.

[midnightpulp]

There's nothing to explain. You're using undefined terms with your data.

Additionally, as I stated before you are using an eyeball instead of math to determine a correlation. And you are using one piece of data.

This is as worthless as you thinking case counts raw matter, without figuring out age or detail (ab/pcr/date of onset) etc. It's worthless.

I'm not. The terms are clearly defined. How lockdown measures "on the day of first reported death" relate to final death toll.

Scatterplots aren't supposed to be granular and are useful for seeing if there's correlation between two variables, like say age and obesity.


Scatter plots are used to observe relationships between variables.

We're not worried about age stratification, how deaths are counted, obesity rates of these countries, we're looking at if there's any relationship between the two defined variables of death toll and initial lockdown stringency. We can see a correlation (countries lighter on measures more deaths).

[midnightpulp]

^And Will Hunting brought up a key observation in how the trajectory is parabolic. It seems countries with a 25 or greater lockdown index can manage their death toll pretty well, but once you cross that 20 threshold, the death toll accelerates. This would vibe with the exponential nature of the virus. Going into that 20 index which might mean reopening places like bars, theaters, and churches which causes the death toll to take off.

[tholdren]

I'm not. The terms are clearly defined. How lockdown measures "on the day of first reported death" relate to final death toll.

Scatterplots aren't supposed to be granular and are useful for seeing if there's correlation between two variables, like say age and obesity.



We're not worried about age stratification, how deaths are counted, obesity rates of these countries, we're looking at if there's any relationship between the two defined variables of death toll and initial lockdown stringency. We can see a correlation (countries lighter on measures more deaths).

You are. You do not take into context the cases reported before lockdown, how cases are determined, how deaths are counted, how deaths are determined, or even mitigation pre lockdown, etc.

You cant determine correlation without math. Your scatteplot is as worthless as current raw data you use to describe the horror of the pandemic because it uses no context. This is as dumb as you saying case count means xxxxx

/thread

[midnightpulp]

You are. You do not take into context the cases reported before lockdown, how cases are determined, how deaths are counted, how deaths are determined, or even mitigation pre lockdown, etc.

You cant determine correlation without math. Your scatteplot is as worthless as current raw data you use to describe the horror of the pandemic because it uses no context. This is as dumb as you saying case count means xxxxx

/thread

Again, scatterplots are not supposed to granular, dude. If you're going to do a scatterplot on how obesity relates to life expectancy, you're not going to consider the genetic history of each individual, how stressful their job it, if they are smokers or not. You just want to see if there's a relationship between being fat and how long you live. I don't need to get that granular here. I plotted 25 different countries and the relationship seems pretty obvious. Also, scatterplots are meant to be visual.


Correlations may be positive (rising),

What do we see here? As stringency lessens, deaths rise, ergo positive correlation.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.statisticshowto.com/line-of-best-fit/

https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/regression-analysis/scatter-plot-chart/#excel


Adding a Trendline
Step 1: Click the “Layout” tab.
Step 2: Click “Trendline” and then click “More trendline Options.”
Step 3: Click the “Show equation on chart box” and then click “Close.”

Example 2: Create a scatter plot in Microsoft Excel plotting the following data from a study investigating the relationship between height and weight of pre-diabetic patients:
Height (inches): 72, 71,70,67,65,64,64,63,62,60
Weight (lb): 180, 178,190,150,145,132,170,120,143,98

Don't need the math so much as a quick "how-to" for excel, which does it for you, it seems.

[RandomGuy]

Select chart itself.
A "chart design" menu should appear along top.
Select "add chart element" (upper right in excel 2016), and select "linear", and it will add it automatically. "least squares regression" in statistics-speak. Can probably find the equation somewhere.

[FrostKing]

Reporting for duty

[Trainwreck2100]

nvm

[tholdren]

Again, scatterplots are not supposed to granular, dude. If you're going to do a scatterplot on how obesity relates to life expectancy, you're not going to consider the genetic history of each individual, how stressful their job it, if they are smokers or not. You just want to see if there's a relationship between being fat and how long you live. I don't need to get that granular here. I plotted 25 different countries and the relationship seems pretty obvious. Also, scatterplots are meant to be visual.



What do we see here? As stringency lessens, deaths rise, ergo positive correlation.
Bwahahahahahhahahahahahajahah

The only thing you have correct is scattetplots visual. Worst math sense I have seen.

Well besides the time you said states don't include probable deaths.

That was also ignorant

[tholdren]

Quick do a scatterplot using avg age and death rate.

Then do a scatter plot with avg age and covid death rate.

Let me know what you find out.

Use the same countries.

[midnightpulp]

Bwahahahahahhahahahahahajahah

The only thing you have correct is scattetplots visual. Worst math sense I have seen.

Well besides the time you said states don't include probable deaths.

That was also ignorant

Thanks to RandomGuy for leading me to find ready made linear regression and correlation calculators. Let's see what we found!

Since the calculator flipped the trajectory, the correlation will be negative. I'm sure you know negative doesn't mean reduced correlation or no correlation, right? Def:


Negative correlation is a relationship between two variables in which one variable increases as the other decreases

This will show as stringency increases, deaths decrease. This calculator drew the trend line.

https://i.imgur.com/lXwPXeZ.png

But you keep wanting to see the correlation coefficient right? Got one for you:

https://i.imgur.com/ZcAZVi6.png

.745 out of 1. That is a STRONG correlation.

Lockdowns, at least on DAY OF FIRST REPORTED DEATH, WORK.

[tholdren]

Thanks to RandomGuy for leading me to find ready made linear regression and correlation calculators. Let's see what we found!

Since the calculator flipped the trajectory, the correlation will be negative. I'm sure you know negative doesn't mean reduced correlation or no correlation, right? Def:



This will show as stringency increases, deaths decrease. This calculator drew the trend line.

https://i.imgur.com/lXwPXeZ.png

But you keep wanting to see the correlation coefficient right? Got one for you:

https://i.imgur.com/ZcAZVi6.png

.745 out of 1. That is a STRONG correlation.

Lockdowns, at least on DAY OF FIRST REPORTED DEATH, WORK.

BwahahahahhahahahahahHHHHHHhHHHHHHhahHHHHHHHHHhHHH H

Wrong.

[tholdren]

Thanks to RandomGuy for leading me to find ready made linear regression and correlation calculators. Let's see what we found!

Since the calculator flipped the trajectory, the correlation will be negative. I'm sure you know negative doesn't mean reduced correlation or no correlation, right? Def:



This will show as stringency increases, deaths decrease. This calculator drew the trend line.

https://i.imgur.com/lXwPXeZ.png

But you keep wanting to see the correlation coefficient right? Got one for you:

https://i.imgur.com/ZcAZVi6.png

.745 out of 1. That is a STRONG correlation.

Lockdowns, at least on DAY OF FIRST REPORTED DEATH, WORK.

BwahahahahhahahahahahHHHHHHhHHHHHHhahHHHHHHHHHhHHH H

Wrong.

[tholdren]

this is why you are terrible at math bwahahahahahahhahahah

[midnightpulp]

this is why you are terrible at math bwahahahahahahhahahah

I'll take that as your concession. If you were perceptive and unbiased, you'd see my data makes a case for the Swedish strategy in some respects (problem was, Sweden was too late). I'll let you figure out why.

[tholdren]

I'll take that as your concession. If you were perceptive and unbiased, you'd see my data makes a case for the Swedish strategy in some respects (problem was, Sweden was too late). I'll let you figure out why.

LolIoIloll its not a concession because you are Ignorant to how data is collected. The only way that correlation could be considered causation is if these data points were obtained equally.

The arent. Which is the point and has been the point. You are using data collected differently and trying to compare if they were not. Again just like saying case count raw data is important in measuring the disease.

Its not.

You dont understand this. /thread

[ElNono]

^And Will Hunting brought up a key observation in how the trajectory is parabolic. It seems countries with a 25 or greater lockdown index can manage their death toll pretty well, but once you cross that 20 threshold, the death toll accelerates. This would vibe with the exponential nature of the virus. Going into that 20 index which might mean reopening places like bars, theaters, and churches which causes the death toll to take off.

I would argue it's closer to exponential. In data terms, you're plotting lockdown efficacy vis a vis deaths, but because deaths are generally a subset of infections, if infection rate is exponential, so are deaths.

Now, the criticism one would put in such a graph is that not all countries have the same health system, testing capacity nor approached other mitigating factors the same.

[tholdren]

I would argue it's closer to exponential. In data terms, you're plotting lockdown efficacy vis a vis deaths, but because deaths are generally a subset of infections, if infection rate is exponential, so are deaths.

Now, the criticism one would put in such a graph is that not all countries have the same health system, testing capacity nor approached other mitigating factors the same.

He doesn't understand basic math. Which is the problem with the general public and media.

[ElNono]

He doesn't understand basic math. Which is the problem with the general public and media.

Wrong

[midnightpulp]

LolIoIloll its not a concession because you are Ignorant to how data is collected. The only way that correlation could be considered causation is if these data points were obtained equally.

The arent. Which is the point and has been the point. You are using data collected differently and trying to compare if they were not. Again just like saying case count raw data is important in measuring the disease.

Its not.

You dont understand this. /thread

We well never, ever get "clean" data in this regard. It'll probably take a decade to filter it where it can be "equal." And you know that, which is why you're using it as deflection. "No, no. I won't believe anything until the data is spotless." But we have some data and we can try to equalize it to an extent (me only focusing on EU for this plot, similar healthcare systems, population health, pop density, etc) and make inferences.

[tholdren]

We well never, ever get "clean" data in this regard. It'll probably take a decade to filter it where it can be "equal." And you know that, which is why you're using it as deflection. "No, no. I won't believe anything until the data is spotless." But we have some data and we can try to equalize it to an extent (me only focusing on EU for this plot, similar healthcare systems, population health, pop density, etc) and make inferences.

let's just bump this for fun.

[tholdren]

or are we just ignoring the fact that you implied there is no good data based on how the data is being collected....

I'll wait for the white flag

[midnightpulp]

or are we just ignoring the fact that you implied there is no good data based on how the data is being collected....

I'll wait for the white flag

Nope. I said we don't have spotless data, which is your request. The data is good enough to make inferences, though. And the inference here is .75 correlation coefficient. STRONG.

[midnightpulp]

Bump once more for tholdren.


The relationship between two variables is generally considered strong when their r value is larger than 0.7.
RandomGuy, STRONG

[Will Hunting]

I would argue it's closer to exponential. In data terms, you're plotting lockdown efficacy vis a vis deaths, but because deaths are generally a subset of infections, if infection rate is exponential, so are deaths.

Now, the criticism one would put in such a graph is that not all countries have the same health system, testing capacity nor approached other mitigating factors the same.
Exponential would be a better description, I glanced at the shape of the relationship and said parabolic. Imo it’s definitely an exponential relationship though.

[DMC]

I would argue it's closer to exponential. In data terms, you're plotting lockdown efficacy vis a vis deaths, but because deaths are generally a subset of infections, if infection rate is exponential, so are deaths.

Now, the criticism one would put in such a graph is that not all countries have the same health system, testing capacity nor approached other mitigating factors the same.

Nor do they report at the same accuracy.

[Millennial_Messiah]

How come people haven't mentioned me yet? I'm one of the greatest data science/data analytics minds in the USA.

[Millennial_Messiah]

r= 0.7 (or -0.7) is not strong at all, it's mediocre at best. that means only 49% (less than half) of the data is explained by the least squares regression line :lol

[DarrinS]

I'm perfectly suited to live under "lockdown" forever. I suspect this policy negativity affects certain groups, tho. Probably in a profoundly negative way.

[tholdren]

Nope. I said we don't have spotless data, which is your request. The data is good enough to make inferences, though. And the inference here is .75 correlation coefficient. STRONG.

LolololI'll this chart.

[midnightpulp]

r= 0.7 (or -0.7) is not strong at all, it's mediocre at best. that means only 49% (less than half) of the data is explained by the least squares regression line :lol

Hmmm, seems Joel taught you well. Impressed with your brief description. But this is what I'm reading.

–0.70. A strong downhill (negative) linear relationship

https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/

Values between 0.7 and 1.0 (-0.7 and -1.0) indicate a strong positive (negative) linear relationship via a firm linear rule.

http://www.dmstat1.com/res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html

Etc

Here's an interesting thing, though. When I calculate the coefficient by grouping the countries into 3 sets (40-100 stringency, 20-40 stringency, 20-0 stringency) and averaging their death tolls and lockdown stringency respectively, I get a r=.95. I feel this filters the noise a bit, i.e. the wide death toll ranges we have in the sub-20 stringency group.

[tholdren]

Hmmm, seems Joel taught you well. Impressed with your brief description. But this is what I'm reading.

–0.70. A strong downhill (negative) linear relationship

https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/

Values between 0.7 and 1.0 (-0.7 and -1.0) indicate a strong positive (negative) linear relationship via a firm linear rule.

http://www.dmstat1.com/res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html

Etc

Here's an interesting thing, though. When I calculate the coefficient by grouping the countries into 3 sets (40-100 stringency, 20-40 stringency, 20-0 stringency) and averaging their death tolls and lockdown stringency respectively, I get a r=.95. I feel this filters the noise a bit, i.e. the wide death toll ranges we have in the sub-20 stringency group.

bwahjhahaaaahahusshshssss

This post

[midnightpulp]

I'm perfectly suited to live under "lockdown" forever. I suspect this policy negativity affects certain groups, tho. Probably in a profoundly negative way.

At least for the initial lockdown phase, my data shows that countries can mitigate death toll with as low as a 25 stringency. But again, I'd like to clarify this is only the initial phase when countries might get a sense something is wrong and close a few things like bars, limit huge gatherings, etc. I haven't examined the efficacy of PEAK lockdown stringency yet.

[tholdren]

At least for the initial lockdown phase, my data shows that countries can mitigate death toll with as low as a 25 stringency. But again, I'd like to clarify this is only the initial phase when countries might get a sense something is wrong and close a few things like bars, limit huge gatherings, etc. I haven't examined the efficacy of PEAK lockdown stringency yet.

bwhahahahahahashshshshshsjsjsjsjsjsjsjsjsususushsu sushsusususususys

My data shows


Bwaahayahaayahaauaasussusuussuss

A scatterplot


Lolololol

[midnightpulp]

bwahjhahaaaahahusshshssss

This post

STRONG.

https://i.imgur.com/pEnYrhg.png

[tholdren]

STRONG.

https://i.imgur.com/pEnYrhg.png

bwahahhahahjahahajshshsushshshzhzhzhzhzjzhzhshz

Lolololoollollol

This guy


BewahahahahaHjzjsjzzzjzjs

Its funny because hes not trolling.

LololoIlIloll

[midnightpulp]

bwahahhahahjahahajshshsushshshzhzhzhzhzjzhzhshz

Lolololoollollol

This guy


BewahahahahaHjzjsjzzzjzjs

Its funny because hes not trolling.

LololoIlIloll

STRONG.

Lockdowns work.

[ElNono]

Nor do they report at the same accuracy.

True. However, there's no evidence or suspicion that any of the countries represented are purposely inaccurate (at least that we've heard so far). So, while there's likely an error rate in the sample, much like in almost any measure, one would argue it shouldn't be significant in the overall picture.

Whether the data and graph are worthless or valuable goes directly to what you're trying to statistically extract from it.

I think it's actually not disingenuous to conclude that the graph shows lockdowns work. We generally know how the virus spreads, so this shouldn't be a revelation either.

Now, if we're trying to argue that only lockdowns would've produced that result, it would be difficult to prove.

[ElNono]

I'm perfectly suited to live under "lockdown" forever. I suspect this policy negativity affects certain groups, tho. Probably in a profoundly negative way.

Why would it need to be "forever"? If the R is below one, you no longer have an exponential growth and it's just a matter of letting the virus die down.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would it need to be "forever"? If the R is below one, you no longer have an exponential growth and it's just a matter of letting the virus die down.That's what I don't understand about five Scotch Darrin. He seems to forget the first things he learned back in March.

[midnightpulp]

True. However, there's no evidence or suspicion that any of the countries represented are purposely inaccurate (at least that we've heard so far). So, while there's likely an error rate in the sample, much like in almost any measure, one would argue it shouldn't be significant in the overall picture.

Whether the data and graph are worthless or valuable goes directly to what you're trying to statistically extract from it.

I think it's actually not disingenuous to conclude that the graph shows lockdowns work. We generally know how the virus spreads, so this shouldn't be a revelation either.

Now, if we're trying to argue that only lockdowns would've produced that result, it would be difficult to prove.

Yeah, I would say EU + UK is probably the best data set to extrapolate from. Trustier data (vs. African, South American, etc countries), similar healthcare infrastructure across the continent, similar population health, similar cultural mores (+trust in government).

[DarrinS]

Why would it need to be "forever"? If the R is below one, you no longer have an exponential growth and it's just a matter of letting the virus die down.

I was already working from home for years. So, no affect on my lifestyle.

I'm pretty tired of hearing about "exponential growth". As more and more people are infected, and hopefully self-quarantine, they are no longer vectors for the disease. In the worst afflicted areas of the world, e.g. italy, NYC, the curve rises and falls sharply.

[DarrinS]

"If you notice, 18% of the people came from nursing homes, less than 1% came from jail or prison, 2% came from the homeless population, 2% from other congregate facilities, but 66% of the people were at home, which is shocking to us,”

-Cuomo

[midnightpulp]

"If you notice, 18% of the people came from nursing homes, less than 1% came from jail or prison, 2% came from the homeless population, 2% from other congregate facilities, but 66% of the people were at home, which is shocking to us,”

-Cuomo

Don't why that's shocking. Subway rider(s) pick it up on commute, go home, spread it to family. I think the subways were probably the primary culprit there. Then they move from that crammed environment into their 600sqft apartment they share with 6 people.

[ElNono]

I was already working from home for years. So, no affect on my lifestyle.

I'm pretty tired of hearing about "exponential growth". As more and more people are infected, and hopefully self-quarantine, they are no longer vectors for the disease. In the worst afflicted areas of the world, e.g. italy, NYC, the curve rises and falls sharply.

I do a lot of work from home too, and I also miss the office... has nothing to do with this. And, sorry to say, but how you feel about hearing things is completely immaterial too.

Just the notion that we need to be in lockdown forever is simply a fallacy.

[midnightpulp]

I do a lot of work from home too, and I also miss the office... has nothing to do with this. And, sorry to say, but how you feel about hearing things is completely immaterial too.

Just the notion that we need to be in lockdown forever is simply a fallacy.

It we had a well behaved non-spoiled population, we could do light targeted closures combined with refined mitigation measures, like masks and social distancing enforcement inside bars, restaurants, and such. But many biz owners were skirting the rules and citizens of course weren't complying because muh freedumbs.

[ElNono]

It we had a well behaved non-spoiled population, we could do light targeted closures combined with refined mitigation measures, like masks and social distancing enforcement inside bars, restaurants, and such. But many biz owners were skirting the rules and citizens of course weren't complying because muh freedumbs.

Abbott and DeSantis were also "pretty tired of hearing about exponential growth", and here we are. It's not like the virus cares about feelings or political parties.

We just don't have the population you ask for, mid. That's why it takes solid leadership, which we didn't have either.

At least be glad that when the shit hit the fan, some of these people swallowed their pride and did what was right, even if it was late.

[midnightpulp]

Abbott and DeSantis were also "pretty tired of hearing about exponential growth", and here we are. It's not like the virus cares about feelings or political parties.

We just don't have the population you ask for, mid. That's why it takes solid leadership, which we didn't have either.

At least be glad that when the shit hit the fan, some of these people swallowed their pride and did what was right, even if it was late.

Abbott and DeSantis were handed a great situation, too. Curve was flat through spring, likely to due to temperate weather and more initial caution by the people. They should've used that window to plan a Summer mitigation strategy as they came out of lockdowns. But nope. Went 1 to 100 on reopening. Newsom fucked up, as well. I think CA might be the most egregious undercounter, actually.

The smaller dotted line is Covid. Look how that's bending as the excess red death curve is trending sharply up and not so coincidentally conforming the testing line.

https://i.imgur.com/IZIaPPT.png

[ElNono]

Abbott and DeSantis were handed a great situation, too. Curve was flat through spring, likely to due to temperate weather and more initial caution by the people. They should've used that window to plan a Summer mitigation strategy as they came out of lockdowns. But nope. Went 1 to 100 on reopening. Newsom fucked up, as well. I think CA might be the most egregious undercounter, actually.

CA actually started well, and I praised Newsom for that early on (ask derp). They had one of the first registered cases, and outside of LA county, it was more or less under control, but yeah, re-opening was handled poorly, and Newsom should definitely take the blame.

[midnightpulp]

CA actually started well, and I praised Newsom for that early on (ask derp). They had one of the first registered cases, and outside of LA county, it was more or less under control, but yeah, re-opening was handled poorly, and Newsom should definitely take the blame.

Yep. You remember I was crowning him a future president. Not anymore. And now seeing CA's excess deaths, I won't trust any "death decline" over the following weeks. He did reenact measures, but it was a bit too late to really crush it. Better late than never, but he should never caved to business (i.e. donors).

[ElNono]

Yep. You remember I was crowning him a future president. Not anymore. And now seeing CA's excess deaths, I won't trust any "death decline" over the following weeks. He did reenact measures, but it was a bit too late to really crush it. Better late than never, but he should never caved to business (i.e. donors).

There's been a shift in CA though... bulk used to be LA county, but now that's a bit more stable, and it's the peripheral counties with the ramp up.

[RandomGuy]

Bump once more for tholdren.


RandomGuy, STRONG

That is what math and statistically illiterate people like f:lolldern don't quite glom on to. Even less than perfect or incomplete data can be used for analysis.

Strong correlations, even with incomplete or inaccurate data, mean you can make some reasonable, fact-based conclusions and inferences. In this case, that imperfect data would have to be very very very inaccurate to invalidate the conclusion.

If you want to argue that the data was that bad, you would have to show some degree of certainty to that. Really inaccurate data is readily obvious if one scrutinizes it even a little. If you want to prove it is so bad that the conclusion is invalidated, that requires some degree of proof. I doubt this will be in the offing though.

[RandomGuy]

True. However, there's no evidence or suspicion that any of the countries represented are purposely inaccurate (at least that we've heard so far). So, while there's likely an error rate in the sample, much like in almost any measure, one would argue it shouldn't be significant in the overall picture.

Whether the data and graph are worthless or valuable goes directly to what you're trying to statistically extract from it.

I think it's actually not disingenuous to conclude that the graph shows lockdowns work. We generally know how the virus spreads, so this shouldn't be a revelation either.

Now, if we're trying to argue that only lockdowns would've produced that result, it would be difficult to prove.

(nods) i see you got there a bit before I did.

I would add that it takes a special kind of stupid to think, without some pretty solid evidence, that limiting potential points of transmission, i.e. physical proximity, would NOT work to slow the spread of an infectious disease.

[tholdren]

That is what math and statistically illiterate people like f:lolldern don't quite glom on to. Even less than perfect or incomplete data can be used for analysis.

Strong correlations, even with incomplete or inaccurate data, mean you can make some reasonable, fact-based conclusions and inferences. In this case, that imperfect data would have to be very very very inaccurate to invalidate the conclusion.

If you want to argue that the data was that bad, you would have to show some degree of certainty to that. Really inaccurate data is readily obvious if one scrutinizes it even a little. If you want to prove it is so bad that the conclusion is invalidated, that requires some degree of proof. I doubt this will be in the offing though.
Bwahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaha hajahahahahajhahahahahahahabahahha

Bwahahahhahahahahahahahahahahababhaha

Wrong. Can't test correlation without experimental design and logic

BwwahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahHhaahahHH

RandomGuy fail

[tholdren]

That is what math and statistically illiterate people like f:lolldern don't quite glom on to. Even less than perfect or incomplete data can be used for analysis.

Strong correlations, even with incomplete or inaccurate data, mean you can make some reasonable, fact-based conclusions and inferences. In this case, that imperfect data would have to be very very very inaccurate to invalidate the conclusion.

If you want to argue that the data was that bad, you would have to show some degree of certainty to that. Really inaccurate data is readily obvious if one scrutinizes it even a little. If you want to prove it is so bad that the conclusion is invalidated, that requires some degree of proof. I doubt this will be in the offing though.

I read this again and its utterly wrong in any mathematical sense. Period.

[Winehole23]

^^^ never shows his cards.

tholdren reasons by pure fiat, judging from his contributions here.

[Chucho]

Yep. You remember I was crowning him a future president. Not anymore. And now seeing CA's excess deaths, I won't trust any "death decline" over the following weeks. He did reenact measures, but it was a bit too late to really crush it. Better late than never, but he should never caved to business (i.e. donors).

Wow. You were anointing him until the Covid crisis? Future President? Woof.

[spurraider21]

Wow. You were anointing him until the Covid crisis? Future President? Woof.
who are the up and comers in the democrat field who would be legitimate candidates in 2024, assuming the seat was up for grabs? newsom was as good as guess as any imo. and his early handling of covid was actually good. like mid said, he just caved instead of leading

[Millennial_Messiah]

Hmmm, seems Joel taught you well. Impressed with your brief description. But this is what I'm reading.

–0.70. A strong downhill (negative) linear relationship

https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/

Values between 0.7 and 1.0 (-0.7 and -1.0) indicate a strong positive (negative) linear relationship via a firm linear rule.

http://www.dmstat1.com/res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html

Etc

Here's an interesting thing, though. When I calculate the coefficient by grouping the countries into 3 sets (40-100 stringency, 20-40 stringency, 20-0 stringency) and averaging their death tolls and lockdown stringency respectively, I get a r=.95. I feel this filters the noise a bit, i.e. the wide death toll ranges we have in the sub-20 stringency group.

coefficient of determination - r-squared - is more important than just r. if r-squared is .49 that's pretty sad. now coefficient of determination of >90%, now that's a good LSRL.

[midnightpulp]

who are the up and comers in the democrat field who would be legitimate candidates in 2024, assuming the seat was up for grabs? newsom was as good as guess as any imo. and his early handling of covid was actually good. like mid said, he just caved instead of leading

:lmao not coming down on the tribal casinos. Spineless. (yes, tribal land, but Newsom has a loophole).


The gaming association cited a standard section of the state gaming compact with different tribes that states “the tribe shall not conduct Class III gaming in a manner that endangers the public health, safety, or welfare,” the gaming association wrote. “We believe you have the authority to order ALL casino operations, including tribal casinos, to cease operations in the affected counties.”

https://www.yogonet.com/international/noticias/2020/07/16/53975-california-card-room-operators-urge-gov-to-close-tribal-casinos


...the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the California Teachers Association and former San Diego Padres owner Jennifer Moores were the biggest donors to the inauguration, each contributing $200,000.

[baseline bum]

Yep. You remember I was crowning him a future president. Not anymore. And now seeing CA's excess deaths, I won't trust any "death decline" over the following weeks. He did reenact measures, but it was a bit too late to really crush it. Better late than never, but he should never caved to business (i.e. donors).

I don't see the point of any lockdown as long as Trump is president. It's not like California can shut down entry into the state from other states, so no matter what they do the shit is going to creep back the second the lockdown is lifted, same as it's spreading south to north in the eastern half of the nation. As long as Trump is president lockdowns are worthless. All they'll do is pause shit. Now if Biden was president I'd be all for a pretty strict national lockdown for ~8 weeks to stomp the infection to low levels since I think Biden would actually have a strategy for keeping R_0 < 1 after lifting the lockdown through aggressive testing and contact tracing. Trump's lockdown was just the worst clusterfuck: killing off economic activity with an insufficent safety net and not having any kind of post-lockdown plan.

[tholdren]

^^^ never shows his cards.

tholdren reasons by pure fiat, judging from his contributions here.

If you dont "get" this then you have no understanding of statistics, or math. RandomGuy and midnightpulp are trying to be smart by using charts while disregarding mathematical principles.

Even if you don't understand math random guy and midnightpulp literally said you don't need good data to make informed decisions. /thread

[tholdren]

I don't see the point of any lockdown as long as Trump is president. It's not like California can shut down entry into the state from other states, so no matter what they do the shit is going to creep back the second the lockdown is lifted, same as it's spreading south to north in the eastern half of the nation. As long as Trump is president lockdowns are worthless. All they'll do is pause shit. Now if Biden was president I'd be all for a pretty strict national lockdown for ~8 weeks to stomp the infection to low levels since I think Biden would actually have a strategy for keeping R_0 < 1 after lifting the lockdown through aggressive testing and contact tracing. Trump's lockdown was just the worst clusterfuck: killing off economic activity with an insufficent safety net and not having any kind of post-lockdown plan.

lol you dont understand how RO works.lolol your post

[midnightpulp]

If you dont "get" this then you have no understanding of statistics, or math. RandomGuy and midnightpulp are trying to be smart by using charts while disregarding mathematical principles.

Even if you don't understand math random guy and midnightpulp literally said you don't need good data to make informed decisions. /thread

Strawmanning again. I said you don't need SPOTLESS data to make informed decisions. Your request is "perfect" data that knows ALL variables from the size of the victims shoes. We'll never have that.

What mathematical principles are we disregarding? RandomGuy's profession deals with data.

[baseline bum]

lol you dont understand how RO works.lolol your post

It's not RO dumbass

[tholdren]

Strawmanning again. I said you don't need SPOTLESS data to make informed decisions. Your request is "perfect" data that knows ALL variables from the size of the victims shoes. We'll never have that.

What mathematical principles are we disregarding? RandomGuy's profession deals with data.

Bwahahahhahhahahahaahhahahahajahahaahahhahahahahah aahjahahahahaha

You are admitting you are using faulty data.

Bwahahhahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahah

RandomGuy doesn't know anything about math. Period. He's tried to run excel formulas based on raw data that have been ChumpDumper wrong. Every time. Hes embarrassing. Just look at how he has tried to utilize simple math, like you do, incorrectly


It's hilarious that you are arguing this.

[RandomGuy]

I don't see the point of any lockdown as long as Trump is president. It's not like California can shut down entry into the state from other states, so no matter what they do the shit is going to creep back the second the lockdown is lifted, same as it's spreading south to north in the eastern half of the nation. As long as Trump is president lockdowns are worthless. All they'll do is pause shit. Now if Biden was president I'd be all for a pretty strict national lockdown for ~8 weeks to stomp the infection to low levels since I think Biden would actually have a strategy for keeping R_0 < 1 after lifting the lockdown through aggressive testing and contact tracing. Trump's lockdown was just the worst clusterfuck: killing off economic activity with an insufficent safety net and not having any kind of post-lockdown plan.

At this point, the stupid is out of the bag, and isn't going back in.

Trump, for selfish reasons, minimized the danger for months, and the right win propaganda machine took that and ran with it, convincing morons like Spurtacular, Ducks, and f:lolldren that this is some sort of liberal plot. Even if we instantly had a cogent, science-based plan in place right now, the morons would be fighting it, and the really red states would be in half-open rebellion.

[tholdren]

At this point, the stupid is out of the bag, and isn't going back in.

Trump, for selfish reasons, minimized the danger for months, and the right win propaganda machine took that and ran with it, convincing morons like Spurtacular, Ducks, and f:lolldren that this is some sort of liberal plot. Even if we instantly had a cogent, science-based plan in place right now, the morons would be fighting it, and the really red states would be in half-open rebellion.

The sad part is you think you are good at math. Yet you can't identify flaws in the covid math.

Ps masks don't work no science behind it. PER THE DUTCH

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24U2UJ



Lolololol
They also said lockdowns aren't scientific

[ElNono]

The sad part is you think you are good at math. Yet you can't identify flaws in the covid math.

Ps masks don't work no science behind it. PER THE DUTCH

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24U2UJ

Lolololol
They also said lockdowns aren't scientific

wrong

[ElNono]

RIVM chief Jaap van Dissel said that the organization was aware of studies that show masks help slow the spread of disease but it was not convinced they will help during the current coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands.

He argued wearing masks incorrectly, together with worse adherence to social distancing rules, could increase the risk of transmitting the disease.

“So we think that if you’re going to use masks (in a public setting) ... then you must give good training for it,” he said.

Mask are currently required only on public transportation in the Netherlands and in airports.

The decision followed a meeting of health and government officials after new coronavirus cases in the country rose to 1,329 in the past week, an increase of more than a third.

Dutch cases have risen steadily since July 1, when the government announced an easing of lockdown measures to include restaurants and public gatherings if people maintain a 1.5 meter (five foot) physical distance.

[ElNono]

Why post a link that directly contradicts what you're saying and paints you as a liar? smh

[Nbadan]

I'm gonna take RG and BB math over anyone else's in this forum except my own lol

[DarrinS]

I'm gonna take RG and BB math over anyone else's in this forum except my own lol

Fire can't melt steel. :lol

[Nbadan]

Fire can't melt steel. :lol

They were wrong about 911 but I give them a pass

[DMC]

RIVM chief Jaap van Dissel said that the organization was aware of studies that show masks help slow the spread of disease but it was not convinced they will help during the current coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands.

He argued wearing masks incorrectly, together with worse adherence to social distancing rules, could increase the risk of transmitting the disease.

“So we think that if you’re going to use masks (in a public setting) ... then you must give good training for it,” he said.

Mask are currently required only on public transportation in the Netherlands and in airports.

The decision followed a meeting of health and government officials after new coronavirus cases in the country rose to 1,329 in the past week, an increase of more than a third.

Dutch cases have risen steadily since July 1, when the government announced an easing of lockdown measures to include restaurants and public gatherings if people maintain a 1.5 meter (five foot) physical distance.

He's saying masks, as used in the US, are a placebo. Most people are putting thin cloth over their faces, I've even seen people with neoprene bike masks with holes in the nose and mouth areas, and people just putting a t-shirt over their faces.

[DMC]

I'm gonna take RG and BB math over anyone else's in this forum except my own lol

RG is Jethro 2.0. Anyone proficient at math will know in an instant RG is a fraud.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol now people are trying to interpret tholdren like Fox News tries to interpret Trump.

[DMC]

:lol now people are trying to interpret tholdren like Fox News tries to interpret Trump.

And you're The View.

[diego]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSwzVomWhU

came across this video re: HHS data handling, im sure some people will find it interesting...

and it will trigger the shit out tholdren and spurt too so win-win :lol


ps: speaking of spotty data, isnt it odd tholdren has never come in here bringing "math" to polls, unemployment figures, and most importantly, the accounting that forms the basis of all economic policy?? odd to limit such an important discovery to such a narrow non-issue as a harmless flu strain. I actually do agree there is a shitload of noise in the data and most data in general because it has to be registered, but I also understand that the whole point of data analysis is too sift through that noise :lol

[ChumpDumper]

And you're The View.:lol women trigger you

[spurraider21]

He's saying masks, as used in the US, are a placebo. Most people are putting thin cloth over their faces, I've even seen people with neoprene bike masks with holes in the nose and mouth areas, and people just putting a t-shirt over their faces.
he's not saying that at all

he's saying that wearing masks by itself doesnt suddenly mean you can ignore social distancing guidelines and pretend everything's going to be fine... and particularly so when masks are worn incorrectly

[ElNono]

He's saying masks, as used in the US, are a placebo. Most people are putting thin cloth over their faces, I've even seen people with neoprene bike masks with holes in the nose and mouth areas, and people just putting a t-shirt over their faces.

He's certainly not saying masks don't work. They're also using masks right now in select areas. Furthermore, they've been in lockdown too (you can only ease lockdowns if you been in lockdown).

[Nbadan]

RG is Jethro 2.0. Anyone proficient at math will know in an instant RG is a fraud.

I have a bach. in math/mast. in comp science ....RG is not a fraud. :drunk:drunk:dizzy

[baseline bum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSwzVomWhU

came across this video re: HHS data handling, im sure some people will find it interesting...

and it will trigger the shit out tholdren and spurt too so win-win :lol


ps: speaking of spotty data, isnt it odd tholdren has never come in here bringing "math" to polls, unemployment figures, and most importantly, the accounting that forms the basis of all economic policy?? odd to limit such an important discovery to such a narrow non-issue as a harmless flu strain. I actually do agree there is a shitload of noise in the data and most data in general because it has to be registered, but I also understand that the whole point of data analysis is too sift through that noise :lol

Who could have ever seen this coming with Trump's shitbirds put in charge of the case data.

[spurraider21]

He's certainly not saying masks don't work. They're also using masks right now in select areas. Furthermore, they've been in lockdown too (you can only ease lockdowns if you been in lockdown).
pretty amazing that DMC really doesnt want masks to work tbh

[DMC]

pretty amazing that DMC really doesnt want masks to work tbh

If they work we should all be able to get back to normal just by wearing them. Why the lockdowns and continuing saga of infections and deaths? Are all these people getting infected because they didn't wear masks? (you won't address that straight on)

[baseline bum]

If they work we should all be able to get back to normal just by wearing them. Why the 6'?

Are you fucking 6 years old? Is everything either 100% or 0% in your world?

[DMC]

Are you fucking 6 years old? Is everything either 100% or 0% in your world?

So because I think masks are a placebo but still wear them, you somehow equate that to bifurcation of the issue? :lol

Are you saying Hydroxychloroquine works 0%?

[ElNono]

pretty amazing that DMC really doesnt want masks to work tbh

I don't know that's true.


If they work we should all be able to get back to normal just by wearing them. Why the lockdowns and continuing saga of infections and deaths? Are all these people getting infected because they didn't wear masks? (you won't address that straight on)

As noted in the article, masks (large majority) don't provide immunity from infection, but do help slow down the spread of the disease.

[DMC]

he's not saying that at all

he's saying that wearing masks by itself doesnt suddenly mean you can ignore social distancing guidelines and pretend everything's going to be fine... and particularly so when masks are worn incorrectly

You mean like down around the chin, or the shirt over the face mask? How about the handkerchief dangling over the nose and mouth? Then you have people wearing gloves, which, as soon as they touch anything at all, the bet is off. Now they are still spreading the same shit from place to place they would spread with bare hands, only they feel safer (placebo) so they won't clean their hands as often. Some people are wearing masks over and over, ones that are not really reusable, because it's the law to have one on. They keep the same one until it gets filthy (and don't get me started on black masks).

But sure, and you're saying the US doesn't have the issues he mentioned. Got it.

[tholdren]

Are you fucking 6 years old? Is everything either 100% or 0% in your world?

Your math is awful

[DMC]

I don't know that's true.



As noted in the article, masks (large majority) don't provide immunity from infection, but do help slow down the spread of the disease.

As illustrated where exactly?

[tholdren]

I don't know that's true.



As noted in the article, masks (large majority) don't provide immunity from infection, but do help slow down the spread of the disease.

sweden no masks and cases magically declining.

[ElNono]

You mean like down around the chin, or the shirt over the face mask? How about the handkerchief dangling over the nose and mouth? Then you have people wearing gloves, which, as soon as they touch anything at all, the bet is off. Now they are still spreading the same shit from place to place they would spread with bare hands, only they feel safer (placebo) so they won't clean their hands as often. Some people are wearing masks over and over, ones that are not really reusable, because it's the law to have one on. They keep the same one until it gets filthy (and don't get me started on black masks).

But sure, and you're saying the US doesn't have the issues he mentioned. Got it.

The mask is not to protect you, it's to protect others from your cough, etc. Whether the mask is dirty or not, is immaterial to the effect of spreading droplets.

[ElNono]

sweden no masks and cases magically declining.

You just lied again above, back to timeout.

[ElNono]

As illustrated where exactly?


RIVM chief Jaap van Dissel said that the organization was aware of studies that show masks help slow the spread of disease but it was not convinced they will help during the current coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands.

[tholdren]

You just lied again above, back to timeout.
Nope you just can't read. Not my fault you have low math and reading skills.


No masks for the nords. Enjoy

[ElNono]

Nope you just can't read. Not my fault you have low math and reading skills.

No masks for the nords. Enjoy

Wrong

[DMC]

From the Mayo Clinic


Wash or sanitize your hands before and after putting on and taking off your mask.
Place your mask over your mouth and nose.
Tie it behind your head or use ear loops and make sure it's snug.
Don't touch your mask while wearing it.
If you accidentally touch your mask, wash or sanitize your hands.
If your mask becomes wet or dirty, switch to a clean one. Put the used mask in a sealable bag until you can wash it.
Remove the mask by untying it or lifting off the ear loops without touching the front of the mask or your face.
Wash your hands immediately after removing your mask.
Regularly wash your mask with soap and water by hand or in the washing machine. It's fine to launder it with other clothes.
And, here are a few face mask precautions:

Don't put masks on anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious or otherwise unable to remove the mask without help.
Don't put masks on children under 2 years of age.
Don't use face masks as a substitute for social distancing.
Tips for adjusting to a face mask
It can be challenging to get used to wearing a face mask. Here are some tips for making the transition:

Start slow. Wear your mask at home for a short time, such as while watching television. Then wear it during a short walk. Slowly increase the time until you feel more comfortable.
Find your fit. If your mask isn't comfortable or is too difficult to breathe through, consider other options. Masks come in a variety of styles and sizes.
Tie one on. Instead of a face mask, try a scarf or bandanna to cover your nose and mouth.

Which are you doing? Is anyone here washing their hands before putting on the mask and when removing it?

Anyone here not touching the mask while wearing it?

Anyone washing or sanitizing hands if accidentally touching mask?

I mean, is anyone doing most of this shit or hardly any? And "instead of a face mask, try a bandanna or scarf"

A fucking scarf? Yeah it's stupid.

[DMC]

..

[DMC]

..

In studies? What about in practice? Where has it slowed the spread?

Because it's a placebo it makes people FEEL safer so they don't adhere to social distancing. That's what a placebo is. It fools the user into thinking they have something that works but obviously it doesn't since closing the distance somehow makes the droplets get through the mask.

[tholdren]

In studies? What about in practice? Where has it slowed the spread?

will never be able to tell. No experiments. And no correlation can be verified by how cases reported. Whooopppps. Should have kept accurate data

[ElNono]

I do wash my hands before and after putting masks (I only wear masks while going out).

[DMC]

I do wash my hands before and after putting masks (I only wear masks while going out).

So you wear your mask in your car while driving?

[ElNono]

In studies? What about in practice? Where has it slowed the spread?

Because it's a placebo it makes people FEEL safer so they don't adhere to social distancing. That's what a placebo is. It fools the user into thinking they have something that works but obviously it doesn't since closing the distance somehow makes the droplets get through the mask.

What do you think studies are? Feel good stories? Studies are empirical tests.

I'm not going try to convince you that you're wrong. I'm only going to point out that you are.

[ElNono]

So you wear your mask in your car while driving?

yes (granted, I don't drive much these days)

[baseline bum]

Your math is awful

LOL thinks Fauci getting a drink of water is a big controvery

[DMC]

will never be able to tell. No experiments. And no correlation can be verified by how cases reported. Whooopppps. Should have kept accurate data

The studies are usually extremely limited and it's interesting the percentages are not really touted much, only "shows in studies that..." yet the medication they hope fails also shows in studies that... it just isn't the bee's knees and the left dismisses it as a partisan ploy while pretending rioters sans masks cannot spread COVID yet it's important to wear masks because it helps remind us to socially distance, except in Nordic countries where it seems to have the opposite effects. Oddly, Nordic countries aren't known for personal space violation that much anyhow.

[ElNono]

A placebo has an entirely psychological effect, with no physiological effect. I know that's what you're pushing, but if masks are proven to slow down the disease (even if they don't offer immunity), their impact is clearly much more than merely psychological. Thus not a placebo.

[baseline bum]

So because I think masks are a placebo but still wear them, you somehow equate that to bifurcation of the issue? :lol

Are you saying Hydroxychloroquine works 0%?

You're saying there is no need for social distancing if masks help at all, it's fucking retarded.

[DMC]

yes (granted, I don't drive much these days)

So you get into a car that's 115 degrees, with a mask on, and you're sweating like all hell and the mask is now wet. You don't touch it because you'd have to get back out and go inside to wash your hands again...?

[tholdren]

LOL thinks Fauci getting a drink of water is a big controvery

No. He lied.

[ElNono]

So you get into a car that's 115 degrees, with a mask on, and you're sweating like all hell and the mask is now wet. You don't touch it because you'd have to get back out and go inside to wash your hands again...?

It's always 70 degrees in Los Angeles. Never rains either.

[DMC]

You're saying there is no need for social distancing if masks help at all, it's fucking retarded.

Explain why, if masks prevent droplets from leaving the face area, the social distancing of 6' is required and was the same distance before masks were required.

[tholdren]

A placebo has an entirely psychological effect, with no physiological effect. I know that's what you're pushing, but if masks are proven to slow down the disease (even if they don't offer immunity), their impact is clearly much more than merely psychological. Thus not a placebo.

The studies don't prove anything

[ElNono]

It's actually going to be 'super hot' friday and saturday... at 78 degrees...

[ElNono]

The studies don't prove anything

show your study

[DMC]

It's always 70 degrees in Los Angeles. Never rains either.

So you never touch the mask once on your face except to remove it? If so, you're one special fellow. Many people are required to wear it all day. They aren't in LA.

[baseline bum]

Explain why, if masks prevent droplets from leaving the face area, the social distancing of 6' is required and was the same distance before masks were required.

Because it's not 100%, is it really that hard to understand?

[tholdren]

It's always 70 degrees in Los Angeles. Never rains either.

fauci didn't wash his hands at the baseball game when he took his mask off to text and talk

[baseline bum]

No. He lied.

LOL thinks Fauci getting a drink of water is a big controversy

[tholdren]

Because it's not 100%, is it really that hard to understand?

So what percent is it?

[DMC]

Because it's not 100%, is it really that hard to understand?

That's a bit dishonest. Is it closer to 0% than 100%?

[ElNono]

So you never touch the mask once on your face except to remove it? If so, you're one special fellow. Many people are required to wear it all day. They aren't in LA.

I get that. I just do my part.

[tholdren]

LOL thinks Fauci getting a drink of water is a big controversy
No, I think him lying when he didn't have to is telling if his character

[baseline bum]

So what percent is it?

Not 100%

[spurraider21]

If they work we should all be able to get back to normal just by wearing them. Why the lockdowns and continuing saga of infections and deaths? Are all these people getting infected because they didn't wear masks? (you won't address that straight on)
because masks aren't 100% effective, but they do limit transmission

[ElNono]

fauci didn't wash his hands at the baseball game when he took his mask off to text and talk

gossip

[tholdren]

Not 100%

so you dont know = gossip

[tholdren]

gossip

I've seen the pic roll... fact

[ElNono]

so you dont know = gossip

show you math that says 0%

[ElNono]

I've seen the pic roll... fact

where's your study?

[spurraider21]

I don't know that's true.
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286413&p=10207504&viewfull=1#post10207504

[tholdren]

show you math that says 0%
I've already told you my stance.dont wiggle out now

[baseline bum]

That's a bit dishonest. Is it closer to 0% than 100%?

Masks don't 100% prevent droplets from exiting, no one has ever said they catch everything.

[ElNono]

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286413&p=10207504&viewfull=1#post10207504

I thought he was fishing there, tbh

[ElNono]

I've already told you my stance.dont wiggle out now

What you say doesn't matter, since you've been shown to lie a lot. What matters is what you can prove.

Show your study that says 0%.

[tholdren]

where's your study?

Don't need a study when I've seen the pics and you have too. Why you hiding from fsuci lies?

[ElNono]

Don't need a study when I've seen the pics and you have too. Why you hiding from fsuci lies?

this is gossip

[baseline bum]

so you dont know = gossip

Gossip is pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks

[tholdren]

What you say doesn't matter, since you've been shown to lie a lot. What matters is what you can prove.

Show your study that says 0%.

Goals moved
El nonon mellllllltttttdddddoooowwwwnnnnnnn


Fauci lied and masks dont work. My study is the nordic countries

[tholdren]

Gossip is pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks
Nope he lied
And you're mad

So sorry

[ElNono]

Goals moved
El nonon mellllllltttttdddddoooowwwwnnnnnnn

Fauci lied and masks dont work. My study is the nordic countries

Goal was never moved. You just keep gossiping.

Show your study that says 0%... or fold.

[spurraider21]

I thought he was fishing there, tbh
could be a reasonable take in a vacuum, but look at his post history on the subject. heck look at the previous pages of this thread. nothing is in good faith. and he's not braindead like derp... he's being intentionally obtuse

[tholdren]

Goal was never moved. You just keep gossiping.

Show your study that says 0%... or fold.

imagine how sad it would be to make sxience political..... now fauci lies again and you meltdown.

Nordic countries no masks. Also say not proven. You smarter than those countries medical experts?

You just mad they have my same opinion.


I'm right

[baseline bum]

Nope he lied
And you're mad

So sorry

Gossip is pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks

[spurraider21]

A placebo has an entirely psychological effect, with no physiological effect. I know that's what you're pushing, but if masks are proven to slow down the disease (even if they don't offer immunity), their impact is clearly much more than merely psychological. Thus not a placebo.
smallpox vaccine makes me feel safe about not getting smallpox

therefore its a placebo

this is what he is unironically arguing

[tholdren]

smallpox vaccine makes me feel safe about not getting smallpox

therefore its a placebo

this is what he is unironically arguing

lololololololooloolololol

[tholdren]

Gossip is pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks

You're still mad bwahahahaha

[ElNono]

imagine how sad it would be to make sxience political..... now fauci lies again and you meltdown.

Nordic countries no masks. Also say not proven. You smarter than those countries medical experts?

You just mad they have my same opinion.

I'm right

So that's a f:lolld... feel free to post your study when it's ready...

[baseline bum]

You're still mad bwahahahaha

lol pretending getting a drink of water invalidates wearing masks

[DMC]

because masks aren't 100% effective, but they do limit transmission

So then someone wearing a mask around someone else wearing a mask... what's the reduction % in viral transmission? You don't need to know the mask type since that's not your call.

[ChumpDumper]

If they work we should all be able to get back to normal just by wearing them. Why the lockdowns and continuing saga of infections and deaths? Are all these people getting infected because they didn't wear masks? (you won't address that straight on)Three weeks after Governor Greg Abbott issued a statewide mask mandate, some epidemiologists are cautiously optimistic the order is helping to bring down cases in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.

:lol

[DMC]

smallpox vaccine makes me feel safe about not getting smallpox

therefore its a placebo

this is what he is unironically arguing
No, stupid simpleton, it's not. Stick to arguing contract law and leave science to people who do it.

[spurraider21]

No, stupid simpleton, it's not. Stick to arguing contract law and leave science to people who do it.
you're not promoting anything resembling good science in this thread. i dont care what your day job is.

[spurraider21]

So then someone wearing a mask around someone else wearing a mask... what's the reduction % in viral transmission? You don't need to know the mask type since that's not your call.
i dont have the exact number off-hand. do you want me to cite studies about reduction of transmission of covid-19 when (even cloth) masks are worn? we can both look those up quite easily. do you really need me to dig some up for you?

[DMC]

Three weeks after Governor Greg Abbott issued a statewide mask mandate, some epidemiologists are cautiously optimistic the order is helping to bring down cases in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.

:lol

Cautiously optimistic equals scientific evidence

[ChumpDumper]

Cautiously optimistic equals scientific evidenceI believe them more than I believe you.

You lie quite a bit to protect your narratives.

[DMC]

i dont have the exact number off-hand. do you want me to cite studies about reduction of transmission of covid-19 when (even cloth) masks are worn? we can both look those up quite easily. do you really need me to dig some up for you?

Don't have it off hand? Is that a chickshit way of saying it's unknowable without more data?

Consider this excerpt regarding the use of even surgical masks during surgery...

Statistical analysis of the extracted data revealed no statistically significant association between mask usage and the incidence of surgical site infection. The study concluded that ‘it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical facemasks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery’. However, each of the studies included could be criticised for risk of bias (Table 2). Indeed, the Webster study, arguably the most rigorous of the three, only investigated the impact of mask on non-scrubbed members of the surgical team. There is uncertainty over whether the findings of some of these studies are applicable to contemporary surgical practice.

Based upon the findings of this review, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines state that there is ‘limited evidence concerning the use of non-sterile theatre wear’ such as surgical masks when trying to minimise the risk of surgical site infection, although there was an overall ‘consensus that wearing non-sterile theatre wear is important in maintaining theatre discipline’. This latter statement seems to be a rather vague and likely unfounded assertion which implies a correlation between dress code, staff discipline and thereby patient safety outcomes. This may reflect a reluctance among the medical profession to deviate from embedded tradition as reflected in Leyland and McCloy’s questionnaire study.

It's notable that the left firmly believes the cause for gathering is honored by the virus, so that rioters not practicing social distancing or hygiene are exempt from the concept because of it therefore not a danger to themselves or others at all however if they for some reason attended church the following day, all bets are off.

Then you have the CDC not knowing droplets exist, not knowing asymptomatic individuals could exist, not considering cloth face masks, or coverings at all (scarf anyone?) and the left buys it like it makes any sense at all that a premier scientific authority didn't consider what Chinese women all over the world were already doing long before the virus was ever heard from. I don't buy that either. Add the surgeon general to it and suddenly they do a 180 and the left just sings right along like it makes perfect sense.

Then you have the distance sans masks... good enough, right? Then you add masks and the same distance, and that's even better. Why not go to 12 feet? 24?

[DMC]

I believe them more than I believe you.

You lie quite a bit to protect your narratives.
Who you believe doesn't mean shit

The WHO said not transmissible to humans
The CDC said no masks
The Surgeon General said no masks..

You really are stupid

[DMC]

you're not promoting anything resembling good science in this thread. i dont care what your day job is.

Your passive aggressive strawmen help

You wouldn't know good science if it bit you on the ass.

[ChumpDumper]

Who you believe doesn't mean shit

The WHO said not transmissible to humans
The CDC said no masks
The Surgeon General said no masks..

You really are stupidlol meltdown

[spurraider21]

Don't have it off hand? Is that a chickshit way of saying it's unknowable without more data?
no, it means i didnt have studies bookmarked that i could link for you at that exact moment.

effectiveness of masks (even homemade), generally, to limit transmission of bacterial/viral aerosols https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/
effectiveness of mask mandates during the covid-19 outbreak https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857?fbclid=IwAR0ZXdrmZebQUFxuHk4qa8PQfTGB4M72F2n TCAujpB5TqiJwBuvgngjOhjI


Consider this excerpt regarding the use of even surgical masks during surgery...
not directly analogous to a situation when there is actually an ongoing pandemic with millions of known infections, now is it

[ChumpDumper]

DMC tells surgical teams working on his family to skip the masks.:tu

[spurraider21]

Who you believe doesn't mean shit

The WHO said not transmissible to humans
The CDC said no masks
The Surgeon General said no masks..

You really are stupid
do you think better guidelines are developed after more is learned about the virus?

how many infections did we have when the CDC and surgeon general advised people not to buy masks? what was the reasoning they gave?

[spurraider21]

Your passive aggressive strawmen help

You wouldn't know good science if it bit you on the ass.
i would. im not a scientist by trade, but my undergrad degree was in biochemistry. i'm at least literate enough to be able to recognize good/bad science unless its something way above my head like quantum mechanics, etc

[ChumpDumper]

The CDC said no maskshttps://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

Man, you lie a lot.

I await your goalpost move.

Will CDC science be good or bad now?

Why should anyone believe you?

[spurraider21]

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

Man, you lie a lot.

I await your goalpost move.

Why should anyone believe you?
he's referring to the earlier guidelines from march

Wear a facemask if you are sick

If you are sick: You should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider’s office. If you are not able to wear a facemask (for example, because it causes trouble breathing), then you should do your best to cover your coughs and sneezes, and people who are caring for you should wear a facemask if they enter your room. Learn what to do if you are sick. (https://web.archive.org/web/20200331143006/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html)



If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200331143006/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html

of course, the context is right there... they wanted to save mask supply for healthcare workers. also was at a time when the virus wasn't so widespread that there were big concerns about large volumes of asymptomatic cases

to be fair, they could have still suggested homemade masks.

[ChumpDumper]

he's referring to the earlier guidelines from march

Wear a facemask if you are sick

If you are sick: You should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider’s office. If you are not able to wear a facemask (for example, because it causes trouble breathing), then you should do your best to cover your coughs and sneezes, and people who are caring for you should wear a facemask if they enter your room. Learn what to do if you are sick. (https://web.archive.org/web/20200331143006/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html)



If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200331143006/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html

of course, the context is right there... they wanted to save mask supply for healthcare workers. also was at a time when the virus wasn't so widespread that there were big concerns about large volumes of asymptomatic cases

to be fair, they could have still suggested homemade masks.:lmao March
:lmao DMC

Science evolved and DMC wants to stay behind.

[spurraider21]

first of all, "lol you edited, stop spamming f5, etc"


It's notable that the left firmly believes the cause for gathering is honored by the virus, so that rioters not practicing social distancing or hygiene are exempt from the concept because of it therefore not a danger to themselves or others at all however if they for some reason attended church the following day, all bets are off.
:lmao what a pivot... did you get whiplash from that?


Then you have the CDC not knowing droplets exist, not knowing asymptomatic individuals could exist, not considering cloth face masks, or coverings at all (scarf anyone?) and the left buys it like it makes any sense at all that a premier scientific authority didn't consider what Chinese women all over the world were already doing long before the virus was ever heard from. I don't buy that either. Add the surgeon general to it and suddenly they do a 180 and the left just sings right along like it makes perfect sense.
they probably should have recommended cloth masks earlier. i dont deny that.

their rationale for telling people not to go buy masks was sound considering there were PPE shortages early on for those who actually needed it. they also cautioned that wearing masks incorrectly could do more harm than good. that's not wrong. but i do think they should have recommended cloth masks at that time.

i'm glad they changed their guidelines when more information was known to them and they got a better sense of what works and what doesn't


Then you have the distance sans masks... good enough, right? Then you add masks and the same distance, and that's even better. Why not go to 12 feet? 24?
distance helps. more distance is probably better than less distance. too much distance when outside the house for things like grocery shopping is probably impractical.

masks help. cloth probably not as good as surgical, but still something.

distance + masks helps more than either alone.

[Winehole23]

If you dont "get" this then you have no understanding of statistics, or math. RandomGuy and midnightpulp are trying to be smart by using charts while disregarding mathematical principles.

Even if you don't understand math random guy and midnightpulp literally said you don't need good data to make informed decisions. /threadAre you drunk?

Many unclear antecedents in your post. You're kinda talking ro yourself, are you ok?

[midnightpulp]

Don't have it off hand? Is that a chickshit way of saying it's unknowable without more data?

Consider this excerpt regarding the use of even surgical masks during surgery...

Statistical analysis of the extracted data revealed no statistically significant association between mask usage and the incidence of surgical site infection. The study concluded that ‘it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical facemasks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery’. However, each of the studies included could be criticised for risk of bias (Table 2). Indeed, the Webster study, arguably the most rigorous of the three, only investigated the impact of mask on non-scrubbed members of the surgical team. There is uncertainty over whether the findings of some of these studies are applicable to contemporary surgical practice.

Based upon the findings of this review, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines state that there is ‘limited evidence concerning the use of non-sterile theatre wear’ such as surgical masks when trying to minimise the risk of surgical site infection, although there was an overall ‘consensus that wearing non-sterile theatre wear is important in maintaining theatre discipline’. This latter statement seems to be a rather vague and likely unfounded assertion which implies a correlation between dress code, staff discipline and thereby patient safety outcomes. This may reflect a reluctance among the medical profession to deviate from embedded tradition as reflected in Leyland and McCloy’s questionnaire study.

It's notable that the left firmly believes the cause for gathering is honored by the virus, so that rioters not practicing social distancing or hygiene are exempt from the concept because of it therefore not a danger to themselves or others at all however if they for some reason attended church the following day, all bets are off.

Then you have the CDC not knowing droplets exist, not knowing asymptomatic individuals could exist, not considering cloth face masks, or coverings at all (scarf anyone?) and the left buys it like it makes any sense at all that a premier scientific authority didn't consider what Chinese women all over the world were already doing long before the virus was ever heard from. I don't buy that either. Add the surgeon general to it and suddenly they do a 180 and the left just sings right along like it makes perfect sense.

Then you have the distance sans masks... good enough, right? Then you add masks and the same distance, and that's even better. Why not go to 12 feet? 24?

Issues with this study.

Bold point 1: These surgical team members are presumably not infected with any transmissible virus, so this experiment is really only testing if there's any difference in surgical site infection among healthy mask wearers vs. healthy non-mask wearers. I would venture to guess that a healthy non-masked person won't transmit/shed much of anything, mask or no mask.

Bold point 2: This suggests the study had a fair deal of selective sampling, as was elaborated in the following sentence of the most rigorous test only sampling non-scrubbed mask wearers.

Addition criticism: In a real world social setting, there's too many confounding variable to assess the efficacy of masks due to human behavior variability. Are the subjects wearing them correctly? Are they keeping them on their faces? Do they keep fiddling with it and touching their faces (which could facilitate transmission)?

The simplest experiment you can devise to test if masks work in a vacuum is having subjects cough, talk, and sneeze into a culture while wearing a mask and then wearing no mask and then comparing particle load differences. This study did so and found that viral coronavirus load was significantly reduced.


We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b).

https://i.imgur.com/QBqOI9Z.png
https://i.imgur.com/sY92I3T.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#Tab2

The pushback against masks is puzzling to me. It's a cheap, non-oppressive way to reduce transmission. Is wearing a mask while you go grab some bait and tackle at Burt's Fishing Hole really that big of a deal?

[hombre]

Who you believe doesn't mean shit

The WHO said not transmissible to humans
The CDC said no masks
The Surgeon General said no masks..

You really are stupid

You're the one that looks unintelligent.

The symptoms and maladies of a virus play out in real time. Scientists have guesses based on previous, related types, but just like with Aids. Aids baffled scientists for decade before they unlocked how it works. Even now new complications are being discovered from over time Covid 19 like permanent heart damage and brain damage.


Not understanding this makes you look daft.

Try different news sources that inform you with facts.

[tholdren]

:lmao March
:lmao DMC

Science evolved and DMC wants to stay behind.

cdc said flu 13 times greater risk of death to school age.


I was right you were wrong.

Lockdowns didn't do anything but cause more problems

[tholdren]

Issues with this study.

Bold point 1: These surgical team members are presumably not infected with any transmissible virus, so this experiment is really only testing if there's any difference in surgical site infection among healthy mask wearers vs. healthy non-mask wearers. I would venture to guess that a healthy non-masked person won't transmit/shed much of anything, mask or no mask.

Bold point 2: This suggests the study had a fair deal of selective sampling, as was elaborated in the following sentence of the most rigorous test only sampling non-scrubbed mask wearers.

Addition criticism: In a real world social setting, there's too many confounding variable to assess the efficacy of masks due to human behavior variability. Are the subjects wearing them correctly? Are they keeping them on their faces? Do they keep fiddling with it and touching their faces (which could facilitate transmission)?

The simplest experiment you can devise to test if masks work in a vacuum is having subjects cough, talk, and sneeze into a culture while wearing a mask and then wearing no mask and then comparing particle load differences. This study did so and found that viral coronavirus load was significantly reduced.



https://i.imgur.com/QBqOI9Z.png
https://i.imgur.com/sY92I3T.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#Tab2

The pushback against masks is puzzling to me. It's a cheap, non-oppressive way to reduce transmission. Is wearing a mask while you go grab some bait and tackle at Burt's Fishing Hole really that big of a deal?

Loloool

Your math

Nordic countries say no masks.

Thread

[ChumpDumper]

I was right you were wrong.Wrong.

[rmt]

Where's the US on the chart?

[baseline bum]

Where's the US on the chart?

Not in the EU. Learn some fucking first grade geography.

[Will Hunting]

^:lmao

[tholdren]

Bwahahahahhahahahah

Texas just gave death counts today that have fatalities non test confirmed as covid from......


MARCH

BwahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaHHHHhHHH

[TimDunkem]

Where's the US on the chart?


Not in the EU. Learn some fucking first grade geography.
:lmao :lmao :lmao

Holy fuck

[tholdren]

Bwahahahahhahahahah

Texas just gave death counts today that have fatalities non test confirmed as covid from......


MARCH

BwahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaHHHHhHHH

math wizards ignoring this but about to tell you case increase caused this daily death total. LIoooo

Raw data loololoolIllolll

[midnightpulp]

math wizards ignoring this but about to tell you case increase caused this daily death total. LIoooo

Raw data loololoolIllolll

Pretty easy to diagnose a Covid case when their lungs are filled ground glass opacity. But I'm sure it was death by brisket or a game of Texas hangman gone wrong, right?

[rmt]

Not in the EU. Learn some fucking first grade geography.

An oversight - my apologies.

[RandomGuy]

Issues with this study.

Bold point 1: These surgical team members are presumably not infected with any transmissible virus, so this experiment is really only testing if there's any difference in surgical site infection among healthy mask wearers vs. healthy non-mask wearers. I would venture to guess that a healthy non-masked person won't transmit/shed much of anything, mask or no mask.

Bold point 2: This suggests the study had a fair deal of selective sampling, as was elaborated in the following sentence of the most rigorous test only sampling non-scrubbed mask wearers.

Addition criticism: In a real world social setting, there's too many confounding variable to assess the efficacy of masks due to human behavior variability. Are the subjects wearing them correctly? Are they keeping them on their faces? Do they keep fiddling with it and touching their faces (which could facilitate transmission)?

The simplest experiment you can devise to test if masks work in a vacuum is having subjects cough, talk, and sneeze into a culture while wearing a mask and then wearing no mask and then comparing particle load differences. This study did so and found that viral coronavirus load was significantly reduced.



https://i.imgur.com/QBqOI9Z.png
https://i.imgur.com/sY92I3T.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#Tab2

The pushback against masks is puzzling to me. It's a cheap, non-oppressive way to reduce transmission. Is wearing a mask while you go grab some bait and tackle at Burt's Fishing Hole really that big of a deal?


And you have zero idea how effective [masks are]

I am guessing we have better than "zero idea" how effective masks are.

[DMC]

I am guessing we have better than "zero idea" how effective masks are.

I'm guessing you don't.

[tholdren]

I'm guessing you don't.

he doesn't. He's about to wear his goggles to be safe