Reply With Quote
bwahahhahahjahahajshshsushshshzhzhzhzhzjzhzhshz
Lolololoollollol
This guy
BewahahahahaHjzjsjzzzjzjs
Its funny because hes not trolling.
LololoIlIloll
STRONG.
bwahahhahahjahahajshshsushshshzhzhzhzhzjzhzhshz
Lolololoollollol
This guy
BewahahahahaHjzjsjzzzjzjs
Its funny because hes not trolling.
LololoIlIloll
STRONG.
Lockdowns work.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 07-28-2020 at 11:35 PM.
True. However, there's no evidence or su ion 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.
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.
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).
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.
"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.
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.
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 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 ed 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.
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).
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.
That is what math and statistically illiterate people like fldern 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.
(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.
Bwahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaha hajahahahahajhahahahahahahabahahhaThat is what math and statistically illiterate people like f
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.
Bwahahahhahahahahahahahahahahababhaha
Wrong. Can't test correlation without experimental design and logic
BwwahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahHhaahahHH
RandomGuy fail
I read this again and its utterly wrong in any mathematical sense. Period.That is what math and statistically illiterate people like f
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.
^^^ never shows his cards.
tholdren reasons by pure fiat, judging from his contributions here.
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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions