Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

If democrats are so much better at the economy...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    In which post have I attacked or been uncivil to a person posting or that I've been talking to? The idea that the economy is more important than the lives of those that die as a consequence of avoiding lockdowns is one I am critical of, and I certainly never made a promise never to be critical of an idea put forward on this website. The goal is simply to avoid being hostile to anyone if we disagree, or even if they become hostile or derogatory towards me. Did you somehow get the impression something else was what I was trying to accomplish?
    Your vitriol is as strong as ever. Perhaps it's better if you do leave the forums. This level of partisan warfare is unhelpful. All you did was lash out in anger because you had no other real counter.
    Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 05-08-2021, 07:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Joe recently said the economy is moving in the right direction, and that we should be happy. And then he said the economy is doing terribly, and it's all President Trump's fault.

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ce-april-2020/
      After reading the article, I'm wondering why the idea that the economy has been hurt by the pandemic but is moving in the right direction would be interpreted by you as some sort of contradiction?

      I'm also left wondering how saying the economy he inherited from the previous administration was bad is necessarily blaming Trump given we all know the cause was the pandemic and the actions required to keep it in check until vaccines could be developed?
      Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        Your vitriol is as strong as ever. Perhaps it's better if you do leave the forums. This level of partisan warfare is unhelpful.
        Oh, I see. This is just a ploy to try to get me to leave - or worse, actual mockery of my attempt to maintain 'civil discourse'? Either way, ill no longer be worrying about any more feigned attempts by you to 'prick my conscience'.
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 08:01 AM.
        Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          More lock downs result in more unemployment.
          And they do effectively nothing to stop the spread of the China flu.

          "LOCKDOWNS VS FREEDOM. Here’s one view showing impact on citizens from governmental Non-Pharmaceutical Intervention philosophies, and what lies in the wake. With these data, no significant impact on mortality, but a big (44%) unemployment difference, left group vs. right group."

          E0jd533UcA0MNhw.jpg

          https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottm...anity-n2588968
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

            Oh, I see. This is just a ploy to try to get me to leave. Well, ill not be worrying about any more feigned attempts by you to 'prick my conscience'.
            No. It's pointing out that you came up against data you didn't like. Your reaction was to lash out in anger, attack the opponents. Do you think your wording was helpful? Do you think it is actually accurate, or is it just you trying to paint the other side as evil instead of actually dealing with the information.

            It's exactly what you did in this reply. You immediately decided that this was all a "trick" to get you to leave.

            In the prior post, instead of just saying it was a gaffe, instead you explained it as seeking revenge.

            It is unhelpful, and frankly, unhealthy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

              No. It's pointing out that you came up against data you didn't like. Your reaction was to lash out in anger, attack the opponents. Do you think your wording was helpful? Do you think it is actually accurate, or is it just you trying to paint the other side as evil instead of actually dealing with the information.

              It's exactly what you did in this reply. You immediately decided that this was all a "trick" to get you to leave.

              In the prior post, instead of just saying it was a gaffe, instead you explained it as seeking revenge.

              It is unhelpful, and frankly, unhealthy.
              Actually I thought the data was interesting. My comment relates to the moral consequence of the hypothesis the differences are related to engaging in lockdowns and the implications the red states were somehow 'smarter' to put their economies above lives lost.

              But your completely inaccurate attempts to divine my motives are based on false assumptions about how I might react to data that would challenge what I accept as true.

              If you are truly interested in 'civil discourse', then might I suggest you leave behind the underlying model you have for who I am or why I might say something and instead just interact on an objective, factual basis wrt what was actually said? After all, I'm not attacking you or anyone else here, therefore there is nothing that needs defending except whatever truth lies behind the topic of discussion.

              For example, in the comment leading to this exchange, you could have simply put forward evidence (if it exists) that staying more open did not lead to more covid deaths.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 08:55 AM.
              Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                Actually I thought the data was interesting. My comment relates to the moral consequence of the hypothesis the differences are related to engaging in lockdowns and the implications the red states were somehow 'smarter' to put their economies above lives lost.

                But your completely inaccurate attempts to divine my motives are based on false assumptions about how I might react to data that would challenge what I accept as true.

                If you are truly interested in 'civil discourse', then might I suggest you leave behind the underlying model you have for who I am or why I might say something and instead just interact on an objective, factual basis wrt what was actually said?

                For example, in the comment leading to this exchange, you could have simply put forward evidence (if it exists) that staying more open did not lead to more covid deaths.
                As pointed out. Patterns of behavior. You intuit negative motive.

                you accused me of a ploy and feigning. You accused a reporter of being out for revenge. Then you complain that pointing out your behavior is wrong.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  And they do effectively nothing to stop the spread of the China flu.

                  "LOCKDOWNS VS FREEDOM. Here’s one view showing impact on citizens from governmental Non-Pharmaceutical Intervention philosophies, and what lies in the wake. With these data, no significant impact on mortality, but a big (44%) unemployment difference, left group vs. right group."

                  E0jd533UcA0MNhw.jpg

                  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottm...anity-n2588968
                  Actual data. Good. I notice that the lowest rates of spread are in areas where lockdowns were more severe. But more importantly, I notice is that many of the high death rate areas on the left side of the chart are states in the northeast affected most severely early in the pandemic and where several massive outbreaks occured before the widespread adoption of lockdowns. (Indeed, they were the areas that made clear lockdowns were necessary). Technically that makes them special cases whose outcome was actually a caused by not engaging in lockdowns even though later in the pandemic they became more aggressive in their lockdowns.

                  This points to a flaw in the data representation in that it is cumulative and does not track the effect over time of lockdowns and disease spread and therefore can't function as a proxy for the effect of lockdowns on disease spread.

                  For example, an inverse case to NY an NJ exists with CA in that having started well, Newsome backed off later in the pandemic when spread and infection rates were higher and more contagious variants were in the mix. Therefore, to get at the effect of lockdown on spread, a finer grained representation of the data is required that incorporates time.

                  But even in this graph, if we acknowledge the fact NY, RI, and NJ (not sure about CT) were early worst case scenarios that drove the adoption of lockdowns and pull them, we can begin to see that lockdowns do indeed have the effect of reducing spread - which is in fact what they do as has been seen all over the world.
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 10:12 AM.
                  Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                    Actual data. Good. I notice that the lowest rates of spread are in areas where lockdowns were more severe. But more importantly, I notice is that many of the high death rate areas on the left side of the chart are states in the northeast affected most severely early in the pandemic and where several massive outbreaks occured before the widespread adoption of lockdowns. (Indeed, they were the areas that made clear lockdowns were necessary). Technically that makes them special cases whose outcome was actually a caused by not engaging in lockdowns even though later in the pandemic they became more aggressive in their lockdowns.

                    This points to a flaw in the data representation in that it is cumulative and does not track the effect over time of lockdowns and disease spread and therefore can't function as a proxy for the effect of lockdowns on disease spread.

                    For example, an inverse case to NY an NJ exists with CA in that having started well, Newsome backed off later in the pandemic when spread and infection rates were higher and more contagious variants were in the mix. Therefore, to get at the effect of lockdown on spread, a finer grained representation of the data is required that incorporates time.

                    But even in this graph, if we acknowledge the fact NY, RI, and NJ (not sure about CT) were early worst case scenarios that drove the adoption of lockdowns and pull them, we can begin to see that lockdowns do indeed have the effect of reducing spread - which is in fact what they do as has been seen all over the world.
                    If you follow the link, you'll find another chart showing that China flu death rates are pretty much even across the board regardless of whether a state implemented severe restrictions or not.

                    "Because people cannot stop making Covid outcomes political, here are the death rates in all US states. Red are Republican governors, blue are Democrats. The rates are nearly identical. 161 on average for the blue states, 162 for the red states. Can we stop the gaslighting now?"

                    E0kkbqaUcAk95KS.jpg
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      If you follow the link, you'll find another chart showing that China flu death rates are pretty much even across the board regardless of whether a state implemented severe restrictions or not.

                      "Because people cannot stop making Covid outcomes political, here are the death rates in all US states. Red are Republican governors, blue are Democrats. The rates are nearly identical. 161 on average for the blue states, 162 for the red states. Can we stop the gaslighting now?"

                      E0kkbqaUcAk95KS.jpg
                      As I said - cumulative counts can't be used to understand the effect of lockdowns on transmission. Neither can cumulative death counts w/o taking into account the geographic nature of the spread and advances in treatment over time.

                      If you observe the variation in daily case rates state to state and across the US, there is a direct correlation between lockdowns and diminishing daily covid case rates. Likewise, early reopenings ALWAYS reversed the trends. That is the simple reality. Cumulative death counts and case counts can't tell you what the effect of a lockdown was on transmission, it only you tells you the cumulative effect of both the lockdowns AND the reopenings combined with geographic spread correlated with advances in treatment.

                      Here is the chart for the US. The earliest downward trends follow actions to curtail large scale human interaction, and the peaks follow reversals of such decisions. This is a cumulative chart for all states, and so it represents the cumulative effect of all the actions over time, so only large scale actions common to the majority population can be observed, to see in detail, you must go down to the state level and then correlate with actual regulations for that state imposed over time. You also have to account for delays both in rise and decay of spread. The finer grained you go, the more you need to account for population density and non-local travel. The chart also capture from January 2021 to the present the significant effect vaccinations have had on transmission.

                      The two most obvious drop rises are the massive shift from fast growth to slow decay in March with first major state lockdowns, then again to massive growth in june after that generally premature reopening. The massive shift up in OCT -> DEC correlates to multiple factors including failed attempts to repoen schools, holiday travel, the election itself, and so on. But in general after the fall it gets more complicated to summarize so simply - we had new variants with higher transmission rates so on and so forth. Of interest is the final bump in late march april which correlates to just being a bit too eager to remove restrictions as people are getting vaccinated and the massive spread of the more infectious variants in midwestern states which tended not to impose mask mandates and lockdowns. Fortunately it looks like the vaccines are winning in spite of reduced vigilance and a significant part of the population reluctant to get the vaccines.
                      DailyUSCaseCountsFeb2020toMay2021.PNG
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 01:28 PM.
                      Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                        As I said - cumulative counts can't be used to understand the effect of lockdowns on transmission.
                        Of course they can't, because they contradict your preferred Chicken Little narrative.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                          If you follow the link, you'll find another chart showing that China flu death rates are pretty much even across the board regardless of whether a state implemented severe restrictions or not.

                          "Because people cannot stop making Covid outcomes political, here are the death rates in all US states. Red are Republican governors, blue are Democrats. The rates are nearly identical. 161 on average for the blue states, 162 for the red states. Can we stop the gaslighting now?"

                          E0kkbqaUcAk95KS.jpg
                          My first reply to this post deals the mistake you and others are making in terms of concluding lockdowns do not effect transmission.

                          This second post is to acknowledge that you are right wrt the ultimate effect of the political leanings of the state, or perhaps variation in the implementation of lockdowns*, that chart shows that the cumulative effect appears to be fairly evenly distributed wrt to party affiliation.

                          *ETA: Variation in lockdowns are not necessarily always correlated with GOP or Democratic governors. For example, Maryland has a republican governor but one that followed the recommendations fairly closely in spite of the rhetoric of others in his party. So what would be interesting would be to try to break down actual policy over time (not political party) and cumulative death rate. I think one of the things we would see is that failure to implement lockdowns, or premature reopenings were far more devastating later in the year as spread and transmissability increased over time. So even states that locked down early but later gave in to the pressure such lockdowns created still have been impacted as much as those that behaved 'poorly' early on, but later seeing the negative effects tightened up a bit.
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 01:58 PM.
                          Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Of course they can't, because they contradict your preferred Chicken Little narrative.
                            Your aversion to detailed scientific analysis and dismissal of the same is well known MM. You historically have shown you try to summarize things into nice, neat, and very simple packages. And that just doesn't work when looking at this sort of data. I'll be glad to discuss the data in detail with anyone that wishes to do so, but I'll not be wasting any more time of this sort of thing.
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 02:01 PM.
                            Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                              Your aversion to detailed scientific analysis and dismissal of the same is well known MM.
                              What's funny is that you think you are providing "detailed scientific analysis" while only accepting that which supports your preferred doom-and-gloom narrative.

                              The fact is that comparing the data of states that implemented a draconian response to the China flu, and those that didn't shows no significant difference in number of infections and deaths attributed to the China flu.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                                What's funny is that you think you are providing "detailed scientific analysis" while only accepting that which supports your preferred doom-and-gloom narrative.

                                The fact is that comparing the data of states that implemented a draconian response to the China flu, and those that didn't shows no significant difference in number of infections and deaths attributed to the China flu.

                                No, it doesn't show that. It shows that political party can't be correlated to the outcome. There is a significant difference.

                                Again, your characterization of what was done and what was not done and when is flawed. I have pointed out some of what the flaws are. I agreed that the cumulative effect is the same across party boundaries, but I also pointed out that it is incontrovertible that lockdowns and mask wearing reduced the spread and gave you some direct data for that.

                                So, what both of those facts means when taken together is that in spite of the superficial rhetoric most states responded in a mixed enough manner that their politics was not the primary factor driving different mortality rates. The overall mortality does vary quite a bit - perhaps you noticed that? But the factor driving that difference does not correlate well with the political leaning of a state's government.


                                What does correlat well is that when mandates and mask wearing where enforced after transmission rates rose, transmission rates dropped. And when the virus was prevalent and lockdowns and mask wearing was reduced, transmission rates increased.
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 03:51 PM.
                                Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Today, 12:06 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:43 AM
                                19 responses
                                112 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:27 AM
                                14 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by seer, 06-17-2021, 11:25 AM
                                7 responses
                                72 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by oxmixmudd, 06-17-2021, 11:16 AM
                                63 responses
                                384 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X