Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
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.
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
-
Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 05-08-2021, 07:54 AM.
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostJoe 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/
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?My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
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.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 08:01 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMore lock downs result in more unemployment.
"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-n2588968Some 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
-
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'.
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
-
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.
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.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
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.
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
-
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
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.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
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.
"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.jpgSome 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
- 1 like
Comment
-
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
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.PNGLast edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 01:28 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
As I said - cumulative counts can't be used to understand the effect of lockdowns on transmission.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
- 1 like
Comment
-
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
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.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Of course they can't, because they contradict your preferred Chicken Little narrative.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2021, 02:01 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Your aversion to detailed scientific analysis and dismissal of the same is well known MM.
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
-
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.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
159 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
374 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment