Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

Post Reply
Rich K
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3574
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:40 pm
Location: Cody WY

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by Rich K » Thu May 28, 2020 9:17 am

Listen to the experts, they said....

I think Fauci changed his tune after Trump had him standing next to him like a muzzled dog.



Image

User avatar
coloradocat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:24 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by coloradocat » Thu May 28, 2020 9:32 am

The only thing football-related in this 18 page thread is the moving goalposts.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4477
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 28, 2020 9:39 am

iaafan wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 7:54 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:54 pm
iaafan wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:28 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:01 pm
GoldstoneCat wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 5:26 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 7:47 pm
seataccat wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:58 pm
Rich K wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:22 pm
MSU01 wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 1:06 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 12:37 pm

Despite the fact I know you’re being facetious, I guess I would agree with you to a point. The man is in charge. He’s gonna take criticism as well as praise. We were told a couple months ago 2-3 million Americans would die. Less than 100,000 have so far so I suppose that’s considered a “success”. Tough looking at it that way in regards to lives, but the numbers are the numbers.

If they would have predicted like 10,000 US deaths and 100,000 died, I’d say our President did pretty lousy. As much as I thought the restrictions and closures were a huge overreaction, all things considered I guess you could make the case our leader saved almost 2-3 million American lives with the actions taken.

I still hate it though! :wink:
I think you're misusing that 2-3 million deaths number. This was the number of deaths predicted by the leading scientific models if zero mitigating action had been taken, and life had just continued to go on completely as normal as the virus spread through the country. Once actions like stay-at-home orders and business closures were put in place by local and state governments, the predicted number of deaths (and actual numbers of deaths) plummeted. While I'm sure there were some hysterical far-left people still touting that 2-3 million number after measures were taken, just as there were hysterical far-right people calling the virus a completely non-dangerous hoax, no reasonable person still thought there would be millions of deaths once the government started to take action.

Anyway, today is the 5th consecutive day with zero new cases in Montana. Great news and I'm becoming much more optimistic that we'll be in Bobcat Stadium watching football once September rolls around.
Misusing numbers? Who would have thunk it? There is no such thing as a "leading scientific model" that predicted this. For it to be a "leading scientific model" the model would have been published and critical evaluation encouraged. The "leading scientific models" for Covid exists in the same undisclosed location as global warming models.

The 2-3 million deaths was pulled out of somebody's ass.
Believe it or not scientists model such things all the time based on historical data, scientific extrapolations and educated guesses of the variables. Some are better than others. This virus may very well kill millions. The worst pandemic in history was the Spanish Flu and they estimated that it killed 670k in the U.S. The corona virus may still rival that in the two years it took for those deaths to occur. Keep believing that this virus is a worldwide hoax against Trump, that there is no such thing as global warming and that the moon is made of cheese.
In my far too many posts on this subject, I have not one time suggested it was a hoax. Nor did I ever relate it to politics like so many like to do.

I said the original models were asinine. Far too high death counts and far too high death rates. Every day I wake up it seems my guesses were far closer than the guesses of those panicking.

Also, I maintain it’s very shady that they can just throw out monster numbers, claim that’s how many will die, then when life as we know it is paused, give ALL the credit to the lockdowns. It’s a cop out. So some people really still believe that it was impossible that this virus simply was never as dangerous as people said it’d be?

Which brings me to my last thought. Why are we so quick to believe the original experts and scientists with 100% certainty. They were so unequivocally correct we shut down the economy and closed schools, no questions asked. However, since that time there have been countless other experts and scientists claiming the exact opposite. Suggesting it’s not near as serious as first thought and the cure is worse than the problem. Why do we dismiss them? This has bothered me for a while now. We’ll believe any terrible over the top news, but if someone disputes any of those facts they’re somehow the bad guy?

Weird stuff. But no, I certainly don’t think this virus is a hoax. I think it’s a very contagious virus with a low death rate. I think we’re at about .40% death rate now. Far lower when you consider nearly all deaths are old, mostly in nursing homes, and almost always with underlying conditions. Just can’t figure out what people are so worried about. But I’m trying!!
Most people aren't dying, you're correct. People that aren't dying, however, are getting very sick in some, not all, cases. People report being sicker than they've ever been. Healthy people in their 40s developing clots that are causing large-vessel strokes. Absent that, many are bedridden for multiple weeks. Now, are those issues reason enough for the measures we saw taken? Perhaps not. But just because healthy working people aren't dying in huge numbers doesn't mean it's not making them very sick in many cases, and also doesn't mean it's not something to fear/respect/pay damn close attention to.
I understand lots of what you're saying. Agree with some of it even. Personally, I haven't and won't "fear" this thing; but I'd concede it's something that should be paid attention to and we shouldn't disregard what it can do. That has never been my issue. I think it needs to be paid attention to like every other form of death. I don't think it needs to paid attention to MORE than other forms of death. And it most certainly has been. And the stats so far show it didn't warrant the attention it got. Especially if the attention it got leads to more deaths than the virus itself, which some scientists, doctors and experts have suggested it could.

I'd also probably dispute the notion that it's "many" people who are becoming very sick. It certainly doesn't seem that way based on what I have read, but I'll concede I don't know. I've heard that a huge percentage of people who contract the virus either show zero symptoms at all, or very mild symptoms. I'd be curious though of the million or so that have tested positive in the US, how many of those were sicker than they have ever been, or faced unusual circumstances like being so young and getting strokes. My guess would be a tiny percentage but again, I'm just guessing.
I'm interested in knowing how you came to this opinion.
Well, mainly the things I mentioned above. Many experts are now suggesting the aftermath of deciding to shut down our economy and our education system will result in more deaths than the virus itself. So if it's about saving lives then this is backwards and didn't warrant those actions.

Then we were told, hey, it's not just about saving lives...it's so we don't overload our hospitals. Except that other than a few hotspots, for a few weeks, no hospitals in the country were close to being overloaded. They did however have to eliminate positions, furlough others, and postpone surgeries. Some hospitals will have to close.

Then we were told, hey it's irresponsible to compare this virus to other things, like heart disease, cancer, the "other" flu, etc. This is WAY more serious. Except the numbers don't show that. By the end of the year I'll bet anything all those other "less scary" means of death will outweigh this one. But hey, when that happens we can just say the ONLY reason that is the case, is because we shut down our economy and took kids out of school! It certainly couldn't be anything else! Who cares if it leads to homelessness, domestic abuse, starvation, suicide and poorly educated kids! It was worth it. \:D/
Which experts are saying that? And in what context? And what are they basing their opinions on? And are they having their hypothesis tested? And has there been a consensus on any of that? Have you looked or fact-checked that?

You seem to be just taking anything you hear that's supports Covid not being that bad and running with it without fact-checking it. It's gotten bizarre, frankly, because you've been presenting yourself as this level-headed guy that always looks at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. Numerous people explain to you how models work, but you (intentionally?) seem to be pretending to not get it or not acknowledge it. How many times have you come on here and said, "We were told that 2 million people would die?" Then someone explains to you why the model said that and you never have acknowledged that. You just go away for a few days and then come back and pump that same BS in here. You try to play the, "Oh, I'm just a regular ol' level-headed guy that looks at things from both sides." But that's not the case. You just let what numerous people explain to you, fly by.

Instead of busting the chops of models, why don't you think about the possibility that the fact the models gave such dire warnings, they saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Isn't it possible that once people heard how bad it could be, they buckled down and did things to keep it from getting worse? Again, models produce results based on the data input into them. The 2-3 million deaths model factored in no one doing anything, similar to the Spanish Flu. The Spanish Flu produced an "estimated" (there will be an estimation on this pandemic as well someday) 675,000 deaths during a time that America had 100,000,000 people. If that had occurred with 300,000,000 people it would've produced 675,000 x 3 = 2 million deaths, possibly. So when the data was input for corona it was done with a higher death rate, which is still the case, and therefore came out with the numbers it had...2-3 million. Sounds about right to me, based on what we know about a somewhat similar pandemic.

Then more of the same about "we were told...saving lives...overload hospitals." Yeah, hello, it is about saving lives. It is about not overloading hospitals. But you act like since the hospitals didn't get overloaded, for the most part, and 2 million people didn't die that someone f--ked up. Instead of saying, thank god, it didn't get that bad. In some places the virus didn't infest itself. Or if it was about to, it was thwarted by people doing what was needed to turn it back. It didn't just magically not get as bad as feared because people just didn't know what they were talking about. Has that ever washed over your brain?

It is irresponsible to compare this to any other virus or disease out there. That's what the "novel" part means. Novel = new. Don't compare something you don't know relatively anything about to something that's been around for decades. As in we don't know what the hell it is and all early indications are it's very bad. The numbers DON'T show that? I'd say the numbers have definitely shown that. It's a matter of opinion, I guess, but to me when something that we "shutdown" for still kills 100,000 people in basically two months, that means it would've been a lot worse (how much worse?) than if we just let everyone go about their business. We could cut down on the number of cancer, flu, etc deaths if we did more, but those are novel. They've been around. We know what they do every year and, you can opine about this all you want, but no one is all fired up about wearing a mask or whatever to keep it from spreading. We're just used to it, I guess. I don't know.

This anti-mask thing is pretty pitiful IMO. How much time a day on average do people get put in a position where wearing a mask is kosher? Sure, some have to do it more than others, but the average Joe on the street is hardly ever in a position where wearing a mask is kosher? Grocery store = 30 minutes a week, but usually one person per family does that, so in a family of four, that's 7.5 minutes per week. I wear one when I feel it's kosher and that amounts to about 30 minutes per week. 30 minutes out of 16 waking hours a day x 7 days/week (6,720 waking minutes) comes to .00446 of the time. Gee, we're really being put out. Same for social distancing. The average Joe is hardly ever in position to need to social distance. But oh my god we should go kill ourselves if we have to do this.

What else? Oh yeah, the economy sucking is going to kill a ton of people. Where is that data coming from? The Great Depression? If so, it might be worth noting that the Great Depression lasted a decade. Corona won't last that long and if it does. If we can't cure the virus in ten years, then we likely never will.

Then there's the overcounted death rate, which still gets mentioned despite the obvious fact that it has been undercounted. Maybe some day it will be overcounted, but as of right now that's not the case. When it was at 50,000 dead from corona in late April, we were still 30,000 over the average. People were counting those as flu and pnuemonia deaths even though the time frame for those to still be occurring at that had passed. Conservatively, 20,000 were covid. Of the 50,000 dead since, probably another 10,000. That runs the total to around 130,000, but whatever. When the dust settle, the CDC and WHO will estimate the number of dead from covid using that variable (deaths over average).

And there are lots of examples of Americans stepping up and implementing new normals for things that are killing people at a rate less than cancer, cigarettes, etc. Look at bike, ski, skateboard, etc. helmets. Forty years ago, you would never see anyone wearing a helmet. How many people died riding bikes, skiing, etc. before helmets became the norm? How lives do helmets save?



I've read that suicide rates are down, did you read that? I've heard that despite the fact that there are a lot of bad things happening, there's also some good things happening. Not that those good things are worth it, but they're there.
Appreciate the post. I don't think I'm being bizarre but that's neither here nor there.

I find it interesting in your first paragraph that you want me to cite sources or something of all the points I bring up like I'm pulling them out of a hat. You then give a bunch of your opinions I assume based on what you have read and "fact-checked", but didn't offer any sources. It seems you too are just willing to believe whatever it is you read to support your opinion....

I'm asking this seriously. You really haven't read or seen on any news network any scientists and doctors suggesting the actions we have taken so far could have adverse effects? I'm genuinely asking. Because I have read and seen plenty. I have also seen plenty of smart guys backing up your point of view. I admit that. Why are you so quick to discredit those that say otherwise? Unless you truly haven't heard anyone discuss all of the issues caused by the lockdown and kids being forced from schools. If that is the case, you aren't discrediting anyone. But they are out there. I suppose I could get some time this evening and find a plethora of articles of doctors, scientists, and even now epidemiologists that claim that the actions taken could result in very bad things for our country including the stuff I mentioned above.

Like I said before, I have no problem with people taking your stance. Despite what I have seen, this may in fact end up being a VERY deadly virus. It's possible a simple act like wearing a mask will in fact save lives. But pretend for a second that this virus doesn't exist. We never heard of it. We know the "regular" flu exists. We know it kills people. Are you willing to wear a mask every time you go out forever? Because it will most certainly save lives if you do. When the tens of thousands die in this country from the "regular" flu every year, do you feel guilty for your actions? Think about last time you went to a Cat game and used the head. How many dudes did you see walk right out without washing their hands and not wearing a mask? Hundreds and probably thousands every Cat game. They are just as guilty and responsible for flu deaths. Again, this isn't comparing these viruses, it's assuming Covid doesn't even exist.

So I ask, will you be continuing to take all these same "social distancing" measures for the rest of your life? Because they will in FACT save lives if you do. Or are 1% of people dying from this virus somehow more important, and worth more to take these measures than others? I believe if you aren't a person willing to wear a mask and take all the other precautions we're taking now, going forward, then your stance on this virus, how scary it is, and saving lives is pretty hypocritical. Not saying you AA, just mean people in general.

Again, I appreciate your take. I still feel I'm being level headed and don't really think I'm saying anything too bizarre despite the fact we really disagree on this topic.

But I'll see ya in our seats come football season! \:D/



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4477
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 28, 2020 9:41 am

coloradocat wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:32 am
The only thing football-related in this 18 page thread is the moving goalposts.
:lol:

Well that, and whether or not we'll be able to watch Bobcat football this year. I still say we will be able to, and we'll be able to from our seats in the stands! See ya there!



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5204
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Thu May 28, 2020 12:53 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:39 am
iaafan wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 7:54 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:54 pm
iaafan wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:28 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:01 pm
GoldstoneCat wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 5:26 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 7:47 pm
seataccat wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:58 pm
Rich K wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:22 pm
MSU01 wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 1:06 pm


I think you're misusing that 2-3 million deaths number. This was the number of deaths predicted by the leading scientific models if zero mitigating action had been taken, and life had just continued to go on completely as normal as the virus spread through the country. Once actions like stay-at-home orders and business closures were put in place by local and state governments, the predicted number of deaths (and actual numbers of deaths) plummeted. While I'm sure there were some hysterical far-left people still touting that 2-3 million number after measures were taken, just as there were hysterical far-right people calling the virus a completely non-dangerous hoax, no reasonable person still thought there would be millions of deaths once the government started to take action.

Anyway, today is the 5th consecutive day with zero new cases in Montana. Great news and I'm becoming much more optimistic that we'll be in Bobcat Stadium watching football once September rolls around.
Misusing numbers? Who would have thunk it? There is no such thing as a "leading scientific model" that predicted this. For it to be a "leading scientific model" the model would have been published and critical evaluation encouraged. The "leading scientific models" for Covid exists in the same undisclosed location as global warming models.

The 2-3 million deaths was pulled out of somebody's ass.
Believe it or not scientists model such things all the time based on historical data, scientific extrapolations and educated guesses of the variables. Some are better than others. This virus may very well kill millions. The worst pandemic in history was the Spanish Flu and they estimated that it killed 670k in the U.S. The corona virus may still rival that in the two years it took for those deaths to occur. Keep believing that this virus is a worldwide hoax against Trump, that there is no such thing as global warming and that the moon is made of cheese.
In my far too many posts on this subject, I have not one time suggested it was a hoax. Nor did I ever relate it to politics like so many like to do.

I said the original models were asinine. Far too high death counts and far too high death rates. Every day I wake up it seems my guesses were far closer than the guesses of those panicking.

Also, I maintain it’s very shady that they can just throw out monster numbers, claim that’s how many will die, then when life as we know it is paused, give ALL the credit to the lockdowns. It’s a cop out. So some people really still believe that it was impossible that this virus simply was never as dangerous as people said it’d be?

Which brings me to my last thought. Why are we so quick to believe the original experts and scientists with 100% certainty. They were so unequivocally correct we shut down the economy and closed schools, no questions asked. However, since that time there have been countless other experts and scientists claiming the exact opposite. Suggesting it’s not near as serious as first thought and the cure is worse than the problem. Why do we dismiss them? This has bothered me for a while now. We’ll believe any terrible over the top news, but if someone disputes any of those facts they’re somehow the bad guy?

Weird stuff. But no, I certainly don’t think this virus is a hoax. I think it’s a very contagious virus with a low death rate. I think we’re at about .40% death rate now. Far lower when you consider nearly all deaths are old, mostly in nursing homes, and almost always with underlying conditions. Just can’t figure out what people are so worried about. But I’m trying!!
Most people aren't dying, you're correct. People that aren't dying, however, are getting very sick in some, not all, cases. People report being sicker than they've ever been. Healthy people in their 40s developing clots that are causing large-vessel strokes. Absent that, many are bedridden for multiple weeks. Now, are those issues reason enough for the measures we saw taken? Perhaps not. But just because healthy working people aren't dying in huge numbers doesn't mean it's not making them very sick in many cases, and also doesn't mean it's not something to fear/respect/pay damn close attention to.
I understand lots of what you're saying. Agree with some of it even. Personally, I haven't and won't "fear" this thing; but I'd concede it's something that should be paid attention to and we shouldn't disregard what it can do. That has never been my issue. I think it needs to be paid attention to like every other form of death. I don't think it needs to paid attention to MORE than other forms of death. And it most certainly has been. And the stats so far show it didn't warrant the attention it got. Especially if the attention it got leads to more deaths than the virus itself, which some scientists, doctors and experts have suggested it could.

I'd also probably dispute the notion that it's "many" people who are becoming very sick. It certainly doesn't seem that way based on what I have read, but I'll concede I don't know. I've heard that a huge percentage of people who contract the virus either show zero symptoms at all, or very mild symptoms. I'd be curious though of the million or so that have tested positive in the US, how many of those were sicker than they have ever been, or faced unusual circumstances like being so young and getting strokes. My guess would be a tiny percentage but again, I'm just guessing.
I'm interested in knowing how you came to this opinion.
Well, mainly the things I mentioned above. Many experts are now suggesting the aftermath of deciding to shut down our economy and our education system will result in more deaths than the virus itself. So if it's about saving lives then this is backwards and didn't warrant those actions.

Then we were told, hey, it's not just about saving lives...it's so we don't overload our hospitals. Except that other than a few hotspots, for a few weeks, no hospitals in the country were close to being overloaded. They did however have to eliminate positions, furlough others, and postpone surgeries. Some hospitals will have to close.

Then we were told, hey it's irresponsible to compare this virus to other things, like heart disease, cancer, the "other" flu, etc. This is WAY more serious. Except the numbers don't show that. By the end of the year I'll bet anything all those other "less scary" means of death will outweigh this one. But hey, when that happens we can just say the ONLY reason that is the case, is because we shut down our economy and took kids out of school! It certainly couldn't be anything else! Who cares if it leads to homelessness, domestic abuse, starvation, suicide and poorly educated kids! It was worth it. \:D/
Which experts are saying that? And in what context? And what are they basing their opinions on? And are they having their hypothesis tested? And has there been a consensus on any of that? Have you looked or fact-checked that?

You seem to be just taking anything you hear that's supports Covid not being that bad and running with it without fact-checking it. It's gotten bizarre, frankly, because you've been presenting yourself as this level-headed guy that always looks at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. Numerous people explain to you how models work, but you (intentionally?) seem to be pretending to not get it or not acknowledge it. How many times have you come on here and said, "We were told that 2 million people would die?" Then someone explains to you why the model said that and you never have acknowledged that. You just go away for a few days and then come back and pump that same BS in here. You try to play the, "Oh, I'm just a regular ol' level-headed guy that looks at things from both sides." But that's not the case. You just let what numerous people explain to you, fly by.

Instead of busting the chops of models, why don't you think about the possibility that the fact the models gave such dire warnings, they saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Isn't it possible that once people heard how bad it could be, they buckled down and did things to keep it from getting worse? Again, models produce results based on the data input into them. The 2-3 million deaths model factored in no one doing anything, similar to the Spanish Flu. The Spanish Flu produced an "estimated" (there will be an estimation on this pandemic as well someday) 675,000 deaths during a time that America had 100,000,000 people. If that had occurred with 300,000,000 people it would've produced 675,000 x 3 = 2 million deaths, possibly. So when the data was input for corona it was done with a higher death rate, which is still the case, and therefore came out with the numbers it had...2-3 million. Sounds about right to me, based on what we know about a somewhat similar pandemic.

Then more of the same about "we were told...saving lives...overload hospitals." Yeah, hello, it is about saving lives. It is about not overloading hospitals. But you act like since the hospitals didn't get overloaded, for the most part, and 2 million people didn't die that someone f--ked up. Instead of saying, thank god, it didn't get that bad. In some places the virus didn't infest itself. Or if it was about to, it was thwarted by people doing what was needed to turn it back. It didn't just magically not get as bad as feared because people just didn't know what they were talking about. Has that ever washed over your brain?

It is irresponsible to compare this to any other virus or disease out there. That's what the "novel" part means. Novel = new. Don't compare something you don't know relatively anything about to something that's been around for decades. As in we don't know what the hell it is and all early indications are it's very bad. The numbers DON'T show that? I'd say the numbers have definitely shown that. It's a matter of opinion, I guess, but to me when something that we "shutdown" for still kills 100,000 people in basically two months, that means it would've been a lot worse (how much worse?) than if we just let everyone go about their business. We could cut down on the number of cancer, flu, etc deaths if we did more, but those are novel. They've been around. We know what they do every year and, you can opine about this all you want, but no one is all fired up about wearing a mask or whatever to keep it from spreading. We're just used to it, I guess. I don't know.

This anti-mask thing is pretty pitiful IMO. How much time a day on average do people get put in a position where wearing a mask is kosher? Sure, some have to do it more than others, but the average Joe on the street is hardly ever in a position where wearing a mask is kosher? Grocery store = 30 minutes a week, but usually one person per family does that, so in a family of four, that's 7.5 minutes per week. I wear one when I feel it's kosher and that amounts to about 30 minutes per week. 30 minutes out of 16 waking hours a day x 7 days/week (6,720 waking minutes) comes to .00446 of the time. Gee, we're really being put out. Same for social distancing. The average Joe is hardly ever in position to need to social distance. But oh my god we should go kill ourselves if we have to do this.

What else? Oh yeah, the economy sucking is going to kill a ton of people. Where is that data coming from? The Great Depression? If so, it might be worth noting that the Great Depression lasted a decade. Corona won't last that long and if it does. If we can't cure the virus in ten years, then we likely never will.

Then there's the overcounted death rate, which still gets mentioned despite the obvious fact that it has been undercounted. Maybe some day it will be overcounted, but as of right now that's not the case. When it was at 50,000 dead from corona in late April, we were still 30,000 over the average. People were counting those as flu and pnuemonia deaths even though the time frame for those to still be occurring at that had passed. Conservatively, 20,000 were covid. Of the 50,000 dead since, probably another 10,000. That runs the total to around 130,000, but whatever. When the dust settle, the CDC and WHO will estimate the number of dead from covid using that variable (deaths over average).

And there are lots of examples of Americans stepping up and implementing new normals for things that are killing people at a rate less than cancer, cigarettes, etc. Look at bike, ski, skateboard, etc. helmets. Forty years ago, you would never see anyone wearing a helmet. How many people died riding bikes, skiing, etc. before helmets became the norm? How lives do helmets save?



I've read that suicide rates are down, did you read that? I've heard that despite the fact that there are a lot of bad things happening, there's also some good things happening. Not that those good things are worth it, but they're there.
Appreciate the post. I don't think I'm being bizarre but that's neither here nor there.

I find it interesting in your first paragraph that you want me to cite sources or something of all the points I bring up like I'm pulling them out of a hat. You then give a bunch of your opinions I assume based on what you have read and "fact-checked", but didn't offer any sources. It seems you too are just willing to believe whatever it is you read to support your opinion....

I'm asking this seriously. You really haven't read or seen on any news network any scientists and doctors suggesting the actions we have taken so far could have adverse effects? I'm genuinely asking. Because I have read and seen plenty. I have also seen plenty of smart guys backing up your point of view. I admit that. Why are you so quick to discredit those that say otherwise? Unless you truly haven't heard anyone discuss all of the issues caused by the lockdown and kids being forced from schools. If that is the case, you aren't discrediting anyone. But they are out there. I suppose I could get some time this evening and find a plethora of articles of doctors, scientists, and even now epidemiologists that claim that the actions taken could result in very bad things for our country including the stuff I mentioned above.

Like I said before, I have no problem with people taking your stance. Despite what I have seen, this may in fact end up being a VERY deadly virus. It's possible a simple act like wearing a mask will in fact save lives. But pretend for a second that this virus doesn't exist. We never heard of it. We know the "regular" flu exists. We know it kills people. Are you willing to wear a mask every time you go out forever? Because it will most certainly save lives if you do. When the tens of thousands die in this country from the "regular" flu every year, do you feel guilty for your actions? Think about last time you went to a Cat game and used the head. How many dudes did you see walk right out without washing their hands and not wearing a mask? Hundreds and probably thousands every Cat game. They are just as guilty and responsible for flu deaths. Again, this isn't comparing these viruses, it's assuming Covid doesn't even exist.

So I ask, will you be continuing to take all these same "social distancing" measures for the rest of your life? Because they will in FACT save lives if you do. Or are 1% of people dying from this virus somehow more important, and worth more to take these measures than others? I believe if you aren't a person willing to wear a mask and take all the other precautions we're taking now, going forward, then your stance on this virus, how scary it is, and saving lives is pretty hypocritical. Not saying you AA, just mean people in general.

Again, I appreciate your take. I still feel I'm being level headed and don't really think I'm saying anything too bizarre despite the fact we really disagree on this topic.

But I'll see ya in our seats come football season! \:D/
I don't mind that you the "take" that you have, but it does bother me when you continue drag out the same old bones that have been disproven numerous times.

Yes, I've read and heard the stories of ignoring the economy making things worse, but they're not very prominent nor well founded. A lot of them are based on Great Depression issues. Very few experts think this will have anywhere near the timeline of the Great Depression, so that eliminates a lot of those theories. Most experts state that if you go back to business as usual, then you'll go back to shifting models toward the 1-2 million deaths scenarios.

Scientists aren't politicians as Dr. Fauci pointed out. They give the politicians information and they decide how to address the public and set policies about it. The politicians that are blowing off the recommendations are in many of the states that are seeing increases. Nationally, it's going down, thanks in large part to NY/NJ showing vast improvement, but a lot of the country is growing, which is keeping the death counts up around 1,000 daily.

I do Google much of what you say, that's how I find out the context and just how accepted among scientists, doctors, etc. it is. Most everything you bring up is shared by just a few people and/or has a lot of caveats. I have the worldometers site on all the time for the past two months. I basically fact check and look for verification on every article I read or show I see. I *have* previously copied links into this and other threads, but I feel like I'm wasting my time because it doesn't look like you've read them. I think it'd be a better exercise for someone like yourself that doesn't want to look into how they think could be wrong. You're being stubborn at best. Intentionally misleading at worst.

1) You don't have to go far to learn how models work. A few key strokes in Google and you're there. It's pretty basic. They aren't that complex. You've kept up on this narrative that the models stated that there would for sure be 1-2 million deaths from Covid no matter what, despite myself and others explaining it to you. You've never acknowledged that the models stated that IF people just went about their business as usual that there would be 1-2 million deaths. That's bizarre.

2) Scientists do like to point out alarming numbers like the possibility of 1-2 million deaths, because they know it will get people's attention and get them moving. They could say, "well even though our models show 1-2 million deaths we're not worried about, because we know everyone will self-police themselves on social distancing, so we'll see at the next pandemic." They know people will skip over the details (IF everyone goes about their lives as usual) and be alarmed, then take action. It works. It worked in this case, but not to the extent it could have.

3) You've never pointed out that consequent models, ones that included social distancing (new data) at the rate people we're actually doing it, had 40,000 deaths by August 1. Shortly after that NYC blew up and the models were changed (70-80,000), because they have new data,so it went up and then people aren't social distancing at the suggested level and the models changed to an even higher number (100,000).

4) The 'overcount' theories that people are referring to are based on a few cases of people that died of something else, but had it listed as Covid. It has happened, but there's been a very low percentage. Maybe 100-200 instances, if that. Undercounts are estimated to be anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000.

All of this stuff is easy to find. I'm not going to continue posting links, if you're not going to read them. You can find it yourself. The stuff you and others say, I always go look it up myself to see how factual it is. The stuff I asked you for links to, I have looked up, but nothing I've found has been bonified and typically has weak arguments to support it. IF, however, you know of a link that makes a legit case please post or give me some parameters to search for.



User avatar
catsrback76
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7544
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:18 am
Location: 2300 meters up in Ethiopia!

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by catsrback76 » Thu May 28, 2020 1:15 pm

Rich K wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:17 am
Listen to the experts, they said....

I think Fauci changed his tune after Trump had him standing next to him like a muzzled dog.

Did you EVEN LISTEN to the interview? He did NOT recant...please listen and learn! :coffee:

"It's not inevitable...IF we do it correctly"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Cat4LifeHouseDivided
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:30 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by Cat4LifeHouseDivided » Thu May 28, 2020 1:26 pm

catsrback76 wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:15 pm
Rich K wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:17 am
Listen to the experts, they said....

I think Fauci changed his tune after Trump had him standing next to him like a muzzled dog.

Did you EVEN LISTEN to the interview? He did NOT recant...please listen and learn! :coffee:

"It's not inevitable...IF we do it correctly"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, it is from the Blaze..dumpster fire.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4477
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 28, 2020 2:08 pm

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 12:53 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:39 am
iaafan wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 7:54 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:54 pm
iaafan wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:28 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 1:01 pm
GoldstoneCat wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 5:26 am
ilovethecats wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 7:47 pm
seataccat wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:58 pm
Rich K wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:22 pm


Misusing numbers? Who would have thunk it? There is no such thing as a "leading scientific model" that predicted this. For it to be a "leading scientific model" the model would have been published and critical evaluation encouraged. The "leading scientific models" for Covid exists in the same undisclosed location as global warming models.

The 2-3 million deaths was pulled out of somebody's ass.
Believe it or not scientists model such things all the time based on historical data, scientific extrapolations and educated guesses of the variables. Some are better than others. This virus may very well kill millions. The worst pandemic in history was the Spanish Flu and they estimated that it killed 670k in the U.S. The corona virus may still rival that in the two years it took for those deaths to occur. Keep believing that this virus is a worldwide hoax against Trump, that there is no such thing as global warming and that the moon is made of cheese.
In my far too many posts on this subject, I have not one time suggested it was a hoax. Nor did I ever relate it to politics like so many like to do.

I said the original models were asinine. Far too high death counts and far too high death rates. Every day I wake up it seems my guesses were far closer than the guesses of those panicking.

Also, I maintain it’s very shady that they can just throw out monster numbers, claim that’s how many will die, then when life as we know it is paused, give ALL the credit to the lockdowns. It’s a cop out. So some people really still believe that it was impossible that this virus simply was never as dangerous as people said it’d be?

Which brings me to my last thought. Why are we so quick to believe the original experts and scientists with 100% certainty. They were so unequivocally correct we shut down the economy and closed schools, no questions asked. However, since that time there have been countless other experts and scientists claiming the exact opposite. Suggesting it’s not near as serious as first thought and the cure is worse than the problem. Why do we dismiss them? This has bothered me for a while now. We’ll believe any terrible over the top news, but if someone disputes any of those facts they’re somehow the bad guy?

Weird stuff. But no, I certainly don’t think this virus is a hoax. I think it’s a very contagious virus with a low death rate. I think we’re at about .40% death rate now. Far lower when you consider nearly all deaths are old, mostly in nursing homes, and almost always with underlying conditions. Just can’t figure out what people are so worried about. But I’m trying!!
Most people aren't dying, you're correct. People that aren't dying, however, are getting very sick in some, not all, cases. People report being sicker than they've ever been. Healthy people in their 40s developing clots that are causing large-vessel strokes. Absent that, many are bedridden for multiple weeks. Now, are those issues reason enough for the measures we saw taken? Perhaps not. But just because healthy working people aren't dying in huge numbers doesn't mean it's not making them very sick in many cases, and also doesn't mean it's not something to fear/respect/pay damn close attention to.
I understand lots of what you're saying. Agree with some of it even. Personally, I haven't and won't "fear" this thing; but I'd concede it's something that should be paid attention to and we shouldn't disregard what it can do. That has never been my issue. I think it needs to be paid attention to like every other form of death. I don't think it needs to paid attention to MORE than other forms of death. And it most certainly has been. And the stats so far show it didn't warrant the attention it got. Especially if the attention it got leads to more deaths than the virus itself, which some scientists, doctors and experts have suggested it could.

I'd also probably dispute the notion that it's "many" people who are becoming very sick. It certainly doesn't seem that way based on what I have read, but I'll concede I don't know. I've heard that a huge percentage of people who contract the virus either show zero symptoms at all, or very mild symptoms. I'd be curious though of the million or so that have tested positive in the US, how many of those were sicker than they have ever been, or faced unusual circumstances like being so young and getting strokes. My guess would be a tiny percentage but again, I'm just guessing.
I'm interested in knowing how you came to this opinion.
Well, mainly the things I mentioned above. Many experts are now suggesting the aftermath of deciding to shut down our economy and our education system will result in more deaths than the virus itself. So if it's about saving lives then this is backwards and didn't warrant those actions.

Then we were told, hey, it's not just about saving lives...it's so we don't overload our hospitals. Except that other than a few hotspots, for a few weeks, no hospitals in the country were close to being overloaded. They did however have to eliminate positions, furlough others, and postpone surgeries. Some hospitals will have to close.

Then we were told, hey it's irresponsible to compare this virus to other things, like heart disease, cancer, the "other" flu, etc. This is WAY more serious. Except the numbers don't show that. By the end of the year I'll bet anything all those other "less scary" means of death will outweigh this one. But hey, when that happens we can just say the ONLY reason that is the case, is because we shut down our economy and took kids out of school! It certainly couldn't be anything else! Who cares if it leads to homelessness, domestic abuse, starvation, suicide and poorly educated kids! It was worth it. \:D/
Which experts are saying that? And in what context? And what are they basing their opinions on? And are they having their hypothesis tested? And has there been a consensus on any of that? Have you looked or fact-checked that?

You seem to be just taking anything you hear that's supports Covid not being that bad and running with it without fact-checking it. It's gotten bizarre, frankly, because you've been presenting yourself as this level-headed guy that always looks at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. Numerous people explain to you how models work, but you (intentionally?) seem to be pretending to not get it or not acknowledge it. How many times have you come on here and said, "We were told that 2 million people would die?" Then someone explains to you why the model said that and you never have acknowledged that. You just go away for a few days and then come back and pump that same BS in here. You try to play the, "Oh, I'm just a regular ol' level-headed guy that looks at things from both sides." But that's not the case. You just let what numerous people explain to you, fly by.

Instead of busting the chops of models, why don't you think about the possibility that the fact the models gave such dire warnings, they saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Isn't it possible that once people heard how bad it could be, they buckled down and did things to keep it from getting worse? Again, models produce results based on the data input into them. The 2-3 million deaths model factored in no one doing anything, similar to the Spanish Flu. The Spanish Flu produced an "estimated" (there will be an estimation on this pandemic as well someday) 675,000 deaths during a time that America had 100,000,000 people. If that had occurred with 300,000,000 people it would've produced 675,000 x 3 = 2 million deaths, possibly. So when the data was input for corona it was done with a higher death rate, which is still the case, and therefore came out with the numbers it had...2-3 million. Sounds about right to me, based on what we know about a somewhat similar pandemic.

Then more of the same about "we were told...saving lives...overload hospitals." Yeah, hello, it is about saving lives. It is about not overloading hospitals. But you act like since the hospitals didn't get overloaded, for the most part, and 2 million people didn't die that someone f--ked up. Instead of saying, thank god, it didn't get that bad. In some places the virus didn't infest itself. Or if it was about to, it was thwarted by people doing what was needed to turn it back. It didn't just magically not get as bad as feared because people just didn't know what they were talking about. Has that ever washed over your brain?

It is irresponsible to compare this to any other virus or disease out there. That's what the "novel" part means. Novel = new. Don't compare something you don't know relatively anything about to something that's been around for decades. As in we don't know what the hell it is and all early indications are it's very bad. The numbers DON'T show that? I'd say the numbers have definitely shown that. It's a matter of opinion, I guess, but to me when something that we "shutdown" for still kills 100,000 people in basically two months, that means it would've been a lot worse (how much worse?) than if we just let everyone go about their business. We could cut down on the number of cancer, flu, etc deaths if we did more, but those are novel. They've been around. We know what they do every year and, you can opine about this all you want, but no one is all fired up about wearing a mask or whatever to keep it from spreading. We're just used to it, I guess. I don't know.

This anti-mask thing is pretty pitiful IMO. How much time a day on average do people get put in a position where wearing a mask is kosher? Sure, some have to do it more than others, but the average Joe on the street is hardly ever in a position where wearing a mask is kosher? Grocery store = 30 minutes a week, but usually one person per family does that, so in a family of four, that's 7.5 minutes per week. I wear one when I feel it's kosher and that amounts to about 30 minutes per week. 30 minutes out of 16 waking hours a day x 7 days/week (6,720 waking minutes) comes to .00446 of the time. Gee, we're really being put out. Same for social distancing. The average Joe is hardly ever in position to need to social distance. But oh my god we should go kill ourselves if we have to do this.

What else? Oh yeah, the economy sucking is going to kill a ton of people. Where is that data coming from? The Great Depression? If so, it might be worth noting that the Great Depression lasted a decade. Corona won't last that long and if it does. If we can't cure the virus in ten years, then we likely never will.

Then there's the overcounted death rate, which still gets mentioned despite the obvious fact that it has been undercounted. Maybe some day it will be overcounted, but as of right now that's not the case. When it was at 50,000 dead from corona in late April, we were still 30,000 over the average. People were counting those as flu and pnuemonia deaths even though the time frame for those to still be occurring at that had passed. Conservatively, 20,000 were covid. Of the 50,000 dead since, probably another 10,000. That runs the total to around 130,000, but whatever. When the dust settle, the CDC and WHO will estimate the number of dead from covid using that variable (deaths over average).

And there are lots of examples of Americans stepping up and implementing new normals for things that are killing people at a rate less than cancer, cigarettes, etc. Look at bike, ski, skateboard, etc. helmets. Forty years ago, you would never see anyone wearing a helmet. How many people died riding bikes, skiing, etc. before helmets became the norm? How lives do helmets save?



I've read that suicide rates are down, did you read that? I've heard that despite the fact that there are a lot of bad things happening, there's also some good things happening. Not that those good things are worth it, but they're there.
Appreciate the post. I don't think I'm being bizarre but that's neither here nor there.

I find it interesting in your first paragraph that you want me to cite sources or something of all the points I bring up like I'm pulling them out of a hat. You then give a bunch of your opinions I assume based on what you have read and "fact-checked", but didn't offer any sources. It seems you too are just willing to believe whatever it is you read to support your opinion....

I'm asking this seriously. You really haven't read or seen on any news network any scientists and doctors suggesting the actions we have taken so far could have adverse effects? I'm genuinely asking. Because I have read and seen plenty. I have also seen plenty of smart guys backing up your point of view. I admit that. Why are you so quick to discredit those that say otherwise? Unless you truly haven't heard anyone discuss all of the issues caused by the lockdown and kids being forced from schools. If that is the case, you aren't discrediting anyone. But they are out there. I suppose I could get some time this evening and find a plethora of articles of doctors, scientists, and even now epidemiologists that claim that the actions taken could result in very bad things for our country including the stuff I mentioned above.

Like I said before, I have no problem with people taking your stance. Despite what I have seen, this may in fact end up being a VERY deadly virus. It's possible a simple act like wearing a mask will in fact save lives. But pretend for a second that this virus doesn't exist. We never heard of it. We know the "regular" flu exists. We know it kills people. Are you willing to wear a mask every time you go out forever? Because it will most certainly save lives if you do. When the tens of thousands die in this country from the "regular" flu every year, do you feel guilty for your actions? Think about last time you went to a Cat game and used the head. How many dudes did you see walk right out without washing their hands and not wearing a mask? Hundreds and probably thousands every Cat game. They are just as guilty and responsible for flu deaths. Again, this isn't comparing these viruses, it's assuming Covid doesn't even exist.

So I ask, will you be continuing to take all these same "social distancing" measures for the rest of your life? Because they will in FACT save lives if you do. Or are 1% of people dying from this virus somehow more important, and worth more to take these measures than others? I believe if you aren't a person willing to wear a mask and take all the other precautions we're taking now, going forward, then your stance on this virus, how scary it is, and saving lives is pretty hypocritical. Not saying you AA, just mean people in general.

Again, I appreciate your take. I still feel I'm being level headed and don't really think I'm saying anything too bizarre despite the fact we really disagree on this topic.

But I'll see ya in our seats come football season! \:D/
I don't mind that you the "take" that you have, but it does bother me when you continue drag out the same old bones that have been disproven numerous times.

Yes, I've read and heard the stories of ignoring the economy making things worse, but they're not very prominent nor well founded. A lot of them are based on Great Depression issues. Very few experts think this will have anywhere near the timeline of the Great Depression, so that eliminates a lot of those theories. Most experts state that if you go back to business as usual, then you'll go back to shifting models toward the 1-2 million deaths scenarios.

Scientists aren't politicians as Dr. Fauci pointed out. They give the politicians information and they decide how to address the public and set policies about it. The politicians that are blowing off the recommendations are in many of the states that are seeing increases. Nationally, it's going down, thanks in large part to NY/NJ showing vast improvement, but a lot of the country is growing, which is keeping the death counts up around 1,000 daily.

I do Google much of what you say, that's how I find out the context and just how accepted among scientists, doctors, etc. it is. Most everything you bring up is shared by just a few people and/or has a lot of caveats. I have the worldometers site on all the time for the past two months. I basically fact check and look for verification on every article I read or show I see. I *have* previously copied links into this and other threads, but I feel like I'm wasting my time because it doesn't look like you've read them. I think it'd be a better exercise for someone like yourself that doesn't want to look into how they think could be wrong. You're being stubborn at best. Intentionally misleading at worst.

1) You don't have to go far to learn how models work. A few key strokes in Google and you're there. It's pretty basic. They aren't that complex. You've kept up on this narrative that the models stated that there would for sure be 1-2 million deaths from Covid no matter what, despite myself and others explaining it to you. You've never acknowledged that the models stated that IF people just went about their business as usual that there would be 1-2 million deaths. That's bizarre.

2) Scientists do like to point out alarming numbers like the possibility of 1-2 million deaths, because they know it will get people's attention and get them moving. They could say, "well even though our models show 1-2 million deaths we're not worried about, because we know everyone will self-police themselves on social distancing, so we'll see at the next pandemic." They know people will skip over the details (IF everyone goes about their lives as usual) and be alarmed, then take action. It works. It worked in this case, but not to the extent it could have.

3) You've never pointed out that consequent models, ones that included social distancing (new data) at the rate people we're actually doing it, had 40,000 deaths by August 1. Shortly after that NYC blew up and the models were changed (70-80,000), because they have new data,so it went up and then people aren't social distancing at the suggested level and the models changed to an even higher number (100,000).

4) The 'overcount' theories that people are referring to are based on a few cases of people that died of something else, but had it listed as Covid. It has happened, but there's been a very low percentage. Maybe 100-200 instances, if that. Undercounts are estimated to be anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000.

All of this stuff is easy to find. I'm not going to continue posting links, if you're not going to read them. You can find it yourself. The stuff you and others say, I always go look it up myself to see how factual it is. The stuff I asked you for links to, I have looked up, but nothing I've found has been bonified and typically has weak arguments to support it. IF, however, you know of a link that makes a legit case please post or give me some parameters to search for.
I too have done research on this, just as you have. I check many different sources, and not just ones that fit my agenda. Not saying that is what you're doing, but many people do.

Your claim that "just a few" doctors and scientists have shared my views is also misleading at best.

Why is it ok for you to dismiss my take because this is a novel virus meaning "new", but then you go on and relate my takes to things that have happened in the past. Can you find one post of mine suggesting I'm comparing our economic situation to the Great Depression? Sure, I've seen people make those comparisons but it didn't come out of my mouth. But do you really feel that people being unable to work for months won't impact the economy? Do you honestly believe printing out money like it's Monopoly isn't going to hurt? Businesses closing for good? Unemployment skyrocketing? You honestly believe it's just me and a few economists that share these views?

And you don't think that a shattered economy won't have adverse effects of their own? Why do any of us bother working if having financial stability, or even a job in general isn't necessary? You're not at all concerned with what could happen if people are without work, without money, and struggling for food and shelter? This in no way has potential to leading to other issues including death? I personally disagree and I have read and researched others that disagree as well but apparently it's just a few of us and no possible way it's correct.

I have honestly read countless articles of people, "experts", very fearful of suicides and domestic abuse rising during this pandemic and the aftermath. Again, difficult living, few opportunities, and no money leads to poor mental health. Poor mental health leads to crime and suicide. This is proven, but again, it may be just me and a few others that feel that mental health has anything to do with these issues.

As for the counts, you won't get much argument from me on that. It's public knowledge that you can only have one reason for death. If you have the virus and die, it's a covid death. And I don't take issue with that as my belief is that the number of cases in the country is dramatically undercounted anyway. I think far more have been infected and asymptomatic. I feel this way based on things I've seen and read, however I understand it was likely just a few other people and most likely bad sources.

Finally, you never answered my last question. Are you willing to wear a mask from here on out when you're out in public? I'm not asking this because of anything to do with Corona. But we know there are other viruses, mainly the flu, that would dramatically decrease in deaths if everyone took the moral stance you have, and choose to always wear masks. Based on your writings above, and your views of my opinion, I don't see anyway possible a person who takes your stance would be ok with the guilt associated with transferring potentially deadly viruses. And if you won't be taking these actions going forward, I am truly curious why not.

Again, I enjoy the conversation. You'll be happy to know I don't find your stance bizarre, just different than mine. And that's ok!



91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by 91catAlum » Thu May 28, 2020 2:35 pm

One problem is the stats can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. For example, I believe iaafan mentioned that states that are reopening are seeing COVID cases increase. While true in an absolute sense, its also true that COVID testing has gone way up. Wisconsin, for example, just reported the highest daily rise in positive cases that they've had yet. They also set a record for the number of tests given in one day... So someone in favor of the shutdown will point to the first statement, while someone opposed to the shutdown will point to the second part. The truth is, its very difficult to draw any accurate conclusions from it. As testing goes up, so will the number of positive cases.


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

BleedingBLue
Member # Retired
Posts: 2917
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:00 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by BleedingBLue » Thu May 28, 2020 2:40 pm

Cat4LifeHouseDivided wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:26 pm
catsrback76 wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:15 pm
Rich K wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:17 am
Listen to the experts, they said....

I think Fauci changed his tune after Trump had him standing next to him like a muzzled dog.

Did you EVEN LISTEN to the interview? He did NOT recant...please listen and learn! :coffee:

"It's not inevitable...IF we do it correctly"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, it is from the Blaze..dumpster fire.
Like most of Rich K's posts have been in this thread anyway :lol:



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5204
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm

iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.



Mtcatfan
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by Mtcatfan » Thu May 28, 2020 2:56 pm

Settle down guys. As long as we play football this fall and the economy recovers enough to get Trump re-elected everything will be fine.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5204
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Thu May 28, 2020 3:43 pm

91catAlum wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:35 pm
One problem is the stats can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. For example, I believe iaafan mentioned that states that are reopening are seeing COVID cases increase. While true in an absolute sense, its also true that COVID testing has gone way up. Wisconsin, for example, just reported the highest daily rise in positive cases that they've had yet. They also set a record for the number of tests given in one day... So someone in favor of the shutdown will point to the first statement, while someone opposed to the shutdown will point to the second part. The truth is, its very difficult to draw any accurate conclusions from it. As testing goes up, so will the number of positive cases.
That's very true about statistics. I'm also seeing deaths increase in areas that are opening up, which isn't affected by more testing. I haven't looked at that very thoroughly, however, but I will. Overall, death and cases are going down, especially in NYC and NJ. When you take those two areas out of the equation, the decrease isn't nearly as dramatic.



91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by 91catAlum » Thu May 28, 2020 3:57 pm

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 3:43 pm
91catAlum wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:35 pm
One problem is the stats can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. For example, I believe iaafan mentioned that states that are reopening are seeing COVID cases increase. While true in an absolute sense, its also true that COVID testing has gone way up. Wisconsin, for example, just reported the highest daily rise in positive cases that they've had yet. They also set a record for the number of tests given in one day... So someone in favor of the shutdown will point to the first statement, while someone opposed to the shutdown will point to the second part. The truth is, its very difficult to draw any accurate conclusions from it. As testing goes up, so will the number of positive cases.
That's very true about statistics. I'm also seeing deaths increase in areas that are opening up, which isn't affected by more testing. I haven't looked at that very thoroughly, however, but I will. Overall, death and cases are going down, especially in NYC and NJ. When you take those two areas out of the equation, the decrease isn't nearly as dramatic.
Good point about the increase in deaths.
True about NY/NJ. But if you take out NY/NJ, this whole frickin thing looks much, much better. I think those 2 are the worst-hit states, last time I looked at the state by state numbers.


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5204
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by iaafan » Thu May 28, 2020 4:42 pm

91catAlum wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 3:57 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 3:43 pm
91catAlum wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:35 pm
One problem is the stats can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. For example, I believe iaafan mentioned that states that are reopening are seeing COVID cases increase. While true in an absolute sense, its also true that COVID testing has gone way up. Wisconsin, for example, just reported the highest daily rise in positive cases that they've had yet. They also set a record for the number of tests given in one day... So someone in favor of the shutdown will point to the first statement, while someone opposed to the shutdown will point to the second part. The truth is, its very difficult to draw any accurate conclusions from it. As testing goes up, so will the number of positive cases.
That's very true about statistics. I'm also seeing deaths increase in areas that are opening up, which isn't affected by more testing. I haven't looked at that very thoroughly, however, but I will. Overall, death and cases are going down, especially in NYC and NJ. When you take those two areas out of the equation, the decrease isn't nearly as dramatic.
Good point about the increase in deaths.
True about NY/NJ. But if you take out NY/NJ, this whole frickin thing looks much, much better. I think those 2 are the worst-hit states, last time I looked at the state by state numbers.
It's definitely promising in many ways. I would love to have this thing all but buried and gone by Sept., which if it stay on its current track, that should happen. From there just circle the wagons until the cavalry (vaccine) arrives. We're not out of the woods yet.



Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by Cataholic » Thu May 28, 2020 5:49 pm

91catAlum wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:35 pm
One problem is the stats can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. For example, I believe iaafan mentioned that states that are reopening are seeing COVID cases increase. While true in an absolute sense, its also true that COVID testing has gone way up. Wisconsin, for example, just reported the highest daily rise in positive cases that they've had yet. They also set a record for the number of tests given in one day... So someone in favor of the shutdown will point to the first statement, while someone opposed to the shutdown will point to the second part. The truth is, its very difficult to draw any accurate conclusions from it. As testing goes up, so will the number of positive cases.
This is one hundred percent correct! Great point that everyone should be able to agree with!



Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by Cataholic » Thu May 28, 2020 6:05 pm

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
IAAfan - Why are you so worked up about ILTC’s position? Isn’t he entitled to believe what he chooses to read? It has been stated here many times that there are multiple viewpoints from the scientific community. Yet somehow, you are adamant that only your beliefs are correct.

I actually agree with a lot more of ILTC’s opinion than yours, but I do understand that I could be wrong. Your determination to completely disprove ILTC just makes you look stubborn.



Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by Cataholic » Thu May 28, 2020 6:09 pm

catsrback76 wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:15 pm
Rich K wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:17 am
Listen to the experts, they said....

I think Fauci changed his tune after Trump had him standing next to him like a muzzled dog.

Did you EVEN LISTEN to the interview? He did NOT recant...please listen and learn! :coffee:

"It's not inevitable...IF we do it correctly"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isn’t that like saying any of the following:

“If Covid goes away, nobody else will get sick”
“If we score more points, we will the game”
“If TA had a cape, he would actually be Superman”



TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by TomCat88 » Thu May 28, 2020 6:53 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 6:05 pm
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:43 pm
iltc: OK, lets take this one item at a time.

You keep saying the models stated that there would 1-2 millions deaths. Show me where they said that would be the case with social distancing and other interventions.

Here's one place where I've read that the model said this is the case without social distancing:
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model ... s-covid-19
The worst‐​case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does “nothing” did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger.The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, “it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government‐​mandated interventions.” An earlier February 20 brief said, “Some social distancing is to be expected, even in the absence of formal control measures.”
Here's an earlier article (note the headline) that discusses model for the world:
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19 ... ons-2020-3

Please point out and provide links where these interpretations are wrong and that the models actually said that 1-2 million would die even with interventions like social distancing.

I'll let you pick out the next item.
IAAfan - Why are you so worked up about ILTC’s position? Isn’t he entitled to believe what he chooses to read? It has been stated here many times that there are multiple viewpoints from the scientific community. Yet somehow, you are adamant that only your beliefs are correct.

I actually agree with a lot more of ILTC’s opinion than yours, but I do understand that I could be wrong. Your determination to completely disprove ILTC just makes you look stubborn.
iltc still needs to show me what he’s learned about models in the Discussing Issues page first, then he can respond to this. \:D/


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

onceacat
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:35 pm

Re: Alright, let's discuss the elephant in the room.

Post by onceacat » Thu May 28, 2020 10:40 pm

91catAlum wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 2:35 pm
One problem is the stats can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. For example, I believe iaafan mentioned that states that are reopening are seeing COVID cases increase. While true in an absolute sense, its also true that COVID testing has gone way up. Wisconsin, for example, just reported the highest daily rise in positive cases that they've had yet. They also set a record for the number of tests given in one day... So someone in favor of the shutdown will point to the first statement, while someone opposed to the shutdown will point to the second part. The truth is, its very difficult to draw any accurate conclusions from it. As testing goes up, so will the number of positive cases.
Its not difficult at all. What is the percentage of positive tests? If the percentage of positive tests is below 5% or so, then great...your additional testing is proving that you are successfully addressing the problem. If you positive percentage is staying roughly even, then, Houston, you have a really big problem.

Cases in Montana aren't going up, despite the number of tests going up. Our positive test percentage is down close to 2%.

Literally nobody is "In favor of a shutdown". People are in favor of using the tools that we have in the toolbox to lower the number and percentage of positive tests. I'm quite sure if the solution to a pandemic was "Go to football games" we'd get on board pretty quickly.

On second thought, maybe not. People would probably politicize that too.



Post Reply