Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Trey3216 15357]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

The study is comparing against an already low risk behavior. Which it still demonstrably and measurably improves upon. You are missing the other context and reading only the tiny grain of info you saw repeated on facebook or parler or wherever you first read it. 

So you're "not arguing against mask usage", you're just arguing that they're pointless and it's hypocritical to put a mandate in place. 

Sounds like you should really be just asking questions

I'm not arguing that they're pointless, I'm saying that they are going to do very little in the grand scheme of things to measurably make a difference.  Take from that what you will.  I also think putting a national mandate in place is unconstitutional, which is a whole different matter.  I can make the decisions to wear a mask on my own, and I was wearing one and gloves everywhere I went by Feb when I knew my wife was pregnant and before a host of you on here decided to make it your life's work.  You can find me on threads in January warning about what this thing could do both to the markets and otherwise.  My stance is pretty well engrained, and it has nothing to do with politics.  

[Trey3216 15357]

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

and just to be clear, when you bemoan the ignoring of the statistical data and reach your conclusion that the effectiveness is miniscule, are you specifically referring to the danish study?

I imagine if the Danish study were run worldwide, it would show similar results.  It did have a respectable N in regards to statistical analyses.  I know many people who've been pretty damn diligent about masking and limiting interaction, including myself, that have "miraculously" gotten the Rona as well.  My B-I-L has been out of his house about 10 times other than to run in the mornings since March, and he got it this past week.  I got the shit while being in an area where every person was wearing masks and it was required to wash your hands every 15 minutes or so if you were a guest.  Shit happens.  

[Trey3216 15357]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

Lol  

[sidis 9832]

9 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I may have had a few beers at lunch, which actually hones my radar for people that don't know shit about statistics and think the scientific method is "whatever the scientists I like say".  

well, as a practicing econometrician with graduate degrees on the topic, as wells 20 years of providing expert testimony on the topic, i've been known to dabble in the subject occasionally so regardless of your booze-fired radar for people that don't know shit about statistics, i'm willing to engage in good faith on the issue. that is why i am seeking clarification from you...because my general take from my limited recollection of your posting history is that you are decidedly not a moronic shitposter.

i have a lot of opinions regarding the usefulness or conclusive nature of the danish study relative to what you are representing it says in your posts here over the last page or so and that's why i am asking if that's exclusively what you are relying upon to bolster your claim that masks have a statistically insignificant impact on mitigating transmission.

[Trey3216 15357]

9 minutes ago, sidis said:

well, as a practicing econometrician with graduate degrees on the topic, as wells 20 years of providing expert testimony on the topic, i've been known to dabble in the subject occasionally so regardless of your booze-fired radar for people that don't know shit about statistics, i'm willing to engage in good faith on the issue. that is why i am seeking clarification from you...because my general take from my limited recollection of your posting history is that you are decidedly not a moronic shitposter.

i have a lot of opinions regarding the usefulness or conclusive nature of the danish study relative to what you are representing it says in your posts here over the last page or so and that's why i am asking if that's exclusively what you are relying upon to bolster your claim that masks have a statistically insignificant impact on mitigating transmission.

No, I used it as an example.  I too have a Master's Degree, in Economics, but took my fair share of Econometrics/Statistical Analysis/etc classes.  Nothing is definitive.  We still don't have enough T to encompass the N in our analyses yet.  I'm getting onto the fact that nothing can be stated as fact, and nothing can be ignored.  Shutdowns have worked, until they absolutely didn't.  Masks work, and they don't.  This is a fucked off ordeal that we won't have full data to describe for another decade, which some would say is exactly what it was intended to be.   

 

I hate every second of this.  I don't hate anyone here.  I hate the "masks are stupid and pointless" bunch as much as the "masks and regulations of them are the only thing that will save us bunch"....Because the stats show that they shouldn't be the point of contention and shouldn't have been.  

 

But maybe my few beers enveloped my hope that people could understand that things aren't always 100% as they seem or hope.  But I also could be a statistical regard.  I'm betting it's the first one.  

Edited November 18, 2020 by Trey3216

[sidis 9832]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

I imagine if the Danish study were run worldwide, it would show similar results.  It did have a respectable N in regards to statistical analyses.  I know many people who've been pretty damn diligent about masking and limiting interaction, including myself, that have "miraculously" gotten the Rona as well.  My B-I-L has been out of his house about 10 times other than to run in the mornings since March, and he got it this past week.  I got the shit while being in an area where every person was wearing masks and it was required to wash your hands every 15 minutes or so if you were a guest.  Shit happens.  

first of all, you presume to "imagine" what the results would be if one extrapolated of a study that was highly localized in a low transmission environment in the control group, had low adherence of the subject hypothesis in the study group relative to the control group, and which the null hypothesis in and of itself does not support what you are saying to the rest of the world...and you want to shit on other people's abilities to interpret statistical results of data?

then, you double down on your adherence to statistical analysis by violating the hypothesis with two anecdotes as evidence that it is statistically insignificant - one of which you assume occurred in an intra-hospital transmission?

i'm not sure you are in a position to be scolding other people's ability to understand statistics or reach reasonable conclusions on the data outcomes.

[sidis 9832]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

No, I used it as an example. 

can you point me to the other examples you would rely on in reaching your conclusions?

[BradInATX 9208]

11 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

No, I used it as an example.  I too have a Master's Degree, in Economics, but took my fair share of Econometrics/Statistical Analysis/etc classes.  Nothing is definitive.  We still don't have enough T to encompass the N in our analyses yet. 

 

Yes we do.

Source: am data scientist

 

The problem you're suffering from, besides anecdotal evidence driven confirmation bias, is that you're not looking at the exponential impact of even small changes in probability. Even that stupid study you cited that showed a difference between 1.8% and 2.1% would mean thousands of people over the course of secondary and tertiary contact. And most of the well-done studies I've seen have masks anywhere between 30-60% reduction of spread.

Edited November 18, 2020 by BradInATX

[Hmbre97 6331]

56 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

The quote above is calling the shutting down of travelers xenophobic, or you just don't know how to read contextually.  

It was called xenophobic at the time because it only shut down travel from China from non-citizens. It was already in a bunch of countries at that point so his ban was pointless as it did nothing to stop travel from the other covid countries. 

If they really wanted to make a difference, he should have shut down all non-essential air travel from outside the US except for citizens coming back, who are forced into quarantine somewhere on the govts dime. 

[Trey3216 15357]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

first of all, you presume to "imagine" what the results would be if one extrapolated of a study that was highly localized in a low transmission environment in the control group, had low adherence of the subject hypothesis in the study group relative to the control group, and which the null hypothesis in and of itself does not support what you are saying to the rest of the world...and you want to shit on other people's abilities to interpret statistical results of data?

then, you double down on your adherence to statistical analysis by violating the hypothesis with two anecdotes as evidence that it is statistically insignificant - one of which you assume occurred in an intra-hospital transmission?

i'm not sure you are in a position to be scolding other people's ability to understand statistics or reach reasonable conclusions on the data outcomes.

Fair.  And if you ran the same statistical study in a country the size of the US, with much more movement among people both locally and internationally and randomized it to an extent that would give you a reasonable study environment ( which consequently has a mirrored hospitalization/case positivity curve as our own), it would be highly interesting to see what happens.  I'd bet it would look pretty similar.  

 

You want to question anecdotes and simply state  that a statistical analysis is moot due to its localization, which is totally fair.  Then you want to assume that it would be totally different in a massively differentiated population with a completely different state of variables.  Which may also be totally fair.  I also might say that that's a complete farce because your anecdotal analysis may have no basis in reality, or I could say that it could be extrapolated onto our own population to some extent and may explain why the motherfucker is still spreading like wildfire in other countries that were shutdown with national mandates just as bad or worse as it's spreading here. 

 

We don't have enough control data to show that the masks do or don't fucking make the world turn.  That was the fucking point.  

[Trey3216 15357]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Yes we do.

Source: am data scientist

 

The problem you're suffering from, besides anecdotal evidence driven confirmation bias, is that you're not looking at the exponential impact of even small changes in probability. Even that stupid study you cited that showed a difference between 1.8% and 2.1% would mean thousands of people over the course of secondary and tertiary contact. And most of the well-done studies I've seen have masks anywhere between 30-60% reduction of spread.

Is it 30 or 60?  That's a pretty fucking big difference, one @sidis should say is...significant

[Brisketexan 105359]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

We don't have enough control data to show that the masks do or don't fucking make the world turn.

Straw man.

Nobody advances the proposition that masks make the world turn.

The proposition is that they provide a meaningful incremental benefit.  That's it.  So, you keep arguing against a concept that nobody is advancing.  Straw man.

[Trey3216 15357]

11 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Yes we do.

Source: am data scientist

 

The problem you're suffering from, besides anecdotal evidence driven confirmation bias, is that you're not looking at the exponential impact of even small changes in probability. Even that stupid study you cited that showed a difference between 1.8% and 2.1% would mean thousands of people over the course of secondary and tertiary contact. And most of the well-done studies I've seen have masks anywhere between 30-60% reduction of spread.

I don't have confirmation bias issues.  I already said that I've been wearing one.  I have confirmation results issues.  How the fuck did some of these people get it that weren't around anyone.  I know the answer, I'm just positing a thought.  

[Brisketexan 105359]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

Is it 30 or 60?  That's a pretty fucking big difference, one @sidis should say is...significant

The relevant data point isn't 30 vs 60.  It's 30 OR 60 vs. 0%.  All we need to know is that they provide a material benefit.  That's it.  That's all we need to know in order to categorize them as a meaningful public health measure.

[Trey3216 15357]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Straw man.

Nobody advances the proposition that masks make the world turn.

The proposition is that they provide a meaningful incremental benefit.  That's it.  So, you keep arguing against a concept that nobody is advancing.  Straw man.

I'm not arguing that.  I'm arguing that many folks on here have wanted to commit people to eternal damnation for questioning their efficacy, and they may have been overly aggressive in their anger/judgement.  I wear mine.  That's all i've got.  

[Trey3216 15357]

10 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

It was called xenophobic at the time because it only shut down travel from China from non-citizens. It was already in a bunch of countries at that point so his ban was pointless as it did nothing to stop travel from the other covid countries. 

If they really wanted to make a difference, he should have shut down all non-essential air travel from outside the US except for citizens coming back, who are forced into quarantine somewhere on the govts dime. 

I 100% agree with that.  It stilll wasn't xenophobic.  

[Hmbre97 6331]

I 100% agree with that.  It stilll wasn't xenophobic.  

For as big a hate boner Trump has for China, I can see how people draw those conclusions.

[Brisketexan 105359]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

I 100% agree with that.  It stilll wasn't xenophobic.  

Actually, the fact that it was singularly focused on the country that he built up his political identity demonizing, PARTICULARLY when at that time public health officials already knew and had informed officials that the virus was coming in on a large-scale basis from Europe.....yeah, the choice to ban travel from China and China only was almost certainly perfectly xenophobic (as further evidenced by slamming people for going to "Chinatown"....in American cities).  If he'd done what New Zealand did - shut down inbound travel to all but US citizens, and isolated returning citizens, it would have been more rational.  If he'd shut down inbound travel from countries with existing high-volume outbreaks (like Italy), that would have been rational.  He shut down China, and condemned people for going to Chinatown.  Come on, man.

[PantsTent 2002]

They say sixty-five percent of all statistics
Are made up right there on the spot
Eighty-two-point-four percent of people believe 'em
Whether they're accurate statistics or not
I don't know what you believe
But I do know there's no doubt
I need another double-shot of something ninety-proof
I got too much to think about

[Anastasis 23485]

15 minutes ago, PantsTent said:

They say sixty-five percent of all statistics
Are made up right there on the spot
Eighty-two-point-four percent of people believe 'em
Whether they're accurate statistics or not
I don't know what you believe
But I do know there's no doubt
I need another double-shot of something ninety-proof
I got too much to think about

Talk about a dude that has had a rough 2020. 

[Pato del Muerto 52607]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

Our mitigation strategies have been about buying time from day one.  We've done that.  But goalposts and all.   

 

Again, I'm not advocating anti-mask.  I never have been.  i'm showing stats that the masks are doing little to mitigate it.  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343079916_Making_sense_of_the_research_on_COVID-19_and_masks
 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429?fbclid=IwAR2QjrcIQwsTq2q9VIa76bxeXubxzBrRGycwWcihvylsVV6Xf8iLRATupV4

additional reading materials

 

[Enchubben 5510]

Gdammit.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Enchubben
I need to stop drinking whiskey at happy hour

[Brisketexan 105359]

9 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

What makes following newsome’s policies and mandates not the right thing to do is his previous policy mandate to put sick covid patients in nursing homes. 

You’re probably better off at this point doing the exact opposite of what that moron says.

Or....and go with me here......evaluating each policy proposal independently.  There are plenty of people who fucked up move X, but got moves A, B, and C exactly right.  Doesn't take the stink of failure X off of him, at all.  But also doesn't make A, B, and C wrong.

Of course, I'd find it FASCINATING if you apply the "he was utterly fucking wrong about X, therefore do the opposite of what he says" standard to your chosen ones.  I am confident that you do not.

[atomheartbevo 89807]

Here's a fun statistic: "In less than 10 months, Covid-19 has killed more people than strokes, suicides and car crashes typically do in a full year -- combined."

[GreenspointTexas 9675]

Well that was quick







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Lobo]

29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Here's a fun statistic: "In less than 10 months, Covid-19 has killed more people than strokes, suicides and car crashes typically do in a full year -- combined."

Yeah, but only because we have more suicide notes.  If they wouldn't leave notes, there wouldn't be as many suicides.  Perfect Notes!  

[BradInATX 9208]

Is it 30 or 60?  That's a pretty fucking big difference, one@sidis should say is...significant

Definitely. And we don't know whether it's 30 or 60 and we might not ever. It's difficult to study. But whether it's 30 or 60 percent, these two things are truths no matter what:
- They are effective
- Even 30% is well worth the minor inconvenience of wearing a piece of fabric over your face

[52-80 19254]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Here's a fun statistic: "In less than 10 months, Covid-19 has killed more people than strokes, suicides and car crashes typically do in a full year -- combined."

I'd like to see those numbers fully and honestly decomposed.

US has following deaths in a year:

* 50k car related

* 50k suicide

* 140k strokes (2/3rd of which are folks over 65)

That makes 240k which is the nominal total covid-attributed death in the US.  What's the age break down of the covid number? (given US expectancy is at 78).

 

 

[52-80 19254]

Anyway, gonna fly again and need to take a test to get quarantine exemption at destination...and damn if all the fucking labs around here arent booked out

[Guest Lobo]

Who was the one on here that kept going on and on about double-counting covid-19 deaths because while they had that, they probably died of something else?  

[52-80 19254]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Who was the one on here that kept going on and on about double-counting covid-19 deaths because while they had that, they probably died of something else?  

dont know - ive only visited this thread 5 times - but in instances people share news article of young people tragically and surprisingly dying, it turns out the coroner ruled it as something else....... so is it a topic not worth considering?

[Neonmoon 38130]

He’s just asking questions 

[52-80 19254]

5 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

Just to update this, both my wife and son texted negative even though it was confirmed they came into direct contact with someone who tested positive. This shit makes zero sense. 

sister in law tested positive.  her husband negative.  she had mild headache for 2 days, then fully back to normal.  he had no symptoms at all.

Edited November 19, 2020 by 52-80

[MoJames 8254]

[Royalfan5 2355]

17 minutes ago, MoJames said:

 

You have to get up pretty early in the morning to be the biggest assholes in the packing game, and Tyson never misses a sunrise 

[dcar00 14372]

something weird going on in New York/NJ.  Cases rising big time but their deaths due to covid are almost non-existent.

[achooloco 1086]

9 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

NYC Closing schools. What do our fellow New Yorkers think about this? Ms. @PenelopeWitherspoon? 

 

My gf’s sister is a teacher and part of our “social bubble”. So on the one hand this is a huge relief for her (she is prone to anxiety and takes meds) and for us/me cause gf wasn’t going to stop seeing her and neither had stopped seeing the mom so one less thing for me to worry about.

On the other hand, it means the random probability one of us gets it from the public is going up so that sucks. Damned either way. Come on vaccine!!

[52-80 19254]

7 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

I'm not arguing that.  I'm arguing that many folks on here have wanted to commit people to eternal damnation for questioning their efficacy, and they may have been overly aggressive in their anger/judgement.  I wear mine.  That's all i've got.  

Welcome to surly, where questioning groupthink makes you an alt-right fascist.

8 hours ago, Captainant said:

The study is comparing against an already low risk behavior. Which it still demonstrably and measurably improves upon. You are missing the other context and reading only the tiny grain of info you saw repeated on facebook or parler or wherever you first read it.

How's the weather back in the CR?

[gmr548 16617]

I think we should have a National Weight Mandate too. Anyone with a BMI over 25 is forced to eat healthy and exercise until they get below 25. WHO'S IN????

Man you just pissed off a lot of surly

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

26 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Man you just pissed off a lot of surly

Good thing they are too fat to catch me.

[Captainant 27786]

6 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Welcome to surly, where questioning groupthink makes you an alt-right fascist.

How's the weather back in the CR?

Slow your self-victimization roll there, sweetheart. Nobody called him a facist. Many people, including me, don't think confidently wrong summaraization of studies should go unchallenged. 

Sorry I """censored""" you by actually reading the data brought in to the conversation and pointing out that his conclusions aren't supported by the Dutch study? Is that what passes for political these days? 

[BradInATX 9208]

Victimization by facts and science. 2020s hottest new phenomenon.

[Js1 85582]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Man you just pissed off a lot of surly

Your mistake was assuming Cheese is both rational and an adult. 

He’s not. He’s a joke 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Your mistake was assuming Cheese is both rational and an adult. 

He’s not. He’s a joke 

[sidis 9832]

16 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Fair.  And if you ran the same statistical study in a country the size of the US, with much more movement among people both locally and internationally and randomized it to an extent that would give you a reasonable study environment ( which consequently has a mirrored hospitalization/case positivity curve as our own), it would be highly interesting to see what happens.  I'd bet it would look pretty similar.  

 

You want to question anecdotes and simply state  that a statistical analysis is moot due to its localization, which is totally fair.  Then you want to assume that it would be totally different in a massively differentiated population with a completely different state of variables.  Which may also be totally fair.  I also might say that that's a complete farce because your anecdotal analysis may have no basis in reality, or I could say that it could be extrapolated onto our own population to some extent and may explain why the motherfucker is still spreading like wildfire in other countries that were shutdown with national mandates just as bad or worse as it's spreading here. 

 

We don't have enough control data to show that the masks do or don't fucking make the world turn.  That was the fucking point.  

so i read this yesterday before signing off and i really could not make heads or tails of it at the time and i thought perhaps if i revisit it later, possibly with a little booze in between, it would make a bit more sense.  unfortunately, it does not to me so if you're willing to, could you re-articulate your thoughts for me and provide the support (or at least the argument in clearer terms) for what i believe your central thesis here is...which i think is that we haven't been able to, or we don't have the data yet, to reach any empirically supported conclusions regarding the efficacy of masks in materially mitigating the transmission of covid-19 among any population.

also, you said the danish study was just an example of a study that you think bolstered your opinion and i asked what the other data-driven analyses/reports/studies you could provide.  if you have any, i would be interested in checking them out because ultimately, anyone relying on the danish study to reach a conclusion that masks are ineffective is...to put it in the most diplomatic terms possible...a moron.

[Poe It Up 126]

13 hours ago, 52-80 said:

sister in law tested positive.  her husband negative.  she had mild headache for 2 days, then fully back to normal.  he had no symptoms at all.

My son feels better but my wife is pretty sick and can't taste or smell, it's so strange. I feel guilty that part of me wanted them to test positive because, well, my daughter and I don't feel shit. 

[sidis 9832]

9 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Welcome to surly, where questioning groupthink makes you an alt-right fascist.

How's the weather back in the CR?

eternal damnation. questioning groupthink.  alt-right fascists.

you people and your fucking victimhood.

[InkaUtexas 26117]

Mask use talk not going away. I lived in the Middle East during SARS and MERS. No one had a problem wearing a mask in the big cities or when traveling.

Is it that hard to put on a mask when you go out? If it saves .00001 it is worth it. Even if all of those who are going to die are Aggy or OU fans I will still wear mine. 

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

5 minutes ago, sidis said:

you people

[atomheartbevo 89807]

11 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Mask use talk not going away. I lived in the Middle East during SARS and MERS. No one had a problem wearing a mask in the big cities or when traveling.

Is it that hard to put on a mask when you go out? If it saves .00001 it is worth it. Even if all of those who are going to die are Aggy or OU fans I will still wear mine. 

I want to rep this, but let's be a little careful about what we say...if it was only those fans dying, look, we're going to have to sit down and have a talk about this.  It could be awkward, but let's not be too hasty.