Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorNorth, Feb 25, 2020.

  1. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,539
    12,055
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    how do you isolate people that need help in nursing homes, etc? Now that we have rapid tests it helps but they are limited in supply so what to do? Staff is down by 30% =/- at place where my Mom lives. No physical therapy, no trips to pain management doctor, less CNA's, less cleaning staff....until the viral load in the community is brought down there is no effective way to isolate those at risk.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,900
    2,055
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Yep, when experts utilize their superior knowledge on a topic to come to a conclusion that you would prefer not to be true, the problem is with the experts, not with your need to be told what you want to hear and the resulting reactions to avoid cognitive dissonance.

    I know you won't do it because it is an expert telling you something that you don't want to hear, but I would suggest "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters" by Tom Nichols for a lot more information on this.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,719
    856
    2,113
    Apr 3, 2007

    Superior knowledge LOL. Dude you are funny. Want me to post more charts? Oops.
     
  4. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,900
    2,055
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Yes, that is the definition of "expert." I'll post the link from the dictionary, but I'm not sure that you will buy them because of their expertise in the English language.

    Definition of EXPERT

    Maybe you can find an English language truther to back you. Good luck!
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  5. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,719
    856
    2,113
    Apr 3, 2007

    Must really suck to have "your peer reviewed" models blown up. Didn't realize you'd take it this bad. Sorry, I won't pile on anymore. Take the L like a man.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  6. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,900
    2,055
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    It should be noted that you haven't raised a single methodological, empirical, or theoretical criticism of the models that I linked from peer reviewed papers written by experts in the field and peer reviewed by other experts in the field that review for the reputable scientific journal in which it appeared. Likely because you can't. Which is why your tell of being in way over your head was the basis of this post.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. gatordavisl

    gatordavisl VIP Member

    31,916
    54,933
    3,753
    Apr 8, 2007
    northern MN
    You're right . . . who in their right mind would politicize it?

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  8. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,719
    856
    2,113
    Apr 3, 2007

    Yeah those charts mean nothing! Damn those pesky charts. If we were China maybe they would just disappear. Maybe move there, since they did such an outstanding job with Covid.
     
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,900
    2,055
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Deflection to avoid the cognitive dissonance. You are a veritable smorgasbord of psychological tells right now. Is your ego really this fragile that you have to think of yourself as more knowledgeable than actual experts in the field?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,719
    856
    2,113
    Apr 3, 2007

    Boris must urgently rethink his Covid strategy | The Spectator

    Guess these are more of "your peer reviewed" scientists. LOL. Sorry you are so mad about those little charts. I know they blow up your theories. Oh well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,900
    2,055
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Papers are peer reviewed. Scientists aren't. This article was not peer reviewed, as The Spectator is a British tabloid, not a scientific journal. Let me know if you need any other very basic knowledge.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,719
    856
    2,113
    Apr 3, 2007
    What does a tabloid have to do with what was written. They posted the letter. It's available from many websites. Always know you've won the argument when they try to attack the website and not the info. Oops. Rough couple of days for the Bro's. Sorry Football is back. Sorry school is open. Keep safe in the basement.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    22,985
    5,633
    3,488
    Apr 3, 2007
    Didn’t wanna do it but finally put 95 on ignore.
    Nothing more than trolling and name calling the last few pages.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,719
    856
    2,113
    Apr 3, 2007
    upload_2020-9-21_13-56-22.png

    Here is the twitter version as well, since you didn't like the other form of publication.
     
  15. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,900
    2,055
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    I honestly don't think it could be explained with words that are any smaller. Peer review refers to papers, not scientists. The letter was not peer reviewed, which is fine because it is simply an opinion piece. But no, it is not a substitute for peer-reviewed empirical study. Yes, academics often have differing opinions. However, the minimum basis for science is to be able to distinguish opinion from analysis.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  16. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    17,730
    1,789
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    I would like you to be honest and post all the charts instead of just cherry picking the few that support your position.
     
  17. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Trolling? He literally posted multiple data points that a certain poster known for digging in wont acknowledge.
    I mean seriously. Trolling?
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  18. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,900
    2,055
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    If you have a methodological, empirical, or theoretical concern with the empirical model that I posted, I am more than happy to discuss them. I have yet to see a single specific criticism. "Here is a datapoint that doesn't match all of the datapoints prior to proper controls" is not a serious criticism or concern.

    So yes, trolling. Supported by you, apparently.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    7,719
    856
    2,113
    Apr 3, 2007

    Honest? I supplied different countries and proof. Calling it cherry picking sounds like sour grapes. Burden in on someone else to find differing charts showing that I was wrong. That is quite the take you had there. Good effort. I mean the "hey, I don't like those charts supply more" plan is pure BS.
     
  20. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    11,573
    1,091
    698
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL

    How were they isolated when "EVERYTHING" was shut down?

    Actually currently all staff for facilities get tested once a week, anyone who is positive is out 2 weeks. (that may vary facility to facility).