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. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    LOL
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    In the U.K. deaths from non-respiratory causes are projected to be a massive 10% higher than expected in 2022. Non-respiratory mortality typically varies little from year to year, changing by a maximum of just 1.3% in each of the six years from 2015 to 2020. However 2021 has registered a 3.72% increase and 2022 is projected to show a catastrophic 10.0% increase.

    Hmm, what in the world could it be ?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    14,066
    5,228
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    One has to be utterly inhuman to laugh at the toll that COVID 19 has taken on pullout country and a truly callous mindset to laugh at the studies showing the number of lives saved by the vaccines. Then again, the posters here who made this thread unreadable with their anti-science based foolishness can take solace in the studies that show the significant mortality and serious illness differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated and know that, in their own way, they contributed to scientific by spreading their garbage. Because they helped create the control group that died more and was sicker.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  5. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    18,239
    1,544
    1,308
    Aug 24, 2009
    Ocala
    That was a model made by a liberal think tank to spit out a number they wanted.

    It deserves a “come on man” more than a laugh. I laughed at it and gave a “winner” to the LOL to be nice…:cool:o_O:cool::devil::D:ninja3:

    Focused protection was the answer. The shots probably helped a few in the very early stages of when they were available. But they were a massive failure when you considering the one size fits all rollout. We knew who was at risk. We knew who was not. We had no long term data. We rolled this out as the silver bullet to end it. And it was the furthest thing from the truth. And if you ask me…they knew this. We
    Destroyed trust in public health to line the pockets of a few. It is a travesty.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2022
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  6. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,811
    2,042
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Okay, modeling and statistical expert that you are, tell me the methodological concerns here. Did they make faulty assumptions? I'm interested in hearing your underlying methodological concern.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    18,239
    1,544
    1,308
    Aug 24, 2009
    Ocala
    You can model/simulate to create an answer you want. They have no clue if their model is accurate. Same crap happened at the beginning of this. And the idiots in public health fell for the fear and caused far more damage than was necessary. If only we listened to the Great Barrington Declaration. There was never going to be a perfect response to something like this. But good grief did we ever miss more than we hit…

    A complete public health disaster. And nonsense models like the one a few posts ago were how we ended up with the disastrous response we got.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  8. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,811
    2,042
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    So that is a no, you can't actually say what is wrong with it? Because while they certainly could come up with a model to reach a result, you aren't presenting evidence that they did, other than not liking the final number, which isn't evidence.

    It seems like you just don't like the results and would prefer other results that better fit your catchphrases and political ideology.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2022
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  9. BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 GC Hall of Fame

    6,707
    1,374
    3,103
    Oct 11, 2011
    He’s just so bad at this.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    18,239
    1,544
    1,308
    Aug 24, 2009
    Ocala
    Here is Dr. Bhattacarya in the early stages before we knew anything of substance on the virus. He touches implicitly on exactly what I am saying as the London Imperial College and facui peddled fear without knowing. Funny but not funny was Dr. Bhattacharya was an essential worker during the filming but the host was not…

     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  11. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    17,716
    1,788
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    Yes, statisticians can build models that are misleading. Is this model misleading? In what ways did they distort the data to create a misleading story about the underlying data?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Two points: (1) your anger is misdirected (2) you’re not half as angry as I am.

    Not a soul has died of an imaginary rogue nanoparticle. Multitudes have died from the effects of gaslighting and hysteria.
     
  13. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,811
    2,042
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    It should be noted that Bhattacharya put his name on some absolutely ridiculous papers (most notably, the seroprevalence studies in Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties) that almost (and probably should have) lost the authors their tenure, as the mistakes in it were easily identifiable and so elementary as to be obviously intentional. They only survived because journals never published their studies.

    Second, the difference between analyzing data and predicting future results should be obvious unless you are trying to be obtuse. The study you are criticizing directly was a backwards looking statistical model, while the Imperial College studies were based on a forward looking mathematical model. Just because both have the word "model" in their descriptions doesn't make them analogous.

    Also, it should be noted that many of the critics of the Imperial College results did far worse in their projections in terms of accuracy. With mitigation, in fact, the IC models tended to underestimate total deaths a bit.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Bhattacharya is/was controlled opposition.
     
  15. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Since viruses don’t exist, the following categories are meaningless: immunity, herd immunity, seroprevalence, R0, etc.
     
  16. coleg

    coleg GC Hall of Fame

    1,796
    770
    1,903
    Sep 5, 2011
    DERP. lol This one got off his meds.
     
  17. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    MOO. This one needs more hay.
     
  18. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    Hmmm. Should I believe some idiots on a message board or studies based on vast amounts of data that show vaccinated people have much lower rates of death and hospitalization from covid than unvaccinated people do. Tough call.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,040
    1,187
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Another term that is meaningless: vaccine efficacy.