Because they're different models used for different points, discounting the ethics of your warped view of reality.
It's better than literally anything you've ever posted. Unfortunately it's another in a long list of sources proving you wrong.
You should stop cherry picking data then.
According to the CDC
[image to be in a separate post as the Escapist is too angry to let me post a link or a picture, damnit]
You're full of shit, again. Florida's per capita death rate is ~50% higher than California's.
"I can't tell how to read statistics, so I'll just believe anything anyone who agrees with me says and discount any sources I don't agree with." Yup, got it, you're illiterate. You put your faith into a source that you know doesn't use accurate data and expect us all to believe literally anything they say. Where even if they have the right data, they still will come to a faulty conclusion 100% of the time due to their own methodology.
No they are not, adjusting for inflation and age is literally doing the same thing with regards to math.
I can tell you're not even trying to actually have a legitimate debate at all because Agema's study showed red states doing the best and you just want to go with the data because it shows Florida doing bad in it.
I'm not the one posting studies looking at small time frames like March 5, 2021 - May 5, 2021 and jumping to conclusions from that. I've never once posted anything with such a short time frame unless it was at the beginning of the pandemic and there was nothing but short time frames then. I'm not the one cherry picking data.
OMG, I SAID IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PANDEMIC FLORIDA BEAT CALIFORNIA IN STRAIGHT MORTALITY, WHICH HAPPENED. THAT FIRST YEAR IS THE BEST TO DETERMINE WHAT MEASURES OUTSIDE OF VACCINES ACTUALLY DID ANYTHING BECAUSE SINCE VACCINES HAVE BECOME WIDELY AVAILABLE, THAT IS THE #1 DETERMINING FACTOR IN MORTALITY.
You're against adjusting for things and I'm being told I come to the wrong conclusion 100% of the time...? You guys can't even come to the conclusion that you shouldn't vote for Reps or Dems.
Say it with me: Other. Factors. Exist.
Apply the same logic to something else. How about.... the presence of lead paint in childrens' toys. A few decades ago, the presence of lead paint in childrens' toys resulted in lead poisoning. Once the connection was discovered, the toy companies had to switch to non-lead-based paints, which didn't poison people anywhere nearly as much.
Obviously people still got poisoned occasionally. Obviously there were still occasionally even spates of lead poisonings. Because there are 10 thousand other factors at play.
Now, what you're doing is finding a single spate of poisonings, and confidently stating that "if phasing out lead paint worked, it would work all the time! So therefore phasing out lead paint hasn't worked!"
Seriously? That is your argument? Sure coating a toy made of lead with lead-free paint would still result in lead poisonings. The thing with toys is that I'd be guessing that the only lead in the toys was from the paint? Thus, if you take the lead out of the paint, then there's no lead. How are there 10,000 other factors in lead poisoning via toys, the only factor is not making the toy with lead.
Virus transmission is way different and does have tons of factors so why do you think masks are some main factor here? If you had like 10 airlines and 5 airlines unmasked while the other 5 didn't, and the 5 that unmasked all showed significant increased transmission, then you might have something there. But, as I recall, it was just comparing 2 airlines. Covid just working it's way through the unmasked airline at the time could have coincided when they stopped masking since you're only comparing 2 airlines. If you're gonna make the argument that covid spread because of unmasking and not the 9,999 other factors, I will counter that poor argument with the same poor argument of if masks work then why'd the other airline have massive cancellations at a prior time?
Why would keeping people home that have very low risk from covid and also very very low community presence of covid be a good thing?
I have no particular issue about anything being a "red state". The question is about covid tactics, and there was not uniformity of tactics across different red states or different blue states, plus of course wide variation in all sorts of other factors that influenced the impact of covid on individual states.
On the one hand, I object to your inadequate use of data to make arguments they can't support. On the other, I'm happy to refute specifics of those arguments with other data. The purpose of the latter is not to positively "prove" the opposite of what you claim, it is to underline just how poor your arguments are. The reason for this is that I think science matters, and that if you want to make a firm scientific claim, you need firm evidence to support it. In that sense, I am actually more putting forward a form of "null hypothesis" - no more than that your claims are empty simply because they lack sufficient justification.
That study is bad because it's bad. I also don't care about red states and blue states. However, your study shows the states that have done the worse were the best at protecting their elderly population. That really doesn't make sense and why I call it a bad study and bad data. And telling me that say 80% of one state's deaths was from the elderly while another state was 75% doesn't really show anything meaningful. The more unhealthy non-elderly you have the more that ratio will be skewed and that lines up just about perfect with obesity rates. Because you have more non-elderly dying doesn't mean you protected the elderly better.
It's not about "short" or "long". If you don't get that by now, you're either disingenuous or unable to understand.
I understand your argument that California may have had more covid the first year and that skews the data. But vaccine rate also skews the data in the 2nd year of the pandemic too. What works outside of immunity is the question.
Whatever is based on science, it's not what you are claiming. Your evidence here is completely unable to support your claim. I'm not even sure you remember what your claim is, you've just spaffed some random paper that can be construed to oppose vaccination.
Vaccine mandates don't reduce infection numbers. I literally just said that vaccines are by far the best way to lower mortality rates, why would I say vaccines are bad?
In a sort of way, yes parts of the the GBD is based on what has been done before: but you're apparently not happy with lockdowns on that basis, so why is the GBD okay? You can't just pick and choose like that. I would also note that being "accomplished" and "expert" does not prevent someone being part of a fringe. Being part of a fringe means holding a view far from the norm, not being uninformed and unskilled.
The GBD did not put forward any ideas for how to apply practical focused protection. Unless you count restricting entry to care homes (which it did pre-GBD), I'm not sure Florida did, either. DeSantis did not listen to "the science". He listened to only to the scientific discussion that suited his ulterior motives, which is tantamount to not listening to science. It's okay to have this "conversation", but it doesn't change the fact that the GBD was a heavily politicised discussion piece that was utilised by primarily right-wing governments for ulterior economic motives, not the greater welfare of the general public.
I mean, this is a fundamental absurdity. You're here in half the threads complaining about politicians working for elites and their own self-interest, and then suddenly when DeSantis carries out a measure, you do a swift turnaround and imply he did it out of the goodness of his heart.
Florida did for like a year heavily restrict access to care homes. What covid policy did DeSantis initiate or not initiate squarely based on his ulterior motives and not science? The GBD scientists did not hold views far from the norm, they are not fringe scientists. That is a lie and fabrication. I don't care about the politics of anything. You have yet to directly talk about why doing focused protection is worse than the same protection to all in any sort of logical or scientific argument. Show me that same protection for all saves more years of life. That is what I care about, not if the guy in the blue or red tie was right.
I mean, Covid became like, the second highest cop-killer in the US after traffic accidents, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they're spending money on
That was a very misleading statistic that was extremely specific, more cops (when you include them all) died of suicide than covid over that time frame.
www.medrxiv.org
