Our Covid Response
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
One wonders how the suicide rate (for police and others) compares during the pandemic crisis to normal years.
And no, not saying it's having to wash your hands and only sneeze into your elbows that might have driven more to suicide.
And no, not saying it's having to wash your hands and only sneeze into your elbows that might have driven more to suicide.
No it isn't, no your formula doesn't do that, no it isn't ethical to just remove deaths lol (lmao), no your source doesn't even use accurate data in the first place, no you shouldn't use your source as anything but something to laugh at, and no I'm not going to listen to your source for anything. There is not one single thing about this that's right. It is a cascade of failure from top to bottom.
You're going to have to explain (to yourself, I don't care to hear your whining) how a study "can show red states doing the best" but "the data showing Florida (a red state) doing bad". Pause and consider the contradiction.
lol, lmao
LOL, LMAO
Go back to the data you don't like me using because it makes you look as dumb as you sound. Florida has a higher vaccination rate among the elderly (the most vulnerable population) than California.
You're still wrong.
And guess what.
[images once again in a separate post because lol Escapist]
Comparing Florida to California in the first year, top is Florida and bottom is California. Deaths per capita still favors California up through January 2021 at least.
You're still wrong.
Deaths per capita is an adjustment and I use it all the time. I'm against your adjustment because it's incredibly stupid on multiple levels and shouldn't be taken seriously.
There are other factors because there are other sources of lead poisoning. Some toys will also have been made with other components with lead. But also there's many, many other items in everyday use which still feature lead-based paint.
So: after the move, there would still occasionally be spates of lead poisonings, because you can't completely eradicate a problem like this with a single law. What you're doing is saying that removing lead-based paint didn't work, because there was still a spate of lead poisonings somewhere.
You're genuinely trying to turn the use of only 1 data point into a positive rather than a limitation...?
The point is they use "stats" like that to misinform people, both sides do it just the same. Both are bad but you guys only seem to point out when one side does it instead of when both sides do it.
The CDC actually has not disclosed the suicide data from January 2021 to present.
Ok, you just don't understand basic math. You don't remove deaths when adjusting for age or remove dollars when adjusting for inflation. Weighting is not removing.
I can't refind the initial article I posted but here's another one that does say at time of publishing Florida's mortality was only slightly higher than California though Florida's death rate among seniors was 20% lower than California.
Opinion | Vindication for Ron DeSantis
The media vilified him for rejecting harsh lockdowns. But Florida’s Covid-19 numbers are better than California’s or New York’s, and its economy thrives.
www.wsj.com
Please point me to any scientist saying age-adjustment is incredibly stupid.
Yes, but the lead poisoning happening post lead-paint ban never even came close to it previously, right? Whereas flight cancellations due to covid with mask mandates and without mask mandates have similar numbers.
A positive, huh? All I said that masks aren't obviously the determining factor in covid outbreaks. You guys tend to ignore the times when restrictions are dropped and covid cases go down and only comment on cases going up after dropped restrictions.
The COVID-19 disaster that did not happen in Texas
Cases are rising mainly in states with stricter disease control policies — for all sorts of reasons.
chicago.suntimes.com
For reasons such as that the "barriers" between the non-vulnerable and vulnerable may not actually be very strong: letting covid run wild in the non-vulnerable may therefore result in massive spread amongst the vulnerable too, unless there is a very robust system to support that barrier. Plus that you are inevitably going to hospitalise and kill a certain number of people who you might not realise are vulnerable until it's too late.
Focused protection, remember. How do we carry this out effectively? It's a huge amount more than restricting care home entry. This remains largely unanswered.
I couldn't give a shit about you whining about "bad studies" given the number of spectacularly shit ones you've happily stumped up in this forum whenever it's suited you.
This is not true: it's clearly important to you. The reason I know you care about it is just how much you keep banging on about it. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be trying to make a point about it so often and so much. Even if that point is some ever-so-tedious "But both sides..." mentality, it still means you care.
Which I guess just goes to show how bad at science you are. Pretty much literally all they've done is look at the age distribution of covid deaths in one study and the vaccination rate against covid deaths in the other. They are very basic, but I cannot see any obvious reason they are wrong. You appear to have no fundamental objection other than you kind of don't like the numbers.
The vaccination rates of California and Florida are evidently not much different - although we'd more usefully want to see the vaccination rates of the vulnerable more usefully than the whole population.
Holy fuck, dude.
You don't know what focused protection is. I'm telling you that the GBD does not explain what focused protection means in terms of policies, practical methods. You haven't and can't explain them (although you might go away and try to find some out now I've prompted you). People like DeSantis spoke to the GBD people, and there is pretty much no evidence of any focused protection policies emerging from that meeting, so DeSantis doesn't know what they are, either.
You're sitting there telling me X is better than Y, and you don't even know what X is! Do you realise how completely irrational that is? Without it, you pretty much have no argument to even refute. You may as well be telling me unicorns would be better than horses.
Weighting is removing and your source blatantly removes deaths, summations aren't hard and you accusing literally anybody of not understanding math is laughable in the extreme. Further, your contention that your formula and adjusting for inflation is mathematically identical is just plain wrong. Very very extremely wrong. Hilariously stupidly wrong. And shows you don't even know what a formula is.
An opinion piece. Of course. From someone who hates lockdowns et al (along with anything left leaning), of course.I can't refind the initial article I posted but here's another one that does say at time of publishing Florida's mortality was only slightly higher than California though Florida's death rate among seniors was 20% lower than California.
Opinion | Vindication for Ron DeSantis
The media vilified him for rejecting harsh lockdowns. But Florida’s Covid-19 numbers are better than California’s or New York’s, and its economy thrives.
According to the CDC on March 4th, the day before your opinion piece was published, Florida had a mortality rate of 151/100k people, and California was 134/100k people. The gap was starting to close, but
and I want to stress this
California was still doing better than Florida. I'm fairly certain there was no point in time in which Florida ever did better than California, that may have been around the closest they ever got. Soon after they widened out again and in the present day, it's about 1.5 times more likely to be lethal in Florida than in California. You are eternally wrong.
Considering for age isn't, erasing old deaths to try and make yourself look better is.
It also makes the vulnerable safer because immunity is built in the non-vulnerable faster and then interactions between the 2 X amount of time are safer than if you protect for all and have low built-in immunity. How do you carry out same protection for all effectively when you still need people working and doing jobs? Is it even better? Are the costs of lives associated with protecting all outweigh the benefits?
You do the same.
No, it's not. What response works best is all I care about. I don't care who gets the win.
I didn't say LITERALLY the data itself was bad but the conclusion you made from said data. You said it shows who protected the elderly better, which it does not.
IT WAS A CONVERSATION OPENER, NOT A POLICY TO BE IMPLEMENTED. It's like those that say the Green New Deal is bad when it's purpose is just to start the conversation. DeSantis did put in place policies to protect the vulnerable. Both X and Y are the same general frameworks. Protecting all and protecting the vulnerable are both theory, at least protecting the vulnerable is a concept that we've applied to past pandemics. Protecting all was just throwing shit at the wall and seeing if anything stuck. Instead of having everyone mask, stay 6 feet apart, etc.; you could have set up food delivery for the elderly vs having them shopping at stores.
Weighting is not removing. If you're GM for a sports team looking to acquire a new player that's a free agent, aren't you gonna weigh the player's most recent years more than just averaging their career numbers?
I found the original article I posted somewhere, it was still open in like my 100+ tabs in Firefox. You do realize you can ignore the opinion stuff in an article and just focus on the facts they used for their argument? What facts were wrong or misleading in the article?
Yes, the COVID mortality rate is higher in California than Florida - Alachua Chronicle
California has performed worse than Florida in terms of COVID-19 deaths in every way: total deaths, deaths per capita, and age-adjusted deaths per capita
alachuachronicle.com
What scientist/research has ever said adjusting for age (or really anything) is stupid?
I'd just figured the cops rolled it into the "cops getting killed" stat to make their job sound more dangerous than it actually is and justify buying another tank.
"immunity built in the non-vulnerable faster" led to overwhelmed hospitals and a whole lot of vulnerable people dying because they didn't know they were vulnerable.
Anyway, my secretly vulnerable roommate can't go to his favorite local convention because our dipshit governor made it illegal to ask someone their vaccination status and the venue won't enforce a mask policy. Of course, said vaccination policy *also* plays havoc with my job to deliver medicine to hospitals given they can't ask their employees who is actually allowed to enter certain hospitals at certain times, so that's a clusterfuck too.
That you would compare people's lives with dropping old stats on a sports team says a lot about you and your worldview. And nothing good about it.
The numbers they use for deaths for one. Checking the CDC website up until April 10th like the article does puts the Florida per capita death rate at 161 and the California death rate at 150. And the number of deaths they quoted in that time for each state is wrong as well, overcounting in California and undercounting in Florida. The writer has a giant chip on their shoulder and presuming it's the person I found on Twitter (which seems likely), they're a far right christo-fascist, which checks out. He uses false data to push a false conclusion by misrepresenting the already false data he has.I found the original article I posted somewhere, it was still open in like my 100+ tabs in Firefox. You do realize you can ignore the opinion stuff in an article and just focus on the facts they used for their argument? What facts were wrong or misleading in the article?
Yes, the COVID mortality rate is higher in California than Florida - Alachua Chronicle
California has performed worse than Florida in terms of COVID-19 deaths in every way: total deaths, deaths per capita, and age-adjusted deaths per capita
In other words he's just like you. Or you're like him, whatever.
Just stop calling it that because it's a giant lie. You look like an idiot every time you say it because you have no skills with math or analysis.
Again, here you are assuming there's a good "barrier" between the vulnerable and non-vulnerable during the immunity-building phase, despite the fact that as these posts are discussing, there is no certainty that such a barrier exists, or what policies would be necessary to create one that is sufficiently effective.
No, I really don't. The quality of sources I bring are substantially higher than yours on average, and I make claims with a lot more circumspection to better reflect the state of the evidence.
No, you said it was a bad study. Very clearly, as everyone can see.
A basic assumption is that states that did particularly well at protecting their elderly should have a relatively low proportion of deaths amongst the elderly. But this is not strongly evident from Florida's mortality data. Therefore, a claim that Florida protected its elderly is obviously very unsafe.
But the Green New Deal was put forward with policy suggestions. Not necessarily all worked out in minute detail with all tees crossed and ies dotted, maybe, but it has clear policies for how to achieve its aims. The GBD does not. Irrespective of it being a "conversation opener", neither it nor its proponents appear to have meaningfully continued that conversation. They just used it as an excuse to do pretty much nothing, in my view for ulterior political motivations.
The GBD was organised and backed by a major US think tank. That think tank has the resources to come up with appropriate policies: after all, making up policy suggestions is a huge part of its day job. So, where were these policies? And who amongst supporters enacted any? DeSantis restricted care home access (as many jurisdictions did) early on, cognisant of the risk to the elderly, because it was a relatively straightforward measure. This was long before the GBD. But "focused protection" plainly requires a great deal more than that. So after DeSantis met with GBD team, what additional measures did he put in place to achieve focused protection? And, as above, if he put any in, did they work?
This is not a very useful Twitter post at all.
The colours will relate to number of cases or number of cases per capita, but these are arbitrary values. Neither figure is necessarily more or less misleading than the other without contextual information for what the categorisation of the colours are and why those ranges were used. A range might want to give a good span of the data: the green map lacks granularity at the lower end, but the red one lacks granularity at the high end.
Let's imagine a hypothetical disease where there was a peak with up to 5000 cases per 100,000 people a week. Using a 3 colour chart, they set 0-1000 as green, 1001-3000 as yellow, and 3001+ as red. Then three months later, using this categorisation, it's well past peak and infections have plummetted so green abounds. So someone decides to change the ranges: this better represents the current infections, but it is arguably misleading people how severe the infection risk is, given that everywhere it is much lower than the peak.
So what is the right thing to do? That's not an easy answer. Trite Twitter posts like that don't help enlighten.
One can argue that colour selection also matters for the visual impact (red = alarming, green = soothing). But if that is so, a graph that goes blue-yellow-orange-red is weighted towards making someone feel worried; why is this better than green-yellow-orange that's weighted towards making someone feeling reassured? And again, see the issue with granularity above, which accentuates the issue.
It's not useful to making an argument or conveying information. It's plenty useful to riling people up with minimum effort.
Well luckily a response to the twitter post goes into more detail and better, links to the CDC website the map is pulled from. The CDC website does stress repeatedly to use the green map, it's the important map, the redder map isn't for regular people to look at.
The green map... tracks new hospital admissions for COVID as well as beds in use.
[side note I wanted to post an image with the criteria used, but of course the Escapist doesn't like things like that :V]
The red map meanwhile tracks cases and test results.
While I'm not going to be as anBry about it as the twitter posters, I do agree just based on what they're tracking, the CDC is being underhanded. Basing the severity of a disease at all by hospital admissions in America where people avoid hospitals like a plague (literally) due to financial reasons is never going to give a very smart view of a pandemic.