# Funny Events of the "Woke" world

#### Dwarvenhobble

##### Is on the Gin
Maths 2

Okay, at least you got the maths mostly right here. The problem is that the example does not match the situation.

So the more burglaries there are, the chance of being burgled correspondingly increases, yes. But what you're omitting is the comparison with the other region, which has fewer burlgaries but a higher burglary:house ratio. In your "two-ticket" example, the burglar to house ratio is 2:5. So let's imagine another region with one burglary and two houses: the probability of being burgled is 50%, compared to 36% when there are two burglars and five houses. So you're better off in the lower burglaries per capita area than the lower absolute number of burglaries area.
Except you're forgetting one thing. This is based on 1 years stats. (which is the gun violence numbers) thus using said numbers means a place could go 5 years with no incident and the 1 year it happened suddenly it's gone from a super safe place to live to one of the most dangerous.

This is why and how stats are easily misleading.

#### Dwarvenhobble

##### Is on the Gin
Oh yeah, I know. That's why I said it. And this is not an attack on you. I used to believe the same stereotypes as well

Here's the thing. How did these stereotypes start? Someone (Reagan) trying to create a narrative against African Americans

All of the other stuff you stated is a retroactive justification that is trying to excuse Reagan's racism
Seems a bit racist to say African Americans don't like living in rural areas.

You might as well use the Hot Fuzz argument "there's more weapons in the country than the town".

#### Ag3ma

##### Elite Member
Also the likelyhood (as these are shootings) that you will be a secondary hit as can happen in dodgeball sometimes too........... Which would mean even not targeted you might get hit hence the probability doesn't drop by anywhere near as much as you think lol and that's also accounting for deliberate targeting vs random chance of it happening independently lol
What the holy fuck are you talking about?

When they record crimes, they record crimes. There is no distinction between "secondary hit", whatever that means. You are burgled or not burgled, and you are hit in dodgeball or not hit. You set the parameters for your analogy, just accept that you screwed up and it undermined your point.

Except you're forgetting one thing. This is based on 1 years stats. (which is the gun violence numbers) thus using said numbers means a place could go 5 years with no incident and the 1 year it happened suddenly it's gone from a super safe place to live to one of the most dangerous.
No, I'm not forgetting anything.

You're introducing an extremely spurious argument out of nowhere. It has relatively little relevance in the real world because people don't do generally stats on areas with 10 or fewer households where that sort of noise in the data would have such an outsize effect. Not least because the larger scale statistics of rural versus urban will often be national averages.

#### Elijin

##### Elite Muppet
Legacy
Quarantining an area is not locking down a country. Notice how Beijing was locked down, not all of China. Also, it was just entertainment and cultural venues that were closed.

Again the for millionth time, WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THIS SHIT WORKS?
For the millionth time, Western Australia.

Brief effective lockdowns maintained it as a covid free place. We lived a normal life for the duration of the pandemic. Only once adequate vaccination and safety levels had been reached did we allow community spread.

Planning on ignoring it again, or going to deflect and look at AUSTRALIA'S stat's instead of WESTERN Australia (a state).

BrawlMan

#### Phoenixmgs

##### The Muse of Fate
Legacy
You are playing a stupid semantics argument, because it's you attempting to stretch the term "medical intervention" beyond normal means. You may as well describe the sewer system as medical intervention if that's where you're going.

On the contrary, there was evidence suggesting masks could be effective before, and there is more now.

No, I said that 0.36% of the US population has died of covid-19. Are you a deliberate liar, do you not understand what IFR is, or are you just that incompetent at reading comprehension?

I said it was plausible it was 1%, but more likely it was substantially lower - you are just dishonest to ignore that. Providing ranges is normal in the field. Amongst the stupidest of stupid things you are arguing here is to say there was "no data" supporting a 1% covid IFR, having cited a meta-analysis that includes in its data set studies which showed an IFR over 1%. Wow. Just wow.

Secondly, the IFR that matters is the IFR for the individual location. Western countries are age-heavy and should not be relying on IFRs for much younger population countries to decide policy. Here again you show you don't actually know your sources: the very study you cited to claim an IFR under 0.2% breaks down its figures into three groups, and shows that some places (Western) have a median IFR of 0.57%.

Again, your statements betray the fact you don't even know your own sources, never mind the wider science. You are truly incompetent on this subject.
I don't care if masks are technically a medical intervention or not. I'd personally consider it a medical intervention. That semantics issue aside, if you tell me to do literally anything and I ask "why?" and you have 1) no proof and 2) it doesn't make sense, I'm not gonna do it.

There is no actual good evidence that shows masks do anything against something like the flu or covid. Show the studies or it's just misinformation at this point.

You replied with 0.36% in context to me saying the IFR was below 0.2%. How are you gonna reply to me talking about the IFR and retort with another number when that number has little relevance to the actual IRF? And that's why I said people have gotten covid multiple times now and thus the infections are more than the population by probably at least 3 fold at this point. You're the one that doesn't seem to understand IFR is number of infections, not the population number.

It's another one of those things that really wasn't plausible if you just give it a second of thought. People were using the case fatality rate early on and that was much higher obviously. There was just no way the IFR was gonna to be that high, China's death rate was at 2% but that was at a time when mild cases weren't being counted/known. It's like how it was pretty well known the virus was airborne super early on, but technically wasn't 100% known so you couldn't say for sure it was airborne but it was airborne. Also, they didn't want to say it was airborne because of the PPE requirements would change and we just didn't have the supplies for that.

The general IFR for covid includes the world. Also, if you wanna go by I should care about the US IFR more than some young African population, why should I even care about the US IFR then, shouldn't I just care about the IFR for my group (age, pre-existing conditions, etc.)? What does location actually matter then? It's why I got the J&J vaccine because it was the safest for my age and gender group.

They had 7 times the amount of deaths per 100k than those countries how did lockdown

They did this to 'save' their economy... which is the opposite of what happened. They've had a 1.2% shrinkage.

So, they failed on both accounts
Covid deaths aren't the only deaths that matter. Sweden had basically the least OVERALL death of any country during the pandemic. Every other public health issue didn't just take a year+ off and stop being an issue anymore.

For the millionth time, Western Australia.

Brief effective lockdowns maintained it as a covid free place. We lived a normal life for the duration of the pandemic. Only once adequate vaccination and safety levels had been reached did we allow community spread.

Planning on ignoring it again, or going to deflect and look at AUSTRALIA'S stat's instead of WESTERN Australia (a state).
Sweden had a better excess death rate than Australia. What is western Autralia's excess death rate in comparison to Sweden?

#### Elijin

##### Elite Muppet
Legacy
Sigh. So we're continuing to ignore the statements about covid not impacting day to day life during the lockdowns years. In order to chase one particular stat, which you have declared the one true measure of wether lockdowns worked.

I dont want to humour you, because this is some toddler throwing a tantrum, "NO IM RIGHT, TRUST ME" asinine bullshit.
But, I will humour you, because fuck you.

You are a clown.
• During the first two years of the pandemic, mortality in WA was generally within the expected range of variation. There was less than 1% excess mortality in 2021. In 2020, lower than expected mortality was recorded, with a period of statistically significant lower than expected mortality between August and September.
In Western Australia, for the years which we enacted lockdown policies, the excess mortality rates were -3.9% and 0.6%. Significantly negative, and less than variance.

For bonus points, our neighbouring state South Australia, who also used similar lockdown policies, recorded -3.2% and 0.5% during the lockdown policy periods.

You'll note both those are significantly lower than Sweden, and both areas who had minimal community transmission (which means life went on as usual most of the time).

Have a tag because you like to ignore things which dont specifically address you via quote walls. @Phoenixmgs

#### Trunkage

##### Nascent Orca
Legacy
Covid deaths aren't the only deaths that matter. Sweden had basically the least OVERALL death of any country during the pandemic. Every other public health issue didn't just take a year+ off and stop being an issue anymore.
Sweden had an increase of about 7,000 deaths over the average for 2020

This is all deaths. And Australia is twice the size of Sweden. Sweden had 14x the increase in ALL deaths because they didn't lockdown

Legitimately, what are you talking about?

BrawlMan

#### Ag3ma

##### Elite Member
You replied with 0.36% in context to me saying the IFR was below 0.2%. How are you gonna reply to me talking about the IFR and retort with another number when that number has little relevance to the actual IRF? And that's why I said people have gotten covid multiple times now and thus the infections are more than the population by probably at least 3 fold at this point. You're the one that doesn't seem to understand IFR is number of infections, not the population number.
You have cited a post where I did not say 0.36% of Americans dying was the IFR, and that it provided context to the IFR. And then tried to claim I meant IFR.

So you are just lying. Pathetic.

#### Phoenixmgs

##### The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Sigh. So we're continuing to ignore the statements about covid not impacting day to day life during the lockdowns years. In order to chase one particular stat, which you have declared the one true measure of wether lockdowns worked.

I dont want to humour you, because this is some toddler throwing a tantrum, "NO IM RIGHT, TRUST ME" asinine bullshit.
But, I will humour you, because fuck you.

You are a clown.
• During the first two years of the pandemic, mortality in WA was generally within the expected range of variation. There was less than 1% excess mortality in 2021. In 2020, lower than expected mortality was recorded, with a period of statistically significant lower than expected mortality between August and September.
In Western Australia, for the years which we enacted lockdown policies, the excess mortality rates were -3.9% and 0.6%. Significantly negative, and less than variance.

For bonus points, our neighbouring state South Australia, who also used similar lockdown policies, recorded -3.2% and 0.5% during the lockdown policy periods.

You'll note both those are significantly lower than Sweden, and both areas who had minimal community transmission (which means life went on as usual most of the time).

Have a tag because you like to ignore things which dont specifically address you via quote walls. @Phoenixmgs
You can, you know, just reply to me, I can't read literally every post. If you don't want the quoted text to take up so much space, the forum already cuts the length of how much is displayed if the quoted text is so long or you can just delete the quoted text and put in "Snip" as well.

What's the best stat (not saying any one stat is perfect, they all have issues) for how well a country did then? I feel excess deaths is a better starting point. Every country counted covid deaths differently for example, Sweden did count those that died with covid as covid deaths (that's just how they did it) so that's not evenly comparable to other countries. Then, obviously, how well a country did during covid isn't just based on covid deaths alone because it's not the only public health issue. Then, of course, you have different average ages the population is, population density, and so many other factors. Also, Australia does have a rather unique physical border (even more so Western Australia than East where East has far more local and international travel) that most countries don't have obviously (especially in Europe, once you're in Europe, you can go anywhere).

The link does show that Western Australia had lower excess deaths during the 1st 2 years. Part of the reason I've said lockdowns aren't good isn't just because of the first year or two, it's the long-term effects as well. I'm actually surprised how well Sweden has done compared to their peers because I figured it would become noticeable 5, 10, 20 years from now. That leads into the increased in excess deaths the last two years in Western Australia. It's not about "NO I'M RIGHT!!!" that you think it is, it's that there's no proof anyone has ever showed that the benefits of lockdowns have exceeded the great costs of them. Every single cost-benefit analysis I've seen on lockdowns has found far far far far far greater harms than benefits and no one has ever once provided any proof that lockdowns worked.

Sweden had an increase of about 7,000 deaths over the average for 2020

This is all deaths. And Australia is twice the size of Sweden. Sweden had 14x the increase in ALL deaths because they didn't lockdown

Legitimately, what are you talking about?

You have cited a post where I did not say 0.36% of Americans dying was the IFR, and that it provided context to the IFR. And then tried to claim I meant IFR.

So you are just lying. Pathetic.
Then, why'd you even post that if there was literally no point to counter my claimed IFR?

#### Ag3ma

##### Elite Member
Then, why'd you even post that if there was literally no point to counter my claimed IFR?
Post #6348.

Do you have the memory of a goldfish, or do you just not bother reading? Maybe the latter, because you certainly don't seem to read the sources you cite.

#### Silvanus

##### Elite Member
Legacy
Jesus Christ, man, please vet your sources better. A libertarian blog, by someone with a clear axe to grind, making some of the flimsiest leaps of logic.

#### Elijin

##### Elite Muppet
Legacy
So, our excess deaths were lowered, our economy was stable and we kept covid out of our community almost entirely, but that's still not evidence of a working lockdown?

And once again, you default to cost benefit analysis, forgetting you previously tried to assure me that wasn't your only point.

Start being honest and just outright say your position can't be changed because you don't want it to be, not because of lack of evidence.

Snipping is wildly unintuitive and annoying on mobile (much like you). @Phoenixmgs

#### Trunkage

##### Nascent Orca
Legacy
So, our excess deaths were lowered, our economy was stable and we kept covid out of our community almost entirely, but that's still not evidence of a working lockdown?

And once again, you default to cost benefit analysis, forgetting you previously tried to assure me that wasn't your only point.

Start being honest and just outright say your position can't be changed because you don't want it to be, not because of lack of evidence.

Snipping is wildly unintuitive and annoying on mobile (much like you). @Phoenixmgs
Did you know suicide rates also went down during Covid?

Now, Australia did put resources into A) mental health and B) keeping as many people employed and C) making sure covid doesn't fuck up your work and personal life

Phoenixmgs keeps pretending that just a lockdown happened and there was no mitigating policies.

Also, and I haven't seen anyone do any actual analysis why suicides went down, but I'm going to guess that getting a better work/life balance helps

bluegate

#### Phoenixmgs

##### The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Post #6348.

Do you have the memory of a goldfish, or do you just not bother reading? Maybe the latter, because you certainly don't seem to read the sources you cite.
What does that post have anything to do with your 0.36 number? Because your gross estimation (without any work) that everyone would have needed to get covid 8 times (which has nothing to do with this 0.36 number)? Though I do have a friend that got it I think at least 6 times now (because she has to always test because she works at an elderly care place). That's the only logic I can get from that. I basically ignored that because I have no idea how you pulled those numbers out to begin with (because the amount of people that got covid before vaccination was extremely undercounted and you're probably using a number like that to start your math problem, garbage in garbage out). The people that do die from covid are those that are very old or very vulnerable and any type of flu-like infection can be the last straw. Does that 90% mortality decrease apply to the main population that covid is deadly to? Nope, because the trials for that number are from a much wider ranging group of people. The same reason you b!tch about my IFR number being wrong (when I do indeed want the world average for that) saying it should be location-based. And that is just as bad or good (however you wanna look at it) as what I want because if you're a 30 year old dude in the US or say Niger (youngest population), your chance of dying is still the same regardless, you don't magically have less chance of dying if you're in Niger just because its IFR is lower than the US.

Jesus Christ, man, please vet your sources better. A libertarian blog, by someone with a clear axe to grind, making some of the flimsiest leaps of logic.
Jesus Christ, man, can you not do ad hominem attacks? If there's something wrong with the data, point it out.

So, our excess deaths were lowered, our economy was stable and we kept covid out of our community almost entirely, but that's still not evidence of a working lockdown?

And once again, you default to cost benefit analysis, forgetting you previously tried to assure me that wasn't your only point.

Start being honest and just outright say your position can't be changed because you don't want it to be, not because of lack of evidence.

Snipping is wildly unintuitive and annoying on mobile (much like you). @Phoenixmgs
The benefits and harms of something don't just take place in the immediate future, there's long-term effects as well. I was pretty shocked that Sweden did so well during the pandemic (in comparison to peer countries) because the lockdowns at worst should provide immediately apparent benefits as the harms don't show nearly as fast. I said excess mortality to you because everything I've seen is that Sweden did do extremely well in comparison to just about every country and it is kinda hard to find numbers just for say Western Australia as you didn't want me comparing Sweden to Australia. I can say the same thing about comparing Western Australia to all of Sweden but an area of Sweden with a similar population density to Western Australia and it would probably be a smaller gap. But trying to find such numbers isn't that easy.

In certain circumstances, lockdowns may have been beneficial (like your area) but your area is also very very unique. Australia overall did a good job and was also lucky to have limited covid initially very well. Almost no other place was in that situation. Before the US even did anything, NYC already had close to 20% infected, the virus was way too far spread across the US for a lockdown strategy to do much. And that was most countries.

#### Silvanus

##### Elite Member
Legacy
Jesus Christ, man, can you not do ad hominem attacks? If there's something wrong with the data, point it out.
The 'data' is unusable for the purpose the writer intends. He's just bunging together a comparison of all deaths-- whether related to covid, lockdowns, or neither-- and then making the leap from there to attributing cause. He controls for no variables whatsoever. It's the worst, most statistically-illiterate approach someone can take.

Hypothetically: if Sweden passed a road safety law in 2020, and saw a corresponding decrease in fatalities, your source would attribute equal weight to that as it would to deaths from covid.... in an analysis supposedly looking at the impact of covid policies.

#### Gergar12

##### Elite Member
Legacy

Even if I find the whole thing funny, the republican senator would likely win given his MMA background.

Dwarvenhobble

#### Gordon_4

##### The Big Engine
Legacy

Even if I find the whole thing funny, the republican senator would likely win given his MMA background.
He was an amateur MMA competitor, which puts him in the position as an army reservist. He'll know a little about a lot and a lot about a little but until he's been in the shit he's unproven and fate is a fickle mistress indeed. And there's a difference between a bout in a ring and a punch up in some random office.

Regardless of that its a fucking disgrace that it even got to this point. Like fucking Christ these people are supposed to be statesmen.

#### Gergar12

##### Elite Member
Legacy
He was an amateur MMA competitor, which puts him in the position as an army reservist. He'll know a little about a lot and a lot about a little but until he's been in the shit he's unproven and fate is a fickle mistress indeed. And there's a difference between a bout in a ring and a punch up in some random office.

Regardless of that its a fucking disgrace that it even got to this point. Like fucking Christ these people are supposed to be statesmen.
The other guy is untrained.

But yes, congress is a clown's show, and this guy leads a state where every metric tells people to not live in his state.

#### Gordon_4

##### The Big Engine
Legacy
The other guy is untrained.
Not synonymous with unskilled or inexperienced.