Coronovirus IV

[T.Lex]

Word plays, spin, Insulting spelling and grammar.

That's not me.

I RARELY insult people for spelling or grammar - only if the typo is a funny double entendre or something.

Lord knows I'm not perfect about these things, and this is the internet. Expressing oneself in the written word can be difficult.

I don't mind.
I don't have the agenda you may think or allude to.

I'm just taking your posts at face value. I don't know you any other way than that.

Also to me my agenda of seeing America succeed shouldn't be consider an agenda. It should just be what every red blooded American wants. But we have foxes in the hen house.

We all want America to succeed. The notion that vast swaths of the population don't want that is... well... forum rules and all....

 

[JettaKnight]

So that's one way to look at it. Another is to examine who is still getting the tests. We aren't doing NEARLY enough contact tracing yet (that I'm aware of). So, those getting the tests are still going to generally be ones who are symptomatic at some level.

There's probably a huge percentage that have mild COVID-19 symptoms and just cured it with Campbell's soup and Sprite and never got tested.

 

[T.Lex]

There's probably a huge percentage that have mild COVID-19 symptoms and just cured it with Campbell's soup and Sprite and never got tested.

Absolutely true. Well, "might" instead of "probably" and "some" instead of "huge."

But, we can use numbers to account for that. If we wanted to.

 

[JettaKnight]

We all want America to succeed. The notion that vast swaths of the population don't want that is... well... forum rules and all....

Even Liberal want America to succeed - they just define success radically differently.

Of course, the democrat-socialist define success so radically different that one could argue that America would be almost a ghost of it's original self.

 

[T.Lex]

Even Liberal want America to succeed - they just define success radically differently.

Of course, the democrat-socialist define success so radically different that one could argue that America would be almost a ghost of it's original self.

So you're saying you believe in ghosts....

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Even Liberal want America to succeed - they just define success radically differently.

Of course, the democrat-socialist define success so radically different that one could argue that America would be almost a ghost of it's original self.

Success is subjective. What is successful to me may not be what you consider successful. If I raise my kids to be functioning caring adults, retire, and stay married to the same woman my entire life, I would consider myself successful. You may only consider yourself successful if you retire with millions in the bank and own 10 properties.

What does a successful “leftist” America look like compared to a successful “right” America? Personally, I’m a die hard republican, but I don’t want the right to be the only ones in power. We need balance to keep eachother in check. Unfortunately right now we have parties being extreme and not willing to compromise, basing everything off party lines instead of furthering the countries success.

I hate politics. Back to the fishing thread

 

[chipbennett]

So, I actually meant to bring this up in my earlier post.

The reportedCases and notional reports of critical cases can be viewed as sampling. That is, a perfectly legitimate strategy for statistics (and polling) is to not try and count everything, but just count some of the things. (Also useful for six sigma exercises.)

There is an inherent error rate. But, it can provide useful insight into the numbers. And yes, trending does help with predicting. It is kinda the same thing.

So, reportedCases, reportedDeaths and the information about critical cases cannot be relied upon to be accurate as to the whole picture, it can be viewed to be a sampling. NY's reportedCases per 100k population is a number. If Minnesota's reportedCases per 100k population is a higher number, then the epidemic is probably "worse" in Minnesota.

That's useful for things like determining how/when to move to different re-opening phases.

For awhile in March, the critical cases was almost perfectly tracking the total reportedDeaths for any given day. That is, one could extrapolate a percentage of the sampled critical cases that were dying each day.

Then there was some unknown changes to the sourcing (as best I can figure), and it hasn't really tracked since then. Hopefully, at some point, enough places will be consistently reporting the critical cases that it will be useful again.

Hold on, now.

A subset of data is valid as a proxy for the population if and only if the subset is a random sample of the population. We know that the subset of reportedCases was not a random sample, but rather an intentionally biased (in the statistical meaning, not political or other uses, of the term bias). The reportedCases subset was biased toward that part of the population that was the most symptomatic/most likely to test positive. Thus, you cannot use that subset in any way statistically to represent the population, absent other data.

You can't even reliably use equally biased subsets to compare against each other, unless you know that the bias is the same in all sub-subsets. How do we know that NY state and MN used the same bias for determining whom to test?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I know this has been posted before, but here is an updated map dividing Wuhan coronavirus cases by thirds:

Apparently, living in the red/yellow areas is a risk factor.

Living in those areas was a risk factor before covid.

 

[T.Lex]

Hold on, now.

A subset of data is valid as a proxy for the population if and only if the subset is a random sample of the population.

You know that's not true. There's different kinds of sampling, and that's only one. It isn't the only one.

We know that the subset of reportedCases...

(Total aside, I love that Jetta is reading this.)

....was not a random sample, but rather an intentionally biased (in the statistical meaning, not political or other uses, of the term bias). The reportedCases subset was biased toward that part of the population that was the most symptomatic/most likely to test positive. Thus, you cannot use that subset in any way statistically to represent the population, absent other data.

Which is what I said to NNBD later in the thread. We have to accept that there are unknown (and inconsistent) parameters wrapped around who is getting tested, and that flows through to the positives.

And, as long as one states that it is based on the reported death rate, there's nothing inherently "wrong" about playing those numbers out.

You can't even reliably use equally biased subsets to compare against each other, unless you know that the bias is the same in all sub-subsets. How do we know that NY state and MN used the same bias for determining whom to test?

We don't. We also don't have control over that.

Haven't we reached the point of just accepting, as to each other, the only reported numbers we have are the reported numbers. Any "conclusions" should fairly state that it is based on reported numbers. If that happens, I don't see the problem. It is then up to the reader to judge for the credibility of the "conclusions."

 

[JettaKnight]

(Total aside, I love that Jetta is reading this.)

I saw that earlier - "why is he writing it like that?"
I'm literally rewriting code right now to remove camel case.

So you're saying you believe in ghosts....

For the last time, I am not going to mold clay with you!

 

[T.Lex]

For the last time, I am not going to mold clay with you!

I have a penny....

 

[bwframe]

‘No Mask Allowed’: Texas Bar Bans Masks for Customers

 

[chipbennett]

These data are fascinating:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...trated-in-democratic-congressional-districts/

View attachment 87410

A new Pew Research Center analysis of data on official reports of COVID-19 deaths, collected by the John Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering, finds that, as of last week, nearly a quarter of all the deaths in the United States attributed to the coronavirus have been in just 12 congressional districts – all located in New York City and represented by Democrats in Congress. Of the more than 92,000 Americans who had died of COVID-19 as of May 20 (the date that the data in this analysis was collected), nearly 75,000 were in Democratic congressional districts...

Of the 44 hardest-hit congressional districts – the top 10% in terms of deaths – 41 are represented by Democrats, while three are represented by Republicans. These include the New York-area districts, as well as those in the Boston, Detroit and New Orleans metropolitan areas. The average death toll in each of these hardest-hit districts was 1,122 as of May 20.


The next 100 hardest-hit districts, which represent the remainder of the top third of districts, with an average of 270 deaths, also are disproportionately represented by Democrats: 75 are represented by Democrats, 25 by Republicans.


About two-thirds (68%) of the 44 least affected districts – the bottom 10%, with an average 13 deaths in each district – are represented by Republicans in Congress.

Now, keep in mind, as I am fond of saying: correlation does not prove causation. What is most interesting to me is not that deaths are concentrated heavily in Democratic districts (densely populated, urban areas, dominated in these numbers by the New York City metro area), but rather the relative shapes of the curves.

View attachment 87411

While the current death rates remain highest in districts controlled by Democrats, the trend in coronavirus fatalities over time has been decreasing in Democratic districts steadily since mid-April. In contrast, Republican-controlled districts have not seen the same declines in the trend over time...

The decline of deaths in Democratic districts has outpaced the national average, decreasing from an average of more than seven new deaths per day in mid-April to about four new deaths per day in the second half of May.


During this same period, the number of new deaths in districts controlled by Republicans has remained relatively steady (an average of just under two deaths per day in GOP districts).

So, either there was no curve to flatten to begin with in the districts in question, or else whatever was done in those districts was more effective in flattening the curve. (I tend to suspect the former.)

Oh, and how, exactly, did Pew describe this article (headline: "Coronavirus death toll is heavily concentrated in Democratic congressional districts") on Twitter?

COVID-19 deaths have declined in Democratic congressional districts since mid-April, but remained relatively steady in districts controlled by Republicans.

https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1265636238255669252

Nope; no media bias...

 

[T.Lex]

Now, keep in mind, as I am fond of saying: correlation does not prove causation.

Indeed - isn't it true that high-concentration population centers tend to be Dem?

Being high-concentration correlates to Dem leadership (may or may not cause it) and high-concentration correlates to greater COVID impact (but doesn't necessarily cause it).

So, either there was no curve to flatten to begin with in the districts in question, or else whatever was done in those districts was more effective in flattening the curve. (I tend to suspect the former.)

Isn't that just math?

If I have more water in my basement than you, and we both reduce it 10% per day, I'm reducing "faster" than you in terms of actual gallons.

Frankly, I think the "Republican" controlled places maintaining a steady pace reflects the flattening of the curve due to cancellations of public events and social distancing. The high-concentration places have been the canaries in the coal mines.

 

[Alpo]

The democrats did not create this panic, nor did the media.

We have an administration in this country that is not shy of utilizing the media to get its point across. If they at any time believed this was a democrat/socialist conspiracy to take away the rights of the US citizen, then they had the means, the opportunity and control of the levers and switches of government to head in the direction they thought was correct.

As it was, the administration held daily briefings on Covid. Multiple hours long briefings.
The administration pushed for and approved an additional $2 trillion program to increase the national debt.
The president himself, thinking that he was his own best doctor, pushed a drug that has yet to be proven safe and effective.
The administration abdicated much of its responsibilities to the states (which might have been the correct thing constitutionally and administratively).
yada yada yada

I don't see any way, Trigger Time, that you can state this was a democratic conspiracy. That's ****ing insane. The republicans are in the drivers seat. If you don't like the direction the bus is going, don't blame little Sally in row 12 because the driver is drunk.

As to the Henny Penny's that have posted end of the world gloom and doom and panic on this site, there is one in particular who has done so. I don't think he's a democrat.

So, TT, heal thy ****ing self.

 

[nonobaddog]

I know this has been posted before, but here is an updated map dividing Wuhan coronavirus cases by thirds:

This map isn't true anymore(if it ever was).

They claim the Red one third of the deaths are in eight counties in new york.

Johns Hopkins says
Kings - 5,035
Queens - 4,959
Bronx - 3,510
New York - 2,248
Nassau - 2,108
Suffolk - 1,851
Westchester - 1,345
Rockland - 618

Total - 21,674

US Total - 98,933

That is under 22% which is significantly less than one third.

 

[Doug]

EVERYBODY KNOWS Covid 19 was developed in a Chinese bio-weapons lab under contract to Donald Trump to produce a virus to kill Democrats and liberals. It is mostly working. There is some spill over to people with RINO tendencies.

 

[BugI02]

The NFL, a full-contact sport, has **** ready and planned.

The MLB is ****ting and pissing over dollars and cents, and may just tank their entire season over it.

Baseball needs to be put in a freezer somewhere until they find a cure ...

there on the shelf next to jazz and smallpox

 

[chipbennett]

Indeed - isn't it true that high-concentration population centers tend to be Dem?

Being high-concentration correlates to Dem leadership (may or may not cause it) and high-concentration correlates to greater COVID impact (but doesn't necessarily cause it).


Isn't that just math?

If I have more water in my basement than you, and we both reduce it 10% per day, I'm reducing "faster" than you in terms of actual gallons.

Frankly, I think the "Republican" controlled places maintaining a steady pace reflects the flattening of the curve due to cancellations of public events and social distancing. The high-concentration places have been the canaries in the coal mines.

You're missing the point. There has been no reduction in the Republican-controlled districts (*) because there hasn't needed to be a reduction.

A better analogy would be that my basement has an inch of standing water coming from a crack in the foundation, and your basement flooded two feet. You managed to reduce the water level in your basement to six inches, while my basement held steady at one inch of standing water.


* Used for convenience as the article-described cohort, not to ascribe causation

 

[T.Lex]

With further reflection, let me be clear: I've not meant to mock or denigrate any INGOers* regarding their earnest beliefs regarding this pandemic. And this is generally true of all discussions in which I engage, my intent is to fully flesh out people's positions and, on a good day, do so with some humor when appropriate.** I appreciate opposing points of view because it tests my own beliefs. I may present information or insight intended to get people to re-consider their positions, but it is not intended to be read with a mocking voice.

* Other than GPiashuvnyrggygbydydb, Jetta, foszoe, sometimes jamil and chip, and probably a couple others that I'll edit in.

** And sometimes when it is inappropriate.