The Coronavirus, not the beer

[nsacpi]

That's rich coming from you. I mean you are wrong in every sense. But it's super hypocritical that you all of a sudden care about kids being fed considering your policies pre-rona.

I guess thethe has a caring side we've all overlooked.

[thethe]

That's rich coming from you. I mean you are wrong in every sense. But it's super hypocritical that you all of a sudden care about kids being fed considering your policies pre-rona.

What policies are those ?

Restricting immigration to give American workers a chance?
No 'free trade' with china so more manufacturing is done here?
Crackdown on big box because they are anti-capitalistic.

I'd love to know which position of mine isn't supporting the middle to lower class American.

[Enscheff]

Data scientists will be able to compare the rate of transmission of other viruses like the flu during this lockdown to get a pretty good idea how well we tamped down transmission rates of all disease. They can then apply those rates to the Rona and extrapolate how bad things would have been minus any lockdown.

It won’t matter. The usual drooling suspects will ignore scientists and cling onto whatever counter take some right wing twit posts on social media. Why? Because that’s what they want to believe, data and science be damned.

I personally have the opinion that we would have been much better off economically isolating the vulnerable populations, and probably wouldn’t have seen an appreciable increase in total deaths. However, that’s a guess made by a non expert with almost no data, and I’m open to having that opinion changed when more data is presented by experts. As long as a more well defined plan is in place next time based on what we learned the last few months, I can’t really blame leaders for how they responded to this.

That’s the difference between science and religion.

[nsacpi]

Data scientists will be able to compare the rate of transmission of other viruses like the flu during this lockdown to get a pretty good idea how well we tamped down transmission rates of all disease. They can then apply those rates to the Rona and extrapolate how bad things would have been minus any lockdown.

It won’t matter. The usual drooling suspects will ignore scientists and cling onto whatever counter take some right wing twit posts on social media. Why? Because that’s what they want to believe, data and science be damned.

I personally have the opinion that we would have been much better off economically isolating the vulnerable populations, and probably wouldn’t have seen an appreciable increase in total deaths. However, that’s a guess made by a non expert with almost no data, and I’m open to having that opinion changed when more data is presented by experts. As long as a more well defined plan is in place next time based on what we learned the last few months, I can’t really blame leaders for how they responded to this.

That’s the difference between science and religion.

Of course there is a lot of room for good faith discussion and disagreement. Experts are not always right and they can be very tough on each other, as they should be.

Unfortunately we mostly get bad faith discussion from certain posters.

[thethe]

Of course there is a lot of room for good faith discussion and disagreement.

Unfortunately we mostly get bad faith discussion from certain posters.

Such bad faith that we have put 22m americans out of work.

THis is a crisis and its infuriating we are adopting policies not based on any science or data.

[nsacpi]

Such bad faith that we have put 22m americans out of work.

THis is a crisis and its infuriating we are adopting policies not based on any science or data.

This is not true in the slightest. There has been a lot of work done trying to calibrate costs and benefits. Some of this work has even been shared with people in poorly chosen one's administration and had some impact on policy. You may disagree with the conclusions and recommendations. But to baldly argue that policies are being made without any attempt to look at facts and science is simply incorrect. When that happens it is because of poorly chosen one going with his hunches.

[thethe]

Where was the data telling people that a majority of the population had less than a .00001% of dying?

What is the science that packed supermarkets are fine but open space parks and beaches are bad?

[nsacpi]

Where was the data telling people that a majority of the population had less than a .00001% of dying?

I'm sorry but just about everyone has known from very early on that younger people were at very little risk. You present this fact as if it has been swept away in the analysis. There has IN FACT been much discussion of this. And in some of the analysis the question of whether an older person's life is worth less than a younger one has been explicitly addressed. But carry on pretending this is a great insight of yours that no one else is considering.

[thethe]

I'm sorry but just about everyone has known from very early on that younger people were at very little risk. You present this fact as if it has been swept away in the analysis. There has IN FACT been much discussion of this. And in some of the analysis the question of whether an older person's life is worth less than a younger one has been explicitly addressed. But carry on pretending this is a great insight of your that no one else is considering.

Every time a blended death rate is quoted now its effectively misinformation

[nsacpi]

What is the science that packed supermarkets are fine but open space parks and beaches are bad?

Who has claimed this? The advice has been to avoid crowds. Show me where "the science" has claimed that supermarkets are safer than beaches. Show me.

[thethe]

Who has claimed this? The advice has been to avoid crowds. Show me where "the science" has claimed that supermarkets are safer than beaches. Show me.

Supermarkets are open (essential of course) but parks are closed?

What is the risk and why is it a good idea to close parks? Obviously supermarkets need to be open but what about balancing it with the risk of spread. There is no sensible reason why we closed down parks and beaches.

[Enscheff]

Of course there is a lot of room for good faith discussion and disagreement. Experts are not always right and they can be very tough on each other, as they should be.

Unfortunately we mostly get bad faith discussion from certain posters.

Tehteh has consistently shown this type of mental capacity in the past. He desperately wanted newk to be a TOR by now, Allard would be a top 25 guy, and many more examples. When more knowledgable people presented data contrary to what he wanted to believe, he would cling to whatever tidbit he felt backed up his claims.

Different topics, same flawed logical sequencing.

[Enscheff]

Who has claimed this? The advice has been to avoid crowds. Show me where "the science" has claimed that supermarkets are safer than beaches. Show me.

My comment above proved right here.

Literally nobody said don’t go outside. The key was avoiding humans.

[nsacpi]

Supermarkets are open (essential of course) but parks are closed?

One is considered essential and the other not.

The science has never been that one was safe and the other not. And for you to claim the science has done this is simply bad faith.

[Carp]

Every time a blended death rate is quoted now its effectively misinformation

It is not misinformation. That's what the IFR death rate is. I guess influenza's .1% death rate is also effectively misinformation, since a disproportionate amount of deaths are from people that also are already at risk.

[nsacpi]

Tehteh has consistently shown this type of mental capacity in the past. He desperately wanted newk to be a TOR by now, Allard would be a top 25 guy, and many more examples. When more knowledgable people presented data contrary to what he wanted to believe, he would cling to whatever tidbit he felt backed up his claims.

Different topics, same flawed logical sequencing.

Yeah. Some weird inability (or unwillingness) to look at facts in a logical way.

[thethe]

It is not misinformation. That's what the IFR death rate is. I guess influenza's .1% death rate is also effectively misinformation, since a disproportionate amount of deaths are from people that also are already at risk.

I agree - It is.

[thethe]

One is considered essential and the other not.

The science has never been that one was safe and the other not. And for you to claim the science has done this is simply bad faith.

Places/businesness were deemed essential. Those that were not essential were deemed to be non-safe. Do you disagree?

[nsacpi]

It is not misinformation. That's what the IFR death rate is. I guess influenza's .1% death rate is also effectively misinformation, since a disproportionate amount of deaths are from people that also are already at risk.

IFR is a perfectly legitimate concept. It is not perfect or all-encompassing. It leaves out nuance that is sometimes important. But to call it misinformation, that's just another example of bad faith posting.

[Carp]

I agree - It is.

So then basically every disease/virus is misinforming, since the deaths from people at risk will always be higher than people who are not. Again, more useless information from you,