Damn. It's 6:45pm in Manhattan (Greenwich Village). Hearing a *whole* lot of sirens and helicopters. Gotta go out for my postdinner walk. Fingers crossed...
Damn. It's 6:45pm in Manhattan (Greenwich Village). Hearing a *whole* lot of sirens and helicopters. Gotta go out for my postdinner walk. Fingers crossed...
Fat hurts wrote:
But why are you complaining about lockdowns? There are no more lockdowns.
Didn't you hear? We are like Sweden now.
Thanks to the brave men and women who fought for their freedom!
And they achieved it without looting or burning down anything.
What have those looters and arsonists achieve dother than mobilizing President Trump's base?
President Trump is with the freedom fighters, Biden is with the looters and the arsonists!
It's obvious which man will win in November.
Make America Great Again! wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
But why are you complaining about lockdowns? There are no more lockdowns.
Didn't you hear? We are like Sweden now.
Thanks to the brave men and women who fought for their freedom!
And they achieved it without looting or burning down anything.
What have those looters and arsonists achieve dother than mobilizing President Trump's base?
President Trump is with the freedom fighters, Biden is with the looters and the arsonists!
It's obvious which man will win in November.
You mean the Trump who denied the virus, downplayed the threat despite warnings from his own advisers, sat on his hands for 2 months, failed to provide PPE for the front line health workers, left it all up to the states, and then wants to throw workers' lives at the virus to shore up the Dow? And blames everyone else for his screwups. I wonder why he keeps lagging in the polls behind Biden.
Trump has decided that he will invite Putin to the G7 summit because he has decided to add him back to the group. Never mind that there are six other members who get to vote. Because the summit in the US Putin gets in.
With the G7 to be the G6 -- the US will be voted out -- that leaves Trump and Putin to meet. They can create the T2. T for Trump because it must be branded the only acceptable way Trump knows.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Make America Great Again! wrote:
Thanks to the brave men and women who fought for their freedom!
And they achieved it without looting or burning down anything.
What have those looters and arsonists achieve dother than mobilizing President Trump's base?
President Trump is with the freedom fighters, Biden is with the looters and the arsonists!
It's obvious which man will win in November.
You mean the Trump who denied the virus, downplayed the threat despite warnings from his own advisers, sat on his hands for 2 months, failed to provide PPE for the front line health workers, left it all up to the states, and then wants to throw workers' lives at the virus to shore up the Dow? And blames everyone else for his screwups. I wonder why he keeps lagging in the polls behind Biden.
100,000 deaths from a man who said 15 cases would soon be zero and not to worry. Amazing that some people still support and believe(?) this guy.
Make America Great Again! wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
But why are you complaining about lockdowns? There are no more lockdowns.
Didn't you hear? We are like Sweden now.
Thanks to the brave men and women who fought for their freedom!
And they achieved it without looting or burning down anything.
What have those looters and arsonists achieve dother than mobilizing President Trump's base?
President Trump is with the freedom fighters, Biden is with the looters and the arsonists!
It's obvious which man will win in November.
Sally, you are a moron. Biden is not supporting looters. Trump is only with himself. Biden wins if he is breathing. You are a moron. Go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Make America Great Again! wrote:
Thanks to the brave men and women who fought for their freedom!
And they achieved it without looting or burning down anything.
What have those looters and arsonists achieve dother than mobilizing President Trump's base?
President Trump is with the freedom fighters, Biden is with the looters and the arsonists!
It's obvious which man will win in November.
You mean the Trump who denied the virus, downplayed the threat despite warnings from his own advisers, sat on his hands for 2 months, failed to provide PPE for the front line health workers, left it all up to the states, and then wants to throw workers' lives at the virus to shore up the Dow? And blames everyone else for his screwups. I wonder why he keeps lagging in the polls behind Biden.
Yes. That man! Sally bought Trump's crap too, downplaying the virus for far too long. Sally is a moron. Go away Sally. You are not interesting or insightful, and no one here respects you at all.
5/30 data
Another day of improvement.
7 day averages of daily deaths fell to another cyclical low in both the world and the US.
Lowest 7 day averages since the first week of April.
No changes in the rankings of nations or states. Of those I'm tracking.
Cases in California have started moving up sharply to new highs. But I try not to talk about cases because of the vagaries involved. Deaths in CA have been stable.
agip wrote:
Cases in California have started moving up sharply to new highs. But I try not to talk about cases because of the vagaries involved. Deaths in CA have been stable.
Deaths have their own vagaries though. It usually takes several weeks to die of the virus. So when you only look at deaths you are seeing a snapshot of what happened several weeks ago. It gives a poor sense of what is happening right now.
Also, deaths don't capture what really happened those weeks ago. A state that has a huge outbreak in a meat packing plant will have fewer deaths than a state with the same size outbreak in nursing homes.
Lastly, just like case data, the death data may be a large undercount because many who die at home are never tested.
Is death data more accurate than case data? At the beginning of the pandemic the answer was obviously "yes" because we were mainly testing the sickest patients and they were the ones most likely to die.
But now with more widespread testing it may be that the accuracy of case data is getting close to that of the death data.
It is proper to look at both cases and deaths. But, imo, case counts actually tell more of the story.
agip wrote:
5/30 data
Another day of improvement.
I'm not sure what state you live in, but COVID is very, very quickly becoming old news. No one really cares anymore outside of NYC and maybe one or two other major hot spots.
Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
Cases in California have started moving up sharply to new highs. But I try not to talk about cases because of the vagaries involved. Deaths in CA have been stable.
Deaths have their own vagaries though. It usually takes several weeks to die of the virus. So when you only look at deaths you are seeing a snapshot of what happened several weeks ago. It gives a poor sense of what is happening right now.
Also, deaths don't capture what really happened those weeks ago. A state that has a huge outbreak in a meat packing plant will have fewer deaths than a state with the same size outbreak in nursing homes.
Lastly, just like case data, the death data may be a large undercount because many who die at home are never tested.
Is death data more accurate than case data? At the beginning of the pandemic the answer was obviously "yes" because we were mainly testing the sickest patients and they were the ones most likely to die.
But now with more widespread testing it may be that the accuracy of case data is getting close to that of the death data.
It is proper to look at both cases and deaths. But, imo, case counts actually tell more of the story.
Nate silver has done a lot of work on cases and how to interpret them....my takeaway is that case data, while improved, is still very loosey goosey. There are so many problems with case data that I can't even list it. Some of the problem is that counties and states and nations report case data differnetly. Even Nate Silver, stats god, often just throws up his hands and says 'this probably doesn't represent what is actually happening in the world.' And he is a professional.
Death data is also inaccurate yes...states and countries have different definitions of 'death by covid' but it does seem more accurate than cases. Albeit lagging of course.
Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
5/30 data
Another day of improvement.
I'm not sure what state you live in, but COVID is very, very quickly becoming old news. No one really cares anymore outside of NYC and maybe one or two other major hot spots.
I live in a hard hit area so it's not old news in my world. But I hear you.
Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
5/30 data
Another day of improvement.
I'm not sure what state you live in, but COVID is very, very quickly becoming old news. No one really cares anymore outside of NYC and maybe one or two other major hot spots.
I hope you are wrong. If nobody cares any more then we are in for a very deadly, horrific fall.
agip wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Deaths have their own vagaries though. It usually takes several weeks to die of the virus. So when you only look at deaths you are seeing a snapshot of what happened several weeks ago. It gives a poor sense of what is happening right now.
Also, deaths don't capture what really happened those weeks ago. A state that has a huge outbreak in a meat packing plant will have fewer deaths than a state with the same size outbreak in nursing homes.
Lastly, just like case data, the death data may be a large undercount because many who die at home are never tested.
Is death data more accurate than case data? At the beginning of the pandemic the answer was obviously "yes" because we were mainly testing the sickest patients and they were the ones most likely to die.
But now with more widespread testing it may be that the accuracy of case data is getting close to that of the death data.
It is proper to look at both cases and deaths. But, imo, case counts actually tell more of the story.
Nate silver has done a lot of work on cases and how to interpret them....my takeaway is that case data, while improved, is still very loosey goosey. There are so many problems with case data that I can't even list it. Some of the problem is that counties and states and nations report case data differnetly. Even Nate Silver, stats god, often just throws up his hands and says 'this probably doesn't represent what is actually happening in the world.' And he is a professional.
Death data is also inaccurate yes...states and countries have different definitions of 'death by covid' but it does seem more accurate than cases. Albeit lagging of course.
I don't disagree, except that it is wrong to just throw up your hands and give up. Certainly, the data in some nations is so bad that it's useless. But we shouldn't say that about advanced nations like the US.
Remember that Nate is, first and foremost, a sports statistician. In the realm of sports, the data is extremely reliable. I'm sure that COVID-19 stats do drive him nuts. I suspect that other statisticians who are used to working with imprecise data find the COVID-19 stats to be pretty good.
Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
Nate silver has done a lot of work on cases and how to interpret them....my takeaway is that case data, while improved, is still very loosey goosey. There are so many problems with case data that I can't even list it. Some of the problem is that counties and states and nations report case data differnetly. Even Nate Silver, stats god, often just throws up his hands and says 'this probably doesn't represent what is actually happening in the world.' And he is a professional.
Death data is also inaccurate yes...states and countries have different definitions of 'death by covid' but it does seem more accurate than cases. Albeit lagging of course.
I don't disagree, except that it is wrong to just throw up your hands and give up. Certainly, the data in some nations is so bad that it's useless. But we shouldn't say that about advanced nations like the US.
Remember that Nate is, first and foremost, a sports statistician. In the realm of sports, the data is extremely reliable. I'm sure that COVID-19 stats do drive him nuts. I suspect that other statisticians who are used to working with imprecise data find the COVID-19 stats to be pretty good.
CORRECT! It is indeed very good for those who know what they are doing when it comes to this type of modeling.
P wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't disagree, except that it is wrong to just throw up your hands and give up. Certainly, the data in some nations is so bad that it's useless. But we shouldn't say that about advanced nations like the US.
Remember that Nate is, first and foremost, a sports statistician. In the realm of sports, the data is extremely reliable. I'm sure that COVID-19 stats do drive him nuts. I suspect that other statisticians who are used to working with imprecise data find the COVID-19 stats to be pretty good.
CORRECT! It is indeed very good for those who know what they are doing when it comes to this type of modeling.
It also usually takes months or even years after the fact to solidify trends like mortality rates and hospitalization rates.
Whether or not you really need 100% accurate info to make an informed decision is debatable though.
How they voted for this person is beyond me.
Racket wrote:
P wrote:
CORRECT! It is indeed very good for those who know what they are doing when it comes to this type of modeling.
It also usually takes months or even years after the fact to solidify trends like mortality rates and hospitalization rates.
Whether or not you really need 100% accurate info to make an informed decision is debatable though.
CORRECT!
Although I would argue (and it really doesn't seem debatable) that one does not need 100% accurate info to make informed decisions. Indeed, requiring 100% accuracy in nearly any field on nearly every topic would result in disastrous paralysis.
RacketPagipfattyFlaggy all lie wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XKQixjXAWkHow they voted for this person is beyond me.
It’s all good bro, Trump was good to his word, Hillary is locked up.