Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Then why did the non partisan Pew Research have a headline that made it political?

 

I don't know either and I've been a part of it. Best I can tell, a couple of guys are saying the numbers are no big deal because it's all old people. And that the numbers are wrong anyway because occasionally someone gets classified as a covid-19 death when they shouldn't be. Oh, and there were a lot of flu deaths in 2018.

 

You forgot to mention that everyone should stay inside until November so that guarantees that Trump loses in November.

Oh, and that all the states that open early will have huge breakouts of Covid19.

 

I can’t speak for them. I wasn’t actually trying to stir something up here. I’m expressing an opinion that we need to be careful with what we think data is telling us, particularly if we are trying to make a political point.

The phrase “There are lies, damn lies and statistics” applies to all of us of any political stripe.

With a whole lot of this stuff there are a ton of factors moving the numbers. When we try to point at one thing, like political affiliation, we should be careful that there are not a bunch of other factors at play as well.

In this case, those NY numbers were a massive part of the total. If they are declining, any subcategory they impact will move with it. I thought it was worth noting. I’m not arguing for or against a policy or party. I’m politely affixing a warning label to the data.

 

Pointing out the truth is biased?

 

I haven't seen any posts calling for everyone to stay inside until November. Mostly it's just been your 'old people don't matter' posts.

 

Show me where I said old people don't matter. I'll wait...

 

The truth? Good one. Reveals your bias as well.

 

I agree NY was a massive part of the total. But, nursing home deaths are almost 50% of the total deaths in the US. That decision alone to send Covid19+ patients back to nursing homes will cost thousands of lives. Trump should've led better by having a mandate, directive whatever you want to call it and the Governors should've under no circumstances sent someone back into the worst possible place to spread Coronavirus.

 

What in those charts is untrue?

 

I won't waste my time arguing with someone being purposely obtuse.

 

You are quite right. Clearly, all I care about are the minions going back to work to make me my millions!

Also, I have no regard for human life.

Because these are the easy counter-arguments to make when you haven't much faith in your own statements.

See more below

 

Your TDS is flaring up again

 

I'm sorry, but this amounts to not much more than virtue signaling. You don't get to critique the discussion while staying above the fray as though it is somehow beneath your dignity. You are either in the discussion, or you are not. The entirety of the last several pages amounts to precisely how to do what you are describing.

 

Ah, well that at least gives me some context. I suppose that they see these shutdowns as a tyrannical power grab. Again, this is me supposing. I may be very wrong here.

On the other hand, shutting everything down and ordering people to remain inside without any clear goals or timeline does open itself up to that kind of thinking. At the very least, I can see the idea in what they are doing. Still not sure why they needed to show up as though they were deploying for battle.

I still wouldn't judge the entire population of gun owning citizens on the basis of 30 people. Even these 30 people still count. They may be a bit odd, but they are still people.

 

That's funny. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and won't be voting for him 2020. But you carry on.

 

Excellent point. It's why outliers are often excluded from analysis.

 

Fair point for discussion. In my mind, because it's an ongoing/developing situation, it's misleading to draw a conclusion based on only the preliminary data results. The only conclusion we can really draw is that someone under 24 had a "1 in a million" chance of dying in the first two months of the outbreak.

But I think doing so today is like giving up a touchdown in the first quarter and loudly proclaiming: "Our defense only gives up 7pts a game!". Well, that's great, but the game ain't over yet.

We certainly expect more people to be infected over time until there's a viable vaccine or herd immunity is achieved. The death rate for those infected isn't likely to change much unless we come up with new treatments and therapies. Only a small percentage of the population has been infected, and they tend to be clustered. Miami-Dade showed an infection rate of about 6% in a recent random study. NYC is thought to be around 20% a few weeks ago. Other places could be much lower. If we look at the death rate of those known to have been infected, we can infer how many could potentially die as the infected counts grow. That's your actual risk. (I don't have the data in front of me to do that computation right now.)

I fully admit that my 88/600k is a bit oversimplified, as it only captures the chance of death once infected. I just think 88/100M+ is oversimplified in the other direction. The real number is somewhere in the middle. I can say with some confidence that it's not "one in a million".

 

That reminds me of George Bernard Shaw quote. “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”