Will Joe Biden be the next president?

[Jon]

I do love that informationisbeautiful link provided by @Micron. Lots of pretty colours and visualised data. I like it.

 

[Isaac]

I do love that informationisbeautiful link provided by @Micron. Lots of pretty colours and visualised data. I like it.

Is it the information or the viz that's beautiful? LOL. J/k

 

[Deleted member 147267]

I don't think the cartoon renders this data meaningless and wrong

The study shows that all data is wrong. Thus the study itself can only result in a conclusion that is wrong, unless perhaps one takes the view that the study has no data in it because it's just facts and information and not numbers. We don't know that, but regardless, the dictionary definition of data is

facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

therefore I take the view that the study is data, albeit factual. The panel says "all data is wrong" so that's my take on it. No one has to agree with that, but I do agree with what you say was probably the intended message.

I cannot answer the question as to whether or not all deaths reported as covid related in India are accurate determinations. If they die of covid and don't report it, then the numbers are actually worse. If they are reported as covid related and are not, then the numbers are not as bad. Ask yourself where they are compared to the US if they are 10% over-reported. All statistical information will be pigeonholed into whatever view that fits both the viewer and the compiler IMO.

 

[Isaac]

The study shows that all data is wrong. Thus the study itself can only result in a conclusion that is wrong, unless perhaps one takes the view that the study has no data in it because it's just facts and information and not numbers. We don't know that, but regardless, the dictionary definition of data is
therefore I take the view that the study is data, albeit factual. The panel says "all data is wrong" so that's my take on it. No one has to agree with that, but I do agree with what you say was probably the intended message.

I think that is over-thinking the cartoon. Cartoons are meant to make a point, get a "gist" across...not be semantically perfect philosophical statements. The point it was making is simply the frustration of a fact of life: That "studies" which are thought to disprove previous "studies" are successively generated...
Monday I publish a study. Tuesday's study corrects Monday's study. Wednesday's study corrects Tuesday's study. By Friday you're at least seeing an irony here, right? It was just making a point, not really saying that one study proves all other studies are wrong.

I cannot answer the question as to whether or not all deaths reported as covid related in India are accurate determinations. If they die of covid and don't report it, then the numbers are actually worse. If they are reported as covid related and are not, then the numbers are not as bad. Ask yourself where they are compared to the US if they are 10% over-reported. All of the statistical information will be pigeonholed into whatever view that fits both the viewer and the compiler.

I would say I am in agreement with you on these statements. And a plausible "off reporting" might easily be something like 40% under-reported.

But yes, with huge data differences, we can make some cautious inferences more safely. With closer ones, well, we can continue to make inferences, as long as we recognize the margin of error and are comfortable acting.

 

[Steve R.]

I think that is over-thinking the cartoon. Cartoons are meant to make a point, get a "gist" across...not be semantically perfect philosophical statements. The point it was making is simply the frustration of a fact of life: That "studies" which are thought to disprove previous "studies" are successively generated...
Monday I publish a study. Tuesday's study corrects Monday's study. Wednesday's study corrects Tuesday's study. By Friday you're at least seeing an irony here, right? It was just making a point, not really saying that one study proves all other studies are wrong.

Exactly.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have to presume that the Dilbert-related study was initiated by liberals with an agenda to undercut Trump's sudden decision that "masks are useful."

(couldn't find a smilie with "tongue in cheek.")

 

[Deleted member 147267]

I think that is over-thinking the cartoon.

Not at all; it was immediately apparent to me. I have to wonder why you thought I needed an explanation of what a cartoon is for though. I completely understand the intention but I see an ironic situation in it. IMO I'm no more wrong about how I perceive that than someone who sees a child's finger painting in a landscape by an accomplished master.

Doc_Man, is this close enough?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Micron, its the same smilie I used.

 

[Isaac]

Not at all; it was immediately apparent to me. I have to wonder why you thought I needed an explanation of what a cartoon is for though. I completely understand the intention but I see an ironic situation in it. IMO I'm no more wrong about how I perceive that than someone who sees a child's finger painting in a landscape by an accomplished master.

Doc_Man, is this close enough?

well, I just saw a half-dozen people making posts acting like they didn't understand the point of the cartoon and figured I'd make sure it was clear

 

[Deleted member 147267]

Micron, its the same smilie I used.

Dang! it got lost in the huge list.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

I just saw a half-dozen people making posts acting like they didn't understand the point of the cartoon and figured I'd make sure it was clear

I think they just were able to see the irony of it along with myselfish.

 

[Isaac]

I think they just were able to see the irony of it along with myselfish.

Hmm, to me it looked more like people disagreeing with the obvious message the cartoon was sending (take "science" with a grain of salt"), and then acting as if the cartoon just made no sense at all because they didn't want to concede its point.

Now maybe I see what you mean. I have to admit, these online conversations ... a lot can get lost in translation. If I was guilty of totally misunderstanding you/people's intent behind some posts, I apologize...

 

[Deleted member 147267]

I have to admit, these online conversations ... a lot can get lost in translation.

No harm, no foul. Your comment is one reason why I dislike texting and don't use social media AT ALL. There is no way you can expect everyone to always completely understand the written word when it has no inflection, intonation or any other kind of vocal emphasis. I think the reason I had any support at all is because those people could see the same irony as me. Anyone who can't is neither right or wrong IMO.

 

[Isaac]

and here I was silly enough to think you were making a political statement about the cartoon itself
perhaps I was influenced by

Wait, never mind. The cartoon renders this data as meaningless and wrong. It's obviously Democratic propaganda.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

Sarcasm at it's best.
Now if you were listening when I typed that, you would have recognized it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The cartoon in an of itself makes enough of a political statement that it should cause hundreds of government employees in higher echelons to blush in shame. I cannot begin to tell you just how many government-funded studies (a) make no sense to begin with and (b) then come to a totally bizarre conclusion.

 

[deletedT]

If you have symptoms, you need to isolate yourself. Don't go out and infect me.

For sure. You've misunderstood the concept of using masks.
Wear mask doesn't mean go out into public even if you're infected. Wear mask means even if you think you're not infected, use a mask. Because you don't know for sure you're OK or not. And you don't know if the one who is standing by your side is OK.

If you sneeze into your mask are you going to leave it on? That would be pretty disgusting. Do you carry a spare? Are you going to whip it up and sneeze into your elbow or your hand?

Pat, I don't blame you for not knowing this. But instead of denying, you could simply ask and one could simply answer.
Every one of us, uses (I don't know what do you call it in English) facial tissue paper between the mask and our mouth. We also carry spare tissue with us (just like you have handkerchief in your pocket). So anytime we do squeeze or cough, we replace the tissue. If in a building, we also wash our hands and our face too.
And yes, every one of us carries spare masks. Why not? At times, depending on my activity, I use 4 or 5 masks daily. Just like you may change your underwear several times a day depending on your activity. Mostly I use one mask each day, but I have a spare pack (5 masks) with me.
It's one of our sayings: You don't know what is waiting for you when you go out. Then be prepared.

the experts universally agreed that the masks available to the public did NOT stop viruses. That hasn't changed. Unless you're wearing an N95 (down to around $6 a pop) and changing it every couple of hours, you get no virus protection from masks.

Someone in response to my #PoliceBrutality answered Nothing is perfect. We are not perfect either.
Are you looking for a perfect solution here? You won't ever find it. Because nothing is perfect. Not even those N95 types. But as I answered there, I answer the same here. We are not perfect. But we can try to find the best solution near to perfection.
@Jon said it above, I say it again. Is the way you wash your hand perfect? Is the way you brush your teeth every night perfect? No, but you do them. As closely to perfection as you can. A surgeon washes his hands for more than 15 minutes before a surgery. Then wears two surgery gloves. That's the perfect way to prevent a patient of infection. How long do you take to wash yours.
So stop brushing your teeth, because the way you do it is not perfect. (And how silly this can seem)
There are a million things that we do everyday and none of them is perfect. But we try to do them the best way we can. We don't stop them saying it's not the perfect way.
Just like using a mask. A mask is not perfect. But assume it saves your health against 30% of getting infected situations.

 

[moke123]

 

[Pat Hartman]

I have a woodworking mask with a valve that are supposed to be very effective.

Check the specs. Does it say it stops viruses? What is the smallest size particle it will stop? If it is larger than the COVID virus, it isn't actually protecting you. Think chain link fence/mosquito. If wearing a mask that does not stop viruses makes you feel safe, then by all means wear it. Just don't force me to buy into the lie.

when faced with a choice as to how much credibility to give a momentary scientific conclusion, it is totally reasonable to factor in how many times the conclusions have gone back-and-forth on a particular issue.

I can't tell you how happy I was when I found out I could eat eggs again You still can't eat mushrooms but I don't care about that because I don't like mushrooms The Experts have been wrong about this virus from day 1. They started out with a model that predicted millions would die and the US and some of the rest of the world went into a tailspin. Most of us here are software developers. I'm pretty sure you all understand that when you feed your model garbage, that is what it produces. And that is what we have here. NONE of the models have even come close to predicting the number or severity of infections. So far, the reality of COVID in the US is it is approximately 50% worse than a really bad flu season which makes it pretty dangerous. We don't even consider shutting down the world for flu.

My issue is that the media is intentionally trying to frighten people. Otherwise why would American TV be so obsessed with the count of the infected? That number is a red herring when taken in isolation. Who cares how many people are infected? That number only reflects the breadth of the testing program. The more people you test, the more people will test positive. DUH!! So the news announcing 18,000 more cases today in giant headlines is nothing but scare tactics. It's what the tabloids used to do to sell copies to people standing in the checkout lines. Remember, if it bleeds, it leads. We need to know how many people tested positive and how many are ill? How many people are in the hospital? How many people are dying and what is the statistical breakdown of who dies so we can determine who is most at risk? The vast majority of people who test positive actually have NO symptoms and that is extremely relevant. By extrapolation, we can then determine if we are at particular risk and need to protect ourselves. The media does not want us to know that proportionally fewer people are dying considering the rise in infection rates. THAT is what is important! That is what they do not want people to know. Ask yourself why? I have my opinion. Please form your own. I'm afraid that the world-wide media has been infected with the CNN disease. These people have forgotten that reporters report FACTS. Who, What, Where, When. You never know the opinion of a real reporter when it comes to something political. Reporters when reporting on some unfolding story ALWAYS verified their sources and refused to publish if the story couldn't be confirmed. So much for that. Now if someone posts a staged photo or video on Facebook, it's all over CNN, CNBC, and all the rest of the main stream outlets, no fact checking required. We know the opinion of every talking head in the media but they never give us the facts. Facts are no longer relevant. The only thing relevant is the talking head's opinion.

We do need an accurate count of the infected so we can use it as the denominator when calculating the rate of death. That's why it is so wrong for states to lie about their counts. If you count auto accidents (which they are) as COVID deaths, how to you actually know how deadly this disease actually is. If you count seasonal flu deaths as COVID, you are actively trying to terrify us and the media has actually succeeded. That is why you see people driving alone in their cars wearing masks or running their daily 5 miles wearing a mask. Running with a mask on is actually dangerous if you think about it. If you count everyone tested as "positive", how do you know the percentage of the population who is infected?

And never forget, it is not dangerous for you to join Antifa and BLM to "peacefully" protest as you burn down businesses, attack the police with bats and bricks and other dangerous projectiles, and deface and destroy public monuments, but don't you dare go to church! Going to church is DANGEROUS. Singing especially is not allowed. But don't worry, it's still OK to shout obscenities at the police.

 

[Isaac]

I will support some things Pat has said - namely, the implication that shutdowns have been executed in extremely erratic and sometimes downright discriminatory ways. The idea that a church cannot be open--even when that church is willing to 100% social distance and wear masks--but a relatively crowded Walmart can. Is that the case everywhere? No, I am just cherry picking certain instances that have troubled people. I attend a church in Arizona that social distances, checks temperature at the door, and encourages mask wearing (they went to 'mandates mask wearing', when our county mandated it). I would submit that the situation inside that church was very well controlled compared to a Walmart! Needless to say, for families who are church-goers, that experience is a critical component of mental health and well being.

I also have been presented with arguments that challenge the notion that the only priority we ought to have is preserving life from the threat of Covid. I allow myself to think deeply about those arguments because they carry weight. In fact, I'll even use a page out of the abortion advocates playbook (despite not being in their camp myself), who often point out that if life is precious, why does it sometimes seem like anti-abortion advocates are only concerned about the beginning of it, rather than the middle. Using that same concept, I have to admit that people losing their jobs, going bankrupt, being evicted, and experiencing a shutdown that incurs them YEARS' worth of debt that they may never become solvent again from without legislative intervention, is an absolutely terrifying, enormous, life-altering, life-ruining thing. All of the children who come from troubled homes, whose only reprieve (or chance at reporting abuse) is at SCHOOL have had that taken away from them, and are now drowning in a pool of their home environment's making.

In California: A recent study published with the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that the state’s shelter-in-place order resulted in 1,661 fewer deaths, which, the authors reasoned, works out to “about 400 job losses per life saved.” That statement should, at the very least, give us great pause.

This balancing of economy, quality of life, and COVID-19 is very difficult. I don't pretend to have many answers.