2020 Presidential Election Discussion

Originally posted by dadudemon
Found a slightly more recent study on who dies and what correlates to their deaths from the rona (in the world of rona, the best research is the most recent research because we keep learning more and more about it - some research done in the beginning is still spot on accurate, though):

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl1&pii=S2213-8587%2820%2930271-0

Looking at the BMI section, the higher your BMI, the more likely you are to die (that almost rhymes). The thinner you are except the "thinnest people", the less likely you are to die. But the thinnest folks starting seeing increased risk of mortality from the rona.

But it looks like the absolute best predictor of mortality from rona, in that table is age.

Kidney function had a strong correlation, too (eGFR).

Poverty seems like a big one, too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, and, my "theory" is a combination of other people's theories.

Looks like age, obesity, and water contamination (sewage contaminating the drinking water supply) are the causes/biggest risks.

Other research has debunked the myth about population density being a cause. I'll see if I can find that. It was a bit left-field for me but if that data says it, it's the data...can't argue with it. Also, this is the wrong thread for this convo.

You said

Originally posted by dadudemon
The fatter the people in the country, the more deadly it is.

Generally.

Everything else is overly dramatized hype.

There's no correlation that supports that claim other than the United States.

We will be better able to test your hypothesis now that Covid cases are beginning to take hold in the Pacific islands. They are the most obese nations.

Originally posted by Artol
Poverty seems like a big one, too.

You looking at the depravation quintile?

Yeah, if you make a ratio (the portion of the sample set against the portion of the mortality set), the poorest are 1.34 times more likely to die from the rona than their share of the sample set. Not very big but at these sizes of data, anything that makes it through the p-value measure is going to be significant (duh, I know, but 1.34 is so huge that you don't even need to check for statistical significance if you've done enough enough analysis of population statistics - you can just tell when the results are obvious like this).

The DQ figure, however, better tracks, negatively, against higher DQs (meaning, the correlation is slight at the lowest). At the highest, the ratio is 0.57. Meaning, being richer more closely correlates to mortality (inverse function).

Still, the ratio is not as marked as obesity and all the interrelated factors of obesity. And, of course, age being the most significant.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You said

There's no correlation that supports that claim other than the United States.

We will be better able to test your hypothesis now that Covid cases are beginning to take hold in the Pacific islands. They are the most obese nations.

That's incorrect. The data is in. We know what the factors are. Obesity and all the related health factors to obesity are the culprits. Of course, age is still the best predictor.

I think you're wanting it to be 1 to 1. When you do a regression analysis and plot it, you're not going to get a perfect set of dots. It will be all over the place. But you can complete a regression test. Bet you the data fits at .7 or more (r squared).

Yeah, and not even just age, but being over 80 in specific. Also did you see the big difference in Black people with Type 1 Diabetes in the test population and the deaths, more than 2 times.

A lot of interesting statistics.

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, and not even just age, but being over 80 in specific. Also did you see the big difference in Black people with Type 1 Diabetes in the test population and the deaths, more than 2 times.

A lot of interesting statistics.

I want more data. It's all great stuff. Not all obese people are unhealthy (well, jury is still out). I want sedentary obese people separated out from active and fitness-centric obese people. I bet you that data skews BIG time if you separate out the obesity types.

Yes, black people seem to have a specific set of risk factors that stand out from other race demographics such as diabetes. In medical science, "race" is still used to help patients avoid problems more commonly associated with their race.

Mine? Skin cancer from sunburns. Duh!

Originally posted by cdtm
He's no Bush '89.

He's easily more popular than any Bush ever was. 😉

It's weird, both trump and biden are the most popular of their parties in history

LOL@some of the socialist morons in this thread praising dumbass AOC. As if socialism or a UBI is gonna cure poverty lmao. No, what they will do is bankrupt our country... guaranteed.

It's sad that so many so-called educated people think socialism is better at raising people out of poverty than capitalism is. It's almost seems like history was not a part of their "education".

You poor, delusional fools. I almost pity you all who think socialism is gonna somehow magically cure everyone's financial problems... smh. ❌

I agree with who ever said she could be a potent politician

Its possible. The catch is some of the worst politicians in history were potent.

Originally posted by Surtur
I agree with who ever said she could be a potent politician

Its possible. The catch is some of the worst politicians in history were potent.

Nah, the only thing "potent" she could be is a potent dumbass loudmouth. It doesn't help her image that she has such a baby voice. No one can take a woman seriously who sounds like a six year old girl.

I said that. And yes you’re right. Her being a potent politician doesn’t mean she’d be good for the country necessarily.

She understands the game and how to play it quite well already. Once she learns when to be quiet or when she wises up a little she’ll be formidable.

Nah, she'll never be formidable lol. Trump is formidable. AOC is a joke and always will be.

AOC is a joke, she's dumb, has no idea how the real world operates.

And Capitalism is the greatest system ever created.

People have a much higher standard of life today than ever before.

Anyone who wants to argue that, will fail.

Originally posted by wxyz

And Capitalism is the greatest system ever created.

People have a much higher standard of life today than ever before.

Anyone who wants to argue that, will fail.

Yeah, I mean Karl Marx agrees with you, one of his main points was that capitalism has created more wealth and fortune than any system ever before, surely much much more than the feudalism that preceded it.

I would argue that since the beginnings of this capitalism there has actually been a new system, one that almost all nations are now, that has really brought this wealth and prosperity to more people than ever before, and that is the mixed economy, the mix between capitalism and socialism, that in the US was represented by the New Deal and that in Europe is represented by the Welfare States. That is what really has brought wealth to many people.

Sadly over the last 40 years a lot of these advantages have been pushed back by wealthy interests, so that many people nowadays are worse off than their parents were. That’s why it is time for a new new deal, a renewal of the commitment to the welfare of all people, imo.

Words like capitalism and socialism have lost their meaning.

Socialism seizes the means of production and centralizes power. It destined to fail, almost by design. There are no European countries that are socialist. Social safety nets and regulation are not socialism or anti-capitalism. For capitalism to thrive, we need anti-trust regulations, small amounts of safety nets that encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship are also vital. Regulatory capture, wealth inequality, and power consolidation are the end result of socialism ironically.

The last few years has seen wealth inequality skyrocket and power consolidate among the 0.01% because capitalism is being replaced with some idiotic little brother. Regulations have been removed, anti-trust laws have no teeth to them anymore. Even the bailout of the banks, what is that if not socialism? What about the perpetual QE, and low interest rate environment? It is a form of corporate welfare. We have so many zombie companies, and rate of productivity is declining.

I think its ironic AF that people go to places like Occupy Wall Street and fly the hammer and sickle. In a socialist country, the exact same outcome would occur (People in power bailed out). The only difference? You'd be shot and your family would be sent to the gulags.

China is closer to communism but even they realized that a system designed after capitalism is far superior and have had much more wealth created and have overcome some of the pitfalls made during the Mao era. Unfortunately Xi is consolidating power at a rate not seen since Mao. That fear is causing some problems already (The spread of coronavirus being a great example).

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, I mean Karl Marx agrees with you, one of his main points was that capitalism has created more wealth and fortune than any system ever before, surely much much more than the feudalism that preceded it.

I would argue that since the beginnings of this capitalism there has actually been a new system, one that almost all nations are now, that has really brought this wealth and prosperity to more people than ever before, and that is the mixed economy, the mix between capitalism and socialism, that in the US was represented by the New Deal and that in Europe is represented by the Welfare States. That is what really has brought wealth to many people.

Sadly over the last 40 years a lot of these advantages have been pushed back by wealthy interests, so that many people nowadays are worse off than their parents were. That’s why it is time for a new new deal, a renewal of the commitment to the welfare of all people, imo.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Words like capitalism and socialism have lost their meaning.

Socialism seizes the means of production and centralizes power. It destined to fail, almost by design. There are no European countries that are socialist. Social safety nets and regulation are not socialism or anti-capitalism. For capitalism to thrive, we need anti-trust regulations, small amounts of safety nets that encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship are also vital. Regulatory capture, wealth inequality, and power consolidation are the end result of socialism ironically.

The last few years has seen wealth inequality skyrocket and power consolidate among the 0.01% because capitalism is being replaced with some idiotic little brother. Regulations have been removed, anti-trust laws have no teeth to them anymore. Even the bailout of the banks, what is that if not socialism? What about the perpetual QE, and low interest rate environment? It is a form of corporate welfare. We have so many zombie companies, and rate of productivity is declining.

I think its ironic AF that people go to places like Occupy Wall Street and fly the hammer and sickle. In a socialist country, the exact same outcome would occur (People in power bailed out). The only difference? You'd be shot and your family would be sent to the gulags.

China is closer to communism but even they realized that a system designed after capitalism is far superior and have had much more wealth created and have overcome some of the pitfalls made during the Mao era. Unfortunately Xi is consolidating power at a rate not seen since Mao. That fear is causing some problems already (The spread of coronavirus being a great example).

This is why I always describe myself as a unionist as for me union collectivism is key and led to most of the changes in Europe discussed. Although people like the Quaker Cadbury are also reasons.

I would like to point out that wealth inequality is fair.

A person who works harder and smarter should make more, and have more than a person who does not.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Regulatory capture, wealth inequality, and power consolidation are the end result of socialism ironically.

Originally posted by wxyz
I would like to point out that wealth inequality is fair.

A person who works harder and smarter should make more, and have more than a person who does not.

Also it's important to note that from a historical context we can see that once income inequality hits a certain threshold it generally means bad things for that country.