Pelosi referred to covid-19 as the "Trump Virus" and Trumpers are losing it. Too funny, so easily trolled.
But according to the people that became Trumpers, this would be the 'Trump Virus' as all blame on the Ebola outbreak as it related to America an Americans was placed on Obama as he was POTUS at the time. Turn about is still fair play I assume.
To be a bit cheeky despite current circumstances is that I've yet to read reports of people contracting COVID-19 as a direct result from going to the gym.
On a side note, while living in Arizona, the new suspension still doesn't make too much sense to me as dine in restaurants are still open w/o liquor licenses suspended: making it not that far off from bars that are closed in response to the sharp increase in cases/deaths.
Also most grocery stores are able to open without having an occupancy limit: which leads to crowded Coscos and Walmarts. Even with the mask is anything really at a halt if distancing isn't enforced?
Just some observations I've made during all of this.
Originally posted by Gehenna
Don't worry about that.It doesn't matter if it's about time for you. Text responses take me about 30-45 minutes (sometimes less), which is why I offered for us to stop if you couldn't engage in a text-to-text dialogue. If you cannot fathom this or understand how someone could do something differently than you, that's fine but I don't think it means you have to go "well too bad" or laugh in response. It's a really weird and pointlessly antagonistic means to respond to somebody.
Also, there isn't much out there that offends me but there's a baseline of mutual respect within conversations that I'm used with the individuals I typically decide to talk to so it was surprising, despite the fact that I accounted for things like this coming back to KMC (that would obviously be a factor in a community like this) to have a discussion.
I have not conceded a thing. India is not proof that lockdowns did not work. Since there's not a counterfactual, the assessment is utterly of no worth. The Philippines was brought up when in the context of masks, you said:
And I proceeded to explain why that doesn't tell us anything here:
You then went head and claimed that the Filipino government was engaging in:
... of mask wearing and did so bereft of evidence.
It's so strange that you say this and seem to appeal to science a lot but don't seem to understand that lab results can definitely possess external validity. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific than "snot and spit getting everywhere" to explain why the basic result of masks preventing substantial droplet expulsion doesn't matter for external validity.
The study's not biased but rather you have misunderstood it. They would not have hit a peak 4-8 days later. This makes no sense. I'm not sure if you just didn't read what I quote but I'll take it from the study once more. I didn't ignore a thing you wrote. So, once more:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30201-7/fulltext
[/i]
You're thoroughly, and I mean thoroughly as in totally/completely/utterly/whatever, wrong about your 4-8 day estimate. This is explained within the study and there's no other way around it.
This definitively corresponds to my argument. As I wrote in our last back-and-forth:
So, regardless of the measure you utilize, the same pattern is imitated, demonstrating the efficacy of the Italy lockdown. This supports my position.
Have a cross-country regression handy that demonstrates this, DDM?
Because this is exactly what happened among the Scandivanian countries, which are actually quite comparable and suffer from fewer of the issues you'd run into with cross-country regressions normally: https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/CovidEconomics26.pdf#page=22
So this point of yours is also incorrect.
This is not the claim I've made, DDM. As you can observe above, it clearly mattered relative to it's more comparable neighbors. I would never ignorantly compare death statistics across countries like this, not sans a significant caveat. The more comparable the countries and the more thorough/rigorous the analysis? The better.
Uh, what?
This doesn't contradict the study [b]at all
since the study makes zero comments about Italy's outbreak in comparison to Sweden's, only the effect of lockdowns inside of Italy. It is empirical so I'm not sure why you'd ever deny that. If we compare Sweden to more comparable countries? It becomes very clear that failure to lockdown costed them.You're not getting it.
Healthcare coverage was THE primary mediating variable for the relationship between unemployment and increased cancer death. Due to this relationship, we know that "deaths from unemployment" are significantly less of a problem in countries with universal health care or countries that provided individuals with the resources necessary to cover out-of-pocket costs when they lost coverage. [/B]
Originally posted by Gehenna
This comparison is invalid. The policy enivronment differs, the macroeconomic conditions differ, and the austerity presence differs. This standard of evidence is tremendously insufficient. You cannot apply the lancet paper to current conditions absent of greater rigor, DDM.So...
The Imperial College model provided that estimate for a thoroughly unmitigated disease-spread. This means nothing, no lockdowns, no masks, and not even protection of the vulnerable like you advocate for. It's crystal clear why they obtained that result: The problem was the uncritical magnification of this result by the [b]media
, who you ironically chastised for doing this earlier and went in hard on them (the media) for but have appeared to have directly fallen for yourself.Concerning Ferguson himself? He's across-the-board unfairly maligned, which I've brought up already:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/#comment-1331901Well, then you cannot disagree that pandemic UI is instrumental in reductions of any deaths, whether they come from lack healthcare coverage or something else entirely.
DDM, no.
I'm contesting the specific piece of evidence you proffered which demonstrates healthcare coverage was the primary mediating variable, and then I'm contextualizing why. Due to this mediating variable, it is beyond nonsensical to generalize the lancet research to this current situation.
No joke? You've substantiated almost nothing. It's really bad.
While based upon a misguided assessment of the disease, his belief turned out to be correct. Empirically, the virus' spread can be curtailed with things like lockdowns or test and trace. We've seen overwhelmingly strong evidence of this across many different countries. It is abjectly wrong that it wasn't possible to curtail the spread and, in many places, that has been accomplished.
No.
The lockdwosn didn't really do a whole lot to the economies of any country but rather it was apprehension concerning the virus. This is practically consensus, at this point. We can observe this between Denmark and Sweden seen here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.04630.pdf
It's a result that has been discovered in a variety of places. The paper I provided earlier discusses the similarity of projections for growth among Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in 2020 and 2021. Norway is not the only Scandinavian country and the difference-in-difference estimation I gave provides a causal inference that the lockdowns were life-saving.
And in Denmark? Greater density still than in Sweden.
Now, you can make this kind of comparison but, clearly, the exact same thing applies to Italy and Sweden, further invalidating your above comparison, which, to be honest? Was already of no worth. You can certainly identify population density as a confounder, and I'd partially agree, but it doesn't explain the discrepancy between Denmark, which is much more dense, and Sweden.
It's also not likely to account for the entirety of the difference.
It seems to depend on the state. Kerala as much better at it than most and has police who have solid community relations.
Yes, density and low levels of development tremendously exacerbate the virus' consequence.
Possibly, though India is a young country and I'm certain they are doing quite a bit of pooled testing. It'll be interesting to see how it fares between states. I think Kerala will be a success story. [/B]
I feel like your approach to conversation is too narrow and you like to pick apart sentence by sentence. That's too much of a waste of time. And it has led to you being caught up in either dishonest "internet debate tactics" or just you not being able to follow along well enough to honestly represent content.
If you want to continue this discussion, we can hold the debate live over webcam and I'll record it.
Other than that, this is not a 'discussion' that's fruitful. This is just you being a contrarian and wasting my time. I'm sure you feel the same. I don't have time to read your posts then make a video to respond to it. And if I was to take the 2-4 hours it takes to type out a response, that'd be horrendous. You are not worthy of that much of my time - seriously, only my wife deserves that.
Here's what we have done: you agree lockdowns don't work but are still flip-floppy about it. That's fair-enough. I'm not too sure on the science regarding it, as well.
You agree masks generally don't work but choose to err on the side of caution just in case they do work - we don't necessarily disagree and we even agree the policy should be strongly encouraged but not mandated. So there's nothing to talk about there. There will be a debate on the 24th regarding the efficacy of masks, here:
The lockdowns were always about slowing the spread of the virus to prevent our healthcare facilities from being overwhelmed and it is possible that in some cases, this actually worked - the spreading slowed.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext#%20
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
So what do you want to tackle?
Skip all the other stuff we've talked about because it's just gross and a waste of my time. I don't like the line-by-line contrarian approach.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Dude what confirmation bias?You think the cases magically went down on their own?
If you look at how rapidly the cases were multiplying in March and April it was insane.
We don't have anything close to herd immunity as only 6.5% of the population has caught it.
Again we are not even close to herd immunity so I don't know where you are getting that from about deaths.
The masks will slow down a second spike.
I will watch your video, but whose it by? Both the British Medical Association and the CDC have stated masks are needed. So Who is your video by to disagree?
The science is quite clear. A mask massively reduces the chances of you passing on droplets to someone else. If the other person is also wearing a mask then it just decreases the chances even more of him catching your droplets.
And you only have to look at places like Japan and North Korea (both right next to China) to see how effective masks are.
Videos are by me and it covers great content and arguments from Sorgo and I. We cover everything you and I are talking about. Sorgo also posted what I think is a high-quality study on lockdowns and I have a very good rebuttal to their conclusions.
Also, if you look at countries that did not lockdown, their infections and fatalities closely mirror those countries that did not lockdown. With fatalities per million actually being less (I question this correlation as I think there are confounding variables at play which makes the correlation questionable even if the r value is greater than .4) in countries with no lockdowns.
Edit - Also, I stopped engaging Sorgo on this as it's getting too much into the bullshittery internet debate territory and is focusing less on the relevant content. I might make a follow-up vid that has nothing to do with Sorgo's and my "conversation" and only to do with the science of the disease, masks, lockdowns, and other public policies.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel like your approach to conversation is too narrow and you like to pick apart sentence by sentence. That's too much of a waste of time. And it has led to you being caught up in either dishonest "internet debate tactics" or just you not being able to follow along well enough to honestly represent content.
I reject the notion I've been doing this and would ask it be demonstrated before a random, vague claim about it is made. It means nothing if it's not backed up. It's just aimless shit-talk.
You haven't really been able to follow the conversation, is the chief issue here (if you were to ask me where or how, I would show you immediately, just to clarify).
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to continue this discussion, we can hold the debate live over webcam and I'll record it.
For reasons I stated earlier that you might have ignored, and especially after the nature of this conversation with you, this would certainly be an unproductive idea. I'm partial to having live conversations but it's via a person-by-person basis depending on who I am dealing with.
Plus, it's weird you'd expect me to adhere to these conditions after ignoring that I wanted to maintain a text-to-text conversation, laughed about my request and said it was "too bad", and continued to respond to me in video/audio format after I said we could halt our conversation if going text-to-text was uncomfortable for you. I was even respectful enough, despite you ignoring this request, to continue responding to you even when you did this.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Other than that, this is not a 'discussion' that's fruitful. This is just you being a contrarian and wasting my time. I'm sure you feel the same. I don't have time to read your posts then make a video to respond to it. And if I was to take the 2-4 hours it takes to type out a response, that'd be horrendous. You are not worthy of that much of my time - seriously, only my wife deserves that.
Moving on,
Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's what we have done: you agree lockdowns don't work but are still flip-floppy about it. That's fair-enough. I'm not too sure on the science regarding it, as well.
This is something you need to stop saying and I'll be extremely clear concerning this: Lockdowns work extremely well to curtail the spread of COVID-19, reduce deaths, and are responsible for minimized economic harms. This has been my position and it has ALWAYS been my position. I don't know why you've chosen to misrepresent my view on this when it is extremely clear. It's all there.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You agree masks generally don't work but choose to err on the side of caution just in case they do work
Why on Earth are you saying this? I have never said this. My position is that the evidence demonstrates that masks prevent expulsion of droplets and, for that reason, they should be donned in public places.
It seems like you think I have opinions I simply do not have. There's never going to be a point where I just back down on these positions because you state your opinion concerning them and say their mine. I'll be charitable and not claim this is, hypocritically, dishonest debate tactics but I find it very strange.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The lockdowns were always about slowing the spread of the virus to prevent our healthcare facilities from being overwhelmed and it is possible that in some cases, this actually worked - the spreading slowed.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext#%20
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
The medxriv study is another piece that has not gone through peer review. Here's a study on NPIs, lockdowns included, in Europe that has been accepted for publication: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorgo also posted what I think is a high-quality study on lockdowns and I have a very good rebuttal to their conclusions.
SE Cupp: Trump's briefings are a total waste of time -- ours and his
YouTube video
Yup and it has nothing to do with the fact I find her sexy.
Originally posted by Gehenna
I reject the notion I've been doing this and would ask it be demonstrated before a random, vague claim about it is made. It means nothing if it's not backed up. It's just aimless shit-talk.You haven't really been able to follow the conversation, is the chief issue here (if you were to ask me where or how, I would show you immediately, just to clarify).
For reasons I stated earlier that you might have ignored, and especially after the nature of this conversation with you, this would certainly be an unproductive idea. I'm partial to having live conversations but it's via a person-by-person basis depending on who I am dealing with.
Plus, it's weird you'd expect me to adhere to these conditions after ignoring that I wanted to maintain a text-to-text conversation, laughed about my request and said it was "too bad", and continued to respond to me in video/audio format after I said we could halt our conversation if going text-to-text was uncomfortable for you. I was even respectful enough, despite you ignoring this request, to continue responding to you even when you did this.
Moving on,
This is something you need to stop saying and I'll be extremely clear concerning this: Lockdowns work [b]extremely
well to curtail the spread of COVID-19, reduce deaths, and are responsible for minimized economic harms. This has been my position and it has ALWAYS been my position. I don't know why you've chosen to misrepresent my view on this when it is extremely clear. It's all there.Why on Earth are you saying this? I have never said this. My position is that the evidence demonstrates that masks prevent expulsion of droplets and, for that reason, they should be donned in public places.
It seems like you think I have opinions I simply do not have. There's never going to be a point where I just back down on these positions because you state your opinion concerning them and say their mine. I'll be charitable and not claim this is, hypocritically, dishonest debate tactics but I find it very strange.
The medxriv study is another piece that has not gone through peer review. Here's a study on NPIs, lockdowns included, in Europe that has been accepted for publication: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7
You can send me the refutation, if you so choose to, but it seems you're misunderstanding it if you believe that the peak should have been 4-8 days after lockdown. It's a foundational error that'll break any proceeding refutation of that study, just to let you know. [/B]
How does this Saturday 2PM CST sound?
Discord or do you have a preferred video-conferencing platform?
This type of pathology of just ignoring a majority of what's being expressed by your counterpart in a given discussion gives way to explaining why I think you had challenges providing meaningful responses or explanations during our conversation or even providing a baseline of mutual respect. Good faith as a two-way street is a necessity.
I likely won't be back here either again or at least for a long time. I prob post here like once a year already anyway. If you ever wish to respond to anything, hit me up with a PM or post publicly and PM me letting me know. I'll be checking to see if anyone has messaged me for a few weeks.
It's been a ride. We've gone at it on and off for probably a millenia now, at this point. These are trying times for a lot of folks so I wish you the best, mate. Stay safe.
Fauci to testify before Senate as states rush to reimpose Covid-19 curbs
Oh Trumpers