Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 129 of 129
  1. #121
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    49,043
    Yup. I'm totally a science denier because I questioned the graph and talking points you regurgitated from a Holocaust denier. I've presented plenty of graphs, links, data, etc. Guess none of them were good enough for the miserable wreck that crawls out of his hole every week or so to share brain dead conspiracy theories and call people women. If it doesn't line up with your beloved conservative talking points, it's fAkE nEwS.

    You are ****ing hilarious.

    PSD: where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,828
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Case mortality rate would be compared to fatality rate for vehicle accident victims.

    Case rate for coronovirus doesn't make sense as a data point at all for trying to figure out mortality rates anyway though because the reported case rate still isn't the actual case rate and we know something like 40-60% of all people either have natural immunity or antibodies present and thus don't present symptoms and become a 'case.' The only data we have for that is nations who did lots of testing, like Sweden, and that's what they found. This also means that herd immunity might present when much fewer people are infected than previously thought. Don't have that study at my fingertips but it shouldn't be hard to find if you're actually curious and not a science denier like spliff.
    We KNOW 40-60% of people have immunity. Great.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,828
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post

    OK is this the graph that the hubub is about.

    Let's assume it's true. Let's talk about it.

    1. To determine the effect of one cause of death comparing all cause mortality from 1 year to this year is a bad way to do it. It could easily be cherry picked.
    As you can see things change over time. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...tes/death-rate Death rate had been falling up till the financial collapse of 07 and it has been rising since. There are a variety of deaths that are going to change, note the bump in 2014. My guess is a huge chunk of that is opioid overdose. But much of the larger changes you see have to do more with POPULATION trends rather than. When a larger cohort gets older the death rate goes up. When my generation hits the age of dying of old age, because we are a smaller % of the population, that rate will go down.

    2. What does it matter if all cause mortality isn't changing? Death rate should be going down in general as we get better at curing things, preventing accidents, etc. All cause mortality doesn't say anything about single cause mortality. We are on a record pace for opiate overdose deaths for the year. Should we not do anything about that because considering all cause mortality, the rate is not going up? I mean some ****ers have to die right?

    3. week 17? that takes us but to the 28th of april. including 45% of covid deaths to as estimated 7/25. seems like a premature cut point to make any assumption. Even if you are doing the dumb thing and attempting to make a statement about COVID deaths by using all cause mortality and comparing it to one year.

    I hope you are right... but I am not betting the lives and long-term well being of people on shoddy work.
    Last edited by flips333; 08-03-2020 at 08:55 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,828
    Oh yeah The swiss policy institute.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/

    You should show Special the site... he'd love it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    49,043
    Yes, the site run by the Holocaust denier.

    PSD: where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    49,043
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    OK is this the graph that the hubub is about.

    Let's assume it's true. Let's talk about it.

    1. To determine the effect of one cause of death comparing all cause mortality from 1 year to this year is a bad way to do it. It could easily be cherry picked.
    As you can see things change over time. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...tes/death-rate Death rate had been falling up till the financial collapse of 07 and it has been rising since. There are a variety of deaths that are going to change, note the bump in 2014. My guess is a huge chunk of that is opioid overdose. But much of the larger changes you see have to do more with POPULATION trends rather than. When a larger cohort gets older the death rate goes up. When my generation hits the age of dying of old age, because we are a smaller % of the population, that rate will go down.

    2. What does it matter if all cause mortality isn't changing? Death rate should be going down in general as we get better at curing things, preventing accidents, etc. All cause mortality doesn't say anything about single cause mortality. We are on a record pace for opiate overdose deaths for the year. Should we not do anything about that because considering all cause mortality, the rate is not going up? I mean some ****ers have to die right?

    3. week 17? that takes us but to the 28th of april. including 45% of covid deaths to as estimated 7/25. seems like a premature cut point to make any assumption. Even if you are doing the dumb thing and attempting to make a statement about COVID deaths by using all cause mortality and comparing it to one year.

    I hope you are right... but I am not betting the lives and long-term well being of people on shoddy work.
    Yes, that is the graph in question. Good point about it ending at week 17. You gave this thing much more attention that I ever did. The way he presented it, how macro and unspecific it is by including all deaths of any kind, the fact he wouldn't provide a link to it, and that I figured out where it's actually from regardless encouraged me to only take a quick glance at it.

    PSD: where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  7. #127
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    And everyone knows if a school age child gets Covid its impossible to transmit that disease to teachers, faculty, parents, grandparents, etc.
    Those at greatest risk (retirees and those with underlying conditions) take precautions. The remainder (kids up to retirement) need to go to school and to work.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    25,708
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Those at greatest risk (retirees and those with underlying conditions) take precautions. The remainder (kids up to retirement) need to go to school and to work.
    It would work if everyone that could physically survive it wore masks, and social distanced. Businesses should not be able to be open unless they prove they're policy reflects both of those.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    It would work if everyone that could physically survive it wore masks, and social distanced. Businesses should not be able to be open unless they prove they're policy reflects both of those.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    I am quite fine with social distancing and the wearing of masks. I've not seen a store yet that doesn't have that as a requirement (Chicago area)

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •