Coronavirus COVID-19

[AZGrizFan]

I agree with her. Businesses SHOULD have the right, but not the MANDATE, either way. Then the consumer can choose if they want to patronize that establishment.

Depending on the level of community spread of course.

Depending on nothing. Do it. Don’t do it. It should be private businesses’ choice. Not government mandates. EVER.

[kalm]

Depending on the level of community spread of course.

Depending on nothing. Do it. Don’t do it. It should be private businesses’ choice. Not government mandates. EVER.

[SeattleGriz]

I have vanquished StOnge. You are welcome.

Shout out to CID for getting him to punch himself out. After that? Chump change.

[kalm]

I have vanquished StOnge. You are welcome.

Shout out to CID for getting him to punch himself out. After that? Chump change.

Nice declaration.

Is your vanquishing settled science?

[SeattleGriz]

I have vanquished StOnge. You are welcome.

Shout out to CID for getting him to punch himself out. After that? Chump change.

Nice declaration.

Is your vanquishing settled science?

As far as the party in power says. Science.

Regardless, StOnge vanquished.

[kalm]

Nice declaration.

Is your vanquishing settled science?

As far as the party in power says. Science.

Regardless, StOnge vanquished.

How about according to science?

[UNI88]

As far as the party in power says. Science.

Regardless, StOnge vanquished.

How about according to science?

SG's medical industry experience > JSO's junior high science fair prize.

[SDHornet]

How about according to science?

SG's medical industry experience > JSO's junior high science fair prize.

SG has been mopping the floor with JSO on this topic.

[SeattleGriz]

As far as the party in power says. Science.

Regardless, StOnge vanquished.

How about according to science?

I'd love that.

The biggest issue I have seen, is to politicize all results as either good or bad. Correct or incorrect.

Science doesn't work that way. Sometimes it's 70% correct and 30% incorrect. Not all or nothing, but that's what has been presented.

[Gil Dobie]

How about according to science?

I'd love that.

The biggest issue I have seen, is to politicize all results as either good or bad. Correct or incorrect.

Science doesn't work that way. Sometimes it's 70% correct and 30% incorrect. Not all or nothing, but that's what has been presented.

Science is always 100%, sometimes humans interpret it 70% correct and 30% incorrect, or other percentages right or wrong.

[AZGrizFan]

I'd love that.

The biggest issue I have seen, is to politicize all results as either good or bad. Correct or incorrect.

Science doesn't work that way. Sometimes it's 70% correct and 30% incorrect. Not all or nothing, but that's what has been presented.

Science is always 100%, sometimes humans interpret it 70% correct and 30% incorrect, or other percentages right or wrong.

No, science is not always 100%. If it was, it would never change. The TRUTH is always 100%. How MUCH of that truth we actually understand is open for debate on any given subject.

[Gil Dobie]

Science is always 100%, sometimes humans interpret it 70% correct and 30% incorrect, or other percentages right or wrong.

No, science is not always 100%. If it was, it would never change. The TRUTH is always 100%. How MUCH of that truth we actually understand is open for debate on any given subject.

I view Science as TRUTH. And that's a good point about how much we understand it.

[Ivytalk]

No, science is not always 100%. If it was, it would never change. The TRUTH is always 100%. How MUCH of that truth we actually understand is open for debate on any given subject.

I view Science as TRUTH. And that's a good point about how much we understand it.

This thread has now jumped the shark.

[Gil Dobie]

I view Science as TRUTH. And that's a good point about how much we understand it.

This thread has now jumped the shark.

[BDKJMU]

Would be better if was just audio..

[BDKJMU]

Mask hypocrite school board member in VA gets confronted amd doesn’t like it one bit.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/social-me ... less-photo

[SeattleGriz]

CDC withholding data. No. Been saying all the data guys have been bitching about this. NYT is even calling them out.

They don't want you to see the data, because you might misinterpret the data Ya bunch of idiots.

[Winterborn]

CDC withholding data. No. Been saying all the data guys have been bitching about this. NYT is even calling them out.

They don't want you to see the data, because you might misinterpret the data Ya bunch of idiots.

Science is putting out all the data so it can be analyzed by everybody and the results either confirmed or reputed. Hiding or fudging the data to get the results one wants (or is paid to get) is not "Science".

Let the results, and the following debate, speak for themselves.

[SeattleGriz]

CDC withholding data. No. Been saying all the data guys have been bitching about this. NYT is even calling them out.

They don't want you to see the data, because you might misinterpret the data Ya bunch of idiots.

Science is putting out all the data so it can be analyzed by everybody and the results either confirmed or reputed. Hiding or fudging the data to get the results one wants (or is paid to get) is not "Science".

Let the results, and the following debate, speak for themselves.

This is what I have been pointing out about the Public Health England data. Back when it was primarily the unvaccinated going to the hospital and dying, the data was just fine. No disclaimers, just statements that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Then, about October, when the total cases of COVID, hospitalization and deaths among the vaccinated surpassed the unvaccinated, they started throwing out disclaimers of how you can't compare data anymore. Anyone with half a clue knew what was going on.

Same thing here. You know damn good and well the numbers don't support their narrative, so they won't release them. Premier epidemiological my ass.

[Gil Dobie]

CDC withholding data. No. Been saying all the data guys have been bitching about this. NYT is even calling them out.

They don't want you to see the data, because you might misinterpret the data Ya bunch of idiots.

Science is putting out all the data so it can be analyzed by everybody and the results either confirmed or reputed. Hiding or fudging the data to get the results one wants (or is paid to get) is not "Science".

Let the results, and the following debate, speak for themselves.

The Science is there, the people's interpretation will be all over the place, right and left.

[JohnStOnge]

I have vanquished StOnge. You are welcome.

Shout out to CID for getting him to punch himself out. After that? Chump change.

Ok. Since i haven't been here for a few days and don't want to have to go through days of posts to try to figure out what you are talking about, please point me to the post in which you think you vanquished me. A date and time of the post should do it or if a link to a particular post would work you can do that.

[JohnStOnge]

Science is putting out all the data so it can be analyzed by everybody and the results either confirmed or reputed. Hiding or fudging the data to get the results one wants (or is paid to get) is not "Science".

Let the results, and the following debate, speak for themselves.

This is what I have been pointing out about the Public Health England data. Back when it was primarily the unvaccinated going to the hospital and dying, the data was just fine. No disclaimers, just statements that it's the pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Then, about October, when the total cases of COVID, hospitalization and deaths among the vaccinated surpassed the unvaccinated, they started throwing out disclaimers of how you can't compare data anymore. Anyone with half a clue knew what was going on.

Same thing here. You know damn good and well the numbers don't support their narrative, so they won't release them. Premier epidemiological my ass.

Paywall on the NY Times article but I think it's ironic that you of all people would post that. I say that because you have repeatedly used data summaries in those UK reports in a way that the authors of the reports explicitly said they can't be used. That's an example of WHY public health officials may be reluctant to release raw numbers at time. You're going to have people running around the internet creating false impressions with them.

[JohnStOnge]

Update to something I do periodically. Still the same picture. I looked at the cumulative case and death rates (cases and deaths per million population) listed for each US State plus DC reported by Worldometers as of 8:43 am this morning and checked to see if they were correlated with current State by State percentages of people being fully vaccinated as reported at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... er-states/. The numbers indicate highly significant associations such that jurisdictions with higher rates of being fully vaccinated tend to have lower cumulative case and death rates.

I ran Pearson's correlations (r) and Spearman's (rs) correlations. Results are as follow (51 pairs, 50 States + DC, in each analysis):

r Fully vaccinated rate vs. Case rate: -0.478, 99.96% confidence.

r Fully vaccinated rate vs. Death rate: -0484, 99.97% confidence.

rs Fully vaccinated rate vs. Case rate: -0.473, 99.95% confidence

rs Fully vaccinated rate vs. Death rate: -0.467, 99.95% confidence.

Correlation does not prove causation. But there is no question that, for whatever reason, States (plus DC) that currently have higher percentages of their population fully vaccinated have generally done better in terms of lower cumulative case and death rates.

That's an example of someone doing their own research. Something like looking for articles in questionable sources like NewsMax to find some of THEIR "research" that flatters what one wants to believe is not.

[Winterborn]

SG's medical industry experience > JSO's junior high science fair prize.

SG has been mopping the floor with JSO on this topic.

JSO is like a calico cat with about 7 lives remaining. One day he will lick the antifreeze puddle once too many times and then will be coyote food.

[JohnStOnge]

CDC withholding data. No. Been saying all the data guys have been bitching about this. NYT is even calling them out.

They don't want you to see the data, because you might misinterpret the data Ya bunch of idiots.

Ok. I was able to find an accessible copy of the article at https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trend ... 43741.html. It is no big deal.

I think it would have been smarter for the CDC spokesman not to say that a reason for not sharing data is fear of the data being misinterpreted. That's if that's what she said as they did not quote her on that. They did quote her on the primary reason for holding data, which is "“because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.”

And the concern over data being misinterpreted or even intentionally manipulated to create false impressions is legitimate. I've seen that kind of thing happen a number of times during this pandemic. Very common to see it done in conservative media in particular.

I also don't get the concern associated with this paragraph:

Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race would help health officials identify and help the populations at highest risk. Information on hospitalizations and death by age and vaccination status would have helped inform whether healthy adults needed booster shots. And wastewater surveillance across the nation would spot outbreaks and emerging variants early.

The CDC gets the data from the States. Each State has that information with respect to its jurisdiction. I can look at the Louisiana Department of Health COVID-19 dashboard at any time and see detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race. Also cases, deaths, vaccinations rates, etc., by age and race. I also see periodic reports on wastewater sampling. Each State already has all that information.