Printable View
We have tested more people than Italy. I can't help but feel your standards should be set just a bit higher than that, though. Even for testing, "how many have we" matters way less than "how many do we/should we still need to test?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm just asking for consistent way of looking at data. Is per-capita good or not? Is raw numbers good or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
This is a stupid question. They answer different questions and offer different perspectives. Is it good or bad to look at an object from the side? Is it good or bad to look at an object from the top?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Murdoch is wrong three times: in his logic, his dismissal and his failure to see a pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Firstly logic - whether you see a pattern or not it matters. In fact per capita matters more than almost anything else as its what actually affects people.
Secondly his dismissal - no per capita doesn't just make smaller countries look worse, except for the next point.
Finally the pattern - he's cherry picking new data to force patterns to exist then saying "hey look at my pretty pattern" - then dismissing the data that he can't make fit as irrelevant. Whether your data fits a pattern or not is relevant and the reason the data doesn't fit a pattern (or makes small countries look worse) is because of the inconsistent nature of the way data has been selected. Why would you track data from the 10th death consistently when you're looking at per capita death rates? That is not a consistent start point. 10 deaths in a country of hundreds of millions is not much, 10 deaths in a country of a couple of million is a lot more. You are by definition starting to track further into the epidemic in the small country than you are in the large country.
If you want to track per capita death rates you can do - but you need a per capita start point to exercise. That is where he has screwed up.
I posted this chart on the last page which nobody replied to that I saw but to explain further it is a chart of deaths per capita with a start point of 1 death per million. The index is a log to base 10 - ie an index of 1 is 10 deaths per million, an index of 2 is 100 deaths per million, an index of 3 is 1000 deaths per million etc - despite what Murdoch claimed of there not being a pattern, one emerges when you track per capita deaths based upon a per capita start point. Its his inconsistent use of data that has caused the failure to see the pattern.
Note that this chart is from a few days ago.
https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads...wbhapdtjl2.png
I'd say per capita deaths are useless in the beginning, and only interesting by the point the epidemic has spread through the entire country. And even then, hard to interpret, since different regions will be at different stages. I think per capita deaths will be most interesting after everything has passed.
Of course all ways to present the numbers have their positives and negatives. I'd say right now rate of growth is most interesting, and for that the graph Randblade posted above is worrying for the US (and UK) since they are rising exponentially at a pretty high rate - but still that doesn't say much because it's hard to predict when it will start flattening.
In brighter news, it looks like over here in the Netherlands hospital admissions and death rates are showing down, let's hope that remains the case. And the number of hospital and IC beds are still OK, and if this trend continues will probably be able to cope.
You can look at data multiple ways but if you want to use data as a weapon for a political attack you better be consistent and not try to have your cake and eat it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This was my thought. It will be "useful" for evaluating the impact of this pandemic once it's all over. Right now, though, when what we're trying to do is mitigate the spread of the disease and gain some control over the situation, we're concerned with how fast it's spreading and that looks at the difference between days. And as Murdoch said, looking at that it doesn't matter whether it's per capita or not. If you go from 500 new cases one day to 1000 new cases the next day, it's the same curve whether you're looking at total numbers or per capita numbers. The per capita numbers are just written in a reduced notation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
The whole premise of your argument is stupid. IfQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
you'rea person is stupid in ten different ways, and then, one day,youhe stop[s] being stupid in just one of those ways -have youhas he stopped being stupid? No,you'vehe's just become marginally less stupid. Your argument would be relevant in a situation where we say, one day, "Being the worst is bad!" and then, the next day, "Being the worst is awesome," about the same exact thing, in the same exact context, with nothing else of relevance having changed.
We analyze data in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes, all of which are - in this case - inextricably intertwined with politics. I'm not going to accept a stupid opinion on how to analyze facts just because it exposes your political stupidity as well. This is not a game whose purpose it is to protect your sensibilities from humiliation; you'll simply have to learn to deal with the reality that your golden calf is a useless pile of shit in both technical and political respects.
So Aimless give any credit to Trump for having the most testing done of all nations with the possible exception of China? If not - why?
No, I'm not going to get dragged into this nonsense. People are dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Zero credit, because 1. the initiation of widespread and appropriate testing was severely delayed - with horrific consequences - and he failed to bring about more widespread testing in a timely manner, and 2. I doubt he has personally played any meaningful role in ramping up testing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So if something bad happens - Trump's fault. If someone good happens - not Trump's doing. k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And what we say on this rather insular forum will not change it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Lewk, South Korea has tested less people than Italy by either absolute or per capita measure. Do you think this means Italy has a better corona virus response, or do you think that maybe numbers without context don't mean a whole lot?
You asked me if he should get credit for testing more people, and the answer to that is no; if he was involved, the ramp-up of testing was nevertheless severely delayed - so not praiseworthy - and, if he was not involved, he deserves no credit - because he wasn't involved. If you're also asking whether he should be criticized wrt testing, the answer is yes - because he and his admin failed to implement a more effective policy at a time when it would've made a crucial difference. The two are different questions: 1. should you get credit for doing something far too late or not being involved in doing it at all? (ie. for being useless) and 2. should you be criticized for failing to do something good that is within your power and a part of your responsibilities? (ie. for being dangerously negligent) The answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question is yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I think number of tests is also dependent on how wide spread the disease is. Greater testing doesn't indicate that the disease will be better managed, it could mean there is more demand for testing because the disease is already widespread. My entire point is people bashed Trump for lack of testing. When it was pointed out he's tested more people than other countries they quickly say "well America is bigger and has more people so of course they test more, look at per capita numbers" and all I'm saying is if we want to use per-capita testing to a metric for how well a country is testing we should look at per capita deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Nobody said that. They said it was too late. Different point dumbass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
Do you not have a working knowledge of time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Hope he gets well soon and anyone else afflicted with this illness.
Yes. I also hope he survives to apologize for being such a stupid dick about shaking hands with patients.
I have serious doubts about him being taken to hospital 'for tests' late Sunday night.
The number of deaths, either absolute or per capita, tells you absolutely nothing unless you know at what stage the pandemic is in that country and what the current rate of change is. How are you this... you know, what? Never mind. You do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Just some highlights form this thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Trump ignored covid briefings as far back as January.
Trump told the governors that they were on their own for supplies.
Trump has attacked hospitals and nurses for stealing and being greedy for protective and live saving equipment.
The federal government tried to hide the initial outbreak in Washington.
Trump "Takes no responsibility"
The federal government delayed testing rollout due to its refusal to use WHO tests.
That fucker Jared and Trump both have stated the federal supplies are not for states.
The federal government outbid the states for supplies.
Trump has directed that support not be spread to governors that don't kiss up to him.
So what from that screams to you credit for Trump and not in spite of Trump?
The only test you can do is some imaging to see how badly the lungs are affected. Which you only do if the condition is serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Unless he was at fault for the delays by getting in the way of others pushing for more action earlier (which he did), in which case he made things worse than they could have been, and did not HELP things along later but merely stopped being a giant roadblock. You don't get any credit for helping when your "help" was merely no longer getting in other peoples' way as much, Lewk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
We bash Trump for spending months making bad decisions which meant we didn't get sufficient testing soon enough to make a real difference in the spread of the pandemic in our country. As you say, greater testing alone doesn't mean the disease will be better managed. And yet you are trying to say that it's exactly what greater testing means when you spout off Trump's propaganda line about doing lots of testing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Which means scans of his lungs, which aren't really tests. And I agree with you, you'd only do that if he's in a serious condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
10 days of symptoms and not recovered is an indicator it is serious. Plus he seems to share some risk factors that affect the non-retired . . . an overweight middle aged male seems to be disproportionately adverse.
Indeed :(Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I wonder what the Chinese health agencies have to say about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine with respect to COVID-19? Seems they would have tried everything by now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...6SC?li=BBnb7Kz
No names and no references to papers. Sounds like Trumpspeak to me.Quote:
"I think history will judge who's right on this debate," Navarro said, "but I'd bet on President Trump's intuition on this one because of all the doctors I've talked to and all the scientific papers that I've read."
Boris has now been moved to intensive care.
I hope they're going to stop lying now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Not good. He needs to rest and forget about politics, just fight this now.
Raab has been made deputy (and basically acting) PM. Definitely would not have been my choice but hopefully it's a case of just carry on with things as they are until he recovers.
I wouldn't be surprised if the entire admin and most GOP legislators were using hydroxychloroquine prophylactically. Results of actual RCT should be announced within weeks and then we'll see, but very many hospitalized covid pts are already on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin without solid evidence and frankly mortality still seems to be very high in that group so if it works it hasn't worked any miracles yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
So, they tell us the British PM has no pneumonia, but they don't tell us that his lungs are infected and probably damaged by the virus. Is there some delicate line between the two conditions? Or am I mistaken in the belief that healthy lungs don't need extra oxygen?
They did a report on this on Sky earlier today, apparently there's a whole spectrum of ways the body can react to this virus and reasons (and severity) for oxygen and ICU.
Underlying theme though is you don't go to ICU unless you're very sick.
Sanity check: Why does it seem like people in general are taking China's numbers at face value? I mean, they could be accurate; it makes sense that an authoritarian government would have an easier time controlling the spread of the virus than countries that put more priority on human rights than on power and control, but the mechanisms that exist in developed nations that would blow the whistle if the government tried to suppress figures simply don't exist in China. Has everyone forgotten that we know they've suppressed reports of the virus early on and a long history of censorship and lying? They declared the virus defeated nearly a month ago, so they have the motivation to lie to save face. We've had plenty of reports that the newer more contagious strain that evolved somewhere outside of China has entered the country, and I'm having trouble believing that they've locked that down so much better than the less contagious one they started with.
True, but it doesn't explain why they are so intent on telling us what he doesn't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The numbers are entirely bogus. There's no way to tell what the reality is on the ground. Too much incentive to lie and too much experience doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
