covid-19

[Khendraja'aro]

Or simply make it 14 days. Simple, easy to understand, anyone can grasp it, no exceptions.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Every person who defends this absolute fucking moron of a president is a moron, and, deep down inside, they know it too.

[RandBlade]

Or simply make it 14 days. Simple, easy to understand, anyone can grasp it, no exceptions.

So you'd cut the time some people have to isolate with symptoms?

[Flixy]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and...administration

What an idiot.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and...administration

What an idiot.

I think this guy might actually be a crackpot.

[Aimless]

Report on a new investigation by WaPo is a pretty merciless indictment of the Trump admin's almost comical failures:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...t-dysfunction/

[LittleFuzzy]

I still can't get over Kushner saying that "it's our stockpile. It's not for the states." That's just so. . . HUH?

[Loki]

He was honest for once. The whole Trump clan views the country as a giant fiefdom.

[Aimless]

I still can't get over Kushner saying that "it's our stockpile. It's not for the states." That's just so. . . HUH?

It's really not all that complicated

Twitter Link

[Lewkowski]

The United States has tested more people than Italy. Of course people will say "oh but there are more people in America" and that's fine, so let's use that for deaths per capita as well? I swear people are cherry picking data to try to make the worst possible comparisons just for political points.

[LittleFuzzy]

The United States has tested more people than Italy. Of course people will say "oh but there are more people in America" and that's fine, so let's use that for deaths per capita as well? I swear people are cherry picking data to try to make the worst possible comparisons just for political points.

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?"

[Lewkowski]

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?"

I'm just asking for consistent way of looking at data. Is per-capita good or not? Is raw numbers good or not?

[Ominous Gamer]

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

I'm just asking for consistent way of looking at data. Is per-capita good or not? Is raw numbers good or not?

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?

[RandBlade]

Twitter Link

Murdoch is wrong three times: in his logic, his dismissal and his failure to see a pattern.

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.

[Flixy]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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?

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

[Aimless]

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.

The whole premise of your argument is stupid. If you're a person is stupid in ten different ways, and then, one day, you he stop[s] being stupid in just one of those ways - have you has he stopped being stupid? No, you've he'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.

[Lewkowski]

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?

[Hazir]

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.

[Aimless]

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?

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.

[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.

So if something bad happens - Trump's fault. If someone good happens - not Trump's doing. k.

[Lewkowski]

No, I'm not going to get dragged into this nonsense. People are dying.

And what we say on this rather insular forum will not change it at all.

[Steely Glint]

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?

[Aimless]

So if something bad happens - Trump's fault. If someone good happens - not Trump's doing. k.

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.

[Lewkowski]

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?

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.

[RandBlade]

Nobody said that. They said it was too late. Different point dumbass.

[Timbuk2]

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been admitted to hospital for tests, 10 days after testing positive for coronavirus, Downing Street has said.

He was taken to hospital on Sunday evening with "persistent symptoms" - including a high temperature

[Aimless]

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.

Do you not have a working knowledge of time?