|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#321 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 18,659
|
He isn't using information, he is pulling numbers out of his rectum, like "The U.S. has the lowest death rate from the Jina virus . . . " or "We're doing more testing than anybody . . . " or that "we're in a great place."
He's full of ****, so much so that he spouts it at every convenience. Even if a person only suffers mildly from contracting the virus, that person still suffered. It's not ******* harmless. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#322 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
A death due to Covid is still a death, whether it’s reported (as due to Covid) or not.
IIRC, there was a lot of criticism of the numbers of Covid deaths in Wuhan for this reason. Recently, NJ’s Covid death numbers (per the COVID Tracking Project) had a huge spike ~10% one day increase, IIRC); apparently someone finally had time to do a review, and added ~1500 “probables”. Early on, almost everywhere, testing capabilities were so strained that lots of people with obvious Covid symptoms were not tested. So not recorded. So, the logic flaw is to assume that if a case is not reported (as Covid), it is (most likely) due to mild (at worst) symptoms. Go outside. Open a horse’s mouth. Count the teeth.
Quote:
Nonsense from an active ISF member is inexcusable.
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#323 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#324 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
I said cases, not deaths. Do you have any reason to believe that the number of deaths is underreported?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's YOUR work. If you have something to present as evidence or argument, do so. Don't expect me to look up your own supporting arguments for you. You'd not expect others to do that to you. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#325 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 18,659
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#326 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
And here's my point: Some early estimates said that up to 90% of cases went unreported, right? So if we charitably interpret that to mean that those cases are therefore mild or asymptomatic (which may not be true, but that's irrelevant), and if the other early estimate (which I believe came from Chinese authorities, take that as you will) that reported cases were mild 85% of the time, that's 99%. Now, you can argue that this is way outdated, or flatly untrue, but someone who says that may not be pulling it out of his ass. I know it's Trump, so that kind of changes the probabilities, but the early numbers were available nonetheless.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#327 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
I already gave you one.
Something similar happened earlier in NY, when someone got around to investigation of some the “deaths at home”.
Quote:
In the meantime, check out this post, the one before it, and also #167 (it’s about Vò). |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#328 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 18,659
|
Trump's 99% harmless assertion is pulled 100% from his rectum. As has been observed, he barely reads briefing data and as Fauci noted, he is probably confusing mortality percentages with . . . whatever synaptic misfires occurred that day. Remember, this is a man who bragged about "acing" a cognitive exam that required him to identify a camel, draw a 3D cube, and recall five words.
His irresponsible downplaying of COVID-19 harm is purely driven by political desires and has nothing to do with his interpretation of data, or more accurately, his limited understand of data that had been interpreted, and typed out for him in a brief. No, as Fauci stated, 99% harmless is "not the case." In fact, it can be successfully argued that in many ways, Covid-19 has harmed all of us. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#329 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#330 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#331 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
What change? I said 90% from the beginning. And that's the high end number. The real one is probably lower, especially now that testing has increased (and by now, I mean in the last three months).
Quote:
I presumed you had read some articles and news about this topic before. I'm surprised you didn't come across this information back in spring. And as I said it doesn't matter if it turned out wrong; only that this information might have come to the orange terror's attention and that he, as usual, never updated his knowledge base, such as it is. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...fVUXNVR4ivxA-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239078/ https://www.iflscience.com/health-an...odeling-study/ Bear in mind that those are several months old, as I originally stated. The point is that it is at least possible that Trump actually used data, albeit outdated and, to be sure, interpreted in the most charitable way he could manage. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#332 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
|
The President said "totally harmless." That would mean that the other 99% of Covid-19 patients escaped with ZERO harm. Totally unharmed.
Trump pulled this number out of his ass, and I cannot understand where your numbers or estimates or whatever are coming from. Maybe write out your numbers in a table so we can follow your logic? I see you seem to be multiplying 90% and 85%, which gets me to a number quite a bit less than 99%, but I can't tell what you are saying - asymptomatic, just kinda sick, what? Remember, the President said this idiotic thing, so the bar for you to clear if you want it to be accurate is: 100% of Coronavirus cases = 99% "totally harmless" (I'll count sick for a couple of days like a cold here, since everyone gets colds) +1% dead / seriously ill / hospitalized / sick for weeks / lifelong health effects
Originally Posted by trump on July 4
ETA - Belz... Spamming links, including apparently a link to a google result, is just lazy and bad form. If those links show your 99% number to be accurate, then quote or summarize the relevant text please. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#333 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#334 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 18,659
|
He used 99% harmless to downplay the virus politically, in the same way he lies about mortality rate and testing percentages. He is reckless, and dangerous, as is evidenced by horrendous spike in states that pandered to his nonsense by opening too soon. Again, totally political, not based in science, but in pretend.
It's not going away. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#335 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,155
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#336 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#337 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,121
|
It seems to me there is a crescendo of criticism aimed at Trump over his various unevidenced or anti-scientific COVID-19 statements and his style of threatening, denial or throwing a tantrum if he's not getting his own way. Like a broad cross-section of people are ignoring him on this topic. Like Republicans thinking a convention in August makes little sense. Or supporters who are probably still not wearing a mask in public if they can avoid it. Let alone school districts trying to determine the best way to start the school year.
I generally don't read a lot of news stories about Trump. I hear about some of his most outrageous statements because people post them here. Today I called up a CNN alert and pushed a few "related" buttons. So maybe it's just that my sampling technique has changed. What do other people think? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#338 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#339 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#340 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#341 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 201
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#342 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#343 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Once more ...
So: 0.985 = 0.900 + (1-0.900)*0.850 Have I got that right? For “99% totally harmless” (ignoring the 0.005), all the “up to 90%” must be “totally harmless”. And not “up to”, but all. So where does the “most likely” come from? Shouldn’t it be “must be”? And why choose “90% must be a/mild symptoms”? Especially as there is now lots of evidence to the contrary? If one is trying to reverse engineer Trump’s “99% totally harmless”, there are surely more robust ways, right? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#344 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
Well as I said I took "totally harmless" to be one of Trump's usuall hyperbole, which could mean anything from "not worth bothering about" to "nah, nothing to see here at all".
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#346 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,121
|
Back to my question: Is anybody relying on Trump for COVID-19 counsel, anyone at all? As far as I can tell, there is a consensus that nothing Trump says on the topic is worth considering. And that's true no matter where one lands on the spectrum of left vs. right.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#347 |
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,189
|
Some might be, I know a Trumpista who was quick to hop on the hydrochloroquine train, but he also listens to a lot of conspiracy-media stuff.
|
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#348 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 18,659
|
Do you mean here, or in general? Because if you mean in general, there appear to be a number of folks who take his word on the topic as gospel. Just yesterday at some self-indulgent press thingee or the other, Trump bloviated on how schools must open, and the gathered unmasked idiots applauded and nodded like . . . idiots.
My crazy catholic SiL and her family sure think he's the expert on this pandemic. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#349 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 85,845
|
Remember how we used to hear about Russia and China controlling the information?
Seattle Times: Administration Orders Hospitals to Bypass the CDC With Key Virus Data
Quote:
The news media will simply collect the data from hospitals themselves. And it's required to report certain infectious diseases to the local public health. This idea of Trump's is ignorant on oh so many levels. Of course they claim it is to improve data collection. ![]() NYT, scroll down to: The administration orders hospitals to bypass the C.D.C. with key virus data, alarming health experts.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#350 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 30,644
|
|
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#351 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,278
|
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#352 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,288
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#353 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,994
|
Now hold on. It’s entirely possible that Trump means “didn’t die” when he says “harmless.”
Isn’t 1% on the high end of a true IFR? |
__________________
Hello. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#354 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 18,659
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#355 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
His track record of picking and choosing data that suits his purposes is also pretty long. I don't know why it's so controversial that the "99%" might simply come from cherrypicking outdated information rather than just making it up.
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, cool. I'm a right-winger today! ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#356 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,801
|
I read National Review sometimes, their articles vary between neutral to extremely negative on his handling. I read townhall.com sometimes. They have taken to almost completely ignoring Covid 19.
Needless to say the left ignores him. I think he is being ignored, completely. I think the resurgence of the virus in Florida, Texas, and Arizona kind of burst the Trump bubble. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#357 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,801
|
Wow.
This is the kind of thing that if any other president did it, people would see it as a move to improve data collection. But then again, if any other president had been in office, something vaguely like this would have been first out of the gate and functioning by April. In other words, any other president would have said "We need to make sure our data is top notch and accurate," and he would have asked the CDC to supervise development of top notch reporting capability. As it is, it's Trump, and four months into the crisis, right as the numbers are making him look very bad, suddenly he takes interest. Why would anyone trust him? Well, of course, there are True Believers, and always will be, but I would hope those are no more than 1/3 of the voters. I hope. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#358 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
How do you want to bet that the daily number of new cases in the US will magically and dramatically decrease within a few days?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#359 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,428
|
Regarding the 99% nonsense, it might be instructive to review trump's actual comment. he made it during remarks at a White House celebration of Independence Day. From the Guardian:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#360 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
Ah, sorry about that, then. I was working from an incomplete and unsourced quote. Trump is clearly wrong there. Even with my very charitable donations of estimates from back in March and April, that couldn't possibly be higher than 85%, and that's if we are also charitable about what "totally harmless" means.
In view of this added information, I retract my previous possible interpretation. Well, that leaves the ass-pull, then. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|