1 hour ago, Reader said:

An influenza season has by definition, a beginning and an end. There seems to be no end in sight for this pandemic.

Was there an end in sight in late 1918 when the Spanish Flu was raging?  Was there an end in sight in 1969 during the Hong Kong Flu pandemic.  In 2009 during the Swine Flu pandemic?  I think it's understood that these contagions do eventually burn themselves out.

1 hour ago, Reader said:

To compare a death toll over a two to three years period with one over three months does not seem to make any kind of point or sense. Of course Joe Average may be considered to be  too stupid to see that. However, I do not think that Joe Average is as stupid as some people seem to think he is.

Even if you extrapolate the COVID-19 mortality out to a year, it's still within that same rough order of magnitude.  Let's say, hypothetically, after a year we had 350,000 deaths in the US.  That's twice as bad per capita as the Hong Kong Flu.  Our reaction to it, however, is massively...arguably hundreds of times in terms of pain and suffering to the population...more panicked and self-destructive than our reaction to previous contagions.

Nobody called the average guy stupid.  Not having the skills to expertly interpret data or spot graphical subterfuge isn't any more "stupid" than not understanding the relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in a circuit.  If you weren't taught how to interpret complex data, then you rely on others to simplify it for you.  And if those others...the "experts"...are painting a picture (literally in this case) that doesn't fairly represent the facts, how would you know?  So it's incumbent on those of us that do have those analytical skills to raise a flag when the experts are--intentionally or by accident--misrepresenting the actual data.

 

3 minutes ago, w6kd said:

 And if those others...the "experts"...are painting a picture (literally in this case) that doesn't fairly represent the facts, how would you know?  So it's incumbent on those of us that do have those analytical skills to raise a flag when the experts are--intentionally or by accident--misrepresenting the actual data.

 

‘I reject your reality and substitute my own’ - the guy from mythbusters.

When they write about the downfall of the united states, much will be said of how americans could not deal with their problems because they began rejecting basic facts that did not play well with their own conclusions, interests, or biases.

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

Johns Hopkins University is a private educational institution that is publishing widely-referenced data on the COVID-19 pandemic.  Calling their graphically exaggerated presentation of that data into question is not advocating for or against any government policy or political entity.  And asking *why* they would present a graphically exaggerated depiction of the data isn't suggestive of any particular motive, or intent, or beneficiary.

Don’t be disingenuous and don’t insult people’s intelligence. It takes two to communicate. What you say matters as much as what people hear. You cannot disavow what people hear from what you say. People understand exactly what you meant by ‘who benefits’. No amount of neither confirming or denying that you were or were not advocating for or against a particular or generic political leader or non leader will keep people from understanding what you want to say outright but were hinting at in latin was that anti trumpers were playing this up to damage the economy and hurt his reelection. Now send yourself a pm warning yourself to stop pushing your politics into this discussion.

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by KevinAu

5 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

In fairness, though, your question was not "why?" but "cui bono" - who benefits?  Which does raise the question of motive. And the context for the Latin phrase is criminal law, so...

No, cui bono is also used in economics, and behavioral psychology.  Merriam Webster's definition makes no reference to criminal law.  And yes, one should always consider motivation or potential motivation when considering the viewpoint of others, and not only in cases of misconduct.

10 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

I do wish we could get past the flu comparisons, only because they're not strictly comparable. 

I believe they are comparable, at least macroscopically.  Yes, apples-to-apples comparisons are really problematic, but I haven't seen any credible suggestion that these adjustments are skewing the numbers so far that ROM comparisons are without merit.

15 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

There is also the difference in natural history - flu is a known virus for which vaccines and antivirals are available (though it mutates and vaccines need seasonal adjustments). Covid-19 is a "novel" virus - that is, never before encountered, so there is no natural human immune response.  There are no vaccines or antivirals currently available. 

There was no vaccine or antiviral remedy available during the Spanish or Hong Kong Flu pandemics, either.  The existence of other strains of influenza viruses did not prevent the deaths of 675,000 and 100,000 people in those pandemics, respectively.  Each of those mutated strains was novel in the human population at that time.  And comparing COVID-19 to the flu in the past seven years misses the much more serious outbreaks.  Nobody is arguing that this isn't a significant risk, but I do argue that it's similar in magnitude to risks we've faced before in the more serious flu outbreaks, and without committing socio-economic hari-kari in response.

 

27 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Nobody called the average guy stupid.  Not having the skills to expertly interpret data or spot graphical subterfuge isn't any more "stupid" than not understanding the relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in a circuit.  If you weren't taught how to interpret complex data, then you rely on others to simplify it for you.  And if those others...the "experts"...are painting a picture (literally in this case) that doesn't fairly represent the facts, how would you know?  So it's incumbent on those of us that do have those analytical skills to raise a flag when the experts are--intentionally or by accident--misrepresenting the actual data.

Exactly.  The media, scientists, and govt. officials know well how to manipulate data and present it to the public in a way that favors whatever agenda they are pursuing.  The great majority of the public are not well-versed in data interpretation, or critical thinking for that matter, so they are easily fooled.  That doesn't mean they are stupid, just not savvy in the varied techniques of propaganda.

It's been done many times throughout history.

Dave

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by dave2013

21 minutes ago, w6kd said:

...  Our reaction to it, however, is massively...arguably hundreds of times in terms of pain and suffering to the population...more panicked and self-destructive than our reaction to previous contagions.

 

There'd be less pain and suffering to the poorer half of the country with a well designed and functioning social safety net.  The upper percentiles arent suffering to any great extent (or even a little really).

3 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

Don’t be disingenuous and don’t insult people’s intelligence. It takes two to communicate. What you say matters as much as what people hear. People understand exactly what you meant by ‘who benefits’. No amount of neither confirming or denying that you were or were not advocating for or against a particular or generic political leader or non leader will keep people from understanding what you want to say outright but were hinting at in latin was that anti trumpers were playing this up to damage the economy and hurt his reelection. Now send yourself a pm warning yourself to stop pushing your politics into this discussion.

What you are saying here is that no matter what I say, you will interpret what I say to mean what you want it to mean.  And then you suggest that's my fault.  Uh, no, sorry, no sale there.

Once again, you label as "politics" any discussion of the facts that you disagree with.

Again, no sale.

4 minutes ago, w6kd said:

 Nobody is arguing that this isn't a significant risk, but I do argue that it's similar in magnitude to risks we've faced before in the more serious flu outbreaks, and without committing socio-economic hari-kari in response.

 

You’re absolutely right. There was no need for economic hari kari. All americans had to do was put a mask on -before- it started raging across this country.

1 minute ago, w6kd said:

What you are saying here is that no matter what I say, you will interpret what I say to mean what you want it to mean.  And then you suggest that's my fault.  Uh, no, sorry, no sale there.

Once again, you label as "politics" any discussion of the facts that you disagree with.

Again, no sale.

So who benefits? You frame it. I’m all ears.

6 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

The media, scientists, and govt. officials know well how to manipulate data and present it to the public in a way that favors whatever agenda they are pursuing

You do know the actual data is their, so pretty hard to manipulate the data when it's right in front of you. It is a visual relative depiction, nothing more nothing less. If you don't like the visuals look at the numerical data.

Martin 

7 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

So who benefits? You frame it. I’m all ears.

I asked the question.  I did not propose an answer.  That is an exercise left to the reader.

And no, you're not all ears.  You are not listening at all.

8 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

All americans had to do was put a mask on -before- it started raging across this country.

We wear a mask out of courtesy to others, especially our nurses and doctors and others who are on the front lines. This is because of the slight chance any one of us could be asymptomatic. Compared this minor inconvenience to what our front line folks are sacrificing and then make up your own mind.

Martin

8 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

You do know the actual data is their, so pretty hard to manipulate the data when it's right in front of you. It is a visual relative depiction, nothing more nothing less. If you don't like the visuals look at the numerical data.

Those of us who work with numbers and charts would agree.

It *is*, however, possible to manipulate the presentation of the data...or, giving the benefit of the doubt as Alan_A proposes, to innocently misrepresent it.  Someone without the training and insight to look past the graphics could be led to drawing the wrong conclusions, though.

 

1 minute ago, MartinRex007 said:

We wear a mask out of courtesy to others, especially our nurses and doctors and others who are on the front lines. This is because of the slight chance any one of us could be asymptomatic. Compared this minor inconvenience to what our front line folks are sacrificing and then make up your own mind.

Martin

Unfortunately, a lot of americans even now, will not accept that minor inconvenience to save what’s left of the economy. If america had masked up back in february, the economy could have been kept going.

18 minutes ago, w6kd said:

It *is*, however, possible to manipulate the presentation of the data..

Absolutely! However I don't think the researchers at John Hopkins are preoccupied with trying to manipulate the data, I think they have more important things to worry about, at least I would hope they do!

Martin 

Edited May 16, 20206 yr by MartinRex007