Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4773003]It wasn't the quarantine, it was that they were flat out wrong about the seriousness.[/QUOTE]Models and projections change over time as they're fed new data. It's not so much being "wrong" as being "more precise". The quarantine has helped reduce the spread immensely. The stay-home mandate has provided new data for the models (amongst a host of other new data), and the models are changing accordingly.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4773003]Some of them haven't self-corrected all the way to the data-proven situation, but all have corrected significantly. Except, apparently, you. Still relying on that whole flat-earth model too, I presume[/QUOTE]Quite the opposite. While I want to get back to "normal" as much as anyone else (though I don't think it will ever be the same again), I am completely with the round-earth scientists who are saying that, until we can actually do viral and anti-body testing (or develop a vaccine), we need to be very cautions and maintain the self-quarantine / social distancing approach to limiting the spread. Granted, this is just a brute-force, shotgun approach, but without testing it's hard to have a more precise method of limiting the spread. But since it's all we have right now, we need to do it. Otherwise it will just flare up again according to the most recent data. The virus hasn't gone away, we've just been hiding from it.

[QUOTE=Efurufe;4777853]Models and projections change over time as they're fed new data. It's not so much being "wrong" as being "more precise". The quarantine has helped reduce the spread immensely. The stay-home mandate has provided new data for the models (amongst a host of other new data), and the models are changing accordingly.[/QUOTE]The models were all based on a maximum of 50% compliance with social distancing, including sheltering place, directives. Compliance far exceeded that especially in hard-hit areas.

There's no question this had a huge impact on the spread, but it was always the case that if it worked, for some that would be proof that it wasn't needed. We can look to countries like Brazil to get a glimpse of what could have been in the US without it.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4778603]The models were all based on a maximum of 50% compliance with social distancing, including sheltering place, directives. [/QUOTE]Alex Berenson, who is in a much better position than you to know, says you're wrong. Most of the models had social distancing baked in, at least into the ranges.

The initial models that the draconian lockdowns were based on, were from Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College. He included ranges for behaviors. And then.

On March 22nd, he admitted that his models weren't even Coronavirus-specific. Instead, he used an opaque 13,000 line computer program he described as "undocumented", which he wrote to model flu, not CV, pandemics.

Six weeks later, still never having let anyone review his code or models, he revised it heavily. Yes, he "corrected" it. Not due to new data so much as due to the fact that the Coronavirus IS NOT THE FLU. He had previously not even modeled the Coronavirus.

To your claim that the lower deaths were due to Social Distancing, his later model had Sweden paying a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. As you (hopefully) know, Sweden has not done a lockdown, and as of today, it's had 3,220 deaths. And it crested last month.

Ferguson has a greatest hits of failed models.
[LIST][*]2002: He said up to 150,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease.) So far, 177 people have died. Not 177 [i]thousand[/i], just 177.[*]2005: He predicted "up to 150 million people" could die from bird flu. The tally after six years: 282. Not 282 [i]thousand[/i], just 282.[*]2009: He was in a U.K. government committee that, with his advice, estimates that "up to" (or "worst case") swine flu would be 65,000 just in the UK. They lost 457.[/LIST]
Now, with your demonstrated dishonesty, I fully expect you to say, "well, he said [B]UP TO[/B] each time. He wasn't [B]wrong[/B], just overly cautious. " No, he's been so far off, every time, including with COVID in Sweden this time, that if you were less of an apologist you would understand that the other lower deaths have ALSO been due to his models being flat-out wrong.

Brookings, by the way, admits the models were wrong but values the conversation. "Despite some notable flaws, the epidemiological models have cumulatively had a beneficial effect on the national conversation. " In other words, similar to when false accusations against white men happen, there's no need to apologize because being a white man is, intrinsically, to be guilty.

For better honesty, try epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center "That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool. " Yeah, you know more about models than an actual epidemiologist at a top research center.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4778603]The models were all based on a maximum of 50% compliance with social distancing, including sheltering place, directives. Compliance far exceeded that especially in hard-hit areas.

There's no question this had a huge impact on the spread, but it was always the case that if it worked, for some that would be proof that it wasn't needed. We can look to countries like Brazil to get a glimpse of what could have been in the US without it.[/QUOTE]I get it, because you still view the world through the lens of the Mercator Projection and not the Peters Projection (google them) you don't know some basic facts about Brazil.

Brazil is a massive country, it has nearly the same landmass as the USA, and it has about 66% of the population (US 331,000,000 Brazil 209,000,000) The US has 80,000 corona deaths and Brazil is reporting 10,000 (which is probably a ridiculously low number so triple it and call it 30,000) which means with more than 50% of the population they have less than half the deaths, if we triple what they reported, if we take just their number it's 12% of the US. So how exactly is the US faring better?

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4775621]Sources, please.[/QUOTE]Here's a guy who's an MD that was working in emergency rooms in NYC during the height of the cases there, has a masters in public health talking about how the early projections were wrong. They clearly were.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lze-rMYLf2E[/URL]

He's also a lefty so you can't say he's supporting Trump.

I know you won't bother watching it because you're just here to fight but maybe somebody else will. It's 15 minutes long but worth the time.

Really, I should know better.

I'm not "looking for a fight"; I simply believe the information I get from mainstream sources, while others get theirs from the fringe because they have a deep-seated need to find conspiracy everywhere. The two perspectives are irreconcilable.

Which is why this is how these wackadoodle conversation go. "All the experts" turns into a fringe ex-journalist and spy novel author, Brazil being 8th in the world (and moving up fast) becomes a discussion about map projection models and perception. And the next credible source is a diet doc off of Oprah. It's a bunch of unrelated information that could be seen to support a perspective. So that's how it's used.

So. No, I won't be listening to Dr. David Katz, a nutritional expert with absolutely no infectious disease credentials who is just managing his brand and getting on TV as much as he can talk about a pandemic. He even hash tagged his perspective to "get the hits". You can go to your proctologist for investment advice, but don't be surprised when the results are shit. The question isn't why won't I watch it. The question is why would you? Ah, because he supports your fringe perspective. And maybe because you watch a lot of Oprah.

Nor will I be paying any attention to a former newspaper reporter and spy novel author for my pandemic information. The question is: why are you? Ah, because he supports your perspective.

Let the hilarity resume. Should be interesting to see what happens with the re-opening.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4779817]Really, I should know better.[/QUOTE]You apparently don't know [I]better[/I], or anything else really. I don't know to whom you were responding, so I don't know if it was me or admin2, but if it was me.

1. I don't know the references to fringe sites you're making.

2. I've actually worked in medical research and medical devices for years. I know how to read the papers, and I get papers the media generally either doesn't see or just ignores. My guess is the papers are just too dry for their short attention spans, even though if they read them, they might be able to make a really punchy headline.

3. Except that they would never publish a headline such as "CV is more contagious, but so much less dangerous, than expected. We're all going to live! Because "life is good" doesn't sell.

4. I didn't quote any crackpots; I gave you actual data. Which you ignored and avoided. Perhaps I should have used shorter words and sentences.

5. Which is precisely why I knew you didn't care about sources initially.

You're a pathetic mindless follower of the far-left. You don't have facts or figures, but just (as you admit), the inability to distinguish reality from the mass media. You can't play with the big boys, at least not in this arena. I'm sure you have your areas of expertise. Judging from your mental acuity and your overly-inflated self-worth, I suspect you are one heck of a great Monster Truck builder, who hasn't yet learned that you should only tune the engines in areas with good ventilation, nor that home-brewed alcohol ain't so good for you.

If you feel the need to reply, how about starting with reading my post again. Rebut it. (For you and your twelve toes, that means "find sources that directly address and disprove it. ") For example, prove that Ferguson was correct in his models for Mad Cow. Or perhaps that my claims of his projections were inaccurate. (Good luck with that. They're his, not mine.) Or prove that he did not revise his initially published "Coronavirus" model, after admitting (on Twitter, you FN Twit) that it was his old FLU model and was undocumented.

I'm unclear on why you are participating while not adding any value other than an Adam Sandler-like idiocy. If Coronavirus ate brains, I would suspect it had hit yours. Unless it starved to death in the attempt.

To the Mod-Gods. This is the "rant" area, and this is a "rant", so I trust this will be okay, but how on Earth do you tolerate this WillShookSpear fool? At best, he twiddled a toothpick!

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4779817]Really, I should know better.

I'm not "looking for a fight"; I simply believe the information I get from mainstream sources, while others get theirs from the fringe because they have a deep-seated need to find conspiracy everywhere. The two perspectives are irreconcilable.

Which is why this is how these wackadoodle conversation go. "All the experts" turns into a fringe ex-journalist and spy novel author, Brazil being 8th in the world (and moving up fast) becomes a discussion about map projection models and perception. And the next credible source is a diet doc off of Oprah. It's a bunch of unrelated information that could be seen to support a perspective. So that's how it's used.

So. No, I won't be listening to Dr. David Katz, a nutritional expert with absolutely no infectious disease credentials who is just managing his brand and getting on TV as much as he can talk about a pandemic. He even hash tagged his perspective to "get the hits". You can go to your proctologist for investment advice, but don't be surprised when the results are shit. The question isn't why won't I watch it. The question is why would you? Ah, because he supports your fringe perspective. And maybe because you watch a lot of Oprah.

Nor will I be paying any attention to a former newspaper reporter and spy novel author for my pandemic information. The question is: why are you? Ah, because he supports your perspective.

Let the hilarity resume. Should be interesting to see what happens with the re-opening.[/QUOTE]You said that if the US did as Brazil did they would be in worse shape. Brazil clearly by any measure is not doing worse than the US. 8th what? Cases? Deaths? What?

Brazil has registered 12,000 deaths with a population of 200,000,000 people while the US has 80,000 with a population of 331,000,000 how is that worse?

Diet doctor on Oprah that's kinda funny how you reduced an Ivy League educated physician to a diet doc on Oprah.

Like I said, you just want to fight.

Who the fuck is the spy novel author? What the fuck are you even ranting about?

[QUOTE=Rousse;4780388]To the Mod-Gods. This is the "rant" area, and this is a "rant", so I trust this will be okay, but how on Earth do you tolerate this WillShookSpear fool? At best, he twiddled a toothpick![/QUOTE]You're good, this is the correct forum.

As to Will whatever so long as he confines his douchbaggery to this thread it's ok.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4780388] I've actually worked in medical research and medical devices for years. I know how to read the papers, and I get papers the media generally either doesn't see or just ignores. My guess is the papers are just too dry for their short attention spans, even though if they read them, they might be able to make a really punchy headline.[/QUOTE]Who the fuck cares what your background is? You know how to wash test tubes and plug in BP machines, and that makes you a medical expert? Seriously. You're funnier every single time. My guess is you read the papers written by experts, choose a few lines you think support you. Taken well out of context. And then position yourself as an expert. As you're doing here. Honestly, claiming credibility as an infectious disease specialist based on your "credentials" is the funniest damn thing I've read all day.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4780388] I didn't quote any crackpots; I gave you actual data. Which you ignored and avoided[/QUOTE]You did both. You quoted a useless source, and a model that no one. No one. Is using. Everyone is using the IHME model, you reference another. This is because you continue to look for wacko sources to "prove your point". Which is what, exactly?

Other than the hilarity, this isn't a lot of fun. It's hilarious (again) that you hurl insults. Especially "lefty". I don't care if someone is a "lefty" or a "righty" as long as they're not a dummy. Like you.

I have no intention of going through your bullshit rant again. Tell you what. Respond in a simple way, which you should be capable of, listing "All the experts" that you referenced. Your words. Plain, and simple. Just "All the experts".

Interestingly, there's this thing called free speech; perhaps the Constitution might prove an interesting read. It's the open season forum, you are the Moose.

[QUOTE=Admin2;4780542]You said that if the US did as Brazil did they would be in worse shape.[/QUOTE]I did; and the death toll continues to mount. Seriously. Your contention that the only at-risk population is the elderly, and that social distancing is ineffective is supported by absolutely no one credible.

[QUOTE=Admin2;4780542]Diet doctor on Oprah that's kinda funny how you reduced an Ivy League educated physician to a diet doc on Oprah.[/QUOTE]He's your choice. Tell me, in precise terms: what are his credentials for being an expert on a world-wide pandemic. Just list his experience and expertise. Who cares where he was educated if he's out of his specialty? You can have an ENT look up your ass for your head, and he'd find it. But you'd be well-advised to get a proctologist instead. This is what comes of not being a critical thinker.

[QUOTE=Admin2;4780542]Who the fuck is the spy novel author? What the fuck are you even ranting about?[/QUOTE]Oh, didn't bother to check sources? Alex Berenson, who "is in a much better position than you to know" than I about. Stuff, I guess, mostly writes spy novels these days. Meaning he's a pandemic expert. Oh, the hilarity!

Even his Wikipedia entry notes that "During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Berenson vocally argued that people and the media were overestimating the risk of the new virus, that it posed little risk to young Americans, and that it was being used as a cover for government overreach. Public health experts have disputed his claims. " Someone can always find someone to say something you agree with, even if they have absolutely credibility at all.

Oh, and you're welcome to boot me at any time Nazis always justify shutting down discussion when they're ill-equipped to deal with it.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4783004]Who the fuck cares what your background is? You know how to wash test tubes and plug in BP machines, and that makes you a medical expert?[/QUOTE]Yeah, that's it. I'd be happy to compare credentials against you.

You pay-for-play, so let's make this fun again. Let's bet 20 times a rough going rate, call it $5 K, which we'll each escrow with a detached reputable third-party, that I can demonstrate at least twice as much involvement in actual medical are and d (I. E. Leading to products used in a medical or case management environment) as you. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

(Yes, we'll have to disclose our identities to the judging third party, of course.).

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4783004]Interestingly, there's this thing called free speech; perhaps the Constitution might prove an interesting read. It's the open season forum, you are the Moose.[/QUOTE]Not sure what the "Moose" is, but you apparently know as little about law as you do about medicine. "Free Speech" doesn't apply to a privately-run forum.

On the bright side, you are a Renaissance Idiot; you know absolutely nothing, but pontificate with great certainly, about almost everything.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4783478]I'd be happy to compare credentials against you.[/QUOTE]I have a masters in aerospace engineering and I'm two quarters away from an executive MBA. Know what that means for what I know about pandemics? Not a goddamn thing. I listen to people with real credentials. Which means not you. I read some of the underlying documents and model assumptions, but I'm in no way qualified to interpret anything deeper. Neither are you. Let's be clear here: I'm not claiming expertise here and never have.

You say all the experts are wrong, and that they've admitted they're wrong. I asked you to simply list "all the experts" that you referenced. Your words. You fail. Again. You got caught with your spy novelist "expert" and now you're trying to take his place. Well, you're at least equally as (un) qualified, so you got that going for you.

It's hilarious that you still think "involvement in actual medicine" makes you a pandemic expert. Honestly, going down this route shows how desperate you really are, and how unable you are to back up your contention. In the end, that's what started this. You made a statement, I asked you to back it up. You failed. Move on.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4783478]you apparently know as little about law as you do about medicine. "Free Speech" doesn't apply to a privately-run forum.[/QUOTE]That's completely true; other than contract law I know very little about either. And certainly you and your alt can certainly pull the Nazi power trip and silence me, or ban me. Honestly, no skin off my nose. It's not like this is a scintillating exchange of views.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4783478]but pontificate with great certainly[/QUOTE]Still waiting for that list of "All the Experts" there, Moose.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4784079]I have a masters in aerospace engineering and I'm two quarters away from an executive MBA. [/QUOTE]Ah, okay, that explains a lot. You've never done anything, can't actually do anything, and are a professional student who relies on others who also can't do anything for your own sense of value.

It's pretty common in the "real world" to not even interview candidates who have a masters or PhD. They're told they're "overqualified", but usually it's just that they so seldom are able to actually do anything, but they love to argue. It probably does mean missing out on some great candidates, but improves the yield on the expensive interview process. One of my co-workers called them "Masters of Rhetoric. ".

Good thing you're going for a second.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4784768]The usual rant...[/QUOTE]You were going on about your credentials. What are they, again? I seem to have missed what they were, and how they qualify you as a pandemic expert.

I suspect your ridiculous perspective on advanced degrees is because you don't have one. Sour grapes are always sad to see, and I'm sure you and your fellow bottle-washers do a lot of commiserating on how unfair it is and what bastards your leadership is with all those letters after their names. It appears what you're saying is that in biotech research they're hiring folks with a BS (no, not *your* BS) - and we both know that's simply not true. Unless, like you, they're washing bottles.

As for me, I am just a complete career failure. It's horrible. The money, the cars, the plane. Honest to God, I have no idea how I keep it together.

Still waitin' for that list of experts there, Moose. It appears that you've given up. It's been a hilarious trip: "all the experts" - one discredited expert - you.