Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

[Flyer99]

It's Christen Eagle II. Named after the builder. Became the Aviat. You have one?

I went ahead and contacted UMB Escrow Services in Seattle and they were willing to do a double-blind escrow with a deterministic of specific performance, taking the $600 fee from the transfer. I paid the doc fees up front. When both accounts are funded to $5,000.00 USD with attached documents, they will disburse the full amount (minus fees, as noted) to the second party (you) if credentials are provided consistent with being a nationally-recognized expert on infectious disease. You can PM me solely for the purpose of gaining the account / access code for this account.

UMB Escrow Account 3368-22-18

I already showed my cards. It would be trivial for you to do the same, but.

Straight tail Cessnas are cool like a GMC Pacer is cool. My Christian Eagle II was cheaper, but so much more fun.

And algorithm. Yes, that's exactly true. You can even purchase the model, or in the case here download it freely for academic use.

I think you're a little confused on the difference between data and the algorithm that provides the analytic view of that data.

For anyone that's actually interested on a good populist treatise on the model referenced, this is a good article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6.

The key takeaways, as I noted, as are follows:

". that, in turn, requires information that can be only loosely estimated at the start of an epidemic".

". had the United States taken no action against the virus, it would have seen 2. 18 million deaths.

Again, the referenced model *is not* the one being used. The IHME model has the same constraints, but continues to improve as more data is available.

[Efurufe]

When do we vote for a winner, so this ridiculous contest can end?

I vote for WillShookSpear.

[Rousse]

I went ahead and contacted UMB Escrow Services in Seattle and they were willing to do a double-blind escrow with a deterministic of specific performance, taking the $600 fee from the transfer. I paid the doc fees up front. When both accounts are funded to $5,000.00 USD with attached documents, they will disburse the full amount (minus fees, as noted) to the second party (you) if credentials are provided consistent with being a nationally-recognized expert on infectious disease. You can PM me solely for the purpose of gaining the account / access code for this account.

That wasn't the term. The quote (the forum software changed the abbreviation for research and development, but beyond that) was:

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.

Recast it to those terms and I'll escrow and show the cards. And, of course, take the money.

Again, the referenced model *is not* the one being used. The IHME model has the same constraints, but continues to improve as more data is available.

The problem isn't the current model being used, although there are quite a few being used, so much as that they based their apocalyptic forecasts (which you still subscribe to) on the Imperial College model that wasn't even modeled on COVID, and they've moved the goal posts since then. This whole argument was (at least my my perspective) about the documented fact that the initial model was wrong. Even Ferguson admitted it wasn't even a COVID model. And then that the governments did not recalibrate based on discovering how far off it was / is.

Since you acknowledged that polio and COVID would, by your definition, be the same model -.

And algorithm. Yes, that's exactly true.

I think it's clear that there's no way we can come to agreement on this. You're simply not using the words the same way I am. Of course, the way you're using them, there is no "modelling" of infectious diseases, just twiddling with inputs. Although I am unclear on how you can say that there are different models and yet all the same. Very Christian of you. The Holy Trinity of models. All different and yet all one.

Straight tail Cessnas are cool like a GMC Pacer is cool. My Christian Eagle II was cheaper, but so much more fun.

I hadn't heard of those, but it looks and probably really is hella cool. I used to fly an acrobat-rated 152, but I agree that it lacks the cool factor.

[Member #6240]

Either bet or don't

I went ahead and contacted UMB Escrow Services in Seattle and they were willing to do a double-blind escrow with a deterministic of specific performance, taking the $600 fee from the transfer. I paid the doc fees up front. When both accounts are funded to $5,000.00 USD with attached documents, they will disburse the full amount (minus fees, as noted) to the second party (you) if credentials are provided consistent with being a nationally-recognized expert on infectious disease. You can PM me solely for the purpose of gaining the account / access code for this account.

UMB Escrow Account 3368-22-18

you don't get to see the other cards

I already showed my cards. It would be trivial for you to do the same, but.

I presume a '70's Cessna

Straight tail Cessnas are cool like a GMC Pacer is cool. My Christian Eagle II was cheaper, but so much more fun.

By your definition, polio and COVID-19 are the same model, just refined differently due to different data.

And algorithm. Yes, that's exactly true. You can even purchase the model, or in the case here download it freely for academic use.

I think you're a little confused on the difference between data and the algorithm that provides the analytic view of that data.

For anyone that's actually interested on a good populist treatise on the model referenced, this is a good article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6.

The key takeaways, as I noted, as are follows:

". that, in turn, requires information that can be only loosely estimated at the start of an epidemic".

". had the United States taken no action against the virus, it would have seen 2. 18 million deaths.

Again, the referenced model *is not* the one being used. The IHME model has the same constraints, but continues to improve as more data is available.

[Rousse]

You are absolutely precious. You want $5 K to post what your educational level is? I've never seen Golden Pussy Syndrome in a man before. Does that $5 K include kissing and BBFSCIP? Regardless, it's irrelevant. You're not an expert in global pandemics.

Oh you are so cute!!! I set betting terms based on that we would both fully verify it. You bragged about all your cars, your airplane (I presume a '70's Cessna, at 1/3 the cost of a decent Harley, but it's not really relevant), etc. , so $5 K should be pocket change for you. Either bet or don't. But once you fold, you don't get to see the other cards. So ante up. I'll do the same. If I'm a liar, I'll have $5 K to loose.

No, not the case on both counts. First, the model wasn't inaccurate. It simply refined as assumptions changed as they're supposed to.

That's ludicrous. He admitted he didn't even modify it from the old undocumented flu model. He didn't change it due to new data, but because it was called out as not even relevant and he couldn't justify it.

You don't seem to grasp where the line between the model (which is based on, and integrates, certain assumptions) and the inputs (essentially parameters.) The model includes values for how easily, in this case, it spreads, under what conditions, how serious, how long it's asymptomatic. Can it spread by insect, by tap water, by food. The inputs, the bits you can modify while keeping the model, are things like the actual weather, how much social distancing occurred, quality of medical care.

If you got the basics, such as how it spreads (e. G. It's an STD, not spread by kissing, or it's asymptomatic but contagious for days), those changes are a new model. Yes, you changed models due to data, but that's because your falsifiable hypothesis was falsified.

By your definition, polio and COVID-19 are the same model, just refined differently due to different data.

Honestly, if you can't even see how pathetic your justifications are, no data will satisfy you. As I said, you know rhetoric. And apparently nothing else.

[Member #6240]

You pony up the $5 K into escrow, I'll do the same, and I'll put it all out there.

You are absolutely precious. You want $5 K to post what your educational level is? I've never seen Golden Pussy Syndrome in a man before. Does that $5 K include kissing and BBFSCIP? Regardless, it's irrelevant. You're not an expert in global pandemics.

Honest to God, every time you post I think you can't possibly be funnier but you are. Everybody gets a Netflix special, you should really make the call.

I gave you specifics about Ferguson, upon whom everything else was based

No, not the case on both counts. First, the model wasn't inaccurate. It simply refined as assumptions changed as they're supposed to. Further, the IMHE model primarily consumes the UW model which has indeed changed. Again, as the underlying assumptions and activities, such as shelter-in-place orders, changed. Saying a model is inaccurate at a particular point in time demonstrates a lack of understanding of concepts such as information velocity / volatility. The purpose of a model is to provide predictive guidance based on an algorithm, the assumptions and data underlying that algorithm change, and so it's refined and thus provides more accurate predictive guidance. I know nothing about pandemics, but I create and use these types of "big data" analytical models all the time in supply chain operations and manufacturing processes. These are the types of skills that make up a "useless" advanced degree.

I feel obligated to continue pushing back against your endless bullying.

A www...are you feeling bullied? Just by being asked to back up your statement? Hey, virtual man hug, bro. Just let it out. It's OK. I'll drop off; I didn't know I was hurting your feelers.

But. Still waiting' for that list of all the experts there, Moose.

[Homer Pimpson]

Here's my contribution: The Bareback thread is 100 percent useless.

[Rousse]

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.

You pony up the $5 K into escrow, I'll do the same, and I'll put it all out there. That's the offer I made up front. The fact that you acknowledge you know nothing doesn't change that.

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.

I gave you specifics about Ferguson, upon whom everything else was based, admitting his model wasn't even a Coronavirus model and reworking it. You apparently either can't understand it or are just ignoring it. The UW changed their model twice in three days at one point too; given that you're in a Seattle forum, not sure how you missed that one.

Feel free to continue. Now that I know you have, in addition to no reasoning or logical skills, an advanced degree demonstrating the disaster that some post-grad programs have become, I feel obligated to continue pushing back against your endless bullying.

[Member #6240]

There are only guys here, no reason for you both to be chubbing up trying to show who has the bigger dick.

https://youtu.be/yzI2SYpZSgI

[Michael1967]

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.

There are only guys here, no reason for you both to be chubbing up trying to show who has the bigger dick.

[Member #6240]

The usual rant...

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.

[Rousse]

I have a masters in aerospace engineering and I'm two quarters away from an executive MBA.

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.

[Member #6240]

I'd be happy to compare credentials against you.

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.

you apparently know as little about law as you do about medicine. "Free Speech" doesn't apply to a privately-run forum.

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.

but pontificate with great certainly

Still waiting for that list of "All the Experts" there, Moose.

[Rousse]

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?

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.).

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.

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.

[Member #6240]

You said that if the US did as Brazil did they would be in worse shape.

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.

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

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.

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

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.