Ok, that's it. I just saw the stupidest thing ever!

[Rez Exelon]

If you are talking about Fouchi then yes, I listen to what he says and I believe some of it. Go back a few years and listen to his speeches. He gives one where he specifically says there will be a massive pandemic during trumps presidency. How did he know that? Not difficult to understand.
When he talks about the mask issue I just chuckle. “But he’s a doctor!! He’s an expert!” Ya? Bullxxxx!!! He may be both of those things but his motives are not for the good of the people.
Call me whatever name you want, I don’t GAF. I do my own research and don’t have cable so I don’t watch the liberal media. Nor do I watch fox. They are crap as well except for a few. But I’m not the one calling others names and trying to make them look foolish for expressing their opinion. To those who are, at least I know what kind of person you are now. Which I appreciate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please point out where you were called a name. Specifically quote it because I don't remember calling anyone a name. Because if you're referring to my statement about the "tinfoil hat wearers around here" then you're kind of self-burning by assigning that as a label to yourself especially when that comment wasn't even a reply to one of your posts. If your opinion is well researched and informed, as you point out then someone taking issue with your opinion and debating it should be a breeze. At minimum it should be an academic exercise to discuss it and it's merits. On the whole I've noticed that society has moved to a place where we all get opinions and no one is supposed to question those opinions. I'm not the oldest person on the planet but when I was growing up, an opinion should be able to be debated, discussed, and sometimes debunked and reformed, but it seems like no one does that anymore.

 

[cktad]

Do you know better than the CDC? If so I bet Trump should reallocate their 11.something billion dollar annual budget to you. No agency is 100%. The FAA let the MAX go, the CIA has pulled all sorts of dumb ****, and on and on. Maybe they haven't hit 100% perfection in their history, however, I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't be getting 11.something BILLION dollars to pay their people who are trained, educated, and invested in disease research over most opinions if they didn't do better than alternatives. Certainty I'll listen to them over the tinfoil hat wearers around here.

Why trust an organization that has continually changed the "facts" about this virus. And you are on a gun forum so how about this gem from the CDC, “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths....to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

And why hang around here and participate in discussions with tinfoil hat wearers if it upsets you so much.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Why trust an organization that has continually changed the "facts" about this virus. And you are on a gun forum so how about this gem from the CDC, “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths....to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

And why hang around here and participate in discussions with tinfoil hat wearers if it upsets you so much.

You mean a scientific organization might be inclined to change based on new facts and evidence? I know that can be a foreign concept, but typically that's the way good science, business and thinking is done. The virus is 5 months old, and although it is similar to previous corona strains, they all work different, so researchers are going through a mountain of data in a short time. So yes, the CDC will change what is published as "fact" as well they should if new evidence supports the change.

As far as the gun quote, please link a source. I see several articles citing versions of the quote but nothing concrete, and most indicating that was the 90's. Even then, what's the worst that happens? If they came out with a biased study in the age of the internet, Fox News and the NRA they'd get torn apart. If the study was rigorously done and it found the opposite conclusion, then the 2A takes a leap forward.

As far as why I'm here ---- I've been here since 2009. I used to participate a lot back when the board hadn't run off everyone that didn't share the herd opinion, but once that happened I went back to a lurker. Met a lot of good folks through buying and selling, and generally not had a bad experience. But there are plenty of folks that are set in their ways, don't want to listen to other opinions, facts, evidence, or even a suggestion that might dispute their worldview. That's fine too --- right now I'm at the point of working from home that I'm bored, so contrary to your assessment that I'm upset in any way, I've actually been having a little fun by poking the bear(s) in putting my opinion out there.

 

[cktad]

You mean a scientific organization might be inclined to change based on new facts and evidence? I know that can be a foreign concept, but typically that's the way good science, business and thinking is done. The virus is 5 months old, and although it is similar to previous corona strains, they all work different, so researchers are going through a mountain of data in a short time. So yes, the CDC will change what is published as "fact" as well they should if new evidence supports the change.

As far as the gun quote, please link a source. I see several articles citing versions of the quote but nothing concrete, and most indicating that was the 90's. Even then, what's the worst that happens? If they came out with a biased study in the age of the internet, Fox News and the NRA they'd get torn apart. If the study was rigorously done and it found the opposite conclusion, then the 2A takes a leap forward.

As far as why I'm here ---- I've been here since 2009. I used to participate a lot back when the board hadn't run off everyone that didn't share the herd opinion, but once that happened I went back to a lurker. Met a lot of good folks through buying and selling, and generally not had a bad experience. But there are plenty of folks that are set in their ways, don't want to listen to other opinions, facts, evidence, or even a suggestion that might dispute their worldview. That's fine too --- right now I'm at the point of working from home that I'm bored, so contrary to your assessment that I'm upset in any way, I've actually been having a little fun by poking the bear(s) in putting my opinion out there.

CDC newest and it's interesting if true https://www.conservativereview.com/...-remarkably-low-coronavirus-death-rate-media/

 

[SMS]

Why would you believe anything the CDC reports? Their tack record isn't exactly a 100% on what it has reported or what it recommends.

So what's your answer and what's your point? Certainly it can all be some grand conspiracy coordinated by the CDC, all 50 states, and every hospital, hospital administrator in the country. We can go with that if you want, but where's your proof?

I provided you access to searchable and graph-able data on the number of deaths and causes of death during the time period in question, compiled from all the states. Data that can certainly be accessed and verified through FOIA request if one felt passionately enough to put a request in. Data that, if faked, would have to have been faked in coordination with the CDC, all 50 states and countless hospitals and doctors etc...What do you have? Let's dig in and discuss it.

CDC newest and it's interesting if true https://www.conservativereview.com/...-remarkably-low-coronavirus-death-rate-media/

Wait. Are we believing the CDC now? I'm confused.

 

[cktad]

So what's your answer and what's your point? Certainly it can all be some grand conspiracy coordinated by the CDC, all 50 states, and every hospital, hospital administrator in the country. We can go with that if you want, but where's your proof?

I provided you access to searchable and graph-able data on the number of deaths and causes of death during the time period in question, compiled from all the states. Data that can certainly be accessed and verified through FOIA request if one felt passionately enough to put a request in. Data that, if faked, would have to have been faked in coordination with the CDC, all 50 states and countless hospitals and doctors etc...What do you have? Let's dig in and discuss it.



Wait. Are we believing the CDC now? I'm confused.

I said if true. And this is another example of their so called facts and data that seems to change on a whim.

As far as the rest, you can provide all the graphs and charts you want but that doesn't mean they are factual as anyone can manipulate them to fit their agenda. There have been several reports where the states and health departments have admitted they fudged the death numbers and have revised them down. As Reagan said trust but verify but the problem with that is how do you trust an organization and verify their data especially when it frequently changes. I'm sure they get some things right but so far it seems like they are really just spitballing.

If you want to believe CDC is the gospel then be my guest but I don't.

 

[SMS]

Where are these "several reports" of state health departments fudging their death numbers?

BTW, if you review the data tables you can adjust for weighted and unweighted methods based on the use of provisional data used in the predictions. As always, there will be adjustments after the fact.

I'm not taking it as gospel. I'm presenting it as evidence in the discussion of "COVID is replacing all other causes of death" and "The COVID death count is overinflated". Do you have evidence on the other side of that discussion?

 

[doctorjj]

Plenty of the models used to justify lockdowns showed extreme numbers of deaths even if measures were taken. So all of you guys that said otherwise have bad memories. Specifically the model by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College in London which was, in fact, used to shape US policy did exactly that. It showed up to 1 million deaths even with "enhanced social distancing" measures including "shielding the elderly". The IHME models have changed through time as well. Initially, they showed much worse results even with social distancing measures being taken. And even with that said, we've all done a horrible job with social distancing and self imposed lockdowns. Cell phone data was analyzed and we were given an F grade. Has anyone looked around? Here in Oklahoma, social distancing measures likely made the interactions among people even more likely to spread the virus. Has anyone driven by a Lowes or Walmart? The same number of people are out and about, its just that now they only have a handful of places to go. People are more concentrated during shutdown than they were during business as usual. Walmart here looked like Black Friday for about 2 weeks straight.

 

[KurtM]

Once upon a time there was a reporter faced with a very hard problem, how to report on a story. He wrestled with the issue and decided to consult his friends and co-workers. Now since his friends thought about things very similarly.......and since reporters generally a similar type of folks, the answers he got usually supported his original conclusion. By the time he put forth the story he was absolutely convinced that "everybody" in the world thought the way he was reporting was THE right and only way because "everybody" he asked agreed with him. He naturally discounted the few who had different ideas as outliers, because the vast majority had agreed.
Now the folks that disagreed saw the big report in print, they saw that the reporter's friends were parroting his view point, because they had all talked about it in a vacuum and decided that the reporter and his friends were in collusion against their view....and was born another conspiracy!

 

[Rez Exelon]

Plenty of the models used to justify lockdowns showed extreme numbers of deaths even if measures were taken. So all of you guys that said otherwise have bad memories. Specifically the model by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College in London which was, in fact, used to shape US policy did exactly that. It showed up to 1 million deaths even with "enhanced social distancing" measures including "shielding the elderly". The IHME models have changed through time as well. Initially, they showed much worse results even with social distancing measures being taken. And even with that said, we've all done a horrible job with social distancing and self imposed lockdowns. Cell phone data was analyzed and we were given an F grade. Has anyone looked around? Here in Oklahoma, social distancing measures likely made the interactions among people even more likely to spread the virus. Has anyone driven by a Lowes or Walmart? The same number of people are out and about, its just that now they only have a handful of places to go. People are more concentrated during shutdown than they were during business as usual. Walmart here looked like Black Friday for about 2 weeks straight.

Please don't take this as me disagreeing with your point entirely --- but one important consideration for the early models compared to later models is that new evidence gets factored in as time goes on. It's entirely possible that early models, based on early data, were skewed to a degree by the limited sample size and inherent need to make educated guesses. In retrospect it's easy to say they were wrong and second guess them, but that doesn't mean that at the time they were not as accurate as possible.

Plenty of times in history that same 20/20 can be applied, more than just COVID in 2020.