Joe Miner
-
Posts
4,826 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Joe Miner
-
-
There are numerous studies that question the effectiveness of cloth masks. Some even show that cloth masks raise the chance of infection.
Why do we question the effectiveness of some medicines and measures but not others?
-
7 hours ago, KD in CA said:
Oh yeah.....impeachment. Almost forgot. When is that supposed to happen again?It didn't.
But only because Trump resigned in his first year just like everyone predicted.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Magox said:
I’d like to expand a little further on this. This opinion would not be a popular viewpoint but I think it’s legitimate and when we are talking about policy implications looking at the raw data by eliminating the emotive elements have to be considered.
So what are some of the facts?
Average coronavirus age of someone who dies is 80.
Average age of someone in the US who dies excluding coronavirus is 78.
88% of people who die of coronavirus have 2 or more comorbidities.
If someone is 80 years old and has 2 or more comorbidities, Which is the typical profile of the average person who dies of COVID then would it not be a reasonable statement to say that since they were already at a more vulnerable age in bad health that the virus was essentially the last straw?
I don’t want to minimize anyone’s situation and if there is someone reading this that fits into this category or close to it please don’t think that I’m suggesting that people who do are valued any less. I empathize with people especially the thought that many of these people who pass away are separated from their families and are alone in their death beds. The thought of that horrified me.
But from a public policy point of view this has to be considered when you have governments creating these other residual effects of the shut downs that are causing younger people to not get the care they need for heart and cancer related afflictions that is also leading to deaths.
I’m curious how close the 88% number is for the same demographic that then gets pneumonia.-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, keepthefaith said:
Gee what will CNN, MSNBC, WaPO and the others report now? That Barr just let one of Trump's cronies, a guy who pled guilty, walk for purely political purposes?
What makes you think they'll report this?
-
1
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Gugny said:
He gave himself a nickname and ripped off Marshawn Lynch's name in the process.
Cut his ass.
I think he should have gone with Mossman
-
1
-
10
-
1
-
-
On 5/2/2020 at 11:44 AM, Deranged Rhino said:
Don't forget.
6) Covid didn't start in a Wuhan lab.
-
4
-
-
Could anyone else stand watching the draft coverage this weekend?
Holy crap am I sick and tired of hearing "we're all in this together" and "we got this."
Maybe it's just me but I didn't have the draft on in the background to continually hear this garbage. I was actually hoping for more footage of BB's dog so I didn't have to listen to their constant togetherness mantra.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc said:
I was going to try and create a Miley Cyrus on a corona virus pic but I couldn't.
Talk about the virus mutating....
Scary.
-
43 minutes ago, Doc said:
If you have any brains at all, you realize this thing came in before any country knew it was already there.
Would you say it came in like a wrecking ball?
-
15 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:
1) Ma'am, are you saying that your ***** is infected?
2) Oh, usually I'm not the one that needs a mask
3) Have you tried shaving it?
4) Was it hanging around the Siamese?
5) Don't worry, it won't be hard to quarantine that *****.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
Joe Biden tries out for Iron Man.
-
1 hour ago, Hedge said:
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, daz28 said:
Isn't the government literally trying to get rid of disease carrying parasites? How can that be a bad thing?
Ok, this is a pretty impressive troll job. I admit, you had me going for a bit.-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, daz28 said:
I stopped reading when she said Biden said to her, "C'mon man, I thought you liked me". Does she really expect anyone to believe that he really said something that stupid?
Joe Biden: When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth
-
4 minutes ago, TH3 said:
True....but trump got the ball rolling playing advocate and doctor
At least your hypocricy is justified ?
-
1 minute ago, daz28 said:
It is similar to letting the invisible enemy infect millions of people with a deadly virus. The fact that it's not deliberate makes it all the more stupid.
This seems correct. I remember reading about the Gestapo's 1% fatality rate.
-
1
-
-
Do we realize that neither side has actually conducted enough clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of this 1 way or another?
But it is funny that the idiots screaming about Trump promoting something unproven are also promoting something unproven.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
(shrugs) I don't think that video is from the US, but could be wrong.
Can you imagine getting stuck behind some jackass on a treadmill?-
3
-
-
22 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Is that allowed on the street?
-
5 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:
Both, unfortunately, since we can’t decouple our environment from the rest of the world. Implement public policy changes for ourselves, while using diplomacy and different forms of economic pressure policies for everyone else. China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward beyond COVID-19 (hopefully…because it is in their own economic interests to be that way). CCP is also positioned very favorably for all these nascent renewable energy industries because of their country’s own rich transition metal oxide natural resources, as well as the ones they’ve been eyeing in Africa.
Thanks for this reply. A few comments:
1. Regarding a clearly defined problem and solution: You’ve listed 7 questions. Do you want me to answer them in detail here? Or were they more rhetorical? Questions 3, 5, and 7 are very well-defined by the science (quick source: NASA GISS site). Questions 1, 2, and 4 are defined well enough (quick source: Paris Climate Agreement PDF documents) with a converging consensus, but there is still a range of opinions that vary somewhat by country. Question 6 is still open-ended with the “Green New Deal” umbrella term for the potpourri of solutions, but the United States is one of the few remaining countries in the world with a major political party still stuck debating the worthiness of the other 6 questions first. I’d be happy to answer them in detail later if open-minded people want to read them, but it’s not worth my time if they will be laughed at because they’re coming from a “pseudo scientist” perceived as capable of reading and regurgitating but incapable of understanding and questioning. I’ve already defined the criteria I’m looking for in order to break off from the mainstream scientific consensus: dissenting research papers or research summary articles from properly credentialed climatologists that I could examine. What would be your evidence criteria in order to join my side (a question directed at any anthropogenic climate change skeptic reading this)?
2. On the models and data: I’ve never argued that all the data is known. Likewise with the modeling assumptions and unknown variables. What I did argue was that enough of the data and modeling assumptions are known to make satisfactorily accurate climate predictions. We can have a discussion on what constitutes “satisfactorily accurate.” Future predictions that track all data metrics within 2.5% deviation at 100% consistency? Have you defined your own computational model accuracy expectations at which scientific legitimacy can then be bestowed? It seems absurd and unproductive to me to demand climate model perfectionism before political action is to be taken. It would probably be more productive to take up an accuracy debate with credible climatologists (Zeke Hausfather would be a pretty good start).
3. On government solutions: I’m currently looking into what’s specifically working and what’s specifically not with all the various Green New Deal implementations in the EU, especially in Germany right now. All ideas should be on the table, anyway, given the pressing need to overhaul our dilapidated national civil infrastructure. I just want to reiterate that I would be unhappy pushing Green New Deal legislation without careful deliberation beforehand and without appropriate safeguards. I like to think that we share similarly deep concerns for government overreaches of power, government choosing economic winners and losers, and government waste and inefficiencies that increase with government program size. Where I may possibly differ from others here is my essentially equal concern for corporate power left unchecked in capitalist systems (the fossil fuel industries in this case). I’m mostly referring to the many forms of crony capitalism: shirking environmental stewardship responsibilities via deregulatory pollution law measures, price manipulation policies, foreign policy in places like the Middle East and Venezuela, and exploiting such an overly expansive U.S. transportation grid already built to heavily favor fossil fuel consumption. But even in a completely uncorrupted and unfettered capitalist system, I fully and very cynically expect private tech industries to move on their own volition without proper regard to long-term crises involving mutually shared risk (i.e. man-made climate change).
Last comment and I'm out.
Your full faith is in the science of others. You are a true believer. Any attempt to make you question the science you defend will be met with more quotes of scripture and verse from said science.
The idea that you even remotely support the green new deal shines as a bright beacon of your faith.
Peace be with you.
-
2 minutes ago, GG said:
It's fair to give a margin of error on the undocumented cases. But until last week, all NYS Wuhan-related deaths were tested positive - and they all were running at multiples of historic trends.
I don't disagree with any of that.
My intention isn't to suggest that this thing is being overblown in anyway. I'm saying that the numbers aren't 100% in either direction and it would be nice if we could gain some accuracy. At the very least it would hopefully put to bed arguments and mistrust that we see in the public
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Sundancer said:
Does "padding" number kill people?
The desire for people to minimize the reality of this is astounding.
More than 3X the number of normal deaths are happening in NYC FOR ALL CAUSES and there's some discussion about padding.
Does reporting a more accurate number kill people?
-
12 minutes ago, GG said:
You can do a simple extrapolation of normal morbidity to what the current rates are. Use the Quebec example above - 31 in 2 weeks, vs 4 in a month. These figures are consistent when a senior facility is infected. And NYC hasn't eliminated the heart attacks & strokes. If anything, NY EMTs report a significant increase for cardiac arrest calls during this break out. Just because it's not reported, doesn't mean it's not happening. There's a reason NYC funeral homes are backed up into May.
That's quite an oversimplified analysis.
The major assumption being that the ONLY cause for an increase in deaths of that small of a sample size is Corona. Without looking at any other factors during that period of time, or having any way to control any of the other factors
It's quick and it's easy ands it probably gets you pretty close to the actual number, but it's not a 100%.
Maybe it's better to present the death numbers like poll numbers? Give a margin of error.
-
Just now, GG said:
In NYS, the only number that may be in question is the additional 3,700 that NYC will be adding based on EMT's reports. All other cases attributed to Wuhan had tested positive for the virus prior to death.
This is the exact causation of the virus vs the correlation argument many are making. It doesn't matter if there were pre-existing conditions, without the virus very few of these people would die at this exact time.
Please define "very few" so we can all do the math and put this number question to bed.
The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
It literally says Not Peer Reviewed on each page of the link.