whatdrought Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That or the original models were garbage... 3
BullBuchanan Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 14 hours ago, reddogblitz said: I understand your point. However what impact would this have on outsourcing jobs to places where people make $2 a day and the continual rise of automation taking away jobs? This argument supposes that this isn't happening anyway. It's been happening for decades and isn't going to stop even if we allow slave labor. The solution is finding a better path forward. There's never been a shortage of work to do, even now. As for outsourcing, that's a problem separate from wages that needs its own solution.
whatdrought Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, meazza said: There is no problem with having a discussion about the actual numbers but I’m getting irritated by many who are saying that the numbers are being inflated to cause panic. Models based on ever evolving inputs will show evolving results. The goal is to have the most precise data and we should all thank Italy and Spain for that sacrifice. For those thinking we are overreacting, surely they would feel differently if it was their parents in an assisted living facility where people are dying in high percentages. "Evolving inputs will show evolving results" is all well and good, but from day one you have to make assumptions based on missing data variables. How and what you assume determines how the model will result. As for the second line, an appeal to emotion doesn't change hard numbers and data. We can be sympathetic of those suffering while still questioning the numbers in an unemotional way. 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: oh, and I'm shocked and stunned. Narratives aint gonna push themselves. Edited April 9, 2020 by whatdrought 3
meazza Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: "Evolving inputs will show evolving results" is all well and good, but from day one you have to make assumptions based on missing data variables. How and what you assume determines how the model will result. As for the second line, an appeal to emotion doesn't change hard numbers and data. We can be sympathetic of those suffering while still questioning the numbers in a unemotional way. Yes and sometimes those models will be catastrophically wrong (see Italy and Spain ). In the event that our confidence of the models are low, best to be cautious.
BullBuchanan Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, Doc Brown said: A modest increase in the federal wage would get people off the welfare roles and increase consumer spending, but that much of a hike would make it impossible for small business owners to turn a profit. It never has before. People always say this, yet it doesn't really happen. Small businesses in Seattle didn't collapse after implementing $15 minimum wages like the right said they would. We definitely need to help small businesses more and big corporations less, though. My general philosophy is that we should make it easier for people and small businesses to reach the median level of success while constantly working to raise the floor of what we allow for the least of our countrymen. Generally, it's already the way our progressive tax system is setup, except it doesn't actually work the way it should. Edited April 9, 2020 by BullBuchanan
Boatdrinks Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 1 hour ago, ScotSHO said: So when faced with a challenge, step 1 is to invalidate article 1 of the constitution. Exactly. People are dying because of a virus, and because a lot of people don’t practice good hygiene and don’t respect others personal space. However, the country wasn’t founded on the concept of fear and bowing to government control over every aspect of daily life.
Albwan Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said: What kind of successes are those, aside from your obvious mastery of the English language? He found a way to break the locked plastic covering on the thermostat in moms basement. 1
whatdrought Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 7 minutes ago, meazza said: Yes and sometimes those models will be catastrophically wrong (see Italy and Spain ). In the event that our confidence of the models are low, best to be cautious. I don't disagree. But we need caution on both sides of the spectrum. The idea that millions would be killed without shutting down the country is obviously reason to shut down the country. But when the models showing that crazy high number are based on assumptions, we have to look past the shock factor and ask if the damage to the economy is worth the risk of defending against a model that has some serious flaws. Those flaws are now being revealed, and I think it's a hard sell to say that social distancing is what caused the models to be that wrong. That, however, will be the lasting debate: Were the models wrong from the jump, or did we avoid the true weight of it? I guess that's a matter of what you thought initially. 2
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 https://kdvr.com/news/man-arrested-in-front-of-daughter-at-brighton-park-for-allegedly-violating-social-distancing/ 2
Boatdrinks Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 2 hours ago, Q-baby! said: Only people who care about numbers for political reasons care about that. Or those who just want to know facts, not garbage numbers. 1
shoshin Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 31 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/09/ag_bill_barr_media_on_a_jihad_to_discredit_trump_and_hydroxychloroquine.html Lots of talk about tracking and civil liberties on top of the title subject -- which is why it belongs in this thread too. @shoshin , take a listen to the interview when you get a chance. It might provide some food for thought. The media is no friend to Trump and sometimes us, and Trump is often no friend to himself or us. You seem to have your jihad on this in other threads and I'm skipping that. I'm all for stopping covid-19, whether it's using HCQ to minimize symptoms or monitoring patient contacts so we can get the hell back to work. If the government wanted to execute everyone that came in contact with a covid-19 patient, that would go too far, but tracking does not. I will not be a Constitutional purist about this. This is a war. We need war-like measures. Do you think you'd have the same rights you have on your mobile phone if we were in a global shooting war with China? No. We are all sitting home without the right to assemble (thus abridging our 1st amendment "right" to peaceably assemble)...I would like my right to assemble re-established in exchange for a limited sacrifice of my right to privacy while we stave this off. So let's get on with tracking for a limited time, whether it's government run or privately controlled, so we can get out of this mess. If not, let's all go french kiss pangolins and see who makes it out the other side. 1
Tiberius Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 31 minutes ago, whatdrought said: That or the original models were garbage... Do you think they were? 15 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I don't disagree. But we need caution on both sides of the spectrum. The idea that millions would be killed without shutting down the country is obviously reason to shut down the country. But when the models showing that crazy high number are based on assumptions, we have to look past the shock factor and ask if the damage to the economy is worth the risk of defending against a model that has some serious flaws. Those flaws are now being revealed, and I think it's a hard sell to say that social distancing is what caused the models to be that wrong. That, however, will be the lasting debate: Were the models wrong from the jump, or did we avoid the true weight of it? I guess that's a matter of what you thought initially. If the NHL NBA and all the schools and restaurants stayed up it would of been a nighmare 11 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said: https://kdvr.com/news/man-arrested-in-front-of-daughter-at-brighton-park-for-allegedly-violating-social-distancing/ I can really see coughing become a major reason for arrests. People are already using coughing to scare people or make them sick. And forget about it if someone sneezes in a crowd, it will cause a panic
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: His answer will be the same as @BullBuchanan's was when he was presented with an Obama era FISC opinion memo and called it a "insane conspiracy theory": Facts don't matter to those with TDS. Trends don't matter to those with TDS. History doesn't matter to those with TDS. They're all prisoners/victims of the moment. They've hollowed out their skulls, scooping out all that pesky material that aids cognition and independent thought, and replaced it with a spigot connected directly to the most insidious and divisive propaganda network in human history. Because both @BullBuchanan and @transplantbillsfan are not only intellectual cowards, they're scared that once they acknowledge that they were had on one topic, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down on top of them. They're both gutless, and seek their refuge in echo chambers which don't point out they've been conned, but instead tell them that their FEELZ are valid despite the lack of evidence to back any of it up. I hear you, and truth be told, I think TBF is a bit overwrought on this issue. I think he's a victim of too much data, too much time at the computer, too much time listening to all the gloom and doom. Dr. Oz was on tv today and referred to the politicization of the virus as a 'perversion of medicine'. I think that is an excellent way to put it. All I'm trying to get to is how someone like TBF gets where he is, and how he rationalizes the erroneous reporting over a 36 month period. I know how I feel, how many of us here feel about media reports. I had a heated discussion with an old friend who is a journalist a couple years ago--he said, basically, that fact checking at the major media outlets is so stringent that it would be virtually impossible for someone to do agenda-based reporting and cite 'anonymous sources' for political gain. How on earth does someone who can chew gum, drive a car and change the radio station get to the point where in essence he is advocating "BELIEVE ALL"? It's crazy and dangerous , and while we know that...Transpy seems to hang his hat on the media as infalliable and beyond reproach. Me? I think a guy like Sean Hannity, a guy like Chris Hayes and a guy like Rachel Maddow exist in media outlets, write 'fact-checked' stories and everything else such as what is cited by TBF. That begs the questions asked. I'd like one response on that issue other than the old fallback "Hooo-ha dude you're crazy!", which is just another way of saying "BELIEVE ALL". See, I'm not a blind homer, I'm just a guy trying to navigate all that noise. Btw that heart punch is graphic! Edited April 9, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
Deranged Rhino Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 6 minutes ago, shoshin said: The media is no friend to Trump and sometimes us, and Trump is often no friend to himself or us. You seem to have your jihad on this in other threads and I'm skipping that. I'm all for stopping covid-19, whether it's using HCQ to minimize symptoms or monitoring patient contacts so we can get the hell back to work. If the government wanted to execute everyone that came in contact with a covid-19 patient, that would go too far, but tracking does not. I will not be a Constitutional purist about this. This is a war. We need war-like measures. Do you think you'd have the same rights you have on your mobile phone if we were in a global shooting war with China? No. We are all sitting home without the right to assemble (thus abridging our 1st amendment "right" to peaceably assemble)...I would like my right to assemble re-established in exchange for a limited sacrifice of my right to privacy while we stave this off. So let's get on with tracking for a limited time, whether it's government run or privately controlled, so we can get out of this mess. If not, let's all go french kiss pangolins and see who makes it out the other side. The suggestion that the tracking would be "for a limited time" only belies that you believe the government would give you back the rights it stripped from you when that's never been done in history. Once they're gone, they're not coming back. Honest question, in your opinion, did the Patriot Act make you more safe, or less safe? 2 1 1
Q-baby! Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 17 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Or those who just want to know facts, not garbage numbers. I bet you were just as concerned about H1N1 stats, right?
Boatdrinks Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 1 minute ago, Q-baby! said: I bet you were just as concerned about H1N1 stats, right? Since our collective rights were not being stripped away, I paid only mild attention to H1N1. 2 1
meazza Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 24 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I don't disagree. But we need caution on both sides of the spectrum. The idea that millions would be killed without shutting down the country is obviously reason to shut down the country. But when the models showing that crazy high number are based on assumptions, we have to look past the shock factor and ask if the damage to the economy is worth the risk of defending against a model that has some serious flaws. Those flaws are now being revealed, and I think it's a hard sell to say that social distancing is what caused the models to be that wrong. That, however, will be the lasting debate: Were the models wrong from the jump, or did we avoid the true weight of it? I guess that's a matter of what you thought initially. The most important metric that will be available in the future is the antibody test which will give the policy makers a better idea of how many actually have the virus. It will allow for a better idea of the spread and the actual mortality and critical illness rate. Dan Crenshaw on Joe Rogan's podcast yesterday said it best, we retreated from the battlefield by shutting down the economy to allow us to regroup and come up with a strategy. This was necessary no matter what the outcomes actually are. 2
dpberr Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 24 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I don't disagree. But we need caution on both sides of the spectrum. The idea that millions would be killed without shutting down the country is obviously reason to shut down the country. But when the models showing that crazy high number are based on assumptions, we have to look past the shock factor and ask if the damage to the economy is worth the risk of defending against a model that has some serious flaws. Those flaws are now being revealed, and I think it's a hard sell to say that social distancing is what caused the models to be that wrong. That, however, will be the lasting debate: Were the models wrong from the jump, or did we avoid the true weight of it? I guess that's a matter of what you thought initially. To a degree, the models were based on Italy's experience with the virus because it was providing the most transparent data to model. I always thought that was going to jack the numbers up significantly. Italy is a flat broke, corrupt country that invests zero dollars in anything infrastructure related, including its healthcare system. You layer on top of it it''s one of the oldest and unhealthiest countries in Europe and just so happened to also be frequented heavily by Chinese workers and tourists in the months prior to outbreak, and you could see the disaster taking shape in hindsight. People thought the United States was caught off guard - it was 100 times worse in Italy in terms of shortages of equipment and hospital infrastructure.
Recommended Posts