Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Why doesn’t everyone have him on ignore? 

 

Well, from a psychological perspective, he is a target rich environment -  it is like having our very own case study of mental illness.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

Well, from a psychological perspective, he is a target rich environment -  it is like having our very own case study of mental illness.


If I wanted to study the mentally ill, I’d have become a psychologist. ?
 

As it is, these goobers contribute nothing, derail every conversation, and are emboldened with the engagement. :thumbdown:

 

I understand it is funny to engage these #######s, until it isn’t. :)

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
3 hours ago, shoshin said:

 

I see minimal harm in trying HCQ, but I ain't listenin to that quack. 

 

image.thumb.png.76e3bc1dac29356cb48d56e148dc1e87.png

you're an idiot.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

Guess ‘The Resistance’ really wasn’t all that interested in resisting.

Well, ok, they were super stoked about ‘resisting’ as a means to demand a bunch of free crap. But when actual rights started getting taken away ‘to keep Americans safe’ or whatever they totally disappeared and those old fuddie-duddies who support the Constitution came out to fight for them.

 

Ain’t that how it always goes?

Tim Young said it best:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nobel Prize-winning scientist shares COVID-19 data showing strict lockdowns were an overreaction. 

“…the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.”

 
 
 
 
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/ny-times-reports-trump-admin-privately-projecting-3000-daily-deaths-by-june-white-house-disputes/

 

Is Nate Silver now a right winger?

 



Projecting ~200K new detected cases each day **by the end of the month** from a current baseline of ~30K is also a LOT, even with quite pessimistic assumptions. I would encourage some caution with taking these at face value.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 4, 2020]

Posted
2 hours ago, shoshin said:

May 1 CDC Report model projecting death rates to increase by the end of June. You'll note that this model has been historically projecting fewer deaths than actual--this is being reported as projecting 3000 deaths per day by June 1.

 

image.thumb.png.78cc3cb566d93a956efba365474c48d6.png

 

First, they overestimate the deaths.  Then they underestimate the deaths.  The IMHE model I believe they're using fell outside the 95% confidence interval 70% of the time when projecting number of deaths in individual states.  That's a horrible model.  Why are they still using it when setting policy?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Nice 1st post.

 

I assume you mean this.

 

 

 

 

Those projections are wrong...........................by a fantastic amount.

 

Some people (the usual suspects) do NOT want the country opening back up.

 

They must not prevail.

 

 

.

 

As long as Nanky tells us there are only 11 deaths per day we're good

Posted
3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

First, they overestimate the deaths.  Then they underestimate the deaths.  The IMHE model I believe they're using fell outside the 95% confidence interval 70% of the time when projecting number of deaths in individual states.  That's a horrible model.  Why are they still using it when setting policy?

You're talking about a group that, to this day, recommends using internet explorer instead of modern browsers if their sites don't work properly. 

I'd just like to add that even Microsoft has given up on internet explorer at this point. That's why they pushed Edge so hard.

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

First, they overestimate the deaths.  Then they underestimate the deaths.  The IMHE model I believe they're using fell outside the 95% confidence interval 70% of the time when projecting number of deaths in individual states.  That's a horrible model.  Why are they still using it when setting policy?

 

 

This is what I was saying and as I was telling @shoshin I think it would be awfully naive to believe in these models considering they have been wrong every step of the way.  I mean, I won't make a clear proclamation on this because I do have some questions that need to be hashed out but my gut tells me that this won't be the case and not only do I believe it won't be the case but I believe it will be considerably off.    But again, I don't have a good grasp of what the total death count will be.  I wish I would have made a projection earlier on but if I had, I probably would have predicted about 100k Deaths by June 1st.  

 

If you are to extrapolate this chart it would indicate about 150k deaths by June 1st.   

 

This chart projects a sharp increase in deaths beginning around May 15th, which means that they believe that the actions that are now taking place in Georgia and other states are causing the increase.   That just doesn't make sense to me at all, the states that have loosened their restrictions are not going to create that sort of an increase, especially when you consider that New York/New Jersey/Michigan/Connecticut/Massachusetts are all beginning their down slide, the downslide should more than offset any sort of negligible increase if any.  

 

Again, I'm not going to stake a firm position on this and usually I'm not afraid to do that but as of right this moment, on the surface this doesn't make any sense at all to me.

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

First, they overestimate the deaths.  Then they underestimate the deaths.  The IMHE model I believe they're using fell outside the 95% confidence interval 70% of the time when projecting number of deaths in individual states.  That's a horrible model.  Why are they still using it when setting policy?

 

Btw @Doc Brown are you a lefty or a moderate sort of swing voter?   

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

First, they overestimate the deaths.  Then they underestimate the deaths.  The IMHE model I believe they're using fell outside the 95% confidence interval 70% of the time when projecting number of deaths in individual states.  That's a horrible model.  Why are they still using it when setting policy?

 

To be fair noone has the model accurate. 

 

48 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 


Yeah, the Bill Gates praise put me off. Nevertheless, it was interesting to hear how many different paths were being taken in a search for a vaccine.

 

 

 

Unsure vaccine can work. Still many unknowns with this virus yet to be discovered. Rather have it safe rather than bad and unknown.

Edited by Buffalo Bills Fan
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, BillStime said:


 

Awe  - you big snowflake.

 

A handful of demonstrators equates all liberals.  Nice assumption cupcake...

 

Based on your logic - I have no choice but to assume all Trumpholes Unite the Right, right?

 

 

 

 

I painted with a broad brush which is wrong.  I hate when people do that and I broke my own rule.  However you asked for examples of Liberal Hate and I provided it.  I'm still waiting for your examples to back up your claims:

 

1. That the 716 is one of the poorest areas in America

2.  Thousands show up at Trumps cult rallies with racist, white supremacist or Nazi regalia & hand signs.  

Posted

The timing of this CDC report is interesting given how many states are about to open up. Color me skeptical.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

1. That the 716 is one of the poorest areas in America

 

Not sure about the "716," but in 2007 Buffalo was the 3rd poorest city with a population over 250k in the US. Housing is cheap as hell (still) in the area, too.

Posted

I've reconsidered.   These CDC projections are full of ***** and won't come close to happening.  Surprised @shoshin you are backing this horse.    

 

It makes no sense at all that this will be correct or even anything approaching it.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...