dynato

Changing the subject does not count as proof

The CDC clearly outlines what the 37K number means in the very first paragraph and outline why it is low in the footnotes. It's not a smoking gun by any means. No no no, how about you prove to us all that they are not at higher risk. So far, everyone has used the argument of pre-existing conditions without having any understanding of them in order to suggest they should not have to take corona seriously.

If you look at the quantities of Americans who have pre-existing and chronic health conditions, you would find they hold the majority. Your logic would dictate they are the ones in charge and should decide what the minority should do. So just keep in mind it is not just some small quantity of people who will be impacted and need to just watch out for others. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm

Interestingly enough, CDC has put together an attempt to quantify the deaths of covid by looking at total deaths regardless of cause. They are finding that the USA is experiencing 22-36% more deaths than normal on a weekly basis. And this excludes NYC data. They suggest this is an indicator of the true burden of mortality potentially related to COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

There is a time lag between when a death happens, when it is reported, and when the death certificate is officiated. The page you are on has numbers based solely on the published death certificates, which according to them lags real time reported deaths. From the same page: *Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death. For example, two weeks ago we were at 35K reported deaths. Their general overview page includes all deaths marked as corona as they are reported. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

Trump want quarantine for big bad ebola. Trump Republican. Dems want quarantine for big bad corona. Republicans wanted quarantine, dems want quarantine, quarantine = bipartisan. over-reaction = bipartisan quarantine remove for ebola, economy recover, world fine both sides justified quarantine remove for corona, economy likely recover, world likely fine both sides justified

I am not mad at Trump by any means. Again, you missed the point entirely.

I used our presidents tweet as an anecdote for what we are currently experiencing as it applies directly to our situation. Which you would have understood if you were not so caught up in the fact that it was from 2014.

Enlighten me how everything I said is irrelevant and does not to apply to this pandemic just because it was from 2014, a single presidency ago.

And the GM who made the decision was let go of his job 6 years later. You are right, there is no way a tweet from some dude on twitter is remotely relevant to sentiment on corona, right? It obviously has nothing to do with the thought process behind our government on quarantines amidst a so-called widespread pandemic. It definitely does not represent that contradictions, sensationalism, over-reaction, and bias are identical across the party lines and the media they consume.

If any main stream media started writing positive articles sentiment might change. If you know of positive news, I encourage you again to be sharing it. And no, positive news isn't that models are garbage or your most hated fishwrap bias media was catastrophically wrong.

So the media and fake news influences, drives, and enforces regulation resulting in mass unemployment? Not the university models? Definitely not government officials?

If you went to your boss and said yo a couple of guys from another company said they are totes gonna buy 74,000 widgets if x,y, and z happen. A couple weeks later the company says only x and y happened, sorry bro, we can only buy 500 widgets now. Who gets the blame? You for trusting the company who has never previously bought 74,000 widgets from you? The company for over promising under selling? Or your boss, for trusting your judgement?

Blaming models made by universities for massive unemployment is just scapegoating and will not bring jobs back. Universities have no power in enforcing regulations. They will face absolutely zero consequences. Models have been adjusted to having lower death tolls early on, yet millions remain unemployed, so it is obviously not the models dictating policy anymore. There are countless individuals in the federal and state governments that can be named responsible for the unemployment and actions will be taken against them if they are proven to have made the wrong decision.

For me it only works on the browser when I copy an image and paste it as text. Something might be broken/shadowbanned

Again, the criticism was dramatized. Under shoot, over shoot, it does not matter, it is just a model and that is what models do. They are all just simulations with inputs and assumed outputs. Models are not garbage because they do not fit your application or because you do not understand how they should be applied to your situation. Now about the decisions made over using a model that does not fit needs correctly? Those can be questioned as right or wrong or failures. He is just misdirecting your anger for clicks. If someone could create a model than can accurately predict a week into the future they would be rich. We can't predict the weather a week out with 100% accuracy and that has been studied for decades. The impact on ND will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the USA. ND has such a low population that any change skews the results, 1 death a day to 2 deaths a day is a 100% increase. ND had 4 deaths yesterday. IHME said 3 deaths, off by 1 death, so obviously we must discredit it as a complete and utter catastrophic failure. Alex leaves out that the Ferguson model predicts a case fatality rate that is 0.4% to 1.4%. without NPI and 0.2% to 0.9% with NPI, which is inline with his own thoughts and what portions of the world are actually experiencing right now. Where the Ferguson model does not apply and could not accurately predict is the rate of transmission through the population in difference scenarios. Two months into this and we still do not confidently know the rate of transmission.

The first 12 minutes outlining the limitations and bias of modeling were great and completely accurate. He acknowledged that this is not his area of expertise, but this is a compilation of speculations and data he has found. His framing of how assumptions are changed to update models is a little dramatic (emprical college model). That is how models for new subjects work. They start extreme with large bounds and update variables continuously based on newfound information to refine the model. This is not new or hidden. As far as IHME model goes, he was correct it couldn't accurately measure beds required. To be fair no model could. The assumptions IHME made on relatively immeasurable variables were not exactly accurate, which means their estimates will not match exactly what the USA is experiencing. Needing data points from 50 municipalities and data lagging does not help with updating the models to make them relevant. Most scientists would not call a model wrong simply because the assumptions did not fit their need. Despite inaccuracies, the government has to pick what they deem is the best model based off the assumptions made. The government will then use the model to make informed decisions. This will not likely change moving forward. I'd like to believe if the model said 60k deaths and government made decisions solely off the model, rarely any municipalities would have closed. ND especially would not have closed if they based it solely off the models. He mentions a 3-4% antibody presence in our population means the case fatality rate is less than 1%, perhaps less than 0.5%. Yet earlier in the video he contradicts himself and says it may not be as severe as the flu, which has a case fatality rate of 0.1%. He has a take-my-word for it stance on serology testing validity, which I will remain skeptical of for now until more work is done in the field. I agree with his assumption of 0.5%-1% and have suggested this range before. Keep in mind this range is 5 to 10 times deadlier than the worst flu season we've experienced in the past two decades. Overall he is very well spoken, but I do not think his video really advances any specific narrative and is mostly for click-baiting/generating revenue. Most of the models predicting the future of the disease are seemingly irrelevant in the discussion now. Majority of governors have moved away from mentioning these models in their briefings and have recently transitioned to case/hospitalization decline as their key metric for incremental changes.

Most people can agree life is priceless. However, a value must be defined for many decisions. It is not based solely off what the average american makes times life expectancy. There is a whole lot of research into this and it is a well established number. The most well known method is the Value of Statistical Life (VSL). It is basically the number at which americans are willing to accept a larger risk of death for more pay or willing to accept a larger risk of death for paying less. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/

Statistically no. Value of a life decreases with age. Morally yes, all life is created equal, which is why the government bases every life regardless of age, at 10 million dollars. In a position where you have to chose between saving a 30 year old and a 90 year old, you chose the 30 year old.

Neither do I. Oxbow was the one who brought up the forum communications doomsday opinion article mind you.

I understand that the decision to preserve a life is a tricky and touchy subject to understand. The economic impact of losing a human life is right around 10 Million dollars. Most decisions for implementing safety precautions in our every day lives are made against this value. What this means is that if the cost of saving one life exceeds 10 million dollars, then it is considered a poor financial decision and likely won't be implemented. The list you made averages single digit deaths and does not meet the cost of mandating the implementation of safety precautions everywhere. If Minnesota thinks they can save 20,000 lives from the virus by implementing rigorous stay at home measures, to them that is saving them 200 billion dollars. Whether or not 20,000 lives were at risk, that is the debate this will be weighed against in the future.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NHL-Hockey-Jersey-Uniform-Frame-Display-Case-Cabinet-98-UV-Lockable/302333857608?var=601170370909 Here is the jersey case I use for all my jerseys. It fits the main body and shoulder patches nicely, but it is tight on the sleeves. For reference, it is 31.5"H X 23.5"W X 2"D

He is doing the opposite of turning a blind eye. Walz is making decisions off the middle to extreme ends of all death projections brought to him. It is evident he cares more about preservation of life at this point in time than the economy. He is as far from being right to being wrong, considering that Minnesota is far away from both health system and economic collapse. That is the only context you need to know about justifying his decisions. The full impact of his decisions are not clear. It is clear that Minnesota will be used as an economic impact vs preventative measures baseline for future pandemics. Interestingly enough, there is some evidence from the 1918 Spanish flu that areas which implemented preventative measures earlier recovered their economies first and had greater growth afterwards. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560

Again, the science and medical communities post their findings. They show how they got their results, any assumptions they made, any fallacies to their work, and if there any conflicts of interests (for example being paid by a party with a vested interest in positive results). If they do not do this, or post false information, they are quickly condemned by the rest of the community. Politicians and Media are mostly the ones who blindly take the first sentence of the scientific report, ignore context, and use it to advance their agenda. If they are wrong, they are only condemned by the other party, and not the entire community. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/inforum-the-forum-fargo-moorhead-bias-rating/

I do understand that. I've seen plenty of evidence across the decade of them posting both sides of a heated topic if people are willing to write thought out positions to them. Marijauana/Measure 5, 32nd Avenue bridge, demers overpass, taxes. I would not expect Forum Communications to lean towards posting only democrat shelter at home opinion bias unless there is no good material being sent in by the opposing bias. Especially considering that forum communications leans right and typically has a moderately conservative bias.