2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[Oxbow6]

Numbers in ND today....0, 67 and 1366.

We'll wait to hear from dynato if those numbers are "slightly wrong" and how those numbers works into some logarithmic equation as is pertains to NY and it's demographics per quarter of a mile broken down by age and race.

[dlsiouxfan]

25 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

To the bolded part.........our resident liberal newspaper hack Jim Shaw is waiting for you on line 2.

Also you seem intelligent enough to know there is a difference between a (predictive) model and a study? You cited a study but said it was a model. I mentioned that Harvard study awhile back....again it was a study not a model.

And to your last 3 questions......huh?

 

Do you have substantive response to his post or is it just defensive !@#$-posting all the time with you? 

Remember a month ago when you said the virus had peaked and we'd be well under 60K deaths?  It looks like your as garbage at modeling this as you are at practicing medicine.

[Oxbow6]

6 minutes ago, dlsiouxfan said:

 

Do you have substantive response to his post or is it just defensive !@#$-posting all the time with you? 

Remember a month ago when you said the virus had peaked and we'd be well under 60K deaths?  It looks like your as garbage at modeling this as you are at practicing medicine.

Substantive? Like pointing out a model isn't the same thing as a study? I wouldn't expect a total low IQ dolt like you to have a clue about that but dynato...yes. Don't you have more war deaths to tally to try to prove your ignorant point again?

Bolded point......I don't remember that but please find that post. I might have been quoting Fauci on that number since he's been rock solid in his comments.

[yzerman19]

As of today 99.974% of Americans continue to not die from Covid19 

[Bison Dan]

I find it interesting that most of the same people who believe in all the models for global warming are the same that believe these models.  All have been GIGO

[dynato]

3 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

To the bolded part.........our resident liberal newspaper hack Jim Shaw is waiting for you on  line 2.

Also you seem semi-intelligent enough to know there is a difference between a (predictive) model and a study?

And to your last 3 questions......huh?'

Their study is based on models/projections and assumptions of variables with their own definition of what dictates "safe."  lol.

The questions were to highlight why you think 57,000 deaths in Minnesota across 12 months with no action taken place is an unreasonable projection. I wanted to hear your personal projection since you are so confident you know the impact of a pandemic on a midwest state that takes no action. Or for you to admit that any number you throw out would be considered a joke too by your own standards.

2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Numbers in ND today....0, 67 and 1366.

We'll wait to hear from dynato if those numbers are "slightly wrong" and how those numbers works into some logarithmic equation as is pertains to NY and it's demographics per quarter of a mile broken down by age and race.

ND data is not wrong. I trust the data reported to the CDC by state health agencies. To me it means the spread through our population either hasn't happened yet or we are too sparsely populated to where transmission is already mitigated due to low population density. As I guessed before, we should be the last to be impacted and the first to be done. Still holding true.

To treat ND the same as NY would be a bad argument. NY has the largest metropolitan population in the USA. ND has the 176th largest metropolitan population in the USA (1/88 of NY). Leagues different than MN, which is ranked 16th (1/6th the NY metro population fyi). 

[TheFlop]

14 minutes ago, dlsiouxfan said:

 

Do you have substantive response to his post or is it just defensive !@#$-posting all the time with you? 

Remember a month ago when you said the virus had peaked and we'd be well under 60K deaths?  It looks like your as garbage at modeling this as you are at practicing medicine.

His estimate was closer than the national health experts in the media have thrown out there 

[dynato]

3 minutes ago, Bison Dan said:

I find it interesting that most of the same people who believe in all the models for global warming are the same that believe these models.  All have been GIGO

Models are not a belief system. They are just numbers and variables thrown into equations and then onto a chart with a list of assumptions. If you think they are wrong, prove it. If you can't prove they are wrong, then you are nothing but a conspiracy theorist. 

 

[Oxbow6]

7 minutes ago, dynato said:

Their study is based on models/projections and assumptions of variables with their own definition of what dictates "safe."  lol.

The questions were to highlight why you think 57,000 deaths in Minnesota across 12 months with no action taken place is an unreasonable projection. I wanted to hear your personal projection since you are so confident you know the impact of a pandemic on a midwest state that takes no action. Or for you to admit that any number you throw out would be considered a joke too by your own standards.

I guess I'm not sure where you were able to infer that I said or suggested that.....but if I had to put money on the 57000 number if Walz and MN just let it rip from day one I would definitely have bet the under.

[dynato]

5 minutes ago, TheFlop said:

His estimate was closer than the national health experts in the media have thrown out there 

National health experts have since revised the numbers downward and slightly upward based on newfound information. Odd that some people on here cannot do the same. 

[Siouxperfan7]

Instead of a quarantine in the healthy and less vulnerable people in this country, focus on nursing homes. You know where the majority of these deaths are occurring?!!  Make money available for them to test patients weekly if not more. Instead of going with a one size fits all solution, focus on those that are the ones that their virus really affects.  

[UND1983]

6 minutes ago, dynato said:

National health experts have since revised the numbers downward and slightly upward based on newfound information. Odd that some people on here cannot do the same. 

 Will policy be driven by our numbers if we release them?

[Nodak78]

5 minutes ago, dynato said:

National health experts have since revised the numbers downward and slightly upward based on newfound information. Odd that some people on here cannot do the same. 

The experts will revise the model until it matches actual numbers.  Many of us said the variables comparing NY to the rest of NY was not accurate.  But you said wait it will happen.  

[dynato]

Just now, UND1983 said:

 Will policy be driven by our numbers if we release them?

If enough people say Hillary will be president, will she be president? 

[dynato]

16 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

I guess I'm not sure where you were able to infer that I said or suggested that.....but if I had to put money on the 57000 number if Walz and MN just let it rip from day one I would definitely have bet the under.

You brought up the 57,000 deaths as a point of contention, not me. If it didnt matter, don't bring it up next time. MN has 700,000 ages over 65 with underlying conditions that are an easy target for corona. Over 50,000 live in nursing homes and LTC facilities. Double that live in Condos and 55/65+ cooperatives. All I am getting at is letting it rip through that population, which we know it massacres, makes 57,000 deaths a reasonable estimate. 

[Walsh Hall]

14 minutes ago, dynato said:

Models are not a belief system. They are just numbers and variables thrown into equations and then onto a chart with a list of assumptions. If you think they are wrong, prove it. If you can't prove they are wrong, then you are nothing but a conspiracy theorist. 

 

They have consistently proven themselves wrong.  Why is it that they are always wrong, and always wrong the same way?

I understand that this business isnt an exact science.  I’d just expect that they’d be wrong as many time on the high side as the low side.  If you are wrong every single time on the same side you have no credibility.  That indicates a “belief system” and an agenda.

Check these clowns‘ estimates on Ebola, SARS...  1.7 millions deaths from Ebola?  Oops, it was actually 2.  

 

[Siouxphan27]

Since such a large percentage of the corona deaths are the elderly and vulnerable, do these 12 month death predictions take into account a reasonable estimate of the number of people who were going to die within the next 12 months anyway?  
Or do these estimates operate under the assumption that nobody will die, ever, unless of course they contract COVID-19?

[dynato]

13 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:

The experts will revise the model until it matches actual numbers.  Many of us said the variables comparing NY to the rest of NY was not accurate.  But you said wait it will happen.  

The experts will revise the model to update for actual numbers, then use the newly formed trendline to forecast the future. That is how every model, for every industry works. I did not say EVERY STATE WILL BE NEW YORK. I said, with data to back it up, that the NY averages 30% of the mean with respect to traditional airborne disease deaths (AKA the flu). I suggested it would be a naive approach to blindly assume that New York is an alien state with no comparables and that it would be impossible for other states to not be impacted on a level similar to recent history. 

[UNDBIZ]

14 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

They have consistently proven themselves wrong.  Why is it that they are always wrong, and always wrong the same way?

I understand that this business isnt an exact science.  I’d just expect that they’d be wrong as many time on the high side as the low side.  If you are wrong every single time on the same side you have no credibility.  That indicates a “belief system” and an agenda.

Check these clowns‘ estimates on Ebola, SARS...  1.7 millions deaths from Ebola?  Oops, it was actually 2.  

I think one of the main issues is an agency or university releases a model early on with limited data available and it predicts between 10,000 and 1 million deaths.  The media then puts a big bold headline of "Pandemic predicted to kill 1 MILLION people!!!"  It's usually not that the models are intentionally overstating, but due to unknowns the range was wide, and for the media no news sells as well as fear.

Edit:  It should also be noted the university/agency will typically have a LOT of notes and caveats on how the model works.  All of that nuance is lost once the results are filtered through a "journalist" and it gets even worse once the editor and social media intern get ahold of it.

[Siouxphan27]

29 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

They have consistently proven themselves wrong.  Why is it that they are always wrong, and always wrong the same way?

I understand that this business isnt an exact science.  I’d just expect that they’d be wrong as many time on the high side as the low side.  If you are wrong every single time on the same side you have no credibility.  That indicates a “belief system” and an agenda.

Check these clowns‘ estimates on Ebola, SARS...  1.7 millions deaths from Ebola?  Oops, it was actually 2.  

 

Reminds me of what the Horowitz report told us.  17 egregious errors and omissions by the FBI...all "coincidentally" falling on one side of the investigation.  Hmm....agenda, maybe?

[Nodak78]

31 minutes ago, dynato said:

The experts will revise the model to update for actual numbers, then use the newly formed trendline to forecast the future. That is how every model, for every industry works. I did not say EVERY STATE WILL BE NEW YORK. I said, with data to back it up, that the NY averages 30% of the mean with respect to traditional airborne disease deaths (AKA the flu). I suggested it would be a naive approach to blindly assume that New York is an alien state with no comparables and that it would be impossible for other states to not be impacted on a level similar to recent history. 

Well NY inflated their numbers by placing positive Covid19 residents back into nursing homes.  Helped the surge to fit the model.

 

[dynato]

2 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:

Since such a large percentage of the corona deaths are the elderly and vulnerable, do these 12 month death predictions take into account a reasonable estimate of the number of people who were going to die within the next 12 months anyway?  
Or do these estimates operate under the assumption that nobody will die, ever, unless of course they contract COVID-19?

My grandpa had quadruple bypass heart surgery in 1988. Told his odds of surviving were 10%. Ten years later, Mayo doctors said his heart was too fragile to ever touch again, his pacemaker will never be replaced. That he additionally had a heart murmur (sp?) and was told to expect his heart to explode and die at any moment. In 2008, he had a brain aneurysm and underwent brain surgery. Lost all of his memory except for the name of his wife and has recovered 95% of it back. He is now 82 years old. Humans are resilient and resist death.

The I do not know if the models try to account for naturally occurring/previously established death rates, I assume that is where the confidence intervals come into play. If you are curious to where the USA stands, the CDC has compiled a chart of total deaths in the USA. You are able to remove covid deaths. It shows that there are 25-35% excess weekly deaths compared to prior years. Not saying the excess deaths are covid, not saying its not. Saying explicitly nobody knows. 
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

[dynato]

4 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:

Well NY inflated their numbers by placing positive Covid19 residents back into nursing homes.  Helped the surge to fit the model.

 

Where should they have been put? Is it unlawful and against precedent to send a patient home from the hospital if they do not need hospital services? Is it not the individuals responsibility to gauge what they should do, precautions they should take, and where they should stay?

[Nodak78]

11 minutes ago, dynato said:

Where should they have been put? Is it unlawful and against precedent to send a patient home from the hospital if they do not need hospital services? Is it not the individuals responsibility to gauge what they should do, precautions they should take, and where they should stay?

How about the Cuomo residence

[SWSiouxMN]

MOA to open June 1st

People, of course, are taking this rationally.