Texas governor repeals mask requirement and OKs businesses to operate at 100 percent capacity

a reply to: Serdgiam

I tried to have a discussion similar to this with an acquaintance of mine online. The dude really hates Trump. He hates government, but really hates Trump. And believes this COVID thing is divided in Trumpers and sane people. So you can imagine that the discussion went pretty poorly. After fighting through the name calling, i finally got him to realize I was making an argument about statistic validity, not about the virus or hydroxycloroquine, or any of the other things that he was primed to attack.

And these people have the nerve to call anyone a science denier? Do they not understand the relationship between medical science and statistics?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I find it genuinely disturbing. I have elements of anger in my psyche, but its more just.. disturbed.

If you work with data, then you know as well as I do that it doesnt require specialization in a given field to be able to extract meaningful information from the data. Meaning, one doesnt need to be an epidemiologist to examine the data and numbers and make accurate inferences.

Even just a brief glance at these things makes it clear that the integrity of the data trail is massively compromised too. Everything from questionable tests to questionable reporting to absolutely massive conflicts of interest. So, its completely questionable right off the bat and it isnt being discussed in productive contexts.

I suppose thats the behavioral result of an inculcated technocracy though. The "experts" define reality itself for large portions of the population. Many of the rest are too busy dancing around the fires the information channels ignite to put them out, much less pursue something different.

As a bit of an aside though, modern tech enables us to do this data parsing en masse and in real time That has utterly amazing potential! At least.. If the corporate-political apparatus doesnt succeed in eradicating it as a threat.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Once i saw the false positive/negative rate of the tests being used, i knew the data would be useless. So when a politician says "im making decisions guided by data" they could also state "i am making random decisions that could very well be pulled from my ass for all the good it does".

And i have made a career off of small data sets. I am accustomed to ignoring R2 values to try to discern something from the data set. I know thats not the best way to function...but when the dataset doesn't provide enough data consistently you are left with few choices.

This...this isn't that. The dataset is enormous here. Its very consistent in delivery for updates on data points. The R2 value isn't ridiculous because of the dataset. its ridiculous because of the process that the datapoints are extracted from. Which reminds me an awful lot of the Global Warming argument in the early 2000's where thermometers were situated above BBQ pits and somehow yielded higher temperatures.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Serdgiam
Which reminds me an awful lot of the Global Warming argument in the early 2000's where thermometers were situated above BBQ pits and somehow yielded higher temperatures.

Yeah, we see this blind appeal to authority across the board. SARS-CoV and covid are extremely prominent, but the behavior has become a norm over the years.

My own hypothesis is that this is the result of organizations that have specialized in 4th and 5th gen warfare. The same type of power grab and authoritarianism that we see repeat constantly through history.. just in the modern context. And, that modern context is a whole animal unto itself.

Of course, the solution to all of these problems is to give the corporate-political system power, control, & resources. Results dont matter, since it will just be marketed that any and all failures are simply the result of not giving them enough power, control, & resources. Naturally, its worded differently in the PR though.

One of the things I would like to see in education reform is a strong focus on "guided" exploration. Basically, let the kids play like kids will do.. And when they ask questions give them the tools, knowledge, and wisdom to find their own answers. We have a great foundation for this very thing in the scientific method. We even have the tech to be able to cater programs to every individual child in education and adjust it in real time according to changing interests. (This process, or one similar to it, is already being used to manipulate the public at large.)

Then, maybe past the elementary school years, start teaching them the specifics that society has found to be accurate. Maybe even intentionally present random false aspects into the curriculum as a test that directly factors into grades.

As it stands, many take the process itself to be nearly holy. Like so many things, when its worded like that there will be a quip similar to "science corrects itself!" But instead of making people question, they just wholeheartedly believe the "Knowledge of the Week" as if it were a direct download of an instruction set.

Literally every time a region does something like Texas just did.. The response is the same regardless of results. I think people actually forget anything other than what is happening right now, strictly in the way it is presented in mainstream info channels.

And when the tests themselves are nearly nonsensical in their application, it provides a very easy thing to latch onto.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Lets evaluate what was classified as a COVID death. Prior to making any assumptions on the data set, i need to understand that the individual datasets were calibrated to begin with. I mean, it would render it all useless if one nation was calling it a COVID death if someone never tested positive for COVID, and other nations were not.

Has that happend? Covid deaths affixed to people untested? I would not doubt there could be instances of it, anything more than an isolated incident?

By the way, any comments on why the flu rate bottomed out? Is it because of super effective mask wearing? Then why did COVID spike while the flu bottomed out? There are questions I have that i never seem to get answered. But as a data analyst, that pesky R2 problem is not going away

I don't know, not a doctor, so nothing I say holds much water, but I like questions, and ask the same ones you do. Covid is not the flu, that much I figure I can say. You would need pretty much every country in the world, in on this if they were trying to attribute covid to the flu, or vice versa.

I'm kind of stuck in the middle, some days I feel it's all bullsh$t, other days I take it more serious..that in my head we are talking, I have to comply with our health orders, and do so.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And these people have the nerve to call anyone a science denier? Do they not understand the relationship between medical science and statistics?

That's my trigger. As someone who has spent their entire life following, learning, and understanding science, people like Nancy Pelosi crying that we should "follow the science" while simultaneously demonstrating how precious little she knows (or cares, I assume) scientific principles just drives me bonkers.

I have no issue with ignorance of science... everyone is ignorant about some things. That's why we debate and discuss, to let each participant explain their position and reasoning. That draws people together. But today, we don't debate or discuss... we argue. "I'm right and you're wrong! And don't tell me any different, you Nazi/racist/denier/hick/whatever the mean word du jour happens to be." That's where the division is coming from, not from any one politician or group.

Science is what it is. We test, consider all known possibilities, test some more, run some experiments, search for answers... and sometimes we get it right. Other times we don't. Most of the time we get some right and some wrong. It seems too many people want to find the answer and then adjust the testing to achieve results to verify their answer. That just doesn't work.

Simple ignorance is undesirable but understandable. Arrogance combined with ignorance is the ultimate in destruction of the truth.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If you work with data, then you know as well as I do that it doesnt require specialization in a given field to be able to extract meaningful information from the data. Meaning, one doesnt need to be an epidemiologist to examine the data and numbers and make accurate inferences.

I beg to differ, based on personal experience in research.

I am coauthor of an epidemiological study on physician deaths (back in the 1980's) and was the one coding the data. After I pulled out the stats that made sense (mathematically and "common sense" type), I took it to my coauthor (an epidemiologist with 40 years experience and a PhD.) We went over the data and then the raw input data, and he showed me a number of things that I missed.

For instance, how certain suicides and drug overdoses were concealed by using medical diagnostic terms. "Massive exsanguination" was the one I remember (blood loss) but when you actually read the obituary and knew the medical terms and coding terms, you saw that it was actually suicide. There were other phrases that actually meant "drug overdose" or "drank himself to death" without actually saying "overdose" or "alcoholism."

You have to know the significance of words and data and that means understanding the field. The previous administration did nothing to mandate fixes to the data through the CDC and now you really have to go to state data and understand what they've got and how they've got it before you can make a good call.

*Also* there are some data that are not available to the public (case details.)

While I agree that the US data is a mess, looking at data from other countries where they had a coordinated data gathering (and consensus on what was gathered and so forth) we can get an understanding of what's going on.

....which is a lognwinded way of saying that yes, you really do have to have some expertise in a field to know what really is being said by the numbers.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And these people have the nerve to call anyone a science denier? Do they not understand the relationship between medical science and statistics?

That's my trigger. As someone who has spent their entire life following, learning, and understanding science, people like Nancy Pelosi crying that we should "follow the science" while simultaneously demonstrating how precious little she knows (or cares, I assume) scientific principles just drives me bonkers.

I don't think she actually understands the science. I do think, however, that what she IS doing... is getting her information from people who do understand the science (i.e., scientists.)

a reply to: Byrd

Sounds like some GateKeeper BS.

a reply to: Serdgiam

If you work with data, then you know as well as I do that it doesnt require specialization in a given field to be able to extract meaningful information from the data. Meaning, one doesnt need to be an epidemiologist to examine the data and numbers and make accurate inferences.

Kinda like how astrophysicist Neil DeGrassy Tyson compared states like Texas removing preventative COVID restrictions, like masks and social distancing, in parts of the USA is like allowing a "peeing section" in the proverbial swimming pool?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

To me it's pretty simple. If we're averaging right around 400 to 500 cases a day in a state of 6,000,000+, then my odds of bumping into any 1 of those people are pretty small. That's far less than 1 in every 100 people at 0.0075%. Doesn't mean it absolutely can't happen, but ... it does mean the odds are small.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is indeed the type of appeal to authority with little (or no) relevance to science and data Im talking about. Well spotted!

That said, it could be apropos to the conversation if peeing in the pool was a normal, integral part of life, people started requiring multiple suits to "stop the spread," and everyone was funneled into high traffic areas.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

To me it seems easy: in a world where, by constitutional law, people are free to pee in the pool....one should assume the entire pool is pee and not swim in it if they don't wish.

Let me ask you this: what does vaccination do? Its not like it keeps you from getting sick. So why does the CDC now say that if 1 family is vaccinated, they can visit with 1 that isn't? Does the unvaccinated family suddenly not matter anymore? The CDC seems to recommend swimming in a pee filled pool too.

None of it makes sense. You are stepping in a big ol pile of "not making sense" as we speak, right here for all to see.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Byrd

Sounds like some GateKeeper BS.

The thing is it is true. When I was looking through the VAERS system to see about miscarriages, I couldn't find anything until I narrowed down that the term is "spontaneous abortion." I'm no doctor, so if I was scanning the data I would have read that differently than miscarriage.

a reply to: Byrd

If Nancy Pelosi is "getting her information from scientists," there is no such thing as science. Many of her statements are contradictory to the very basis and essence of science.

Topping that list is the "consensus among scientists" and "the science is settled" argument. If it is settled, especially via democratic vote, it isn't science. It's politics. Science can turn around and provide new and assumption-shattering understanding of phenomena at a moment's notice; ask Isaac Newton.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Serdgiam
...
As it stands, many take the process itself to be nearly holy. Like so many things, when its worded like that there will be a quip similar to "science corrects itself!" But instead of making people question, they just wholeheartedly believe the "Knowledge of the Week" as if it were a direct download of an instruction set.

Fraud in Science: Bad Apples in the Barrel?

wol.jw.org...

The world of medical research was astir with excitement. A 24-year-old graduate student at Cornell University had come up with a new theory on the cause of cancer and the experimental data to support it. The work seemed so impressive that some thought it could win him and his professor the Nobel prize.

By those who worked with him, the young man was considered one of the brightest scientists. In just a few weeks he was able to complete certain experiments that others had been struggling with for years. Projects seemed to work only when he was involved. Things seemed just too good to believe.

The reason soon became apparent. In July 1981, fraud was discovered in his work. A chemical that should not have been there evidently made the experiments turn out the way they were expected to. Quickly, scientific papers published on his work were withdrawn. Further investigations revealed that somehow he had entered graduate school without earning either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree. And professors in other schools he had attended recalled his not being able to repeat experiments he claimed to have done.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others

a reply to: Serdgiam

It would also be an apt analogy if the spread of disease from one person to another was like the spread of one substance in another - i.e. the urine will diffuse throughout the pool eventually evenly distributing itself at a very low level throughout so that everyone is affected.

Disease doesn't work like that. If I am infected and breathe out, my contaminated air will not slowly diffuse until every uninfected person in the entire area sharing atmosphere will also be infected. Whether or not you will get infected from me depends on the actual number of infectious particles that you get exposed to and how you get exposed to them and how susceptible you are to that exposure. And eventually there won't be enough infectious material in the air to affect anyone once it gets so far spread out.

In short, Neil is thinking like a chemist, not a microbiologist/biologist. Life is not nearly so neat and dependable as the inanimate and completely predictable world of chemistry.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ha! I suspect Nancy gets her information from scientists the same way she gets her theology from theologists.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others