Stick your jabs right up there, Im not playing anymore!

originally posted by: network dude
www.cnbc.com...

cdispatch.com...

news.yahoo.com...

www.capitalgazette.com...

nymag.com...

When trying to be a know it all, it's usually a good idea to know at least a little.

Here is a link to the same CDC page showing relative proportions between different strains on recent dates.

If you will refer to the bar on the graph for the date of the 18th December 2021 (the one where the estimate previously was 73%), the estimate (yes still an estimate at this time), has now gone down to 22.5% Omicron. That is a significant fall from 73% to 22.5%, in just 24 hours of compiling the incoming data.

So, it looks like I was probably right (the figures are not yet final) and you, and all your quoted pundits, have gone off prematurely, ignoring that it was only an early estimate.

Perhaps you might learn from this that news sites do not necessarily give you the whole truth of a matter, and definitely not in a headline, and in future, be savvy that most are sensationalist and will spin what they present in the hope of expanding their readership. The truth of a matter is usually discernable, however, by looking at exactly what their sources say, and with close attention to the wording and any caveats proffered.

a reply to: chr0naut

double down on stupid. Well played. You have some work to do. Contact all of these places and most importantly, that crazy Michelle Wolinsky lady and tell them you know way more than they do.

I have seen some ignorance in my time, but this is a new level. You should be proud.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

double down on stupid. Well played. You have some work to do. Contact all of these places and most importantly, that crazy Michelle Wolinsky lady and tell them you know way more than they do.

No, I'm not going to contact them. I had no faith in what they said from the start and it appears now that I am being vindicated.

I have seen some ignorance in my time, but this is a new level. You should be proud.

I am proud that I could figure out that what they were saying was most probably inaccurate.

I will continue to post in this thread for a few days, as more data comes in, and the status of the data moves from an estimate, to more solid numbers. Only then, when the numbers are no longer estimates, will I truly be vindicated.

a reply to: chr0naut

www.politico.com...

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention significantly revised its model of the breakdown of Covid-19 variants on Tuesday, estimating the Omicron strain accounted for about 58.6 percent of U.S. cases as of Dec. 25.

Looks like they dropped the number by 14%. They must have read this thread.

I suppose this just proves that you cannot trust a government agency when the left is in charge.

if 14% is enough for a victory lap, run Forrest run.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

www.politico.com...

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention significantly revised its model of the breakdown of Covid-19 variants on Tuesday, estimating the Omicron strain accounted for about 58.6 percent of U.S. cases as of Dec. 25.

Looks like they dropped the number by 14%. They must have read this thread.

That is a week later. The prevalence of Omicron on the 18th, dropped by 50.5%.

Also, I doubt that they read this thread. The 73% Omicron figure, in less than a month after Omicron was identified, was clearly not reasonable at all. They probably went back and checked their numbers after some epidemiologist or statistician pointed that out to them.

I suppose this just proves that you cannot trust a government agency when the left is in charge.

No, it shows that you cannot believe the online commentators who misrepresent things, just for the sensationalist headlines.

if 14% is enough for a victory lap, run Forrest run.

The 25th is on a later date - a whole week later. The original article was quoting the estimated numbers on the 18th as being 73% Omicron. The current estimate (still an estimate) for the 18th is down to 22.5% Omicron. That is a drop of 50.5%.

The drop, a week later, of 14%, is still also just an estimate (At least Politico had the integrity to mention that in their headline).

You have to take a more skeptical and rational approach to what you read and repost, otherwise, you may appear to be gullible!

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, it shows that you cannot believe the online commentators who misrepresent things, just for the sensationalist headlines.

you are aware that the head of the CDC went on interviews and repeated this data at the time right? So yea, left idiots lying to the public yet again. Almost like it's their job.

I suppose this just proves the government cannot be trusted.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, it shows that you cannot believe the online commentators who misrepresent things, just for the sensationalist headlines.

you are aware that the head of the CDC went on interviews and repeated this data at the time right? So yea, left idiots lying to the public yet again. Almost like it's their job.

I suppose this just proves the government cannot be trusted.

Actually, it does not really prove that the government cannot be trusted. It proves that they are fallible, and human, and that they also usually start from a position of ignorance and can learn new things as they go.

The belief that the government, or the CDC, the POTUS, or whomever are 'all knowledgeable' and must be lying because they change their opinions on things, is where the 'flaw' is. The truth is, Einstein, and Hawking, and the head of the CDC, and all, are just as much doofuses as you or I.

However, the paradigm of the fallibility of humans can actually be relied upon, and therefore, with sufficient application of skepticism, and exploration, and reasoning, one may deduce the most likely truth of any situation.

But to do that, you have to let go of the idea that some other human, or human organization, is the ultimate authority and is never wrong.

You also need to understand that someone who stands in the middle and relays to us what some other person says, is a weak point in the dissemination of truthful information. They can misinterpret and spin what they relay to fit their own cognitive capability and biases. Clearly there is ample evidence that what passes for 'news' in the USA is more truthfully just 'opinion'.

Infallibility is an attribute of God, not of anything human, nor even of human organizations that purport to speak on behalf of God (or, perhaps, especially of those that purport to speak on behalf of God).

a reply to: chr0naut

when you job is to inform the public about specific aspects of a pandemic, and that is your main job, sucking at that job is very noticable and can have very bad results. It's tough to carry water for the left, and defend their stupidity at the same time. The CDC screwed up, massively.

when you say:

You also need to understand that someone who stands in the middle and relays to us what some other person says, is a weak point in the dissemination of truthful information. They can misinterpret and spin what they relay to fit their own cognitive capability and biases. Clearly there is ample evidence that what passes for 'news' in the USA is more truthfully just 'opinion'.

It's like you have no idea that the data, and the screw up came from the source, the CDC. Please keep up.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

when you job is to inform the public about specific aspects of a pandemic, and that is your main job, sucking at that job is very noticable and can have very bad results. It's tough to carry water for the left, and defend their stupidity at the same time. The CDC screwed up, massively.

when you say:

You also need to understand that someone who stands in the middle and relays to us what some other person says, is a weak point in the dissemination of truthful information. They can misinterpret and spin what they relay to fit their own cognitive capability and biases. Clearly there is ample evidence that what passes for 'news' in the USA is more truthfully just 'opinion'.

It's like you have no idea that the data, and the screw up came from the source, the CDC.

The quote (from CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky) was about specific areas of the US with high percentage of Omicron (like would happen where there is an Omicron outbreak?), however, the articles (which seemed to plagiarize each other) said "The variant makes up more than 73% of the cases in the United States", which was not what the CDC director said, nor was it true. The error was in the reporting.

The data was clearly an estimate and marked so by the CDC on their webpage, and now they have gathered more data and revised revised the totals and it is extremely different than first posted.

Please keep up.

Do you think that the CDC's is a PR company with only a role to report to the public?

From the CDC Mission, Role and Pledge webpage:

CDC's Role

* Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
* Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
* Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
* Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment
* Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives
* Taking the health pulse of our nation

a reply to: KindraLabelle2

What a waste of energy, worry and intense emotional states, when you could be just enjoying life - we all die anyway (well, our bodies anyway - WE, of course, are eternal), so who cares if you get some flu or not that kills about 0.001% of the people it infects..?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Seriously that's what they do now? I am allergic to one medication that is used to treat heartburn. Due to my symptoms, face and tongue swelling, they wrote it down as an allergy. I never saw an allergist for it. No one has ever questioned it.

a reply to: chr0naut

Omicron now responsible for 95.4% of all new COVID-19 cases, CDC says

www.foxnews.com...

Do you wish to debunk this as well? If so, remember to be smart enough to know who said it, and who posted a link.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

Omicron now responsible for 95.4% of all new COVID-19 cases, CDC says

www.foxnews.com...

Do you wish to debunk this as well? If so, remember to be smart enough to know who said it, and who posted a link.

Now that all the data is in for the 18 December 2021, the vale is no longer marked as an estimate, and the percentage of Omicron at that date is 37.4%.

However, FauxNews is doing the same thing and quoting incomplete estimates from the same graph, but for a later date. So, I reckon that yes, they are wrong.

Here, once again is the data published by the CDC and from which the FauxNews article was written: Monitoring Variant Proportions - CDC Currently showing an estimate of 95.4% Omicron for the date of 1 January 2022. Let's monitor it again and see how it changes again.

Also, treating FauxNews as some sort of authority? LOL.