(03-11-2020 07:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 05:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 04:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For the person at the core of 'show me objective proof', you now propose taking the objective prose and subjectively dismissing them after reading them with 'large grains of salt'.

Perhaps you should signify when you deign items sufficient for objective assessment in your own subjective mindset.

Your somewhat constant flip flop between 'show me facts' and later comments on 'dont read the words, parse them subjectively' is making me seriously motion-sick.

Dude, a lot of my "show me the facts" posts were aimed at OO. He and I already clarified that a lot of the times I asked him for citations/proof, he was merely stating his opinion. Problem solved. And the only point I was making, as you acknowledge, is that the prose in these budget justifications is objective.

I'm not dismissing anything, just noting that they need to be placed in context. The context is that this isn't the CDC justifying a budget request that it developed internally. It is the CDC justifying a budget request that was handed to it by the President (and his staff). This is true for all budgets and perhaps some Presidents (and their staffs) work with the various agencies to come up with efficient budget requests. Maybe Trump did this, I don't know or care. I'm merely pointing out that the budget justifications aren't a forum where the CDC is going to say whether it is getting too much money in some areas and not enough in others. All they are going to do is find a way to justify the request that they were handed. These justifications are not the forum to beg for more money or new programs. These justifications are not the forum to say that some programs are overfunded or unnecessary. So as long as the justifications are read with that framing in mind, do what you want with it. You have my permission.

You can't say "aimed". We learned that after the Giffords shooting. What if some nut read that and came and shot me? that is why we need a six year waiting period.

Enjoying the banter, Big?

(03-11-2020 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wouldn't call it misleading, as much as I would call it confusing. Misleading implies intention, which I don't think is there.

(03-11-2020 08:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There have been arguments about budget cuts to the CDC. I guess the Democratic attitude is that no budgets should ever be cut, in any agency, for any reason, just in case. Sounds pretty Democratic to me.

(03-11-2020 09:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  From the raw data it's very clear that the opposite is true.

(03-11-2020 08:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So to recap
1. This has to become bad first.
2. If it does, yall need to show me that we could have stopped it
3. If 1 and 2 are satisfied, you need to show me that Trump is at fault.

(03-11-2020 02:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My reason for not criticizing Trump's handling of the situation is that I'm not aware of anything that he has done--or not done--to cause a problem.

(03-11-2020 07:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  BTW, have you actually connected Trump to the testing rates? What's the President's responsibility there?

(03-11-2020 09:52 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 09:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  From the raw data it's very clear that the opposite is true.

Actually, the graph combined with the number of tests the US has run tells us that there area lot of untested people walking around with the coronavirus in this country that have not received a positive diagnosis yet.

(03-11-2020 09:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 08:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So to recap
1. This has to become bad first.
2. If it does, yall need to show me that we could have stopped it
3. If 1 and 2 are satisfied, you need to show me that Trump is at fault.

1 - it is already bad. 90% of the iceberg remains undiagnosed (i mean under water).
2 - you will not accept anything we say as proof.
3 - you will not accept anything we say as proof.

Really, you tell us what you would find acceptable to prove #2 and #3 and we will see if it comes to pass.

(03-11-2020 09:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 07:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 05:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 04:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For the person at the core of 'show me objective proof', you now propose taking the objective prose and subjectively dismissing them after reading them with 'large grains of salt'.

Perhaps you should signify when you deign items sufficient for objective assessment in your own subjective mindset.

Your somewhat constant flip flop between 'show me facts' and later comments on 'dont read the words, parse them subjectively' is making me seriously motion-sick.

Dude, a lot of my "show me the facts" posts were aimed at OO. He and I already clarified that a lot of the times I asked him for citations/proof, he was merely stating his opinion. Problem solved. And the only point I was making, as you acknowledge, is that the prose in these budget justifications is objective.

I'm not dismissing anything, just noting that they need to be placed in context. The context is that this isn't the CDC justifying a budget request that it developed internally. It is the CDC justifying a budget request that was handed to it by the President (and his staff). This is true for all budgets and perhaps some Presidents (and their staffs) work with the various agencies to come up with efficient budget requests. Maybe Trump did this, I don't know or care. I'm merely pointing out that the budget justifications aren't a forum where the CDC is going to say whether it is getting too much money in some areas and not enough in others. All they are going to do is find a way to justify the request that they were handed. These justifications are not the forum to beg for more money or new programs. These justifications are not the forum to say that some programs are overfunded or unnecessary. So as long as the justifications are read with that framing in mind, do what you want with it. You have my permission.

You can't say "aimed". We learned that after the Giffords shooting. What if some nut read that and came and shot me? that is why we need a six year waiting period.

Enjoying the banter, Big?

Why would Frizzy shoot you?

I'm not really enjoying the banter on this one. People are going to start dieing pretty soon in larger numbers and you all are still thumping your chests and demanding that we prove how bad Trump's response is. Just look around next week, my friend, and you won't need my elegant prose to explain it.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  How about some actual facts that show causation? "Trump is a bad leader, and we have coronavirus, so it's Trump's fault" is not a valid argument.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  For fun, I made my own graph of the epidemiologic curves for some of the hottest countries right now. Since they each had their 1st confirmed infections at different times and had different initial spreads, Day 1 on this graph is approximately when each country hit 200 confirmed infections.



The sources for my data are a combination of:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19?f%25255B0%25255D=field_related_topics%3A178636&f%255B0%255D=field_related_topics%3A178636#news
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

(03-11-2020 09:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wouldn't call it misleading, as much as I would call it confusing. Misleading implies intention, which I don't think is there.

Then you're walking around blind without a cane.

You initially took the graph to mean exactly what the creator of the graph was implying - that the United States has had longer to react than S. Korea., and is accomplishing less.

From the raw data it's very clear that the opposite is true.

(03-11-2020 10:06 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  How about some actual facts that show causation? "Trump is a bad leader, and we have coronavirus, so it's Trump's fault" is not a valid argument.

So provide me with some examples of facts that, if proven true, you would accept as demonstrating causation. In the past, the conservatives here have not accepted what I thought were pretty compelling facts. You providing me with some examples will me to avoid wasting both of our time.

(03-11-2020 07:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  South Korea has seven times as many confirmed cases of coronavirus, and twice as many deaths, as the United States. South Korea's population is an order of magnitude less.

I'm reading about all the wonderful things they are doing, but the results don't match the anecdote.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 09:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 07:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 05:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Dude, a lot of my "show me the facts" posts were aimed at OO.

You can't say "aimed". We learned that after the Giffords shooting. What if some nut read that and came and shot me? that is why we need a six year waiting period.

Enjoying the banter, Big?

Why would Frizzy shoot you?

Frizzy? Not Frizzy. YOU.

YOU were the one who said "aimed at OO". I was just referencing the brouhaha after the Giffords shooting when many democrats said the shooting was the result of Republican using bull's-eyes n a map or using words like 'aim", "target", etc., on the grounds that it was inflammatory language. I thought it was silly then, so I made a comment in jest about your usage of 'aimed'.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see little banter too, but what I do see is whooshing right over your head. Tanq made a joke of my inadvertant use of red and wing in juxtzposition.

I guess we had better stop trying to use humor if you are involved.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That is of course my opinion. I cannot present a study that proves it.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  People die all the time. I am waiting to see if this will blow over or get worse. You make us sound uncaring. I guess that is what the left thinks of us deplorables.

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I am done trying to interject any humor in my interactions with you.

(03-11-2020 10:18 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 07:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  South Korea has seven times as many confirmed cases of coronavirus, and twice as many deaths, as the United States. South Korea's population is an order of magnitude less.

I'm reading about all the wonderful things they are doing, but the results don't match the anecdote.

South Korea's outbreak started much earlier than the US's due in part to their proximity to China. They hit ~1,000 cases on 2/26. The hit 2,000 cases on 2/29. They hit 5,000 cases on 3/4. And they were testing a hell of a lot more people than we are.

(03-11-2020 10:10 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  For fun, I made my own graph of the epidemiologic curves for some of the hottest countries right now. Since they each had their 1st confirmed infections at different times and had different initial spreads, Day 1 on this graph is approximately when each country hit 200 confirmed infections.



The sources for my data are a combination of:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19?f%25255B0%25255D=field_related_topics%3A178636&f%255B0%255D=field_related_topics%3A178636#news
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

In epidemiology, the rates are more meaningful for comparison than total numbers. Could you normalize the graph by population? The results should prove informative.

(03-11-2020 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 10:10 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  For fun, I made my own graph of the epidemiologic curves for some of the hottest countries right now. Since they each had their 1st confirmed infections at different times and had different initial spreads, Day 1 on this graph is approximately when each country hit 200 confirmed infections.



The sources for my data are a combination of:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/infectious-disease-topics/covid-19?f%25255B0%25255D=field_related_topics%3A178636&f%255B0%255D=field_related_topics%3A178636#news
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

In epidemiology, the rates are more meaningful for comparison than total numbers. Could you normalize the graph by population? The results should prove informative.

Are they more meaningful in comparison to total cases, especially at the beginning of the spread?

I haven't heard of an expert talk about the spread of the virus in new cases per X people, per day. I only have hear them referenced as new cases per day. And same with deaths - it's been # deaths per # infected - without normalization to total population.

(03-11-2020 10:21 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 09:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 07:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 05:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Dude, a lot of my "show me the facts" posts were aimed at OO.

You can't say "aimed". We learned that after the Giffords shooting. What if some nut read that and came and shot me? that is why we need a six year waiting period.

Enjoying the banter, Big?

Why would Frizzy shoot you?

Frizzy? Not Frizzy. YOU.

YOU were the one who said "aimed at OO". I was just referencing the brouhaha after the Giffords shooting when many democrats said the shooting was the result of Republican using bull's-eyes n a map or using words like 'aim", "target", etc., on the grounds that it was inflammatory language. I thought it was silly then, so I made a comment in jest about your usage of 'aimed'.

Yes, I got it. Just a little counter-banter. But I'm not a nut and my 2 guns are stored with my mom in Alaska and haven't been used since I was in high school (though I cleaned them once or twice since then). Plus, why would I shoot anyone? I'm not mad bro, I'm as cool as a frozen cucumber.

You all like your guns more than I like mine. I'll start practicing my dodging and weaving once my leg heals (I have a few stitches right now).

(03-11-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I see little banter too, but what I do see is whooshing right over your head. Tanq made a joke of my inadvertant use of red and wing in juxtzposition.

I guess we had better stop trying to use humor if you are involved.

I usually get it, just didn't follow the whole turk / red / wing stuff. I didn't realize what you did was inadvertent and I didn't understand your use of "turk" or "red".