victor809
6 years ago

No, go read it the portion I worked off of is confirmed cases in the specific demographic.

Speyside wrote:



Which is significantly different than tails "0.017%" number
View All Posts by User
Speyside
6 years ago
Ah, now I follow where you are going. You are absolutly correct. All of those per 100,000 graphs are puzzling in that you cant use them for anything as the data is meaningless.
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago
Heh... it's not meaningless... like I said, it represents some aspect of how well an area is isolating. But for tail's argument, it's meaningless at best, likely just attempts at lying... or simple stupidity.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
6 years ago
I was once working with someone who thought they had a pretty good grasp on how to calculate infection rates, reductions in rates etc. Smart guy, just hadn't worked with them much. They were doing things like not understanding which denominator matched up with which numerator to come up with a proper rate, using numbers from different data sets etc.. They were even trying to add simple averages together.

I didn't have the heart to let him go to the hospital association to make his presentation without sitting him down and reworking things. They would have shredded him immediately because to those working on it for awhile it is painfully obvious when someone doesn't. There is a right way and a wrong way do do such things and not as simple as some would assume. He still thanks me to this day.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
6 years ago
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
6 years ago

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

HockeyDad wrote:




True that boo.

If you don't pay attention they just might say something you don't think they say...... sometimes it is intentional. Others just not understanding the proper way to calculate things.

On the wizards stage I noticed it has been selective data ranges ignoring the horrible months and starting on the just embarrassingly inadequate months.
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

HockeyDad wrote:


98.2% of all people who use that quote do so because they don't understand that statistics is just numbers, doesn't lie, and all that's required is properly identifying the datasets which are being represented.
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago

I was once working with someone who thought they had a pretty good grasp on how to calculate infection rates, reductions in rates etc. Smart guy, just hadn't worked with them much. They were doing things like not understanding which denominator matched up with which numerator to come up with a proper rate, using numbers from different data sets etc.. They were even trying to add simple averages together.

I didn't have the heart to let him go to the hospital association to make his presentation without sitting him down and reworking things. They would have shredded him immediately because to those working on it for awhile it is painfully obvious when someone doesn't. There is a right way and a wrong way do do such things and not as simple as some would assume. He still thanks me to this day.

teedubbya wrote:



It's heartwarming to hear about your history with tail....
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
6 years ago
Nah. It wasn't tail. I'm sure he could have walked right in and done it. It's easy.
View All Posts by User
Gene363
6 years ago

98.7 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

The lies in statistics come from the design of the study, the questions, the assumptions and the inferences amount other things.
The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net 
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago

98.7 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

The lies in statistics come from the design of the study, the questions, the assumptions and the inferences amount other things.

Gene363 wrote:



Correct. Which is why the proper questions can easily tell you whether the statistics are worth listening to or not.

They are not lies. They are factual representations of a set of parameters chosen by the person who assembled them.

The lie comes in the representation.

For example... tail created a statistic (or selected one) in which he identified that Covid only killed approx 0.017% of the Mass residents in 50-59 age group. Is that a lie? No it is not.

The lie is then taking that statistic and applying it to the lethality of a virus.

All it took was one question to see where he had misapplied his numbers.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
6 years ago
No argument here.

In some segments there are standard methods of calculations that are established that when not followed are discounted because they are simply inaccurate up front. You always have to defend your design, assumptions etc. But some things are pretty cut and dry.
View All Posts by User
BuckyB93
6 years ago
Ok, so what are the real, unbiased, undisputed (or whatever) numbers that accurately portray the reality of the situation relating to all this. Please back up with your sources. I don't think I have yet seen a sampling that is a true unbiased and accurate statistically significant representation of the population as whole.

The infection and mortality rates that are thrown out on the head lines and news tickers seem to only be based on those people that have been tested.

Is the test giving accurate positives and negatives?

If only based on those tested (already sick, dead, or show signs of the rona), isn't it akin to determining the number of dog owners in the population by only polling the people at the pet stores and veterinarian clinics? Granted, I don't spend a lot of time looking at or digging for these numbers because I know that they are still preliminary and in flux so no real conclusions can be made.

"In God we trust; all others must bring data." W. Edwards Deming
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago

Ok, so what are the real, unbiased, undisputed (or whatever) numbers that accurately portray the reality of the situation relating to all this. Please back up with your sources. I don't think I have yet seen a sampling that is a true unbiased and accurate statistically significant representation of the population as whole.

The infection and mortality rates that are thrown out on the head lines and news tickers seem to only be based on those people that have been tested.

Is the test giving accurate positives and negatives?

If only based on those tested (already sick, dead, or show signs of the rona), isn't it akin to determining the number of dog owners in the population by only polling the people at the pet stores and veterinarian clinics? Granted, I don't spend a lot of time looking at or digging for these numbers because I know that they are still preliminary and in flux so no real conclusions can be made.

"In God we trust; all others must bring data." W. Edwards Deming

BuckyB93 wrote:



I would argue that we don't have what you are looking for at this time. And won't until much later, after the crisis.

We know current deaths counted as COVID deaths. You can choose to divide that by number of known infected, but you're right that's not a real number either. That doesn't justify dividing it by the total population either. Years from now we'll have a better estimate on what the total number of infected were... and we'll have a better idea of what total deaths were... then those numbers will be more accurate. Hell, right now people haven't even finished dying yet.

This is the problem with a lot of the statistics people are using. And it isn't just "the media" doing it. Those two Dr's who made a video and became darlings of the right wing did exactly what you just suggested to get their numbers (ie, only collected numbers from people coming to get tested and then extrapolated horribly erroneously to the entire population)

My point is it's not the statistics fault. Numbers aren't lying. The person applying those numbers to something unrelated to the point they are trying to make is the one lying.

So what numbers do you use ? Well that's going to depend completely on what point you are trying to make.
View All Posts by User
Speyside
6 years ago
Right now there is no way to come up with accurate numbers. So per say there is no empirical data, there is ancidotal data. What useful information if any can be found in that ancidotal data? Some I think. For example the older you are the greater your risk. I think that was what Tail was saying. Why castigate him for that? I think there is more ancidotal data available that could add additional clarity if the numbers drilled down farther. Of the people that we know of that contracted COVID19, or contracted and died from COVID19 were in poor health? Such as in nursing homes, in hospices, have compromised immune systems, or other cofactors? Use the data you have in a manner that it can support if there are any. By no means am I a statistical expert, so there may be no validity to this post.
View All Posts by User
BuckyB93
6 years ago
I agree with the above. No telling for sure the real ramifications until we can get a clearer picture which takes time.

The limited data that is available does point to and makes a strong, I would say pretty clear, conclusion that folks with compromised health are more susceptible and at greater risk. I don't think there's much to argue about here... it kinda follows logic. The "healthy" populations and those not congested in such small confined spaces are less likely to catch it and suffer from it. Again, a rather logical conclusion that doesn't really need deep statistical analysis. These populations are at a greater risk than others no matter what transmittable disease/infection/illness is at play.

The problem I have is making scare tactic claims and drastic sweeping, all encompassing decrees as a result of the data taken from these smaller specific populations. This is what has been done and this is what has been implanted in the minds of the masses. COV19 = Bad everywhere, everyone, everything. Be afraid of everywhere, everyone, everything.

We lock down the entire system, turn everyone into sheep and wait until it is determined that it's safe. Shut down churches, schools, all work and businesses that are deemed unnecessary, wear the appropriate attire, limit travel even within city limits unless it is absolutely necessary or risk getting fined... and on and on... all this based on the government's own choosing. Then wait until the government allows you to resume your life the way it was before. By the way, the seed is planted to expect this to be the new normal and prepare for Phase II because it's just around the corner even though we don't know fully what we are doing in Phase I.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
6 years ago
so, we could use leadership.
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago

I agree with the above. No telling for sure the real ramifications until we can get a clearer picture which takes time.

The limited data that is available does point to and makes a strong, I would say pretty clear, conclusion that folks with compromised health are more susceptible and at greater risk. I don't think there's much to argue about here... it kinda follows logic. The "healthy" populations and those not congested in such small confined spaces are less likely to catch it and suffer from it. Again, a rather logical conclusion that doesn't really need deep statistical analysis. These populations are at a greater risk than others no matter what transmittable disease/infection/illness is at play.

The problem I have is making scare tactic claims and drastic sweeping, all encompassing decrees as a result of the data taken from these smaller specific populations. This is what has been done and this is what has been implanted in the minds of the masses. COV19 = Bad everywhere, everyone, everything. Be afraid of everywhere, everyone, everything.

We lock down the entire system, turn everyone into sheep and wait until it is determined that it's safe. Shut down churches, schools, all work and businesses that are deemed unnecessary, wear the appropriate attire, limit travel even within city limits unless it is absolutely necessary or risk getting fined... and on and on... all this based on the government's own choosing. Then wait until the government allows you to resume your life the way it was before. By the way, the seed is planted to expect this to be the new normal and prepare for Phase II because it's just around the corner even though we don't know fully what we are doing in Phase I.

BuckyB93 wrote:



I was with you until the 3rd paragraph.

The country pulling together isn't "sheep". It's concerted effort.

In fact, what was attempted could not be achieved without everyone working together. Those "rugged, totally not sheep" people I'm assuming you admire for not following the government order, essentially f-ck anyone who did stay at home.

What you don't get is people aren't staying in quarantine to "stay safe". They're doing it to eradicate a disease which can propagate when people interact with each other. That's not something that's really effective in half measures. And guess what? It works when the country works in a united fashion (see New Zealand... ) Of course, they're screwed now because they did better than the rest of the world, so they have to actually remain isolated from the rest of the world until we catch up. Same thing applies to our cities and states. If Seattle gets this disease under control, but Idaho lifts their social distancing too quickly and harbors the disease... Then all Seattle's work is irrelevant because someone from Spokane will bring it there again.

This idea of trying to portray the morons protesting to open up as some sort of freedom loving american, or those who are actually "socially distancing" as being sheep is just a fanciful way some groups are trying to portray themselves which is not actually based in reality. One group was trying to accomplish something which required everyone in the nation to pull together to be successful. Another group decided not to do that. As such, with the proverbial wheaties pissed in... well it's not going to work
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
6 years ago
Correction....people aren’t staying in quarantine to eradicate a disease.

It is to flatten the curve.
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago

Correction....people aren’t staying in quarantine to eradicate a disease.

It is to flatten the curve.

HockeyDad wrote:



True. And we seemed reasonably successful at the outset of that.

It was never sold as a method of eradicating a communicable disease. It has the potential to be a method of it (re New Zealand). But that would require too much commitment from our population.

But what's your point?

We're at probably about 1% of our population infected right now.

If we open up fully right now that leaves 99% of the population susceptible to a disease which is still present. Our "flattened curve" will return, it will just be 1% lower than it might have been if we didn't social distance. Essentially making the exercise irrelevant.

If you want to keep what we achieved, then openings need to be very slow, and very controlled. what do you think the odds of that being successful are?
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com