Covid Spread Can’t Only Be Explained by Who’s Being ‘Bad’

[NWRatCon]

A surge? You are listening to Trump. New Zealand had 12 new cases yesterday and 9 the day before. We had 40,000+.

You are missing the third and obvious choice. Controlling the virus (which can be done) leads to a better economy and far fewer deaths. Germany and South Korea are 2 examples who did a good job.

US: 2qtr GDP = -32.9%, unemployment rate = 10.2%, deaths per million to date = 526

Germany: 2qtr GDP = -10.1%, unemployment rate = 4.2%, deaths per million to date = 111

South Korea: 2qtr GDP = -3.3%, unemployment rate = 4.3%, deaths per million = 6

This is the kind of data and analysis that needs to be much more widespread.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A surge? You are listening to Trump. New Zealand had 12 new cases yesterday and 9 the day before. We had 40,000+.

You are missing the third and obvious choice. Controlling the virus (which can be done) leads to a better economy and far fewer deaths. Germany and South Korea are 2 examples who did a good job.

US: 2qtr GDP = -32.9%, unemployment rate = 10.2%, deaths per million to date = 526

Germany: 2qtr GDP = -10.1%, unemployment rate = 4.2%, deaths per million to date = 111

South Korea: 2qtr GDP = -3.3%, unemployment rate = 4.3%, deaths per million = 6

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

While the total GDP and unemployment figures are interesting, I think that the "PPP GDP per capita" and "Healthcare Spending per capita" are more relevant (and a comparison to countries which are more socioeconomically similar to the US than the ROK is is more appropriate).

​

PS - Your correlation actually looks something like

Country [A]

2qtr GDP

[td]Unemployment
[C][/td]
[td]Deaths
[D][/td]
[TD]ADJUSTED DEATHS vs US[/td]

[tr]
[td]USA[/td]
[td]-32.9%[/td]
[td]10.2%[/td]
[td]526[/td]
[td]526[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]GERMANY[/td]
[td]-10.1%[/td]
[td]4.2%[/td]
[td]111[/td]
[td]878[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]ROK[/td]
[td]-3.3%[/td]
[td]4.3%[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]142[/td]
[/tr]

and that indicates to me that (at least for the example that you used, since 526±5% = 473.4 < X > 578.6 [and one would expect that the adjusted numbers would be within approximately 10% of the base number {your examples put the other numbers within approximately ±69.96% of the US number once adjusted using your criteria}]) the correlation is "just a tad weak".

 

[diz]

I am not sure how you reached your conclusion. One line of reasoning my suggest the need for a healthier diet. Also, blacks and hispanics may live in more extended families. Native Americans have a similar issue.

Ok, I guess I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to argue.

I'm just attempting to reconcile the number of stories and comments I see about "the problem" being white conservatives who refusing to wear masks with the actual CDC data suggesting minorities are many times more likely to get Covid.

 

[diz]

The technical term for that is "cherry picking".



There is no "hypothesis" that goes beyond

"Here is the best data that I have on the G-8 countries, China, Europe (as an aggregate), and the world (as an aggregate and here is how that data interrelates.".
​

The FACTS are that

View attachment 67292045

1. in 7 of the other 9 listed areas, a person picked at random has (without consideration of any other factor) a LOWER chance of dying from COVID-19 than does a person picked at random in the US;
   *
2. in 9 out of the other 9 listed areas a person picked at random has (after adjusting for relative PPP GDP per capita) a LOWER chance of dying from COVID-19 than does a person picked at random in the US;
   *
   and
   *
3. in 9 out of the other 9 listed areas a person picked at random has (after adjusting for relative healthcare spending per capita) a LOWER chance of dying from COVID-19 than does a person picked at random in the US.

What do those facts MEAN? I think that they mean that the US isn't punching up to its weight in its own fight against COVID-19 and I think that they also mean that the US isn't getting the "bangs for the buck" out of its healthcare system that it ought to be getting.

You tell me what you think they mean.

So then, let me ask again: in the context of this thread what exactly is your point? What is your hypothesis?

What do you think causes this data that you keep reiterating? What did Russia do that the US should have done?

 

[diz]

Are you at all concerned that apples are not, in fact, oranges? And how can anyone logically call a tomato a fruit?

With respect, that criticism is nonsensical. (In fact, it's technically a non-sequitur.) I get the feeling you're resorting to spaghetti logic to support your initial premise. Many things are not known about COVID, yet, but some things are. Data - reliable data - demonstrates that COVID is highly transmissible. Because, unfortunately, we have so many cases, we have a lot of data. You have, on several occasions, accused others of "cherry picking" data to reach conclusions, and yet MANY of your assertions are based entirely on that fallacy.

Let's get back to the real world, shall we? In the real world thousands of people are dying of COVID complications. Millions of people have contracted the virus. Real world experience and mountains of data demonstrate (and simple logic confirms) that routine mask wearing and social distancing reduces the spread of airborne viruses.

In the real world, data is just data. Analysis can suggest correlations. Correlations can be tested through experiments and analysis, and either confirmed or refuted. The process is imperfect. But, for example, data suggests that routine wearing of seatbelts reduces traffic fatalities by 50%. Wearing a mask and social distancing reduces the spread of the virus SARS-CoV-2 by at least that much. In neither case does every one who wears one avoid exposure nor will everyone who does not be infected. Science is rarely perfect, but it is rational.

"Wash your hands, wear a mask, keep your distance and don't be stupid."

So, if these are the key things that affect Covid spread I assume your position would be that the reason Blacks and Hispanics have 4 or 5x the covid rates as whites is that Blacks and Hispanics are much worse about wearing masks, washing their hands, and keeping their distances. And much stupider.

Is that what you are intending to say?

 

[NWRatCon]

So, if these are the key things that affect Covid spread I assume your position would be that the reason Blacks and Hispanics have 4 or 5x the covid rates as whites is that Blacks and Hispanics are much worse about wearing masks, washing their hands, and keeping their distances. And much stupider.

Is that what you are intending to say?

No, because that is idiotic. It seems probable, as a number of reports have indicated, that the generally poorer health resources in minority communities lead to poorer health results and more co-morbidity (e.g. obesity, diabetes, asthma). I think, again, you have progressed from spaghetti logic to trolling. That's the point at which I step away. I no longer believe you are interested in a genuine discussion.

Be well.

 

[diz]

No, because that is idiotic. It seems probable, as a number of reports have indicated, that the generally poorer health resources in minority communities lead to poorer health results and more co-morbidity (e.g. obesity, diabetes, asthma). I think, again, you have progressed from spaghetti logic to trolling. That's the point at which I step away. I no longer believe you are interested in a genuine discussion.

Be well.

"Getting the disease" and "morbidity" are two different things, right? What does "poor health resources" have to do with getting the disease?

I'm told that's more about masks, hand washing, keeping distances, and stupidity.

And how is this not a "genuine" discussion? Is there some data we are not allowed to consider? Surely not because it does not fit our beliefs?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So then, let me ask again: in the context of this thread what exactly is your point? What is your hypothesis?

What do you think causes this data that you keep reiterating?

POINT 1 - The data is what the data is.

POINT 2 - One draws conclusions (or "forms opinions" if you prefer) FROM the data and one does NOT select data to support theories (or "opinions" if you prefer).

POINT 3 - The data shows that America DOES have the financial and healthcare resources to perform at an outstanding level in dealing with COVID-19.

POINT 4 - The data shows that America is NOT performing at an outstanding level in dealing with COVID-19.

POINT 5 - I believe that it is not unreasonable to consider "quality of leadership", "national unity", and "social consideration for others" when reaching any conclusion as to what the data means.

POINT 6 - My conclusion (or "opinion" if you prefer) is that the US does NOT _CURRENTLY_ have sufficient "quality of leadership", "national unity", and/or "social consideration for others" (in some combination) in order to employ its unquestioned financial ability or healthcare system to be able to "punch up to weight" in combating COVID-19.

POINT 7 - Neither Mr. Trump, "Team Trump", the "American governments" (that includes National, State, and Local governments) or the "American People" caused COVID-19, but all three are responsible for fighting it.

What did Russia do that the US should have done?

Although this is a bit of an over generalization, what Russia did (that the US did not do [and is still not doing]) was that it:

1. recognized that COVID-19 is an existential problem;
   *
2. had leadership that was prepared to dig in and deal with the actual existential problem;
   *
3. devoted sufficient resources to deal with what the problem was likely to become before it actually reached that level;
   *
4. did NOT treat the problem as a partisan political football;
   *
5. acted in a timely and nationally coordinated basis;
   *
   and;
   *
6. had a populace that was prepared to put up with personal inconveniences in order to provide the most protection possible for other people.

Whether or not you think that those are things that America SHOULD have done is a matter of opinion.

Canada did do those things and I approve (even though I recognize that Canada MIGHT have done better).

Whether or not America DID DO those things is a matter of fact (and I leave it to you to work that one out).

Whether or not a person approves of what America did do, seems (to me) to depend solely on whether or not the person adoringly approves of Mr. Trump.

Claiming that America's sub-optimal performance is actually "the best in the world" is a matter between the claimant and their mental health workers.

​

Does that help?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Getting the disease" and "morbidity" are two different things, right? What does "poor health resources" have to do with getting the disease?

I'm told that's more about masks, hand washing, keeping distances, and stupidity.

And how is this not a "genuine" discussion? Is there some data we are not allowed to consider? Surely not because it does not fit our beliefs?

It might surprise you to learn that "health resources" and "healthcare resources" do NOT mean the same thing.

"Health resources" include "quality of diet", "quality of education/knowledge" and "quality of living accommodation" amongst other things.

Now, if you want to tell me that "the Blacks" and "the Browns" (as aggregated groups) have the same "quality of diet", "quality of education/knowledge" and/or "quality of living accommodation" as "the Whites" I will be happy to laugh in your face.

 

[diz]

It might surprise you to learn that "health resources" and "healthcare resources" do NOT mean the same thing.

"Health resources" include "quality of diet", "quality of education/knowledge" and "quality of living accommodation" amongst other things.

Now, if you want to tell me that "the Blacks" and "the Browns" (as aggregated groups) have the same "quality of diet", "quality of education/knowledge" and/or "quality of living accommodation" as "the Whites" I will be happy to laugh in your face.

Hmm, I'm not sure what any of those things have to do with catching the disease. It seems like if the operating hypothesis is that getting the disease is about not wearing masks, not keeping distances, not washing hands and being stupid that if one group is documented to be far more likely to have caught the disease that group would be less likely to be wearing masks, keeping distances, washing hands and/or more likely to stupid.

That's kinda how causal relationships work. If doing X is the primary factor causing Y, it necessarily follows that groups with more Y are doing more X.

If you are switching the hypothesis that what causes people to get covid is "quality of diet" and "quality of education" it would be interesting to see you demonstrate what support you have for that.

If you know what diet causes you to catch COVID you ought to write an email to the CDC and tell them so they can let all of us know. There might be a Nobel prize or something in it for you.

I had a burrito for lunch today, so I hope if diet is causing the high COVID rate in Hispanics it's not the burritos. It seems like bad policy to require me to wear a mask into the burrito place if it's the burrito itself that's the COVID risk. Seems like you'd forget the mask mandate and do a burrito ban.

As far as "quality of education" as a causal factor goes, I'd be curious how you think a virus would even know the quality of someone's education before deciding to infect them. It seems unlikely to me it would be causal, though I wouldn't be surprised if there's some correlation. Obviously anything that's correlated with being Black and Hispanic is likely to be correlated with getting COVID. But as they say, correlation is not causation.

 

[George50]

While the total GDP and unemployment figures are interesting, I think that the "PPP GDP per capita" and "Healthcare Spending per capita" are more relevant (and a comparison to countries which are more socioeconomically similar to the US than the ROK is is more appropriate).

View attachment 67292120

View attachment 67292121

View attachment 67292123​

PS - Your correlation actually looks something like

Country [A]

2qtr GDP

[td]Unemployment
[C][/td]
[td]Deaths
[D][/td]
[TD]ADJUSTED DEATHS vs US[/td]

[tr]
[td]USA[/td]
[td]-32.9%[/td]
[td]10.2%[/td]
[td]526[/td]
[td]526[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]GERMANY[/td]
[td]-10.1%[/td]
[td]4.2%[/td]
[td]111[/td]
[td]878[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]ROK[/td]
[td]-3.3%[/td]
[td]4.3%[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]142[/td]
[/tr]

and that indicates to me that (at least for the example that you used, since 526±5% = 473.4 < X > 578.6 [and one would expect that the adjusted numbers would be within approximately 10% of the base number {your examples put the other numbers within approximately ±69.96% of the US number once adjusted using your criteria}]) the correlation is "just a tad weak".

How did you calculate the 878 and 142 numbers?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Hmm, I'm not sure what any of those things have to do with catching the disease. It seems like if the operating hypothesis is that getting the disease is about not wearing masks, not keeping distances, not washing hands and being stupid that if one group is documented to be far more likely to have caught the disease that group would be less likely to be wearing masks, keeping distances, washing hands and/or more likely to stupid.

Indeed that would be a perfectly sound superficial analysis.

Now, ask yourself this question (NOTE - The numbers are made up for illustrative purposes only.)

FACT PATTERN

1. "Group A" has an inherent 50% greater chance of contracting "Disease X" than "Group B" does.
   *
2. The base rate of contracting "Disease X" is 100.
   *
3. It is an established fact that taking "Measures 1, 2, and 3" will reduce the chance of contracting "Disease X" by 20%.
   *
4. 80% of "Group A" take "Measures 1, 2, and 3".
   *
   and.
   *
5. 55% of "Group B" take "Measures 1, 2, and 3".

EXAM QUESTION

Which group will have the higher rate of contracting "Disease X"?
​

That's kinda how causal relationships work. If doing X is the primary factor causing Y, it necessarily follows that groups with more Y are doing more X.

And you are confusing "correlation" with "causation".

If you are switching the hypothesis that what causes people to get covid is "quality of diet" and "quality of education" it would be interesting to see you demonstrate what support you have for that.

What "causes" people to "get covid" is the Corona virus. What exacerbates the result of COVID-19 are the co-morbidity factors.

If you know what diet causes you to catch COVID you ought to write an email to the CDC and tell them so they can let all of us know. There might be a Nobel prize or something in it for you.

See above.

I had a burrito for lunch today, so I hope if diet is causing the high COVID rate in Hispanics it's not the burritos. It seems like bad policy to require me to wear a mask into the burrito place if it's the burrito itself that's the COVID risk. Seems like you'd forget the mask mandate and do a burrito ban.

Facetious does not become you.

As far as "quality of education" as a causal factor goes, I'd be curious how you think a virus would even know the quality of someone's education before deciding to infect them. It seems unlikely to me it would be causal, though I wouldn't be surprised if there's some correlation. Obviously anything that's correlated with being Black and Hispanic is likely to be correlated with getting COVID. But as they say, correlation is not causation.

See above.

PS - Since many people are saying things like "The US is doing much better than Canada because the US mortality rate is only 3.09% and the Canadian mortality rate is 7.29% - which is more than 2.36 times the US rate.", I thought that you might find the "snapshot rate" (i.e. the change from one day to the next using yesterday's numbers and today's numbers) interesting, so here it is (for the "G-8+China countries", "Europe (aggregated)" and the "World (aggregated)".

​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How did you calculate the 878 and 142 numbers?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Using your thesis that an increase in the GDP drop translated into an increase in the deaths, I applied the following rational to the number of deaths for your chosen Germany and ROK

If Germany had had 32.9/10.1 times its actual drop in GDP then the death rate would have been 32.9/10.1 times higher.
​

The same type of calculation was used with respect to German unemployment and to the ROK numbers as well.

As you appear to be one of those who sets great stock in the "historical" mortality rate (while totally ignoring the CURRENT "spot" mortality rate) possibly you might find this table

​

of interest.

Unfortunately the CURRENT numbers do NOT reflect as well on the US as the "historical" numbers say that they should.

What those numbers appear (to me) to mean is that Canada, China (possibly), France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, (an aggregated) Europe, and even the whole World (on an aggregated basis) has managed to get a better grip on COVID-19 than the US has. O could be wrong, but that's the way the horses appear to have crossed the finishing line (regardless of what the form charts said "'American Exceptionalism' ridden by TRUMP, Donnie Jay -- wearing its house colours of Red-White-Blue" SHOULD have performed and how well 'American Exceptionalism' did in the first two furlongs of a 10 furlong race).

 

[diz]

Indeed that would be a perfectly sound superficial analysis.

Now, ask yourself this question (NOTE - The numbers are made up for illustrative purposes only.)

FACT PATTERN

1. "Group A" has an inherent 50% greater chance of contracting "Disease X" than "Group B" does.
   *
2. The base rate of contracting "Disease X" is 100.
   *
3. It is an established fact that taking "Measures 1, 2, and 3" will reduce the chance of contracting "Disease X" by 20%.
   *
4. 80% of "Group A" take "Measures 1, 2, and 3".
   *
   and.
   *
5. 55% of "Group B" take "Measures 1, 2, and 3".

EXAM QUESTION

Which group will have the higher rate of contracting "Disease X"?
​

And you are confusing "correlation" with "causation".



What "causes" people to "get covid" is the Corona virus. What exacerbates the result of COVID-19 are the co-morbidity factors.



See above.



Facetious does not become you.



See above.

PS - Since many people are saying things like "The US is doing much better than Canada because the US mortality rate is only 3.09% and the Canadian mortality rate is 7.29% - which is more than 2.36 times the US rate.", I thought that you might find the "snapshot rate" (i.e. the change from one day to the next using yesterday's numbers and today's numbers) interesting, so here it is (for the "G-8+China countries", "Europe (aggregated)" and the "World (aggregated)".

View attachment 67292413​

Ok, there's a lot there and I don't see how much of it is relevant to what I am arguing.

Let's try hitting the reset to cut off all the rabbit trails I am not arguing.

First context.

From the original article (that I posted in an endorsing sorta tone) the title of which is: Covid Spread Can’t Only Be Explained by Who’s Being ‘Bad’

The mainstream narrative is that it’s all about good behavior when cases go down — mask wearing and giving up our social lives for the greater good. And conversely, bad behavior must be what makes them go up. We talk about certain regions having the virus “under control,” as if falling cases are purely a matter of will-power. A sort of moral reasoning is filling in for evidence.

Then from me in the OP:

We are also facing a pandemic of cherrypicking Covid data to fit whatever their preferred political narrative is.

So, two things there: 1) I am not arguing COVID spread is due to bad behavior. I endorsed an article that says to stop doing that. I don't discount behavior has something to do with it of course, but its not primarily what I'm on about here. 2) I am on about the cherrypicking of data to fit people's preferred biases.

In response to this, I got what I would describe as many responses along the lines of "ZMFOG the article sucks it really is behavior WEAR A MASK!!!11." I was also met with anecdotes about white people in South Dakota not wearing masks as, um, evidence I guess.

Fair enough. This is the internet.

So, I asked people to consider the following. According to CDC data that is widely available, certain groups have 3 or 4 times the infection rate of Covid as others. These groups are "Blacks" and "Hispanics".

The general response to this I'd describe as "ZMFOG spaghetti logic what are you bringing this up it has no relevance stop taking about this data111@".

I see it as completely relevant to the topic. It's a perfect illustration of the issue, in fact.

If your position is: "ZMFOG the article sucks it really is all about behavior WEAR A MASK!!!11."
And you can't accept the position: "Black and Hispanic people's behavior must have something to do with their documented 3 or 4x infection rate."

There's an inconsistency.

If your answer is "We shouldn't be talking about that" seems like you're in the cherrypicking camp.
If your answer is "it's not their behavior it's these 37 other things that don't have any obvious link with how the virus appears to be transmitted", maybe you haven't actually thought through whether you're actually in the "ZMFOG the article sucks it really is all about behavior WEAR A MASK!!!11." camp.

Or, maybe you are just capable of simultaneously holding wildly inconsistent beliefs if it helps you maintain your preferred wordview.

Hope that helps.

 

[Deuce]

When we were social distancing because go out and you die the cases were contained. When we decided that we could end social distancing just as long as you wear a mask cases exploded. Social distancing works. Masks do not.

“Seat belts work, airbags do not.”

How antimaskers sound

 

[Drawdown]

“Seat belts work, airbags do not.”

How antimaskers sound

You might want to clean your ears.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ok, there's a lot there and I don't see how much of it is relevant to what I am arguing.

Let's try hitting the reset to cut off all the rabbit trails I am not arguing.

First context.

From the original article (that I posted in an endorsing sorta tone) the title of which is: Covid Spread Can’t Only Be Explained by Who’s Being ‘Bad’

Then from me in the OP:

So, two things there: 1) I am not arguing COVID spread is due to bad behavior. I endorsed an article that says to stop doing that. I don't discount behavior has something to do with it of course, but its not primarily what I'm on about here. 2) I am on about the cherrypicking of data to fit people's preferred biases.

I totally agree with you on your second point.

In response to this, I got what I would describe as many responses along the lines of "ZMFOG the article sucks it really is behavior WEAR A MASK!!!11." I was also met with anecdotes about white people in South Dakota not wearing masks as, um, evidence I guess.

Fair enough. This is the internet.

True.

So, I asked people to consider the following. According to CDC data that is widely available, certain groups have 3 or 4 times the infection rate of Covid as others. These groups are "Blacks" and "Hispanics".

The general response to this I'd describe as "ZMFOG spaghetti logic what are you bringing this up it has no relevance stop taking about this data111@".

True.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that AMONGST each of those groups, the ones that are "complying with CDC recommendations" have lower infection and death rates than the ones that don't.

If you doubt that there is a "genetic COMPONENT" to the way COVID-19 attacks, all you have to do is look at China (admittedly dodgy numbers), Russia, Japan, and the US to compare the percentage of "Asians" with the infection/death rates. What you will see is that "Higher % of Asian (tends to) equal lower % of infection/death".

You will also (most likely) find that the subgroups within those populations that are complying with the CDC recommendations have lower rates of infection and death than the subgroups within those populations that are not complying.

I see it as completely relevant to the topic. It's a perfect illustration of the issue, in fact.

Relevant - yes. Useful analysis on the point "Does complying with the CDC guidelines lower the chance of COVID-19 infection/death?" - no.

If your position is: "ZMFOG the article sucks it really is all about behavior WEAR A MASK!!!11."

It isn't.

And you can't accept the position: "Black and Hispanic people's behavior must have something to do with their documented 3 or 4x infection rate."

I can't accept that in the implied way that you present it as "Black and Hispanic people's BEHAVIOUR IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS something to do with their documented 3 or 4 times infection rate.".

There's an inconsistency.

Not if you actually look at what your proposition is.

If your answer is "We shouldn't be talking about that" seems like you're in the cherrypicking camp.

Alternatively I think that it's pretty clear what camp "The ONLY reason why Blacks and/or Hispanics have 3 or 4 times the infection rate that Whites have is because they are Black and/or Brown." puts your logic.

If your answer is "it's not their behavior it's these 37 other things that don't have any obvious link with how the virus appears to be transmitted", maybe you haven't actually thought through whether you're actually in the "ZMFOG the article sucks it really is all about behavior WEAR A MASK!!!11." camp.

Do you mind if I say that your argument is strikingly similar to "The only reason why Biafrans are starving to death is because they are Black."?

Or, maybe you are just capable of simultaneously holding wildly inconsistent beliefs if it helps you maintain your preferred wordview.

Hope that helps.

I'm sure that it has helped you to pretend that you aren't engaged in "race based logic".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

“Seat belts work, airbags do not.”

How antimaskers sound

Yes, and they like to present evidence along the lines of

"Well, I know someone whose life was saved by their seat belt but I don't know anyone whose life was saved by their airbags, so that proves that no one's life has ever been saved by airbags."
​

 

[diz]

Do you mind if I say that your argument is strikingly similar to "The only reason why Biafrans are starving to death is because they are Black."?

I mind only in that it shows you are not paying attention to what my argument is. I suggest you stop trying to imagine I am making arguments I'm not and address the arguments I am actually making.

To be clear, arguments I am not making:
1) Behavior has no effect on virus spread
2) "The Blacks" and "the Browns" are bad people. It saddens me when someone reaches for this card in a discussion about data.

Again, my point is about cherrypicking to preserve one's preferred world view as opposed to adapting ones arguments to the actual data as it exists.

So, let's go down another layer. Let's suppose I find someone who argues the following:

1) Covid spread is all about behavior, wear a damn mask and wash your hands.
2) The 3 or 4x rate of Covid spread in the Black and Hispanic is not at all about bad behavior; it's about structural and cultural differences
[2b) Stop talking about Covid spread in the Black and Hispanic community!]
3) Hey look at Covid spread in Texas, Florida, Arizona and [omit California here] - Its 't eh Damn the Republicans and TRUMP11!!!@
4) Let's not talk about any possible structural or cultural differences that might affect the Covid spread in TX, FL, AZ and [omit CA here]. It's the lack of mask mandates in grocery stores [ignore the existence of mask mandates in grocery stores and such that exist in Texas etc here]!
5) Hmmm, you know what I'm never going to do? Consider whether if I applied my stated belief #2 [and didn't omit CA], it might be the case that I might there was something in common that TX, FL, AZ and [don't omit CA] all had that was affecting Covid spread there. Some sort of cultural and structural difference in common. Other than the Republicans governors they all have [if I ignore CA].
6) Oh look here's another youtube video of a white guy in South Dakota refusing to wear a mask in a grocery store that supports my worldview!

Anyway, that sort of "rationalizing" (I started to type "rationale" but the word doesn't really work) seems to be common. I tried to make it clear where the cherrypicking and ignoring disconfirming data was occurring. The above seems to be pretty close to the default position of our national media.

That's my point.

 

[diz]

I'm sure that it has helped you to pretend that you aren't engaged in "race based logic".

Oh yeah, you're right. I left off one of your favorites data driven arguments:

[2b.1 - serious data lover's option) Stop talking about Covid spread in the Black and Hispanic community! That data is racist YOU RACIST!]

I think we'd hear more of that one if people were actually attempting to discuss the data above as opposed to simply ignoring it because it doesn't comport with their worldview.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh yeah, you're right. I left off one of your favorites data driven arguments:

[2b.1 - serious data lover's option) Stop talking about Covid spread in the Black and Hispanic community! That data is racist YOU RACIST!]

I think we'd hear more of that one if people were actually attempting to discuss the data above as opposed to simply ignoring it because it doesn't comport with their worldview.

Talking about "Black areas" and "Brown areas" without giving any consideration of any other factor but skin colour IS NOT "racist" - it's simply stupid.

Now if you want to talk about the relative differences between "people in 'Black' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'Black' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines" in relation to "people in 'White' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'White' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines", we might be able to have some useful discussion - but you don't want to do that.

And if you want to talk about the relative differences between "people in 'Poor' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'Poor' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines" in relation to "people in 'Rich' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'Rich' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines", we might be able to have some useful discussion - but you don't want to do that.

Heck, we might even find that there is a statistically significant overlap between 'Black' areas and 'Poor' areas as well as between 'White' areas and 'Rich' areas.

In fact, if we did find that there was such a statistically significant overlap, that would mean that ascribing all of the differences to the level of melanin in people's skins was also stupid.

 

[diz]

Talking about "Black areas" and "Brown areas" without giving any consideration of any other factor but skin colour IS NOT "racist" - it's simply stupid.

Now if you want to talk about the relative differences between "people in 'Black' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'Black' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines" in relation to "people in 'White' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'White' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines", we might be able to have some useful discussion - but you don't want to do that.

And if you want to talk about the relative differences between "people in 'Poor' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'Poor' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines" in relation to "people in 'Rich' areas who DO comply with the CDC guidelines" and "people in 'Rich' areas who DO NOT comply with the CDC guidelines", we might be able to have some useful discussion - but you don't want to do that.

Heck, we might even find that there is a statistically significant overlap between 'Black' areas and 'Poor' areas as well as between 'White' areas and 'Rich' areas.

In fact, if we did find that there was such a statistically significant overlap, that would mean that ascribing all of the differences to the level of melanin in people's skins was also stupid.

I'm a bot at a loss to continue this discussion with you because you never actually seem to engage with points I am making and then go on to criticize points I am not making.

Again, it's not a great logical leap from

a) There are cultural and structural factors that cause Covid to spread faster in Hispanic communities

to

b) Given a), all other things being equal, there will be more spread of Covid in areas with larger Hispanic communities.

That logic is simple, crisp and without flaw. One follows from the other directly.

Your gyrations and mischaracterizations and flinging about accusations of racism don't and can't change that.

 

[George50]

Using your thesis that an increase in the GDP drop translated into an increase in the deaths, I applied the following rational to the number of deaths for your chosen Germany and ROK

If Germany had had 32.9/10.1 times its actual drop in GDP then the death rate would have been 32.9/10.1 times higher.
​

The same type of calculation was used with respect to German unemployment and to the ROK numbers as well.

As you appear to be one of those who sets great stock in the "historical" mortality rate (while totally ignoring the CURRENT "spot" mortality rate) possibly you might find this table

View attachment 67292414​

of interest.

Unfortunately the CURRENT numbers do NOT reflect as well on the US as the "historical" numbers say that they should.

What those numbers appear (to me) to mean is that Canada, China (possibly), France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, (an aggregated) Europe, and even the whole World (on an aggregated basis) has managed to get a better grip on COVID-19 than the US has. O could be wrong, but that's the way the horses appear to have crossed the finishing line (regardless of what the form charts said "'American Exceptionalism' ridden by TRUMP, Donnie Jay -- wearing its house colours of Red-White-Blue" SHOULD have performed and how well 'American Exceptionalism' did in the first two furlongs of a 10 furlong race).

Thanks for the reply. Looks like there is some kind of misunderstanding. I don’t think that an increase in the GDP drop translated into an increase in deaths.

I was only trying to portray that the US has failed both in terms of deaths per million and in economic terms.

I also agree with you that the US has failed in terms of the current numbers. We are much worse off in terms of new cases and current deaths than most other countries. Its totally inexcusable that we still don’t have an effective plan to control the virus.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thanks for the reply. Looks like there is some kind of misunderstanding.

Things happen.

I don’t think that an increase in the GDP drop translated into an increase in deaths.

You did list it as a factor, so I included it in my calculations. If you take it out of the calculations, then the 878 and 142 become approximately 220 and 36 in comparison with the US' 526 and those numbers make the US look even worse.

I was only trying to portray that the US has failed both in terms of deaths per million and in economic terms.

That is what the data most certainly appears to say.

I also agree with you that the US has failed in terms of the current numbers. We are much worse off in terms of new cases and current deaths than most other countries. Its totally inexcusable that we still don’t have an effective plan to control the virus.

Here (for what they are worth) are today's "spot" numbers.

​

You should remember that today's numbers (and yesterday's [and likely tomorrow's]) are usually "depressed" due to the normal "weekend lag in reporting" caused by the fact that there are fewer people actually working on doing both the testing and the reporting over the weekends. Of course, that means that the (sometimes) Tuesday's, and (almost always) Wednesday's and Thursday's numbers are "boosted" because the backlogs in testing and reporting have been cleared up. This is why I place much more reliance on the "7 day rolling average"

​

and the "10 day average of the 7 day rolling averages"

​

as indicators of what is happening.

PS - Do you remember when "The Fundamentalists" were thundering about how AIDS (current US average annual death toll around 13,000) was "God's Punishment For A Sinful America"? If 13,000 is "God's Punishment" then what is 360,000 (which is roughly what the COVID-19 death toll works out to on an annual basis)? Why aren't "The Fundamentalists" thundering about how COVID-19 is "God's Punishment For A Sinful America"?