If you Believe in Science and Mathermatics

[Paradoxical]

Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. do not have nearly unlimited right to moderate their platform any damn way they want.

The relevant law is 47 U.S. Code § 230(c)(2). It provides protection for platforms if they remove material, so long as it is done in good faith. The good faith is what is being challenged. Zuckerberg admitted, under oath, that facebook could monitor their own patrons, and also track them across other platforms, without the patron's knowledge.

If you have any more to say, keep it to the subject of the thread.

The good thing is that conservatives are leaving them in the droves. Let's hope they are the next MySpace in a few years.

 

[cabse5]

Why are you convinced I can't explain why the CDC/WHO is more interested (if only interested) is saving hospital resources without seeing any of my explanation? Hum?

 

[cabse5]

I apoligze for misreading your post.

So, I am in the statistical community, can you explain the problem we have with what is going on?

Thanks

First you say your wife is 'on the front lines' in the fighting of Covid and now you say you're in the statistical community. Which part of the statistical community do you belong?

 

[cabse5]

you really should not post about things you are totally clueless about.

Explain why it's necessary to generally quarantine everyone when everyone isn't most at risk from Covid (or in some cases even slightly at risk from Covid) to save those most at risk to Covid. Explain why it wouldn't be easier to reverse quarantine those who are the most susceptible to Covid and let everyone else go about their normal lives unquarantined.

 

[roguenuke]

Explain why it's necessary to generally quarantine everyone when everyone isn't most at risk from Covid (or in some cases even slightly at risk from Covid) to save those most at risk to Covid. Explain why it wouldn't be easier to reverse quarantine those who are the most susceptible to Covid and let everyone else go about their normal lives unquarantined.

Because "reverse quarantine" (whatever the hell that means) simply won't work. Those most at risk still live with others who are not at risk. That isn't going to change. They still need groceries and supplies, to get out and about. Some still even work. You can't force them to stay away from absolutely everyone else to the extent that would be necessary for them not to get sick and hospitals to fill up, worse than they are. That isn't how life works.

How would you even propose we do that? How exactly would that work? How would you know who is at the "most risk"?

 

[cabse5]

Because "reverse quarantine" (whatever the hell that means) simply won't work. Those most at risk still live with others who are not at risk. That isn't going to change. They still need groceries and supplies, to get out and about. Some still even work. You can't force them to stay away from absolutely everyone else to the extent that would be necessary for them not to get sick and hospitals to fill up, worse than they are. That isn't how life works.

How would you even propose we do that? How exactly would that work? How would you know who is at the "most risk"?

If you don't know what reverse quarantine means, you can't realistically be able to argue against a reverse quarantine...Just sayin'. Thinking it through is good.

 

[cabse5]

If I were conducting a fact find meeting I would want all witnesses to be sworn under oath to increase the odds of getting facts, not wild accusations or suspicions, wouldn't you agree.

The head of the fact finding meeting in Michigan said at the very beginning of the fact finding meeting in Michigan that the fact finding meeting in Michigan was designed to try and find facts pertaining to possible corruption with the vote in Michigan. Ah. Too bad the meeting doesn't live up too your standards.

 

[911Sparky]

In your opinion. Do you have anything to back your opinion up?


I was contesting your statement that it was not under oath. You just verified that it was under oath.


Another personal opinion. Neither one of you has taken any portion of the data presented to task. the only thing we have had so far is that a samples are not random, which fails because the samples are comprehensive.


This is a remarkably obtuse statement. The point of the hearings was, in part, to help determine if lawsuits would be allowed.

The head of the fact finding meeting in Michigan said at the very beginning of the fact finding meeting that the meeting was about finding facts about possible corruption with the vote in Michigan. Ah. Too bad the meeting doesn't live up too your standards.

And how do you find fact if witnesses are permitted to testify to any wild, unproven belief, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation?

 

[cabse5]

So anyone that says you are wrong and proves it, anyone that doesnt agree with you, is an authoritarian?

And again, you fail. I have asked you continually to EXPLAIN your 'theories' in depth, and you cannot. When those things are refuted, you cannot expand on and counter the argument. Your answer to the question, "why do we need to preserve hospital resources?" has repeatedly been, "to preserve hospital resources."

Nobody that I've seen, esp. myself, has said your speech or thought is 'unacceptable.' We've said you're wrong and 'continually' asked you to explain when we refute your 'theories'. That's the opposite of 'squelching.'

Why have you failed to acknowledge let alone explore my very plausible, IMO, alternatives to what the CDC/WHO has concocted to fight this pandemic?

 

[cabse5]

Where is your proof? Your statement below your side note is not proof. It's your failed theory, the same one you've used for months, despite it making no sense and being wrong.

Please answer this question: what is the purpose of saving hospital resources if not to save lives? What's the purpose?

And if govts could manufacture the resources we need, why are so many hospitals struggling? Which govts can 'manufacture' more Drs and nurses and hours in the day? Do I need to post the list of links for 10 states struggling to provide enough of those hospital resources again? I posted 10 recently...there are more now. Why did you just pretend those arent a clear example that you are wrong?

This will be the last time I answer this rhetorical and strawman argument question of yours of 'What is the purpose of saving hospital resources other than to save lives?'

According to the CDC/WHO, the ONLY reason to save hospital resources is to preserve the existence of hospital resources to fight the pandemic.

A conscious choice has already been made by the CDC/WHO to save hospital resources over saving lives (if both can't be done) with the sending of formerly sick Covid nursing home residents back to the nursing home where the killing continues but the outbreak is contained to the nursing home and further hospital resources are spared.

As a side note, the CDC/WHO has determined that the saving of hospital resources is more important than a moderately normal functioning American society...More important than moderately normal schooling...More important than moderately normal economic activity...More important than a moderately normal presidential election.

 

[roguenuke]

If you don't know what reverse quarantine means, you can't realistically be able to argue against a reverse quarantine...Just sayin'. Thinking it through is good.

Or you could explain your view of "reverse quarantine" instead of trying to deflect. From the context, it sounds as if you are trying to say that those without Covid who simply may be at risk should be forced to do as those with covid are. There is a huge problem there, as I said. What about those who live with people who are not at risk? What about supplies, food, exercise, socializing for those who are at risk? How do you identify those at risk?

Stop deflecting and just let us know how this would work and why it should be considered a better option.

 

[cabse5]

And they failed. Their death rate is as high as ours and higher than any other comparable European neighbor.


Who says? Please provide proof from the medical professionals who evaluated this.


What is the reason for 'protecting hospital resources?'

Please link to where there's documentation of incorrect data usage and statistical analysis. And show us where they've corrected it, to the information that you are basing your opinion on.


Epidemiology is all about statistical analysis...it was my least favorite part. And "community behavior,' human social reactions to epidemics is also a big part of that discipline. You seem to know zero about the field or profession of epidemiology.


This makes zero sense unless you can explain why they want to preserve hospital resources. What is the reason?

Again and again. If you want me to respond to the too various points in your posts, you're gonna have to break the posts down to a manageable size, er, maybe, have your posts contain, at least, less than your average of 5 points per post (which you repeat over and over again even if I address those points).

The reason why Sweden's death rate from Covid was too high was because Sweden (and the rest of the world) didn't protect those most susceptible to Covid even though it was known in March of 2020 who was most susceptible to Covid...Roughly, 20 percent of the population...That 20 percent susceptible to Covid figure comes from the roughly 20 percent of world population that's retired.

The inability to address deaths and spread from Covid was caused by the harebrained notion by the CDC/WHO of generally locking everyone down which didn't protect the most vulnerable to Covid and artificially prolongs the crisis period for Covid 9which brings about more death and spread from Covid than need be).

 

[cabse5]

Or you could explain your view of "reverse quarantine" instead of trying to deflect. From the context, it sounds as if you are trying to say that those without Covid who simply may be at risk should be forced to do as those with covid are. There is a huge problem there, as I said. What about those who live with people who are not at risk? What about supplies, food, exercise, socializing for those who are at risk? How do you identify those at risk?

Stop deflecting and just let us know how this would work and why it should be considered a better option.

One must realize the CDC/WHO is performing all these 'trying to force square pegs into round hole' activities to save hospital resources because they are too preoccupied (only preoccupied) with saving hospital resources. This is due to a false conclusion of the CDC/WHO that hospital resources would expire from this pandemic based upon inaccurate statistical methods fed into models which inaccurately predicted a complete loss of hospital resources from this pandemic.

One can't fight this pandemic 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with hospital resources running out. One can't save those most susceptible to Covid 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with saving hospital resources. The pandemic is artificially prolonged and more people will die 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with saving hospital resources.

To reverse quarantine the most susceptible to Covid is to quarantine the most susceptible to Covid (who don't have Covid) apart and protected from the rest of the population that isn't as susceptible to Covid. Hospital resources are spared since the most susceptible are isolated...The CDC/WHO would like that.

The rest of the population can go about it's normal functioning quarantine-free. IMO, a more 'Occam's Razor-like' approach to the problem than the harebrained CDC/WHO approach to generally quarantine everyone (for as long as possible) to protect those most susceptible to Covid. Granted, those (multiple) quarantines will last way too long and be too numerous because the general quarantine doesn't protect the most susceptible to Covid....but does protect hospital resources.

 

[vegas giants]

This will be the last time I answer this rhetorical and strawman argument question of yours of 'What is the purpose of saving hospital resources other than to save lives?'

According to the CDC/WHO, the ONLY reason to save hospital resources is to preserve the existence of hospital resources to fight the pandemic.

A conscious choice has already been made by the CDC/WHO to save hospital resources over saving lives (if both can't be done) with the sending of formerly sick Covid nursing home residents back to the nursing home where the killing continues but the outbreak is contained to the nursing home and further hospital resources are spared.

As a side note, the CDC/WHO has determined that the saving of hospital resources is more important than a moderately normal functioning American society...More important than moderately normal schooling...More important than moderately normal economic activity...More important than a moderately normal presidential election.

The bolded part is factually incorrect

 

[vegas giants]

One must realize the CDC/WHO is performing all these 'trying to force square pegs into round hole' activities to save hospital resources because they are too preoccupied (only preoccupied) with saving hospital resources. This is due to a false conclusion of the CDC/WHO that hospital resources would expire from this pandemic based upon inaccurate statistical methods fed into models which inaccurately predicted a complete loss of hospital resources from this pandemic.

One can't fight this pandemic 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with hospital resources running out. One can't save those most susceptible to Covid 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with saving hospital resources. The pandemic is artificially prolonged and more people will die 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with saving hospital resources.

To reverse quarantine the most susceptible to Covid is to quarantine the most susceptible to Covid (who don't have Covid) apart and protected from the rest of the population that isn't as susceptible to Covid. Hospital resources are spared since the most susceptible are isolated...The CDC/WHO would like that.

The rest of the population can go about it's normal functioning quarantine-free. IMO, a more 'Occam's Razor-like' approach to the problem than the harebrained CDC/WHO approach to generally quarantine everyone (for as long as possible) to protect those most susceptible to Covid. Granted, those (multiple) quarantines will last way too long and be too numerous because the general quarantine doesn't protect the most susceptible to Covid....but does protect hospital resources.

You have a theory in search of evidence

 

[GolfingChef]

Why are you convinced I can't explain why the CDC/WHO is more interested (if only interested) is saving hospital resources without seeing any of my explanation? Hum?

because you cannot explain what is not true.

 

[GolfingChef]

irst you say your wife is 'on the front lines' in the fighting of Covid and now you say you're in the statistical community. Which part of the statistical community do you belong?

I am a data scientist with a Masters in Data Analytics/Informatics, currently working in the Agricultural sector.

Now, please explain the problems the statistical community has with the COVID response.

Thanks

 

[GolfingChef]

Explain why it's necessary to generally quarantine everyone when everyone isn't most at risk from Covid (or in some cases even slightly at risk from Covid) to save those most at risk to Covid. Explain why it wouldn't be easier to reverse quarantine those who are the most susceptible to Covid and let everyone else go about their normal lives unquarantined.

well, first off we are not quarantining everyone, we are asking everyone to be careful and limit contact.

While it is true that there are groups that are more susceptible, COVID is not only a danger to them. My wife had a 54 year old man with no underlying conditions that went from room air to a vent in 6 hours. While my MIL got it, she is 80 with COPD and she did not even spend a night in the hospital, though she did get Regeneron's monoclonal antibody cocktail, as her age and condition made her a perfect test subject.

If we did as you suggest, then virus spread would increase exponentially and even now with some people trying to care about others our hospitals are blowing up. Our local children's hospital opened up rooms for adults as the main hospital had ran out of room.

Look up COIVD delirium, this is occurring now not just in older patients, but in all age groups. Imagine the stress put on the medical community trying to deal with COVID and then adding this in, which for some patients quadruples the workload.

 

[GolfingChef]

One must realize the CDC/WHO is performing all these 'trying to force square pegs into round hole' activities to save hospital resources because they are too preoccupied (only preoccupied) with saving hospital resources.

no matter how many times you repeat this lie, it is still a lie.

 

[roguenuke]

One must realize the CDC/WHO is performing all these 'trying to force square pegs into round hole' activities to save hospital resources because they are too preoccupied (only preoccupied) with saving hospital resources. This is due to a false conclusion of the CDC/WHO that hospital resources would expire from this pandemic based upon inaccurate statistical methods fed into models which inaccurately predicted a complete loss of hospital resources from this pandemic.

One can't fight this pandemic 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with hospital resources running out. One can't save those most susceptible to Covid 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with saving hospital resources. The pandemic is artificially prolonged and more people will die 'cause the CDC/WHO is too preoccupied with saving hospital resources.

To reverse quarantine the most susceptible to Covid is to quarantine the most susceptible to Covid (who don't have Covid) apart and protected from the rest of the population that isn't as susceptible to Covid. Hospital resources are spared since the most susceptible are isolated...The CDC/WHO would like that.

The rest of the population can go about it's normal functioning quarantine-free. IMO, a more 'Occam's Razor-like' approach to the problem than the harebrained CDC/WHO approach to generally quarantine everyone (for as long as possible) to protect those most susceptible to Covid. Granted, those (multiple) quarantines will last way too long and be too numerous because the general quarantine doesn't protect the most susceptible to Covid....but does protect hospital resources.

All of this is unsubstantiated opinions and not at all what I asked for. What you are proposing is not practical to put into place. It will not work and we would face far worse outcomes than we have now. Heck you can't even give specifics about how you would determine who is most vulnerable, how to vulnerable people who live with other family who aren't, how to get supplies to the vulnerable for the months it would take.

You are trying to give an unworkable solution, apparently expecting everyone else to figure out the actual details to your unworkable solution, for your selfish reasons.

 

[SimpleTom]

Explain why it's necessary to generally quarantine everyone when everyone isn't most at risk from Covid (or in some cases even slightly at risk from Covid) to save those most at risk to Covid. Explain why it wouldn't be easier to reverse quarantine those who are the most susceptible to Covid and let everyone else go about their normal lives unquarantined.

There are at least three conditions required for reverse quarantines to work.
1. The at-risk population must be readily identifiable.
2. The at-risk population must be relatively small.
3. The at-risk population must be separable from the general population.
----
I would argue that none of these conditions are met for the current pandemic and certainly two of the three are not met.

First, the at-risk population isn't really identifiable, there are a host of pre-existing conditions that may be present and undiagnosed in the general population. What percentage of the U.S. population has an undiagnosed low ejection fraction?
Next, and this is somewhat related to the first, but the at-risk population at the moment is best identified as obese and over 35 or over 65. Which is about 40% of the U.S. population over 35 and everyone over 65, you can't quarantine that number while the virus runs its course. You are just trading one economic disruption for a different and more significant economic disruption.
Finally, and related to the previous, our at-risk population is not separable. The easiest population to separate are the elderly as they are already largely separated by choice, but we can't separate out everyone who is over 35 and obese as the disruption to homes and the economy would be too great.

We should also note that we don't really understand what surviving Covid-19 means. My son's ex-girlfriend was in Italy when their outbreak started, she contracted Covid in March and was symptom free by late April. She went to college on a track and field scholarship and still can't run 10k today, something she did almost daily before Covid, and says she is winded after 5k right now. If a 22 year old female marathoner can't manage 40% of her before Covid activity, I fear that surviving Covid might be a low bar to strive for.

 

[code1211]

And nothing in there applies to Internet platforms. Facebook, twitter, nor YouTube are public utilities. They are not necessities. They are entertainment platforms.

They are forums that allow individuals to post ideas that are now edited by biased ideologues to pervert information.

As such, they are publishers and deserve no protections under Section 230.

IF my post was changed, and it was, THEN it was edited. That is the pure and simple definition.

In the case of the post to which I am referring, the DOCTOR employed by JOHNS HOPKINS asserted an informed opinion.

The IDEOLOGUE that disagreed with her opinion, employed by Facebook, unilaterally struck down the post.

So the basement dwelling mama's boy employed by Facebook overrules the doctor. WHISKEY-TANGO-FOXTROT!

 

[code1211]

Without 230, those things would cease to exist the way they function now. They are not like public utilities.

In what way(s) are these NOT like public utilities?

By what logic forcing the Break Up of AT&T should these not be broken up?

User count on facebook is approaching 3 billion people.

 

[GolfingChef]

In what way(s) are these NOT like public utilities?

By what logic forcing the Break Up of AT&T should these not be broken up?

User count on facebook is approaching 3 billion people.

You are correct, ATT should not have been broken up.

anyone with any sort of conservative/libertarian background would never agree to such things

the government should not punish companies for being too successful.

 

[prometeus]

They are forums that allow individuals to post ideas that are now edited by biased ideologues to pervert information.

Bull crap. That is just a moronic conservative talking point. People are free to post wherever they want and if those who feel oppressed want they can make their own platforms. As it turns out most people do not fall for their crap and as such their platforms fail.

IF my post was changed, and it was, THEN it was edited. That is the pure and simple definition.

But the reason matters too. Violation of the terms or simple lie.