• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst Case Pandemic Prognostion Model Slashs Predction w/ 96% fewer deaths

Jack Hays said:
A display of ill temper to disguise the emptiness of your argument.
Click to expand...

You are confusing anger with mockery. This guy has self quarantined in his vacation home somewhere outside of NYC (true story) and writes an editorial asking innocent (i.e. stupid/ignorant) questions about whether COVID 19 is worth worrying about. Well, if this moron is too stupid to read the news and consider what's happening in his own home town, NYC, then I have to worry he's either 1) a liar, or 2) suffering from demential of some sort, but what we know is he's an idiot or dishonest.

Does he not know his own city is in crisis mode, with the peak weeks away? They're planning on converting dorms and any other facility with available rooms into hospital beds, and ICU beds, to deal with the anticipated surge in demand. Maybe he can tell us the last time that happened with the flu, after weeks of lockdowns in the city?

Bottom line is anyone from NYC (yes, he smartly got out of town, since he's retired and old and at risk of dying) that writes an article questioning the seriousness of CV19 and comparing it to the annual flu, and ignores what's happening as we speak in that city, is either stupid or dishonest, but only an idiot will care about his views.

And of course because he embraced Lewis, you cite him. Hacks of a feather or something...
 
Jack Hays said:
Of course you would.:roll:
Click to expand...

You didn't even bother to respond to anything he said. I suggest you actually read the report and learn its methodology before spamming more propaganda.
 
PoS said:
Wrong again. The point of the modeling was to advance an agenda using made up numbers to scare the politicians and the gullible. Sadly, it succeeded.
Click to expand...
:roll:

What a surprise, PoS attacks experts whose results do not conform to his ideology. Where have we seen that before...?


If you think that scientists are completely neutral and do everything purely for the benefit of everyone and not themselves then you are terribly naive.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Hello? They're on salary. They're going to get paid no matter what results they produced. Yeesh.

By the way, I look forward to the next time you cite any sort of study that you offer as evidence of anything. I'll remind you that the authors are corrupt, no matter what the results. That should be fun.


Ferguson has already made adjustment to his silly modeling-it shows you just how wrong it was to begin with.
Click to expand...
:roll:

The only adjustment that they've made so far is revising R0 slightly up, meaning the results will be slightly worse than suggested in the 3/16 paper. I know it's hard, but try to pay attention.


:roll:

Yes, I know how models work. Again, the point of the study was to model likely outcomes for different mitigation and suppression strategies. The idea is to learn from past and current events, past and current policies, to figure out what works. This helps the government, which would otherwise be flying completely blind.

The Imperial College team is doing exactly what they should -- giving legislators an idea of the pros and cons of different strategies.

And of course, if the governments and public listened to uneducated, ignorant, ideologically-driven people, then we'd be looking at huge numbers of deaths. So yeah, let's not do that, kthx.
 

The death toll is doubling every three days. A season is how many days, again?
 
Jack Hays said:
A display of ill temper to disguise the emptiness of your argument.
Click to expand...

Hey, just thought maybe you'd like to cite Richard Epstein in your next installment of "Ignoramuses and idiots should not be commenting on pandemics" series.

Coronavirus Perspective | Hoover Institution


** The original draft said 500. He erased that number and inserted 5,000 when we exceeded 500 with no end in sight, today at 1,900 so far. It's a neat trick. He called it an error, but he's a liar because 500 is in fact 8 times the then current deaths.
 
I think another factor that people are not really understanding is R0. If one has some familiarity with the Richter scale in earthquakes, that can give an idea of how R0 functions in the real world.

An R0 of 1 is a steady state - for every infected person, one other person will get infected. An R0 below 1 means that an infection is dying out. Anything over 1 means it is spreading. The farther over 1, the faster the spread of a pathogen. An R0 close to 2 is generally only seen in an epidemic (the 1918 pandemic had an R0 between 1.4 and 2.8 and ultimately killed 50 million people). The R0 of the 2009 epidemic was between 1.4 and 1.6, similar to the annual flu, which infects between 9 and 19 million Americans annually. An R0 of 2 means is that it is doubling rapidly - 1 to 3 to 6 to 13 (depending on how long the original patient is actively sick). An R0 OVER 2 is wildly contagious. An R0 of 3 is not just a "little" more contagious: in the example above, R0 2 is 1-3-6-13, in the same span an R0 of 3 goes 1-4-10-33. You see the difference? [For measles, R0 is often cited to be 12-18!]

So, the consensus of the R0 being greater than 2 is significant, because it means that this is more contagious than originally thought, which is also consistent with the rapid spread internationally and within the United States.
 
JasperL said:
That makes no sense. If you're testing for COVID-19, what you're testing for is the presence of SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes the disease - COVID 19.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't understand the nuances.

Only the people showing symptoms of COVID-19 are being tested, and not all of them. It is estimated by some, that a minimum of 20 people have contracted SARS-CoV-2 and have zero symptoms, go about their lives. But if tested for the virus, they would come up positive. Just no illness.

COVID-19 is the illness.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes it.

There is an actual scientific distinction.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sorry you don't understand the nuances.
Click to expand...

I do understand it. Perhaps you misspoke. Here's your comment:

"What I want to know is how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, but not even tested for COVID-19."

Those "tested for COVID-19" will have been tested in fact for the virus - SARS-CoV-2.


I know the distinction and told you what the differences were - you quoted me explaining the difference - "If you're testing for COVID-19, what you're testing for is the presence of SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes the disease - COVID 19."

OK, so what you meant to say, I think, is by only testing those with possible symptoms of the disease CV19 the testing misses perhaps 95% of those who have been exposed to the virus, SARS-CoV-2.
 

Our daughter and family are riding it out in Brooklyn. You apparently overlooked my intro: "A perspective."
 
Deuce said:
You didn't even bother to respond to anything he said. I suggest you actually read the report and learn its methodology before spamming more propaganda.
Click to expand...

I have read both the Imperial College report and Nic Lewis's trenchant critique.
 

I don't follow your evidence for accusing him of being a liar, but I don't care either.
 
Jack Hays said:
Our daughter and family are riding it out in Brooklyn. You apparently overlooked my intro: "A perspective."
Click to expand...

OK, so it's an ignorant/moronic "perspective." Fair enough! You should have made that clear.

Like I said, "I think the goal is to cite the dumbest people to show how insane the right wing reaction is to this pandemic. If so, you're doing great, Jack. Keep it up!"
 

You need to dial back the hair-trigger hostility.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't follow your evidence for accusing him of being a liar, but I don't care either.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't care if a right winger ignorantly commenting on a pandemic is a liar. It's probably a feature, not a bug, but IMO these reckless assholes need to be held accountable for their dishonestly and recklessness, so I'll explain. Here's his commentary:


So he predicts that the death toll worldwide will rise about 8X, and that the U.S. will rise at "about the same rate" (i.e. 8X). It's not an error to then multiply the current deaths, 67, by the 8X rise worldwide and get to 500 deaths in the U.S.

Now we're supposed to believe the world death toll will rise by only 8X but he meant to say that the U.S. would rise by EIGHTY (80) times the then current deaths, and he's digitally erased "500" and inserted "5,000" in that text above.

Epstein: "That estimate is ten times greater than the 500 number I erroneously put in the initial draft of the essay."

It wasn't an error - it followed directly from the rest of his stupid, ignorant, projection of 8X, consistent with his projection for the world deaths. So he's a liar, or stupid - take your pick. He's an influential lawyer at Hoover, so I don't think stupid is fair, so liar it is.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
You need to dial back the hair-trigger hostility.
Click to expand...

I'm just getting tired of people posting the views of idiots and ignoramuses. And I know it's part of a coordinated right wing strategy to discredit expertise in general, and those experts dealing with this pandemic in particular. You can see it being repeated at all the predictable outlets. Fox News is reporting similar garbage as is the now predictably hackish Federalist. Hoover is another. Epstein isn't just some guy - he wields influence in the right wing movement, and that article reportedly was widely read in the WH, and he's a liar. It matters, actually.

IMO it's dangerous and I see no reason not to mock these idiots/hacks for what they are - idiots/hacks, with no business commenting on subject they are nearly completely ignorant about. Your retired lawyer ignored conditions in NYC as we speak to compare CV19 with the flu. That's not just wrong - it's either deeply dishonest or the work of a truly stupid person. It deserves nothing but mockery.
 

In these times I'd suggest a more charitable approach.
 

I know of no "coordinated right wing strategy." I know of no coordinated left wing strategy either.
 
Jack Hays said:
In these times I'd suggest a more charitable approach.
Click to expand...

Not from me.

Epstein wrote an article predicting 500 U.S. deaths - TOTAL, presumably through next year. When reality revealed his prediction to be garbage in 10 days, he had a choice - 1) recognize his massive error in judgement, or 2) lie, and pretend he meant to say 5,000 but erroneously typed 500. He chose the "I'll show contempt for my readers and just lie my ass off" approach. It doesn't deserve charity or respect. He earned nothing but derision and mockery, at least on this subject.

We don't need to pay attention "in these times" to liars and hacks commenting on U.S. policy with respect to a pandemic.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I know of no "coordinated right wing strategy." I know of no coordinated left wing strategy either.
Click to expand...

Open your eyes. You're doing your part, so kudos for that! You posted "perspective" from a retired lawyer who ignored the crisis in his own city. You didn't defend the article, because it's garbage, so why did you post it? Because it's someone else challenging the UK analyses, and who cited that climate "scientist" Nic Lewis who took measured CFRs and chopped them by 30%, because he's a hack.

Can you tell us what your Facebook friends say about the pandemic? Do they have any insight into R0 and CFR that we should know about versus paying attention to the so-called "experts" with access to data and experience analyzing it?
 
Last edited:

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." --Talleyrand

I suspect he just made a mistake.
 

I posted it to add to the discussion.
I don't do Facebook.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." --Talleyrand

I suspect he just made a mistake.
Click to expand...

His "mistake" was making a stupid, ignorant prediction about 500 total deaths in the U.S., for the entire CV19 crisis, and that number was blown past in less than 10 days. So with that he established himself an idiot on pandemics. Then when he was shown to be an idiot, he lied about his 500 estimate. Did I say U.S. deaths would increase by 8X from current levels, like the rest of the world? Oh, sorry, I meant EIGHTY!! LOLOLOL

That's a leading light on the right wing.... Idiot and a liar - one heckuva combo!
 
Jack Hays said:
I posted it to add to the discussion.
I don't do Facebook.
Click to expand...

OK, so we're back to you posting the dumbest commentary you can find to show the right wing has lost it during this crisis. THAT makes sense. Otherwise, I don't see how a retired lawyer who lives in NYC who compares CV19 to the flu, while ignoring the slowly forming healthcare system crisis in his own city adds anything to any discussion.

Except he did cite climate 'scientist' Nic Lewis's expert CFR analysis....:roll:
 


Your opinions about commentary are just that, and do not entitle you to abusive language. This will be our last exchange.
Nic Lewis compelled the retraction of Resplandy et al. He also has peer-reviewed publications to his credit.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…