46th President of the United States, Joe Biden

[paulguitar]

dandarez said:

Oops

[anonymous-user]

Something fishy going on here.

[DB_11]

paulguitar said:

So much ignorance all in one post, quite amazing.

There seems little point in correcting the various inaccuracies and lies regarding Biden because you appear to be radicalized by Fox/OAN and therefore aren't going to change your position.

Regarding trump, he gives every indication of hating America. Did you notice that he recently incited an attack on his own country after having repeatedly lied about its election?

Oh and he is a total puppet, quite clearly beholden to Putin, Salman, and others.

Edited by paulguitar on Monday 8th March 22:10

Did your guitar break a string and TWAK you in your pinhead? Simply amazing.

Putin, Salman.

You're correct that I'm not going to be swayed by your arguments. You are also radicalized on the left by the CNNs and NBCs.

And it's Newsmax, then Blaze, OANN. Never Fox - too liberal.

[paulguitar]

DB_11 said:

And it's Newsmax, then Blaze, OANN. Never Fox - too liberal.

Yes, this is no surprise. You're radicalized.

[gumshoe]

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

It’s patently obvious cases are problematic.

There are problems with using cases as a data set, just as there are problems with using excess deaths as a data set. In isolation, neither answers the question of "did state X do better than state Y", because "doing better" can mean one, or more, of a variety of things. I would argue that controlling disease spread is part of the question of "doing better", so statistics such as recorded cases per 100,00 alongside data points such as the rate of testing per 100,000 and the percentage of tests that return positive results are very useful in exploring the question of which approach works better.

I wouldn't disagree with any of the above. In a pandemic the pressing problem is people dying, initially of the virus, but also concomitant effects. To die from the virus you need to have caught it (cases) but we know that the vast majority of cases do not die. Is the effort to stop the spread not wholly linked to wishing to stop/reduce fatalities?

This means that case reporting now is basically a predictor on how what deaths might look like, and an insight into IFR and CFR. . Keep in view I am not disagreeing with any of what you wrote above, just trying to trap the fundamentals.

There’s now been twelve months to monitor and adjust strategy. The difference between states that have implemented strict lockdown and those who have not provides no evidence that lockdowns work. Other posters derided Florida California was compared as it is at the extreme ends of the lockdown strategy employed.

This is the primary discussion. As I’ve said a number of times, and if you go back to the page in question you will recall, your initial post on this was a one liner in response to an exchange between another poster and me. I don’t want to labour the point, but it was clearly intended to be inflammatory. Either way, your posts quickly became more grown up. I don't know why you keep denying what you wrote though.

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

Hence excess deaths are more suitable. It is difficult to fudge death figures.

The issue with death figures when taken in isolation is that they don't necessarily provide a picture that's specific just to the impact of Covid-19. There are other factors at play, some of which are directly related to Covid, some of which are tangentially, and some of which are entirely separate.

I've already alluded to direct and indirect impact of wildfires, especially their interaction with respiratory illness, as one of the factors that needs consideration. Another would be the impacts of the significant increase in road deaths, 8% in total and 24% per 100m miles travelled, from 2019 to 2020 and where these fall. And there are lots of other statistically significant changes in the various categories of death in addition to the "other" one in which Covid-19 is recorded in which need to be accounted for. I've only got California figures for 2020 to hand so haven't had chance to compare myself, but we've also seen:

> A 10% increase in alzheimer's related deaths (up 1,500 in total)
> A 13% increase in diabetes related deaths (up 1,000 in total)
> Increases in a variety of other factors of between 3 and 10%, comprising hundreds of additional deaths

In fact, if you look at the 42,614 additional deaths recorded across 2020 (excluding categories where deaths fell), over 10% of them are ostensibly unrelated to Covid-19. I say ostensibly unrelated as I have no way of gauging how many of these deaths are indirectly related to Covid-19. What did pique my interest, though, is a reported 8% decline in reported fatalities due to lower respiratory tract infections. I wonder how much of that might be captured within Covid-19 fatalities.

Interesting that you say “ostensibly” unrelated to covid, but you take it on merit unquestioningly that all covid deaths are down to covid, where we know this is not always the case. We either trust the determination or not. What triggers your doubt of this data, other than your distance from it? You’re not the one gauging any of the deaths, so why these ones?

Do you suspect the data providers are maliciously misrepresenting the non covid deaths or that the death is just miscategorised? Why would they lie? All clinicians are aware they need to report this accurately. In fact, in the UK the figures are probably slightly skewed pessimistically to covid as any death within 28 days of a positive test, or where the clinician thought it was covid is recorded as covid.

What complicates it further is most deaths are “with covid” meaning there were other underlying causes. Whether covid or the underlying illness took the victim is a matter of trust in the clinician’s expertise. So it is perplexing that you say you think some of their non covid deaths reporting could be ostensible.

With this, you inadvertently reinforce the concept that using all excess deaths is a good comparative, because it (crudely) captures all these things. A population’s welfare should be holistically viewed; whilst covid was the urgency, it competes with other causes of death, all of which combined dwarf covid.

With respect to the declines in other respiratory fatalities I think it could be due to incidents of people falling victim to covid quicker than they would have to influenza/flu (covid appears to be more fatal to older ill people than flu) or to where covid has been erroneously diagnosed.

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

What? Look back at the posts, and look at the context. You quoted me and another poster’s exchange. It was in relation to excess deaths.

Er, you don't actually appear to be addressing my point here. I provided some clarity after I made the initial claim as to exactly what I was referring to, but you still seem to be failing to address the basic fact you falsely asserted I said something I haven't. Please point to where I've said that Florida has done worse than California or concede that's not a claim I ever made.

You keep banging this drum but I’ve asked you several times, quote me where I state you said “Florida has done worse than California”. Quote me or give this up . You won’t be able to. I don’t understand why you are so keen to argue black is blue.

This is the exchange we had verbatim. Are you ready to concede this now and admit you’re wrong about this?

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

So explain why you think Florida has performed worse than California?

Right now, Florida is performing significantly worse than California.

Or are you claiming you never posted the above? If you failed to articulate yourself first time round that’s not my problem. You posted the above, I quoted you. When you posted that you probably assumed I was baiting and you were void of any intention to actually engage in discussion. Fair enough, we all make mistakes. It doesn’t need a desperate Thermopylae like defence.

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

If we start filtering out the data, some will complain and we never come to a consensus. ...There’s a diminishing return in doing so.

Sounds a bit like you're using a Nirvana Fallacy as an excuse not to have to consider other contributing factors. For the record, I'm not expecting there to be any single massive differentiating factor, but ignoring other factors that may be unique to individual states makes direct statistical comparison problematic. Quite honestly, I don't know whether these factors are statistically significant enough to explain any of the difference, but I don't think dismissing them offhand is sensible either.

It is clear the extent of my modelling was fairly comprehensive (given time and data constraints), and arguably no less detailed than the CDC (NCHS) for excess deaths. In fact, I even pointed out where other countries public health bodies may disagree with using the algorithm NCHS did for lack of historical data on the pathogen. And my model accounts for population aging (through the risk/age bands) and death rates at age bandings.

What’s confusing is you did the most basic, cursory analysis, butchering their data set, and you now claim my perimeter is a Nirvana Fallacy? Looks a bit like a failed attempt at point scoring… Let's look at your first attempt at providing an analysis on this topic... lest you forget, let me remind you...

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

So explain why you think Florida has performed worse than California?

Right now, Florida is performing significantly worse than California.

You didn't even consider any data at all. I think I can vaguely hear the pot calling the kettle black.

HM-2 said:

IIRC the entire point being made initially was that comparison of California and Florida wasn't a viable way of making an assessment as to whether or not states that lock down perform better than those that don't.

No it absolutely wasn't. It was the claim "Right now, Florida is performing significantly worse than California."

You cannot deny what you wrote, your post is there for all to see.

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

So explain why you think Florida has performed worse than California?

Right now, Florida is performing significantly worse than California.

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

This is actually being borne out (not on that scale of course) by people committing suicide and failing to get necessary healthcare.

Not in the case of California it's not- not according to the data I posted above.
2020 saw a 15.4% decline in deaths due to suicide.

In almost the same shuffle of fingers typing, you already mentioned the Alziemer cases increasing. Look at your own linked article for crying out loud.

Article said:

"Alzheimer’s deaths increased, a significant 10%, possibly a predictable outcome that many experts warned of when lockdowns limited therapeutic and life-sustaining social interactions for many elderly people with Alzheimer’s and dementia, especially in nursing homes."

And this is where you sacrifice your credibility. Look at the nominal figures.

Cause of death	2017	2018	2019	2020	%change	Nominal Change
Other (including COVID-19)	48,637	47,792	49,143	86,897	79.10%	37,754
Other (including COVID-19)	48,637	47,792	49,143	86,897	79.10%	37,754
Heart disease	63,139	62,950	62,649	63,132	0.40%	483
Cancer	59,819	60,302	59,828	58,271	−2.9%	-1,557
Alzheimer's	16,273	16,626	16,858	18,280	10.20%	1,422
Stroke	16,412	16,516	16,889	17,322	4.30%	433
Injuries	14,076	14,463	15,410	15,656	6.90%	246
Chronic lower respiratory disease	13,909	13,646	13,141	12,527	−7.7%	-614
Diabetes	9,612	9,544	9,868	10,946	13.10%	1,078
Hypertension	5,611	5,533	5,611	5,846	4.70%	235
Pneumonia and influenza	6,344	6,958	5,668	5,836	−7.7%	168
Liver diseases	5,347	5,414	5,581	5,818	6.80%	237
Nephritis (kidney diseases)	3,882	3,927	4,011	4,239	7.60%	228
Suicide	4,368	4,551	4,469	3,775	−15.4%	-694
Homicide	1,980	1,907	1,826	2,156	13.20%	330
TOTAL	269,409	270,129	270,952	310,701	15%	39,749

Taking the data presented at face value, you are clearly demonstrating your bias: ignoring data that doesn’t fit your aim. But you’re wrong, once again. I fail to understand why someone would argue this when it is so clear. The small decrease in nominal numbers of suicides percentage wise looks significant, but it PALES next to others. One is 50% less than two, but is it really a significant increase? You are looking at a population size of nearly 40m and a sample size of analysed deaths of 40,000?

You thinking this proves your point is remarkable. The fact that suicides can take a lot longer to come through reporting should also be mentioned. It plainly demonstrates your bias.

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

First off, Florida could claim hurricanes from the past could have accelerated deaths such that some of their excess is not due to covid. So where do you draw the line?

What's the direct interplay between hurricanes in the past and Covid-19, then? This is an obvious case of false equivalence.

> Covid-19 mortality being significantly elevated by preexisting respiratory conditions is undeniable fact.
> Respiratory condition mortality being significantly elevated by particulate pollution, such as that caused by fires, is undeniable fact.

Therefore it absolutely stands to reason that the combination of Covid-19 and increased particulate pollution is likely to result in significantly higher levels of mortality amongst those with preexisting respiratory conditions than either factor in isolation.

gumshoe said:

I also pointed out to you that 2017 and 2018 had bigger death tolls due to wildfires in California.

You still seem to be struggling to address the point at hand. The direct death tolls are not what I've ever been interested in.

gumshoe said:

Why did you pick up on the 2020 wildfires but ignored the earlier 2014-2019 wildfires?

Because they're not relevant to the discussion of the potential for Covid-19 comorbidity and its impacts on the likelihood of death.

Sigh. Of course they are relevant.

Is this really that difficult for you to grasp?

You stated that the wildfires contributed “thousands of excess deaths” in 2020 (the study states potentially up to 1,300, so “thousands” is overstating for effect). I explained to you that they are unlikely to have contributed to the excess deaths analysis because…...

earlier years had similar events, that could also have had indirect deaths (esp respiratory deaths) as a result. So they are already factored in to the excess deaths. They are not an event unique to this period.

One of the fires in 2018 destroyed the entire town of Paradise, which had over 28,000 residents. It was recorded as being the most deadly wildfire in California’s history.

Every year there are wildfires in California and every year they kill people (directly and indirectly if the posit is true). Every year, they destroy buildings and they pollute the air. They are ALREADY factored in the excess death. They are a yearly event. Therefore, they are unlikely to be impacting the excess deaths figure for 2020.

I really don’t know how else to spell this out. Is this another one where you refuse to accept despite it being crystal clear?

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

I’ve already explained several times why it is the best measure we have. I've already explained above that even factoring in cases, it does not bode well on California's lockdown strategy.

I'm not sold on the notion that Covid-19 mortality is the best numerical indicator of the efficacy of the principal of lockdowns. Even putting aside the cherry-picking of California and Florida as points of comparison in the first place, rather than looking at a blended per-capita average across states that locked down versus those that didn't, the core point of lockdowns is to prevent transmission. That would be best explored from a numerical perspective by looking at testing per capita, and proportion of tests returning positive results.

And this comes back round to the beginning. Let’s look at this as a process. What are we trying to achieve with lockdowns? Stop the spread for the sake of stopping the spread? Or to save lives?

If the virus was something less virulent, say for example the common cold (or even more deadly say flu or influenza), would we seek to stop its spread like this?

I’m hopeful your answer to the above will be “no we wouldn’t”.

And whilst I believe a form of distancing should help reduce the spread, there are arguments against the wholesale stopping of spreading of viruses. I’m interested to understand more about this but do not want to digress.

See here:
https://thecritic.co.uk/mutant-variations-and-the-...

So cases can be a tool to measure and predict future fatalities. If the excess death reports for states that did not lock down are lower or within a tight cluster to those that did, it suggests that lockdowns are not efficient, and the harm they do outweighs the benefits.

This is the only sensible position given we have 12 months of data on this. As the mortality data is not as malleable as case data is, it is eminently sensible to pay attention to them.

This graph shows the deaths across US states.

HM-2 said:

gumshoe said:

It was obvious your intention was to give California a mitigation for their failure. That comes across as bad faith.

Again, I really think you've simply misunderstood my point here. I'm not excusing Californian failures, I'm pointing out that there are additional external influencing factors that are worthy of examination. I've made no judgement as to whether these factors are enough to address the per-capita differences in mortality, just pointed out that they may be statistically significant (backed up by an academic citation) and postulated that it may warrant consideration.

I absolutely agree with you, more information is always going to give us a better insight.

I’ve explained why I think excess deaths are a better measure than cases. Had this conversation been 9 months ago I would agree with you, the deaths figures were sparse in their utility. Now we have more information, I do not think cases are as useful as you seem to. Sure, if we see sudden spikes of significance in the population then we should act on it. But a lockdown for over 12 months does not seem to work.

You’ll note your initial position has substantially changed (it's almost like you've shifted from west coast to east coast ) . I appreciate you may not want to concede that your initial assertion was a knee jerk reaction in deriding a Republican state’s strategy. You have settled into a middle ground where you’re more neutral. Had you taken that stance from the outset we probably could have had an easier discussion.

[rscott]

T6 vanman said:

paulguitar said:

T6 vanman said:

Other opinions could be aired maturely .................. but not on this thread

I think it's the return of what is almost certainly yet another previously banned poster, with a paragraph of weapons-grade bellendery, that has caused the disquiet.

And this is the problem ..... You can see in the last 5 pages I'm treated as a previously banned poster, for daring to subject the reading of the whole bill was to highlight some of the relief bill money isn't going to Covid activity.

Byker then copy & paste's 2 clear non 'Covid' Democrat projects,

No one accused you of being a banned poster. They were referring to the new account who seems to have drunk deep on the orange Koolaid

[DB_11]

rscott said:

No one accused you of being a banned poster. They were referring to the new account who seems to have drunk deep on the orange Koolaid

If it's true, it's true. Being a new account doesn't make me wrong. I came here to get some info on my new Aston DB11.Then I came across this ridiculous thread. Too many gullible liberals in the UK.

Edited by DB_11 on Tuesday 9th March 01:52

[Unbusy]

Jeez gumshoe, is there a TL;DR version? My head is spinning ...

[JeffreyD]

It's difficult to know where to start... so I won't.

[thewarlock]

DB_11 said:

So, what don't you see about Biden being a puppet? He IS middle of the road. So are most inanimate objects like bath towels, candles, apples, and coffee tables. His handlers intercede and answer his questions. He spent most of his campaign "hiding in his basement". He so far has refused to address congress - his masters don't want him alone, hemming and hawing at the podium without a handler there to rescue him. Why do you think that Pelosi brought up modifying the 25th amendment back around November? It wasn't to remove Trump, but to give Biden a few moments in the sun, then to remove him. The democrats have brought up taking away the nuke codes FROM THEIR OWN PRESIDENT. Biden clearly has cognitive issues and dementia.

It's all been scripted. The democratic run cities and states had their domains shut down tight: the republicans pleaded with them to stop ruining businesses and lives. Right around the time of inauguration, they all claimed it was time to open up their cities and states otherwise their would be no businesses left to open. Keep thing shut down to make Trump look bad, then open things up when Biden gets in to make it appear that Biden fixed everything. Scripted and executed to a tee.

Trump was no puppet. He made HIS thoughts known. He is sometimes crude and has no filter on his speech. He is arrogant sometimes. But he really supports, believes in, and loves America.

The American mantra of "Rugged Individualism" is dead. We've clearly becoming a welfare state. Just exist and the state will feed and clothe you as long as you vote for us democrats. Let all of the illegal immigrant in and feed and clothe them for votes. Lower the voting age for votes. Add in DC and Puerto Rico as states. For what? Votes! Pack the Supreme court with liberals for influence.

The issue with your views here, is that it's so very clear that they're not your own.

There is absolutely no original thought there. You're just regurgitating.

Also, most of it is lies.

Edited by thewarlock on Tuesday 9th March 08:44

[paulguitar]

DB_11 said:

rscott said:

No one accused you of being a banned poster. They were referring to the new account who seems to have drunk deep on the orange Koolaid

Too many gullible liberals in the UK.

If you are indeed new here, and not a resurrected banned poster, your speedy ascent to this level of rudeness is noteworthy, even for NP&E.

[Noah EV]

Unbusy said:

Jeez gumshoe, is there a TL;DR version? My head is spinning ...

The shorten version is that gumshoe is correct and after shifting here there and everywhere HM-1 is slowly coming round to acceptance of it.

[Noah EV]

paulguitar said:

DB_11 said:

rscott said:

No one accused you of being a banned poster. They were referring to the new account who seems to have drunk deep on the orange Koolaid

Too many gullible liberals in the UK.

If you are indeed new here, and not a resurrected banned poster, your speedy ascent to this level of rudeness is noteworthy, even for NP&E.

That is no way near rude. You are overegging it.

If that is rude then see how many insults have been chucked at Republican voters over these pages.
I am not complaining of that however!
But please be fair with what you say and stop game playing.

[paulguitar]

thewarlock said:

The issue with your views here, is that it's so very clear that they're not your own.

There is absolutely no original thought there. You're just regurgitating.

Also, most of it is lies.

Edited by thewarlock on Tuesday 9th March 08:44

DB's sources of 'news' pretty much explains it:

DB_11 said:

And it's Newsmax, then Blaze, OANN. Never Fox - too liberal.

Fox 'too liberal'! All three of those remaining are extremist opinion outlets and considered factually untrustworthy. A diet of 'news' obtained in this way seems to have resulted in a sort of one-person 'ignorance bingo' machine.

[paulguitar]

Noah EV said:

That is no way near rude. You are overegging it.

If that is rude then see how many insults have been chucked at Republican voters over these pages.
I am not complaining of that however!
But please be fair with what you say and stop game playing.

I think calling someone a 'gullible liberal' is certainly intended to be rude. It's also completely inaccurate, predictably. It's been pointed out countless times in these threads that many of us are not 'liberals' or 'lefties'.

[JeffreyD]

paulguitar said:

I think calling someone a 'gullible liberal' is certainly intended to be rude. It's also completely inaccurate, predictably. It's been pointed out countless times in these threads that many of us are not 'liberals' or 'lefties'.

Imagine thinking CNN was left wing

[Noah EV]

paulguitar said:

Noah EV said:

That is no way near rude. You are overegging it.

If that is rude then see how many insults have been chucked at Republican voters over these pages.
I am not complaining of that however!
But please be fair with what you say and stop game playing.

I think calling someone a 'gullible liberal' is certainly intended to be rude. It's also completely inaccurate, predictably. It's been pointed out countless times in these threads that many of us are not 'liberals' or 'lefties'.

Saying this, I don't agree with DB11 beliefs really, not fully.

You twist it by clipping his post, because he said more didn't he? You're naughty! Haha!
It was general comment in response to a personal jibes by rscott aimed at him and only him.
You didn't comment on rscott kooolaid comment?

[paulguitar]

Noah EV said:

Saying this, I don't agree with DB11 beliefs really, not fully.

You twist it by clipping his post, because he said more didn't he? You're naughty! Haha!
It was general comment in response to a personal jibes by rscott aimed at him and only him.
You didn't comment on rscott kooolaid comment?

I'm in the habit of clipping quotes to highlight the part I am responding to, I don't do that to try to mislead.

For the sake of clarity, I completely agree with rscott's comment that our new contributor seems to have partaken deeply of the orange Koolaid. Actually, I think that was a very kind way of putting it...

[Noah EV]

Oh so you're happy with rudeness!

[paulguitar]

Noah EV said:

Oh so you're happy with rudeness!

It's a challenge on platforms such as this, I think. None of us can see the people we are chatting with, so it is quite hard to judge the tone sometimes. I tend to post mostly whilst trying not to take any of it too seriously. So I suppose it is always quite hard to tell the difference between being 'pithy', which is I suppose what I am sometimes going for, and 'rude'.