Coronavirus Outbreak...

[little_monkey]

Going by that logic, literally nothing can be considered a worst case scenario because one can always imagine something worse.

Yet you erratically jumped to the conclusion that my scenario was THE worst case possible. And from your other posts, any scenario described by anyone in which the numbers increase exponentially is a direct attack by the "liberals" on Trump. This sheepish loyalty that has invaded your loose crews of a brain is disgusting.

[little_monkey]

Are we over reacting?

https://www-spectator-co-uk.cdn.ampp...s-we-think/amp

The Spectator is a British weekly, on the right politically, and tends to align with the British Conservative Party.

One of the problems in estimating the death rate is how to evaluate the total number of cases - 0.1% for the seasonal flu versus 5% for Covid-19, as stated in that article. One can make the argument that we don't really know how many people are infected? But that's true for both cases. Many have the seasonal flu but that never gets reported as people often do not see a doctor - they just go through the flu at home and come out all right. So in both cases we have no choice but to calculate the death rate with the official recorded cases, which is always going to be lower than the actual number of cases. The other problem is how different countries declare their numbers. Some countries used a positive test while not investigating if they were other causes. So that will skew the death rate.

Now I disagree with the last part of that article:

But governments must remember that rushed science is almost always bad science. We have decided on policies of extraordinary magnitude without concrete evidence of excess harm already occurring, and without proper scrutiny of the science used to justify them.

It's not a question of "rushed science". A pandemic demands quick action to bring down the curve as early as possible. There will be many years to come to study the disease on a better scientific basis. Even today, there are experts still studying the Spanish flu of 1918. So the science will get done on Covid-19. But now is the time to put the measures in place to stamp out the disease and save lives.

[carpedm9587]

One of the problems in estimating the death rate is how to evaluate the total number of cases - 0.1% for the seasonal flu versus 5% for Covid-19, as stated in that article. One can make the argument that we don't really know how many people are infected? But that's true for both cases. Many have the seasonal flu but that never gets reported as people often do not see a doctor - they just go through the flu at home and come out all right. So in both cases we have no choice but to calculate the death rate with the official recorded cases, which is always going to be lower than the actual number of cases. The other problem is how different countries declare their numbers. Some countries used a positive test while not investigating if they were other causes. So that will skew the death rate.

Now I disagree with the last part of that article:

It's not a question of "rushed science". A pandemic demands quick action to bring down the curve as early as possible. There will be many years to come to study the disease on a better scientific basis. Even today, there are experts still studying the Spanish flu of 1918. So the science will get done on Covid-19. But now is the time to put the measures in place to stamp out the disease and save lives.

For me, it's a simple formula. The initial numbers look bad. If they prove to be as bad as they initially look, the consequences for us are dire if we do not act. Do we run the risk of damaging the economy? Yes, we do. Is it possible it will prove to have been unnecessary? Yes, it is. But the economy is about money, and money is not my first metric. We can rally together, help the poor, support the isolated, and do everything we can to get through this together, then turn our attention to "the economy."

IMO, What percentage of deaths are happening today is a ridiculous metric. We are early in the curve.

[Mountain Man]

The argument offered is a solid parallel to what you just did with LM (assuming that the existence of worse cases implies an infinite number of them)...

That's not my assumption. It was little monkey who said that something can only be a worst case scenario if you can't think of anything worse, which ignores the fact that "worst case scenario" usually applies to a limited context.

For instance, if you refuse an order from your boss, worst case scenario is that he fires you, right? Any reasonable person would agree with that. Well, according to little monkey, that's not actually a worst case scenario if you imagine your boss pulling out a gun and shooting you instead. But even that's not a worst case scenario because he could go after your family, too. And so on.

In short, little monkey has rendered the phrase "worst case scenario" effectively meaningless

[Mountain Man]

Yet you erratically jumped to the conclusion that my scenario was THE worst case possible.

I neither said nor implied that.

And from your other posts, any scenario described by anyone in which the numbers increase exponentially is a direct attack by the "liberals" on Trump.

I've only noted that any time an optimistic report is talked about, people like you and carpe and oxmixmudd always drag out the latest worst case scenario and cry, "But look how SCARY these numbers are!!!" I often get the impression you want to keep people frightened for what I can only assume are political reasons.

[carpedm9587]

I neither said nor implied that.

MM: "Regardless of what you intended to imply, you're still talking in terms of worst case scenarios."

I've only noted that any time an optimistic report is talked about, people like you and carpe and oxmixmudd always drag out the latest worst case scenario and cry, "But look how SCARY these numbers are!!!" I often get the impression you want to keep people frightened for what I can only assume are political reasons.

Or perhaps because we see the science and the numbers and think people need to be appropriately informed of the possible outcomes and appropriately engaging in mitigation efforts, rather than wander around with rose-colored glasses, swallowing the misinformation coming from the White House, and endangering themselves and the people around them. Not all of us are blindly and rabidly devoted to Mr. Trump, MM. Some of us actually think for ourselves.

[Charles]

[...]I often get the impression you want to keep people frightened for what I can only assume are political reasons.

This statement echoes the very begining of the disaster in which Trump was "reasoning" along those lines as well. I am not sure why anyone would want to repeat that.

[Mountain Man]

MM: "Regardless of what you intended to imply, you're still talking in terms of worst case scenarios."

Yes, I never said nor implied that it was "THE worst case scenario".

Or perhaps because we see the science and the numbers and think people need to be appropriately informed of the possible outcomes and appropriately engaging in mitigation efforts...

Right, but why can't that information be presented in a dispassionate manner rather than constantly telling us how scared we should be? And why is a positive report always contradicted by you guys crying, "But look at these SCARY SCARY numbers based on this worst case scenario projection!!!!"

[little_monkey]

I neither said nor implied that.

Going back to my initial post, you won't find the word "worst" in it, yet your first reply to my initial post contains the word "worst". You're the one who jumped to that conclusion, your own doing. Be man enough to own it.

I've only noted that any time an optimistic report is talked about, people like you and carpe and oxmixmudd always drag out the latest worst case scenario and cry, "But look how SCARY these numbers are!!!" I often get the impression you want to keep people frightened for what I can only assume are political reasons.

It's only your sick mind that gets the impression of bringing up numbers means political motivation. There's a pandemic in case you haven't noticed. You behave exactly like the Chinese government which denied everything when the first whistleblower Li Wenliang sounded the alarm. Denial, denial until the numbers blew up in their face and they had to admit to the world the hard facts.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, I never said nor implied that it was "THE worst case scenario".

Wow - jello - meet nail and tree...

Right, but why can't that information be presented in a dispassionate manner rather than constantly telling us how scared we should be?

You may have missed out on the last several decades of psychology and political science: fear is a strong motivator.

And why is a positive report always contradicted by you guys crying, "But look at these SCARY SCARY numbers based on this worst case scenario projection!!!!"

Always? That's Trumpesque hyperbole (not that you'll admit it). When the constant refrain from most is "it's not that serious," the response from those who disagree and see reason for significant concern in the numbers will be "yes - it actually is." Perhaps if there was a little less, "chicken little" from you and your cronies, there would be less of a need to try to keep the attention focused on what is a pretty serious situation.

[carpedm9587]

Going back to my initial post, you won't find the word "worst" in it, yet your first reply to my initial post contains the word "worst". You're the one who jumped to that conclusion, your own doing. Be man enough to own it.

Don't hold your breath. "I was wrong" or "I misspoke" are phrases that apparently cause him an allergic reaction - though he is VERY quick to accuse many others of that same problem.

It's only your sick mind that gets the impression of bringing up numbers means political motivation. There's a pandemic in case you haven't noticed. You behave exactly like the Chinese government which denied everything when the first whistleblower Li Wenliang sounded the alarm. Denial, denial until the numbers blew up in their face and they had to admit to the world the hard facts.

Uh oh, now you did it. A denial of political motivation is clearly a sign of political motivation!

[Mountain Man]

Wow - jello - meet nail and tree...

Not at all. There is a meaningful difference between saying that something is "a worse case scenario" versus saying that it is "THE worst case scenario", just as there's a meaningful difference between saying "one of the tallest mountains" versus "THE tallest mountain" (to play off your ham-handed mountain analogy).

You may have missed out on the last several decades of psychology and political science: fear is a strong motivator.

Right, so it's exactly what I said: "I often get the impression you want to keep people frightened for what I can only assume are political reasons."

[Mountain Man]

Going back to my initial post, you won't find the word "worst" in it...

So what? Basing a mathematical model on the assumption that, first of all, someone is unknowingly infected, and secondly, they are able to freely interact in a society that is taking no precautions to protect itself is a worse case scenario by definition. No, it's not THE worst case scenario, but I never said it was. And the fact that society IS taking precautions means that the one of the key assumptions the model is based on no longer applies, which means the model is no longer accurate. This is the message that Dr. Birx was recently trying to get out, and naturally, liberals have turned on her because of it. They desperately want to keep people as frightened as possible because, in the words of carpe, "Fear is a strong motivator." And what do you think liberals are hoping voters will feel motivated to do, hm?

[carpedm9587]

Not at all. There is a meaningful difference between saying that something is "a worse case scenario" versus saying that it is "THE worst case scenario", just as there's a meaningful difference between saying "one of the tallest mountains" versus "THE tallest mountain" (to play off your ham-handed mountain analogy).

Jello - meet nail and tree. No wonder you think I converse that way - you do it all the time!

Right, so it's exactly what I said: "I often get the impression you want to keep people frightened for what I can only assume are political reasons."

Well - except for the "for political reasons." Your assumption about my motivations is wrong. But I'm fairly certain you won't acknowledge that either. After all, you are far more knowledgeable about what is in my heart and head than I am... naturally.

ETA: I can hear the response now: "anything that has to do with people and influencing them is 'politics' so I was correct." My motivation is to encourage people to take the situation seriously, fo rtheir health and mine. But I suppose you can call that "politics" and declare that is what you always meant if you wish. Again...jello...meet nail and tree. Last word to you, MM. We are well past the point of pointlessness.

[Mountain Man]

Jello - meet nail and tree. No wonder you think I converse that way - you do it all the time!

On the contrary, I speak very precisely and choose my words with care, and "a" and "the" are very important articles in a sentence ("a favorite ice cream" has a different meaning than "the favorite ice cream"). You just assume I'm trying to be as weaselly as you, and so you interpret my words accordingly.

Well - except for the "for political reasons."

Tell me you wouldn't be happy and walking around with a grin on your face if this situation directly contributed to Trump losing the election.