Trump’s poor handling of the crisis may lose him the GOP’s most reliable voters

[Sparko]

It depends what the possible payoff is. If there is a 1/3 chance of me making it and the reward for me making it is 1 billion dollars then I might do it.

Still, if a poll gives someone only 1/3 odds of winning, and the purpose of such polls is to predict the winner, then that would not be what I call an accurate poll.

And in the future maybe be more careful about the information you include in cute pics you upload to mock if you don't want people looking at the metadata. Ok, I won't use your name. Let's move on then.

Gee, the metadata on that file doesn't have my real name.

[DivineOb]

Still, if a poll gives someone only 1/3 odds of winning, and the purpose of such polls is to predict the winner, then that would not be what I call an accurate poll.

Then you don't know how probabilities work? I can't help you here.

When you flip a coin the odds of getting heads is 1 / 2. You know and I know it. Is that accurate?

Gee, the metadata on that file doesn't have my real name.

Gee, it gives the name of your pintrest account which has you real name visible as the second google search result. It didn't seem like you were trying to keep it a secret.

I didn't even find JP Holding's lawsuit page until afterwards.

I already said I wouldn't use your name, not sure why you want to continue this.

[Sparko]

Then you don't know how probabilities work? I can't help you here.

When you flip a coin the odds of getting heads is 1 / 2. You know and I know it. Is that accurate?

If a weather man was only right every 1 out of 3 forecasts he wouldn't be a very accurate meterologist.

A poll that put Trump's chances that low was way off base.

Gee, it gives the name of your pintrest account which has you real name visible as the second google search result. It didn't seem like you were trying to keep it a secret.

I didn't even find JP Holding's lawsuit page until afterwards.

I already said I wouldn't use your name, not sure why you want to continue this.

So you actually cyberstalked me to find my name just so you could feel smug by using it here in a post? Wow. I would have told you in PM if you asked. We just have a privacy rule here that people can't use someone's name unless that person says it is OK. I don't see you using your real name here and we respect that.

OK I fixed the instagram name. Thanks.

[DivineOb]

If a weather man was only right every 1 out of 3 forecasts he wouldn't be a very accurate meterologist.

A poll that put Trump's chances that low was way off base.

I'm sorry but you just don't understand how odds work. I'm fresh of out [cares] to give so maybe someone else can teach you.

So you actually cyberstalked me to find my name just so you could feel smug by using it here in a post?

Idiot, you intentionally included the metadata in the pic. You put it there ON PURPOSE. If you didn't want someone searching for it then you shouldn't have included it ON PURPOSE. If you didn't want someone knowing your real name then you shouldn't have included information ON PURPOSE which you have publicly flogged all over the place also ON PURPOSE. And you should ask your client not to publicize lawsuits which include your name both on his personal blog and on a specially dedicated website. This isn't like some elite hacker trick or "cyberstalking" (lawl).

Again, all of this was done ON PURPOSE so I can't help you here.

Wow. I would have told you in PM if you asked. We just have a privacy rule here that people can't use someone's name unless that person says it is OK. I don't see you using your real name here and we respect that.

And, in accordance with the decorum rules, I have agreed to stop using your real name. Next time don't include information ON PURPOSE if you don't want someone to be curious about it.

[DesertBerean]

???

Is 1/2 the same as 1/3?

[Sparko]

I'm sorry but you just don't understand how odds work. I'm fresh of out [cares] to give so maybe someone else can teach you.



Idiot, you intentionally included the metadata in the pic. You put it there ON PURPOSE. If you didn't want someone searching for it then you shouldn't have included it ON PURPOSE.

You are a moron. I thought you were a computer scientist?

You think I edited the photo and inserted the metadata so you could find it and stalk me and then I could complain about it?

The metadata is generated automatically by the OS and the photo editing program. It is my PC's username that you saw. I normally scrub photos before uploading but this time I forgot.

PS the polls are not giving odds anyway. They are actually taking stock of what people say and then predicting the outcome of the election based on extrapolating a few people to millions. It's a prediction, not a betting sheet.

[rogue06]

I don't get this... What's the point of the lies in the bottom right image? "A lockdown would probably make the virus much worse"? Who even comes up with these sort of insane lies that nobody would believe?

If you confine the elderly with contagious patients, like Andrew Cuomo forced nursing homes to do, then you end up with a lot of dead senior citizens.

[DivineOb]

You are a moron. I thought you were a computer scientist?

You think I edited the photo and inserted the metadata so you could find it and stalk me and then I could complain about it?

The metadata is generated automatically by the OS and the photo editing program. It is my PC's username that you saw. I normally scrub photos before uploading but this time I forgot.

Party of personal responsibility, folks. I need to be a mind reader to protect Sparko from his own foolish actions.

[rogue06]

It shows that the idiot who made it didn't get the memo that we supposedly didn't know how dangerous the virus was going to back in January.

These idiots from, IIRC, a month later in February?

00000000000000ab000-00aaaVa.jpg

And it is also interesting to note that as late as February 28th the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a paper saying that the virus seemed to be much less severe than other recent outbreaks of respiratory illnesses and would likely be no worse than a severe flu season:

Source: Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Party of personal responsibility, folks. I need to be a mind reader to protect Sparko from his own foolish actions.

No, but you are the one who decided to investigate my username to find out my real name so you could use it in a post here and try to show how 'smart' you are. And you are the computer scientist who doesn't seem to know how metadata is created.


PS the polls are not giving odds anyway. They are actually taking stock of what people say and then predicting the outcome of the election based on extrapolating a few people to millions. It's a prediction, not a betting sheet.

[DivineOb]

These idiots from, IIRC, a month later in February?

And it is also interesting to note that as late as February 28th the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a paper saying that the virus seemed to be much less severe than other recent outbreaks of respiratory illnesses and would likely be no worse than a severe flu season:

Source: Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

What part of the quote do you think is inaccurate? I know it's exciting to google and then copy and paste something to put the libs in their place but at least *read* it first to avoid embarrassing yourself like you're about to.

[Sparko]

Looking back, it seems 538 was the one poll that was actually the closest to accurate and they still only showed as you said a 1 in 3 chance of winning. Most other polls were up to 98% certain that Hillary would win. There was a big stink after the election about how wrong all the polls were.

here is one article:

'The polls clearly got it wrong': The autopsy will take months
Pre-election polls underestimated support for Donald Trump -- and now there's a crisis of confidence in polling and media circles.

The problem was particularly acute at the state level. The lopsided data led many forecasters, journalists, investors and other people to anticipate a Hillary Clinton victory. Even the Clinton and Trump campaigns were misled.

"The polls clearly got it wrong this time," the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Wednesday.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/med...ion-day-polls/

[DivineOb]

No, but you are the one who decided to investigate my username to find out my real name so you could use it in a post here and try to show how 'smart' you are. And you are the computer scientist who doesn't seem to know how metadata is created.

Ok bro, you got me. I have *no* idea how metadata is created :).

I searched for [leet hacker name] because I thought maybe it was the app you used and I had never heard of it. I thought I would end up finding some 'meme' program or something. I was curious because that's how curiosity works. When I discovered that you used it to tag the image I figured that you, well, *tagged it* because you wanted it to be known who created it and it wasn't some big secret. As I said, I agreed not to use your name after you asked. Take it up with Holding if you really want to go off the grid because anyone who searches for information about his libel lawsuit can get a heck of a lot more than just your name.

And whether you think I showed myself to be smart or not I certainly outwitted you and your cute photoshop skillz :).

PS the polls are not giving odds anyway. They are actually taking stock of what people say and then predicting the outcome of the election based on extrapolating a few people to millions. It's a prediction, not a betting sheet.

Right. And 538 isn't a polling company. They take multiple polls and apply statistics to synthesize what they consider to be the 'odds' of an outcome.

[DivineOb]

Looking back, it seems 538 was the one poll that was actually the closest to accurate and they still only showed as you said a 1 in 3 chance of winning. Most other polls were up to 98% certain that Hillary would win. There was a big stink after the election about how wrong all the polls were.

here is one article:

'The polls clearly got it wrong': The autopsy will take months
Pre-election polls underestimated support for Donald Trump -- and now there's a crisis of confidence in polling and media circles.

The problem was particularly acute at the state level. The lopsided data led many forecasters, journalists, investors and other people to anticipate a Hillary Clinton victory. Even the Clinton and Trump campaigns were misled.

"The polls clearly got it wrong this time," the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Wednesday.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/med...ion-day-polls/

Right. That's why I mentioned 538.

And there are good reasons why so many polls got things so wrong. A lot of it has to do with the electoral college strategy the GoF party focused on and the microtargeting which Facebook enabled which would not be reflected in the general polls. There are other by now well understood reasons as well.

[rogue06]

Looking back, it seems 538 was the one poll that was actually the closest to accurate and they still only showed as you said a 1 in 3 chance of winning. Most other polls were up to 98% certain that Hillary would win. There was a big stink after the election about how wrong all the polls were.

here is one article:

'The polls clearly got it wrong': The autopsy will take months
Pre-election polls underestimated support for Donald Trump -- and now there's a crisis of confidence in polling and media circles.

The problem was particularly acute at the state level. The lopsided data led many forecasters, journalists, investors and other people to anticipate a Hillary Clinton victory. Even the Clinton and Trump campaigns were misled.

"The polls clearly got it wrong this time," the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Wednesday.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/med...ion-day-polls/

There was the Trafalgar Group which showed Trump ahead in four states others were generally predicting he'd lose, namely North Carolina, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And they did well in 2018 as well).

The Investor's Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence poll had Trump up by two points going into Election Day.

Rasmussen had the election closer (at least in terms of popular vote) than any of the other major polling firms