the morality of opening up ...

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44194[/ATTACH]

Nice straw man. I never said we should have continued "business as usual". Saying "What we did was an overreaction" is not synonymous with "We should have taken NO action".

[Roy]

Nice straw man. I never said we should have continued "business as usual". Saying "What we did was an overreaction" is not synonymous with "We should have taken NO action".

I'm being called ignorant by some-one too stupid to understand a cartoon graph.

Saying "What we did was an overreaction" may not be synonymous with "We should have taken NO action," but I never said it was, so your accusation of straw-manning misses completely. What you said is synonymous with "See? It wasn't so bad! We overreacted!" so it's not a straw-man, but a perfect illustration of what you just did.

[Ronson]

I'm being called ignorant by some-one too stupid to understand a cartoon graph.

He didn't call you "ignorant". So you just called him "stupid" for saying something he never said. Amusing.

[Roy]

He didn't call you "ignorant". So you just called him "stupid" for saying something he never said. Amusing.

Go back and look again.

[Mountain Man]

What you said is synonymous with "See? It wasn't so bad! We overreacted!"

That's not what I said at all. For one thing, you ignored where I said, "Every model and projection has been proven wildly wrong with estimates far, far higher than we saw in reality (yes, including those models that took current mitigation efforts into account)." In other words, we could have done less than we did and not ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people and still had the exact same "See? It wasn't so bad!" outcome.

Are you reading comprehensions skills really so poor? And you wonder why I call you "Ignorant Roy".

[Mountain Man]

He didn't call you "ignorant". So you just called him "stupid" for saying something he never said. Amusing.

No, he's right at least as far my calling him ignorant. I have the habit of changing some people's usernames in the "Originally posted by..." portion of a quote to something more appropriate. It really gets under Roy's skin.

[oxmixmudd]

That's not what I said at all. For one thing, you ignored where I said, "Every model and projection has been proven wildly wrong with estimates far, far higher than we saw in reality (yes, including those models that took current mitigation efforts into account)." In other words, we could have done less than we did not ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people and still had the exact same "See? It wasn't so bad!" outcome.

Are you reading comprehensions skills really so poor? And you wonder why I call you "Ignorant Roy".

Support your accusation they have been wildly wrong. The study I last saw was 100,000 with mitigation. We will likely be near or above that.

[Roy]

What you said is synonymous with "See? It wasn't so bad! We overreacted!"

That's not what I said at all. For one thing, you ignored where I said, "Every model and projection has been proven wildly wrong with estimates far, far higher than we saw in reality (yes, including those models that took current mitigation efforts into account)."

In other words, "See? It wasn't so bad!".

[shunyadragon]

Nice straw man. I never said we should have continued "business as usual". Saying "What we did was an overreaction" is not synonymous with "We should have taken NO action".

You have not clarified your view with your recommendations of what actions should be taken. .

[Mountain Man]

Support your accusation they have been wildly wrong.

I posted this article in another thread, so perhaps you missed it:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...arming-models/

In summary, it shows various IHME models that were updated over time to take mitigation efforts into account, and they still vastly overestimated actual cases of the China flu. Even the best case scenario projections with mitigation were at least 50% higher than reality.

But then the argument comes back to, "The numbers were only that low because of the extreme mitigation efforts!" Were they? There was no control group to check against, so how do we really know? One study showed that the rise and fall of the Wuhan virus followed the same path regardless of what individual countries did in response.

Professor Isaac Ben-Israel has provided Townhall with a copy of the English version of his study.

"Our analysis shows that this is a constant pattern across countries. Surprisingly, this pattern is common to countries that have taken a severe lockdown, including an economy paralysis, as well as to countries that implemented a far more lenient policy and have continued in ordinary life," writes Professor Isaac Ben-Israel in the introduction of the translated study. His conclusion is simple: coronavirus "declines even without a complete lockdown."

[...]

Professor Ben-Israel debunks the misconception of government lockdowns or controls as a leading cause of coronavirus infection rate reductions. "Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that similar pattern - a rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only 'social distancing' and banning crowding, but also an economic shutdown (like Israel); some 'ignored' the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease."

https://townhall.com/columnists/mari...pread-n2567291

[oxmixmudd]

I posted this article in another thread, so perhaps you missed it:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...arming-models/

In summary, it shows various IHME models that were updated over time to take mitigation efforts into account, and they still vastly overestimated actual cases of the China flu. Even the best case scenario projections with mitigation were at least 50% higher than reality.

But then the argument comes back to, "The numbers were only that low because of the extreme mitigation efforts!" Were they? There was no control group to check against, so how do we really know? One study showed that the rise and fall of the Wuhan virus followed the same path regardless of what individual countries did in response.

Professor Isaac Ben-Israel has provided Townhall with a copy of the English version of his study.

"Our analysis shows that this is a constant pattern across countries. Surprisingly, this pattern is common to countries that have taken a severe lockdown, including an economy paralysis, as well as to countries that implemented a far more lenient policy and have continued in ordinary life," writes Professor Isaac Ben-Israel in the introduction of the translated study. His conclusion is simple: coronavirus "declines even without a complete lockdown."

[...]

Professor Ben-Israel debunks the misconception of government lockdowns or controls as a leading cause of coronavirus infection rate reductions. "Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that similar pattern - a rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only 'social distancing' and banning crowding, but also an economic shutdown (like Israel); some 'ignored' the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease."

https://townhall.com/columnists/mari...pread-n2567291

You are clueless mm. All that shows is the effect of mitigation on the progress of the disease. The are based on current behavior. They show what happens if a trend continues. Mitigation changes the trend, which changes the projection.

Yes, our mitigation efforts made a huge difference in the outcome. And you are nuts to claim they were unnecessary. Those curves show you just how bad things would have even if we had not sheltered at home.

ETA: As for your second claim this rise and fall is independent of mitigation efforts, that's just more tobacco/anti-climate like denial. The inflection points in the logarithmic growth curves match the introduction of shelter in place if every country I've looked at. And there are very few places in the world stupid enough not to do that, but so far Mexico is one, and they are growing exponentially. So we'll see, if they do nothing you'll get to see what happens, and otherwise when/if they face where it is headed they too will introduce shelter in place, then we'll see that curve start to flatten when they do just like everywhere else.

The problem here is that to silence you we need some place in the world that is willing to let it go and do its worst. Frankly, the world doesn't need that sort of death on it's conscience just to show people like yourself the obvious.

IOW, there is a certain amount of 'herd immunity' regarding intelligence that at least sometimes protects the world from people like yourself

[Ronson]

Go back and look again.

I see. I retract.

[Ronson]

No, he's right at least as far my calling him ignorant. I have the habit of changing some people's usernames in the "Originally posted by..." portion of a quote to something more appropriate. It really gets under Roy's skin.

I do that sometimes when I quote from articles. I'll insert the name of the person who is quoted in the article.

[shunyadragon]

You are clueless mm. All that shows is the effect of mitigation on the progress of the disease. The are based on current behavior. They show what happens if a trend continues. Mitigation changes the trend, which changes the projection.

Yes, our mitigation efforts made a huge difference in the outcome. And you are nuts to claim they were unnecessary. Those curves show you just how bad things would have even if we had not sheltered at home.

I fully acknowledge the need and effect of mitigation efforts particularly to protect the the elderly and vulnerable, and yes the mitigation efforts have a significant effect in those countries where it was proactive, aggressive and consistent. Unfortunately most countries of the world failed their initial efforts, and at best a D since, especially in terms of consistency. All the data and the graphs in most of the Western countries clearly show the COVID 19 virus is in control the virus does what the virus does naturally, and bell shaped curves reflect a natural pattern reflecting different times of intial beginning of the infection in each area or region and other factors than our efforts to mitigate.

[whag]

I never said we should have taken no action, dumbass,

This tells you all you need to know about Mountain Man.