It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
The Oregon numbers prove that to be wrong for the most part. The curve was already going down when the shut down was called for. Try to actually read the article.
That's a fair argument and the person who wrote the article developed it convincingly. It is important though to recognize that it is still biased and the evidence seems limited and manicured.
The author cites an article about a mathematician Isaac Ben-Israel running statistical models to say the virus is only impactful for 70 days. This is important and I think there is truth to it. But also, mathematical modelling is only as good as the data inputs. At this point it seems that the virus is not tracked well enough to have data that accurately reflects the amount of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, so a mathematical model should be received as insightful but with reasonable skepticism.
Even less credible to me are the graphs, they look compelling at first, but realistically they are just screenshots of the Covid curve in Oregon with a sloppy "Farr's Law Bell Curve" drawn over the top in MS Paint. If he is going to make statistical projections, he should do it mathematically and not scratch out a vague bell curve shape over the top of data. These should be thrown out as reasonable "evidence" in his argument.
I think this article is more "built to look credible" than it is actually credible. It seems convincing but IMO falls apart a bit more under scrutiny.
toastThat's a fair argument and the person who wrote the article developed it convincingly. It is important though to recognize that it is still biased and the evidence seems limited and manicured.
The author cites an article about a mathematician Isaac Ben-Israel running statistical models to say the virus is only impactful for 70 days. This is important and I think there is truth to it. But also, mathematical modelling is only as good as the data inputs. At this point it seems that the virus is not tracked well enough to have data that accurately reflects the amount of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, so a mathematical model should be received as insightful but with reasonable skepticism.
Even less credible to me are the graphs, they look compelling at first, but realistically they are just screenshots of the Covid curve in Oregon with a sloppy "Farr's Law Bell Curve" drawn over the top in MS Paint. If he is going to make statistical projections, he should do it mathematically and not scratch out a vague bell curve shape over the top of data. These should be thrown out as reasonable "evidence" in his argument.
I think this article is more "built to look credible" than it is actually credible. It seems convincing but IMO falls apart a bit more under scrutiny.
This says a lot about the poster -
About Professor Hinkley:
I’m an over-educated Oregonian writing under a pen name because I want to stay employed. I’m sure you understand.
I’m an over-educated Oregonian writing under a pen name because I want to stay employed. I’m sure you understand.
yes, exactly. if the author was genuinely qualified it could still be published anonymously through a credible source and have a publisher's verification that the anonymous author is trustworthy. this looks more like propaganda.
toastThat's a fair argument and the person who wrote the article developed it convincingly. It is important though to recognize that it is still biased and the evidence seems limited and manicured.
The author cites an article about a mathematician Isaac Ben-Israel running statistical models to say the virus is only impactful for 70 days. This is important and I think there is truth to it. But also, mathematical modelling is only as good as the data inputs. At this point it seems that the virus is not tracked well enough to have data that accurately reflects the amount of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, so a mathematical model should be received as insightful but with reasonable skepticism.
Even less credible to me are the graphs, they look compelling at first, but realistically they are just screenshots of the Covid curve in Oregon with a sloppy "Farr's Law Bell Curve" drawn over the top in MS Paint. If he is going to make statistical projections, he should do it mathematically and not scratch out a vague bell curve shape over the top of data. These should be thrown out as reasonable "evidence" in his argument.
I think this article is more "built to look credible" than it is actually credible. It seems convincing but IMO falls apart a bit more under scrutiny.
Yes, there had not been enough real testing of haw many folks have had the virus.
All the information he gave was from the studies of others, who seem to have the credentials to back up their stuff.
toastThat's a fair argument and the person who wrote the article developed it convincingly. It is important though to recognize that it is still biased and the evidence seems limited and manicured.
The author cites an article about a mathematician Isaac Ben-Israel running statistical models to say the virus is only impactful for 70 days. This is important and I think there is truth to it. But also, mathematical modelling is only as good as the data inputs. At this point it seems that the virus is not tracked well enough to have data that accurately reflects the amount of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, so a mathematical model should be received as insightful but with reasonable skepticism.
Even less credible to me are the graphs, they look compelling at first, but realistically they are just screenshots of the Covid curve in Oregon with a sloppy "Farr's Law Bell Curve" drawn over the top in MS Paint. If he is going to make statistical projections, he should do it mathematically and not scratch out a vague bell curve shape over the top of data. These should be thrown out as reasonable "evidence" in his argument.
I think this article is more "built to look credible" than it is actually credible. It seems convincing but IMO falls apart a bit more under scrutiny.
You mean to say an anonymous poster, who gives no indication to what his background or education level is, presents a biased point of view?
I mean, all one has to do is look at his first point comparing it to the flu. It's so blatantly wrong.
Let's ignore the fact he's using Floridian data for hospital information then Oregon for mortality and pretending that those two give the correct overall profile of the disease.
Here's NJEM, the preeminent medical journal, with information comparing the two diseases.
Then he wonders about SARS/MERS/ZIKA. The difference between those and COVID-19 is the first two are VERY hard to transmit, the 3rd is mosquito-born but has an incredibly small fatality rate.
Next, he complains about the IHME. Yes, that model has a lot of flaws. The problem is, modeling COVID-19 is incredibly hard. There are SO many potential variables and inputs that can go into a model. 538 does a good job of breaking down why it's so difficult here.
Then after that, we've got more flawed presumptions, contradictory statements, and, to top it off, my biggest gripe with most people who believe the restrictions are more deadly than the disease.
As Noah Smith, an economist with a PhD, says
But weighing these staggering human costs against the supposed economic benefits of a quick reopening relies on a crucial and flawed assumption -- that economic conditions would rapidly go back to normal if only governments allowed people out of their houses.
Both Pew and Gallup have data showing that people aren't willing to go out and ignore the virus. They're not going to come pouring back into stores, into their offices, etc. Not until they feel like there's a handle on the virus.
**This post was edited on Apr 18th 2020 at 2:32:59pm
I’m an over-educated Oregonian writing under a pen name because I want to stay employed. I’m sure you understand.
toastyes, exactly. if the author was genuinely qualified it could still be published anonymously through a credible source and have a publisher's verification that the anonymous author is trustworthy. this looks more like propaganda.
I got about 1 sentence in before I stopped reading because it's nothing but pages on pages of word vomit from an unverified, therefore non-credible source.
Op we need real articles from reputable sources. This is not reputable thus can't be trusted as valid.
Turd__AuthorityI got about 1 sentence in before I stopped reading because it's nothing but pages on pages of word vomit from an unverified, therefore non-credible source.
Op we need real articles from reputable sources. This is not reputable thus can't be trusted as valid.
Well, if you can't read it sorry. There are many sources listed for the information from credible sources.
I only asked to read first before you spout.
It's cool, you will all see as time goes by.
I was way freaked out for a while, but I am not anymore. The media if filling small minds with bull crap. Right out of the NWO!
Well, without clickbait, most folks won't.
I think it is good to have an open mind.
I hear the comments here.
People are not reading between the lines of media hype.
What is really behind all this shit.
Could it be big pharma and the NWO?
