This is again from "system peristroika"
I'm guessing that you saw this one, Mike. What were your thoughts?
Could it be herd immunity?
***********
Other info from Sweden…
In july 2021, Sweden reported a near-zero Covid death rate.
**********
When our media talk about heart problems following vaccination (if they do mention it at all), they usually call it “rare” events.
Well, other countries don’t consider them to be so “rare”.
Late October, Sweden joined Denmark, Iceland and Finland and stopped the use of the Moderna vaxx for people under thirty, indefinitely
Thanks cfdr,
It's what I was telling Gunter repeatedly when he was using India and Israel based on snapshots in time, cherry picked out of almost 200 countries to show what you wanted to show, while ignoring that same place at other points in time that contradict it.
You won't like the source because its not far right, which is the only thing your brain will accept but data is data.
https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640
Verdict: It's true that Sweden has had a lower Covid death rate than the UK, but it has fared significantly worse than its neighbours, all of which had tighter initial lockdown restrictions.
Many people opposed to Covid restrictions point to the example of Sweden, a country which at the beginning of the pandemic avoided introducing a compulsory lockdown, and instead issued voluntary distancing advice.
However, Sweden is a very different country to the UK and has characteristics that may have helped it during the pandemic.
It has a lower population density, and a high proportion of people live alone. The capital, Stockholm, is also less of an international transit hub than
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sweden had few COVID deaths in July, despite low vaccination rates, relaxed lockdown rules and low mask compliance.
How the post is misleading
The post looks at deaths only for July 2021. But Sweden has seen wide variations in its COVID-19 caseloads and death toll since last year.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
metmike: Each country has a myriad of factors that affect their rates. Weather, population density, vaccination rate, lock downs, masks. Also, each country has its own ebb/flow peaking cycles that are different than most other countries. When there are several that are different from other countries, you can't have a lot of confidence that any one factor caused an affect at any one point in time.
The best way to acquire solid, meaningful data is to have an apples to apples comparison using the SAME country and vary just one parameter.......like vaccinations vs no vaccinations in the US.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75261
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75262
I'm sure that this will get Gunter all fired up again and cause him to start posting more anti COVID vaxx stuff that has been busted dozens of times.
All you guys need to do is read something on your far right information sites to believe it and you NEVER do any fact checking.
Then when I do fact checks using empirical data and authentic science explantions ........you guys almost always reject it because your far right sites are in control of your brains......... but I did my job bringing you honest, reliable science and data.
I haven't had the time to finish this thread below and will be out of town tomorrow. You'll either ignore it or assume that it doesn't apply to you guys, right now in this realm.........which is exactly how cognitive bias works.
We can always recognize it.............in other people and in fact, we assume when they disagree that it can't be from our own cognitive bias.
There's a strong correlation between insisting we DON'T have cognitive bias and actually having it, especially when it ramps up to conspiracy theories.
Cognitive Bias/Conspiracy Theories
6 responses |
Started by metmike - Nov. 6, 2021, 1:19 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77243/
"Could it be herd immunity?"
Gunter,
All authentic science everywhere tells us that the best way to reach herd immunity is by getting vaccinated.
Reaching herd immunity, from getting the disease not only causes alot of people to die....up to 2% of the population (and no, vaccinations don't kill more people than COVID) but up to 50% that get COVID suffer from dehabilitating affects from LONG COVID that can last for 6 months or longer.
Getting vaccinated avoids that.
Herd immunity via getting the disease is the recipe to maximize the deaths and long lasting, damaging impacts to those that survive.
Don't believe me............just believe Mr. Empirical Data and Mrs. Authentic Science.
I know they rarely visit at the far right sites but at least you can hear from them here.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76747/#76822
You won't like the source because its not far right, which is the only thing your brain will accept but data is data.
OK, I probably should wait a day or two to respond, as describing how my brain must work is a bit too much.
Mike, YOU BREAK ALL OF YOUR OWN RULES!
Verdict: It's true that Sweden has had a lower Covid death rate than the UK, but it has fared significantly worse than its neighbours, all of which had tighter initial lockdown restrictions.
Here again you quote a source that has proven itself to be among the most biased in the business. The BBC. You don't trust them when it comes to climate change, do you? You pick and choose when it suits you to trust them. Your mind is made up and you choose BBC when they support the position that you have settled into?
Mike, if you had taken the time to look back at some of the studies this person did on the site link I sent, you might just have a little cognitive dissonance about your trusted site BBC.
And then you quote politifact as a source. A quick search (but do not use Google) shows possible problems with them too. Mike, you have SO MANY sources quoted that I have seen that are SO VERY problematic. Tucker Carlson last night had a little piece on businessinsider and how they went after one of his guests, and the problems Tucker raised were serious.
But anyway, I would suggest that you look at what appear to be the facts presented on that site prior to going on a rant about "the only thing" my "brain will accept."
but data is data
First take a look at the data - ok?
Well, all I can do is show objective, comprehensive data that tells us the big picture.
I can’t stop tucker Carlson or FOX news or your other sources from specializing in cherry picking, as was the case of taking a snap shot in time of Sweden and pretending that represented the big picture to start this thread.
I’m just doing what practicing the scientific method compels me to do.
There will be unlimited opportunities to cherry pick and there’s nothing I can do to stop people from doing it or believing it........except prove that’s what it is with comprehensive, big picture data.
Yes, but you need to check your data, I think. As I said, this blogger appears to be "data driven" and he has some really interesting statistical analysis posted for Sweden and other countries in the area.
If I have time, I might try to go back and look for some interesting posts. They are most definitely there, and they clearly show how really bad the analysis has been by the media in their comments about what a disaster Sweden has been.
Yes, but you need to check your data, I think.
Thanks, I did.
As mentioned before, I literally have spent over 1,000 hours on this since early 2020.
Not saying I know everything and am greatly looking forward to learning even more.
As mentioned before, I literally have spent over 1,000 hours on this since early 2020.
Yes, but have you looked at actual data for Sweden, the country that might be considered the "control" in this worldwide experiment?
There’s one “anomaly” on these charts, and neither 2020 nor 2021, the “Pandemic Years”, are part of that anomaly. “Sweden – The World’s Cautionary Tale”….? Judge for yourself.
I think the charts speak for themselves. Consider the term "dry tinder" going into 2020 in Sweden.
Go down to the "Excess Deaths" chart and down from there. Again, think about the term "dry tinder."
In summary: the “game” between FIN-SWE ended IMO up as a draw: Finland clearly did better wrt COVID, while Sweden did better in terms of all cause mortality.
Could this exceptionally low number of deaths during a period of almost two years have any impact on deaths during 2020… Particularly if a new,possibly human engineered potent virus comes for a visit…?
To me it looks like 2015,2016,2017 had observed deaths pretty much in line with expectation. But from 2018 spring onwards, at least a couple of the age groups started to show a “gap” between expected and observed deaths, and during 2019, that gap becomes really conspicuous for all age groups! No wonder though, since we saw from the previous graph that monthly deaths were never above the baseline, the expectation, for any age group, during entire 2019. Could this remarkable state of affairs have had any impact on the number of deaths 2020…?
Go on down in the article and he asks the question:
Spot the anomaly.
And finally for the discussion:
https://shahar-26393.medium.com/not-a-shred-of-doubt-sweden-was-right-32e6dab1f47a
The most counted country is probably Sweden, a stubborn dissenter that refused lockdowns, mask mandates and contact tracing. By the time of this writing, 14,349 Swedes have reportedly died from the coronavirus. Has the Swedish model failed? Were the lockdowns justified? Were the economic and social upheavals in most of the world an unavoidable necessity?
The answer to all is a resounding no. The first (and not the only) witness: Sweden. To understand the testimony, we need to learn only two concepts: “flu year” and “excess mortality”.
The pandemic has taken its death toll, ranging from large to small in different countries and within countries, and mostly affected the frail elderly. But the lockdowns and panic were unsubstantiated, prevented nothing, and caused indescribable damage to society. Sweden’s statistics tell us, unequivocally, that in much of the world lives have been lost and livelihoods have been destroyed — in vain.
https://www.aier.org/article/sweden-despite-variants-no-lockdowns-no-daily-covid-deaths/
Since the Covid pandemic broke out, Sweden has been fought over more than any other part of Europe since Germany in the 30 Years War. In refusing to use an iron fist to control a virus, lockdown advocates claimed it was either committing murder or suicide; choose your favorite metaphor. Relatively few such as me, in three separate articles, claimed the Nordic country was sparing both the economy and something called “liberty” with its light-handed approach. My favorite title (editor chose it): “Media Enraged That More Swedes Aren’t Dying.”
Thus last year we saw such headlines as CNN’s “Deaths Soar In Country That Didn’t Lock Down. Officials Identify Big Reason Why.” Around the same time “Sweden Steadfast In Strategy As Virus Toll Continues Rising,” claimed another source. “Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Drives Up Infection Rate,” screamed the BBC. Everyone was playing pile-on. “Sweden Has The Highest Daily Coronavirus Death Rate In The World – And It’s Getting Worse.” That’s from Yahoo Sports. Sports?
Modelers desperately tried to scare Sweden into locking down. One predicted an incredible median of 96,000 deaths, with a maximum of 183,000. At Sweden’s Lund University an academic used the parameters in the now-infamous Neil Ferguson/Imperial College model to warn that it meant 85,000 deaths for Sweden. An Uppsala University team also found the nation paying a terrible price with 40,000 Covid-19 deaths by May 1, 2020 and almost 100,000 by June.
Total Swedish Covid deaths at this writing: 14,651.
It’s not that Sweden did nothing – but very little.
https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-about-sweden
This last one came out just a couple of months ago. It really goes after the media and its attacks on Sweden.
Were the attacks on Sweden justified, Mike? Are sources a person considers "reliable sources" really reliable sources?
And, just since I started looking up those articles, this comes out:
https://summit.news/2021/11/11/despite-vaccine-passport-schemes-covid-cases-surging-across-europe/
More cherry picking.
Selecting 1 country out of 200 for 1 month, October to show us what you want to show.
Sweden has numerous factors less favorable for the spread of COVID compared to the EU. Much lower population density. MANY fewer travelers/more isolated.
Of course their rates will almost always be lower than the EU because of that. Of course it will always take longer for COVID spreading to impact them. Of course the rates of increase will be lower. They are mostly a rural country compared to the EU.
Let me help you with that:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
Preliminary data from EU statistics agency Eurostat compiled by Reuters showed Sweden had 7.7% more deaths in 2020 than its average for the preceding four years. Countries that opted for several periods of strict lockdowns, such as Spain and Belgium, had so-called excess mortality of 18.1% and 16.2% respectively.
Twenty-one of the 30 countries with available statistics had higher excess mortality than Sweden. However, Sweden did much worse than its Nordic neighbours, with Denmark registering just 1.5% excess mortality and Finland 1.0%. Norway had no excess mortality at all in 2020.
Metmike: Apples to watermelons.........Sweden looks pretty small.
Apples to apples...........not so small.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76717/#76737
https://www.developgoodhabits.com/cherry-picking/
"Cherry picking is a logical fallacy that happens when someone focuses solely on evidence that supports their position on a claim and ignores any information that goes against their defense.
For example, someone engaging in cherry picking might reference only a few studies published on a certain topic in an effort to make it appear that science supports their stance. In this case, cherry picking is done intentionally, taking advantage of its persuasive rhetorical value to convince someone of something."
Just wondering if you even read those links I posted.
Sure did cfdr,
All one sided, mostly cherry picking for all the same reasons that I keep telling you and you just keep using them anyway.
You will only use your far right sources that tell you what you want to read/hear.
That's why I provided the objective data.
I don't need to ask if you contemplated it.
Maybe if I changed my handle to "FarRightMike" you would look at the data (-:
Sweden DOES have lower rates but the reasons are totally explainable using NON mandate reasons.
When there are several profoundly different variables that are changed or different in an experiment/study at the same time, you can't isolate just one of them as being the entire reason for the cause, when any or all of them could be the cause........especially so in this case where the other variables are very strong contenders for being the cause.
C'mon man. You're a man of science.
Sure did cfdr,
All one sided, mostly cherry picking for all the same reasons that I keep telling you and you just keep using them anyway.
You will only use your far right sources that tell you what you want to read/hear.
That's why I provided the objective data.
Ok, let's look at a little of the data right in this thread.
I posted this link:
This this one:
You posted your reply:
In between, you posted this one:
And this one:
You are pretty amazing, Mike. You had a grand total of 26 minutes to digest posts with 8 links that contained some pretty extensive displays of data in charts - and you still had time to read and comment on two additional posts here on the forum.
Mike, can't you understand some of us when we say that you are really NOT data driven?
This is one main reason why I posted that chart about modeling a market. THAT is being data-driven. That is not relying on Bloomberg, or Reuters, or any of the many commenters on so many of the markets that want to post their views. I always know that there is a high likelihood that they simply want to make public their views because they are trying to influence the readers. This is why you CANNOT trust so many of the links you post all of the time.
Being data-driven is often not what you think it is.
The election - why is it that we cannot have truly transparent audits of the areas where the big questions are? (And, yes, there are big questions. And even if they are proven to be false, wouldn't it be great if everyone could have faith in the process??)
COVID - why is it that, after nearly two years, we still have yet to see a statistically valid study done on something like Ivermectin? Why is it that the government bureaucracies cannot keep data for and study possible side effects of the vaccine? Why is it that they feel that they must force people - young healthy people - to get vaccinated? Especially little kids, who have essentially a zero chance of dying from COVID?
I'm data driven, Mike. Again, that's one reason why I put up the computer modeling post.
"You are pretty amazing, Mike. You had a grand total of 26 minutes to digest posts with 8 links that contained some pretty extensive displays of data in charts - and you still had time to read and comment on two additional posts here on the forum."
Now, you are even disputing that I read the information at your links because your brain must process things slower than mine...........WHICH I DID!!!!
Any reason you can find to justify find that justifies your position.
I made every point that I can think of anyway but if you bring more bs on the irrefutably proven Big Lie or more cherry picking of 1 country for one time frame.......I will confront it again.
Your far right sources have completely captured your brain man!
we still have yet to see a statistically valid study done on something like Ivermectin?
Best Treatments for COVID(outside of the vaccine)!
12 responses |
Started by metmike - Sept. 26, 2021, 9:28 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75440/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ivermectin/how to get to the truth
By metmike - Sept. 26, 2021, 8:55 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/74636/#75439
Why is it that they feel that they must force people - young healthy people - to get vaccinated? Especially little kids, who have essentially a zero chance of dying from COVID?
CDC panel approves Pfizer vaccine for kids ages 5 to 11
Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 6:02 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76988/
This is one main reason why I posted that chart about modeling a market. THAT is being data-driven. That is not relying on Bloomberg, or Reuters, or any of the many commenters on so many of the markets that want to post their views.
For the umpteenth time, I am using the data and show it to you every time. Please stop mischaracterizing my position and using a straw man attack to attack a position I don't have. I am NOT using those sources. I only post links to them AFTER I ANALYZE THE DATA AND SHOW MY WORK.
It's YOU relying on sources to tell you what to think..............all of them far right.
So you showed your modeling of the cattle market supposedly proves that your far right sources that you cling to are valid?
Again, you are so bent out of shape to prove your far right sources are correct, you are showing modeling data about the cattle market/something 100% totally different and rationalizing that this is proof that you are right about the COVID vaccine and the Big Lie.
You are so obsessed with this that its becoming a serious problem that millions of Americans have right now thats bad enough to cause neurotic dysfunction in their lives.
The sad thing, is that you're my friend and I can't do anything to stop you and those millions from being targets for their self serving interests, that include political and financial gain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Another item.
I get no pay for this. I took the time to read your posts and respond sincerely with authentic data and science and you accuse me of not reading everything and then, actually tried to prove that I couldn't have read all of it.
That's pretty low man.
Tim just got done chastising me for not watching the entire 3 hours of his video, which I then responded to by completely watching.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77329/#77550
You guys need to get a reality check and appreciate that I'm trying to help you and stop acting this way, as if I'm your mortal enemy because I disagree with you and trying to hurt you.
Our most cherished right and freedom of all is the right to know the objective truth.
I'm just trying to bring it to you. How about a little bit of help, cooperation and appreciation instead of acting like this?
Not for me but for yourselves.
Again,
The point is not you disagreeing with me but supposedly proving that I couldn't have read all your links, when I did go to all of them. ..the ones that worked.
Much of it I've seen before and is the same old stuff and doesn't negative anything regarding the OVERALL data which I showed you in all ways shapes and forms.
If you are expecting me to spend hours, picking out each point in every article, which you will 100% ignore again then you are being unreasonable.
I got my experience doing that with Gunter for 5 months(for many hundreds of hours) and all that did was encourage him to post the same stuff but even more furiously so when I read YOUR articles, I've already seen it before and like I said............it doesn't negate the authentic data and science which I showed you............Again
You are so convinced that you are absolutely right ON EVERYTHING, that you can't possibly believe that a man of science can read that stuff and not agree with you.
Maybe you spent a couple of hours putting together all those links and feel like I ignored them.
Sorry if you spent all the time cfdr, I didn't ignore them...........and you just didn't like my response.
I can tolerate almost anything here but when somebody accuses me of not spending enough of my time to analyze and respond to their links or being dishonest about doing it............when I've spent thousands of hours doing that this year on COVID and the fake election steal........ for nothing..............that is just wrong.
Your opinion obviously can't be changed on this but don't be using me as an excuse........... that I didn't contemplate your points long enough or read all of your links or applying the right amount of discernment.
I've been doing that for thousands of hours already this year.
You will note how quickly I can pull up dozens of previous threads with these exact same discussions. Obviously, you ignored all of those because I've had to do it numerous times...........same ones with you to address the same things.........that I keep answering........with answers that I already gave........over and over.
Or, even more absurdly that I don't use data or science(like you do) and rely on the MSM to tell me everything.
That's total crap and as an objective, independent scientist that practices the scientific method every day of my life........ am getting fed up with posters here mischaracterizing me constantly to excuse their unwillingness to accept the data.
Disagree with the data if you want but I get the data from the data sources, as close to the original source as possible.
If you still have no idea what I'm talking about...........read thru this thread again.
the election...do not shoot the messeger
41 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Nov. 7, 2021, 7:14 p.m.
I get no pay for this. I took the time to read your posts and respond sincerely with authentic data and science and you accuse me of not reading everything and then, actually tried to prove that I couldn't have read all of it.
Mike, Maybe you are that fast at reading and understanding statistical charts. If we assume it took about one minute for each of the two replies to other posts, that leaves a total of 24 minutes for 8 links, most including statistical charts to think about. Three minutes per link. Just enough time to quickly scan them perhaps?
No discussion about the charts for "excessive deaths" comparison between Sweden and Norway. Also non on the charts comparing Sweden and Finland. None on the "age adjusted all cause mortality" between Sweden and Finland. No discussion about the "interesting observations to make in the above graph." No discussion on the "rel diff mortality" charts. (I have to hand it to you. If you can digest all those charts in three minutes per link - links that include multiple charts - you're way too smart for me to think I can carry on a discussion with you.). And then the "489 days of studying COVID in Sweden" - 13 charts in that one - I'm feeling very inadequate when I compare the time I had to think about those charts.
Sorry, but that's the only conclusion I can draw. When I see real data being analyzed, it takes me awhile to think through it. Maybe I'm just slow.
Don't know what else to tell you cfdr except
1. According to you, I must be more brilliant that anything you can imagine and thanks for the unintended compliment(because you are actually questioning my honesty, not complimenting me). To further impress you, I often have my laptop to the right of my computer and operate both of them at the same time, one for trading the other for this/forum stuff.(while looking at almost 1,000 weather maps and the data associated with them every day) I actually never thought of it as being that impressive until you brought this up.
2. Once you decide something, you will argue until the cows come home, even when you are totally dead wrong and you will jump thru all sorts of hoops to make up your own evidence to prove that you are right because your mind is not open enough to consider anything except your initial WRONG conclusion but thats the one you'll stick with until the bitter end.
3. How would I know? I just witnessed an absolute example of it happening and there being no other explanation.
4. The absurdity of this discussion focusing on whether I was able to do something that I did yesterday (because you wouldn't be able to do it and are unable to contemplate how anybody could be that much more skilled at it than you, tells us where you are coming from.
5. To make you happy, I reviewed the information again and have the same response that I did the first time.
I'm not going to get into discussions like with Gunter, where for months, he would send me a bunch of anti COVID vaxx links to waste hours of my time every day, busting and rebutting every point on every link with the data. Been there and done that.
This enabled and encouraged him AND MADE IT WORSE. I learned from that mistake and will not make it again everytime somebody new shows up doing the same thing all over again because they go/went to some of the same sites that everybody gets their DISinformation from.
I will always look at anything that you send to see if there's something new or a good point and try to acknowledge that. You apparently don't believe me that I've spent over 1,000 hours since last year doing this and most of what you sent.........I ALREADY READ OR SAW the points. It takes seconds to skim over something that is just a review of something you know or saw before. Your totally kidding yourself bigtime if you think that this is all profoundly meaningful stuff that requires metmike an hour to contemplate. I recognize it for what it is from the get go from seeing it already.
I looked at it again and don't have any more comments different than the first time.
I provided you with all the raw data to see for yourself. That's what matters, not the twisted opinions and cherry pick interpretations from your far right sites.
Please stop saying that I'm using MSM narratives/interpretations to form my opinions because that continues to be a bald face LIE and you only spout that LIE to justify rejecting the OBJECTIVE data that I keep sending.
WOW.
Ok, I'm going to post one more answer, because I feel that this is an important point.
You accused me of posting links with cherry picked data. Not only did you bring it up, you made sure to insult me with your post. I'll quote it here:
https://www.developgoodhabits.com/cherry-picking/
"Cherry picking is a logical fallacy that happens when someone focuses solely on evidence that supports their position on a claim and ignores any information that goes against their defense.
For example, someone engaging in cherry picking might reference only a few studies published on a certain topic in an effort to make it appear that science supports their stance. In this case, cherry picking is done intentionally, taking advantage of its persuasive rhetorical value to convince someone of something."
You can see clearly, can't you, why this would be offensive to me? You couldn't stop yourself, and went on to post yet another reply:
Sure did cfdr,
All one sided, mostly cherry picking for all the same reasons that I keep telling you and you just keep using them anyway.
You will only use your far right sources that tell you what you want to read/hear.
That's why I provided the objective data.
I don't need to ask if you contemplated it.
Maybe if I changed my handle to "FarRightMike" you would look at the data (-:
Now, you had previously posted this chart:
As it turns out, Mike, YOU were the one who posted a chart using data that was "cherry picked" - that was what I was trying to show you when you went on your rant about me posting cherry picked data from my far right sources.
Here is one chart from what I posted that clearly shows this:
And in this link, the comparison between Sweden and Finland is looked at:
One graph of the excess deaths appears to be clear - if only a person would have looked at it:
The author goes on to show several more charts looking at this puzzle - please do look at them. He concludes that:
In summary: the “game” between FIN-SWE ended IMO up as a draw: Finland clearly did better wrt COVID, while Sweden did better in terms of all cause mortality.
Which of those two is more important, more relevant to overall public health, is up to you to decide.
Isn't it true, Mike, that YOU were the one who posted a chart that was "cherry picked"? Your chart was based on total COVID deaths up to March, 2021. Simply by not taking into account the previous years of 2019 and 2018, the chart you posted substantially misrepresented what occurred wrt Sweden compared to Norway and Finland.
And, of course, this is not nearly complete, as there is nothing taken into account about the possible long term effects of locking down vs not locking down. From everything I've read, this is not a trivial matter.
But, even if we are only interested in COVID deaths, you certainly seem to be the guilty one when it comes to cherry picking.
Mike, I actually thought that, when I started this subject, that we could have a reasonable discussion of this. I thought that the author of "systems peristroika" was a serious data driven researcher and you certainly would see him that way. Rather than discuss the material in the blog, however, it appears to me that you again did what you have done before - quickly found something in the first link you could use to throw out everything else - and went to your "trusted sources" for your facts. Is it any wonder I asked you if you weren't breaking all of your own rules??
It appears to me that once you have made up your mind about a subject, it is not only bolted shut - you weld it shut.
The topic is COVID deaths.
I posted actual COVID death data.
Thanks for showing it again for us. That is valid data, not made up.
You posted something completely different....excessive deaths with speculation.
Like I said, I already saw that before.
I also sent you actual data for populations of countries in the world and Europe and the ranking for each country....pure data.
I also sent you the data for COVID death rates for those countries per 100,000 residents and the ranking.....pure data about the actual metric that we are discussing.......COVID deaths.
I didn’t pick anything out or speculate about anything.
Like I keep telling you, the raw data is the raw data. What matters is the population of Sweden and the death rate compared to other counties.
It does better than the other counties that have higher population densities because they have higher population densities.
It doesn’t do as well compared to countries with lower population densities....because they have lower population densities.
There are numerous other factors......as I already mentioned.
Taking one of them and then comparing Sweden with higher population countries and claiming that one factor was the reason for the difference and not the population density is really dishonest science.
And using a non COVID statistic from years before COVID even existed based on a metric that changes every year for a variety of reasons in different countries to prove that the actual data on COVID deaths is wrong. That is nuts to believe.
Some of your sources ignored when Sweden was getting clobbered by COVID, then after the spike higher was over and rates were low, cherry picked that time frame to compare with other countries......all counties with higher population densities.
You really are something to claim that it’s me cherry picking.
Your far right sources have you wrapped around their fingers.
Please stop accusing me of being controlled by the MSM because that’s what your sources tell you what to think.
I showed you the data that me, met mike the objective, scientist, independently searched for and found with no assumptions or preconceived notions.....I actually looked up that data after you first brought this topic up to research it properly and had it stored on my computer already.
All I did was share the data with you.
You seem to think that you’re an authority on this why won’t you deal with the data I sent.....instead of making absurd attacks on me that I couldn’t have really looked at your stuff, then even more absurdly, try to bolster the attack with a timeline of my activities here that you think proves I couldn’t have possibly read your stuff.
And the continued accusation that it’s coming from the MSM.
This is clearly a serious issue.
You won’t trust anybody that doesn’t conform to what your far right sites have you brainwashed to think to the point of being paranoid and delusional.
I’m not saying this out of anything but telling you the truth for your own good because I care about people.
This is exactly why you are still convinced to this day that the election was stolen from Donald Trump.
I’m doing my best to not insult you and not be personal .....this is not personal for me.....and only state facts but more than anything, I feel very powerless and sad that I can’t help you.
You can only help yourself cfdr!
The ironic thing here is that I’m against lock downs except in extremely rare cases and even then, not certain if the damage they do for sure is outweighed by the benefits.
WE can start a new thread on the damage in many ways that lockdowns have on people’s lives and to society because this one is already too long but you don’t realize that using this junk science, cherry picking crap messes up the case against lockdowns.
It turns people off that know what this is distorting the picture to show something that is not really supported by the science or objective, comprehensive data that pretends that not having lock downs causes countries to do better than countries that have lockdowns....that’s just pitiful, scientific rubbish.
Comparing a low population density country with no lock downs to high population countries with lock downs. The minute I see a source doing that, I assume they are either dishonest or ignorant......it has to be that or gullible if they’re passing it on, which is a form of ignorance.
Especially when there’s tons of wonderful legit data to show the harm that lockdowns do. Why wouldn’t they focus on the legit stuff only?
When you believe in something strongly, you just can’t throw everything, including the kitchen sink and the toilet filled with crap at it to win your case......you pick out the valid points with supportive data and put everything into that.
When you can’t tell the difference then it’s time to take a step back and at the very least look in the mirror to see why not. In this case, it’s completely tied to having absolute, adherence to following every single thing that your sources tell you, like it’s a religion.....based on faith that they are always right because they say all the things you like to here.
I also feel that cloth masks are way over rated but I make a case, for using something that actually works.....N95 masks.....am not just against masks to be against masks because it’s the government telling us what to do.
Mike, you go on and on and on - about everything except the inconvenient points made in the posts that you are replying to. Not only to my posts, but you did the same thing in refusing to address Tim's points in another thread. When you make up your mind, nothing penetrates that might cause cognitive dissonance. It shouldn't surprise me, because I've run into it many times before with a lot of people. It's just the way the hard-wiring in our brains evolved, and nature seems to be desperately working to ensure diversity in the evolutionary process.
That's the way I have to accept it.
Your "working" definition of "facts" is very different than my definition. This, as I said, is one reason why I worked so long at building computer models of the markets. I realized early that I could not depend on anything I read or heard about what the market "should" do. To avoid the optimization that our brains invariably will do, I used three data sets - one to train the neural net, one for the net to test new solutions to the problem - only saving nets that tested better on the second set that was not used for initial training, and a final data set that the computer never saw. This was used as a final verification as to whether or not the new model might be useful going forward in real time. That third set was the key - without it I was simply curve-fitting a computer model to a chaotic system - and that invariably will fail in real time.
Mike, you have to test the model in your brain against data encountered in real time. This must be a continuous process. Now, I know that you think that you already do that. But, from my view, it sure doesn't look like that is the case. Data is not what the people at the NYT, or WaPo, or NPR, or busnessinsider write or say. We have a serious shortage of good data on the last election, and that will not change without a full and transparent audit. We have serious problems with good data on COVID - and it seems to be the purpose of government and some in the health industry to keep it that way. We have serious problems - probably insurmountable problems - with data on past climate - along with a serious lack of understanding of the limitations of using computer to model the chaotic data. These are the realities I see. The fact that you cannot see these realities means further conversations with you on these matters are fruitless.
Remember what Robert Feynman said:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
Julius Caesar said something similar:
I completely rebutted it with the actual raw COVID death data for every country and raw population data for every country and repeated it (with an explanation for why your metric of something that includes a host of factors-excess deaths- with many unknowns, which allows for speculation is flawed, -but you like it because the speculation gets you what you want to believe-and BTW, it came out in July and I had already seen it a couple of times, which is why I didn't need to spent much time analyzing something I already knew-just like most of your stuff that you must have just found) and your response is to post even more furiously about how metmike the scientist for 39 years has a closed mind and needs to practice science.
Now with a giant meme that is supposed to represent you........and is supposed to trump the raw data that I showed.
Why don't we move the discussion to something that makes more sense that we can agree on.
How lockdowns, though they greatly lessen the spread of COVID and save lives, have negative consequences to people lives in other ways.......mental health........unemployment........lack of quality in life.
When the (especially) big US cities and high population centers had their hospitals filled to capacity and there was no vaccine in 2020, there was very little choice but to have a lockdown...........or suffer an apocalyptic surge with millions of seriously ill people that had nowhere to go.
Outside of situations like that.........when there's just no choice, I believe lockdowns cause more of a negative impact than the lives that they save from lower COVID(and flu) deaths.
What do you think.
I'll start this on another page.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77712/
cfdr,
Maybe this will help you to appreciate why I'd already seen all that stuff...much of it more than once and I'm not playing that game of spending my entire day addressing each item in it individually..............been there, done that and the person at the other end of the discussion just ignored everything and posted even more furiously.
I take mental notes and learn from my experiences and adjust.
negative vaxx comments
18 responses |
Started by GunterK - Aug. 7, 2021, 3:43 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73302/
Every time a new anti COVID Vaxx, Biden stole the election far right person shows up, do you really expect me to jump thru all those hoops again............for nothing?
I will repeat again, that I like you cfdr and am not the enemy. You add alot of wonderful things to the forum. We will never agree on the election results of 2020 or the COVID vaxx and like it or not, as the moderator I will challenge statements that MY DATA(not the MSM) shows are flawed.
But I DON'T censor any of your stuff.
I would suggest that we go on to one of the million other items in the world that we agree on instead of continuing to beat the dead horse on this.
If you want to continue the conversation, please go here:
cfdr
Started by metmike - Nov. 13, 2021, 3:48 p.m.
