- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: My 16 year old daughter has covid.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:15 pm to JayWhite
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:15 pm to JayWhite
quote:Is it a place where if 2 people have differing views of the same data set, they each articulate how they view the data and why they feel their view is better?
You should. You'd do well there.
Cause yeah. If it is, I can see why you wouldn't like it.
1
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:20 pm to Blue_Rocky
quote:
Well then, don't complain when it's pointed out that you never did.
Yeah. Why would I?
quote:
TO summarize.
You can't even accurately summarize a conversation that isn't that old.
It started as a discussion of individual choice, didn't it?
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:21 pm to Blue_Rocky
quote:
Is it a place where if 2 people have differing views of the same data set, they each articulate how they view the data and why they feel their view is better?
It's a place where posting only data that support your position is not only common, it's encouraged.
You'd love it.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:27 pm to JayWhite
quote:I'm 100% open to addressing any counter data you wish to provide.
It's a place where posting only data that support your position is not only common, it's encouraged.
Providing data to support one's position is actually pretty normal. And, hey. I can't help but notice that you've provided EXCATLY ONE link and...........the ONLY data you mentioned from it.........supported YOUR position. Just sayin.......So, ya might want to jump off that high horse and engage like a rational person
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:31 pm to Blue_Rocky
quote:
I'm 100% open to addressing any counter data you wish to provide.
Sigh.
Let's try this another way.
Did you read the data, or did you just have an opinion and find the data that support your opinion?
quote:
Providing data to support one's position is actually pretty normal.
Right, but that doesn't mean it's good data. It's actually pretty common for people to start with opinions, then find data. We even have a term for it in research.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:33 pm to JayWhite
quote:ALL decisions are "individual choice" barring a gun to one's head.
It started as a discussion of individual choice, didn't it?
MY discussion started with the reality that in order to make an individual choice, one needs to know what their INDIVIDUAL comparative risk is or at least have a reasonable idea of what it is.
Even without the individual part of that discussion, any treatment for ANY illness is a question of comparative risk. Hence, sometimes, a 40 year old will get heart surgery even if that particular surgery is super risky but, an 80 year old might say, "yeah, I pass". Same for certain cancer treatments, etc etc.
All treatments are a question of comparative risk/reward. THAT has been my focus the whole thread. And, at first, I wasn't even very confrontational about it. Alas, all you did was hand wave and claim some superior more comprehensive knowledge without ever articulating a damned thing.
It's kinda hard to respond to, "data bad, ooga booga"
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:35 pm to Blue_Rocky
quote:
ALL decisions are "individual choice" barring a gun to one's head.
Right, and then we have to consider society. Isn't that where you went down the "it's not a big deal" road?
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:38 pm to JayWhite
quote:Ahhhh. NOOOOOW we're to the crux of it.
Did you read the data, or did you just have an opinion and find the data that support your opinion?
It ain't no accident that I went to the CDC. If all I wanted was data that came with characterizations most favorable to my view, there's plenty of other places I could go.
As for the data I provided in this thread. Truth is, I'm VERY fricking good at seeing patterns in numerical data and I get paid very nicely for this skill. Truth is, the data I provided in this thread said what I expected it to say BEFORE I even looked it up.
Because it's self evident. If you already know the death percentages by age bracket, the rest of the data I've discussed literally HAS to be what I found. It couldn't have been any other way.
quote:Of course that's common. Are you saying CDC data isn't good? I mean, that's the silliness others are trying on you in this thread. You'll note, I have NOT taken that route.
Right, but that doesn't mean it's good data. It's actually pretty common for people to start with opinions, then find data. We even have a term for it in research.
Regardless, I consume pretty much every chart and every piece of data ever provided out there. If someone such as yourself posts something about data, my literal first stop is to go to the source of that data and look at it.
I challenge you to find a single soul on this or any other board that does that 100% of the time. But I do.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:41 pm to JayWhite
quote:
Right, and then we have to consider society. Isn't that where you went down the "it's not a big deal" road?
Correct. I openly admit that #1, I'm about individual choice. That said, an individual CAN and many WILL use group information to help them decide.
My point in THIS thread is that the data really doesn't support the society over individual in this case because of the nature of the HUGE risk skew.
This does NOT mean I would NEVER say society matters to individual choice. Moreover, I can just as easily argue that another element of the "society" discussion is the enormous damage done TO SOCIETY by the measures being taken and everyone wants to treat that damage as if it has no value at all.
Alas, that's another thread probably
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:46 pm to JayWhite
quote:I want to add to this from my prior post
Right, and then we have to consider society. Isn't that where you went down the "it's not a big deal" road?
quote:
Because it's self evident. If you already know the death percentages by age bracket, the rest of the data I've discussed literally HAS to be what I found. It couldn't have been any other way.
You do realize why I say this, right?
You see. At this point, the skew in deaths by age is well known. I'm assuming you already knew it, correct?
Well, I also knew long before covid showed up, at least loosely, the relative sizes of different age demographics in the US. And, I already knew long before COVID showed up about the fact that once you reach a certain age, your odds of dying in any given year are much higher than I think most like to think about. In fact, I'm kinda well versed on a lot of demographic data.
So, even without going to ANY source, I almost coulda ball parked the results just based on my knowledge base coupled with the reported age skew for COVID deaths.
All the CDC did was give me better than ball park numbers. That is NOT the same as "just going to find numbers I like".
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:48 pm to Blue_Rocky
quote:
As for the data I provided in this thread. Truth is, I'm VERY fricking good at seeing patterns in numerical data and I get paid very nicely for this skill. Truth is, the data I provided in this thread said what I expected it to say BEFORE I even looked it up.
Then you should have done a better job presenting your findings.
Here's your opportunity to do so.
I'm not really interested in your resume. Your ability to present the data will suffice.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:50 pm to JayWhite
quote:I've presented them.
Then you should have done a better job presenting your findings.
Here's your opportunity to do so.
You've yet to articulate HOW they are wrong. Probably because you cannot.
They stand on their own.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 7:52 pm to Blue_Rocky
quote:
They stand on their own.
I promise you that they don't.
You might be really good at looking at data and analyzing it.
I get paid a lot more to make decisions about those data.
I'm giving you an opportunity here. If you're willing to engage in honest discussion, now is the time.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 8:01 pm to Blue_Rocky
Hopefully you're putting that together. I look forward to the read and some discussion.
Taking the pups for a run. Have a good night.
Taking the pups for a run. Have a good night.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 8:09 pm to JayWhite
quote:No you aren't.
Hopefully you're putting that together. I look forward to the read and some discussion.
Don't hold your breath. Until you counter, there's nothing to talk about
Posted on 8/30/21 at 8:10 pm to JayWhite
quote:
I get paid a lot more to make decisions about those data.
No you don't.
quote:I was
If you're willing to engage in honest discussion,
I'm giving you an opportunity here. If you have the skills, feel free to show em
Posted on 8/30/21 at 8:41 pm to Blue_Rocky
quote:
Don't hold your breath.
OK. Well, I tried.
quote:
Until you counter, there's nothing to talk about
Look, Fauci, that's not how it works.
Glossing over data and then hollering about how you're the expert and you get paid so much money for looking at data and charts isn't compelling. Not even remotely.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 8:54 pm to JayWhite
quote:quote:
Specifically, in the FDA’s review for approval, the agency analyzed effectiveness data from approximately 20,000 vaccine and 20,000 placebo recipients ages 16 and older who did not have evidence of the COVID-19 virus infection within a week of receiving the second dose. The safety of Comirnaty was evaluated in approximately 22,000 people who received the vaccine and 22,000 people who received a placebo 16 years of age and older.
Based on results from the clinical trial, the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease.
No matter how many singular examples of cherry-picked quotes you find, you're always going to be left going back to shitting on the FDA.
This may be the dumbest post in the entire thread
You dont even realize that you used the FDAs REVIEW of the original clinical trials to pretend to refute the data about the failing efficacy, since the arrival of Delta? The release date of that study for EUA was December 11, 2020.
Do you even understand what you did?
Your FDA statements were about ending the EUA, not authorizing the boosters due to the troubling new data. Heres the press release on the boosters. Not one single mention of efficacy. Released August 12, 2021
LINK
But, I see that others are now onto your inability to comprehend what you read. So my work is done here
Posted on 8/30/21 at 8:57 pm to JayWhite
quote:Responding saying stuff is glossed over without EVER saying how and then complaining about the guy who actually provided data is just solid gold I'll tell ya. You're soooooo good at data, you can't even spend 2 sentences articulating what's wrong other than hand waving. You've outed yourself. Period.
Glossing over data and then hollering about how you're the expert and you get paid so much money for looking at data and charts isn't compelling. Not even remotely.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 9:00 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
But, I see that others are now onto your inability to comprehend what you read. So my work is done here
Yeah. He's cornered himself pretty bad in this thread. It's funny. Dude simultaneously accuses me of ONLY providing data that I searched for to "support my view" when, he's ONLY provided ONE data point that...........you guessed it..........supported his view(he thought). And, he couldn't even be bothered in that instance to give us HIS take.
He had to cut and paste a quote from the source.
I could forget half of what I've ever known about data analysis and still know twice what he's demonstrated he can do.
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News