re: According to data and science, locking down increases chance of catching covid-19

quote:

---

So we're locking down for what reason then?

---

Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you.

/wife

Dude, I'm giving you an unbiased take.

You all are touting the fact that 66% of people that come down with COVID-19 were sheltering in place as if it is evidence that sheltering in place increases the chance of catching COVID-19.

What I'm telling you is that isn't enough information alone to draw that conclusion. First of all, if 66% of people are sheltering in place then that's a break-even number. If more than 66% of people are sheltering in place then that means that people not sheltering in place are getting COVID-19 at a higher rate per capita.

Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the demographics of people sheltering in place are the same as the demographics of people that are not.

It may very well be that sheltering in place increases the chance of catching COVID-19 but your data stops short of proving it.

quote:

---

Dude, I'm giving you an unbiased take.

---

So yes, you were one of those “doing the best they can” guys

quote:

---

You all are touting the fact that 66% of people that come down with COVID-19 were sheltering in place as if it is evidence that sheltering in place increases the chance of catching COVID-19.

---

The only person that I’ve seen semi-seriously say it increases the chances is OP, and he admitted being intentionally ridiculous with that statement.

Everyone else seems to be saying that shelter in place doesn’t seem to be doing much to prevent the spread. So not increasing the chances, but not decreasing them either. At least not to the point we were led to believe.

That’s the actual conclusion being drawn in this thread, including by OP in a serious response to your first that you conveniently ignored.

Does this data seem to support that?

quote:

---

No. I am telling you the data does not support that notion because it is incomplete.

---

No shite. And it won’t be complete until they test every single person in the city and get an accurate account of whether they were sheltering in place or not.

The whole point of my first reply to you was that just like this data is incomplete, so was the data used to create models that were used to instill fear and create mass panic that have ultimately ruined tens of millions of lives. When those models proved to be grossly inaccurate, there were and still are plenty of people defending them saying “they were just working with the best information they had at the time” instead of being critical of the conclusions that were drawn from inadequate data.

Given that I’ve asked twice now if you were one of those people and you’ve ignored both, it seems safe to assume you are. Which makes your current stance in this thread extremely hypocritical.

quote:

---

I gave you examples of why that data could be meaningless without accompanying data about demographics, risk factors, etc.

---

You think using words like “could” and “highly unlikely” is damning evidence against something that is supported by data, incomplete as it may be?

quote:

---

That'd be like saying 66% of homicide victims in Baton Rouge owned a gun, therefore gun ownership increases the chance of being murdered. Then you'd use this "fact" to suggest that guns don't make you safer.

---

Where’s your proof that guns make you safer? Show me your completed dataset.