Corona Virus

[Sour Masher]

Birx is saying the latest models as the peak (probably only the first imo) for NYC, Detroit, and New Orlreans will likely come in 6-7 days. It will be nice to start to see a downward trend. A week is still a long time when you are talking about the toll this thing will take in that time, though. I'm hopeful that NYC and other hard hit areas can keep things locked down over that period, to drag the graph line down. Once we can get the trends heading down, it is an easier fight. The fewer new cases, the less people t spread them, and so the fall can continue, if everyone is careful.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...PeM?li=BBnb7Kz

[The Feral Slasher]

In Washington, the Seattle area has been by far the most number of cases reported. On a per capita basis some of the rural counties are not far behind, and if they have less testing, as well as less focus on containment and social isolation, they will likely surpass the Seattle area for number of cases per capita. I have no confidence at this point that rural areas are going to be spared because they have a lower population density. I hope they are, but that doesn't really seem like a good plan. I've yet to see any location regret that they locked down too soon.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I wrote: "there are very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile. seems silly to argue otherwise."

you claimed, falsely: "I think this should effectively refute JJ's argument that party-shutdown link is coincidental."

here's the population density rankings of the eight non-statewide order stay-at-home states - "coincidentally" seven of them are below the U.S. average:

Wyoming 49
North Dakota 46
South Dakota 45
Nebraska 43
Utah 40
Iowa 36
Arkansas 34
South Carolina 19

that is one helluva coincidence!

and what part of my observation about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" are you disagreeing with, exactly?

The data shows that's not the whole picture. You're choosing to ignore important facts that disagree with you. Sparsely populated states with Democratic governors have shut down. The only states with medium population density that haven't shut down have Republican governors.

You were criticizing people who were, correctly, as it turned out, drawing the link between state shutdowns and the party of their governors.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Birx is saying the latest models as the peak (probably only the first imo) for NYC, Detroit, and New Orlreans will likely come in 6-7 days. It will be nice to start to see a downward trend. A week is still a long time when you are talking about the toll this thing will take in that time, though. I'm hopeful that NYC and other hard hit areas can keep things locked down over that period, to drag the graph line down. Once we can get the trends heading down, it is an easier fight. The fewer new cases, the less people t spread them, and so the fall can continue, if everyone is careful.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...PeM?li=BBnb7Kz

Man, I hope that's the case. I'm very skeptical. You could see a couple weeks ago that Washington's rate of increase was slowing, but Washington hasn't reached its peak yet. New York is just beginning to show signs of its rate of increase slowing. I haven't seen any signs of slowing of the growth in Detroit or New Orleans yet. And on top of that, other areas like Chicago, Indianopolis, DC, Georgia, Florida, etc., keep growing unabated. Oklahoma is a mess. I think some other states that were slow to shut down are going to take off in the next couple weeks. It would be a great mercy if things slowed in New York. But I don't believe we're a week away from the peak in many, if any, areas of the country outside of Washington, not by any means.

I'm guessing the peak is more like four weeks away. But I'm not an expert epidemiological modeler, so I could be wrong. I'd feel a lot better if I heard it coming from Fauci instead of Birx. Birx displays some tendencies to want to say what will make Trump feel good at the expense of telling the truth. I hope that's not what she's doing here.

[Judge Jude]

Seitzer is one of the smartest posters on this board.

this is starting to feel like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

I asked this extremely direct question:

"and what part of my observation about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" are you disagreeing with, exactly?"

all of the data in this thread show "strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of state politics"

that means, "states have a strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of state politics."

I think KS stipulates to that.

also, "states have a strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of population per square mile."

I think he DISagrees with that, in spite of the 8 states ranking 49, 46, 45, 43, 40, 36, 34, and 19 in population density.

if he ignores my direct point again, then I don't see a path forward, to be honest. he's just choosing to ignore important points that disagree with him - oh, the irony.

[DMT]

Post #1148 directly addresses your point but you're choosing to ignore it because you don't understand it apparently. Didn't we just go through this in another thread?

[Judge Jude]

none of 1158 (not 1148) addresses 1160

wouldn't it be more productive to take at least a piece of what I actually said, and actually address that?

or is even that now controversial?

Seitzer very direct response to 1160 - that's pretty much the tipping point for me.

"and what part of my observation about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" are you disagreeing with, exactly?"

[DMT]

none of 1158 (not 1148) addresses 1160

wouldn't it be more productive to take at least a piece of what I actually said, and actually address that?

or is even that now controversial?

Seitzer very direct response to 1160 - that's pretty much the tipping point for me.

"and what part of my observation about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" are you disagreeing with, exactly?"

Huh? 1160 is a bunch of quotes from previous posts. 1148 is the scatterplot of states KS created based on density and case rate numbers. You were making the point that politics is not the reason for the laissez-faire policies but rather population density. Right?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Seitzer is one of the smartest posters on this board.

this is starting to feel like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

I asked this extremely direct question:

"and what part of my observation about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" are you disagreeing with, exactly?"

all of the data in this thread show "strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of state politics"

that means, "states have a strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of state politics."

I think KS stipulates to that.

also, "states have a strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of population per square mile."

I think he DISagrees with that, in spite of the 8 states ranking 49, 46, 45, 43, 40, 36, 34, and 19 in population density.

if he ignores my direct point again, then I don't see a path forward, to be honest. he's just choosing to ignore important points that disagree with him - oh, the irony.

Point 1: madducks stated that the non-shutdown states all had Republican governors
Point 2: You stated that, because the non-shutdown states were sparsely populated, madducks' Point 1 was misleading.

Point 3: I showed that among the nine most sparsely-populated states, Republican governors had shut down two states and had not shut down four states (33% shutdown rate).
Point 4: I showed that among the nine most sparsely-populated states, Democratic governors had shut down three states (100% shutdown rate).

Point 5: I showed that among the middle tier of population density (30-120 persons/sq.mile), Republican governors had shut down eight states and had not shut down three states (73% shutdown rate).
Point 6: I showed that among the middle tier of population density, Democratic governors had shut down all 11 states and territories (100% shutdown rate).

Point 7: I showed that among the most densely-populated states, Republican governors had shut down nine states and territories and had not shut down one state (90% shutdown rate).
Point 8: I showed that among the most densely-populated states, Democratic governors had shut down all 14 states and territories (100% shutdown rate).

There is a substantial difference in shutdown rate between Republican governors and Democratic governors regardless of the population density. Therefore, madducks' Point 1 was not misleading. Even once population density is accounted for, there is a strong effect from party governance on shutdown status.

That's an explanation in plain terms. In terms of a statistical model, predicting shutdown status from population density and party of governor, party of governor is significant at the 0.998 confidence level, and population density is not a significant factor once party of governor is known.

[mjl]

Point 1: madducks stated that the non-shutdown states all had Republican governors
Point 2: You stated that, because the non-shutdown states were sparsely populated, madducks' Point 1 was misleading.

Point 3: I showed that among the nine most sparsely-populated states, Republican governors had shut down two states and had not shut down four states (33% shutdown rate).
Point 4: I showed that among the nine most sparsely-populated states, Democratic governors had shut down three states (100% shutdown rate).

Point 5: I showed that among the middle tier of population density (30-120 persons/sq.mile), Republican governors had shut down eight states and had not shut down three states (73% shutdown rate).
Point 6: I showed that among the middle tier of population density, Democratic governors had shut down all 11 states and territories (100% shutdown rate).

Point 7: I showed that among the most densely-populated states, Republican governors had shut down nine states and territories and had not shut down one state (90% shutdown rate).
Point 8: I showed that among the most densely-populated states, Democratic governors had shut down all 14 states and territories (100% shutdown rate).

There is a substantial difference in shutdown rate between Republican governors and Democratic governors regardless of the population density. Therefore, madducks' Point 1 was not misleading. Even once population density is accounted for, there is a strong effect from party governance on shutdown status.

That's an explanation in plain terms. In terms of a statistical model, predicting shutdown status from population density and party of governor, party of governor is significant at the 0.998 confidence level, and population density is not a significant factor once party of governor is known.

[Judge Jude]

I'm done for the night - but I don't know what to say when this is not completely addressed in a nine-point presentation, to the very phrase:

"I asked this extremely direct question:

"and what part of my observation about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" are you disagreeing with, exactly?"

all of the data in this thread show "strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of state politics"

that means, "states have a strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of state politics."

I think KS stipulates to that.

also, "states have a strong trend of statewide quarantines in terms of population per square mile."

I think he DISagrees with that, in spite of the 8 states ranking 49, 46, 45, 43, 40, 36, 34, and 19 in population density.

if he ignores my direct point again, then I don't see a path forward, to be honest. he's just choosing to ignore important points that disagree with him - oh, the irony."

................

to reiterate, I write about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile"

and the supposed rebuke - again, backed by the peanut gallery rooting for the laundry, so no need to digest any of these posts, is:

"even once population density is accounted for, there is a strong effect from party governance on shutdown status"

huh, the sheep here see a BIG difference in those observations - depending, again, on the laundry

..............

look, if you guys want to go full-on circle-jerk here, I am more than willing to stand down.

that seems to be the prevailing sentiment.

as I noted, if we've lost even Seitzer, then there's nothing left here except the orthodoxy celebrating itself.

anyone else is just in the way.

[DMT]

look, if you guys want to go full-on circle-jerk here, I am more than willing to stand down.

that seems to be the prevailing sentiment.

as I noted, if we've lost even Seitzer, then there's nothing left here except the orthodoxy celebrating itself.

anyone else is just in the way.

So, since your argument is thoroughly defeated by reason, KS is now just another libtard like the rest of us? Obviously I'm being facetious but it's bizarre that you can't just acknowledge when you're wrong. YOU are the one being the cheerleader...for "Independence".

[Kevin Seitzer]

Man, I hope that's the case. I'm very skeptical. You could see a couple weeks ago that Washington's rate of increase was slowing, but Washington hasn't reached its peak yet. New York is just beginning to show signs of its rate of increase slowing. I haven't seen any signs of slowing of the growth in Detroit or New Orleans yet. And on top of that, other areas like Chicago, Indianopolis, DC, Georgia, Florida, etc., keep growing unabated. Oklahoma is a mess. I think some other states that were slow to shut down are going to take off in the next couple weeks. It would be a great mercy if things slowed in New York. But I don't believe we're a week away from the peak in many, if any, areas of the country outside of Washington, not by any means.

I'm guessing the peak is more like four weeks away. But I'm not an expert epidemiological modeler, so I could be wrong. I'd feel a lot better if I heard it coming from Fauci instead of Birx. Birx displays some tendencies to want to say what will make Trump feel good at the expense of telling the truth. I hope that's not what she's doing here.

I see after reading some follow-up that she is predicting that we have already seen the peak in new cases in NYC/New Orleans/Detroit and that she expects their peak in mortality in a week. I find that even harder to believe, given that Washington state has yet to see its peak in mortality.

I also don't know what gives her the idea that any of the three areas she mentioned have already seen their peak in new cases. I would want to see a downward trend in new cases for at least 3-4 non-weekend days before I'd believe we had seen a peak. New York set a record for new cases yesterday. Michigan set a record for new cases the day before. Louisiana's high in new cases was three days ago, dropped two days ago, and resurged yesterday. Washington state has been flat in new cases for basically nine days (500-700 new cases on non-weekend days). I guess you can call that a "peak"? It's not really a true peak if it never goes back down, is it?

[chancellor]

Total reported deaths for all China is only 3326. I saw another video that said total for Wuhan was something like 2600 or so. That's the figure I was using.

Works for me. I suspect I just misread the Wuhan numbers in this case

[Judge Jude]

incredible not only that Seitzer cannot, or will not, directly answer my response:

"and what part of my observation about "very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" are you disagreeing with, exactly?"

.... but also that, again, such a refusal by is taken as a declaration of victory by the spectators.

we are officially down the rabbit hole.