Corona Virus

[Sour Masher]

Ha, maybe I am more optimistic than you . If we can't all agree that South Carolina isn't the "unique" special snowflake that its governor thinks it is, and that SC isn't unique in terms of this virus and thus should not follow separate rules from everyone else, there is no hope for dialogue.

Actually, I'd love for someone to lay out for me why SC is such a special, special, unique place in terms of this virus, if anyone cares/dares to try.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Ha, maybe I am more optimistic that you . If we can't all agree that South Carolina isn't the "unique" special snowflake that its governor thinks it is, and that SC isn't unique in terms of this virus and thus should not follow separate rules from everyone else, there is no hope for dialogue.

Actually, I'd love for someone to lay out for me why SC is such a special, special, unique place in terms of this virus, if anyone cares/dares to try.

Stop Deflecting!

[revo]

This argument is so bizarre on so many levels, I can’t even comprehend a defense of JJ’s point of view. It just ignores so many realities, such as:
- even if the states are not densely populated, some of their major cities ARE;
- not locking down allows so much more free movement to other states that are, thus spreading the virus back into the states doing the right thing;
- even now, polls show Republicans STILL do not believe a major outbreak can happen in their area (just 23% agree, compared to 65% for Dems);
- many GOP governors very reluctantly changed their tone only as the GOP dumbass in chief did.

So it’s patently obvious that the GOP governor holdouts are still kowtowing to their constituents, as the vast majority of them still don’t believe this is as dangerous as their far wiser Dem counterparts do,

[Judge Jude]

first off, the most important post in this thread was a number of pages back about how different types of people communicate very differently.

so I have to realize that posters here truly believe they are being "direct" in their responses.

also, my post about how all 7 states with the highest death tolls have Democratic Governors was intended to be so obviously "accurate, but so misleading" that it would help clarify why the "all 8 states R Governors" comment was the similar.

but that's not how it was read, I can see that. so that was a crossed-wires communication.

as for population density being supposedly misleading, every single R Governor in a state that is in the top 33 states in population density (except South Carolina, which we all agree is bizarre) has issued statewide "stay at home" edicts. that is simply NOT a coincidence.

now, if the population densities of the "holdout" states ran the gamut from dense to sparse, then clearly population density is no factor. it's just not the case, however.

one mildly encouraging note for me is that not a single poster has yet addressed this point:

"I posted this: "There are very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile"

KS then characterized this statement by claiming: "I think this should effectively refute JJ's argument that party-shutdown link is coincidental."

the deafening silence, I hope, is just a recognition that one can't defend the indefensible - that me saying there is a strong trend of state politics and the quarantine decisions is really me saying that "party-shutdown link is coincidental."

what's discouraging, though, is that the circle remains unbroken.

if you want to try what I understand as "direct," I would be extremely grateful if anyone would either agree or disagree with KS's characterization. and if you agree, can you elaborate on how what I posted squares with "coincidental?"

thanks, and I'll hang up and wait for your responses.

[fuhrdog]

https://twitter.com/WLNSAlexSims/sta...087497217?s=20

[Kevin Seitzer]

"There are very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile."

is that true, or is it not true?

1. That is true in a narrow sense, but misleading, because it ignores the trend toward Republican governorship in less densely populated states. The two effects are correlated. Using a statistical model to tease out which of the two effects has a stronger relationship with shutdown status, the political party has the larger effect.

2. That ignores the context that you made that statement as an argument that madducks was being misleading in what he said. Madducks was not being misleading.

It doesn't feel like you're trying to get at the truth here. It feels like you're trying to win a contrived argument on technical grounds. I don't really want to continue putting any more effort into that argument for argument's sake.

[Kevin Seitzer]

BTW Kevin, do your numbers take into account that NY, CA and WA are all major international entry states?

I don't understand your question. Could you clarify? What numbers are you talking about?

[revo]

It should be noted that the GOP governors of said states are not using population density as the reason why they’re not adhering to it, but rather it’s the intrusion of large government. In addition, aides to these governors have said only the chief Dope would convince them otherwise.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/04/politics/republican-governors-stay-at-home-orders-coronavirus/index.html

[Kevin Seitzer]

A separate point you and KS and FS and others have disagreed on is more open ended and thus more interesting to me, and that is, are these governors right or wrong? The argument is, does the spread of this thing get impacted by the natural social distancing that occurs in sparsely populated areas? That is an argument I'd like to see data on, because my sense of logic tells me that is probably does (but at FS pointed out, even sparsely populated states have urban centers). I can be convinced either way on this, if someone brings the facts. Either way, I hope we can all agree on the fact that South Carolina not shutting down is egregious.

I do think this is an interesting question. I tend to believe these governors are wrong. The reason I believe that is that (1) this virus is very contagious, moreso than anything we've had experience with on this scale in a few decades, and (2) because it spreads without symptoms for several days, and beyond that it can take a couple weeks for the healthcare crisis to reveal itself. By the time these states can confirm there is a problem within their rural areas, the consequences will have become much more severe than they could have been had they shut down earlier.

I do believe the spread into these more rural states (less so for South Carolina, Arkansas, Iowa) was delayed relative to the urban centers. I also believe that the transmission rate will continue to be lower in the rural areas as compared to highly urbanized places like New York City. However, if our understanding of the contagiousness of the virus is roughly correct, then it will still spread fairly rapidly in those states (compared to things like the flu), and the same reasons for shutting down in the urban centers will apply to the rural areas. If you gave New York or New Orleans or Detroit an extra two weeks to go back in time and start their shutdowns earlier,wouldn't they jump at the chance?

[Judge Jude]

It doesn't feel like you're trying to get at the truth here. It feels like you're trying to win a contrived argument on technical grounds. I don't really want to continue putting any more effort into that argument for argument's sake.

you responded to one part, so we're off to a good start. but if you were "trying to get at the truth," then you - hell, or anyone - would have addressed the elephant in the room.

does "There are very strong trends of statewide quarantines both in terms of state politics and in population per square mile" square with our claim of: "I think this should effectively refute JJ's argument that party-shutdown link is coincidental." ?

there's nothing "technical" about it. you refuse to own up to your mischaracterization, adding insult to injury. you just made something up that was inaccurate, and you won't admit it.

so be it. but notice that no one is backing up your claim - as much as they long to side with you on everything else.

I'm in a business where it is extremely important to be careful with not putting words in people's mouths - and to fix errors ASAP. evasion is not an option. it is here, but that doesn't make it right.

[DMT]

Ok I will acknowledge that KS mischaracterized your argument when you acknowledge that you actually didn't offer any argument to begin with in your first response. You have stated multiple times that it should've been obvious what point you were making yet no one else understood it as you intended.

[Judge Jude]

so something like, "first off, the most important post in this thread was a number of pages back about how different types of people communicate very differently.

so I have to realize that posters here truly believe they are being "direct" in their responses.

my post about how all 7 states with the highest death tolls have Democratic Governors was intended to be so obviously 'accurate, but so misleading' that it would help clarify why the "all 8 states R Governors" comment had some of that same defect.

but that's not how it was read, I can see that. so that was a crossed-wires communication."

would that help?

[DMT]

so something like, "my post about how all 7 states with the highest death tolls have Democratic Governors was intended to be so obviously 'accurate, but so misleading' that it would help clarify why the "all 8 states R Governors" comment had some of that same defect.

but that's not how it was read, I can see that. so that was a crossed-wires communication."

would that help?

Yes it helps but you're focusing on one comment from KS that was actually understandable in the context of responding to your initial explanation-free post, albeit off-the-mark from your intention. And, again, Madducks' statement was not "so misleading". It still seems like you believe it was.

[Sour Masher]

It sure will be good if the models are right that we are at or close to an infection rate apex. Can't wait to see if it is so.

[Sour Masher]

Here is an interesting but scary read on the unusual pathogenesis of of this disease. While it is more deadly for the elderly, it seems to affect some younger people harshly. More cases of healthy younger folks with no known preexisting conditions dying are emerging. Until we know why, it is something younger folks really need to be mindful of. This article puts forth several possible theories and none of them are things you are look at yourself in the mirror and know. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...le/ar-BB12c0gu:

"You know, you get so many people who do well and then some people who just, bingo, they're on a respirator, they're on ECMO (a cardio-pulmonary machine) and they're dead," Fauci told me when I interviewed him for my podcast, "Coronavirus: Fact vs. Fiction."

"I mean, the dichotomy between that, there's something there, Sanjay, that we're missing from a pathogenesis standpoint. And I don't think it's only if you're elderly or if you have underlying conditions. There's something else going on there that hopefully we'll ultimately figure out."