5 ms·

That is malign use of data, undifferentiated by vastly different locales and policies across the nation, and not even accounting for per-capita.

bena 5y ago
I don't think differentiating is going to help your argument any. We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings. And it is not looking good for one of them.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings Which group do you think is doing worse? Whatever that opinion is, it's not supported by the data: Highest covid deaths per 100,000 are in Mississippi at 317 but New Jersey is #2 at 308. Alabama is high at 286 but NY is right there at 284. Arkansas is terrible at 252, but Massachussets is worse at 269. Texas at 221 is better than Connecticut at 238 and much better than Rhode Island at 266, but worse than Illinois at 215, which itself is worse than Ohio at 187. Given the disparities in poverty and obesity and how both of these lead to much higher mortality rates, the red states are doing much better than the blue states on a wealth/obesity adjusted basis, and are the same on an absolute basis. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi... I suspect the mistake you are making is the same kind of observational bias that is common in these culture wars -- e.g. bad things happening to your side are a terrible tragedy whereas bad things happening to the other side is proof of their misguided policies. But the facts don't show any meaningful difference in total deaths, even though deaths in any given week swing wildly as the disease burns through some states before others. E.g. NY was hit hardest in the beginning, and then it spread to other states when NY was already recovering, then those states recovered and it spread to others, etc. It would be extremely foolish to look at only a snapshot in time rather than cumulative deaths since 2019.
  - bena 5y ago
    You know doing it from the start of things is a bit misleading, right? Of course you do. You do it because it misleads. Do the daily average. Do it since April. Because that's what it means when one says "we're approaching". Things are changing in two different directions. You only think it's foolish to disregard the rolling average rather than the cumulative deaths because it's only by considering the cumulative deaths can you ignore the pattern forming. COVID is becoming an epidemic of the unvaccinated. Even with daily variations, the trends are moving in two directions. That's what the facts are showing. Disregard them at your own peril.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > You know doing it from the start of things is a bit misleading, right? No, this is absolutely false. Please stop spreading misinformation. You know as well as I do that diseases move from region to region, and burn through some regions quickly while they slowly move through others. What matters is the total deaths after everything is said and done, and you must understand this -- everyone else does. There is no advantage to having your population killed earlier rather than later, or later rather than earlier. Please stop misleading people in the arena of public health - total deaths per capita during the entire course of the disease is how reasonable people measure the toll of the disease and the overall success or failure of any approach.
      - bena 5y ago
        No, but as we learn about the disease, how to mitigate the spread, and develop vaccines, there should be a uniform decline in the trend across all areas. We are not seeing that. Some areas are being affected as if they are doing almost nothing about it. Whereas other areas are hardly being affected anymore. You absolutely must track trends and not just "since the start". By your logic, Blockbuster is a thriving company because, since its start, it made a lot of money.
        hirako2000 5y ago
        No, since way before the end, blockbuster was loosing money. That makes it a mediocre company. Except somewhere after the start.

bena 5y ago

I don't think differentiating is going to help your argument any. We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings. And it is not looking good for one of them.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings Which group do you think is doing worse? Whatever that opinion is, it's not supported by the data: Highest covid deaths per 100,000 are in Mississippi at 317 but New Jersey is #2 at 308. Alabama is high at 286 but NY is right there at 284. Arkansas is terrible at 252, but Massachussets is worse at 269. Texas at 221 is better than Connecticut at 238 and much better than Rhode Island at 266, but worse than Illinois at 215, which itself is worse than Ohio at 187. Given the disparities in poverty and obesity and how both of these lead to much higher mortality rates, the red states are doing much better than the blue states on a wealth/obesity adjusted basis, and are the same on an absolute basis. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi... I suspect the mistake you are making is the same kind of observational bias that is common in these culture wars -- e.g. bad things happening to your side are a terrible tragedy whereas bad things happening to the other side is proof of their misguided policies. But the facts don't show any meaningful difference in total deaths, even though deaths in any given week swing wildly as the disease burns through some states before others. E.g. NY was hit hardest in the beginning, and then it spread to other states when NY was already recovering, then those states recovered and it spread to others, etc. It would be extremely foolish to look at only a snapshot in time rather than cumulative deaths since 2019.
- bena 5y ago
  You know doing it from the start of things is a bit misleading, right? Of course you do. You do it because it misleads. Do the daily average. Do it since April. Because that's what it means when one says "we're approaching". Things are changing in two different directions. You only think it's foolish to disregard the rolling average rather than the cumulative deaths because it's only by considering the cumulative deaths can you ignore the pattern forming. COVID is becoming an epidemic of the unvaccinated. Even with daily variations, the trends are moving in two directions. That's what the facts are showing. Disregard them at your own peril.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > You know doing it from the start of things is a bit misleading, right? No, this is absolutely false. Please stop spreading misinformation. You know as well as I do that diseases move from region to region, and burn through some regions quickly while they slowly move through others. What matters is the total deaths after everything is said and done, and you must understand this -- everyone else does. There is no advantage to having your population killed earlier rather than later, or later rather than earlier. Please stop misleading people in the arena of public health - total deaths per capita during the entire course of the disease is how reasonable people measure the toll of the disease and the overall success or failure of any approach.
    - bena 5y ago
      No, but as we learn about the disease, how to mitigate the spread, and develop vaccines, there should be a uniform decline in the trend across all areas. We are not seeing that. Some areas are being affected as if they are doing almost nothing about it. Whereas other areas are hardly being affected anymore. You absolutely must track trends and not just "since the start". By your logic, Blockbuster is a thriving company because, since its start, it made a lot of money.
      - hirako2000 5y ago
        No, since way before the end, blockbuster was loosing money. That makes it a mediocre company. Except somewhere after the start.