4 ms·

> pandemics are relatively rare and distinct. So they're a classic example of a bad thing to average... so you pick the worst one for your example? this is ex

> pandemics are relatively rare and distinct. So they're a classic example of a bad thing to average... so you pick the worst one for your example? this is exactly what averaging is for, but averages need to be interpreted with standard deviation, and sure, there may be better statistics to use too, like if we're going to use worst-case, then we should see a rank ordered list statistics are useful because they tell a story, but they can't tell the full story. Believing the science has always meant "by being skeptical" and it's irritating that so many in the mainstream don't want the narrative to be poked at

klyrs 4y ago
Looking at the worst in history establishes that we have experienced much worse, and that expecting a black-swan event to last no longer than average is unsupported.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - klyrs 4y ago
    I'm not saying anything other than you're misapplying statistics when the number of samples is too small to have any degree of confidence. > you're not saying that the spike protein was exceptionally dangerous are you? You're going way overboard with this.
    - fsckboy 4y ago
      sorry, but taking the mean does not have a sample size, it's the entire population, it has all the significance that exists. Stop trying to tell me about statistics.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        > Stop trying to tell me about statistics. Stop lying about them. Your statement about the sample size being the entire population is exactly wrong when the population size increases.
      - majormajor 4y ago
        "it has all the significance that exists" in this case is a weird way of saying "there simply isn't much significance in this are", but OK! You brought up the Spanish flu which is a GREAT example of how you're blatantly abusing stats in another way too! You're fixated on one stat: length. The Spanish flu killed 1 in 150 Americans. Covid killed about 1.1M so far, which is 1 in 300. So if we are choosing to treat those as comparables, what happened? We traded a year of duration - and most of 2022 was pretty damn back-to-normal compared to 2020 and 2021 in a de facto sense even if we "officially" called it a pandemic still - for 1.1 million deaths instead of 2.2 million deaths. That seems pretty good, no? Or maybe all pandemics are different after all?
        iudqnolq 4y ago
        Note also that there's no rigorous argument COVID lasted three years. Biden's plan to end the COVID emergency in about a month is a political decision. Right now a significant number of people are dying from COVID and there's no restrictions on everyday life. I expect the same to be true in two months when the state of emergency is lifted. So either COVID ended a while back or it won't end for a while. I happen to believe the latter, but regardless I don't see a case for 3 years.
        fsckboy 4y ago
        >Note also... Note also that I wasn't building any argument around "3" years so your argument undermines nothing. Note also that your belief that it will be longer than 3 years is you arguing for a greater disparity to point out. Why are you arguing this way? Next you're going to note that I use the spelling gray instead of grey to describe the matter that seems to be lacking here. what is your stake in this? why can't you tolerate questioning of science? Questioning science is at the heart of science.
        fsckboy 4y ago
        "whole population has all the significance that exists" was an entirely correct and appropriate rejoinder to the extremely flawed argument that had been made which you seem to still be defending. I don't think you are arguing honestly at all. No matter what stat I were to mention, you'd start screaming "you're fixated on one stat", then you ignore all the myriad medical treatment options available 100 years ago to now as if that wouldn't obscure the point your trying to make. Again, it's dishonest, you're dishonest. If you go back to my first post I raise interesting an important questions. What are you so scared of? You must have some stake in the outcome, some stake that cannot bear normal scientific inquiry.
iudqnolq 4y ago
I made two arguments: 1) Proof by counterexample that not all pandemics end quickly 2) When we actively intervene many pandemics end quickly. This doesn't prove the intervention was necessary, but it obviously doesn't prove the intervention was unnecessary either. In analogy form: "Most people are paid a salary. This shows working is unnecessary. I'll quit my job and keep getting paid an average salary".

klyrs 4y ago

Looking at the worst in history establishes that we have experienced much worse, and that expecting a black-swan event to last no longer than average is unsupported.

fsckboy 4y ago
[flagged]
- klyrs 4y ago
  I'm not saying anything other than you're misapplying statistics when the number of samples is too small to have any degree of confidence. > you're not saying that the spike protein was exceptionally dangerous are you? You're going way overboard with this.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    sorry, but taking the mean does not have a sample size, it's the entire population, it has all the significance that exists. Stop trying to tell me about statistics.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      > Stop trying to tell me about statistics. Stop lying about them. Your statement about the sample size being the entire population is exactly wrong when the population size increases.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      "it has all the significance that exists" in this case is a weird way of saying "there simply isn't much significance in this are", but OK! You brought up the Spanish flu which is a GREAT example of how you're blatantly abusing stats in another way too! You're fixated on one stat: length. The Spanish flu killed 1 in 150 Americans. Covid killed about 1.1M so far, which is 1 in 300. So if we are choosing to treat those as comparables, what happened? We traded a year of duration - and most of 2022 was pretty damn back-to-normal compared to 2020 and 2021 in a de facto sense even if we "officially" called it a pandemic still - for 1.1 million deaths instead of 2.2 million deaths. That seems pretty good, no? Or maybe all pandemics are different after all?
      - iudqnolq 4y ago
        Note also that there's no rigorous argument COVID lasted three years. Biden's plan to end the COVID emergency in about a month is a political decision. Right now a significant number of people are dying from COVID and there's no restrictions on everyday life. I expect the same to be true in two months when the state of emergency is lifted. So either COVID ended a while back or it won't end for a while. I happen to believe the latter, but regardless I don't see a case for 3 years.
        fsckboy 4y ago
        >Note also... Note also that I wasn't building any argument around "3" years so your argument undermines nothing. Note also that your belief that it will be longer than 3 years is you arguing for a greater disparity to point out. Why are you arguing this way? Next you're going to note that I use the spelling gray instead of grey to describe the matter that seems to be lacking here. what is your stake in this? why can't you tolerate questioning of science? Questioning science is at the heart of science.
      - fsckboy 4y ago
        "whole population has all the significance that exists" was an entirely correct and appropriate rejoinder to the extremely flawed argument that had been made which you seem to still be defending. I don't think you are arguing honestly at all. No matter what stat I were to mention, you'd start screaming "you're fixated on one stat", then you ignore all the myriad medical treatment options available 100 years ago to now as if that wouldn't obscure the point your trying to make. Again, it's dishonest, you're dishonest. If you go back to my first post I raise interesting an important questions. What are you so scared of? You must have some stake in the outcome, some stake that cannot bear normal scientific inquiry.

iudqnolq 4y ago

I made two arguments: 1) Proof by counterexample that not all pandemics end quickly 2) When we actively intervene many pandemics end quickly. This doesn't prove the intervention was necessary, but it obviously doesn't prove the intervention was unnecessary either. In analogy form: "Most people are paid a salary. This shows working is unnecessary. I'll quit my job and keep getting paid an average salary".