Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More dangerous, anti-intellectual attacks on expertise. Comparing national political polling that fails to account for the electoral college, with the opinions of experts in pandemics is a non sequitur.
"1/4 - I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.
2/4 -This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.
3/4 - My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.
4/4 - Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand)."
Gee, that sounds nothing like what the OP posted. Is the OP lying? It appears so. In other words, business as usual on CD.
So, the OP's premise is that since the NYT gave hillary a roughtly 5/6ths chance of winning that the outcome invalidates all other projections by anyone, anytime, anywhere....that they don't want to believe.
Double O, 5/6ths reporting for duty with their license to be willfully ignorant.
So, the OP's premise is that since the NYT gave hillary a roughtly 5/6ths chance of winning that the outcome invalidates all other projections by anyone, anytime, anywhere....that they don't want to believe.
Double O, 5/6ths reporting for duty with their license to be willfully ignorant.
I don't care about Hillary, lets talk about the virus... Tell me how you know more than the top epidemiologist at the CDC?
I am willing to wager there are people on these fora that know more about math and statistics than the top epidemiologist at the CDC. Being a general expert on how a virus works doesn't translate to having the skills to create statistical models.
They were inaccurate and totally worthless anyway.
I am willing to wager there are people on these fora that know more about math and statistics than the top epidemiologist at the CDC. Being a general expert on how a virus works doesn't translate to having the skills to create statistical models.
They were inaccurate and totally worthless anyway.
The models with the high death tolls were based on complete non intervention.
Now Trump is claiming credit for the "billions" (yes we know he meant millions) of live saved due to "his" interventions. He claims that the 2.2 million American deaths may have been an underestimate. So he is agreeing with the experts.
So Trump is saying this type of stuff.... basking in his glory.... but do Trump supporters call him out on it?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6031
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
You know, that statement literally says Donald Trump has a chance of winning..... Try going back to math class.
I dont think most of the people in this forum understand what "chance" is. Its one of the oddest arguments that keeps being made in this forum.
I doubt they would misunderstand if we were talking about a hail mary pass in football and the likelyhood of someone coming down with the pass in the endzone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.