There’s Mr Moderate-of-all-Moderates with his famous both sides schtick again.
Open you mind...you will be amazed at what you can see.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There’s Mr Moderate-of-all-Moderates with his famous both sides schtick again.
It appears the takeaway from your perspective is testing is the key first step in dealing with Covid-19. Yet we know that somehow a jump of this naturally occurring virus happened in late 2019 in Wuhan China. The first case of what proved to be a highly contagious and stealthy (asymptomatic individuals means significant undercounting of actual cases) virus came as a surprise to everyone. It would seem in this situation the virus would have been able to establish widespread distribution before testing was even contemplated. Yet China was able to hold their deaths to 3/1M, & effectively contain the virus. Unfortunately China is not providing test numbers which would underscore the critical nature of testing.
Insight from someone closer to China than the rest of us who view this board regarding how this miraculous containment was achieved would be helpful.
Open you mind...you will be amazed at what you can see.
That’s something a liberal would say. Try to be more moderate.
You may want to put some thought into what being an independent moderate actually means.
After you, Mr Moderate
You may want to put some thought into what being an independent moderate actually means.
Not going to spoon feed you. I have been where you are, it is a choice you have to make.
The problem with being a moderate hit home to me with Trump's election. I spent a lot of time railing against both sides. The problem though is best summed up by a quote from Stewart in Big Bang. It is wrong to call a tomato a vegetable. It is very wrong to call it a suspension bridge.
The side that voted against Trump was the vegetable side, the other side is the suspension bridge side. Just saying both are wrong does not do justice to the magnitude of wrong.
Court’s definition of moderate is to point out the flaws in everyone and proclaim those flaws are all equally bad. That’s not moderate. That’s being lazy and cowardly at best.
The problem with being a moderate hit home to me with Trump's election. I spent a lot of time railing against both sides. The problem though is best summed up by a quote from Stewart in Big Bang. It is wrong to call a tomato a vegetable. It is very wrong to call it a suspension bridge.
The side that voted against Trump was the vegetable side, the other side is the suspension bridge side. Just saying both are wrong does not do justice to the magnitude of wrong.
I've talked about steaming piles of broccoli and steaming piles of shit. Both are unpalatable, but...The problem with being a moderate hit home to me with Trump's election. I spent a lot of time railing against both sides. The problem though is best summed up by a quote from Stewart in Big Bang. It is wrong to call a tomato a vegetable. It is very wrong to call it a suspension bridge.
The side that voted against Trump was the vegetable side, the other side is the suspension bridge side. Just saying both are wrong does not do justice to the magnitude of wrong.
How convenient...and lazy
I find the labels "liberal", "conservative", and "moderate" to lend themselves to being one of the major reasons we don't listen to each other. This includes writing off candidates and ideas which actually may have merit.
Unfortunately labeling starts with a candidate having to declare himself either a Democrat or Republican which automatically means all too many won't take his ideas seriously. Even worse many will further attach pejorative labels such as Nazi or Socialist once the candidate identifies with a party.
I think you’re right. This would be in keeping with the studies from southern cal and Stanford that predict hundreds of thousands of people have already been infected in their respective cities/counties.Back to the statistics... the virus is likely way underappreciated in terms of its infectivity and overrated in terms of its lethality.
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/life-he...t-missouri-have-tested-positive-for-covid-19/
(MONET) — State health officials have announced that 359 employees and contract workers at a massive pork processing plant in northwest Missouri’s St. Joseph have now tested positive for the coronavirus.
The state Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) announced the latest statistics on Saturday, adding that results from the comprehensive testing continue to arrive on a rolling basis. Additional updates are expected this weekend.
A spokeswoman for DHSS, Lisa Cox, tells Missourinet the vast majority of the Triumph Foods employees were asymptomatic.
Back to the statistics... the virus is likely way underappreciated in terms of its infectivity and overrated in terms of its lethality.
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/life-he...t-missouri-have-tested-positive-for-covid-19/
(MONET) — State health officials have announced that 359 employees and contract workers at a massive pork processing plant in northwest Missouri’s St. Joseph have now tested positive for the coronavirus.
The state Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) announced the latest statistics on Saturday, adding that results from the comprehensive testing continue to arrive on a rolling basis. Additional updates are expected this weekend.
A spokeswoman for DHSS, Lisa Cox, tells Missourinet the vast majority of the Triumph Foods employees were asymptomatic.
I would bet most people consider themselves moderate, reasonable, respectful, understanding, whatever word you want. People are afraid to say they are partisan, like it’s some horrible affliction. The same people who are too afraid to say something bad about one group without saying something bad about another.
I’m partisan. I’m bias. I have no problem saying it and have never tried to hide it.
I find the labels "liberal", "conservative", and "moderate" to lend themselves to being one of the major reasons we don't listen to each other. This includes writing off candidates and ideas which actually may have merit.
Unfortunately labeling starts with a candidate having to declare himself either a Democrat or Republican which automatically means all too many won't take his ideas seriously. Even worse many will further attach pejorative labels such as Nazi or Socialist once the candidate identifies with a party.
This article describes six types of bias which makes us less rational when it comes to our politics.Upon seeing the article comes from the Huffington Post a person's bias might reject reading it. This rejection is an example of how a certain type of bias can interfere with using rational judgement.biased
At any rate, BHR, hope you and others check this article out. It ends with the following,
So while the majority of us may be prone to these errors in rational judgement, we can also be more aware of them. And who knows, if we can manage to re-rationalise how we think, act, and treat one another, perhaps our politics will follow suit.
I have zero problem being partisan or bias. I have no problem with others being partisan or bias. If someone can back up a claim with facts/data, I’m biased towards listening to him/her. It’s the people who are too chickenshit to admit their partisanship or biases that I don’t care for.
I want to know how many have been infected. The number of deaths in the context of those already infected is more meaningful to me, without obviously meaning to diminish the number of deaths. It’s a staggering number.
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington (IHME), says it has revised its models for predicting coronavirus, and is now forecasting at least 134,000 deaths in the US by August 4.
Speaking on Monday, IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray said they have had a “major revision in our modeling strategy.”
His team is now using a hybrid approach, and is gathering “mobility data as it gets reported through four different cell phone providers.” He said most importantly, they are using data to “reflect the effect of premature relaxation of social distance, which has a substantial effect.”
“The effect of this shift in modeling framework, is that the number of deaths that we forecast out to August 4, now increases to 134,000 deaths,” Murray said.
Murray said there is “longer tail of deaths,” meaning it will be a slower decline in some states.
He said he is aware of reports of other coronavirus models that project a sharp increase in US cases and deaths, but added IHME numbers are “nowhere near that level.”
The New York Times said a Trump administration model projected a steep rise in cases and deaths, projecting about 3,000 daily deaths by June 1. A federal spokesperson tells CNN the modeling numbers in the report obtained by the Times are not from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Our numbers are nowhere near that level on June 1,” Murray said. He added they are projecting 890 daily deaths by June 1.
Murray said while IHME has heard about the model, “our understanding is that model will not be released.”
He continued: “I don't think there's a consensus within the government on different modeling groups on that model.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am amazed it’s so low to be honest. Shortly after the lockdown ends, this is going to tear through society again. Even at current death rates, it hits that number well before August.
I thought I was misreading a zero. The US is hitting 100k by end May? So that's 34K spread over roughly 3 months?
Why do we keep paying attention to this model?
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington (IHME), says it has revised its models for predicting coronavirus, and is now forecasting at least 134,000 deaths in the US by August 4.
Speaking on Monday, IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray said they have had a “major revision in our modeling strategy.”
His team is now using a hybrid approach, and is gathering “mobility data as it gets reported through four different cell phone providers.” He said most importantly, they are using data to “reflect the effect of premature relaxation of social distance, which has a substantial effect.”
“The effect of this shift in modeling framework, is that the number of deaths that we forecast out to August 4, now increases to 134,000 deaths,” Murray said.
Murray said there is “longer tail of deaths,” meaning it will be a slower decline in some states.
He said he is aware of reports of other coronavirus models that project a sharp increase in US cases and deaths, but added IHME numbers are “nowhere near that level.”
The New York Times said a Trump administration model projected a steep rise in cases and deaths, projecting about 3,000 daily deaths by June 1. A federal spokesperson tells CNN the modeling numbers in the report obtained by the Times are not from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Our numbers are nowhere near that level on June 1,” Murray said. He added they are projecting 890 daily deaths by June 1.
Murray said while IHME has heard about the model, “our understanding is that model will not be released.”
He continued: “I don't think there's a consensus within the government on different modeling groups on that model.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am amazed it’s so low to be honest. Shortly after the lockdown ends, this is going to tear through society again. Even at current death rates, it hits that number well before August.
I thought I was misreading a zero. The US is hitting 100k by end May? So that's 34K spread over roughly 3 months?
Because it's the one that the Covid task force said tracked closely with their internal projections.Why do we keep paying attention to this model?
I want to know how many have been infected. The number of deaths in the context of those already infected is more meaningful to me, without obviously meaning to diminish the number of deaths. It’s a staggering number.
Politics is not a thing that happens to us like the weather. It’s a profession that people have engaged in since we stopped clubbing each other over the head for a handful of acorns. If you think “politics” is more “political” than it was in the beginning of our Republic, this is because you don’t know our history. And if you’re unable to locate the source of our current dysfunction, then your view that it’s the amorphous idea of “politics” that’s the problem Is just more evidence that vacuous bromides are a waste of space.BHE, given our divided country and dysfunctional Congress because of it, I concede your take on bias represents a majority of active voters.
Please note, I didn't say a majority of Americans. I would argue many potential voters don't participate because the bias prevalent in our politics simply turns them off.
So much for the value we all once shared. That value being one of the foundations upon which our country was founded. That value being democracy as in the right to vote so that our elected officials reflect the values of a majority. In my view, it isn't really a majority when politics drives so many from participating.
As even your own links suggest (you should try reading them, as I did), the actual numbers on COVID-19 infections and deaths will ultimately prove to be much higher than the current counted totals. Thanks for playing, though. I know you're doing the best you can.And, COVID-19 death numbers are not being reported accurately as well.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-13/ten-reasons-to-doubt-the-covid-19-data
https://www.sungazette.com/news/top...19-records-with-data-from-hospitals-counties/
It's always nice when a Cardinals fan comes along and justifies what you already think about Cardinals fans.As even your own links suggest (you should try reading them, as I did), the actual numbers on COVID-19 infections and deaths will ultimately prove to be much higher than the current counted totals. Thanks for playing, though. I know you're doing the best you can.
I understand that but the model has been off over and over.Because it's the one that the Covid task force said tracked closely with their internal projections.
BHE, given our divided country and dysfunctional Congress because of it, I concede your take on bias represents a majority of active voters.
Please note, I didn't say a majority of Americans. I would argue many potential voters don't participate because the bias prevalent in our politics simply turns them off.
So much for the value we all once shared. That value being one of the foundations upon which our country was founded. That value being democracy as in the right to vote so that our elected officials reflect the values of a majority. In my view, it isn't really a majority when politics drives so many from participating.
Huh? I think it's been pretty spot on, especially considering the circumstances.I understand that but the model has been off over and over.
You think the IHME model has been spot on?Huh? I think it's been pretty spot on, especially considering the circumstances.
I hate to ask, but I'm genuinely curious. What preponderance of evidence have you found that would lead you to be a self described economic conservative and social liberal?Of course not. Ultimately we find ourselves needing to make a decision at times. I chose to vote against Trump and will do so again. Being a moderate allows you the luxury of making decisions based upon the preponderance of evidence rather than the message from biased sources.
I hate to ask, but I'm genuinely curious. What preponderance of evidence have you found that would lead you to be a self described economic conservative and social liberal?
Is there a preponderance of evidence- for instance- that you should be pro-choice? When someone on this board claims to be pro-life, I shrug my shoulders and question myself, that they may be right. I haven't read any evidence that I should say, this side is right and the other wrong.
Economically, maybe you have a different definition of economic conservative, but I find it impossible to find any evidence that economic conservatives have been a positive in any meaningful way for their own stated goals. What evidence is there?
Did a rising tide lift all boats? Did tax cuts pay for themselves? Why was 1979 the height of U.S. manufacturing jobs? Why did CEO pay and income/wealth disparity skyrocket beginning in 1987? What was the top marginal tax rate in the 1920's? Why wasn't their a conservative president from Hoover until Reagan(the period that defines American greatness)?
Look at the chart for the velocity of M1 moneystock. Look at income/wealth disparity. Look at the chart for manufacturing jobs/outsourcing/guestworkers. Look at the debt/deficit that each President inherited and what they left for the next guy.
Give me a history book to read. Post an economic chart from FRED and explain exactly where and how economic conservativism has led us to a net positive. I've done a lot of homework, and I can't find this unbiased, moderate preponderance of evidence.
Maybe you're expecting more from it than I am. It's a model, after all, not a magic eight ball. I think it's been quite useful so far.You think the IHME model has been spot on?
From where I sit it has been off nationally and state by state.
Maybe you're expecting more from it than I am. It's a model, after all, not a magic eight ball. I think it's been quite useful so far.