Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
I did read it. This media source is a bit bumfuzzled about the per capita thing. To explain this phenomenon it offers quotes about the fact that the spread is the same, implying that bigger countries like the USA will eventually suffer proportionally. But they overlook the data that indicates this isn't the case and isn't projected to be the case.
Even allowing for time, the US is projected to come in far under many other countries.
Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
The same question could be asked in reverse: Does your right to liberty have more importance than somebody else's right to life? Half of our population thinks so on a scale vastly greater than Covid-19.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It isn't clear what this comment is aimed at, nor who, but it's inappropriate here. People disagree as to what and how and when but this community isn't cavalier about life and death issues.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Encircled It does sound like the deaths of thousands isn't as important as your personal freedom for about a year, but maybe I'm reading it wrong?
I guess it isn't fair to expect non-Americans to know our history and this illustrious quote:
"Give me Liberty or give me Death!"
Who says the loss of freedoms will be only for a year? History teaches that once they are sacrificed, a fight is required to regain them.
I do agree that the reprehensible attempt to color those concerned about freedom and liberty as oafs uncaring of the suffering of others is inappropriate.
And this kind of an accusation is anything but dispassionate.
There's the argument of conflicting liberties.
Does your right to, say, liberty of movement or assembly, have more importance that someone else's liberty of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
I did read it. This media source is a bit bumfuzzled about the per capita thing. To explain this phenomenon it offers quotes about the fact that the spread is the same, implying that bigger countries like the USA will eventually suffer proportionally. But they overlook the data that indicates this isn't the case and isn't projected to be the case.
Even allowing for time, the US is projected to come in far under many other countries.
It's the Sun - bumfuzzlement (!) is their default status.
I think you mentioned UK papers previously - basically the Times, Guardian, FT, Telegraph, Independent are all pretty trustworthy. The Mail has some good journalism in patches but has a tendency to tub-thumping and sensationalism. The tabloids (Sun, Mirror, Star) are worth avoiding.
I did read it. This media source is a bit bumfuzzled about the per capita thing. To explain this phenomenon it offers quotes about the fact that the spread is the same, implying that bigger countries like the USA will eventually suffer proportionally. But they overlook the data that indicates this isn't the case and isn't projected to be the case.
Even allowing for time, the US is projected to come in far under many other countries.
Given that the official US COVID deaths required a laboratory test, the official US figures are incomplete.
Once this change has effect and the records reconciled, the numbers will inevitably rise. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I doubt that will be the case. There's already precedent in the UK and France around deaths in care homes not being counted.
Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
To clarify, I haven't mentioned UK papers individually but did note I'm not familiar with them or their reputations. Thanks for the guide, though as you might guess my rule of thumb is to approach the media with skepticism until proven otherwise.
"Coronavirus is spreading fast in small-town America. As COVID-19 began to ravage densely populated metro areas, some hoped the distance inherent to rural communities would act as a shield against the same fate. Now that the pandemic has reached nearly every county and most rural places across the nation, we see how wrong that hope was. Even the New York Times has started running headlines that read, “This Is Going to Kill Small-Town America.”"
The same question could be asked in reverse: Does your right to liberty have more importance than somebody else's right to life? Half of our population thinks so on a scale vastly greater than Covid-19.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It isn't clear what this comment is aimed at, nor who, but it's inappropriate here. People disagree as to what and how and when but this community isn't cavalier about life and death issues.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Encircled It does sound like the deaths of thousands isn't as important as your personal freedom for about a year, but maybe I'm reading it wrong?
I guess it isn't fair to expect non-Americans to know our history and this illustrious quote:
"Give me Liberty or give me Death!"
Who says the loss of freedoms will be only for a year? History teaches that once they are sacrificed, a fight is required to regain them.
I do agree that the reprehensible attempt to color those concerned about freedom and liberty as oafs uncaring of the suffering of others is inappropriate.
And this kind of an accusation is anything but dispassionate.
There's the argument of conflicting liberties.
Does your right to, say, liberty of movement or assembly, have more importance that someone else's liberty of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
The priority is clear: can't be either happy or at liberty if you're dead.
"What’s herd immunity? It’s when so many people have been infected and develop protective antibodies that a virus runs out of hosts. That’s likely what happened in the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, which killed 20 to 40 million people and then vanished.
What does “herd immunity” look like in the age of COVID-19? Without a vaccine, about 28 million infected Californians.
Based on current estimates, about 5 percent of infected people — or roughly 1.4 million Californians — would get severely ill. Of these, 840,000 could die, although there’s hope of holding that number down."
Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006 From: United States Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
The same question could be asked in reverse: Does your right to liberty have more importance than somebody else's right to life? Half of our population thinks so on a scale vastly greater than Covid-19.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It isn't clear what this comment is aimed at, nor who, but it's inappropriate here. People disagree as to what and how and when but this community isn't cavalier about life and death issues.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Encircled It does sound like the deaths of thousands isn't as important as your personal freedom for about a year, but maybe I'm reading it wrong?
I guess it isn't fair to expect non-Americans to know our history and this illustrious quote:
"Give me Liberty or give me Death!"
Who says the loss of freedoms will be only for a year? History teaches that once they are sacrificed, a fight is required to regain them.
I do agree that the reprehensible attempt to color those concerned about freedom and liberty as oafs uncaring of the suffering of others is inappropriate.
And this kind of an accusation is anything but dispassionate.
There's the argument of conflicting liberties.
Does your right to, say, liberty of movement or assembly, have more importance that someone else's liberty of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
This is obviously a dicey issue. The manner in which we typically describe the allowable limitations on personal liberty is the swinging punch analogy:
My right to swing my arm and throw a punch ends where your nose begins, or vice versa.
So now do we implement a 'my right to spew germs ends where your breathing begins' approach?
There is no simple answer and people with functional grey matter will disagree on how far to take something like this.
"What’s herd immunity? It’s when so many people have been infected and develop protective antibodies that a virus runs out of hosts. That’s likely what happened in the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, which killed 20 to 40 million people and then vanished.
What does “herd immunity” look like in the age of COVID-19? Without a vaccine, about 28 million infected Californians.
Based on current estimates, about 5 percent of infected people — or roughly 1.4 million Californians — would get severely ill. Of these, 840,000 could die, although there’s hope of holding that number down."
Yes. Guess what the level of measles vaccine compliance is require for "herd immunity" to offer good protection?
Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
In the past few days, while randomly reading things, I've come across a number of passages in which authors are critical of the press. C.S. Lewis takes a swipe in the opening pages of The Screwtape Letters. Sam Watkins does so in the opening pages of Company Aytch. And most of us are familiar with General William T. Sherman's exquisite tirade.
In the past few days, while randomly reading things, I've come across a number of passages in which authors are critical of the press. C.S. Lewis takes a swipe in the opening pages of The Screwtape Letters. Sam Watkins does so in the opening pages of Company Aytch. And most of us are familiar with General William T. Sherman's exquisite tirade.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."; - Mark Twain
Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
I saw that Encircled. On the good side, the number of new cases remained stable.
Given the high mortality, I figured the Univ. of Washington projection for UK today would've been badly blown. But it projected 1,040 deaths (201 and 3,706 margin of error).
UK is already at 13,800 deaths. U. Wash. projects 23,791 (margin of error: 14k to 51k). Hopefully UK does no worse than the 23k.
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010 From: Northern England Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I saw that Encircled. On the good side, the number of new cases remained stable.
Given the high mortality, I figured the Univ. of Washington projection for UK today would've been badly blown. But it projected 1,040 deaths (201 and 3,706 margin of error).
UK is already at 13,800 deaths. U. Wash. projects 23,791 (margin of error: 14k to 51k). Hopefully UK does no worse than the 23k.
Yeah, this was always going to be the tough week.
But in things like testing we are still miles and miles behind.
Potentially hundreds of thousands of people could have had the virus and never noticed, and the way we are going we might get around to testing everyone by 2035.
The same question could be asked in reverse: Does your right to liberty have more importance than somebody else's right to life? Half of our population thinks so on a scale vastly greater than Covid-19.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It isn't clear what this comment is aimed at, nor who, but it's inappropriate here. People disagree as to what and how and when but this community isn't cavalier about life and death issues.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Encircled It does sound like the deaths of thousands isn't as important as your personal freedom for about a year, but maybe I'm reading it wrong?
I guess it isn't fair to expect non-Americans to know our history and this illustrious quote:
"Give me Liberty or give me Death!"
Who says the loss of freedoms will be only for a year? History teaches that once they are sacrificed, a fight is required to regain them.
I do agree that the reprehensible attempt to color those concerned about freedom and liberty as oafs uncaring of the suffering of others is inappropriate.
And this kind of an accusation is anything but dispassionate.
There's the argument of conflicting liberties.
Does your right to, say, liberty of movement or assembly, have more importance that someone else's liberty of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
This is obviously a dicey issue. The manner in which we typically describe the allowable limitations on personal liberty is the swinging punch analogy:
My right to swing my arm and throw a punch ends where your nose begins, or vice versa.
So now do we implement a 'my right to spew germs ends where your breathing begins' approach?
There is no simple answer and people with functional grey matter will disagree on how far to take something like this.
It is well-documented that quibbles over personal liberty go out the window when public health is concerned. Typhoid in the US immediately springs to mind - Mary Mallon is an interesting case study in the ethics of personal liberty in this space.
In the past few days, while randomly reading things, I've come across a number of passages in which authors are critical of the press. C.S. Lewis takes a swipe in the opening pages of The Screwtape Letters. Sam Watkins does so in the opening pages of Company Aytch. And most of us are familiar with General William T. Sherman's exquisite tirade.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."; - Mark Twain
A quote oft trumpeted by those with a limited understanding of the subject.
In the past few days, while randomly reading things, I've come across a number of passages in which authors are critical of the press. C.S. Lewis takes a swipe in the opening pages of The Screwtape Letters. Sam Watkins does so in the opening pages of Company Aytch. And most of us are familiar with General William T. Sherman's exquisite tirade.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."; - Mark Twain
A quote oft trumpeted by those with a limited understanding of the subject.
"In Alabama, officials have ruled that one of every 10 people who died with COVID-19 did not die of COVID-19. Among those excluded from the numbers reported to the federal government were a bedbound patient with aspiration pneumonia in one lung and a person with a buildup of fluid and partial collapse of one lung.
Colorado, by contrast, has included some deaths in which the disease caused by the novel coronavirus was deemed probable — based on symptoms and possible exposure — but not confirmed through a test."
"Health officials in both states say their approach is more accurate. Their divergent methods reflect a national debate over how to count the dead."
Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
I haven't read that article, but there is no way that some official or officials "ruled that one of every 10 people who died with COVID-19 did not die of COVID-19."
There are any number of other possibilities that might make sense to most people but that a press or the press might misreport in their zeal or ignorance. Perhaps, upon secondary examination, Alabama medical officials determined that some mortalities ascribed to COVID were actually attributable to another primary cause of death. Over time, it might be that about 1 in 10 were adjusted in this way (I don't know - just speculating as to what in the world this alleged article is getting at).
The notion of officials willy-nilly declaring, "Hey, let's re-classify one out of every 10 deaths no matter whether it's accurate or not" has to be bad reporting.
< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 4/16/2020 5:27:18 PM >
"But a little-known military task force charged with evacuating Washington has already been activated, a task force charged with the most sensitive government mission of "securing" Washington in the face of attackers, foreign and domestic—and if necessary, moving White House and other key government offices to alternate locations."