|
Post by aufan on Mar 20, 2021 19:37:39 GMT
The coefficient is how much the response (death growth rate) changes in in response to the factor (mask mandates).
To simplify the method, it is essentially y = mx+b y is the response death growth rate. m is the coefficient. x is whether masks were mandated (1 or 0). b is the y-intercept (other factors specific to the subgroups, i.e. county)
If m = 1.9 and x = 0 then y increases by 1.9. If m = 1.9 and x = 0 then y does not change regardless of what m is. The method is derived so that the coefficient is how much the response changes to the input.
We can argue about the efficacy of masks all day. To be honest I can't quantify their benefit. But based on logic, mechanism and various studies, they seem to reduce the spread to some extent. I think you're looking for a linear response that you can spot in a graph. Unless masks truly saved us all and were 100% effective, you won't find that. I've showed how small changes can add up, but are not very apparent in even a simple data set. Just because an effect is not readily apparent with an elementary analysis or a data set does not mean there is no change.
But where I am confident I am correct, is when conclusions are attributed to a study that the study did not conclude. It is just like when tigercpa said a study showed the election results had a 0.00000000000001% chance of occurring. I'll call bullshit because its useless to discuss when people lie about facts.
I am also confident I am correct when you attribute opinions to me that I don't have. If your governor says masks are perfect, will save us all, and make chickens lay golden eggs, write a letter to him. Or call Rush's replacement on call in Friday. Don't project that opinion onto me, and argue against me like it is mine.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Mar 20, 2021 23:25:40 GMT
Around here the college grads wear 'em and the HS drop outs don't....in general.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 21, 2021 18:40:01 GMT
The coefficient is how much the response (death growth rate) changes in in response to the factor (mask mandates). To simplify the method, it is essentially y = mx+b y is the response death growth rate. m is the coefficient. x is whether masks were mandated (1 or 0). b is the y-intercept (other factors specific to the subgroups, i.e. county) If m = 1.9 and x = 0(I assume you mean 1?) then y increases by 1.9. If m = 1.9 and x = 0 then y does not change regardless of what m is. The method is derived so that the coefficient is how much the response changes to the input. So... yea. I get what a coefficient actually is. But, how a change in value of that coefficient translates to an actual change in the cumulative death rate is not straightforward. It depends on how you calculate it. The regression is their attempt to linearize data that is not linear. They break it up into smaller chunks (20 days) to make it approach something linear. The negative to that is, over such a small time period, one or two pieces of inaccurate data can really skew the results. I assume they are doing a linear expression for each of the 20 day periods, and then comparing them. The size of that coefficient will depend greatly on what "b" is. When I look at the actual Ky data that I calculated: Pre-Reference, Reference, and Post-Reference (80-100), I get exactly the same Cumulative Daily Death rate.... 0.8%. If I linearize each 20 day period, I get coefficients of 0.0141, 0.0051, and -.0133 The coefficients are decreasing, but when you look at the actual Cumulative Death Rate, it's not changing. There are other possible ways to calculate it. I could set deaths at the start of each period at 0, and then calculate the Cum Death rate over 20 days. The coefficients change to -2.8, -1.38, -2.38 When I calculate the actual average Cum Death rate averages this way, I get 20, 13.9, 17.4. It doesn't make much sense. I don't know how they calculate them all. I don't know what it means to average thousands of different counties, all presumably started at different times in their virus progression (ie, whenever mandates were applied). And, of course... Who knows what the data set they're working with actually looks like, after they've "Corrected" for 4 other variables. It tends to make me think, again, that they are claiming RELATIVE % decreases. That would make more sense when comparing such disparate data. Bottom line to me is: I see NO difference in spread rates, or death rates in places that wore masks or didn't. MAYBE this study shows something significant? I can't see it. Meanwhile did you see what beloved Dr. Gottlieb said on Friday? hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2021/03/20/gottlieb-cdcs-six-foot-distancing-rule-costliest-mitigation-measure-taken-pandemic/Aerosols are important to the spread of Covid. He wouldn't completely go far enough to say what that REALLY means: Cloth masks are likely irrelevant. Everyone would have to be wearing well-fitted N95 masks to have any significant impact, and even that wouldn't stop the spread.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 23, 2021 16:06:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 27, 2021 13:44:19 GMT
So... yea. I get what a coefficient actually is. But, how a change in value of that coefficient translates to an actual change in the cumulative death rate is not straightforward. First sentence you say you get it. Second sentence says you don’t get it. they literally calculate the growth as exponential. Regression is not always linear. . Even in the simplified example, the coefficient is independent of ‘b’, not dependent. Again this is 8th grade algebra you’re struggling with. It is fine to not understand the study. No problems with that. But you are on your 5th or 6th post explaining how you either don’t understand the study, or that you understand the study (incorrectly) and then follow up by telling us the bottom line of the study. You have management written all over you.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 27, 2021 13:47:46 GMT
letting citizens protect their health as they see fit. Sums up my position, precisely. [/quote] Fuck thy neighbor, I’ll take care of myself, is a perfectly legitimate position. It is the opposite of what Jesus taught us in the New Testament, but everyone has their own views, and who am I to judge? I don’t literally believe in the New Testament either, though I think it has some good take aways.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 28, 2021 22:25:34 GMT
letting citizens protect their health as they see fit.Sums up my position, precisely. Fuck thy neighbor, I’ll take care of myself, is a perfectly legitimate position. It is the opposite of what Jesus taught us in the New Testament, but everyone has their own views, and who am I to judge? I don’t literally believe in the New Testament either, though I think it has some good take aways. Figured we’d end up here. Nothing about “letting citizens protect their own health” means “fuck thy neighbor”. It means “trust my neighbor” , “respect my neighbor’s rights too”. MAYBE, that Neanderthal next to you, without a mask, is fully vaccinated ? Christians don’t need a mandate from the State to be kind to their neighbors. But, I guess that’s a concept that’s too difficult for you to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 30, 2021 0:48:22 GMT
Figured we’d end up here. Nothing about “letting citizens protect their own health” means “fuck thy neighbor”. It means “trust my neighbor” , “respect my neighbor’s rights too”. MAYBE, that Neanderthal next to you, without a mask, is fully vaccinated ? "Letting citizens protect their own health" is what exactly? As you described it, letting people choose to do as they please, even if it endangers their neighbors. By this definition of "protect my own health", I should be able to drink and drive because that is my choice, and if it endangers other people, I was just "protecting my own health". Oh, and here is where I use your playbook to completely misinterpret a scientific article to say what I want: www.livescience.com/872-cell-phones-drivers-bad-drunks.htmlDrunk driving is as easy as talking while driving! I should be able to drunk drive, because it is proven to be as safe as talking on the phone while driving (who hasn't done that) and I have the freedom to protect my own health as I see fit. Christians don’t need a mandate from the State to be kind to their neighbors. But, I guess that’s a concept that’s too difficult for you to grasp. Christians actively hide behind republican/libertarian ideals to not protect thy neighbor, saying that is the role of Church, not government. On Sunday between 10 AM and noon they will pretend to care. Then when government tries to protect thy neighbor the other 166 hours in the week, they cry communism. I mean this is obviously why Mitch McConnell, the republican leader, fought to prevent funding for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Balanced budgets trump love thy neighbor. Republican/libertarian ideals trump Christian values.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 30, 2021 16:05:50 GMT
Figured we’d end up here. Nothing about “letting citizens protect their own health” means “fuck thy neighbor”. It means “trust my neighbor” , “respect my neighbor’s rights too”. MAYBE, that Neanderthal next to you, without a mask, is fully vaccinated ? "Letting citizens protect their own health" is what exactly? As you described it, letting people choose to do as they please, even if it endangers their neighbors. By this definition of "protect my own health", I should be able to drink and drive because that is my choice, and if it endangers other people, I was just "protecting my own health". Oh, and here is where I use your playbook to completely misinterpret a scientific article to say what I want: www.livescience.com/872-cell-phones-drivers-bad-drunks.htmlDrunk driving is as easy as talking while driving! I should be able to drunk drive, because it is proven to be as safe as talking on the phone while driving (who hasn't done that) and I have the freedom to protect my own health as I see fit. Christians don’t need a mandate from the State to be kind to their neighbors. But, I guess that’s a concept that’s too difficult for you to grasp. Christians actively hide behind republican/libertarian ideals to not protect thy neighbor, saying that is the role of Church, not government. On Sunday between 10 AM and noon they will pretend to care. Then when government tries to protect thy neighbor the other 166 hours in the week, they cry communism. I mean this is obviously why Mitch McConnell, the republican leader, fought to prevent funding for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Balanced budgets trump love thy neighbor. Republican/libertarian ideals trump Christian values. Where do you come up with this crap? McConnell never "fought to prevent funding for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund". There was just some squabbling about the timing, along with other budget related issues. He always said there would be a vote, that it would pass, and it DID pass. Mitch voted for it. Christians, and conservatives in general care about people far more than liberals do. We donate OUR time, and OUR money to help. Liberal's idea of compassion is limited to helping people using money they TAKE from others. When people saw that COVID was rampant, and they thought wearing a mask might help, they wore them... long before any state mandate. When people see that COVID is NOT spreading in their area, and that mask wearing doesn't really make any practical difference, they want to take them off, and they SHOULD be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 1, 2021 0:27:25 GMT
‘Budget related issues.’
Exactly. There is zero problem with the debt when it comes to trillions in tax cuts, but the budget is considered when dealing with 9/11 victim compensation?
And you are defending this? Exactly my point!
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 1, 2021 1:25:23 GMT
McConnell had budget concerns over $10.2 billion over 10 years for 9/11 victims.
Yet he had no concerns about the TCJA that was estimated to increase deficits by $1.9 trillion over 10 years.
Was it really "budget related issues"? Or do Republicans only use Christian conservative values to trick people to vote for them so they can do whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 1, 2021 17:08:50 GMT
‘Budget related issues.’ Exactly. There is zero problem with the debt when it comes to trillions in tax cuts, but the budget is considered when dealing with 9/11 victim compensation? And you are defending this? Exactly my point! No.. the "budget related issue" had nothing to do with the 9/11 compensation fund. It had to do with not having a government shutdown. It was nothing more than legislative process. The fund never expired, it was never unfunded, and it was never going to be. As usual, you're just blowing the hot air you read on the whacked out liberal web sites.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 2, 2021 1:03:43 GMT
McConnel blocked it back in 2015 and used funding 9/11 victims as a political pawn, and continued to do until until being shamed for it. Other republicans did it too, more recently, citing that we needed to consider the national debt.
It’s fine if you defend this, I don’t care. But let’s not pretend that these are actions of Christianity. They are actions of a selfish political machine.
|
|