COVID: By The Numbers
 

A closer look at the numbers related to COVID. Statistical analysis that tells a different story than what we hear from the CDC, politicians and media types.

Enjoy!

https://rationalground.com/perspective-look-up-your-risk-of-dying-of-covid-19/

Statistical analysis :D

Liars, damn liars, statisticians ...

What are "these statistics" proving.... serious question fwiw?

Being adept with stats is like being adept at lying imo.

....and I can lie like an ol' hound dawg :D

KC, your response is most impressive. Time from initial post to your response: ten minutes. That is a great deal of information to read, absorb and make a reasoned value judgement beyond the usual bromide of "liars, damn liars....

LOL... it took me less than 1 second to not read it ;). When you post an obviously political thread here in PPOT... I give it all the attention it deserves.

Again I ask.... what do the "statistics" prove, and how should they be interpreted?

It's your thread Sam ... carry on :)

The real numbers are easy to understand, very easy to understand.

My Masters thesis at Johns Hopkins was on statistical analysis in Program Management, exactly how numbers are manipulated to shape arguments.

The real numbers will emerge, are emerging. Sam's link is just the beginning.

what is new about this and how does this differ from the CDC analysis?

breaking things down by age doesn't change the numbers, just you perceive them. since your chances of dying doesn't change significantly based on your age from one year to another, the only reason to break it down by age, is to make it seem safer than it is. ie, a person who is 34 and 35 years old does not have a significant difference in there chance of dying, so breaking them down that way can only serve to water down the analysis.

this is why in such cases you typically would use binning. you would use brackets of ages, based on realistic age gaps/changes in health statistics.

you know, if you wanted to be honest.


if you want to further dilute the numbers, you could break it down by age, month of the year you were born, and your hair color, AND eye color ... i mean really get those numbers to be small.




this is the same data analysis of the corvette owner at the car show with the "one of only 34 made, super rare!" sign, because no one else bought a yellow, with leather, manual, sport package, cold weather package, with the rubber mats.

is it rare? no, nothing about it rare. but it SEEMS rare because as you add meaningless smaller and smaller filters, it seems rarer and rarer.

breaking down your chance of dying by your age, is equally meaningless. and why stop at one year? keep putting filters on, month of birth, hair color, etc ... i mean really get those numbers down.

I'm no lightweight when it comes to statistics, methodology, and the whole 6 yards ;).

I do know this much tho':

Wow, you know quite a bit:cool:

The "numbers" have been politicized since the beginning. I won't go into for the hundredth time but if someone knows anything about data gathering and analysis they understand what a cluster foxtrot this has been from day one.

I've been on the GIGO bandwagon since the very beginning .... driving it actually :D. Any conclusions based upon GIGO data is suspect imo....

Move over dawg.... I wanna lie there :D!

Obvious politically biased website. BS sensors set to maximum.

I took a speed-reading course in college.
Made me dizzy...never recovered. :D

The old saying.
Numbers never lie.
Liars use numbers.

Anyone can skew statistics to support their theory. That doesn’t make what they find correct.


Reading that site, it’s clear they looked at how they could twist the data to say that it’s no big deal, which to be expected for an opinion site, especially one that has been consistently posting articles minimizing covid.

But sure, believe whatever alternate reality you want. May the odds be ever in your favor.

What I want to know is why no one is discussing Nikki Minaj and #ballgate

Are the numbers wrong?

If so, how?

Are the numbers wrong?

If so, how?

Run the totals. Are they wrong?

I’m sure that the relatives of the 670,000 that have died so far in the USA will take great comfort in your article.

“99.9% chance of survival!”

“It’s the flu!”

“The vaccine will change your DNA”

Ad nauseum…:rolleyes:

I added up the numbers- I came up to 656,971 in one attempt, which is close to the current total.

The thing is, this is much more infectious now than it was from 1/1/2020 to this summer due to the Delta variant. What do we have now- 80 million people rolling the dice going unvaxxed? It's pretty clear that our healthcare system is to the point of rationing care now in a lot of places and choices have to be made between who lives and who dies.

What that chart focuses on is the death rate. What about the rate of people who go into the hospital, suck up the ICU bed space, and spend huge sums of other people's money on the care and the monoclonal antibodies? What about all the people with long term side effects? What about all the children that are going to die because they're too young to get vaxxed?

This is an exercise in selfishness in the name of freedom and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and millions of severe illnesses. [hyperbolic]How are the unvaxxed (that could get vaxxed) and those without natural immunity any different than lepers? I wish we could have unvaxxed/no natural immunity colonies.[/hyperbolic]

^^^^ This. My minor was Quantitative Methods... easy peasy stuff if yer worth a damn in Maf. Gimme a side... and I can "prove it" ;).