In the Coronavirus Fight in Scandinavia, Sweden Stands Apart

[UsualName]

You've gone through it. We haven't gone through anything, as you just "speak" to hear yourself, essentially.

Your statement is about what I am trying to argue. I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm saying that the data makes me ask questions - that's it.

Perhaps if you led with the comment you just quoted instead of saying "correlation does not mean causation. You should know better than to post this" we might be having better discourse. But you seemed determined to not admit error at any cost, and that's just making all the observations I've made about you more accurate.

I understand offending you is considered an error by you.

The chart is still bad information. The tweet is misinformation. These corrections needed to be made. I’m sorry you’re offended. I explained why I made this choice but it is not an error.

Also, I would not say you erred. As I said I expect you understand you know the information is bad. You just argue to no end and constantly shift.

 

[jem]

I tried not to care... and did not want to address this, but

Ironically the chart you are calling wrong... is actually making very similar arguments you make but used a chart instead of words.

On a fundamental level... the chart and tweet are sarcastically making the points you are making but directing them at the morons claiming lockdowns work ... even though they have no useful statistical proof supporting their arguments.

The author makes the patently absurd argument ... saying British lockdowns are working in Sweden too... to illustrate the absurdity of the pro lockdowners.

You and that author are of like mind only he is pointing out how ridiculous your team is.

(in my opinion anyway...)

Correlation now means causation. You should know not to share something like this.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I understand offending you is considered an error by you.

The chart is still bad information. The tweet is misinformation. These corrections needed to be made. I’m sorry you’re offended. I explained why I made this choice but it is not an error.

Also, I would not say you erred. As I said I expect you understand you know the information is bad. You just argue to no end and constantly shift.

Dude, I get that you think a lot of yourself, but trust me - please, I beg of you - you aren't capable of offending me. Or, if you are, the only thing offensive is your inability to grasp simple concepts despite your presentation of a superior intellectual ability which results in a colossal waste of time (for both of us). What a laugh, offend me.

The chart is not bad information, it just challenges your narrative. And you're pissed about it. If the same chart showed that Sweden got crushed, you'd instantly embrace it without any need to backup. That's how phony you are.

There is nothing about the chart that is in error. If there is, please identify the incorrect data and provide the correct data - not your laughable subjective "this chart is bad" hilarity.

 

[UsualName]

Dude, I get that you think a lot of yourself, but trust me - please, I beg of you - you aren't capable of offending me. Or, if you are, the only thing offensive is your inability to grasp simple concepts despite your presentation of a superior intellectual ability which results in a colossal waste of time (for both of us). What a laugh, offend me.

The chart is not bad information, it just challenges your narrative. And you're pissed about it. If the same chart showed that Sweden got crushed, you'd instantly embrace it without any need to backup. That's how phony you are.

There is nothing about the chart that is in error. If there is, please identify the incorrect data and provide the correct data - not your laughable subjective "this chart is bad" hilarity.

You tell me I’m phony based on imaginary scenarios you make up in your head. Ok.

 

[UsualName]

I tried not to care... and did not want to address this, but

Ironically the chart you are calling wrong... is actually making very similar arguments you make but used a chart instead of words.

On a fundamental level... the chart and tweet are sarcastically making the points you are making but directing them at the morons claiming lockdowns work ... even though they have no useful statistical proof supporting their arguments.

The author makes the patently absurd argument ... saying British lockdowns are working in Sweden too... to illustrate the absurdity of the pro lockdowners.

You and that author are of like mind only he is pointing out how ridiculous your team is.

(in my opinion anyway...)

The fallacy in the chart is “lockdown” vs “non-lockdown” countries and mortality rates in general. The nuance is what constitutes a “lockdown.”

I argued in many posts ago that “lockdown” would be better argued to compliance with prevention- such as mask wearing, social distancing, etc. I pointed to a country that actually has these types of measures in high compliance as proof not all “lockdowns” means these steps are being undertaken.

I even posited that there is some usefulness to the argument that if you’re going to attempt to have lockdown policies and non-compliance what’s the point.

I also further posed what’s the point of is there is not much measurable economic difference what’s even the point?

So yes what the guy on Twitter was spreading was obviously poorly thought through or intended to misinform people. And you know what, I will point that garbage out every time.

 

[Tsing Tao]

You tell me I’m phony based on imaginary scenarios you make up in your head. Ok.

Finally, we agree on something.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I argued in many posts ago that “lockdown” would be better argued to compliance with prevention- such as mask wearing, social distancing, etc. I pointed to a country that actually has these types of measures in high compliance as proof not all “lockdowns” means these steps are being undertaken.

And this was a good point. We could be discussing that instead, but unfortunately you think that this good point of discussion means the other point is invalid, which is completely asinine. The "point" made was the chart that showed two countries and the results despite different lockdown policy. Instead of taking that as a point to leap off and challenge why or bring up the possible reasons it was true (and it IS true, there's nothing wrong with the data as presented), you just said the chart is bad. Again, because it doesn't support YOUR narrative.

So yes what the guy on Twitter was spreading was obviously poorly thought through or intended to misinform people. And you know what, I will point that garbage out every time.

See, Jem and I both think your information is garbage in how you present it, and we'll point it out every time as well. I know I will.

 

[UsualName]

And this was a good point. We could be discussing that instead, but unfortunately you think that this good point of discussion means the other point is invalid, which is completely asinine. The "point" made was the chart that showed two countries and the results despite different lockdown policy. Instead of taking that as a point to leap off and challenge why or bring up the possible reasons it was true (and it IS true, there's nothing wrong with the data as presented), you just said the chart is bad. Again, because it doesn't support YOUR narrative.



See, Jem and I both think your information is garbage in how you present it, and we'll point it out every time as well. I know I will.

The other point is invalid.

Jem is a kook that believes he made up an algorithm but doesn’t understand basic weighting in statistics. You’re welcome to have him on your side. Next will be @Buy1Sell2 and you’ll have an all star cast.

 

[jem]

UsualName, Where is the fallacy in the tweet provided by Tsing?

Do you really think the author believes the spread in Sweden was stopped by the British lockdowns?

You made a ridiculous argument and then you kept digging.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1362181460887826435

 

[jem]

I was unskewing polls years before 538 did the same thing ( but their method is biased.)

Such bullshit on your part.

The jem algo simply unskews the polls to match up with the previous elections turnouts. I have explained that numerous times.

I understand weighting completely.

The other point is invalid.

Jem is a kook that believes he made up an algorithm but doesn’t understand basic weighting in statistics. You’re welcome to have him on your side. Next will be @Buy1Sell2 and you’ll have an all star cast.