Riddle me this Vaxman

do you think you will pay less tax if you don't get the vaccine?

by "free", I mean it's already paid for

 

You didn't argue against my claim you didn't even address it you argued against some straw man you made up.

If you're confused on who said what that's an understandable mistake if you're willing to own it I'm willing to retract my accusation of straw man fallacy.

But you absolutely said this to me.

No I don't think some stupid position you have to fabricate to argue against very few people if any actually do.

 

~ Here are some statistics we never hear about from CDC, WHO, NIH , "news " media etc. :

​

 

Yeah we can't go by those statistics or in this case truth which would probably be labeled misinformation because that's code word for truth, because then we wouldn't be able to be fear-mongered into doing stupid things.

People might get the idea that they don't have to wear masks or get vaccinated

 

Figured you'd deny the truth... Oh well.

 

Statistics does not have the power of prediction. You still aren't forming any valid arguments...

 

OK,since Poly is apparently to lazy to look up the details (or just afraid of being proven wrong.) And gfm seems certain statistics has no predictive utility whatsoever.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Regression analysis (statistical modelling) involves identifying the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. A model of the relationship is hypothesized, and estimates of the parameter values are used to develop an estimated regression equation. Various tests are then employed to determine if the model is satisfactory. If the model is deemed satisfactory, the estimated regression equation can be used to predict the value of the dependent variable given values for the independent variables.

Some uses of Regression Analysis

Regression has a wide range of real-life applications. It is essential for any machine learning problem that involves continuous numbers – this includes, but is not limited to, a host of examples, including:

• Financial forecasting (like house price estimates, or stock prices)
• Sales and promotions forecasting
• Testing automobiles
• Weather analysis and prediction
• Time series forecasting

Now I believe you were saying something about "statistics don't have the power of prediction it's just a collection of data sets" or some such?

If either of you require links to some sites where you can actually learn something about the topic I'll oblige.

 

call me whatever names you want. I will never feel compelled to seek out your argument.

What do you think you are trying to teach.

 

Err... that you can use statistics to make predictions i.e. the exact OPPOSITE of what you insisted was the case (and couldn't be bothered checking for yourself).

 

It doesn't exactly work that way. Using the first set of numbers where the virus originated, it is possible to generate a "trajectory" of how fast the virus travels, incubation period, number of people symptomatic enough to go to their doctor or the ER, hospitalizations, recovery period, Long COVID and death rates.

With that projection, other populations can be mapped and those numbers are used for each variant that pops up. This is why it became obvious early on that Trump was in over his head. He disclosed to Bob Woodward that he talked to Xi and the virus was bad (while downplaying it to us). Yes, I understand he didn't want anyone to panic but he wasn't doing anything behind the scenes to actually get or keep it under control.

IIRC, it was mid-late December 2019 that a Chinese doctor released a video warning people about the virus. The Chinese government was not happy about that and he was placed under arrest. Soon after, he did succumb to COVID. So the interim between when the doctor first attempted to warn the world and when the first cases were diagnosed here, Trump had several weeks to jump right on it. Instead, he just complained about it being Obama's fault and his usual blame game. Trump really isn't good under pressure as everything sets him off and people were terrified about what was coming our way and he just made it even scarier.

So, in "theory" you are correct that some numbers may be underreported, but those estimates are generally accurate because the original COVID and its variants are reaching other countries before arriving in the US so we know where things are coming our way which gives our doctors and frontline workers the information they need to prepare as best as possible instead of the learning curve for healthcare workers facing Long COVID and variants before we do.

 

deny what truth, I have seen it real time, show many any policy Trump passed to reduce foreign outsourcing to countries like India

are you talking about "Truth Social", "Alternative Facts" kinda Truth?

 

You can hypothesize in the basis of statistics but you have to be honest about them.

 

Weasel words wont help you.

Your statement in post 43 was and I quote 'Statistics don't have the power of prediction it's just a collection of data sets.'

And in your most recent Post:

Prediction: (meaning) a thing predicted or forecast, the action of predicting something.
(synonyms) to forecast, foretell, prognosticate or prophesy.

Hypothesize: (meaning) something presumed to be true for the purposes of argument or further study
(synonyms) theorize, conjecture, speculate, belief, thoughts, suppose, hypothecate, postulate and posit.

The two words (forecast and hypothesize) do not have the same meaning. They never have and never will and not once did I use the word hypothesze or any synonym of that word in my posts. And substituting the word hypothesize in you argument at this point? Just confirms how desperate you are not to be proven wrong. It is an inescapable fact that statistics can be used to make predictions. End of story. Your inability to accept this fact seems to confirm you are for some reason psychologically incapable of accepting any challenge to your opinions of world view - even when the English dictionary and encyclopedias prove your are.

 

I know they don't have the same meaning that's why I used it.

 

So that means what exactly? That you admit you were incorrect in your original assertion about the statistics not being used to make predictions? Or is this just another game of semantics to avoid having to admit you were wrong? And yes FYI, I have conceded in the past when it turns out I was in error. This is because I learned something, which is a good thing.

 

you just finished lecturing me about the two different meanings of the word.

that wasn't my assertion. It was that statistics can't make predictions not that they couldn't be used to inform a prediction.

If you really think all I'm doing is playing games why in the hell are you even talking to me?

Do you have to accuse me of things since I pointed out your straw man fallacy that you haven't retracted yet.

 

Oh dear God. You've literally been pointed to both a dictionary and encyclopedic definitions that prove you were completely wrong. And your still trying.

Regression analysis (which falls under the umbrella of statistics) is used to make predictions' FACT. That's a net outcome of it's basic function. I even gave you examples of areas in daily life where it's actually used to 'make predictions. And yet you still can't admit your wrong. Your literally on record as stating (in black and white) that 'Statistics don't have the power of prediction it's just a collection of data sets.' And yet here you are now claiming 'that wasn't my assertion. It was that 'statistics can't make predictions not that they couldn't be used to inform a prediction.'

Literary without asserting this in any subsequent posts!

You are now officially grasping at pedantry as a last, desperate defense. Your saying 'cars can't drive from point (A) to point (B). But they can be used to drive from point (A) to point (B).' Or if you prefer numbers don't have the 'power of addition' but they can be used to add up!

You coward!

.

 

Of course you can! You can also use tea leaves and chicken bones to make predictions.

 

You are quite the bull in a china shop in this thread.

The fact remains- there are no statistics that point to the number of people who have been infected by Covid- both symptomatic and asymptomatic.

So your journey on the statistics train is a complete deflection.

 

Now if only you could prove either method was as accurate or as reliable or as widely used by professionals of all types as regression analysis you'd have a point.

 

Really? 1 minute, that's all it took. Did you even bother to look before typing? You may not agree with or believe the statistics (surprise, surprize) but they do exist. Now you were saying?


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2787098

or

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar...e-no-symptoms#Variation-in-asymptomatic-cases

 

"Unvaxed survivals" ARE counted in the stats. Rates are calculated using the entire unvaccinated population as the denominator, which includes people who contracted Covid, never reported it and survived. These survivals are therefore accounted for/reflected in the rate - the rate is lower than it would be if these people had not survived Covid-19.

 

As I thought. You are using stats on tested cases. Not everyone who had Covid was tested. Epic fail.

 

64....1/4 Liver function, stage 3 kidney failure and I had the original Covid-19 in Dec 2019, Omicron 2 months ago and I'm still here and unvaxed. Our bodies are equipped to handle viruses they weaken and are soon relegated to just another yearly flu. Follow the money!

 

If that's the case then you're done here.