tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post8433389450395411669..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: EUROMOMOJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-66354499056381543142020-08-25T17:29:15.554+01:002020-08-25T17:29:15.554+01:00For the sake of posterity, some of David Young'...For the sake of posterity, some of David Young's false claims (made unintentionally or intentionally) should be cleared up:<br /><br />Re: <br /><i>"Just to take a victory lap for the science challenged here, serologic test results are in for Miami Dade. They tried to do a random sample. Implied IFR is 0.13% to 0.23%."</i><br /><br />No, this really isn't going to be "a victory lap", David.<br /><br />The Miami-Dade results were inaccurate, and its authors later needed to reduce their seroprevalence estimate, thereby increasing any IFR inferred from their results. Moreover, <b>seroprevalence-based IFR tended to be >= 0.5% and fairly close to 1% (sometimes going over 1% and sometimes going under), contrary to what David and Ioannidis said:</b><br />https://archive.is/u8LVb#selection-21529.0-21633.52<br /><br />Re:<br /><i>"According to Ferguson from Imperial, 2/3 of those would die within a year form their underlying serious illnesses."</i><br /><br />You distorted what Ferguson said. He instead stated he didn't know of the number, and guessed that it could be as high as 2/3:<br />https://archive.is/RvDuP#selection-20611.0-20623.121<br /><br />Subsequent research showed that COVID-19 substantially increases mortality, even among middle-aged people:<br />https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v3<br /><br />Re: <br /><i>"Not a small number but no where near the leading causes of death, cancer and heart disease."</i><br /><br />As pointed out by the epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz (who's co-authored research on the IFR of SARS-CoV-2), COVID-19 became roughly the third leading cause of death in the US, following heart disease and cancer, but larger than accidents:<br />https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1288353041515556865<br /><br />Re:<br /><i>"For the climate NCO, evidence is now strong that Ioannidis was right in early March and indeed vastly closer than virtually any other scientist."</i><br /><br />Actually, Ioannidis was shown to be persistently wrong on this topic. For example, he predicted less than 40,000 US COVID-19 deaths. We're at about 177,000 now and still increasing (that 177,000 is an under-estimate, if one looks at excess deaths):<br />http://archive.is/dT97F#selection-2211.202-2219.279<br /><br />His work on IFR has been repeatedly criticized for using non-representative samples that conveniently skew IFR lower (ex: blood donors), being non-systematic, etc. He seemingly uses motivate reasoning to reach his pre-determined conclusion of a low IFR and lower risk from COVID-19, even when his claims conflict with the evidence. He's thus basically shredded his reputation among many informed and competent experts.<br /><br />Examples of criticisms of Ioannidis' COVID-19 claims, including a couple from me:<br />https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1283232023402868737<br />https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931538<br />https://twitter.com/AVG_Joseph96/status/1262820843802984449<br />https://hildabastian.net/index.php/91<br />https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa429/5872489<br />https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1272361132527955968<br />https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1271093944605122561<br /><br />And as I've explained to you before, David, Ioannidis does not agree with you on climate science. So your reference to "the climate NCO" is mis-placed:<br /><br />"Many fields lack the high reproducibility standards that are already used in fields such as air pollution and climate change. [...] It is a scandal that the response of governments to climate change and pollution has not been more decisive."<br />https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5933781/<br /><br />Finally, the parallel to climate science actually goes against you: you incorrectly downplay human-caused climate change in order to avoid policies you dislike, just as you incorrectly downplated COVID-19 in order to avoid policies you dislike (like lockdowns). So you're basically engaged in motivated reasoning and appeal to consequences.Atomsk's Sanakanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075386707195252260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-46592563772967735762020-04-27T23:07:36.570+01:002020-04-27T23:07:36.570+01:00David Young opines: Content free ad hominem rants ...David Young opines: <i>Content free ad hominem rants are a waste of everyone's time.</i><br /><br />Once again Mr. Young plays the victim card, but exposes his pseudo-skepticism by using an incorrect definition of <i>ad hominem</i>. It would be the <i>argumentum ad hominem</i> to dismiss his ideas just because they're his, rather than on their merits. That's not what's happening on this thread: indeed, his ideas have long since been examined and found meritless, yet here he is rebunking them again. That naturally raises questions about his motivation. His lengthy Internet comment history provides abundant evidence that he is motivated by political ideology. Even if our theories about why he relentlessly trolls climate-science blogs with specious nonsense are incorrect, however, our increasingly peevish responses aren't <i>ad hominem</i>. It's simply that we're tired of repeating the same verified facts and ineluctable logic, to no avail.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-87948638018364229992020-04-25T18:17:35.161+01:002020-04-25T18:17:35.161+01:00Just to take a victory lap for the science challen...Just to take a victory lap for the science challenged here, serologic test results are in for Miami Dade. They tried to do a random sample. Implied IFR is 0.13% to 0.23%. That translates into 290K to 690K deaths in the US assuming virtually everyone is infected. According to Ferguson from Imperial, 2/3 of those would die within a year form their underlying serious illnesses. That's 130K to 230K excess mortality over a year. "Normal" mortality in the US is roughly 2.8 - 2.9 million per annum. Let's multiply by 2 to account for future deaths in Miami Dade from past infections. That gets us to 10% - 20% excess mortality. Not a small number but no where near the leading causes of death, cancer and heart disease. Not worth causing the worst depression in history.<br /><br />For the climate NCO, evidence is now strong that Ioannidis was right in early March and indeed vastly closer than virtually any other scientist. You should apologize to him for your slander.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-67000731791210713312020-04-25T18:08:58.330+01:002020-04-25T18:08:58.330+01:00BTW, Serologic test results are in for Miami-Dade...BTW, Serologic test results are in for Miami-Dade county. For Josh the teenager's benefit they tried to do a random sample. Implied IFR is 0.13-0.23%. That translates to 390K to 690K mortality in the US if we did nothing. Ferguson says that 2/3 of these would die within a year normally. So excess mortality os 130K-230K. "Normal" mortality i the US is about 2.9 million per annum. Even doubling these numbers for additional future deaths in Miami-Dade we get 10% to 20% excess mortality. Still a large number but not worth causing the worst depression in history.<br /><br />BTW, for the Ioannidis bashing NCO and other science bashers here, it is looking like Ioannidis was right in early March.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-51757149541051427602020-04-24T03:40:28.729+01:002020-04-24T03:40:28.729+01:002nd try ...
Is The Bay Area’s ‘Unprecedented’ Lo...2nd try ... <br /><br />Is The Bay Area’s ‘Unprecedented’ Lockdown The First Of Many?<br />https://khn.org/news/is-the-bay-areas-unprecedented-lockdown-the-first-of-many/<br /><br />"Life came to a grinding halt for millions of San Francisco Bay Area residents as the most stringent isolation orders in the country took effect Tuesday.<br /><br />To stem the spread of the new coronavirus, roughly 7 million people in seven counties were instructed to “shelter in place” and were prohibited from leaving their homes except for “essential” activities such as purchasing food, medicine and other necessities. Most businesses closed, with the exception of grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants (for takeout and delivery only), hospitals, gas stations, banks and a handful of others.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />The Bay Area orders, which affect San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Cruz counties, have sown confusion, in part because cities, counties and states across the country are creating different, sometimes conflicting rules for their residents. Just one day before the shelter-in-place orders were announced, Gov. Gavin Newsom called on all California residents 65 and older to stay home, then expanded his orders after the Bay Area news broke.<br /><br />On Tuesday, Sonoma, San Benito and Monterey counties joined the Bay Area counties in ordering their residents to stay at home."<br /><br />That seven county lockdown was issued on March 16, 2020 and in force starting the very next day ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 = 18 days later then the issuance of said lockdown order.<br /><br />As to the study itself, noone have any idea of what it might mean given the changing conditions on the ground during that timeframe. The study itself is bog dead boring and can make no claims as to herd immunity or lockdowns, as those haven't either happened yet (~70% of population for herd immunity to begin to have any real effects) or have been allowed to run unimpeded anywhere in the world to date (everyone has had lockdowns either voluntary or involuntary). In other words a GIGO study.<br /><br />Everyone already knows the confirmed numbers are low, we've known this from the very beginning, it is a very trivial observation and some (at least I) consider it a form of non sequitur, as in d'oh no sher shitlock!Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-66586739349722828052020-04-24T02:48:01.979+01:002020-04-24T02:48:01.979+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-70244823447364953732020-04-24T01:13:32.103+01:002020-04-24T01:13:32.103+01:00EuroMOMO week 16 is out (new website format, can&#...EuroMOMO week 16 is out (new website format, can't find PDF's anymore) ... <br />https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/<br />"Note on interpretation of data: The number of deaths shown for the three most recent weeks should be interpreted with caution, as adjustments for delayed registrations may be imprecise. Furthermore, results of pooled analyses may vary depending on countries included in the weekly analyses. Pooled analyses are adjusted for variation between the included countries and for differences in the local delay in reporting."<br /><br />Duly Noted! What that disclaimer means is that their current numbers can only go UP (unless spread out over more weeks then currently shown)! Unless you believe in Zombies and the Undead! Which would appear to be the position of only one individual here named David Young. :(<br /><br />https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps<br />https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/#z-scores-by-country<br />https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/#map-of-z-scores<br /><br />SE just missed being DEEP BLUE (for Week 15, Week 16 is currently at Low Excess). Same warning below last 3-weeks of maps, "Must be interpreted with caution as adjustments for delayed registrations may be imprecise." So areas under those curves can only go UP!<br />Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-87589032823596298712020-04-23T22:03:20.270+01:002020-04-23T22:03:20.270+01:00I’m sorry to Hear you are ill. I suspected that w...I’m sorry to Hear you are ill. I suspected that was the case based on the emotional hatred expressed in your comments. Hope you recover.<br /><br />By all means trust the best scientists. WHO are partly to blame for your illness. They lied about human to human spread allowing the virus to spread all over the world. WHO is led by an Ethiopian communist who was sponsored for the job by the Chinese communist party. <br /><br />Ioannidis is really top notch and quite humble. He is apolitical also. It’s a little disconcerting to see him slandered by angry old men.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-77764487689801512992020-04-23T21:05:20.363+01:002020-04-23T21:05:20.363+01:00People, we are all, right now, in the very middle ...People, we are all, right now, in the very middle of a global health crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic.<br /><br />David Young wants you all to DIE by NOT listening to the world's health experts and organizations on best practices during this global pandemic crisis.<br /><br />Please listen to the real experts, stay home and stay safe.<br /><br />PS: I may not be around much longer due to COVID-19.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-62966137864462165132020-04-23T19:39:02.536+01:002020-04-23T19:39:02.536+01:00I'm going to terminate my responses here to th...I'm going to terminate my responses here to the climate NCO of concensus enforcement. Content free ad hominem rants are a waste of everyone's time. It's obvious to anyone reading this post who has presented voluminous scientific facts and data and who is unable to present even a single fact or piece of data.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-40537359376268352782020-04-23T10:24:15.168+01:002020-04-23T10:24:15.168+01:00"Adults look for the best scientists and don&..."Adults look for the best scientists and don't panic."<br /><br />Meanwhile, 247 mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary, nonstop every day, right wingnut stooge Small Hands sycophant spews shit wherever they go.<br /><br />People, wherever you are, whatever you are doing, please don't listen to a LIAR that goes by the screen name of David Young!<br /><br />Yup, diaper chance necessary. IMHOEverett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-71748963394064583632020-04-22T23:40:21.972+01:002020-04-22T23:40:21.972+01:00OK David
"Nathan, You are just fabricating t...OK David<br /><br />"Nathan, You are just fabricating this. What I said was completely accurate at the time. A little honesty would cause you to be taken more seriously."<br /><br />Yep you are either just trolling or are a bot.<br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-77574232055300669052020-04-22T22:31:14.139+01:002020-04-22T22:31:14.139+01:00Sargent, You have nothing that furthers the scien...Sargent, You have nothing that furthers the science or this discussion. Ioannidis accounted for future deaths by doubling his IFR final number. Nic's numbers need to be multiplied by 1.4. <br />All this is so stupid and irrelevant because by now there is tons of evidence that IFR's are vastly overstated and infections understated (by orders of magnitude) in official statistics. Children focus on largely irrelevant issues to tar and feather their favorite witches. Adults look for the best scientists and don't panic.<br />David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-74681639610772161302020-04-22T18:30:55.350+01:002020-04-22T18:30:55.350+01:00There are now 14 known COVID-19 deaths from the Di...There are now 14 known COVID-19 deaths from the Diamond Princess. Ring ... ring ... ring ... calling Nic Lewis for an 2020-04-15 update. One death occurred in AU on 2020-03-01 and 13 were in JP. The JHU time series fully supports the 14 COVID-19 deaths.<br /><br />I'll have some interesting graphs for SE come close-of-business of Friday. And the US, especially the US, also COB Friday.<br /><br />BTW, someone here needs their diapers changed, like a month ago even. :)<br /><br />Current 31-day rolling death toll now stands at 164,010 lost souls. 200K per 31-day rolling average is not out of the question (~2.4M on a per annum basis).<br /><br />But ... Don't Panic! So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish<br />Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-44209295822955315832020-04-22T17:21:26.781+01:002020-04-22T17:21:26.781+01:00Let's see here Sargent calls very imminent exp...Let's see here Sargent calls very imminent experts (with many collaborators) names ... because he is so much more of an expert. :-) Then he says absolutely nothing that is relevant and offers no evidence. And why is this not detracting from the information content here? Childish.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-8886807187453152082020-04-22T17:16:59.369+01:002020-04-22T17:16:59.369+01:00Nathan, You are just fabricating this. What I sa...Nathan, You are just fabricating this. What I said was completely accurate at the time. A little honesty would cause you to be taken more seriously.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-15517184988438687942020-04-22T12:35:14.500+01:002020-04-22T12:35:14.500+01:00David Young
""there is no evidence I co...David Young<br /><br />""there is no evidence I could see that mortality is above the expected numbers over the last few weeks."<br /><br />Is shown to be wrong, refuses to admit...<br />Later<br /><br />"Perhaps the resident alarmists will admit error, but I doubt it."<br /><br />Is this deliberate irony?<br /><br /> Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-15966944063581622332020-04-22T04:24:42.469+01:002020-04-22T04:24:42.469+01:00"This is in stark contrast with many news sto..."This is in stark contrast with many news stories that focus on the demise of young people and the panic and horror that these widely reverberated stories are causing."<br /><br />Except for the fact that we were always warned about the disproportionate effects on the elderly and that most MSM reports have dealt with old folks homes.<br /><br />Very bad rhetoric a strawperson and cherry picking to boot coming from Dr. Bad Combover, et. al., or as Trumpkin, aka Small Hands, would say a 'so called' bigly yuge nothingburger, aka whataboutism.<br /><br />Could you please raise your game above the prenatal level? I seriously don't think so. /:Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-14431286817306111332020-04-22T01:51:47.877+01:002020-04-22T01:51:47.877+01:00I just wanted to add another reference because it ...I just wanted to add another reference because it places the current panic in context. Ioannidis is once again one of the authors. The evidence is really getting pretty conclusive that alarmism was always unjustified and that the initial science was terrible. Perhaps the resident alarmists will admit error, but I doubt it.<br /><br />"Overall, this further strengthens the notion that for healthy non-elderly people [< 65 years of age], the risk of dying from COVID-19 this season has been infinitesimally small. This is in stark contrast with many news stories that focus on the demise of young people and the panic and horror that these widely reverberated stories are causing."<br /><br />https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054361v1.full.pdfDavid Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-11126338433032263382020-04-20T05:24:06.452+01:002020-04-20T05:24:06.452+01:00David -
Thanks for reading my comments. You can&...David - <br /><br />Thanks for reading my comments. You can't imagine my shock that you did so (do you not realize how easily you get played?) <br /><br />It's interesting that you have nothing to say about criticisms of the methodology of studies where the results fit your political preferences, and nothing to say about your invalid extrapolation from studies to justify your political preferences, but get so hot and bothered when I point out your motivated reasoning. Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-66237013841317501972020-04-20T04:15:50.827+01:002020-04-20T04:15:50.827+01:00"Idahoans is a serious scientist who doesn..."Idahoans is a serious scientist who doesn't do half baked blogs."<br /><br />Which implies that you are not serious, not a scientist and you do post on so-called half baked blogs.<br /><br />Is Ioannidis your 2020 toy model? I do think so. The so-called modeling dumpster diver does it again, except they now accept shit-for-brains epidemiological models.<br /><br />Nope, no irony there at all.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-34971750411693020512020-04-20T02:01:31.043+01:002020-04-20T02:01:31.043+01:00Josh, You need to stop cherry picking things that...Josh, You need to stop cherry picking things that are so weak and stick to real science.<br /><br />"I’m not saying that the claims in the above-linked paper are wrong. Maybe the test they are using really does have a 100% specificity rate and maybe the prevalence in Santa Clara county really was 4.2%. It’s possible. The problem with the paper is that (a) it doesn’t make this reasoning clear, and (b) their uncertainty statements are not consistent with the information they themselves present."<br /><br />I trust Ioannidis and his numerous collaborators vastly more than a statistician with a blog who seems to shoot from the hip on lots of topics. Ioannidis is a serious scientist who doesn't do half baked blogs.<br /><br />I really don't know why you continue to argue this weak case. There are by now many sources of data that tend to confirm that infection rates are vastly higher than the official reports.<br /><br />You are on permanent moderation by Curry because you tried to mansplain to her that her reasoning was motivated and bad and then tried to tell her how to correct her reasoning. All this from an anonymous internet commenter with NO visible expertise in science. It was arrogant and condescending then and it looks arrogant and condescending when you do it to me now.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-27221259941589408512020-04-20T00:00:55.795+01:002020-04-20T00:00:55.795+01:00Here David -
Have fun with Andrew Gelman's ta...Here David -<br /><br />Have fun with Andrew Gelman's take on the Santa Clara study. Lol.<br /><br />https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/<br /><br />> think the authors of the above-linked paper owe us all an apology. We wasted time and effort discussing this paper whose main selling point was some numbers that were essentially the product of a statistical error.<br /><br />I’m serious about the apology. Everyone makes mistakes. I don’t think they authors need to apologize just because they screwed up. I think they need to apologize because these were avoidable screw-ups. They’re the kind of screw-ups that happen if you want to leap out with an exciting finding and you don’t look too carefully at what you might have done wrong.<br /><br />+++++++++++<br /><br />Ouch!Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-26031098747449535082020-04-19T17:51:02.284+01:002020-04-19T17:51:02.284+01:00James -
Just give the word and I'll stop this...James -<br /><br />Just give the word and I'll stop this silly interaction with David. Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-74066720416157922332020-04-19T17:50:19.480+01:002020-04-19T17:50:19.480+01:00Since I'm in moderation over at Judith's, ...Since I'm in moderation over at Judith's, I thought I'd repost here, David's comments from there, and my response. First me... <br /><br />Joshua | April 18, 2020 at 10:58 pm |<br />David –<br /><br />In that Boston study, they recruited people who were out walking on the street, in a hotspot (Chelsea).<br /><br />That isn’t random and representative sampling. Not even close.<br /><br />dpy6629 | April 19, 2020 at 12:32 pm |<br />All scientific studies have limitations Josh. It’s the accumulated evidence that is important. I mentioned 4 studies that tend to indicate vastly wider infection rates than the laughably biased numbers you see in all the media.<br /><br />And these yellow journalism practices do immense harm by scaring people. There is some evidence in Britain that people are delaying needed medical care and non-covid related mortality is spiking.<br /><br />Joshua | April 19, 2020 at 12:43 pm |<br />Your comment is awaiting moderation.<br />David –<br /><br />> All scientific studies have limitations Josh<br /><br />Precisely. Thst is why you should look at their limitations before you extrapolate as you have done.<br /><br />Especially when your extrapolation serve to confirm your ideological predispositions.<br /><br />Once again, you shouldn’t try to extrapolate from non-random and non-representative sampling. Especially when you’re doing so to confirm your ideological predisposition.<br /><br />You are the easiest person to fool.<br /><br />Is that so hard to understand?<br /><br />---------<br /><br />So David calls people names of they point out the limitations in the Santa Clara study, and then says "all studies have limitations" when the limitations of the Boston study are pointed out. <br /><br />Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.com