Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Centers for Disease Control)   Hey gang, hoping someone out there has a link to solid data on 2019 vs 2020 monthly/weekly morbidity. I'm in an battle with a guy I need to convince covid is real. This seems like the best way of showing it is. Since everything else is "tainted"   (cdc.gov) divider line
    More: Sad, Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal website, Disease Control, Web Accessibility Initiative, Universal design, Computer accessibility, Disease, latest Vital Signs report  
•       •       •

286 clicks; posted to Discussion » on 24 Sep 2020 at 10:11 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



70 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-25 12:42:31 AM  

Xcott: Does this help?

It's also worth providing data of past death counts to show just how little they normally change from year to year.  I recently gathered these death totals from an admittedly arbitrary source:

2018: 2,839,205 (25702 from previous year)
2017: 2,813,503 (69255 from previous year)
2016: 2,744,248 (31618 from previous year)
2015: 2,712,630 (86212 from previous year)
2014: 2,626,418 (29425 from previous year)
2013: 2,596,993 (53714 from previous year)
2012: 2,543,279 (27821 from previous year)
2011: 2,515,458 (47023 from previous year)
2010: 2,468,435 (31272 from previous year)
2009: 2,437,163 (-34821 from previous year)
2008: 2,471,984 (48272 from previous year)
2007: 2,423,712 (-2552 from previous year)
2006: 2,426,264 (-21753 from previous year)
2005: 2,448,017 (50402 from previous year)
2004: 2,397,615 (-50673 from previous year)
2003: 2,448,288 (4901 from previous year)
2002: 2,443,387 (26962 from previous year)
2001: 2,416,425 (13074 from previous year)
2000: 2,403,351

Here's the thing, though:  I put these numbers in front of a COVID denier, a guy who insisted that the deaths this year weren't caused by COVID.  I pointed out that

1.  We never see an extra few hundred thousand deaths just by random chance.
2.  This year we are seeing extra deaths in the 6-figure range.
3.  They exactly coincide with the coronavirus outbreak, and peak when the outbreak peaks
4.  There is no other phenomenon that would suddenly kill 200,000 extra people for no reason.

Therefore

z.  This clearly must be caused by something, and the cause is very obviously COVID.

The guy still didn't accept it.  He said it wasn't caused by COVID.  I asked what else could have done it, and he basically said "causes."  I asked if he believes these extra deaths would have happened if there was no coronavirus outbreak, and he just rebooted his brain and started over.  There was no way to convince him.

On the other hand, I think it might have made some inroads with other people readi ...



You're never going to convince him.  He'll play pigeon chess until you give up.  Just walk away.
 
2020-09-25 1:29:48 AM  
I have updated my strategy for COVID deniers :

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and scientific consensus that COVID is a) real, and b) lethal.
I no longer need to prove this
Those claiming differently need to prove otherwise.

"Really? I didn't know that. Show me your studies.." * crickets*

if nothing else, it allows us to move on to more pleasant things...
 
2020-09-25 1:34:25 AM  
never argue with an idiot.  They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
2020-09-25 2:22:24 AM  
His ignorance is a coping tool.   It is easier to believe some convoluted conspiracy theory than science.
 
2020-09-25 2:48:24 AM  

cretinbob: Piss on their shoes and walk away.


Sorry but that's the wrong way to go about it.  Piss on their shoes, tell them it's raining and then walk away.
 
2020-09-25 5:54:56 AM  
Spend that time ensuring three sane people are enabled to vote.
 
2020-09-25 7:50:30 AM  

Harlee: I feel your pain. Today I was trying to find straightforward numbers on Covid-19 R0 by county, by month or week. Just a simple farking chart, or table. I know the info is being collected (or at least that is what I've read) but nothing I input as a search term seems to find it. {Dons tin foil hat.} It's almost as if people are farking with the data, that it is there, but wrapped up in a zillion lines of babble.


That's our problem. Without readily accessible, easily verifiable hard data, conspiracies flourish.

I blame the current administration.

They have so much blood on their hands. I don't know how those players can face themselves in the mirror.
 
2020-09-25 10:23:48 AM  

Harlee: Destructor: Xcott: Does this help?

Everything helps. Yeah, I'm subby. I know that's bad form (for some reason), but I'm sorta desperate here. I hope you guys can forgive me. I hope someone out there has a link to a well annotated graph of 2019 deaths versus 2020 showing a 200,000+ increase in deaths (also, I wish it weren't necessary...............)

So my problem is I'm trying to make a difference in a world where Trump has really FUD'd up reality. Everyone reading this probably understands the situation.

The easiest way I think I can do it is just with raw math. Here are the number of people who died in July of 2019. Here are the number of people who died in 2020. It doesn't matter WHAT they died of, just that they died. And that's the way we can track the pandemic.

My adversary (so to speak) is blowing it off with stuff like "well, grandma died of cancer, and they're marking it as covid!!!1!" And that there is a massive conspiracy to hide what's really happening because Doctors and/or hosptial/health-care systems are paid to lie on Death Certificates for big Buck$$$. Nevermind that a coverup of that magnitude would be the biggest news sensation since Jesus rose from the grave. But, I need to confirm this. I think by doing this, I might change some minds. I'm naive that way. Hopefully naive. While that's still allowed...............

This should be trivial information to find. And to be honest, my google-fu is fairly strong (I'm at least a red belt). But it has proven to be not good enough to my great consternation.

So anyway, if you've got something bookmarked that could help, please post your link. Thank you in advance. Really. Thank you.

I feel your pain. Today I was trying to find straightforward numbers on Covid-19 R0 by county, by month or week. Just a simple farking chart, or table. I know the info is being collected (or at least that is what I've read) but nothing I input as a search term seems to find it. {Dons tin foil hat.} It's almost as if people ...


By county?  Um, good luck with that.  You can find it easily by state or by country.  But by county?  Probably not, at least not in all states.  In fact, that data might not even really exist.

Good statewide numbers can be found here: https://rt.live/ (I love ultra-short URLs)
 
2020-09-25 10:45:34 AM  

Uranus: I have updated my strategy for COVID deniers :

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and scientific consensus that COVID is a) real, and b) lethal.
I no longer need to prove this
Those claiming differently need to prove otherwise.

"Really? I didn't know that. Show me your studies.." * crickets*

if nothing else, it allows us to move on to more pleasant things...



That's a good point.  If you go to the crackpot with a mountain of data, you're basically putting the crackpot in a position he doesn't deserve.  He's the one proposing the alternate hypothesis, and he must make the case.

I've noticed this is actually very common crackpot behavior:  they often overestimate their importance and authority, for example demanding that everyone in a web forum answer their questions or address their objections, or believing that their objections must be addressed before everyone can go ahead and accept science as real.

Conversely, it drives them batty when you ignore them, or curtly respond "why do I need to tell you anything?  You're just some guy on the Internet, and science doesn't need your blessing in order to work."

However, as I said before, you're having this conversation with a nut because a bunch of other potential believers are watching, and you can inoculate them against bogus beliefs.   In addition, crackpots do change.  Most of the global warming deniers I argued with 20 years ago seem to have changed their minds.  I think it's because their beliefs were based on some implausible ideas like a worldwide cabal of scientists, and enough people pointed out how ridiculous that was.

Perhaps it will be best to quickly summarize the evidence in favor reality---there is an undeniable spike in deaths this year over previous years, that exactly coincide with the COVID outbreak---so that onlookers are inoculated by the basic argument.   Then tell the crackpot that the onus is on him to show any authoritative evidence to the contrary.
 
2020-09-25 10:50:52 AM  

Xcott: That's a good point.  If you go to the crackpot with a mountain of data, you're basically putting the crackpot in a position he doesn't deserve.  He's the one proposing the alternate hypothesis, and he must make the case.


Exactly. You make the claim, you provide the proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But I refuse to accept your claims without you proving them.
 
2020-09-25 11:01:19 AM  

Geotpf: By county? Um, good luck with that. You can find it easily by state or by country. But by county? Probably not, at least not in all states. In fact, that data might not even really exist.

Good statewide numbers can be found here: https://rt.live/ (I love ultra-short URLs)


Since then I found this: https://r-eff.in/

No attributions, and not in list form, but hey, it's something.
 
2020-09-25 11:05:17 AM  

Harlee: Geotpf: By county? Um, good luck with that. You can find it easily by state or by country. But by county? Probably not, at least not in all states. In fact, that data might not even really exist.

Good statewide numbers can be found here: https://rt.live/ (I love ultra-short URLs)

Since then I found this: https://r-eff.in/

No attributions, and not in list form, but hey, it's something.


Interesting. Doesn't link. Maybe as a link to some text?

Oh, and the data and attribution are at the bottom of each county, when you click.
 
2020-09-25 11:10:43 AM  

Geotpf: Good statewide numbers can be found here: https://rt.live/ (I love ultra-short URLs)


Thank you very much. That's a great link with links to other links I need to explore.

Xcott: Conversely, it drives them batty when you ignore them, or curtly respond "why do I need to tell you anything? You're just some guy on the Internet, and science doesn't need your blessing in order to work."


But it that really a surprise? It would drive anyone batty because it's dismissive of their opinion.

I've found the best way to handle this is to clearly define the problem space. It's easiest to simply ask them, "What will it take to convince you that you're wrong?" You get no answer, you're dealing with a cultist. You get an answer (like, "data" or "evidence"), you're working with someone who has the ability to be reasonable.
 
2020-09-25 11:47:11 AM  

Xcott: However, as I said before, you're having this conversation with a nut because a bunch of other potential believers are watching, and you can inoculate them against bogus beliefs.


True, however that doesn't invalidate the prod of getting them to examine the evidence they are looking at which sustains their misconception.

In addition, crackpots do change.  Most of the global warming deniers I argued with 20 years ago seem to have changed their minds.  I think it's because their beliefs were based on some implausible ideas like a worldwide cabal of scientists, and enough people pointed out how ridiculous that was.

I agree, however I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that it wasn't people pointing out the fault , but rather asking them to challenge their reasoning. As a coach I have never had to point things out, just had to ask people to look at things, and see what other questions could arise from the reasoning that was employed. Takes a little time, but people will primarily change not because of another's reasons, but rather through their own reasoning.

aslo, see:

Destructor: 've found the best way to handle this is to clearly define the problem space. It's easiest to simply ask them, "What will it take to convince you that you're wrong?" You get no answer, you're dealing with a cultist. You get an answer (like, "data" or "evidence"), you're working with someone who has the ability to be reasonable.



As you can tell, patience is key.
 
2020-09-25 12:13:02 PM  
As a math major with a concentration in statistics... most people just don't understand how to handle raw math, they don't know what it means, they don't know what it doesn't mean.  Then you have to add in the people who don't understand formal logic, just simple stuff like all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.  Then you have to add in the people who don't understand debating fallacies..  The people who don't understand grammar.  The people who are into faith based decisions.

Unless you're planning on funding a few years of Junior College, attend classes with them, and and help them out in their study groups among student peers... you're pretty much just talking to your cat about the latest movie and expecting them to discuss the plot with you.

There's just so much background education needed before you can get to the stuff like statistics.
 
2020-09-25 2:56:59 PM  
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
2020-09-25 4:28:09 PM  

Ker_Thwap: As a math major with a concentration in statistics... most people just don't understand how to handle raw math, they don't know what it means, they don't know what it doesn't mean.  Then you have to add in the people who don't understand formal logic, just simple stuff like all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.  Then you have to add in the people who don't understand debating fallacies..  The people who don't understand grammar.  The people who are into faith based decisions.

Unless you're planning on funding a few years of Junior College, attend classes with them, and and help them out in their study groups among student peers... you're pretty much just talking to your cat about the latest movie and expecting them to discuss the plot with you.

There's just so much background education needed before you can get to the stuff like statistics.


As a political science major I couldn't agree more.
 
2020-09-26 1:46:06 AM  

Destructor: Geotpf: Good statewide numbers can be found here: https://rt.live/ (I love ultra-short URLs)

Thank you very much. That's a great link with links to other links I need to explore.

Xcott: Conversely, it drives them batty when you ignore them, or curtly respond "why do I need to tell you anything? You're just some guy on the Internet, and science doesn't need your blessing in order to work."

But it that really a surprise? It would drive anyone batty because it's dismissive of their opinion.

I've found the best way to handle this is to clearly define the problem space. It's easiest to simply ask them, "What will it take to convince you that you're wrong?" You get no answer, you're dealing with a cultist. You get an answer (like, "data" or "evidence"), you're working with someone who has the ability to be reasonable.


So, how'd the discussion go?
 
2020-09-26 1:46:33 AM  

Ker_Thwap: As a math major with a concentration in statistics... most people just don't understand how to handle raw math, they don't know what it means, they don't know what it doesn't mean.  Then you have to add in the people who don't understand formal logic, just simple stuff like all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.  Then you have to add in the people who don't understand debating fallacies..  The people who don't understand grammar.  The people who are into faith based decisions.

Unless you're planning on funding a few years of Junior College, attend classes with them, and and help them out in their study groups among student peers... you're pretty much just talking to your cat about the latest movie and expecting them to discuss the plot with you.

There's just so much background education needed before you can get to the stuff like statistics.


Don't diss my cat.
 
2020-09-26 4:24:00 AM  

You Die!: So, how'd the discussion go?


Hasn't yet. I'll probably find out Monday. I think the best way to approach this is through email; so I'll put something together.

The guy is fairly reasonable when presented with actual evidence. So if nothing else, I expect this to make him think a little more carefully about his covid (sigh... dumb) position.

I really hate this timeline.
 
Displayed 20 of 70 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.