Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[faberryman]

Because I was making a parallel with the similar 2020 "historic" statement.

I googled the Kleindienst phrase and the only thing I came up with was this quote in a link which didn't work so this is just from the summary:

"the [Watergate] investigation was 'one of the most intensive, objective, and thorough investigations in many years."

So it looks like somebody may have taken some artistic license when writing the screenplay to the movie you watched, and added in that "history" phrase.

So if you now compare that, without the "history" reference, with what someone, Krebs perhaps, said that "the [2020] election was the most secure in American history", you still think there is a link?

People say that kind of stuff all the time.

Sort of like when Trump says "nobody has ever seen anything like it" when he discovers something that everyone else knows already.

[digitaldog]

I am waiting for your next unprovoked question: "Do I believe in fairies?" To save everyone's time, I'll answer it in advance: "No, I do not."

Do you believe in fairies? Or God? Or facts and science, or masks?

[digitaldog]

0

Can't imagine what you're so afraid of. OK, I can imagine a lot. 

[Craig Lamson]

Can't imagine what you're so afraid of. OK, I can imagine a lot. 

Clearly not you. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...That I would find more credible actual scientific experts in epidemiology than a professor whose academic background is in agricultural economics regarding information on the the topic of viruses...

This has nothing to do with epidemiology. It is about analyzing data. An academic economist is perfectly qualified to do so. Prof. Steven Levitt from the Chicago University (of the "Freakonomics" fame) studied escort services and crack dealers. Was he supposed to be either? Or both?

[chez]

When you're there, I recommend the Robert Bateman gallery across the harbour from the Empress.

When we went to Tofino a few years ago, I was surprised to learn of the tsunami damage in Port Alberni resulting from the 1964 earth quake in Alaska. A cousin I've never met was living in Anchorage at the time.

You should stop and visit Cathedral Grove on the way to Port Alberni.

The other must see is the Roy Henry Vickers gallery in Tofino. Amazing native art.

[pegelli]

My answer is found on this very forum, and if one wants to look for it, they can find it.

OK, I looked it up. I joined the discussion after you made those posts which is why I didn't know.

Bush and Gore got 37 days. 

I’m not really watching the lower courts as ultimately it will likely be SCOTUS doing the deciding and when that’s over and the new President is voted in by the Congress it’s over. 


It’s nut cutting time.  Either they have the goods for the end game or they don’t.  We shall see.

I think the only difference is that I am watching the lower courts and am amazed at the lack of proof and evidence, I just can't imagine it suddenly all pops into place when the it reaches SCOTUS.

And when I see a Trump lawyer tweet: "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud.” and this judicial machinery in Pennsylvania consists of 3 republican lawyers of which one is nominated by Trump I don't have high expectations of the campaign actually being able to provide any proof. They're just involved in ad-hominem attacks to well respected judges which might serve them not so well in any future cases they might be involved with.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  The retraction article to which I linked did address the inaccuracies which prompted their retraction.

"... as a proportion percentage, which trivializes ... because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers[/u].

That seems to be her major "crime"... trivializing... by not using raw numbers, but relative percentages.

Again, the retraction did not go into why is that wrong. Instead, it uses the appeal-to-emotion logical fallacy, by "trivializing" the empathy the left peddles, in absence of logical arguments.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...you still think there is a link? ...

You seem to have a penchant for rhetorical questions. Obviously, I think there might be a link, otherwise I would bother posting it in the first place.

[TechTalk]

I googled the Kleindienst phrase and the only thing I came up with was this quote in a link which didn't work so this is just from the summary:

"the [Watergate] investigation was 'one of the most intensive, objective, and thorough investigations in many years."

So it looks like somebody may have taken some artistic license when writing the screenplay to the movie you watched.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/watergate.html

"On September 15, the five Watergate burglars, plus Hunt and Liddy, were indicted by a federal grand jury. Attorney General Richard Kleindienst said the indictments represented the culmination of "one of the most intensive, objective, and thorough investigations in many years, reaching out to cities all across the United States as well as into foreign countries."

He was speaking specifically about the indictment of the burglars and not all of the other behind the scenes activities at the White House and campaign committee which were revealed over time as the investigations continued both within the government and by professional journalists at publications like the Washington Post and New York Times.

[TechTalk]

This has nothing to do with epidemiology.

What is Epidemiology?

Epidemiology is the method used to find the causes of health outcomes and diseases in populations. In epidemiology, the patient is the community and individuals are viewed collectively. By definition, epidemiology is the study (scientific, systematic, and data-driven) of the distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants (causes, risk factors) of health-related states and events (not just diseases) in specified populations (neighborhood, school, city, state, country, global). It is also the application of this study to the control of health problems (Source: Principles of Epidemiology, 3rd Edition).

https://www.cdc.gov/careerpaths/k12teacherroadmap/epidemiology.html

Seems like epidemiology to me.

An academic economist is perfectly qualified to do so. Prof. Steven Levitt from the Chicago University (of the "Freakonomics" fame) studied escort services and crack dealers. Was he supposed to be either? Or both?

If to you, the study of epidemiology, analysis of King Crab production, and the study of escort services and crack dealers all amounts to the same thing far be it from me to try to change your mind. Which area of analysis did you find the most interesting?

[digitaldog]

Obviously, I think there might be a link, otherwise I would bother posting it in the first place.

Might. Might not.
”Sometimes wrong; never in doubt." -Atul Gawande

[faberryman]

You seem to have a penchant for rhetorical questions. Obviously, I think there might be a link, otherwise I would bother posting it in the first place.

I thought you thought there was a link in the first place because both sentences contained the words "in history". Those words do not appear to have been used by Kleindienst, so I was asking if you still thought there was a link since one sentence said "in many years" and the other said "in history". If you do, that's fine. I'm not sure why you believe that, but that really doesn't make any difference.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... If to you, the study of epidemiology, analysis of King Crab production, and the study of escort services and crack dealers all amounts to the same thing far be it from me to try to change your mind. Which area of analysis did you find the most interesting?

The sampling phase. In escort services in particular.

[faberryman]

I didn't believe that woman's data analysis because we do not normally have ICUs overflowing and refrigerated morgue trucks parked behind hospitals. That and the excess deaths data, which the woman did not mention in the article. But if Slobodan wants to believe the woman's conclusion, he is free to do so. People believe all kinds of things, some unfounded, some ill-founded, and some well founded.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I'm not sure why you believe that..

Because governments, in general, tend to come up with statements that at the time sound hyperbolically categorical, while proven false later on.

The 2020 statement sounds particularly hollow.

From a logical perspective, "the most secure in history" says absolutely nothing meaningful, let alone confirms it was secure. In all prior years, the security could have been really, really shoddy, so that 2020 less shody (but still lousy) indeed might qualify for "the most secure."

Second, they gave no basis for their conclusion. Just claims.

Third, they say "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.” just a few days after exactly such a case (vote switching by a software "glitch" was discovered in one of the key states).

Fourth, they said that before a single case (that's a rhetorical phrasing) was actually investigated in courts. Nor they quoted any independent investigation they did that led them to arrive to their conclusion.

[TechTalk]

That seems to be her major "crime"... trivializing... by not using raw numbers, but relative percentages.

Again, the retraction did not go into why is that wrong. Instead, it uses the appeal-to-emotion logical fallacy, by "trivializing" the empathy the left peddles, in absence of logical arguments.

"Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years.

This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus."

No one suggested that it was a crime, but they did indicate that her analysis was flawed by a misunderstanding of how epidemiological statistics of excess death rates are compiled and analyzed. Perhaps because she is not an epidemiologist.

As for her "trivializing", she may have had a leaning toward doing so based on her letter to the editor of a newspaper back in July before she came to her conclusions regarding CDC statistics on excess deaths. I linked her full letter to the editor in what you characterized as character assassination by me.

"At the end of April, the President of the United States delegated the powers to assess the needs for health orders, at the state level. By then, we had established that our hospitals were not overwhelmed."

"Businesses, churches, and schools continued to be shut down. Seniors were denied the graduations they so deserved and looked forward to. Town celebrations were canceled or scaled down. Why for?"

"We have not been hurt by COVID-19 itself, but by the health orders."

[digitaldog]

More good news (elections have consequences):
Dogs and cats living together: Joe Biden says feline will join White House pets
The president-elect is uniting dog-lovers and cat people by bringing a ‘first cat’ to join his two german shepherds

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...But if Slobodan wants to believe the woman's conclusion...

This isn't about wanting to believe, but about shedding a light from another angle on the subject. With all your faithful belief in science, it is strange that you'd take any current claim (e.g., CDC's on the excess death) as a gospel. It may be proven true (CDC's claim) or it may not ultimately. By the same token, her claim might or may not be true ultimately. I just find it that such the existence of a challenging claim enriched our understanding of the matter, even if rejected in the end. Scepticism comes quite handy when facing new claims and uncharted territories.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'll just leave this here: