Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I'll clarify for you Jim...  

But if I die from Coronavirus first I guess I'll leave all my treasure to the group here!   LOL  

Sounds like a big project.  Stay off the keyboard and finish it up!  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

NO, it is already 15 Million.  They have been walking around already in society.  Why is your memory so faulty.

Jim B., the virtual HERO of the left here, whom you guys fawn and preen over, told you at least a week ago, that there were 15 Million in society with it or who had it.  

You need to pay attention.  

And BTW, that # wouldn't surprise me, which means of course that the percentage rate dead is smaller by magnitudes than is indicated.

Here's the kicker, no one knows.  

Rich:

I think the pandemic is going to be a lot worse now than I thought it was going to be when I made my first set of posts on the topic, maybe three weeks ago.  I am quite willing to admit that my own point of view has evolved to a point much closer to James, Rod, David, and Russ's original point of view.  Such is the nature of a rational approach to a dynamic problem.  Opinions evolve and change as the data rolls in.

For some folks, anyway.

In this context it is pretty silly of you to quote my initial speculation as if it were some sort of knowledgeable prediction.   At least quote me in context; "three weeks ago Jim Brown thought there were 15M un-diagnosed and possibly asymptomatic cases walking around..."  Time may prove that the final number of infections dwarfs my earlier speculation.

"As many as 240,000 Americans could die during the coronavirus pandemic, top health officials said on Tuesday, despite the measures that have closed schools, limited travel and forced people to stay home.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, and Dr. Deborah Birx, who is coordinating the White House’s response, encouraged people to adhere to distancing guidelines, noting that more than 2.2 million Americans could have died if nothing had been done."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/us/politics/coronavirus-death-toll-united-states.html?auth=login-email&campaign_id=9&emc=edit_NN_p_20200401&instance_id=17241&login=email&nl=morning-briefing®i_id=66899985§ion=topNews&segment_id=23488&te=1&user_id=d4263648b90af509f04d9604ba7e5d30

I believe these experts.  So, my initial optimism looks pretty naive in the rear-view mirror.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Well not to worry Jim, because IF those numbers of dead don't reach the 240K mark or even the 100K mark, you won't have the intellectual integrity to admit that you were wrong. 

That we can all be sure to note!  

How ridiculous.  I will be thrilled and overjoyed to admit that I was "wrong" if US deaths do not reach 100k. 

That is really quite a low number in a population over 300M, and all citizens of the US should all be thankful that we did not have millions dead.  I will most likely believe that the social distancing, closures and stay at home orders worked spectacularly, if we only have 100k dead.  You will believe that the virus is not all that lethal, and that we overreacted if we have less than 100k dead.  You will also believe that the overreaction was politically motivated.  

So it goes.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

That is still true; they did not downgrade their initial assessment. Again, the report by Neil Ferguson included a wide range of possible outcomes based on how much mitigation took place. With no social isolation, the model predicted 500K deaths, and with extreme mitigations practices, it predicted as few as 2,600 deaths. Those numbers, and many others in-between, were always part of the initial model. Anyone who looks at the report for themselves can see this fact for themselves. The number he testified to in front of Parliament is a number from his model, and in his words regarding this subject:

"I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19. This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged. My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place. Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand)."

And here is where Rich shows up and says, "oh, my mistake..."  Wait for it....

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

And since you were obviously in agreement with Lacey in his posting, let me ask you a pointed question about it.

Lacey said this: 

  Again, the report by Neil Ferguson included a wide range of possible outcomes based on how much mitigation took place. With no social isolation, the model predicted 500K deaths, and with extreme mitigations practices, it predicted as few as 2,600 deaths. Those numbers, and many others in-between, were always part of the initial model. Anyone who looks at the report for themselves can see this fact for themselves. The number he testified to in front of Parliament is a number from his model, and in his words regarding this subject:

So then Jim, if this guy's modeling is so wildly varying, predicting between as low as 2,600 deaths, yet as high as 500,000 deaths, then what the hell good is this guy's f'in opinion anyway??  

Hell, YOU could predict that much.  How tough is it to say well it could be 30 people and it could be 100,000, but pay me a lot of money and I'll give you an inaccurate estimate that even a 5 year old could believe.  

The guy is a f'in joke and yet the world has stopped spinning because this idiot gave an estimate.  

And the sad thing is, you bought into it hook, line, and sinker.  

Richard:

I don't know how you are missing such a fundamental point...  The tops and bottoms in the prediction range are based on dramatically different social responses to the pandemic! 

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Richard:

I don't know how you are missing such a fundamental point...  The tops and bottoms in the prediction range are based on dramatically different social responses to the pandemic! 

Jim

In case this is still too opaque, the wide range of outcomes shown in the models, being based of course on dramatically different social responses to the pandemic, are useful to a government forming a social response to the pandemic.  

Does that help explain what the models are useful for?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, it went from 20,000 WITH the gov't intervention to 2600 according to Lacey.

 He was the one who cited 2600.  And since he believes anything that anyone tells him as long as they are  on the left side of the political aisle, my guess is that he just saw that somewhere.

After all, you agree with Lacey right, when he said 100% of the world WOULD be infected with this virus, and since we know you think Lacey is rational, then tell me;

Do you agree with that?  Will 100% of the people in the world GET Coronavirus, yes or no Please?   

No, I do not think 100% of the world's population will be infected.  Also, I don't believe your claim that James Lacey said 100% of the world population would be infected with the virus.  Link to his post and I'll read it though.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Lacey claimed that the CDC said that this virus would infect 100% of people.  Now whether that is the world, or the United States, I don't think he clarified.

When I called him out on that absurd, asinine, moronic assertion, he doubled down and claimed that the Centers for Disease Control gave that percentage.  

So is even BELIEVING that type of nonsense "rational" to you Counselor?  The idea that 100% of Americans would contract the virus is sensible to you?

Would YOU ever believe such nonsense?  

You may not Believe that Lacey made that claim however he did.

I'm not going to bother wasting time finding that for you.  

Sadly Rich, you are well know to misrepresent other people's posts and statements.  Sometimes you troll, sometimes you simply lie. You have zero credibility.  So, when you post something stupid along the lines of this: 

"After all, you agree with Lacey right, when he said 100% of the world WOULD be infected with this virus, and since we know you think Lacey is rational, then tell me; Do you agree with that?  Will 100% of the people in the world GET Coronavirus, yes or no Please?"

I assume that you are at best taking James' post out of context and at worst simply lying about one of his posts.  Your reply above demonstrates that my assumption was correct.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Page 12, 2nd posting, number 111.


https://astromart.com/forums/commentary-careful-read-the-terms-of-service/politics/the-hammer-and-the-dance-why-mitigation-is-not-enough?page=12

James Lacey 3/24/2020 5:15 AM:


We have never been through anything like COVID unless you are counting the flu epidemic of 1918. The COVID virus is novel, so none of us have resistance, and it's highly transmissible. Ergo, we are all going to get it sooner or later, and that translates to hundreds of millions of people in the US alone.


And he implied above that EVERYONE On EARTH will get it, unless you are an illiterate.

I've already established that you're a jackass, so add illiterate to my description of you.


Here's where he doubled down on stupid:

Page 12, 5th posting, number 114.

https://astromart.com/forums/commentary-careful-read-the-terms-of-service/politics/the-hammer-and-the-dance-why-mitigation-is-not-enough?page=12

I challenged him and since I was rational (unlike that buffoon),  

I stated:

That statement has zero basis in fact.  You have no idea that we are all going to get Covid 19. 

His moronic response:

James Lacey 3/24/2020 8:14 AM:

It's what the CDC says, and they have on staff epidemiologists, statisticians, and a whole host of other experts who study and look at these types of problems for a living.

Sorry, your pal here James hasn't the logical reasoning of a turnip.  I hate to break the news to you.

So your assumption about me was wrong.

And BTW, go f*** yourself Counselor!  LOL 

As I anticipated, you took James' accurate discussion of the CDC assessment,  morphed it to an extreme (100%) position, and attributed it to James.  Then you ignored his attempts to clarify for you:

"It's what the CDC says, and they have on staff epidemiologists, statisticians, and a whole host of other experts who study and look at these types of problems for a living."

"By the way, somewhere along the way, this morphed into absolutism where everyone gets it. Some people will escape infection, but the point is it's going to infect the majority of Americans over a short period."

Now you hold your fabrication of reality up from time to time as proof that James wildly overstated the infectiousness of the disease.  How convenient.  This sort of manipulation of other's posts is your M.O. always has been, I suppose it always will be.

Jim

 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, I just proved it and I reposted his exact words.  If you can't comprehend English counselor you should go back to school and learn something.

Start with having the intellectual integrity to admit when you're wrong.  

That's funny!