Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Panjack

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

...Also worth noting post #242 (concerning removals of statues of Confederate generals) has gone unremarked.

A rule for thee, but not for me [8|]

I'm concerned only with "political" postings I otherwise would respond to. It's better I address comments (I think provoking) in this way, instead of either not coming here or engaging in a back-and-forth in ways that doesn't benefit the forum.

In my imperfect way, I'm just trying to keep things here civil...for my own benefit, of course!

Confederate generals are US veterans. Enough said.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Confederate generals are US veterans. Enough said.

We read that as regards those who fought for the Confederacy,

...they'll never be called American veterans. The closest they ever came was "American citizens" ..."who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War."

https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/ ... s-veterans

And

...no legislation either explicitly or implicitly granted Confederate soldiers status as United States veterans. Survivors of dead Confederate soldiers often took offense at measures appearing to equate them to Union soldiers, objections that died off as Southerners from the Civil War era did.

(italics added)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/confe ... -veterans/

It'll be hard for any widespread fudging of numbers

Are CDC Guidelines for Reporting COVID-19 Deaths Artificially Inflating Numbers?
20 April 2020

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’

We can all read that as we want, and I suspect that is why the CDC worded it that way [plus to avoid lawsuits]. But I know what I think it says.

A rule for thee, but not for me

That's because you guys are making assumptions or judgements that are incorrect. We were talking about a change in Social Opinion [which I purposely didn't even say was as much, I made a joke about the virus causing insanity] and the current problems with baseball. There was no political discussion there and the moderators noticed that, and that is why you couldn't get us censured or the thread closed. I have been letting these attempts go but this is third time. It is you who should be censured. You are trying to incite riots. Calm down.

no legislation either explicitly or implicitly granted Confederate soldiers status as United States veterans.

I guess that is because the Confederacy was not a recognized country? So no Confederate holidays. Are there any specific Civil War Holidays? Some how I can't think of one [:(] What a strange world this is.

Guys, please lay off the Confederacy stuff. It has no connection to Covid.

So I am a movie goer, I go to three or four a year maybe. I like Sci-Fi, I used to like Horror but these days it is either silly or gives me nightmares. I like to go on opening Friday, afternoon-ish, go to restaurant, have a nice meal and a few cordials to get in the mood, slide over to the theater before the 5 p.m. rush so that there are only a handful of us to see the premier on the Super HD Dolby Surround Big Screen.

AMC Theaters announced that when they open they will require movie goers to wear masks. Would any of you sit thru a 2 hour movie wearing a mask?

Guys, please lay off the Confederacy stuff

Stop bringing it up damn you all, it was a one liner from three pages ago. Such a lack of focus here!

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
AMC Theaters announced that when they open they will require movie goers to wear masks. Would any of you sit thru a 2 hour movie wearing a mask?

It might be worth it if it kept the bratty teenagers quiet!

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

So I am a movie goer, I go to three or four a year maybe. I like Sci-Fi, I used to like Horror but these days it is either silly or gives me nightmares. I like to go on opening Friday, afternoon-ish, go to restaurant, have a nice meal and a few cordials to get in the mood, slide over to the theater before the 5 p.m. rush so that there are only a handful of us to see the premier on the Super HD Dolby Surround Big Screen.

AMC Theaters announced that when they open they will require movie goers to wear masks. Would any of you sit thru a 2 hour movie wearing a mask?

Yes? That wearing a mask/face-covering has become such an issue just seems bizarre to me. As with any unfamiliar stimulus it feels a bit weird for 5 minutes but after that you barely notice it.

But that is why I think this thread is doomed to be locked again eventually. It is impossible to discuss Covid-19 and particularly the situation in the US without reference to politics. This new thread has ticked along for a few weeks with very little activity apart from brief personal anecdotes. The moment the conversation has moved to any meaningful discussion of the wider picture everything has kicked off again. That's not through any 'malice' on anybody's part - it's just an inevitability.

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
AMC Theaters announced that when they open they will require movie goers to wear masks. Would any of you sit thru a 2 hour movie wearing a mask?

It might be worth it if it kept the bratty teenagers quiet!

In New York, there are 4 phases of opening. The things I use most are all stage 4 so not yet open. I love going to the movies. Some of he blockbuster stuff, but lots of the art house stuff. I really miss the movies. Movies are stage4. My favorite is on those sweltering summer days is to hit the first showing and have the theater almost to myself. Mask or not, I'm looking forward to catching up on all the 2020 movies. Don't know how to eat popcorn with a mask so I'll probably go without. As for the kids? They are not the problem. It's those old ladies......they don't shut the F^&k up! That first showing at the artsy movie theater usually has lots of chatty elderly people. The come in with their canes and walkers and fight for the seats next to the exit. My wife calls that first showing the "heavy metal" movie because of all the canes and walkers. I call it the "miracle movie" because at the end they are all "cured" and can clog up the exits without the need of canes and walkers so they can be the first one out of the parking lot. Still, I really miss going to the movies

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Guys, please lay off the Confederacy stuff

Stop bringing it up damn you all, it was a one liner from three pages ago. Such a lack of focus here!

It was pointed out to you, and you have had ample opportunity to remove the one liner.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

A rule for thee, but not for me

That's because you guys are making assumptions or judgements that are incorrect. We were talking about a change in Social Opinion [which I purposely didn't even say was as much, I made a joke about the virus causing insanity] and the current problems with baseball. There was no political discussion there and the moderators noticed that, and that is why you couldn't get us censured or the thread closed. I have been letting these attempts go but this is third time. It is you who should be censured. You are trying to incite riots. Calm down.

You may want to review post #274 [:)]

We're talking about two different things.

By "Fudging the numbers," I mean bad faith manipulations to present a false narrative. That's going to be hard to do for anybody under heavy scrutiny, as are most US jurisdictions (and likely many in other nations too).

Good faith variations in how to interpret things isn't what I was talking about.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I doubt anyone thinks the numbers anywhere are perfect (I said as much, above). In some places, they are more suspect than others. But the instance you cited is statistically meaningless. It did nothing except suggest to a casual reader that Georgia's numbers are suspect, which isn't true (at least, not based on that instance).

It'll be hard for any widespread fudging of numbers in places where there is scrutiny. Not only would the perpetrators get caught, they'd be crucified in print. Can you imagine what would happen to a governor or to a state health director that said, "Hey, let's play with numbers to make Covid look worse/better than it actually is."? In every case, somebody would blow the whistle. Who would take that chance? It's going to happen here and there, but most instances of bad faith trickery are going to be isolated/limited in scope.

Hey, wherever there are hotspot, those jurisdictions are reacting. Where there aren't, things are proceeding per easing. That's the only way it can work, right?

I can think of any number of ways to fudge the numbers.

Are the state level statistical publications tied to a specific definition to ensure standardized reporting?

What about assigning location of death? Do you record where fatalities lived, or where they were tested?

Or test numbers. What if you give one person six tests over a week. Have you tested six people, or one? Do you count confirmed false positive/negative results?

The situation in the UK was such that the head of the Office of Statistical Regulations got involved by writing to the health minister. I imagine the US, with the granular state system may even be worse.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We're talking about two different things.

By "Fudging the numbers," I mean bad faith manipulations to present a false narrative. That's going to be hard to do for anybody under heavy scrutiny, as are most US jurisdictions (and likely many in other nations too).

Good faith variations in how to interpret things isn't what I was talking about.

Look at the numbers for California/Texas/Florida/Arizona over the last week or so. The first three are the most populous states in the US. The increases they are seeing in cases is comfortably outstripping the equivalent increases in testing. Highlighting those numbers as a concern is not a bad faith manipulation or a false narrative.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We're talking about two different things.

By "Fudging the numbers," I mean bad faith manipulations to present a false narrative. That's going to be hard to do for anybody under heavy scrutiny, as are most US jurisdictions (and likely many in other nations too).

Good faith variations in how to interpret things isn't what I was talking about.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I doubt anyone thinks the numbers anywhere are perfect (I said as much, above). In some places, they are more suspect than others. But the instance you cited is statistically meaningless. It did nothing except suggest to a casual reader that Georgia's numbers are suspect, which isn't true (at least, not based on that instance).

It'll be hard for any widespread fudging of numbers in places where there is scrutiny. Not only would the perpetrators get caught, they'd be crucified in print. Can you imagine what would happen to a governor or to a state health director that said, "Hey, let's play with numbers to make Covid look worse/better than it actually is."? In every case, somebody would blow the whistle. Who would take that chance? It's going to happen here and there, but most instances of bad faith trickery are going to be isolated/limited in scope.

Hey, wherever there are hotspot, those jurisdictions are reacting. Where there aren't, things are proceeding per easing. That's the only way it can work, right?

I can think of any number of ways to fudge the numbers.

Are the state level statistical publications tied to a specific definition to ensure standardized reporting?

What about assigning location of death? Do you record where fatalities lived, or where they were tested?

Or test numbers. What if you give one person six tests over a week. Have you tested six people, or one? Do you count confirmed false positive/negative results?

The situation in the UK was such that the head of the Office of Statistical Regulations got involved by writing to the health minister. I imagine the US, with the granular state system may even be worse.

It's absolutely not hard to do - there would be justification for doing everything I've listed, either from a pragmatic or a statistical standpoint. That justification standing up to challenge is a different story.

However, it's not likely to be challenged because the devil is in the detail.

Your own Georgia DPH is a good example: https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report

You can see it's combining the serology and viral testing for Coivd. That boosts the total tests number.

But it lets you fudge the numbers. That way, you'd be right to claim that from nearly 800k tests, you've a 8% positive rate.

In actual fact, what you've done is taken two tests:

Test 1 tells you if someone currently has Covid, and this test might be conducted several times.
Test 2 tells you if someone has previously had Covid.

Now, test 1 would be your expected metric for determining the %positive.

But, now here's the kicker. Stick the two together and suddenly you can claim to have done nearly 800k tests (versus 663k of test one alone). What's even better, the %positive drops to 8% (versus the 8.4% of test 1 alone).

See, nice and easy. Just need to compare apples with oranges.

I think we've gotten off track. I wasn't suggesting that highlighting numbers from anywhere is manipulation or bad faith.

Apparently it's not possible for me to communicate clearly via the written word. All I meant was that it would be hard for any entity (local, state, national) to manipulate numbers in bad faith, given scrutiny levels.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I think we've gotten off track. I wasn't suggesting that highlighting numbers from anywhere is manipulation or bad faith.

Apparently it's not possible for me to communicate clearly via the written word. All I meant was that it would be hard for any entity (local, state, national) to manipulate numbers in bad faith, given scrutiny levels.

Well, see above example for discussion.

I'm happy to accept that I'm being excessively pedantic given how the information is displayed, but in my view those figures should be reported seperately.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I think we've gotten off track. I wasn't suggesting that highlighting numbers from anywhere is manipulation or bad faith.

Apparently it's not possible for me to communicate clearly via the written word. All I meant was that it would be hard for any entity (local, state, national) to manipulate numbers in bad faith, given scrutiny levels.

Fair enough, we'll put it down to poor communication and move on and try and keep this thread alive.

Sammy, you picked up on the narrative midstream and thus missed key context. Just one o' them things inherent in thread streams.

Ok sorry.

I think the message board does odd things sometimes - it was showing your reply as a reply to me and not to m_m [&:]