Coronavirus COVID-19

Political discussions
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 6:30 pm
I don't know why you think that is remarkable. The vaccines reduce the risk. That does not mean nobody who gets vaccinated will test positive. There is no doubt, at all, that we would have had fewer people test positive over time if everyone eligible had kept up to date on their vaccinations at all times.

It's like saying driver restraints don't reduce the risk of death in a motor vehicle accident because someone who is wearing a driver restraint dies in a motor vehicle accident. It's a very flawed inference.
It's remarkable because she had 4 original shots and within the last month got her 5th, which is the new bivalent. She caught Covid within 30 days of getting boosted with the new bivalent vaccine. She should have had bomb proof protection.

You suppose she should get a shot every three weeks now to stay protected?

By the way, she also got Covid rebound taking Paxlovid, so how many times has she tested positive? Two at least.

I love how you've moved the goalposts throughout this pandemic. First you told us the vaccine was all world and was going to stop Covid in it's tracks. You even tried to argue the definition of a leaky vaccine by changing the meaning! :lol:. Not to mention your denial of the evolutionary pressure the vaccines put on the virus. Now you're all the way down to "it reduces the risk if you keep getting vaccinated over and over", with no way to accurately quantify that statement.

The vaccine was beneficial for select people, but not for the whole population. You need to realize there was already a fairly high percentage of the population that had some level of protection from COVID or was never at risk.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23231
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by houndawg »

SeattleGriz wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:30 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 6:30 pm

I don't know why you think that is remarkable. The vaccines reduce the risk. That does not mean nobody who gets vaccinated will test positive. There is no doubt, at all, that we would have had fewer people test positive over time if everyone eligible had kept up to date on their vaccinations at all times.

It's like saying driver restraints don't reduce the risk of death in a motor vehicle accident because someone who is wearing a driver restraint dies in a motor vehicle accident. It's a very flawed inference.
It's remarkable because she had 4 original shots and within the last month got her 5th, which is the new bivalent. She caught Covid within 30 days of getting boosted with the new bivalent vaccine. She should have had bomb proof protection.

You suppose she should get a shot every three weeks now to stay protected?

By the way, she also got Covid rebound taking Paxlovid, so how many times has she tested positive? Two at least.

I love how you've moved the goalposts throughout this pandemic. First you told us the vaccine was all world and was going to stop Covid in it's tracks. You even tried to argue the definition of a leaky vaccine by changing the meaning! :lol:. Not to mention your denial of the evolutionary pressure the vaccines put on the virus. Now you're all the way down to "it reduces the risk if you keep getting vaccinated over and over", with no way to accurately quantify that statement.

The vaccine was beneficial for select people, but not for the whole population. You need to realize there was already a fairly high percentage of the population that had some level of protection from COVID or was never at risk.
She's still alive, right? Unlike more than a million others. :coffee:

After all this time one would think that you'd be better informed about what vaccines do and how they work. I suspect the Russian sausage you've been gobbling is tainted. :nod: :coffee:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

houndawg wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:28 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:30 pm

It's remarkable because she had 4 original shots and within the last month got her 5th, which is the new bivalent. She caught Covid within 30 days of getting boosted with the new bivalent vaccine. She should have had bomb proof protection.

You suppose she should get a shot every three weeks now to stay protected?

By the way, she also got Covid rebound taking Paxlovid, so how many times has she tested positive? Two at least.

I love how you've moved the goalposts throughout this pandemic. First you told us the vaccine was all world and was going to stop Covid in it's tracks. You even tried to argue the definition of a leaky vaccine by changing the meaning! :lol:. Not to mention your denial of the evolutionary pressure the vaccines put on the virus. Now you're all the way down to "it reduces the risk if you keep getting vaccinated over and over", with no way to accurately quantify that statement.

The vaccine was beneficial for select people, but not for the whole population. You need to realize there was already a fairly high percentage of the population that had some level of protection from COVID or was never at risk.
She's still alive, right? Unlike more than a million others. :coffee:

After all this time one would think that you'd be better informed about what vaccines do and how they work. I suspect the Russian sausage you've been gobbling is tainted. :nod: :coffee:
Following me over here to drop turds? :lol:

Welcome.

And hey, I'm just going off of what StOnge has been saying. If we only stay absolutely current on our vaccinations, which looks to be about three weeks between shots, Covid would be over. Immunological exhaustion, leaky vaccines and immune imprinting be damned.

By the way, you see the news about Truss's phone being compromised by the Rooskies? Worse than a Hildog bathroom server.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23231
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by houndawg »

SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 6:06 am
houndawg wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:28 am

She's still alive, right? Unlike more than a million others. :coffee:

After all this time one would think that you'd be better informed about what vaccines do and how they work. I suspect the Russian sausage you've been gobbling is tainted. :nod: :coffee:
Following me over here to drop turds? :lol:

Welcome.

And hey, I'm just going off of what StOnge has been saying. If we only stay absolutely current on our vaccinations, which looks to be about three weeks between shots, Covid would be over. Immunological exhaustion, leaky vaccines and immune imprinting be damned.

By the way, you see the news about Truss's phone being compromised by the Rooskies? Worse than a Hildog bathroom server.
:rofl:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

:lol: This article is going about as well as expected. The expected, "we didn't know any better" line of reasoning is being torn apart.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ss/671879/
LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY
We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.
People haven't forgotten that 100 years of evidence based pandemic history coupled with at least 30 years of recent robust respiratory surveillance data (Cold, flu, pneumonia), was turned on its head and anyone who adhered to that knowledge base was vilified.

Now they want forgiveness for saying the unvaccinated should have lost their jobs, been denied medical services, forced to mask, close schools and general ass hattery, because they were in the dark.

No

I called this happening a LONG time ago when I stated in this thread that the "science changed" canard won't be allowed when it's all over.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:03 am :lol: This article is going about as well as expected. The expected, "we didn't know any better" line of reasoning is being torn apart.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ss/671879/
LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY
We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.
People haven't forgotten that 100 years of evidence based pandemic history coupled with at least 30 years of recent robust respiratory surveillance data (Cold, flu, pneumonia), was turned on its head and anyone who adhered to that knowledge base was vilified.

Now they want forgiveness for saying the unvaccinated should have lost their jobs, been denied medical services, forced to mask, close schools and general ass hattery, because they were in the dark.

No

I called this happening a LONG time ago when I stated in this thread that the "science changed" canard won't be allowed when it's all over.
Yep. Every local & state politician who forced schools to close during the 2020/2021 school year, along with the masking of small children, who forced business to stay closed, who had people fired from their jobs because they refuses to vax, who pushed useless mask mandates, should be fired. We should never forget or forgive.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by UNI88 »

BDKJMU wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:28 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:03 am :lol: This article is going about as well as expected. The expected, "we didn't know any better" line of reasoning is being torn apart.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ss/671879/

People haven't forgotten that 100 years of evidence based pandemic history coupled with at least 30 years of recent robust respiratory surveillance data (Cold, flu, pneumonia), was turned on its head and anyone who adhered to that knowledge base was vilified.

Now they want forgiveness for saying the unvaccinated should have lost their jobs, been denied medical services, forced to mask, close schools and general ass hattery, because they were in the dark.

No

I called this happening a LONG time ago when I stated in this thread that the "science changed" canard won't be allowed when it's all over.
Yep. Every local & state politician who forced schools to close during the 2020/2021 school year, along with the masking of small children, who forced business to stay closed, who had people fired from their jobs because they refuses to vax, who pushed useless mask mandates, should be fired. We should never forget or forgive.
We should apply the same standard to trump, the January 6 rioters and anyone pushing the election was stolen hoax (including Hillary Clinton & Stacey Abrams).
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

UNI88 wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:49 am
BDKJMU wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:28 am
Yep. Every local & state politician who forced schools to close during the 2020/2021 school year, along with the masking of small children, who forced business to stay closed, who had people fired from their jobs because they refuses to vax, who pushed useless mask mandates, should be fired. We should never forget or forgive.
We should apply the same standard to trump, the January 6 rioters and anyone pushing the election was stolen hoax (including Hillary Clinton & Stacey Abrams).
The election denials 2000/2016/2018/2020 and 1/6 didn’t directly and affect most Americans for 2+ years. The Covidian zealots did. Almost everyone was negatively affected everyday by business and school closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc. The election denials and 1/6 are tiddly winks compared to that.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by UNI88 »

BDKJMU wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:57 am
UNI88 wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:49 am
We should apply the same standard to trump, the January 6 rioters and anyone pushing the election was stolen hoax (including Hillary Clinton & Stacey Abrams).
The election denials 2000/2016/2018/2020 and 1/6 didn’t directly and affect most Americans for 2+ years. The Covidian zealots did. Almost everyone was negatively affected everyday by business and school closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc. The election denials and 1/6 are tiddly winks compared to that.
That's your opinion and I disagree. The 2020 election denials are still impacting us. It's frequently used as a litmus test for whether a candidate gets an endorsement and whether the MAGAts who continue to fall for the con support a candidate.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

UNI88 wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:05 am
BDKJMU wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:57 am
The election denials 2000/2016/2018/2020 and 1/6 didn’t directly and affect most Americans for 2+ years. The Covidian zealots did. Almost everyone was negatively affected everyday by business and school closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc. The election denials and 1/6 are tiddly winks compared to that.
That's your opinion and I disagree. The 2020 election denials are still impacting us. It's frequently used as a litmus test for whether a candidate gets an endorsement and whether the MAGAts who continue to fall for the con support a candidate.
Sure 2020 is still impacting us but not to near the degree Covid did. 1/6 and election denials didn’t cause the stuff that is affecting our everyday lives now (inflation, skyrocketing crime, etc). The reaction to Covid did greatly affect EVERTHING to a degree we haven’t seen in our lifetimes (far greater than inflation & crime is now). The only thing that could affect us as much/more than the reaction to Covid would be an all out World War III.

In our lifetimes what has negatively affected American life the most? Has to be the reaction to Covid, irregardless of how you feel about the response. Nothing else is even close. We’d probably have to go back to WWII for something as big an impact.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SDHornet »

Lol at that "Covid Amnesty" article in the Atlantic. Fuck that.

User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

SDHornet wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:08 pm Lol at that "Covid Amnesty" article in the Atlantic. Fuck that.

No shit. I like how, in her story, her four year old yells at another small girl "SOCIAL DISTANCING!" , as he passes her on a hike in the woods.

What sort of fucking nutjob does that to a kid? Scares them so much, they yell at another kid simply in passing, especially as they've all got on their superstitious cloth masks made out of bandanas. Must have forgot the talisman.

The rest of her story is just as unhinged, especially how "injecting bleach" was misinformation. No shit. It's people like her that made that shit up.

Needless to say, the whole article speaks volumes about the sort of staffing you can find in the Economics department at Brown University and more specifically, what sort of piece of shit turns on her fellow humans over lies.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SDHornet »

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SDHornet »

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27895
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

SDHornet wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 8:40 pm
Amen, and never forget.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

SDHornet wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 8:40 pm
They forced my special needs son out of school for a year. I watched him, for whatever reason, get so overwhelmed by zoom class, that his fight or flight response kicked in and he would physically attack his mother. FOR A FUCKING YEAR.

I'm not in a forgiving mood, especially considering most of those susceptible were in that position due to poor life choices. Then those same mother fuckers said I needed to do shit to keep them safe from their shit life choices. :dunce:
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

A story that I think illustrates how decisions made by the investigator, even when reasonable, can affect conclusions. Skip to the the paragraph near the end that starts with "But here is the thing" if you just want the gist.

Yesterday I had some fun doing an analysis of the association between Party in total control of States and higher cumulative COVID-19 death rates since the start of the pandemic. I got the info on States with Republican Governors as well as Republicans in control of both State Houses and on States with Democrat Governors and Democrats in Control of both State Houses at https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_compos ... #Trifectas .

Since COVID-19 started in 2020 I did not include States where the situation has changed since 2019 (Montana, New Hampshire). That left me with 21 Republican controlled States and 14 Democrat controlled States. I used COVID-19 death rate (deaths per million population) data from Worldometers . com updated through 11/11/2022.

States controlled by Republicans had a higher mean death rate (3544 vs. 2922) than States controlled by Democrats did. The difference is significant at 97% confidence.

I decided to see if the difference would persist if I did a model and controlled for % population >=65, population density, % Black population, and % in Poverty.

I ended up with a model suggesting that, most of the time, Republican control means higher death rate even when those factors are controlled for. When expected values are predicted for the States with all variables as they are except the Party control variable is set at either Republican or Democrat, the mean death rate when all States are set at Republican is 3507 and that when all States are set at Democrat is 3134. In 29 of 35 cases, the expected value for a State was higher when Party control was set at Republican.

But there were exceptions associated with States having high percent Black populations. There is a coefficient in the model that causes it to predict, when all other things are equal, a higher case rate when Party is set at Democrat and percent Black population exceeds 27.2 percent.

But here is the thing: I could have cheated and removed that coefficient from the model. There is a thing called Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). An on line resource I use actually recommended removing the variable from the model because VIF is >5. But my standard approach is to remove a variable when VIF is >=10. And the VIF for the critical variable in this case is 9.9. Close but no cigar. So the variable stayed in my model.

Had I removed it, the model would have always predicted, when all other things are equal, a higher death rate when Party control was set at Republican. And it would have been a reasonable decision because that was recommended by my on line resource. However, leaving it in was also reasonable. My criterion is >=10 because a statistics textbook on multivariable analysis that I obtained back in the 1990s recommends that.

So one reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse overall but with the caveat that the situation is different when percent Black population is high. The other reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse under all circumstances.

It's why I believe that intellectual honesty dictates establishing the rules ahead of time and not being tempted to change them...even slightly...when the results aren't quite what you were expecting or maybe even wanting.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Gil Dobie »

JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 7:41 am A story that I think illustrates how decisions made by the investigator, even when reasonable, can affect conclusions. Skip to the the paragraph near the end that starts with "But here is the thing" if you just want the gist.

Yesterday I had some fun doing an analysis of the association between Party in total control of States and higher cumulative COVID-19 death rates since the start of the pandemic. I got the info on States with Republican Governors as well as Republicans in control of both State Houses and on States with Democrat Governors and Democrats in Control of both State Houses at https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_compos ... #Trifectas .

Since COVID-19 started in 2020 I did not include States where the situation has changed since 2019 (Montana, New Hampshire). That left me with 21 Republican controlled States and 14 Democrat controlled States. I used COVID-19 death rate (deaths per million population) data from Worldometers . com updated through 11/11/2022.

States controlled by Republicans had a higher mean death rate (3544 vs. 2922) than States controlled by Democrats did. The difference is significant at 97% confidence.

I decided to see if the difference would persist if I did a model and controlled for % population >=65, population density, % Black population, and % in Poverty.

I ended up with a model suggesting that, most of the time, Republican control means higher death rate even when those factors are controlled for. When expected values are predicted for the States with all variables as they are except the Party control variable is set at either Republican or Democrat, the mean death rate when all States are set at Republican is 3507 and that when all States are set at Democrat is 3134. In 29 of 35 cases, the expected value for a State was higher when Party control was set at Republican.

But there were exceptions associated with States having high percent Black populations. There is a coefficient in the model that causes it to predict, when all other things are equal, a higher case rate when Party is set at Democrat and percent Black population exceeds 27.2 percent.

But here is the thing: I could have cheated and removed that coefficient from the model. There is a thing called Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). An on line resource I use actually recommended removing the variable from the model because VIF is >5. But my standard approach is to remove a variable when VIF is >=10. And the VIF for the critical variable in this case is 9.9. Close but no cigar. So the variable stayed in my model.

Had I removed it, the model would have always predicted, when all other things are equal, a higher death rate when Party control was set at Republican. And it would have been a reasonable decision because that was recommended by my on line resource. However, leaving it in was also reasonable. My criterion is >=10 because a statistics textbook on multivariable analysis that I obtained back in the 1990s recommends that.

So one reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse overall but with the caveat that the situation is different when percent Black population is high. The other reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse under all circumstances.

It's why I believe that intellectual honesty dictates establishing the rules ahead of time and not being tempted to change them...even slightly...when the results aren't quite what you were expecting or maybe even wanting.
It's because covid was made political and people like you on the left, and Republicans on the right, continue to keep it political, how's that for intellectual honesty. Medicine should not be political, It's there to save lives.
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

Gil Dobie wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:30 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 7:41 am A story that I think illustrates how decisions made by the investigator, even when reasonable, can affect conclusions. Skip to the the paragraph near the end that starts with "But here is the thing" if you just want the gist.

Yesterday I had some fun doing an analysis of the association between Party in total control of States and higher cumulative COVID-19 death rates since the start of the pandemic. I got the info on States with Republican Governors as well as Republicans in control of both State Houses and on States with Democrat Governors and Democrats in Control of both State Houses at https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_compos ... #Trifectas .

Since COVID-19 started in 2020 I did not include States where the situation has changed since 2019 (Montana, New Hampshire). That left me with 21 Republican controlled States and 14 Democrat controlled States. I used COVID-19 death rate (deaths per million population) data from Worldometers . com updated through 11/11/2022.

States controlled by Republicans had a higher mean death rate (3544 vs. 2922) than States controlled by Democrats did. The difference is significant at 97% confidence.

I decided to see if the difference would persist if I did a model and controlled for % population >=65, population density, % Black population, and % in Poverty.

I ended up with a model suggesting that, most of the time, Republican control means higher death rate even when those factors are controlled for. When expected values are predicted for the States with all variables as they are except the Party control variable is set at either Republican or Democrat, the mean death rate when all States are set at Republican is 3507 and that when all States are set at Democrat is 3134. In 29 of 35 cases, the expected value for a State was higher when Party control was set at Republican.

But there were exceptions associated with States having high percent Black populations. There is a coefficient in the model that causes it to predict, when all other things are equal, a higher case rate when Party is set at Democrat and percent Black population exceeds 27.2 percent.

But here is the thing: I could have cheated and removed that coefficient from the model. There is a thing called Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). An on line resource I use actually recommended removing the variable from the model because VIF is >5. But my standard approach is to remove a variable when VIF is >=10. And the VIF for the critical variable in this case is 9.9. Close but no cigar. So the variable stayed in my model.

Had I removed it, the model would have always predicted, when all other things are equal, a higher death rate when Party control was set at Republican. And it would have been a reasonable decision because that was recommended by my on line resource. However, leaving it in was also reasonable. My criterion is >=10 because a statistics textbook on multivariable analysis that I obtained back in the 1990s recommends that.

So one reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse overall but with the caveat that the situation is different when percent Black population is high. The other reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse under all circumstances.

It's why I believe that intellectual honesty dictates establishing the rules ahead of time and not being tempted to change them...even slightly...when the results aren't quite what you were expecting or maybe even wanting.
It's because covid was made political and people like you on the left, and Republicans on the right, continue to keep it political, how's that for intellectual honesty. Medicine should not be political, It's there to save lives.
I don't know if it is a matter of left or right but it was made political by people wanting to deny the severity of the problem as well as wanting, for some reason, to try to discredit the advice of public health experts. The truth was always that it was a very serious pandemic, much worse than the seasonal flu, killing a whole lot of people. The truth was always that the death count is not exaggerated. The truth was always that community masking reduces transmission. The truth was always that the vaccines are safe and effective. The truth was always the hyroxychloriquine and ivermectin are not effective. So on and so forth.

Also, the truth has always been that it has mostly been the right, and not the left, spreading misinformation.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Pwns »

JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 7:41 am A story that I think illustrates how decisions made by the investigator, even when reasonable, can affect conclusions. Skip to the the paragraph near the end that starts with "But here is the thing" if you just want the gist.

Yesterday I had some fun doing an analysis of the association between Party in total control of States and higher cumulative COVID-19 death rates since the start of the pandemic. I got the info on States with Republican Governors as well as Republicans in control of both State Houses and on States with Democrat Governors and Democrats in Control of both State Houses at https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_compos ... #Trifectas .

Since COVID-19 started in 2020 I did not include States where the situation has changed since 2019 (Montana, New Hampshire). That left me with 21 Republican controlled States and 14 Democrat controlled States. I used COVID-19 death rate (deaths per million population) data from Worldometers . com updated through 11/11/2022.

States controlled by Republicans had a higher mean death rate (3544 vs. 2922) than States controlled by Democrats did. The difference is significant at 97% confidence.

I decided to see if the difference would persist if I did a model and controlled for % population >=65, population density, % Black population, and % in Poverty.

I ended up with a model suggesting that, most of the time, Republican control means higher death rate even when those factors are controlled for. When expected values are predicted for the States with all variables as they are except the Party control variable is set at either Republican or Democrat, the mean death rate when all States are set at Republican is 3507 and that when all States are set at Democrat is 3134. In 29 of 35 cases, the expected value for a State was higher when Party control was set at Republican.

But there were exceptions associated with States having high percent Black populations. There is a coefficient in the model that causes it to predict, when all other things are equal, a higher case rate when Party is set at Democrat and percent Black population exceeds 27.2 percent.

But here is the thing: I could have cheated and removed that coefficient from the model. There is a thing called Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). An on line resource I use actually recommended removing the variable from the model because VIF is >5. But my standard approach is to remove a variable when VIF is >=10. And the VIF for the critical variable in this case is 9.9. Close but no cigar. So the variable stayed in my model.

Had I removed it, the model would have always predicted, when all other things are equal, a higher death rate when Party control was set at Republican. And it would have been a reasonable decision because that was recommended by my on line resource. However, leaving it in was also reasonable. My criterion is >=10 because a statistics textbook on multivariable analysis that I obtained back in the 1990s recommends that.

So one reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse overall but with the caveat that the situation is different when percent Black population is high. The other reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse under all circumstances.

It's why I believe that intellectual honesty dictates establishing the rules ahead of time and not being tempted to change them...even slightly...when the results aren't quite what you were expecting or maybe even wanting.
If I'm understanding right, when you had percentage of black people in the model Democrat states had higher death rates. I've seen VIF used different ways in different contexts but what I assume it means here is that the coefficient standard errors grow when you put the percentage of black people in the state in the model. Well, poverty% and black% are correlated so that's going to inflate the variance with only 50 observations and 3 versus 2 variables. Look at what the model does with only the political variable and black% and see how it looks.

You also failed to adjust for age. I would think Republican states generally have older (at least older white) populations.
Last edited by Pwns on Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:30 pm

It's remarkable because she had 4 original shots and within the last month got her 5th, which is the new bivalent. She caught Covid within 30 days of getting boosted with the new bivalent vaccine. She should have had bomb proof protection.
That's not true at all. For example: Even with the original strain, during the Pfizer clinical trial, 11 people in the vaccine group (vs. 185 in the placebo group) got COVID-19. It does not provide "bomb proof protection." It reduces the risk.

I''ll say it again: Saying that the vaccines don't reduce COVID-19 risk because somebody that got vaccinated got COVID-19 is like saying seat belts don't reduce fatality risk in traffic accidents because somebody who was wearing a seat belt got killed during a traffic accident. It's just really fallacious reasoning.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

Pwns wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:13 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 7:41 am A story that I think illustrates how decisions made by the investigator, even when reasonable, can affect conclusions. Skip to the the paragraph near the end that starts with "But here is the thing" if you just want the gist.

Yesterday I had some fun doing an analysis of the association between Party in total control of States and higher cumulative COVID-19 death rates since the start of the pandemic. I got the info on States with Republican Governors as well as Republicans in control of both State Houses and on States with Democrat Governors and Democrats in Control of both State Houses at https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_compos ... #Trifectas .

Since COVID-19 started in 2020 I did not include States where the situation has changed since 2019 (Montana, New Hampshire). That left me with 21 Republican controlled States and 14 Democrat controlled States. I used COVID-19 death rate (deaths per million population) data from Worldometers . com updated through 11/11/2022.

States controlled by Republicans had a higher mean death rate (3544 vs. 2922) than States controlled by Democrats did. The difference is significant at 97% confidence.

I decided to see if the difference would persist if I did a model and controlled for % population >=65, population density, % Black population, and % in Poverty.

I ended up with a model suggesting that, most of the time, Republican control means higher death rate even when those factors are controlled for. When expected values are predicted for the States with all variables as they are except the Party control variable is set at either Republican or Democrat, the mean death rate when all States are set at Republican is 3507 and that when all States are set at Democrat is 3134. In 29 of 35 cases, the expected value for a State was higher when Party control was set at Republican.

But there were exceptions associated with States having high percent Black populations. There is a coefficient in the model that causes it to predict, when all other things are equal, a higher case rate when Party is set at Democrat and percent Black population exceeds 27.2 percent.

But here is the thing: I could have cheated and removed that coefficient from the model. There is a thing called Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). An on line resource I use actually recommended removing the variable from the model because VIF is >5. But my standard approach is to remove a variable when VIF is >=10. And the VIF for the critical variable in this case is 9.9. Close but no cigar. So the variable stayed in my model.

Had I removed it, the model would have always predicted, when all other things are equal, a higher death rate when Party control was set at Republican. And it would have been a reasonable decision because that was recommended by my on line resource. However, leaving it in was also reasonable. My criterion is >=10 because a statistics textbook on multivariable analysis that I obtained back in the 1990s recommends that.

So one reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse overall but with the caveat that the situation is different when percent Black population is high. The other reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse under all circumstances.

It's why I believe that intellectual honesty dictates establishing the rules ahead of time and not being tempted to change them...even slightly...when the results aren't quite what you were expecting or maybe even wanting.
If I'm understanding right, when you had percentage of black people in the model Democrat states had higher death rates. I've seen VIF used different ways in different contexts but what I assume it means here is that the coefficient standard errors grow when you put the percentage of black people in the state in the model. Well, poverty% and black% are correlated so that's going to inflate the variance with only 50 observations and 3 versus 2 variables. Look at what the model does with only the political variable and black% and see how it looks.

You also failed to adjust for age. I would think Republican states generally have older (at least older white) populations.
With respect to adjusting for age: I included % population >65. The end result is that, all other things being equal, Republican controlled states have had higher death rates regardless of % population >65 is but the difference gets greater as %>65 rises. For example: If all other things except Party Control are equal, the Death Rate expected value for a Republican Controlled State at %>65 = 15 is greater than that for a Democrat Controlled State. If you raise %>65 is raised to 20, the Republican controlled State expected value is larger to a greater extent.

The statement about black people in the model isn't quite right. % Black people is always in the model. When it rises above 27.2% you reach a point where, all other things being equal, you get a higher expected value if you set Party at Democrat. At 27.2% and below, you get a higher value if you set the Party at Republican.

I don't fully grasp all of the problems associated with a high VIF. There is a discussion of it at https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... actor-vif/. but it is correct that it inflates the standard errors. I just think of it as including variables that contribute the same information. And I am just following what I read a long tie ago in a multivariable analysis textbook indicating how to identify it and saying you should get rid of it if you do. So, as a standard matter, I remove variables characterized by a high VIF. Had that variable been characterized by a VIF >10, I would have removed it.

I have no idea as to why things would look worse for Democrat States when the Black % population is high but worse for Republican States when % Black population is low if it's real. But I will say that I went in feeling confident that the analysis would show that it was always worse for Republican States and that didn't happen. Makes it tempting to say, "OK, I'll just go with what my on line resource recommended." And my on line resource recommended removing the variable from the model. But, no, I consider it important to set the rules ahead of time then stick to them.

But it was SOOOO close. 9.9 when I could have removed it at 10.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

Pwns wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:13 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 7:41 am A story that I think illustrates how decisions made by the investigator, even when reasonable, can affect conclusions. Skip to the the paragraph near the end that starts with "But here is the thing" if you just want the gist.

Yesterday I had some fun doing an analysis of the association between Party in total control of States and higher cumulative COVID-19 death rates since the start of the pandemic. I got the info on States with Republican Governors as well as Republicans in control of both State Houses and on States with Democrat Governors and Democrats in Control of both State Houses at https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_compos ... #Trifectas .

Since COVID-19 started in 2020 I did not include States where the situation has changed since 2019 (Montana, New Hampshire). That left me with 21 Republican controlled States and 14 Democrat controlled States. I used COVID-19 death rate (deaths per million population) data from Worldometers . com updated through 11/11/2022.

States controlled by Republicans had a higher mean death rate (3544 vs. 2922) than States controlled by Democrats did. The difference is significant at 97% confidence.

I decided to see if the difference would persist if I did a model and controlled for % population >=65, population density, % Black population, and % in Poverty.

I ended up with a model suggesting that, most of the time, Republican control means higher death rate even when those factors are controlled for. When expected values are predicted for the States with all variables as they are except the Party control variable is set at either Republican or Democrat, the mean death rate when all States are set at Republican is 3507 and that when all States are set at Democrat is 3134. In 29 of 35 cases, the expected value for a State was higher when Party control was set at Republican.

But there were exceptions associated with States having high percent Black populations. There is a coefficient in the model that causes it to predict, when all other things are equal, a higher case rate when Party is set at Democrat and percent Black population exceeds 27.2 percent.

But here is the thing: I could have cheated and removed that coefficient from the model. There is a thing called Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). An on line resource I use actually recommended removing the variable from the model because VIF is >5. But my standard approach is to remove a variable when VIF is >=10. And the VIF for the critical variable in this case is 9.9. Close but no cigar. So the variable stayed in my model.

Had I removed it, the model would have always predicted, when all other things are equal, a higher death rate when Party control was set at Republican. And it would have been a reasonable decision because that was recommended by my on line resource. However, leaving it in was also reasonable. My criterion is >=10 because a statistics textbook on multivariable analysis that I obtained back in the 1990s recommends that.

So one reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse overall but with the caveat that the situation is different when percent Black population is high. The other reasonable decision yields saying Republican States have done worse under all circumstances.

It's why I believe that intellectual honesty dictates establishing the rules ahead of time and not being tempted to change them...even slightly...when the results aren't quite what you were expecting or maybe even wanting.
If I'm understanding right, when you had percentage of black people in the model Democrat states had higher death rates. I've seen VIF used different ways in different contexts but what I assume it means here is that the coefficient standard errors grow when you put the percentage of black people in the state in the model. Well, poverty% and black% are correlated so that's going to inflate the variance with only 50 observations and 3 versus 2 variables. Look at what the model does with only the political variable and black% and see how it looks.

You also failed to adjust for age. I would think Republican states generally have older (at least older white) populations.
For your information, here is the model:

Death Rate = -603.2066125 + 0.998075804xD + 5609.471561xB + 23722.48294 x P + 6361.081799xRTx65 -6462.969037xRTxB

Where:
D is population density in persons per square mile
B is % Black population
P is % in poverty in population
RT is a dummy variable assuming the value 1 if Republican Control and 0 if Democrat control
65 is % population >65

So what happens is that, if Democrats are in control, the last two terms become 0. That means, in Democrat controlled States, has no effect. It always has some effect in Republican controlled States, and the effect increases as u]>[/u]65 rises.

What also happens is that, when % Black population is low, the net effect is higher for Republican States because the 5609.471561xB term positive term has a larger absolute value than the -6462.929037xRxB negative terms.

I did make an error in the discussion above about % Black. What happens is that, if a State is Republican, Death Rate always goes down as % Black goes up. That's because, when RT is 1, you get +54609xB - 6462xB. When RT is 0 for Democrat control, there is no % Black effect. So when you get to high %Black population, it becomes more likely that a lower value will be predicted for Republican control. The 6 States where the model predicted lower case rates, all other things being as they were, for Republican Control have 23.4, 38.8, 26.6.17.3, 32.1, and 27.3 percent Black populations. The median percent Black population among the States is 9.1.

I did test the model for significant departure from normal distribution of residuals and for homogeneity of variances and there were no significant departures. As noted, multicolinearity was on the edge but the model barely passed. I checked to see what would happen if I removed RTxB and continued backwards elimination and ended up with only Population Density, % in Poverty, and RTx65 in the model. But that model was characterized by significant departure from homogeneity of variances so that's another argument for sticking with the first one.

Anyway, I think it is a great example of how one could get the result they want with observational data by changing the rules after the fact. An argument CAN be made for using the model without % Black population in it. Even though the homogeneity of variances assumption is not met with the model with no % Black population in it, one can still say the coefficients are unbiased estimators and still make the general statement that death rate is always predicted to be higher for Republican controlled States. And one could just say RTxB was removed because VIF was >5 without mentioning that they went in with a rule of rejecting a variable if it was >10. Rejecting it at >5 would be viewed as acceptable and no one would ever know you changed the rules because you didn't get what you wanted.

I personally have always believed that a requirement for publication in a journal should be that you send your detailed methods to the journal beforehand so you have to do what you went in planning to do and can't fudge like that.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Gil Dobie »

JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:05 pm
Gil Dobie wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:30 pm

It's because covid was made political and people like you on the left, and Republicans on the right, continue to keep it political, how's that for intellectual honesty. Medicine should not be political, It's there to save lives.
I don't know if it is a matter of left or right but it was made political by people wanting to deny the severity of the problem as well as wanting, for some reason, to try to discredit the advice of public health experts. The truth was always that it was a very serious pandemic, much worse than the seasonal flu, killing a whole lot of people. The truth was always that the death count is not exaggerated. The truth was always that community masking reduces transmission. The truth was always that the vaccines are safe and effective. The truth was always the hyroxychloriquine and ivermectin are not effective. So on and so forth.

Also, the truth has always been that it has mostly been the right, and not the left, spreading misinformation.
No, it's both if you are intellectually honest.
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

Gil Dobie wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 5:13 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:05 pm

I don't know if it is a matter of left or right but it was made political by people wanting to deny the severity of the problem as well as wanting, for some reason, to try to discredit the advice of public health experts. The truth was always that it was a very serious pandemic, much worse than the seasonal flu, killing a whole lot of people. The truth was always that the death count is not exaggerated. The truth was always that community masking reduces transmission. The truth was always that the vaccines are safe and effective. The truth was always the hyroxychloriquine and ivermectin are not effective. So on and so forth.

Also, the truth has always been that it has mostly been the right, and not the left, spreading misinformation.
No, it's both if you are intellectually honest.
No it's not. And I am being intellectually honest. There is no way the left has been as bad as the right has been about spreading misinformation during this COVID-19 thing. People on the left have been much more likely to stick with what public health officials have been recommending. You can see that reflected in things like polling on who is vaccinated, who is boosted, who wears masks, etc. It's very clear that people who identify as Democrats/Liberals are FAR more likely to adopt behavior consistent with public health recommendations than people who identify as Republicans/Conservatives do.

I think that there is a tendency for people to want to show that they are "fair" by acting as though both sides are equally as bad. But the reality is that, at this point in history, both sides are not equally as bad. The Republican/Conservative side is far worse. Far more out of touch with reality with respect to the COVID-19 thing in particular.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
Post Reply