wombat_5606
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
There's nothing on my comment about my information being more accurate than yours unless you're selectively deciding what accurate means. My entire comment centers around how the charts don't give the fine tuned information which is the truth of all charts. My comment pertaining to county and whatnot is because they have the ability (though not all choose to) give that fine tuned details. You think my state is going to give all the cases in all 105 counties for all the zip codes and then separate that out between how many cases are from long-term care facilities? My state does now give outbreaks (but not nitty gritty details of where those are at; you'd have to research to get that) including how many active and cases are closed with those outbreaks. I see no reason why it's an issue to seek out the information that generally speaking is too great to capture in one resource. I guess for me that weighs in on my opinion of how this and that is going on. If it doesn't to you that's great! We just approach it differently.
You saying you wouldn't want to be in those states (apparently warning away others) based on a chart well that's your prerogative and so is mine to want more in depth information to help give me context to form a conclusion based on that. I naturally seek out more information. And where is the problem in the discussion regarding models used? (total rhetorical question) I was speaking about models in general as they've been utilized during this pandemic and I'm far from the only person to discuss limitations of them which is occurring well outside the DIS. We should be looking for ways to improve and give more information-these models are used for policy making, these models are used for public opinion and these models are used by health officials. And oftentimes the limitations don't get mentioned.
No need to slide in that you were trying to spend time around a fire pit with cocktails and don't want to look any further as if I'm inconveniencing you considering you responded and did a cursory look at least. No worries you can (edited: corrected word) get back to your drinks and fire. I'll get back inquisitive self and move on in the discussion as we appear to just not agree (no harm no foul just different mindsets) but do enjoy the rest of your evening
Pointing out the fact that my information doesn't take into account every single item you find pertinent is inherently saying my information isn't accurate. I bolded your statement. You can say you aren't calling my post inaccurate, but it doesn't make it any less apparent that you think so.
You still don't seem to feel the need to point me in the direction of your information and choose to ignore the information I attached.
I'm all for research and you speak of nothing but generalities, but don't provide any concrete information that pertains to the data the rt.live group uses. I actually was provided this link through someone else on this board that thought this information was extremely important to understanding the virus and the threat it posed. Just because it isn't for you, doesn't make it any less important.
Yes, I'm not going to take any more of my time on a beautiful night and waste it on trying to find something that you find important, regardless of your opinion of my time spent researching. If my mention of my evening offends you, you don't need to read any more of my posts. Tomorrow, I may include what I had for breakfast.
Maybe it's simply a matter of reporting standards, i.e. some state might want to know only about people on ventilators, and another might want to know about any ICU room usage. Bottom line, I dunno. Link to the graph below...
.
