Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Dirty Stinking Government HealthcareFollow

#202 Oct 26 2009 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Kavekk wrote:
There is nothing technically wrong with what he is saying, assuming all those who were tested were suspected cases. 37.5% of those who were tested had flu, the vast majority of that 37.5% had H1N1.

There's not anything wrong with what catwho said, either, though.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 2:02am by Kavekk


he said it in a way that made it sound like the negative cases were actually positive for another subtype/strain.
#203 Oct 26 2009 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Bardalicious wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
There is nothing technically wrong with what he is saying, assuming all those who were tested were suspected cases. 37.5% of those who were tested had flu, the vast majority of that 37.5% had H1N1.

There's not anything wrong with what catwho said, either, though.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 2:02am by Kavekk


he said it in a way that made it sound like the negative cases were actually positive for another subtype/strain.


Not really. He said "suspected cases" - perhaps that was his intent, but you'd have to be as stupid as soulshaver to fall for it, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he lacked the reading comprehension to interpret a straightforward post.
#204 Oct 26 2009 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Not really. He said "suspected cases" - perhaps that was his intent, but you'd have to be as stupid as soulshaver to fall for it, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he lacked the reading comprehension to interpret a straightforward post.


Quote:
Nope, it says only 4,855 out of 12,943 cases have been H1N1, or 37.5% of suspected cases.

I didn't look at the data until people harassed him about it. I read it as two different statistics. I assumed he was saying that 4,855/12,943 "positive" flu cases were H1N1 and that the 12,943 "positive flu" cases represented 37.5% of suspected flu cases.
#205 Oct 26 2009 at 9:20 PM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
All of the nearly 5,000 cases tested in the last week have been H1N1.


This statement is just plain wrong. I don't know how you can see it two ways. It is not the case that all of the 5,000 cases tested in the last week have been H1N1.

If you are talking about all of the cases that were tested in the last week, the number is 12,943.

If you are only talking about the cases that have been positively identified as H1N1, the number is 3,378.

Out of the nearly 13,000 cases tested last week that were suspected H1N1, only 3,378 have been positively identified as H1N1, with another 1,500 assumed to be H1N1, although subtype testing wasn't actually performed.
#206 Oct 26 2009 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Out of the nearly 13,000 cases tested last week that were suspected H1N1, only 3,378 have been positively identified as H1N1, with another 1,500 assumed to be H1N1, although subtype testing wasn't actually performed.


He's talking about the proportion of positive results... ******* obviously.

Assume the flu

you get 3k/5k as totally confirmed. If you assume the trend continues, you'll end up with something very near 5k/5k This is how "all of the cases" of the flu can be swine. This is very simple, okay? The significant part is not that 12k people had flu-like symptoms. The significant part is how much swine flu is getting to people compared to other crap.

The other 7k "cases" which weren't really "cases" at all but merely suspected of being "cases" are entire irrelevant to the prevalence of swine flu in terms of actual infection proportion. The "cases" you are clinging to are cases of tests, not of flu infection. Do you understand? Good. Do you understand why no one would or should care about cases of tests, but instead cases of actual flu? Good.
#207 Oct 26 2009 at 9:39 PM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
Do you understand why no one would or should care about cases of tests, but instead cases of actual flu?


I was replying to this...

Quote:
All of the nearly 5,000 cases tested in the last week have been H1N1.


So yeah, we were talking about ALL CASES TESTED IN THE LAST WEEK.

Do you think that is a logically correct statement?

#208 Oct 26 2009 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Quote:
Do you understand why no one would or should care about cases of tests, but instead cases of actual flu?


I was replying to this...

Quote:
All of the nearly 5,000 cases tested in the last week have been H1N1.


So yeah, we were talking about ALL CASES TESTED IN THE LAST WEEK.

Do you think that is a logically correct statement?

No, we are talking about all cases tested in the last week that turned out to indeed be the flu.
#209 Oct 26 2009 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
So yeah, we were talking about ALL CASES TESTED IN THE LAST WEEK.


Hahaha no.

You were talking about these. Why you were? I'm not sure. Why you can't separate relevant and important information from technically correct but useless information, I'm not sure. Why you feel the need to waste time by talking about totally ridiculous bullsh*t, I have no idea. It is your choice to do so though, but don't be surprised when your choice to assert that cat-lifespans have an important and demonstrable effect on the motions of the Milky Way gets the point ignored as specious.

Quote:
Do you think that is a logically correct statement?


It is that, in addition to being a shortsighted, semantic, totally irrelevant even when true, and an altogether weaselly little dodge of a statement. It furthermore in no way contradicts the claim you were responding to, and this latter point is the real problem for you, because the way you want to interpret this data is the most stupid way to interpret it. I could assume you're interpreting it in some actually pertinent fashion, and it seems like other people also want to, but you seem hard and determined to intentionally, and with no doubt on the listener's part, assert something ridiculous.

Have it at chap.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 12:21am by Pensive
#210 Oct 26 2009 at 10:38 PM Rating: Good
The 12,XXX whatever figure is "snot taken from people who came in with flu-like symptoms that doctors sent to a lab to get analyzed for the flu."

The "5000 cases" (ok, not quite all, 99.8% though) refers to those snot samples which actually tested positive for the flu, which were almost entirely of the H1N1 A subtype. 7,XXX whatever snot samples didn't test positive for the flu.
#211 Oct 27 2009 at 7:28 AM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Right, so when you say that "all of the 5,000 cases tested last week were H1N1," that is an untrue statement. If you meant to say something else, that's fine, just admit it.

#212 Oct 27 2009 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Right, so when you say that "all of the 5,000 cases tested last week were H1N1," that is an untrue statement. If you meant to say something else, that's fine, just admit it.


Well great, you've rebounded to some deflection of the fact that your reading comprehension and semantic evaluation is worse than my cat's by deferring responsibility to the speaker. Don't recover gracefully from totally and obstinately misinterpreting meaning by crafting a new and relevant argument in light of it; just try to ***** about her elucidation.

Classy.

If you really want to play The Irritating Linguistic Pedant game, then it's a true statement given some meanings of "cases," because the prepositional phrase after the "cases" term is missing. The operational meaning of potentially ambiguous or malleable language is defined by the first person to use the term: Catwho. The onus is on you to ask for clarity if something is unclear to you, and given the fact that everyone else seemed to get the point, it is highly unlikely that the meaning should be totally incomprehensible or fail to be in accordance with the language.
#213 Oct 27 2009 at 8:00 AM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
The subject of the sentence is "all of the cases tested in the last week." Do you disagree with that?

If you all want to try to shift the meaning of her statement because of a personal bias, that is fine, but my only point was that it was an untrue statement add it is meaningful because it adds to the irrational fear that this new strain is much worse than it actually is.

So far ya'll have cited two pieces of scientific evidence, one of them overestimated the fatality rate for H1N1 and the other was misquoted to represent a much higher percentage of H1N1 infections than was actually the case.

Its amazing how people can delude themselves into believing one side of an argument solely because of their personal bias or prejudice.
#214 Oct 27 2009 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Right, so when you say that "all of the 5,000 cases tested last week were H1N1," that is an untrue statement. If you meant to say something else, that's fine, just admit it.



"All of the 5000 confirmed influenza cases that were tested last week tested positive for H1N1" would have been clearer, certainly.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#215 Oct 27 2009 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Two possibilities:

A) you're trolling and you're stupid
B) you're earnestly unable to see this and you're stupid

I was a B man before, but I'm starting to come around to A.
#216 Oct 27 2009 at 8:52 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
You cannot possibly be this goddamn stupid

Quote:
All of the nearly 5,000 cases tested in the last week have been H1N1.


1) All of the nearly 5,000 cases (of the flu) tested in the last week have been H1N1.

2) All of the nearly 5,000 cases (of potential flu) tested in the last week have been H1N1.

It is impossible for any sane human being to fail to see ambiguity,the truth of which may work either way, and the notion that you actually have a decent grasp of linguistic meaning in English is dubious. It is only slightly more possible for a sane human being to conceive of choice 2) as actually making the slightest bit of damn sense, because it's quite obvious that there were not 5000 cases of potential flu.

Were you really, truly so blind that you cant take one number and apply it to the only place it matches?

Quote:
but my only point was that it was an untrue statement


And you were incorrect, because you overstepped the limits of your precious skepticism because of either pride or just plain carelessness, failing in every way to apply the same epistemological standards to arguments that you'd apply to science. That would have been fine if you had the slightest bit of actual drive towards understanding the potential impact of this flu strain instead of . It is retarded of you to try to **** with semantics even after meaning has been clarified, and that was done long ago.

And that's really what pisses me off about that: you got your misinterpreted meaning fixed, the meaning that apparently only you failed to get the first time around, and then have the gall to blame it on someone else.

Quote:
because it adds to the irrational fear that this new strain is much worse than it actually is.


You are apparently as unqualified to make judgments as you are assertions. It means that of flu cases revealed by the CDC's tests, that h1n1 is nearly ubiquitous in scope, and has affected a ******** of individuals.
#217REDACTED, Posted: Oct 27 2009 at 8:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) While this would still technically be incorrect, it's not a misleading statement so I probably wouldn't have made a point of it.
#218 Oct 27 2009 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
5 pages later, and I still don't know whether I should get the H1N1 flu vaccine or not. Bloody liberals Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#219 Oct 27 2009 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
5 pages later, and I still don't know whether I should get the H1N1 flu vaccine or not. Bloody liberals


Do you interact with a large volume of people?

Do you interact with people in a risk group?

Would you prefer paying the time/money cost of getting the vaccine rather than the possible time/money cost of getting sick?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, yes.

If not, then don't.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#220 Oct 27 2009 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
My husband is a college professor for education students, many of whom are doing junk at elementary schools. He's already had 3 students out sick with the flu in the past few weeks. So that's why we got it.

Anyone hear anything more about Deseree Jennings, the Redskins cheerleader hopeful who is claiming the flu shot gave her dystonia? So far all I've seen is an obviously spliced Inside Edition video and some fringe news sites. Dystonia is a nasty neurological disorder, but it's a known side effect of anti-psychotics, not thimerosol.

#221 Oct 27 2009 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Do you interact with a large volume of people?

Do you interact with people in a risk group?

Would you prefer paying the time/money cost of getting the vaccine rather than the possible time/money cost of getting sick?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, yes.

If not, then don't.
I answered yes to 1 and 2, but I have sick days that need using, so I'm going no on question 3.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#222 Oct 27 2009 at 11:06 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
5 pages later, and I still don't know whether I should get the H1N1 flu vaccine or not. Bloody liberals Smiley: oyvey
I vote no. (we are, at least, democratic liberals).

ss wrote:
Its amazing how people can delude themselves into believing one side of an argument solely because of their personal bias or prejudice.
It's not amazing at all. What's amazing is your suggestion that you are immune to bias...I'd call that delusional.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#223 Oct 27 2009 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Do you interact with a large volume of people?

Do you interact with people in a risk group?

Would you prefer paying the time/money cost of getting the vaccine rather than the possible time/money cost of getting sick?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, yes.

If not, then don't.
I answered yes to 1 and 2, but I have sick days that need using, so I'm going no on question 3.
Actually being sick on your sick days is really a waste of a good sick day.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#224 Oct 27 2009 at 11:18 AM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
What's amazing is your suggestion that you are immune to bias...I'd call that delusional.


Pointing out someone else's bias is not an implicit suggestion that I am immune to it.

This is a perfect example of the point I was making. Ya'll are so obsessed with trying to prove me wrong about something that you will go through amazing lengths to change the meaning of one of our statements, or just tack on some assumptions, to try to pin me to some untenable position that I've never held. It truly is amazing.

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 12:18pm by soulshaver
#225 Oct 27 2009 at 11:21 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Ya'll are so obsessed with trying to prove me wrong
You might think so. Or maybe you're just delusional.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#226 Oct 27 2009 at 11:27 AM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
You might think so. Or maybe you're just delusional.


Did you have anything to add to the healthcare debate Elinda, or were you just interested in attacking someone by adding baseless insults?

Edited, Oct 27th 2009 12:27pm by soulshaver
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 341 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (341)