"xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
https://xkcd.com/2599/

Oh yeah, statistics lie.

Explained at:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio

Lynn

On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>
> Oh yeah, statistics lie.

NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
significantly increase your risk.

What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
following the advice.

This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
science". I haven't yet seen a politician or newspaper article that
has gotten it right - the local county restriction flip-flops all
supposedly based on "follow the science" have been ridiculously
absurd.

What the science tells you (mostly correctly) is that wearing masks,
vaccinating, virtual school, and socially distancing all decrease the
risk of covid. It does not tell you (yet) that all those restrictions
are worth doing or offer any advice on the threshold for the
restrictions (unlike what the local politicians have continuously
claimed). There are costs to every restriction which are mostly
scientifically unknown for covid and the fallacious "follow the
science" arguments ignore those costs.

If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
and never physically go back to school. Absurd!

Chris

> Explained at:
>
> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio
>
> Lynn

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>
>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>
>NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>significantly increase your risk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> > https://xkcd.com/2599/
> >
> > Oh yeah, statistics lie.
> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> significantly increase your risk.
>
> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
> based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
> data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
> without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
> following the advice.
>
> This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
> past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
> science". I haven't yet seen a politician or newspaper article that
> has gotten it right - the local county restriction flip-flops all
> supposedly based on "follow the science" have been ridiculously
> absurd.
>
> What the science tells you (mostly correctly) is that wearing masks,
> vaccinating, virtual school, and socially distancing all decrease the
> risk of covid. It does not tell you (yet) that all those restrictions
> are worth doing or offer any advice on the threshold for the
> restrictions (unlike what the local politicians have continuously
> claimed). There are costs to every restriction which are mostly
> scientifically unknown for covid and the fallacious "follow the
> science" arguments ignore those costs.
>
> If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
> always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
> and never physically go back to school. Absurd!
>
> Chris
> > Explained at:
> >
> > https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio
> >
> > Lynn

Science facts are science facts. Politics, on the other hand involves weighing the risks to make policy. On one hand, we have swarths of politicians who chose to ignore any facts pointing to the benefits of masking, vacinations, social distancing, etc. to reduce risk when developing policy while on the other hand we have large groups of politicans who were overly risk averse and ignored the cost/benefits of an extreme policy. As with most things in life, we cannot avoid all risks and the correct answer lies in the middle.

Interesting side note: the political group that is in most fear of Covid inection seems to be the extreme liberalswho tout "follow the science", even though the nubmers indicate that the risk of hospitalization or death from Covid when fully vaccinated and boosted is now less than that other everyday activities, such as driving to the store.

On 29 Mar 2022 20:06:46 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>
>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>
>NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>significantly increase your risk.
>
>What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
>based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
>data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
>without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
>following the advice.
>
>This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
>past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
>science". I haven't yet seen a politician or newspaper article that
>has gotten it right - the local county restriction flip-flops all
>supposedly based on "follow the science" have been ridiculously
>absurd.
>
>What the science tells you (mostly correctly) is that wearing masks,
>vaccinating, virtual school, and socially distancing all decrease the
>risk of covid. It does not tell you (yet) that all those restrictions
>are worth doing or offer any advice on the threshold for the
>restrictions (unlike what the local politicians have continuously
>claimed). There are costs to every restriction which are mostly
>scientifically unknown for covid and the fallacious "follow the
>science" arguments ignore those costs.

The restrictions here appeared to be based on keeping the medical
non-system from being overwhelmed by slowing down the rate of
transmission.

How well the hospitals are doing is, if nothing else, something that
can be measured. The trick is to cap the increase /before/ it
overwhelms them.

States that put their medical non-system on the Italian Triage failed
in their duty to their population, voters and non-voters alike. States
that didn't even try failed even more disasterously. But States that
overdid things were also blameworthy, because of the economic effects.
Some situations simply do not have a path to victory, only to
survival.

>If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
>always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
>and never physically go back to school. Absurd!

So it appears, at the present time. I haven't even investigated the
"second booster" stories; if it's six months after the first, I won't
have to deal with it all until July, and who can say what the story
will be then?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:20:36 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2022 20:06:46 GMT, Chris Buckley wrote:
>
> >On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> >> https://xkcd.com/2599/
> >>
> >> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
> >
> >NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
> >matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
> >it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> >significantly increase your risk.
> >
> >What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
> >based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
> >data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
> >without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
> >following the advice.
> >
> >This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
> >past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
> >science". I haven't yet seen a politician or newspaper article that
> >has gotten it right - the local county restriction flip-flops all
> >supposedly based on "follow the science" have been ridiculously
> >absurd.
> >
> >What the science tells you (mostly correctly) is that wearing masks,
> >vaccinating, virtual school, and socially distancing all decrease the
> >risk of covid. It does not tell you (yet) that all those restrictions
> >are worth doing or offer any advice on the threshold for the
> >restrictions (unlike what the local politicians have continuously
> >claimed). There are costs to every restriction which are mostly
> >scientifically unknown for covid and the fallacious "follow the
> >science" arguments ignore those costs.
> The restrictions here appeared to be based on keeping the medical
> non-system from being overwhelmed by slowing down the rate of
> transmission.
>
> How well the hospitals are doing is, if nothing else, something that
> can be measured. The trick is to cap the increase /before/ it
> overwhelms them.
>
> States that put their medical non-system on the Italian Triage failed
> in their duty to their population, voters and non-voters alike. States
> that didn't even try failed even more disasterously. But States that
> overdid things were also blameworthy, because of the economic effects.
> Some situations simply do not have a path to victory, only to
> survival.
> >If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
> >always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
> >and never physically go back to school. Absurd!
> So it appears, at the present time. I haven't even investigated the
> "second booster" stories; if it's six months after the first, I won't
> have to deal with it all until July, and who can say what the story
> will be then?
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."

I think where the federal and local governments really messed up was not establishing a simple metric to guide their decisions and communicate to the public. Homeland Security uses the Red/Yellow/Blue/Green Trerror threat scorecard; air pollution agencies have a similar system for indicating air quality. Basing masking and quarantining requirements on something like hospitalization rates would have something everyone could see and understand and give governments established metircs to base their decisions on.

On 3/29/2022 3:48 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>>
>> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>> significantly increase your risk.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4

Dude, "Dead Like Me" rocks ! I watched the first two episodes last
night on IMDB.

I cannot believe it went only two seasons. Something must have gone
wrong very fast.

Lynn

On 3/31/2022 11:21 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/29/2022 3:48 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>>>     https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>>>
>>> NO!  The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>>> it doesn't here.)  Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>>> significantly increase your risk.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4
>
> Dude, "Dead Like Me" rocks !  I watched the first two episodes last
> night on IMDB.
>
> I cannot believe it went only two seasons.  Something must have gone
> wrong very fast.
>
My vague impression from watching it many years ago was they quickly
milked the central joke for all it was worth. Plus I think there was
some substantial cast turn over but I'm even foggier on that.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:21:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/29/2022 3:48 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>>>
>>> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>>> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>>> significantly increase your risk.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4
>
>Dude, "Dead Like Me" rocks ! I watched the first two episodes last
>night on IMDB.
>
>I cannot believe it went only two seasons. Something must have gone
>wrong very fast.

The corporate weenies started interfering and the showrunner gave up
and bailed.

On 2022-03-31, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Dude, "Dead Like Me" rocks ! I watched the first two episodes last
>>night on IMDB.
>>
>>I cannot believe it went only two seasons. Something must have gone
>>wrong very fast.
>
> The corporate weenies started interfering and the showrunner gave up
> and bailed.

Bryan Fuller appears to suffer consistently from this, which I think
legitimately raises the question whether Fuller himself might be
part of the problem.

From what I've seen of his shows, he has an impressive artistic
vision, but I find his fetish for death to be grotesque and very
tiresome. He was involved in the creation of _Star Trek: Discovery_
before he was let go there too, and you can immediately see his
fingerprint on the early episodes with that Klingon ship of the
dead. Because death.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de