How to Tell if We're Beating Covid19

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I have said over and over again that the Chinese govt are not to be trusted and that their data is often unreliable. So again a completely false statement.

Not false at all, as you tried to claim that they had no reason to lie now. That is something you cannot demonstrate. They’ve been doing it all through this mess, and this is far from the first time.

The reason we disagree seems to be that you imagine those allowed to share information from Communist China, for example medical researchers, are not being overseen by the Communist Chinese government, whereas I see that they are heavily controlled by them.

Again, this doesn’t mean that they will never release accurate information, only that they cannot be trusted to do so. The information must be heavily vetted and should not be relied on or treated as valid until then. You falsely accused me of being paranoid because I state this reality. So, back and forth it goes.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Not false at all, as you tried to claim that they had no reason to lie now. That is something you cannot demonstrate. They’ve been doing it all through this mess, and this is far from the first time.

The reason we disagree seems to be that you imagine those allowed to share information from Communist China, for example medical researchers, are not being overseen by the Communist Chinese government, whereas I see that they are heavily controlled by them.

Again, this doesn’t mean that they will never release accurate information, only that they cannot be trusted to do so. The information must be heavily vetted and should not be relied on or treated as valid until then. You falsely accused me of being paranoid because I state this reality. So, back and forth it goes.

you continue to intentionally misrepresent what I say.

I will clarify again, slower for you. The Chinese gov is untrustworthy and unreliable much of the time. They do have control over their scientists and researchers which means we do need to question their data.

For Covid19, they were the first to be affected and will be the first to publish data about things like immunity. Soon the rest of the world will follow. It would be foolish for them to present bad data that is easily proven wrong a few days/weeks later. That doesn’t mean they won’t do foolish things.

nowhere does that say that China is trustworthy. But read into that what you want.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

you continue to intentionally misrepresent what I say.

I will clarify again, slower for you. The Chinese gov is untrustworthy and unreliable much of the time. They do have control over their scientists and researchers which means we do need to question their data.

For Covid19, they were the first to be affected and will be the first to publish data about things like immunity. Soon the rest of the world will follow. It would be foolish for them to present bad data that is easily proven wrong a few days/weeks later. That doesn’t mean they won’t do foolish things.

nowhere does that say that China is trustworthy. But read into that what you want.

Again, it was your original post that triggered my original response. Your original post uncritically credited China with "Success!" Your response was that if it made me "feel better," I could ignore the China data.

Your lame, irrational response is what triggered the rest of the discussion. If you want to be taken seriously, then be honest and avoid doing what you did in the first place, namely giving undue credit to China, something you are doing habitually in this crisis.

Accusing me of going by feeling when you know full well that it was a factual response is disingenuous. If you really hold to what you claim, then you never should have posted what you posted in the first place, or at least have pointed out the deeply dubious nature of China's data yourself.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Again, it was your original post that triggered my original response. Your original post uncritically credited China with "Success!" Your response was that if it made me "feel better," I could ignore the China data.

The charts posted look at every country’s data and is very useful for seeing a global trajectory that is repeatable across countries. It is possible for those like yourself who react a certain way to Chinese data to simply uncheck the China checkbox. I even gave you a link and all you had to do was click on it.

As for the word success attached to China and S Korea that was correct. When that video was created, they were the only two countries that successfully controlled the rate of spread of coronavirus. Yes China had to use much more draconian measures that would have been unacceptable in our countries but they did succeed. And yes their data is untrustworthy and unreliable. But even they cannot hide a pandemic worth of cases and deaths.

Until you show me better data, their untrustworthy data and reports from citizens and expats in those cities are the best we have to go on. And they all say that China was successful.

They can still have a second wave that they are trying to hide and if that is true, we will find out eventually.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The charts posted look at every country’s data and is very useful for seeing a global trajectory that is repeatable across countries. It is possible for those like yourself who react a certain way to Chinese data to simply uncheck the China checkbox. I even gave you a link and all you had to do was click on it.

As for the word success attached to China and S Korea that was correct. When that video was created, they were the only two countries that successfully controlled the rate of spread of coronavirus. Yes China had to use much more draconian measures that would have been unacceptable in our countries but they did succeed. And yes their data is untrustworthy and unreliable. But even they cannot hide a pandemic worth of cases and deaths.

Until you show me better data, their untrustworthy data and reports from citizens and expats in those cities are the best we have to go on. And they all say that China was successful.

They can still have a second wave that they are trying to hide and if that is true, we will find out eventually.

You are not listening or paying attention at all. I did not challenge the other data. I singled out the China data as deeply dubious, which you should have done when you posted.

Show me where you have conclusive proof from someone less biased than yourself that only the reported number of deaths in China occurred. Going by highly unreliable data as the best data is disingenuous, not to mention stupid and potentially very dangerous. In fact, you vociferously complain about it in other cases.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Show me where you have conclusive proof from someone less biased than yourself that only the reported number of deaths in China occurred.

Why would I do that if I don’t believe it is true and have never made that claim. Every country, even the reliable ones, underreport deaths because just like there are unconfirmed cases, there will always be unconfirmed deaths. Data collection is never perfect.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Why would I do that if I don’t believe it is true and have never made that claim. Every country, even the reliable ones, underreport deaths because just like there are unconfirmed cases, there will always be unconfirmed deaths. Data collection is never perfect.

Yet more nonsense. Now you are trying to equate relatively minor errors with very probably extreme ones that no one is allowed access to for verification and validation.

You need to quit complaining about me calling out your dubious use of their dubious data. You were wrong to do it, wrong to complain about me calling it out, and wrong to try to twist the disagreement into something it isn't.

You are not nearly as unbiased in these things as you want to pretend to be. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means keep lowering your credibility by defending using deeply dubious data.

And if you really feel justified in believing that the other data is as dubious as that from China, then you should have said that from the outset as well.

 

[Gold Dragon]

And if you really feel justified in believing that the other data is as dubious as that from China, then you should have said that from the outset as well.

I never said that either. You seem to have a fascination for straw.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I never said that either. You seem to have a fascination for straw.

Yes, I admit that your logical fallacies do interest me. You used the 'no one's perfect' excuse to justify including China's deeply dubious data.

No one ever said the other data is perfect, but you want to justify including gross intentional error, or rely heavily on consummate liars for data, because some other data from some other sources isn’t perfect. You should treat the Chinese data as an “outliar” and reject it. Now go ahead with your continual empty denials and false accusations.

 

[JonC]

you continue to intentionally misrepresent what I say.

I will clarify again, slower for you. The Chinese gov is untrustworthy and unreliable much of the time. They do have control over their scientists and researchers which means we do need to question their data.

For Covid19, they were the first to be affected and will be the first to publish data about things like immunity. Soon the rest of the world will follow. It would be foolish for them to present bad data that is easily proven wrong a few days/weeks later. That doesn’t mean they won’t do foolish things.

nowhere does that say that China is trustworthy. But read into that what you want.

This whole situation parallels belief in general.

In religion people will seek a theology that supports their position. They will listen to people who support their views, watch pastors who preach their theology, and read materials that support their doctrines. They will interpret the data (Scripture) according to the position that they have chosen.

The exact same issue you are addressing here has also arisen in theology. People question the accuracy of Christian history as preserved through the Catholic church even though there was no reason for the accuracy to be questioned (the historical content insofar as people who have been considered "heretics" is not supportive of Catholic doctrine).

People will believe what they want to believe regardless.