Am 29.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:34:19 +0100, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 29.01.2024 um 15:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/29/2024 9:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:46:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> lol...First you claim there was no listing of what counties were
>>>>>> reviewed, when it's referenced in the report, then you make a claim as
>>>>>> fact based on your opinion when you didn't read the study....illiterate
>>>>>> dogmatist indeed.....
>>>>>
>>>>> So what counties were referenced.
>>>>
>>>> Here it is...again:
>>>>
>>>> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
>>>> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
>>>> Page 3
>>>> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
>>>> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
>>>> reported at the district level."
>>>>
>>>> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
>>>> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
>>>> partisan vote share"
>>>
>>> Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
>>
>> Are you claiming that this paper is deficient by not listing the names
>> of there 3,109 counties in an appendix rather than only describing how
>> the list of these counties was compiled?
>>
>> Are you claiming that a list of the names of these 3,109 counties would
>> help you understand the issue?
>
> The study in question only studied unamed counties in Ohio and
> Florida, and yes, know which counties were studied would allow me to
> note other things that might have affectedd deaths in those counties

Please provide evidence for your claim that only a few unnamed counties
in Florida and Ohio were evaluated rather than all counties in USA
excluding Alaska.

The study linked above claims on page 3 that it includes 3,109 counties
but aggregated several "New York City" counties into 1 to be able to
compare this New York City data with the information from New York
Times. If "the study in question" is not "the study linked above",
please clarify what you are speaking about.

Rolf

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:34:23 AM UTC-8, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 29.01.2024 um 15:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/29/2024 9:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:46:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> lol...First you claim there was no listing of what counties were
> >>>> reviewed, when it's referenced in the report, then you make a claim as
> >>>> fact based on your opinion when you didn't read the study....illiterate
> >>>> dogmatist indeed.....
> >>>
> >>> So what counties were referenced.
> >>
> >> Here it is...again:
> >>
> >> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
> >> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
> >> Page 3
> >> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
> >> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
> >> reported at the district level."
> >>
> >> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
> >> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
> >> partisan vote share"
> >
> > Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
> Are you claiming that this paper is deficient by not listing the names
> of there 3,109 counties in an appendix rather than only describing how
> the list of these counties was compiled?
>
> Are you claiming that a list of the names of these 3,109 counties would
> help you understand the issue?
>
> Are you claiming that you yourself are too stupid to
> 1) get a list of all county names by state
> 2) throw away the counties in Alaska
> 3) combine these state lists into the national list you wish to see?
>
> Or are you just playing "I don't like it so I'm finding some spurious
> dung to throw at it"?
Like northern Italy, Florida has more retired and consequently, sick people to say that there was more excess deaths there without taking extraordinary means to correct for that makes the "study" which took little if any heed to that simply a political bashing.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:07:11 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 29.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:34:19 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 29.01.2024 um 15:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 9:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:46:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> lol...First you claim there was no listing of what counties were
>>>>>>> reviewed, when it's referenced in the report, then you make a claim as
>>>>>>> fact based on your opinion when you didn't read the study....illiterate
>>>>>>> dogmatist indeed.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what counties were referenced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here it is...again:
>>>>>
>>>>> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
>>>>> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
>>>>> Page 3
>>>>> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
>>>>> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
>>>>> reported at the district level."
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
>>>>> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
>>>>> partisan vote share"
>>>>
>>>> Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
>>>
>>> Are you claiming that this paper is deficient by not listing the names
>>> of there 3,109 counties in an appendix rather than only describing how
>>> the list of these counties was compiled?
>>>
>>> Are you claiming that a list of the names of these 3,109 counties would
>>> help you understand the issue?
>>
>> The study in question only studied unamed counties in Ohio and
>> Florida, and yes, know which counties were studied would allow me to
>> note other things that might have affectedd deaths in those counties
>
>Please provide evidence for your claim that only a few unnamed counties
>in Florida and Ohio were evaluated rather than all counties in USA
>excluding Alaska.
>
>The study linked above claims on page 3 that it includes 3,109 counties
>but aggregated several "New York City" counties into 1 to be able to
>compare this New York City data with the information from New York
>Times. If "the study in question" is not "the study linked above",
>please clarify what you are speaking about.
>
>Rolf
>
>

Results
Our study included 538 159 deaths for individuals aged 25 years and
older in Florida and Ohio between January 2018 and December 2021
linked to their 2017 voter data (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).

Our study found evidence of higher excess mortality for Republican
voters compared with Democratic voters in Florida and Ohio after, but
not before, COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults in the US.

On 1/29/2024 11:07 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 29.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:34:19 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 29.01.2024 um 15:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 9:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:46:49 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> lol...First you claim there was no listing of what counties were
>>>>>>> reviewed, when it's referenced in the report, then you make a
>>>>>>> claim as
>>>>>>> fact based on your opinion when you didn't read the
>>>>>>> study....illiterate
>>>>>>> dogmatist indeed.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what counties were referenced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here it is...again:
>>>>>
>>>>> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
>>>>> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
>>>>> Page 3
>>>>> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
>>>>> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
>>>>> reported at the district level."
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
>>>>> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
>>>>> partisan vote share"
>>>>
>>>> Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
>>>
>>> Are you claiming that this paper is deficient by not listing the names
>>> of there 3,109 counties in an appendix rather than only describing how
>>> the list of these counties was compiled?
>>>
>>> Are you claiming that a list of the names of these 3,109 counties would
>>> help you understand the issue?
>>
>> The study in question only studied unamed counties in Ohio and
>> Florida, and yes, know which counties were studied would allow me to
>> note other things that might have affectedd deaths in those counties
>
> Please provide evidence for your claim that only a few unnamed counties
> in Florida and Ohio were evaluated rather than all counties in USA
> excluding Alaska.
>
> The study linked above claims on page 3 that it includes 3,109 counties
> but aggregated several "New York City" counties into 1 to be able to
> compare this New York City data with the information from New York
> Times.  If "the study in question" is not "the study linked above",
> please clarify what you are speaking about.
>
> Rolf

Hi Rolf,
The JAMA article did restrict the study to floriduh and ohio, but it
wasn't "a few unnamed counties", it was the entirety of both states
assessed to the county level. The report is quite clear that it wasn't
"just a few counties".

But you hit the nail on the head with "I don't like it so I'm finding
some spurious dung to throw at it". This has been catrykes M.O. since he
first started posting here - much like kunich and andre, he decries any
science that tells him what he doesn't want to hear as 'junk'.

--
Add xx to reply

On 1/29/2024 10:38 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:24:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2024 9:57 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So what counties were referenced.
>>>>
>>>> Here it is...again:
>>>>
>>>> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
>>>> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
>>>> Page 3
>>>> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
>>>> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
>>>> reported at the district level."
>>>>
>>>> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
>>>> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
>>>> partisan vote share"
>>>
>>> Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
>>
>> Floriduh dumbass flailing in willful ignorance once again:
>>
>> There are 3143 counties in the US. The study included 3107 of them.
>>
>> IOW - making it so simple even a willfully ignorant floriduh dumbass can
>> follow - All counties in the US except for alaska.
>>
>> Any more stupid questions?
>
> More LOL... The study only studied unamed counties in Ohio and
> Florida.

It wasn't "unnamed counties", dumbass, it was the entire state assessed
at the county level.

eMethods. Supplemental Description of Methods
A. Description of study data and linkages
This study made use of data from five different sources. Below, we
describe each of these data sources in more detail and then discuss how
these data were assembled into our analytic file.

Florida voter file:
The publicly available Florida voter file for February 2017 was accessed
via the Harvard Dataverse. For additional details on the file and a link
to request access to the data proceed to the following:
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/UBIG3F.
The file contains full name, date of birth, county of registration,
gender, and party affiliation.

Ohio voter file:
The publicly available Ohio voter file for 2017 was accessed via the
Ohio Secretary of State website at:
https://www6.ohiosos.gov/ords/f?p=VOTERFTP:HOME. We accessed the link
and downloaded the data on March 4, 2017. The file contains full name,
date of birth, county of
registration, and party affiliation.

--
Add xx to reply

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:28:01 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/29/2024 11:07 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 29.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:34:19 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 29.01.2024 um 15:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/29/2024 9:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:46:49 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol...First you claim there was no listing of what counties were
>>>>>>>> reviewed, when it's referenced in the report, then you make a
>>>>>>>> claim as
>>>>>>>> fact based on your opinion when you didn't read the
>>>>>>>> study....illiterate
>>>>>>>> dogmatist indeed.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what counties were referenced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here it is...again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
>>>>>> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
>>>>>> Page 3
>>>>>> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
>>>>>> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
>>>>>> reported at the district level."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
>>>>>> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
>>>>>> partisan vote share"
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that this paper is deficient by not listing the names
>>>> of there 3,109 counties in an appendix rather than only describing how
>>>> the list of these counties was compiled?
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that a list of the names of these 3,109 counties would
>>>> help you understand the issue?
>>>
>>> The study in question only studied unamed counties in Ohio and
>>> Florida, and yes, know which counties were studied would allow me to
>>> note other things that might have affectedd deaths in those counties
>>
>> Please provide evidence for your claim that only a few unnamed counties
>> in Florida and Ohio were evaluated rather than all counties in USA
>> excluding Alaska.
>>
>> The study linked above claims on page 3 that it includes 3,109 counties
>> but aggregated several "New York City" counties into 1 to be able to
>> compare this New York City data with the information from New York
>> Times.  If "the study in question" is not "the study linked above",
>> please clarify what you are speaking about.
>>
>> Rolf
>
>Hi Rolf,
>The JAMA article did restrict the study to floriduh and ohio, but it
>wasn't "a few unnamed counties", it was the entirety of both states
>assessed to the county level. The report is quite clear that it wasn't
>"just a few counties".
>
>But you hit the nail on the head with "I don't like it so I'm finding
>some spurious dung to throw at it". This has been catrykes M.O. since he
>first started posting here - much like kunich and andre, he decries any
>science that tells him what he doesn't want to hear as 'junk'.

Results
Our study included 538 159 deaths for individuals aged 25 years and
older in Florida and Ohio between January 2018 and December 2021
linked to their 2017 voter data (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).

Do you really believe that was all the deaths in the entirety of
Florida and Ohio for four years?

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:33:33 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/29/2024 10:38 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:24:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/29/2024 9:57 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So what counties were referenced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here it is...again:
>>>>>
>>>>> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
>>>>> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
>>>>> Page 3
>>>>> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
>>>>> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
>>>>> reported at the district level."
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
>>>>> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
>>>>> partisan vote share"
>>>>
>>>> Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
>>>
>>> Floriduh dumbass flailing in willful ignorance once again:
>>>
>>> There are 3143 counties in the US. The study included 3107 of them.
>>>
>>> IOW - making it so simple even a willfully ignorant floriduh dumbass can
>>> follow - All counties in the US except for alaska.
>>>
>>> Any more stupid questions?
>>
>> More LOL... The study only studied unamed counties in Ohio and
>> Florida.
>
>It wasn't "unnamed counties", dumbass, it was the entire state assessed
>at the county level.
>
>eMethods. Supplemental Description of Methods
>A. Description of study data and linkages
>This study made use of data from five different sources. Below, we
>describe each of these data sources in more detail and then discuss how
>these data were assembled into our analytic file.
>
>Florida voter file:
>The publicly available Florida voter file for February 2017 was accessed
>via the Harvard Dataverse. For additional details on the file and a link
>to request access to the data proceed to the following:
>https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/UBIG3F.
>The file contains full name, date of birth, county of registration,
>gender, and party affiliation.
>
>Ohio voter file:
>The publicly available Ohio voter file for 2017 was accessed via the
>Ohio Secretary of State website at:
>https://www6.ohiosos.gov/ords/f?p=VOTERFTP:HOME. We accessed the link
>and downloaded the data on March 4, 2017. The file contains full name,
>date of birth, county of
>registration, and party affiliation.

Results
Our study included 538 159 deaths for individuals aged 25 years and
older in Florida and Ohio between January 2018 and December 2021
linked to their 2017 voter data (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).

Do you really believe that was all the deaths in the entirety of
Florida and Ohio for four years?

On 1/29/2024 11:51 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:33:33 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2024 10:38 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:24:49 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/29/2024 9:57 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:33:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what counties were referenced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here it is...again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is a link the the study the JAMA paper referenced:
>>>>>> https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10438362
>>>>>> Page 3
>>>>>> "We first included 3,107 of the 3,143 US counties and county
>>>>>> equivalents, excluding counties in Alaska, as Alaskan elections are
>>>>>> reported at the district level."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, exhibit 1 is titled:
>>>>>> "Characteristics of 3,109 US counties, by 2020 presidential election
>>>>>> partisan vote share"
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just admit that you're unable to name the counties?
>>>>
>>>> Floriduh dumbass flailing in willful ignorance once again:
>>>>
>>>> There are 3143 counties in the US. The study included 3107 of them.
>>>>
>>>> IOW - making it so simple even a willfully ignorant floriduh dumbass can
>>>> follow - All counties in the US except for alaska.
>>>>
>>>> Any more stupid questions?
>>>
>>> More LOL... The study only studied unamed counties in Ohio and
>>> Florida.
>>
>> It wasn't "unnamed counties", dumbass, it was the entire state assessed
>> at the county level.
>>
>> eMethods. Supplemental Description of Methods
>> A. Description of study data and linkages
>> This study made use of data from five different sources. Below, we
>> describe each of these data sources in more detail and then discuss how
>> these data were assembled into our analytic file.
>>
>> Florida voter file:
>> The publicly available Florida voter file for February 2017 was accessed
>> via the Harvard Dataverse. For additional details on the file and a link
>> to request access to the data proceed to the following:
>> https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/UBIG3F.
>> The file contains full name, date of birth, county of registration,
>> gender, and party affiliation.
>>
>> Ohio voter file:
>> The publicly available Ohio voter file for 2017 was accessed via the
>> Ohio Secretary of State website at:
>> https://www6.ohiosos.gov/ords/f?p=VOTERFTP:HOME. We accessed the link
>> and downloaded the data on March 4, 2017. The file contains full name,
>> date of birth, county of
>> registration, and party affiliation.
>
> Results
> Our study included 538 159 deaths for individuals aged 25 years and
> older in Florida and Ohio between January 2018 and December 2021
> linked to their 2017 voter data (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).
>
> Do you really believe that was all the deaths in the entirety of
> Florida and Ohio for four years?

Do you have any data to the contrary?
--
Add xx to reply

On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>
> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>
> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>
> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
> ignorance?

So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.

(Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
candidate lost must be stolen.")

So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
would you go about determining that?

Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
give us good results in the real world.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/29/2024 9:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 11:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 11:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 9:52 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> wow.....165 convictions, out of nearly 160 million votes cast.
>>>> That's about .01%....STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!! 1 100TH OF 1 PERCENT OF
>>>> VOTES CAST FOUND TO BE FRAUDULENT!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Yes as I noted above. The bulk of cases were
>>> diverted/stymied/deflected with no evidence allowed into the record.
>>
>> The Republicans who brought charges of voter fraud were so incompetent
>> that they could not even meet the requirements of the courts. When
>> they did manage that, they lost. But we're still supposed to believe
>> that Trump would have won the election, despite that?
>>
>> I'm not impressed. It's a right wing fairy tale.
>>
>
> The question will remain in the area of belief as there were no findings
> of fact either way.

ISTM the Trumpian lawyers simply gave up. They knew that if they
actually had good evidence of significant election problems, they could
have corrected their mistakes and continued in the courts.

My guess is (on the principle of "follow the money") whoever was paying
those lawyers realized there was no "there" there. They would lose more
money by further pursuits. So they shut off the money flow to the lawyers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:37:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>>
>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>>
>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>>
>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>> ignorance?
>
>So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.

Krygowski likes to argue against his own words that he falsely
contributes to people he's afraid to deal with directly.

>(Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>candidate lost must be stolen.")

More of the above... Is his narcissism the reason he demands
information from other people?

>So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>would you go about determining that?

First of all, I can't imagine why I'd want to do that.

>Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>give us good results in the real world.

Even if I did have an answer, it'd be none of Krygowski's business.

On 1/29/2024 1:15 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:37:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>
>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>
> Krygowski likes to argue against his own words that he falsely
> contributes to people he's afraid to deal with directly.

no one's afraid to deal with you, you narcissistic piece of shit.

>
>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>
> More of the above... Is his narcissism the reason he demands
> information from other people?
>
>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>> would you go about determining that?
>
> First of all, I can't imagine why I'd want to do that.

Proud willful ignorance duly noted.

>
>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>> give us good results in the real world.
>
> Even if I did have an answer, it'd be none of Krygowski's business.

whiner.

--
Add xx to reply

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
> >> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
> >> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
> >> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
> >> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
> >
> > Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
> >
> > I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
> > also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
> > rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
> >
> > What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
> > provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
> > ignorance?
> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>
> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>
> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
> would you go about determining that?
>
> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
> give us good results in the real world.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?

Lou

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:30:02 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
<lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>> >> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>> >> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>> >> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>> >> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>> >
>> > Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>> >
>> > I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>> > also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>> > rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>> >
>> > What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>> > provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>> > ignorance?
>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>>
>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>>
>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>> would you go about determining that?
>>
>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>> give us good results in the real world.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?
>
>Lou

It could be used for political propaganda.

On 1/29/2024 2:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>>>
>>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>>>
>>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>>>
>>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>>> ignorance?
>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>>
>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>>
>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>> would you go about determining that?
>>
>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>> give us good results in the real world.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?

I suspect it developed this way: First, anyone who was the least bit
interested would have noted that right wingers scoffed at everything
related to COVID. That was amply demonstrated in this discussion group.
The details of rationalization shifted over time, but what seemed
consistent was that the further right a person's political beliefs, the
more they were likely to say that COVID was fake, COVID was very mild,
vaccines didn't work, masks didn't work, there was no reason to stay
away from others, etc.

It would thus be very reasonable for a person working in public health
to ask "Did the areas with more right-wingers suffer more serious
infections and deaths?" It would give an indication of whether COVID
defense measures and related behavior actually did make a difference.

What we're seeing is A) research confirming the probability that
behaviors made a difference; and B) rationalizations from the losing
side that any research that shows they were wrong _must_ be false.

Again, just like "Any election my candidate lost must be stolen."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:20:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 2:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
> >>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
> >>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
> >>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
> >>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
> >>>
> >>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
> >>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
> >>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
> >>>
> >>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
> >>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
> >>> ignorance?
> >> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
> >> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
> >> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
> >>
> >> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
> >> candidate lost must be stolen.")
> >>
> >> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
> >> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
> >> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
> >> would you go about determining that?
> >>
> >> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
> >> give us good results in the real world.
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?
> I suspect it developed this way: First, anyone who was the least bit
> interested would have noted that right wingers scoffed at everything
> related to COVID. That was amply demonstrated in this discussion group.
> The details of rationalization shifted over time, but what seemed
> consistent was that the further right a person's political beliefs, the
> more they were likely to say that COVID was fake, COVID was very mild,
> vaccines didn't work, masks didn't work, there was no reason to stay
> away from others, etc.
>
> It would thus be very reasonable for a person working in public health
> to ask "Did the areas with more right-wingers suffer more serious
> infections and deaths?" It would give an indication of whether COVID
> defense measures and related behavior actually did make a difference.
>
> What we're seeing is A) research confirming the probability that
> behaviors made a difference; and B) rationalizations from the losing
> side that any research that shows they were wrong _must_ be false.
>
> Again, just like "Any election my candidate lost must be stolen."
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Nope it is only contributing to the incredable polarization what is going on in the US. It is disgusting not only here.

Lou

On 1/29/2024 2:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>>>
>>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>>>
>>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>>>
>>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>>> ignorance?
>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>>
>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>>
>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>> would you go about determining that?
>>
>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>> give us good results in the real world.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?
>
> Lou

Unlike others in this forum I don't see a government conspiracy
everywhere I look. As I see it, The political affiliation wasn't the
input to the research, it was the conclusion.

The covid death rates are routinely analyzed for trends down to the
individual level. After the vaccines were released, the data showed
clustering of areas where the death rates were reduced and clusters
where they weren't. The first question asked then by an epidemiologist
is "why"?

The answer is simple. The vaccination rates in areas where the death
rates were reduced was much higher than in the areas that saw little or
no reduction, as were prophylactic activities (masking, hand washing,
avoiding large gatherings...). Again, an epidemiologist asks "why"?

Why are the individuals in those areas with the sustained rates of covid
deaths not participating in the vaccination program?

Again, the answer is simple. There is a real correlation between the
political affiliations of people who engaged in prophylactic activities
and those who defiantly - and in many cases spitefully - refused to
follow the advice of the CDC, the WHO, and every other medical
organization of any significance on the planet.

It really isn't much of a leap from there. Of course, one can't simply
look at the correlation and state causation. Scientific rigor must be
applied. Hence studies like the ones discussed here are conducted, and
summarily scoffed at by the same folk who refused to engage in any
prophylaxis mentioned above because of the selfish "I do not buy on to
the ridiculous notion that I have a responsibility to do something
simply for the benefit of others. It's my decision to make.", as well
as the known disdain from that ilk for science and higher education in
general. So, much that it invariably leads to things like this:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/covid-19-outbreak-in-gop-caucus-complicates-barrett-confirmation/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-virus-spreads-across-gop-ranks-some-republicans-say-party-will-pay-price-for-stupid-approach/2020/10/03/12e1c484-0585-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/31/coronavirus-trump-campaign-rallies-led-to-30000-cases-stanford-researchers-say.html

Of course, the conspiracy theorists in this forum will tell you that
none of this is true, that the pandemic was a hoax, that the vaccines
have killed more people than they've saved, and any research concluding
a correlation between political affiliation and covid death rates are
pure propaganda.

Fine with me, AFAIK, the less of them there are, the better off we'll be
as a nation.

--
Add xx to reply

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:06:48 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
<lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Nope it is only contributing to the incredable polarization what is going on in the US. It is disgusting not only here.
>
>Lou

+1

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:15:58 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Unlike others in this forum I don't see a government conspiracy
>everywhere I look.

Yes. liitle man, go ahead and believe what the government and the
media want you to believe, and do what they tell you to do.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:19:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/29/2024 2:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>>>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>>>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>>>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>>>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>>>>
>>>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>>>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>>>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>>>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>>>> ignorance?
>>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>>>
>>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>>>
>>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>>> would you go about determining that?
>>>
>>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>>> give us good results in the real world.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?
>
>I suspect it developed this way: First, anyone who was the least bit
>interested would have noted that right wingers scoffed at everything
>related to COVID. That was amply demonstrated in this discussion group.
>The details of rationalization shifted over time, but what seemed
>consistent was that the further right a person's political beliefs, the
>more they were likely to say that COVID was fake, COVID was very mild,
>vaccines didn't work, masks didn't work, there was no reason to stay
>away from others, etc.
>
>It would thus be very reasonable for a person working in public health
>to ask "Did the areas with more right-wingers suffer more serious
>infections and deaths?" It would give an indication of whether COVID
>defense measures and related behavior actually did make a difference.
>
>What we're seeing is A) research confirming the probability that
>behaviors made a difference; and B) rationalizations from the losing
>side that any research that shows they were wrong _must_ be false.

Any significant differences in number of deaths related to being
vaccinated are not political issues.

>Again, just like "Any election my candidate lost must be stolen."

<eyeroll>

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:24:54 PM UTC+1, Catrike Ryder wrote:

> Any significant differences in number of deaths related to being
> vaccinated are not political issues.

On the other hand even getting flat tires is turned into a political issue.

Lou

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:38:53 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
<lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:24:54?PM UTC+1, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>
>> Any significant differences in number of deaths related to being
>> vaccinated are not political issues.
>
>On the other hand even getting flat tires is turned into a political issue.
>
>Lou
Arguing politics makes as much sense as trying to herd cats.

On 1/29/2024 4:06 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:20:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 2:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>>>>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>>>>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>>>>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>>>>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>>>>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>>>>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>>>>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>>>>> ignorance?
>>>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>>>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>>>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>>>>
>>>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>>>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>>>>
>>>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>>>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>>>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>>>> would you go about determining that?
>>>>
>>>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>>>> give us good results in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?
>> I suspect it developed this way: First, anyone who was the least bit
>> interested would have noted that right wingers scoffed at everything
>> related to COVID. That was amply demonstrated in this discussion group.
>> The details of rationalization shifted over time, but what seemed
>> consistent was that the further right a person's political beliefs, the
>> more they were likely to say that COVID was fake, COVID was very mild,
>> vaccines didn't work, masks didn't work, there was no reason to stay
>> away from others, etc.
>>
>> It would thus be very reasonable for a person working in public health
>> to ask "Did the areas with more right-wingers suffer more serious
>> infections and deaths?" It would give an indication of whether COVID
>> defense measures and related behavior actually did make a difference.
>>
>> What we're seeing is A) research confirming the probability that
>> behaviors made a difference; and B) rationalizations from the losing
>> side that any research that shows they were wrong _must_ be false.
>>
>> Again, just like "Any election my candidate lost must be stolen."
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Nope it is only contributing to the incredable polarization what is going on in the US. It is disgusting not only here.

So performing a scientific or epidemiological study contributes to
American polarization! That in itself would be horrifying in more
enlightened times.

And any implication that one should not do science because some find the
results offensive? That is beyond horrifying. It amounts to putting
ignorance on an altar and worshiping it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/29/2024 4:06 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:20:01 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 2:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>>>>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>>>>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>>>>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>>>>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>>>>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>>>>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>>>>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>>>>> ignorance?
>>>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>>>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>>>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>>>>
>>>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>>>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>>>>
>>>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>>>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>>>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>>>> would you go about determining that?
>>>>
>>>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>>>> give us good results in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?
>> I suspect it developed this way: First, anyone who was the least bit
>> interested would have noted that right wingers scoffed at everything
>> related to COVID. That was amply demonstrated in this discussion group.
>> The details of rationalization shifted over time, but what seemed
>> consistent was that the further right a person's political beliefs, the
>> more they were likely to say that COVID was fake, COVID was very mild,
>> vaccines didn't work, masks didn't work, there was no reason to stay
>> away from others, etc.
>>
>> It would thus be very reasonable for a person working in public health
>> to ask "Did the areas with more right-wingers suffer more serious
>> infections and deaths?" It would give an indication of whether COVID
>> defense measures and related behavior actually did make a difference.
>>
>> What we're seeing is A) research confirming the probability that
>> behaviors made a difference; and B) rationalizations from the losing
>> side that any research that shows they were wrong _must_ be false.
>>
>> Again, just like "Any election my candidate lost must be stolen."
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Nope it is only contributing to the incredable polarization what is going on in the US. It is disgusting not only here.

Sorry for the double reply, but:

What is the situation in the Netherlands? Do you have large blocs of the
population who have had markedly different COVID results? Do you have
large numbers who based on party affiliation have rejected medical
recommendations for dealing with the disease?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:29:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/29/2024 4:06 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:20:01?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 2:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 6:38:03?PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2024 11:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2024 5:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every time I read one of the thrilling studies that prove something or
>>>>>>> another I'm reminded of a friend who made a successful business of
>>>>>>> conducting studies to determine whether a projected business would be
>>>>>>> a financial success. He once commented, "tell me what you want to
>>>>>>> prove and I'll design a survey to prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, John, you've mentioned that time after time after time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll point out that you're actually arguing against yourself. You've
>>>>>> also mentioned many times that the COVID vaccination rates and death
>>>>>> rates for Thailand look far better than those for the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's your real point? That we should ignore the data you, yourself,
>>>>>> provide? That nothing can be known? That we must forever wallow in
>>>>>> ignorance?
>>>>> So I've read the ramblings from the Florida tricycle rider. He's
>>>>> desperate to defend his usual position, which is that any research
>>>>> findings that violate his prejudices must be fake.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like "Any election my
>>>>> candidate lost must be stolen.")
>>>>>
>>>>> So a question for him, for John, for Tom: Suppose you were a medical
>>>>> researcher who really, honestly wanted to find out if political
>>>>> leanings for _either_ party were correlated with bad COVID outcomes. How
>>>>> would you go about determining that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't slither away from the question. Give us a procedure that could
>>>>> give us good results in the real world.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>> I have no position in this but what would be the motivation for someone to start such a research: try to correlare excess deaths to a political preference?
>>> I suspect it developed this way: First, anyone who was the least bit
>>> interested would have noted that right wingers scoffed at everything
>>> related to COVID. That was amply demonstrated in this discussion group.
>>> The details of rationalization shifted over time, but what seemed
>>> consistent was that the further right a person's political beliefs, the
>>> more they were likely to say that COVID was fake, COVID was very mild,
>>> vaccines didn't work, masks didn't work, there was no reason to stay
>>> away from others, etc.
>>>
>>> It would thus be very reasonable for a person working in public health
>>> to ask "Did the areas with more right-wingers suffer more serious
>>> infections and deaths?" It would give an indication of whether COVID
>>> defense measures and related behavior actually did make a difference.
>>>
>>> What we're seeing is A) research confirming the probability that
>>> behaviors made a difference; and B) rationalizations from the losing
>>> side that any research that shows they were wrong _must_ be false.
>>>
>>> Again, just like "Any election my candidate lost must be stolen."
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Nope it is only contributing to the incredable polarization what is going on in the US. It is disgusting not only here.
>
>So performing a scientific or epidemiological study contributes to
>American polarization! That in itself would be horrifying in more
>enlightened times.
>
>And any implication that one should not do science because some find the
>results offensive? That is beyond horrifying. It amounts to putting
>ignorance on an altar anid worshiping it.

Performing a heavly biased paid for "study" for propaganda purposes is
what contributes to American polarization! There is absolutely no
other reason for doing it.