Walz is a Fraud on Covid LockDown

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,924
Points
113
Did you read the article? 7/1 or sooner if we get to 70% before then.

Yes I did, what's your point? He's using masks as a tool to give people back their freedom that they should have never lost, and people choosing to get vaccinated or not is not his decision, nor does he have authority to dictate it.

He's pathetic.
 


GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,924
Points
113
Yet despite the restrictions and mask mandate, Minnesota was the only state in the region that saw a rise in cases this spring.

1620407971738.png
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
Deaths per 100k:

SD: 224
ND: 201
Iowa: 190
.
.
.
.
Minnesota: 129


Congratulations on instituting policies that help keep your people alive, Governor Walz.
 



GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,924
Points
113
Deaths per 100k:

SD: 224
ND: 201
Iowa: 190
.
.
.
.
Minnesota: 129


Congratulations on instituting policies that help keep your people alive, Governor Walz.

Wisconsin:118

Funny how they are always left out when they are the most comparable state to MN, and have the most Minnesotans crossing the border every day.

Thankfully because that state still believes in the democratic process, their rules have prevented a dictatorship, and in turned prevented Evers from killing more people and more businesses.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
Wisconsin:118

Funny how they are always left out when they are the most comparable state to MN, and have the most Minnesotans crossing the border every day.

Thankfully because that state still believes in the democratic process, their rules have prevented a dictatorship, and in turned prevented Evers from killing more people and more businesses.

Wisconsin is actually 131. So also worse than Minnesota. Luckily not as bad as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa. States run by covid deniers and anti-maskers.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,924
Points
113
Wisconsin is actually 131. So also worse than Minnesota. Luckily not as bad as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa. States run by covid deniers and anti-maskers.

Not according to this:

Luckily Wisconsin has had packed bars and restaurants for nearly a year now, and their supreme court continues to strike down mask mandates. Saving lives.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,521
Reaction score
1,368
Points
113
Wisconsin is actually 131. So also worse than Minnesota. Luckily not as bad as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa. States run by covid deniers and anti-maskers.

Haha, you were boxed by GWG now are just being a lying, deceitful douche. Well done Clown.
 



stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
Not according to this:

Luckily Wisconsin has had packed bars and restaurants for nearly a year now, and their supreme court continues to strike down mask mandates. Saving lives.

No?


Saving lives by having more deaths? Just like Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota.....all neighboring states that are FAR up the list. Guess that's what you get with covid denying, anti-masker leaders. Celebrate death!

Haha, you were boxed by GWG now are just being a lying, deceitful douche. Well done Clown.

Read it and weep:


Then again....I doubt the information would register. Far too stupid to understand what it all means.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
17,066
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
No?


Saving lives by having more deaths? Just like Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota.....all neighboring states that are FAR up the list. Guess that's what you get with covid denying, anti-masker leaders. Celebrate death!



Read it and weep:


Then again....I doubt the information would register. Far too stupid to understand what it all means.

Statista does not list their sources, maybe because they are incorrect. The states themselves list actual covid deaths (MN higher by several hundred). Given official population estimates (MN lower by hundreds of thousands) and the stat you’re looking at cannot be correct.


 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
Statista does not list their sources, maybe because they are incorrect. The states themselves list actual covid deaths (MN higher by several hundred). Given official population estimates (MN lower by hundreds of thousands) and the stat you’re looking at cannot be correct.



The link you provided for Minnesota adds in the "probable" deaths for a total of 7,224. Your link for Wisconsin does not. No worries however. A quick search got me to the correct place on their DHS website:


The 6,904 on the link you provided doesn't included the 748 probable deaths. Total they have 7,652.

So let's do some math. Shall we?

Wisconsin population is 5,852,490....or 58.525 x 100k
Minnesota Population is 5,706,400 or 57.064 x 100k


Wisconsin: 7,652/58.525 = 130.75
Minnesota: 7,224/57.064 = 126.59

Interesting. Statista said that Wisconsin had 131 deaths per 100k and Minnesota had 129. Pretty damn close, huh? Looks like Minnesota is doing even a little better in comparison.

I'm sure that GWG and fraudin will be back for another round of "likes".
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
17,066
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
The link you provided for Minnesota adds in the "probable" deaths for a total of 7,224. Your link for Wisconsin does not. No worries however. A quick search got me to the correct place on their DHS website:


The 6,904 on the link you provided doesn't included the 748 probable deaths. Total they have 7,652.

So let's do some math. Shall we?

Wisconsin population is 5,852,490....or 58.525 x 100k
Minnesota Population is 5,706,400 or 57.064 x 100k


Wisconsin: 7,652/58.525 = 130.75
Minnesota: 7,224/57.064 = 126.59

Interesting. Statista said that Wisconsin had 131 deaths per 100k and Minnesota had 129. Pretty damn close, huh? Looks like Minnesota is doing even a little better in comparison.

I'm sure that GWG and fraudin will be back for another round of "likes".

Whether probable cases should be counted or counted as a separate category is arguable. Wisconsin doesn’t prominently display their data on suspected which I didn’t catch so mea culpa. Worldometer which is widely quoted and easier to digest appears to continue to have muddy statistics. The Covid project has shuttered. Probably best to look to the CDC. It turns out we’re both wrong.

The official CDC statistics database appears to include suspected but not confirmed Covid deaths in addition to lab-confirmed.

As of May 8
Wisconsin 131 per 100,000,
MN 130 per 100,000

 



stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
Whether probable cases should be counted or counted as a separate category is arguable. Wisconsin doesn’t prominently display their data on suspected which I didn’t catch so mea culpa. Worldometer which is widely quoted and easier to digest appears to continue to have muddy statistics. The Covid project has shuttered. Probably best to look to the CDC. It turns out we’re both wrong.

The official CDC statistics database appears to include suspected but not confirmed Covid deaths in addition to lab-confirmed.

As of May 8
Wisconsin 131 per 100,000,
MN 130 per 100,000


So you chose to correct my usage of statista saying that Wisconsin had 131 deaths per 100k and Minnesota had 129 per 100k.....saying that those numbers couldn't possibly be correct? Even after I showed how those numbers appeared to be calculated (probably with population as the difference)?

......and then you landed on 131 and 130 as fair?


Yeah....we're both wrong I guess....
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
17,066
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
So you chose to correct my usage of statista saying that Wisconsin had 131 deaths per 100k and Minnesota had 129 per 100k.....saying that those numbers couldn't possibly be correct? Even after I showed how those numbers appeared to be calculated (probably with population as the difference)?

......and then you landed on 131 and 130 as fair?


Yeah....we're both wrong I guess....

We are parsing very small percentages. This seems meaningful to you so yes, it’s important.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
703
Points
113
5,300 Minnesotans are alive that wouldn't be if he matched Covid Kristi Noem's #'s.

how do you know any of the numbers anywhere are even accurate. Now it could be over 900,000 people dead. Seems like the accuracy of things may not be great.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
We are parsing very small percentages. This seems meaningful to you so yes, it’s important.

Last time I checked....you jumped all over MY post saying that the numbers couldn't be correct.....and then proceed to post skewed numbers that weren't even comparable due to the fact that they used two different measurements.

I then post the exact numbers and came out to almost exactly what statista listed. Probably a slight difference due to population number discrepancies.

But please....keep acting like I was wrong rather than admitting that you jumped without looking.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
17,066
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
Last time I checked....you jumped all over MY post saying that the numbers couldn't be correct.....and then proceed to post skewed numbers that weren't even comparable due to the fact that they used two different measurements.

I then post the exact numbers and came out to almost exactly what statista listed. Probably a slight difference due to population number discrepancies.

But please....keep acting like I was wrong rather than admitting that you jumped without looking.

I took the numbers off of the Wisconsin state site and Worldometer - I already admitted they differ from the CSTE criteria used by the CDC (ie include probable with confirmed). I still could not locate the additional probable deaths on the official WI state dashboard even with your link - maybe a Safari browser quirk.

It’s a mystery to me why ~10% of Wisconsin deaths are unconfirmed while ~5% of Minnesota’s are. This suggests a methodological criteria difference when classifying deaths from medical examiners or the state department of health but who knows for sure.

Here are the CSTE criteria (apparently not used by every state or jurisdiction further muddying the waters).

 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,748
Reaction score
11,680
Points
113

how do you know any of the numbers anywhere are even accurate. Now it could be over 900,000 people dead. Seems like the accuracy of things may not be great.
There's zero reason to think SD is over-reporting deaths. And there's none that I'm aware of that MN is under-reporting theirs.

You're grasping at straws. Data doesn't have to be perfect to be meaningful.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,175
Reaction score
4,688
Points
113
There's zero reason to think SD is over-reporting deaths. And there's none that I'm aware of that MN is under-reporting theirs.

You're grasping at straws. Data doesn't have to be perfect to be meaningful.
If you had to decide between only mentioning Trump on here or only mentioning South Dakota - which would you choose?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
I took the numbers off of the Wisconsin state site and Worldometer - I already admitted they differ from the CSTE criteria used by the CDC (ie include probable with confirmed). I still could not locate the additional probable deaths on the official WI state dashboard even with your link - maybe a Safari browser quirk.

It’s a mystery to me why ~10% of Wisconsin deaths are unconfirmed while ~5% of Minnesota’s are. This suggests a methodological criteria difference when classifying deaths from medical examiners or the state department of health but who knows for sure.

Here are the CSTE criteria (apparently not used by every state or jurisdiction further muddying the waters).


Get a new browser. I doubt the code on that website is very intricate.

5ZFuQxs.png


1tp2T0l.png


RCgR91K.png


I guess the confirmed vs. probable thing may differ between states. The massive jump from Minnesota to Wisconsin suggests to me that Wisconsin has a higher threshold. Not that it matters. Probable means "likely to be the case"....which is why they are included in the totals.

But again....let's not muddy the water. There was nothing wrong with the statista numbers.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
48,627
Reaction score
3,471
Points
113
If you had to decide between only mentioning Trump on here or only mentioning South Dakota - which would you choose?
Tough call. Because of all the gas station owners he knows in SD he feels very close to that state.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
17,066
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
There's zero reason to think SD is over-reporting deaths. And there's none that I'm aware of that MN is under-reporting theirs.

You're grasping at straws. Data doesn't have to be perfect to be meaningful.

The empirical data suggests something may be at play in terms of classifying deaths. I can’t prove anything and discrepancy may be from judgement calls. It would be nice to see percent probable vs confirmed by state or county to get a better feel for discrepancies.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
17,066
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
Get a new browser. I doubt the code on that website is very intricate.

5ZFuQxs.png


1tp2T0l.png


RCgR91K.png


I guess the confirmed vs. probable thing may differ between states. The massive jump from Minnesota to Wisconsin suggests to me that Wisconsin has a higher threshold. Not that it matters. Probable means "likely to be the case"....which is why they are included in the totals.

But again....let's not muddy the water. There was nothing wrong with the statista numbers.

The criteria for probable deaths are fairly wide so I’d say it arguable whether to include probable, but fair to do so. It does muddy the waters when states are reporting different death rates in different ways, so much so that a widely used and quoted aggregator site is not including probables for some states versus others.

The bigger question remains why the outcomes of the states are so similar despite different mandates. This refers not only to WI and MN but myriad other states. Some topics remain fairly taboo.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
The criteria for probable deaths are fairly wide so I’d say it arguable whether to include probable, but fair to do so. It does muddy the waters when states are reporting different death rates in different ways, so much so that a widely used and quoted aggregator site is not including probables for some states versus others.

The bigger question remains why the outcomes of the states are so similar despite different mandates. This refers not only to WI and MN but myriad other states. Some topics remain fairly taboo.

Probably = more likely than not. No reason to not include them. But I am guessing that a lot of that comes down to the doctors making the determinations as well. Doesn't necessarily have to be a state determination.

Of course there is a lot of variables that come down to the state to state outcomes. But I am confused as to where you are getting this "similar despite different mandates" thing from. Sure....Wisconsin and Minnesota are pretty close. But how do you explain states like ND, SD, and Iowa? All in the same geographical area as Minnesota. SD and Iowa in particular have had some of the MOST relaxed guidelines on mandates.....and both are near the very top in terms of deaths per capita.

This is one of the reasons why I bring all of this up. Many right leaning posters bashing Walz on his covid response. But....by most metrics....Minnesota is doing quite well in comparison to other states. Especially in comparison to ones (Iowa and SD) led by repub leaders who the righties have been praising for their handling of things.

So...by all means...dog on Walz for the restrictions that he's placed on people. But don't be surprised when I throw out the lousy death per capita rates of states where the covid denying anti-maskers govern.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
17,066
Reaction score
2,108
Points
113
Probably = more likely than not. No reason to not include them. But I am guessing that a lot of that comes down to the doctors making the determinations as well. Doesn't necessarily have to be a state determination.

Of course there is a lot of variables that come down to the state to state outcomes. But I am confused as to where you are getting this "similar despite different mandates" thing from. Sure....Wisconsin and Minnesota are pretty close. But how do you explain states like ND, SD, and Iowa? All in the same geographical area as Minnesota. SD and Iowa in particular have had some of the MOST relaxed guidelines on mandates.....and both are near the very top in terms of deaths per capita.

This is one of the reasons why I bring all of this up. Many right leaning posters bashing Walz on his covid response. But....by most metrics....Minnesota is doing quite well in comparison to other states. Especially in comparison to ones (Iowa and SD) led by repub leaders who the righties have been praising for their handling of things.

So...by all means...dog on Walz for the restrictions that he's placed on people. But don't be surprised when I throw out the lousy death per capita rates of states where the covid denying anti-maskers govern.

How do you explain Nebraska, Utah, Florida, California, Washington, Idaho versus Minnesota?

Serious question. I don’t think the answers are as simple and clear cut as some want them to be. The effect of interventions will daily never really be known because they weren’t applied or studied in any serious scientific way. My opinion, emphasis on opinion, is part of it was policy, eg protecting the elderly and LTCF, part was cultural, part socioeconomic, part underlying population health, part healthcare competence and availability.

My personal observation, for example, was widespread disobedience of social distancing here in CA. Entire families getting sick after gatherings. Friends, acquaintances, with subsequent chains of transmission. Culture, compounded by poor underlying health.

In smaller states like South Dakota the effects of a dozen LTCFs having outbreaks is amplified versus the same event happening in larger population Minnesota. The same could be alleged for the difference between Utah and Minnesota, or any number of other things.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,438
Reaction score
5,695
Points
113
How do you explain Nebraska, Utah, Florida, California, Washington, Idaho versus Minnesota?

Serious question. I don’t think the answers are as simple and clear cut as some want them to be. The effect of interventions will daily never really be known because they weren’t applied or studied in any serious scientific way. My opinion, emphasis on opinion, is part of it was policy, eg protecting the elderly and LTCF, part was cultural, part socioeconomic, part underlying population health, part healthcare competence and availability.

My personal observation, for example, was widespread disobedience of social distancing here in CA. Entire families getting sick after gatherings. Friends, acquaintances, with subsequent chains of transmission. Culture, compounded by poor underlying health.

In smaller states like South Dakota the effects of a dozen LTCFs having outbreaks is amplified versus the same event happening in larger population Minnesota. The same could be alleged for the difference between Utah and Minnesota, or any number of other things.

There are always going to be states that are outliers. But states like Nebraska, Utah, and Idaho should be expected to have more favorable numbers. Low density population states shouldn't see the type of spread that occurs in states with dense population areas. Same goes for SD, ND, and Iowa.

Not sure what the point is with Cali. They've done relatively well.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,175
Reaction score
4,688
Points
113
How do you explain Nebraska, Utah, Florida, California, Washington, Idaho versus Minnesota?
We use mandates put in place by the State's Governor to explain that. Or if that doesn't work we go with "behavioral patterns" that magically result in things like Florida and Wisconsin "acting restricted". You would be amazed at the correlation when this approach is applied.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,924
Points
113
All of these mandates and we continue to be one of the worst states currently.

 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
10,336
Reaction score
1,922
Points
113
We use mandates put in place by the State's Governor to explain that. Or if that doesn't work we go with "behavioral patterns" that magically result in things like Florida and Wisconsin "acting restricted". You would be amazed at the correlation when this approach is applied.
This was extremely well done. I doth laughed out loud, and yet it's so preposterously spot on accurate.
 




Top Bottom