The Coronavirus Pandemic

[als_revenge]

Trump has reported to be putting pressure on CDC to adjust the death totals. He wants the people who has presumed to have died from COVID without getting tested removed (the 90 yr old who presumed to have had it, but they didn't use a test on said person), and people who have died from COVID but have something else (COVID+Diabetes, cancer, asthma(?)),

This is to lower the death total numbers. And apparently the tests in the States have only 85% accurate. Where in Canada they recalled the "fast result" test that was 95% accurate (my friend just texted me this, I haven't googled this, but he's never just made up a COVID stat. Take it as it is)

According to the BBC, Germany only counts deaths in care homes if the person had tested positive. And for quite awhile, the UK only counted deaths from hospitals (not care homes). All to say, I do think international comparisons are difficult to make. I can see why a politician would not want his/her bean counters using a more expansive definition to capture deaths relative to others....

[Rylant]

According to the BBC, Germany only counts deaths in care homes if the person had tested positive. And for quite awhile, the UK only counted deaths from hospitals (not care homes). All to say, I do think international comparisons are difficult to make. I can see why a politician would not want his/her bean counters using a more expansive definition to capture deaths relative to others....

That’s a shitty defence as to why you are are trying to manipulate the numbers. Also, I have no problem believing that Trump wants the numbers to be better, not because he cares about the people who are actually dying, but because the world revolves around him, and he can’t stand to look bad.

Rylant

[als_revenge]

That’s a shitty defence as to why you are are trying to manipulate the numbers. Also, I have no problem believing that Trump wants the numbers to be better, not because he cares about the people who are actually dying, but because the world revolves around him, and he can’t stand to look bad.

Rylant

It wasn't meant as a defence of Trump, to be honest. My main point is that international comparisons are difficult to make due to the differing methodologies being used to count deaths. That said, given how politicized this issue is, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there is an attempt to "manipulate" the numbers. The entire GOP strategy is about deflecting blame...

[als_revenge]

My error, there should not have been a colon at the end: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html (That should take you to an overview of the results).

The one study is a review of 123 studies (there were criteria for selecting those 123 studies from 21,686 studies). Full report here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_r.../RR2088-1.html

Nobody wants to take a crack at this, eh?

[lobo1969]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this, eh?

This should be under a new thread but I would agree with pretty much all of Rand's findings.

[forumname]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this, eh?

Looks interesting, but this is not a thread about guns so it's not something most people here are really looking to drill down into. Start a gun thread and I'll make some popcorn.

[als_revenge]

Looks interesting, but this is not a thread about guns so it's not something most people here are really looking to drill down into. Start a gun thread and I'll make some popcorn.

I didn't start the gun talk. There seemed to be a lot of opinions, but then talk died as soon as evidence was brought forward.

Oh well, back to bashing Trump I guess...

[rataylor22]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this, eh?

You posted a study where results are found to be inconclusive. The study focused on 18 policies implemented in some states. It doesn’t include results of good gun policy in other countries, which would be a significantly better barometer. In short, if you think this constitutes evidence or really anything meaningful, that’s very telling, but it’s not telling what you think is.

[rataylor22]

For example, if you posted the changes realized by Australia’s widespread gun regulation in the early 1990s, the results would not be “inconclusive”.

[Rylant]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this, eh?

You should probably re-read your same report if you are planning on using it to support a pro-gun argument. In that same report, it lists "Overall, we found statistically significant evidence that ten of the 18 policies affect four of the main outcomes". So in 10 of the 18 policies studied found limited - moderate reduction. The rest were inconclusive. Not a single study showed that the policy had no affect.

You aren't the first person I have seen use this type of report and suggest that a finding of "inconclusive" means that it didn't work. Of course, that is not the case; you do realize that inconclusive does not support your side of this argument, don't you? Also, you have to realize that in America's largely biased pro-gun standpoint makes it incredibly difficult for studies like this to even take place. How many millions does the NRA spend silencing studies like this? Is anybody really surprised that America's studies on gun violence are largely inconclusive? America doesn't want studies on gun violence to be conclusive.

Rylant

[als_revenge]

FWIW, I am not pro gun. But I was responding to an earlier post that says ALL available research demonstrates that gun control is effective in accomplished certain goals. The research I cited, from a non-biased source, appears to say that some gun control policies in the US have been successful, but the majority of policies are inconclusivet...

If you support the orginal argument that ALL research demonstrates gun control policies have been effective, then I fail to see the relevance of including Australian studies...

[Rylant]

FWIW, I am not pro gun. But I was responding to an earlier post that says ALL available research demonstrates that gun control is effective in accomplished certain goals. The research I cited, from a non-biased source, appears to say that some gun control policies in the US have been successful, but the majority of policies are inconclusivet...

If you support the orginal argument that ALL research demonstrates gun control policies have been effective, then I fail to see the relevance of including Australian studies...

So the intent of this post was to correct the user who suggested that ALL research demonstrates gun control policies have been effective in accomplishing their goals? What they really should have said was that ALL research which was allowed to occur unimpeded by pro-gun bias bullshit AND that had significant findings, demonstrated that gun control is effective? Wow... Great point and way to stick it to that user...

Rylant

[GretzkysMullet]

FWIW, I am not pro gun. But I was responding to an earlier post that says ALL available research demonstrates that gun control is effective in accomplished certain goals. The research I cited, from a non-biased source, appears to say that some gun control policies in the US have been successful, but the majority of policies are inconclusivet...

If you support the orginal argument that ALL research demonstrates gun control policies have been effective, then I fail to see the relevance of including Australian studies...

Yeah, the trouble with this is that there has been so much resistance to gun control in the US (NRA lobbying, 2nd amendment etc. etc.) that it is arguable that we don't really know how well measures that have worked well in other countries would work there. That is probably why there is so little conclusive data in that link you posted.

Also, I would argue that data from other countries (esp. countries like Australia or New Zealand that are so similar to Canada and the US) is very relevant when considering policy change. How else can we make informed decisions to better our societies?

[GretzkysMullet]

And yeah, the distinction between "all available research demonstrates that gun control is effective" and "most available research demonstrates that gun control is effective and the rest is inconclusive" doesn't seem all that important to me. Kinda seems like we're splitting hairs here.

[als_revenge]

So the intent of this post was to correct the user who suggested that ALL research demonstrates gun control policies have been effective in accomplishing their goals? What they really should have said was that ALL research which was allowed to occur unimpeded by pro-gun bias bullshit AND that had significant findings, demonstrated that gun control is effective? Wow... Great point and way to stick it to that user...

Rylant

The research is by the Rand Corporation, a non-biased entity. And they started with almost 22,000 studies (i.e. all studies found using multiple databases), but only 123 passed their initial screening (so I do not think the pro-gun BS made the cut)…