Given their utter indifference to the H1N1 flu pandemic and it far higher death rate which rolled through the US during the Obama administration, the Democrat media's panic mongering concerning the far lesser threat of COVID 19 can only be considered their latest malicious attempt to undermine the POTUS you and they loathe.

Initially, Trump had the correct instinct to place this severe cold in context with the annual flu and to reassure the markets. However, the Donald soon discovered that leading the panic parade was great politics. His daily briefings offering daily decrees to address this "pandemic" has raised his approval ratings to the point some Democrats are demanding their media stop covering the presidential briefings, which are allowing Trump to appear, well, presidential.

In sharp contrast, watch the presumptive Democratic Party POTUS nominee offer his cringe worthy, dementia addled alternative COVID briefing.

It would be karmic justice if the oppsition press's latest attempt to destroy Donald Trump ended up giving him a platform to assure his reelection.
 

Here's what the effect would be of Dear Leader's "speech":

As of March 12, there were 41 deaths in the US. As of right now there are 685; figure 700 by the end of today. That's doubling every 3 days. Project that out to Apr 12, when Trump wants to "re-open" (and put aside that he can't actually do that). That would mean a bit more than 6 more doublings, which is 64 times 700. That's 44,800 deaths. US deaths in the Korean War: 33,741. In Vietnam: 55,629.

We can only hope that the shelter orders will flatten this curve before the moron in the Whitehouse kills even more.
 

The only thing I can think of when I get snippets of Trump's "task force" speaking is to be horribly reminded of Bill Murray's monologues in Caddyshack and the courtroom scene in Ghostbusters II.


 

I would think for many people seeing his name would lead them to think they by mistake got campaign literature and they would toss it. This might deny them the useful CDC information.

BTW, I have praised Melania Trump for taping a PSA about the coronavirus. It is mostly bland stuff and I get why people are cynical and dismissive. Hey, she earned some of that. But, next to Trump's proactive fiction, dangerous at that, I'll take it.
 

I am disgusted that my tax dollars are being used to send out campaign advertising for Trump.

That is all this is. These are not Trump's guidelines and there is absolutely no need for his name to be plastered all over them.

And, for the moron comparing this to H1N1, that's just about the stupidest lie you could regurgitate. Not even the propagandists at Fox News are still trying to spread that.

The H1N1 Swine Flu killed about 0.02% of those infected. COVID-19 is killing about 100x as high a portion of those confirmed to have it with estimates in the 1-4% range. Part of that difference is that there are many who have COVID-19 who are never confirmed to have it, while the H1N1 data is based on reliable estimates of the total number infected, not all of whom ever knew they were sick. But the fact remains that COVID-19 is FAR more deadly than H1N1 was.

Also, many people had some level of immunity to H1N1, it wasn't as easily spread as COVID-19, and it did not spread without symptoms the way COVID=19 can. It did not double every few days. But other than being dramatically less deadly and spreading dramatically less well, sure, they were totally the same. Sort of like how light and dark or yes and no are totally the same, if you ignore the fact that they're totally different.
 

A consistently foolish aspect of Bircher Bart's propaganda points is his 1. blaming something on the 'Democrat Party' and the 'Democrat media*' when that something is 2. *international* in scope and effect. I mean, listen to his foolish armchair 'political economy' opining where he blames this or that recession or depression on this or that Democrat policy when the recessions or depressions were experienced...internationally! I mean, sure, Carter and Obama's policy made Ireland and Iceland's economies tank!

Here he has a kooked up kooky konspiracy ready to go** that the 'Democrat media' is working to damage Trump with their coverage of COVID. Sure, the 'Democrat media' is what is making nations from China to South Korea to Italy to Spain take drastic measures to combat COVID, they're controlling the media in those places who are not covering COVID any less or as any less dangerous!

This is just not a serious man.


*Reminder, there is no such thing as the 'Democrat media' at least in the sense of a large, coordinated number of media outlets acting as a wing of the party as exists for the GOP. Every accusation is a confession with these people.

** Bircher Bart is a kommitted konspiracy kook. He's always got a grab bag of them ready to go. This is the guy who ludicrously and confidently asserted that the US attorney prosecuting Michael Cohen and L. Parnas was doing so to damage Trump, after 30 seconds of googling I revealed how absurd this was as that prosecutor was 1. a Trump appointee 2. who donated thousands to Trump and 3. volunteered on Trump's transition team. I mean, he really had done that little homework and serious thought before confidently asserting such an uncommonly silly theory. This is par for the course for him, you can expect everything he says to be equally as well researched and thought out.
 

" Not even the propagandists at Fox News are still trying to spread that. "

When Bircher Bart takes on a propaganda mission he goes all in even when those giving the orders have long abandoned the mission. He argued Iraq had WMDs long after Bush, Rice, Powell, etc., long conceded they were wrong in asserting that to be true. He's like the Japanese soldiers who didn't know the war was long over but still charged out of their caves with their bayonets laughingly yelling 'banzai!' And he's doing it here too.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mark/DCP123:

The data increase corresponds with a testing availability increase, not a spike in infection. Because the vast majority of infections either display little or no symptoms and testing is still limited to those who are symptomatic, the infection rates are likely substantially understated and the death rates based on infection overstated. South Korea conducted the most comprehensive testing and their result is a 1% death rate, which is also likely high.

Next, death rate should be measured as a percentage of population, not infections. So, yes, the far more prevalent annual flu causing roughly 30,000 deaths this season is more dangerous that COVID 19 has proven to be.

And, once again back to topic, your panic mongering is giving Trump a platform on which to lead and appear presidential.

If you sick enough to hope COVID 19 afflicted voters vote against Trump, note the vast majority are in Blue cities.
 

Please note the methodology behind Bart's propaganda: the "30,000" number for the flu is based, not upon actual tests, or reported cases, but on an estimate, which is several times the reported number.

Yet Bart insists that only officially tested and confirmed cases for COVID-19 may be allowed in the calculation for that disease.

This is simply ideologically-driven selective perception.
 

C2H5OH said...Please note the methodology behind Bart's propaganda: the "30,000" number for the flu is based, not upon actual tests, or reported cases, but on an estimate, which is several times the reported number.

Agreed, which is why I used the term "roughly" in reference to the 30,000.

Yet Bart insists that only officially tested and confirmed cases for COVID-19 may be allowed in the calculation for that disease

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not lying like Mr. W and instead did not read what I just posted (and what I have posted for days) for content:

"Because the vast majority of infections either display little or no symptoms and testing is still limited to those who are symptomatic, the infection rates are likely substantially understated and the death rates based on infection overstated."
 

Who made you the arbiter of what rates to use? For one thing, since there is no adequate testing in the USA, and since South Korea's methodology seems to have stopped the pandemic before it could get started, thanks to intelligent leadership -- unlike what this country currently has, where reaction to the spread was slow-pedaled, incompetently carried out, and discouraged, nobody really knows was the death rate actually is ... yet.

Wishful thinking, which is the only kind of thinking you are capable of, is not a substitute for intelligent analysis.

You admit that the "30,000" number is an estimate, yet you use it in conjunction with a number you quote which is based only on confirmed cases. Why, if you intend to be honest?

 

"The data increase corresponds with a testing availability increase, not a spike in infection. "

Again, Bircher Bart is a man who, with no training, experience or recognizable accomplishments in the fields of climatology, political science, survey research, psychiatry, and now epidemiology, opines with overconfidence on the subjects insisting that he knows what those with such training, experience or recognizable accomplishments in the fields do not.

He is also a man prone to putting forward laughingly flimsy partisan conspiracy theories.

He's the online equivalent of the man pushing a shopping cart through the streets wiping the spittle off the corner of his mouth as he screams about socialism (hat tip Annie Hall). Anyone who takes what he has to say about these subjects with any seriousness is themselves being not serious. This is not a serious man.
 

Before Bircher Bart showed up with his shopping cart screaming, Sandy raised an entirely neutral point/principle which one would think any and all serious people should find concerning: a government official speaking for the government to the populace in the form of disseminating important safety information should not in that speech hijack it to promote themselves politically. This should be easily seen to be condemnable when done by any official from whatever party. It's a use of official power and position for political entrenchment purposes and, especially in this highly polarizing times, subverts the goal of promoting public safety (people who are polarized against the official will be less susceptible to the safety promoting speech).
 

C2H5OH said...Who made you the arbiter of what rates to use?

Logic.

If you have a population of 100, which disease poses the greatest risk to that population: the one which infects 60 and kills 5 or the one which infects 1 and kills 1?

You admit that the "30,000" number is an estimate, yet you use it in conjunction with a number you quote which is based only on confirmed cases. Why, if you intend to be honest?

Best available CDC data.

CDC bases its annual flu death estimates on decades of observation.

CDC has not offered a comparable COVID 19 death estimate. However, the deaths caused by past coronavirus based illnesses like SARS look more like the official COVID 19 figure than the annual flu.
 

NY is trying to recruit nurses that haven’t worked in 20 years. They’re setting up temporary facilities on state college campuses. That seems like it’s unusual for an outbreak of the sniffles, Blankshot.
 

Mr. W: Sandy raised an entirely neutral point/principle which one would think any and all serious people should find concerning: a government official speaking for the government to the populace in the form of disseminating important safety information should not in that speech hijack it to promote themselves politically.

In what alternative political universe? Like any other politician, POTUSes attempt to take credit for every favorable event up to and including the sun rising in the morning.

Actually, Sandy is only upset that Trump is the political beneficiary. I didn't hear Sandy taking umbrage with Obama claiming he created the good economy under Trump (at least until the government started shutting it down over the COVID 19 panic).
 

Again: to pretend that the figures available at this point are anywhere in the ballpark of the final figures after this has played out (in a couple of months at best) is nothing but the most transparent wishful thinking.

Oddly, I remember that you complained that the CO2 figures available for the historical atmosphere stats were inadequate -- and were unconvinced when it was pointed out that they were the only figures available. Yet here you are, touting WAGs as if they were the result of years of careful study.

I find your arguments largely illogical, based on selective choice of data, and filtered through an ideological lens.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"In what alternative political universe? Like any other politician, POTUSes attempt to take credit for every favorable event up to and including the sun rising in the morning."

Of course our partisan propagandist can't even conceive of an answer resting on principle or logic, just a shrug of 'everybody does it*'. It's all a power game to propagandists anyway, that's why they engage in it in the first place.

* Extremists like Bircher Bart also, of course, have tremendous difficulty with distinctions (when you're way, way, way over there, everything to the X of you looks about the same super far away.

Sending out official public safety information with the political official not even directly overseeing the dissemination is an order different than, say, an official touting their economic priorities/accomplishments at a factory ribbon cutting ceremony.
 

Speaking of which:

"Federal judge allows First Amendment case against Trump to proceed"

Here in " Jurist" and link therein to the ruling:

https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/03/federal-judge-allows-first-amendment-case-against-trump-to-proceed/
 

C2H5OH said...Again: to pretend that the figures available at this point are anywhere in the ballpark of the final figures after this has played out (in a couple of months at best) is nothing but the most transparent wishful thinking.

Never claimed otherwise.

Oddly, I remember that you complained that the CO2 figures available for the historical atmosphere stats were inadequate -- and were unconvinced when it was pointed out that they were the only figures available.

You were attempting to \ claim a causal relationship based on inadequate CO2 data.

I merely make two general observations: (1) We do not panic or shut down the economy because of annual flu deaths and (2) the COVID 19 impact is less than that of the annual flu.

The disparity between the COVID 19 and the annual flu data is so enormous that we don't need very accurate data to assume the second general observation is true. The second general observation is true even if you assume actual COVID 19 data is, say, ten times worse than the official figures.
 

"when you're way, way, way over there, everything to the X of you looks about the same super far away."

Basically, that's the Doppler Effect. If you're sitting on the 5 yard line, you can see the difference between that and the end zone. But if you look down to the opposite end of the field, the 5 and the end zone will seem right on top of each other.
 

The issue here is simple. By plastering Trump's name all over something that really isn't about him, what could have been an effort to provide useful information is revealed as a campaign ad paid for by the American taxpayers, which is illegal.

Obama did not do that. Ever. Not even close.
 

Just a few notes on statistics:

1. To use the example of South Korea to estimate death rates is hopelessly stupid. The reason is that all infection tests have false positives. Generally in the range of 10 percent. (They also have false negatives, but that's another issue.) If, as in the case of South Korea, the tests are administered, en masse, to a population with a very low prevalence of the virus, the number of true positives is far outnumbered by the number of false negatives. Give the test to 1000 people where 10 are infected, and you'll get 100 positives. And maybe 1 death, for a death rate which is actually meaningless. This is an example of "innumeracy", the inability to understand mathematics.

2. Does that mean South Korea did wrong? No. Because even though 100 people were quarantined unnecessarily, it's likely all but 1 or 2 of the true positives were also quarantined -- and if the testing is continued for a few weeks, the virus spread is "damped", because the exponent in the "exponential growth rate" becomes negative.

3. This is the same principle as vaccination, which is nowhere near 100 percent effective. But it's effective enough to "damp" the spread of the virus.

4. There's a similar problem with testing only those who are hospitalized with severe cases of pneumonia, as Pence has insisted: those people are not going to spread the virus to anyone (except the medical personnel they expose). The ones you want to test are the potential "spreaders" -- and now that's hopeless, thanks to the lack of front-end preparation and incompetence by the Trump administration.

What does this mean for the USA?

First, the time to properly begin the spread in the USA is when it became a "community" spread, not when the first people died in the USA. (They were infected overseas.) That means we are in the first four weeks of this pandemic. (The first community spread in the USA was reported February 26.) And in most areas, "social distancing" was not even thought of for two weeks after that.

Given the shortage of tests, the Korean approach here is hopeless -- the virus has already spread so widely that the numbers of people who would test positive would make quarantine impossible.

Hang on for dear life is the only thing we can do now.

 

Blankshot, this appears to be a GREAT time for you to visit New York.
 

(1) We do not panic or shut down the economy because of annual flu deaths and (2) the COVID 19 impact is less than that of the annual flu.

1. Correct. Because annual flu deaths are somewhat predictable, not likely to explode upward, and are somewhat controlled by the existence of flu vaccines. We don't shut down the economy because of annual cancer deaths either. So what.

2. Assumes facts not in evidence. It may be less, or more, but the potential for catastrophe is there, and the probability of that potential catastrophe can be mitigated by certain measures.
 

I am not an epidemiologist. Actual epidemiologists have different predictions, but almost all of them say CV is serious and we need to continue distancing for awhile.

I choose to believe them over Bart DePalma.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Dilan:

Too many physicians appear to have tunnel vision, seeking to minimize transmission of COVID 19 over all other considerations. I have yet to see one who is taking people's livelihoods or freedom into account in their recommendations or models.

COVID 19 is not remotely the equivalent of the black death or the long hypothesized airborne ebola presenting an existential threat to humanity. It is simply the latest in a long line of somewhat nastier than average viruses.

In the name of reducing the annual communicable disease death rate per 100k from say 18 to 15, should we now expect the government to place everyone on house arrest for weeks or months every couple years when some nastier than average virus comes along?

Think about it.
 

Tấm lợp lấy sáng composite.
 

durex invisible extra.

máy in canon 8610 cũ.
 

Blankshot, get your ignorant ass to NYC. They're going to need lots of cannon fodder for the next few weeks. And some dumbass who thinks he knows more than the experts and thinks that this is the sniffles would be perfect.
 

Again, Bircher Bart has no recognizable training, education or record of accomplishment in the field of epidemiology. If, that alone being the case, he opined in contrast to most of those who do have those, inductive logic strongly suggests he should be ignored. If, to add to this, the same man, had a demonstrable record of opining in many other fields in which he has no recognizable training, education or record of accomplishment in contrast to those who did, *and* to add to it had, in doing that, created a demonstrated record of laughingly incorrect claims, then, as an inductive reasoning judgement, who in their right mind would listen to this person in the present case?

This is not a serious man.

This is a partisan incoherent.
 

"Too many physicians appear to have tunnel vision, seeking to minimize transmission of COVID 19 over all other considerations."

Lol, this country lawyer can't even get the basics correct. Clearly he meant to write 'maximize' since if they 'minimize' transmission over all other considerations they agree with this uncommonly silly man.

A man who can't even get this basic detail correct knows more about the transmission and consequences of a novel pandemic...Lol!

This is not, in the least, a serious man.
 

No, he's right that physicians are trying to minimize transmission. The rest of his post is gibberish.
 

"Blankshot, get your ignorant ass to NYC."

Perhaps, under directive of President Romney (whom Blankshot guaranteed would be President), inferior privates DePalma, propaganda division, would undertake this mission to NYC, whereupon he would find the WMD's he still insists, long after Bush et al., have conceded did not exist, are there, hidden by Saddam next to the Democrat progressive-fascist-totalitarian plan to manipulate world media and governments to overreact to COVID in a plan, in conjunction with a US Attorney who was appointed by Trump, donated to him and volunteered on his transition team, to prosecute Trump associates to damage him and spread COVID hysteria.

Lol. This is in no way a serious man.
 

bb-I assumed this Bircher meant 'minimize transmission' in the sense of 'minimize the importance/danger of transmission' which the Bircher seeks to minimize.
 

bb-I assumed this Bircher meant 'minimize transmission' in the sense of 'minimize the importance/danger of transmission' which the Bircher seeks to minimize.
# posted by Blogger Mista Whiskas : 11:43 PM

I thought the same at first, but I'm pretty sure he means reducing transmission of the disease. It seems odd that he's opposed to that, but here we are.
 

Mr. W / bb:

Do you understand the concept of conflicting interests?

The surest way to stop the spread of COVID 19 is to place the nation under martial law by unconstitutional executive decree, restrict everyone to their homes for three months, drop rations off at their doorsteps and shoot anyone found on the street in violation of curfew. We do not do this because most sane human beings would consider this an insane overreaction to a severe cold which has a far less than a 1% chance of incapacitating or killing them.

Thus, the question becomes when does the reaction become overreaction? How many businesses should government shutter? How many people should the government unemploy (unemployment insurance claims are over 3 million this month)? How many trillions of dollars should the government borrow that it cannot pay back? For how long?

And, most importantly, should we repeat this policy every time a new illness comparable to COVID 19 comes along?

Think about it.
 

We know how poorly Bircher Bart thinks about conflicting interests. Terrorists murdered 2,996 people on 9/11 and Bircher Bart picked up his pom poms and led the cheerleading squad for mass warrantless surveillance, torture, rendition, and the invasion of two countries one of which was remotely related, at best, to the attack and which cost trillions of dollars and over four thousand US lives. Covid has killed more people in Italy alone than died in the 9/11 attacks, but Bircher Bart soft peddles this as 'the sniffles.'

This is not a serious man.
 

Mr. W:

You appear to understand the concept of conflicting interest when it comes to war.

Now apply that principle to COVID 19 and all future comparable diseases.
 

Hopefully, in the future people will have learned that the way to halt the spread of a virulent disease is early aggressive testing and quarantine. That would have produced an outcome in line with Korea's.

That would eliminate the need for massive disruption and quarantine of entire states' populations.

 

I think people did know that beforehand. Those people just weren't working for Trump. His ignorance, stupidity, and corruption lost us the opportunity to minimize the damage and forced us to use second-best measures.
 

An alternative is the approach taken by my state senator.

She sent her constituents an info pamphlet. It has the usual notice that it is a mailing from the particular government official. But, it isn't "SENATOR ALESSANDRA BIAGGI'S GUIDELINES FOR NY" or something.

It provides things like the same CDC website info, basic symptoms, the language in Spanish and info on other languages.


 

"You appear to understand the concept of conflicting interest when it comes to war."

Every accusation is a confession.
 

Think about it.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:06 AM

This isn’t a severe cold, you halfwit. It’s a disease that has the potential to kill millions.

Think about it.
 

Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I had been rejected by my husband after five(5) years of marriage just because another woman had cast a spell on him and he left me with 2 kids to suffer. One day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how he help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a chance he told me that my husband is under spell, he said that he will help me and after 7 days that i will have my husband back. i believed he and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster has the power to bring lovers back now my husband is back with after 7 days . he also gave me a financial magic ring to boost my business and removed bad luck. i am now happy with my husband. Thanks you Dr. love please contact him at (lovespelldoctor0@gmail.com)
 

It looks like Bart has some competition to be the next director of NIAID.
 

Sounds like something Trump would sell.
 

bb:

I have not only did you the courtesy of thinking about your claims of millions of COVID 19 dead in the US. I have researched and rejected it.

I seem to recall offering C2H5OH a $1,000 wager on his lesser claim of a million dead and he whined I was bullying him.

If you millions of Democrats ever recover from your Trump Derangement Syndrome and get serious, let me know.
 

Bart, at least try to stick somewhere near the facts. You offered a 1000-dollar wager that the number of cases in the USA would not exceed 60 million. This was after I referred to an estimate by an epidemiologist that that would be the number.

To characterize my lack of desire to engage in a pointless exercise (you never gave any way to prove the outcome, nor was the wager an honest one in the first place: as I pointed out, if the number of cases turned out to 59,999,999, you would win -- but that would in no conceivable sense mean that epidemiologist was wrong!)

You have a lot of nerve calling anyone else a liar.

If Trump weren't so obviously incompetent, dishonest, and corrupt it wouldn't bother us nearly as much.

But then, if he weren't so incompetent, we'd have emulated South Korea in January and likely not be anywhere near where are today. The official number of deaths has now doubled since you dismissed the virus a "serious cold" two days ago. What does your highly knowledgeable understanding of exponential growth tell you is going to happen in the next few days?

 

Bart DePalma12:47 PM
bb:

I have not only did you the courtesy of thinking about your claims of millions of COVID 19 dead in the US. I have researched and rejected it.

When we go back to basing the COVID-19 policy on the opinion of morons instead of experts I'm sure your opinion will carry a lot more weight.
 

I have to apologize to almost all of the readers of these comments for allowing a worthless troll to get me to respond.

But this whole COVID-19 situation has me very angry. Furious is not too strong a word for what I feel when I think about the time that Trump and his enablers spent poo-pooing the approaching pandemic while they sat on their hands and did nothing useful.

As a result, I'm stepping away from the keyboard here for a while. See you on the other side. Probably July. If I see anything egregiously wrong, mathematically, maybe I'll kick in. Otherwise, ...

 

"If you millions of Democrats ever recover from your Trump Derangement Syndrome and get serious, let me know."

A sign of derangement would be a person with no training, education, experience or accomplishments in number of complex fields opining as if he had a better take on those subjects than the thousands of people with such training, education, experience or accomplishment.

Derangement and/or dishonesty.
 

What amazes me about Bart is his complete lack of regard for expertise. He literally thinks he knows everything about climate science, epidemiology, and any other scientific issue raised in the public debate.

I guess when he tries cases, he just calls himself as an expert witness whenever one is needed.

Bart, there are scientists who fricking know more about these things than you do. If they are saying "hey, it's possible to open things up with a very low death rate", I am absolutely 100 percent willing to consider cost-benefit analysis. I don't disagree that there's a theoretical death rate that is so low that one might say "it isn't worth shutting everything down for that".

But literally almost no scientists are saying that. They are all predicting numbers much higher than yours. I trust them, not you.
 

"As a result, I'm stepping away from the keyboard here for a while. See you on the other side. Probably July. If I see anything egregiously wrong, mathematically, maybe I'll kick in."

You're the one who should stay -- your contributions add real value. Try some form of virtual ignore. It works for me.
 

Dilan said...What amazes me about Bart is his complete lack of regard for expertise.

You are correct. I categorically reject the logical fallacy of citation of authority, which appears to be a prerequisite for being a progressive and/or Democrat.

If you take the time to actually examine most "expert" claims, more times than not they are partially or completely wrong.

There are now a handful of studies of peer reviewed papers published in prestigious journals finding most make claims which cannot be replicated using the scientific method. Publish or perish often takes precedence over the truth.

As a trial attorney, I can and have hired experts who will take my client's position to face off against an opposing party "expert" who will testify to the diametrically opposite position. Both are equally credentialed. Often, I suspect both of them are wrong to some extent.

He literally thinks he knows everything about climate science, epidemiology, and any other scientific issue raised in the public debate.

Did anyone here (apart from maybe Brett) ever learn the concept of critical thinking? If so, you are not employing the practice.

Question EVERYTHING. Do not accept ANYTHING at face value.

Questioning everything is not remotely the same as claiming to know everything. For example, I have freely admitted I have no idea how the COVID 19 outbreak will end up. I have instead spent the time questioning others claims made with incomplete to zero substantive evidence. Often, the "experts" you are cite simply make assumptions (what we used to call "wild ass guesses" in the military), which they expect you to uncritically accept because they have X credential or occupy Y position.

EVERYONE is qualified to question expert assumptions. I tell my clients during our initial consultations to ask me any question and to raise any topic they think is relevant, so we can arrive at the the closest approximation of the truth before I start working the DA or preparing for trial. Just because I am a credentialed attorney of nearly twenty five years experience does not mean I know everything or catch everything.

In sum, think for yourselves.

 

"I categorically reject the logical fallacy of citation of authority, "

Bircher Bart doesn't get that the 'logical fallacy of citation of authority' is *deductive* fallacy (a fallacy of deductive logic). It merely says that a claim is not true *because* of the mere fact that an authority states it (it's similar to ad hominen fallacy in that way, that something is not false simply *because* the person that says it is a deranged scoundrel).

But as a matter of *inductive* logic only an arrogant fool treats authority as casually as Bircher Bart does. Because the *probability* that someone with more training, experience, education and accomplishment than you in an area is correct in matters in that area is of course much higher than the probability that you are correct. And this really becomes exponentially more probable when you're disagreeing with the vast majority of thousands of the persons with training, experience, education and accomplishment in an area on a matter in that area.

Like with most of Bircher Bart's foolishness he allows his little bit of knowledge (here of the deductive fallacy of authority) lead him to an arrogantly, overconfident summary conclusion about a matter that is much more nuanced and complex (and it's that nuance and complexity that people with more training, experience, and education in the area are aware of, and why they are so much more often, and likely to be, correct).

This is not in the slightest a serious man.
 

I mean, it really couldn't have been a more perfect way for Bircher Bart to illustrate exactly what's wrong with his thinking. You have to give him credit, the possibly one thing he's quite remarkable at is deconstructing himself and his positions (unwittingly of course).

This is not a serious man.
 

Because if he had spoken to a trained, educated and accomplished logician before he employed what he thought was a 'checkmate' invocation of a logical point, that logician could have saved him from looking like what he now looks like, a fool overconfidently making a pronouncement on a subject where he has a little bit, but not much, knowledge. The logician would have told him 'yes, that is a principle of logic, but my goodness you're misunderstanding and mis-applying it in a way that will make you look foolish.'

But, in the king of ironies, he did what he usually does: went charging in with a little bit of knowledge of a nuanced, complex field, with the result being once again saying something laughably stupid. I wouldn't want to go shooting with this man, he seems like the kind who would literally shoot himself in the foot while arrogantly lecturing you on the principles of safe gun handling.

This is not a serious man.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I miss the guy, maybe now somewhere on his boat, who kept on putting someone's name in quotes.

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/accountability-and-renegade-executive.html
 

Professor Balkin: Time for BartExit.
 

Bart, I am all in favor of critical thinking, but that's not the same thing as thinking you are an expert or know more than experts.

For instance, I am not an expert on political polling. So, for instance, I really can't comment about things like how to properly model a poll or how to best randomly sample or whatever.

On the other hand, I can think critically about political polling. For instance, when I see someone confidently proclaim that James Comey's letter swung the election, and the evidence is a polling average that fluctuated up and down numerous times with no explanation over the course of months, but presumably one fluctuation in October 2016 was due to Comey, I can call BS. Because obviously that's bad science.

If you want to say that some specific study is bad science, based on specific identifiable errors, there's nothing wrong with that. That's critical thinking. Many people have critiqued the Imperial College study on coronavirus, for instance.

But to just come in here and say confidently that the scientists don't know what they are talking about and the scientific consensus is totally wrong isn't critical thinking. It's denialism.

And BTW, Mista Whiskers is right that you have no idea how the informal fallacy of "appeal to authority" works. It doesn't mean any argument based on authority is fallacious or that reliance on experts is illogical.
 

Mr. W: Because the *probability* that someone with more training, experience, education and accomplishment than you in an area is correct in matters in that area is of course much higher than the probability that you are correct.

This is wrong on multiple levels.

(1) Most experts are bureaucrats who belong to one of the government licensed guilds (professions). They suffer from all the shortcomings of bureaucrats - an overly high opinion of their own credentials, tunnel vision from specialization and a bad case of group think. As I noted about the physicians offering COVID 19 policy, they focus only on minimizing the spread of the illness and do not consider any other interests their policies reduce to collateral damage.

I come from a military background. One of the reasons smaller special ops or partisan groups can defeat much larger, more powerful bureaucratized armies like ours is they think "outside of the box" in ways the military bureaucrats fighting by the book cannot.

(2) When confronted by something novel, there are no experts whose credentials and experience give them superior knowledge. When so called "experts" with an overly high opinion of their own credentials offer assumptions, their wild ass guesses are often no more valid than our's. You can tell this is the case when expert assumptions and models are all over the place - as they are with COVID 19.

In sum, by all means critically listen to those with more education or experience than yourself in the relevant subject matter areas, then make them justify their positions like a graduate student defending a thesis.
 

Of course the actual polling experts, like Nate Silver, who looked at the data on the Comey letter concluded that it probably *did* swing the election.