We do need to note that your B. of Arts has given you no real credentials to do proper data analysis or any medical opinions on a virus. Chime in if you have any real credentials in either area.
Florida reported 48 resident deaths today according to the media. As note in the press - https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article246392290.html Don't know why the portal says 47. These are the deaths that were reported today --- they are not allocated by date of death yet for the most part. There is a complete difference in Florida of the date the death was reported and the date the death occurred. I agree that the majority of updates to the date of death information occurs in the first two weeks. .... but the data updates on date of death have been delayed up to 8 weeks in Florida at times. Note the reported deaths on a particular date will normally not match the date of death data. The reported deaths on a date in Florida normally will comprise of deaths that occurred yesterday, the day before, two days back, etc. -- the reported number on a date does not represent that the deaths occurred on that particular date.
That may be the case, but it appears that the majority of death dates are determined fairly quickly, within a week or so. Going back past that the totals are definitely in a down trend, and well below +100 avg per day. Any additional updates are very unlikely to change that.
This wasn't the discussion or the metric. I quoted your entire post, but the conversation was never about 30 days - that was you moving the goal posts. The conversation was about UsualName's claim that deaths for the last 20 days was 2000 - a patently false declaration and one you supported.
Again, this is you moving the goalposts. 1500 and 30 days was not the point of the discussion. 2000 and 20 days was the claim. I can post the entire thread portion again if you wish, but i suspect you're just doing your usual tango to avoid looking like the idiot you clearly are. Again, the 100 days per average is the reported number. This is not the metric we were discussing. We were discussing deaths by date of death and that is not currently at 100 a day. You are assuming a constant rate that never declines. That's not how reality works.
Everything he does is an assumption. Many of which fail spectacularly. That's what makes this so funny.
For posterity. I wish I didn't have to do this, but when you're trying to discuss something with someone so disingenuous and always moving the goal posts, you have to make sure everything is spelled out specifically. Otherwise, the weasel does what weasels do. This is a complete list of the whole conversation regarding the 2000/20 days and the supposed 1500/30 days claim. You will also notice how he has stopped defending the 600 per day claim, that one is totally indefensible even for someone as desperate as he. But he'll never admit defeat, just go silent. What started the conversation on this topic: Please note the claim. 2000 deaths in 20 days, made on September 28. My initial response to UsualName: Then, Palooka (GWB) inserts himself into the conversation because he can't help himself. Emphasis on his quote my own. My Full Response to GWB's quote: Please note I specifically mention once again the 2000 deaths in 20 days. I do this continually because, as is always the case, GWB will try to weasel out and change the metric as his previous one doesn't work. GWB again tries to bring the 30 day metric in. And I agree, we can go back and look - but specifically mention the 2000/20 metric again, because that is the one I am debating (and plan to go back to review). I also mention the possibility the metric will come to fruition. It is, after all, possible. The professor tells me what we already know. I let Professor Palooka know that I know this, and again remind him of the metric to check - the 2000/20 conversation, nothing else. GWB feels as if he has to tell me this is already likely (again) despite his dismal forecasting record. Also, at least he focuses on the 2000/20 metric. My update on October 5. Please note I also mention I did 21 days, same as when GWB felt he was correcting me yesterday - that's OK. 21 days gives the count an extra day, so should be in GWB's favor. Professor Palooka's response to this: Please note how he has said "Yet all the data is not reported for three weeks. " You can bet that if this number isn't hit after three weeks, he will try to move this goalpost as well out from three weeks. My post from yesterday, updated 10/12. Now, there might be some confusion for Professor Palooka reading this - and I can understand how he would want to find something - anything at all - to help him in the discussion, so I can see how he would leap to the mention of the 1500 in 30 days there, but the mention was showing how - based on the fact that he claimed 1500 in 30 days was going to happen, this meant that 2000 in 20 days was a forgone conclusion. But unfortunately that isn't what we bet on. We bet on the 2000/20 that has been mentioned all along. In desperation, he lowered the count and raised the day limit so he could get a number that actually might transpire. Sorry, Palooka. We're on to you. Now, suddenly it's all about the 1500/30 metric. And my final response. If the first dozen times didn't get through to his idiocy, I don't expect this one to.
Let's get back to reality... someone else made a claim that Florida had 2000 deaths in 20 days - not myself. I stated that it was likely that Florida would have 2000 deaths over 20 days once the final accounting was done since they already had 1500 deaths over 30 days. So let me ask again -- do you understand that 1,738 deaths is greater than 1,500? You threw all sort of shade on the claim of 1500 deaths over 30 days. Since Florida is now taking 6 to 8 weeks to properly allocate reported deaths to deaths by date -- it will not be into November before we know the correct dates by death for September. With Florida reporting over 100 deaths per day on average it is statistically likely when the deaths are allocated by date that any 20 day period of dates would be over 2000 deaths. The underlying problem is that Florida is so poor at reporting data -- that most rational people and nearly all the media sources in the state are questioning the data the state is providing. Clearly the state has been less than transparent about COVID data as they keep removing information from the state website. This past weekend the state was so screwed up that they failed to report COVID data on Saturday.
Please support this claim by providing "all the shade" I threw on the claim of 1500 deaths over 30 days. Please make sure you provide all comments with FULL posts and FULL context. I ask you this because you've made many claims about me that you don't substantiate with any backup at all. Such as how I support doctors who claim Demon Sperm is the cure for COVID, and how I blamed COVID on 5G. I'm still waiting for THOSE claims to be backed up, but I know you'll never say anything on them again. So please show me where I threw all this shade on the claim of 1500 over 30 days. Lastly, I know that the 2000/20 claim was made by someone other than you. I've stated this very thing over and over again. But you stuck your fat mouth into the conversation and backed up that claim with quotes that I've posted. I can post them again if you wish. Now you're trying to fall back on a moving the goal post position that I never argued against and could care less about. You're also trying to pivot now back to Florida data. No one gives a shit about your argument on that.
If you are posting charts from sources who put out all sorts of wild COVID claims then we can only assume that you support all of their other claims. Maybe you should stick with charts from legitimate media, government and scientific resources rather than crap that you found on Twitter. It's time for you to stop sourcing your "proof" from Twitters and Bloggers who push demon-sperm promoter nonsense, COVID conspiracy theories, and other nonsensical crap. So once again --- let's try out your basic math -- Is 1,738 deaths is greater than 1,500?