• 211: Piercing the Fog of War - An ongoing effort., submitted on 2022-04-04 11:34:40+08:00.
• 212: Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones: study, submitted on 2022-04-05 21:17:22+08:00.
• 213: Chicago’s, schools’ COVID-19 numbers climb but ‘nothing alarming’, submitted on 2022-04-06 19:54:35+08:00.
• 214: Unofficial Daily Update for 2022-04-07. 1496 New Cases., submitted on 2022-04-08 02:05:20+08:00.
• 215: Is there a methodic way to study geopolitics?, submitted on 2022-04-08 19:26:09+08:00.
• 216: Hate to have to ask, but what is this piece of equipment called boys?, submitted on 2022-04-09 02:43:11+08:00.
• 217: Pevear/Volokhonsky Bicentennial Edition Changes to Notes from Underground? From “wicked” to “spite.”, submitted on 2022-04-10 08:18:17+08:00.

211: Piercing the Fog of War - An ongoing effort., submitted on 2022-04-04 11:34:40+08:00.

—– 211.1 —–2022-04-08 18:51:04+08:00:

If you want this to be approved, reformat it so that the numbers show up properly and edit it down. Further, properly incorporate your links according to the format Reddit requires for hyperlinks. Right now, this looks messy and is difficult to follow. Otherwise, it will not be approved.

212: Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones: study, submitted on 2022-04-05 21:17:22+08:00.

—– 212.1 —–2022-04-06 19:29:31+08:00:

This is an article about a “study” from a partisan group called Third Way, which was linked several paragraphs in. According to the article:

The study found that murder rates in the 25 states Trump carried in 2020 are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.

The “study” only used 2020 data “because 2021 data is not yet fully available.” However, the study purportedly focuses on a so called “Red State Murder Problem,” generally, not 2020 homicide rates in particular. The study in fact made no effort whatsoever to evaluate relative crime rates of red states at any point before 2020. Further, there are serious questions as to the reliability of the incomplete dataset they purportedly derived their analysis from.

This “study” provides no explanation as to why it failed to consider data before 2020. Unanswered questions remain as to why, specifically, the study limited its inquiry solely based on 2020 presidential election results. There is no indication as to why “Red State[s]” were categorized as such, solely based on the 2020 election outcome when, in fact, many states categorized as non-red states with no such “murder problem” had previously voted for a Republican candidate even in up to three out of four most recent presidential elections. To the extent the study solely focused on presidential elections, no explanation is provided as to why they failed to account for different presidential electoral outcomes going back the last several elections.

The study provides no explanation as to why only a presidential election alone was considered, and no other election at any level. Unanswered questions remain as to why, specifically, the study ignored all other elections at all other levels, particularly when purported murder rates vary significantly according to locality, population density and numerous other factors. For example, absolute and relative murder rates tend to be higher in population dense urban centers as compared to lesser densely populated rural areas. Yet for some strange reason, these authors focused on “per capita” murders in some incoherently vague, general sense at the state level.

And of course, no explanation is suggested, much less offered, as to what if any relationship any such election results had in relation to these purported crime figures (beyond what might most charitably be called incoherent speculation).

The above deficits are merely an illustrative sampling of why this Yahoo article and the purported “study” on which it is based are inexcusably deficient. These deficiencies are obvious, impossible to ignore and can be readily ascertained by anyone who even casually review the claims proposed. As a result, obvious inferences with respect to bias cannot be ignored. In the best case, these authors are inexcusably incompetent. In the worst case, this falls squarely within the category of partisan hackery that is deliberately misleading. The latter is more likely, however, given the surrounding facts and circumstances.

Accordingly, this article is removed. We encourage submissions from reliable think tanks and sources, but Third Way is no such thing when they publish this kind of low-effort garbage.

213: Chicago’s, schools’ COVID-19 numbers climb but ‘nothing alarming’, submitted on 2022-04-06 19:54:35+08:00.

—– 213.1 —–2022-04-06 20:00:08+08:00:

According to Chicago’s so-called public health commissioner, Allison Arwady:

“We are seeing an increase, but I’m thinking it’s going to be probably more like what we saw during alpha and during delta (variant waves), as opposed to this really out-of-control (surge) that we saw during omicron.”

This statement’s baseline stupidity should be readily obvious. Anyone even casually familiar with the differences between delta and omicron should understand that the delta variant was both acutely more contagious than any prior such strain and more likely to result in hospitalization and death, in part based on the potentially improved human ACE2 binding affinity of that strain’s spike protein. Omicron, on the other hand, while more contagious, was associated with significantly lower hospitalization and mortality among all relevant cohorts. Delta was worse by orders of magnitude across every consequential metric. So to claim that omicron was “really out-of-control” as compared to delta is nonsensical. Comparing what is or is not “really out-of-control” based on absolute positives alone — which she appears to do — is absurd. That absurdity, however, is in keeping Arwady’s now-familiar reckless use of adjectives to incoherently describe phenomena in data.

Even setting aside the fact that, of course, Arwady’s predictions are — as always — based on nothing, these repeat occurrences continue to undermine Arwady’s credibility and effectiveness. This innumerate individual would do well to refrain from further public appearances. But interestingly, Arwady’s approach has clearly shifted, in any case, to one that is tailored by the obvious political gravity associated with COVID policies and in view of the upcoming elections this fall.

—– 213.2 —–2022-04-07 07:02:29+08:00:

I suggest that Awrady be relieved of her responsibilities.

214: Unofficial Daily Update for 2022-04-07. 1496 New Cases., submitted on 2022-04-08 02:05:20+08:00.

—– 214.1 —–2022-04-08 18:04:18+08:00:

What is confusing about this to you?

—– 214.2 —–2022-04-08 18:05:19+08:00:

I see almost no utility in these daily updates.

—– 214.3 —–2022-04-08 19:36:00+08:00:

The “positivity rate” is an unhelpful metric, particularly when the amount of tests administered is low. All other issues associated with these data points notwithstanding, because the “positivity rate” is a function of a numerator comprising the amount of purported “positives” and a denominator comprising the amount of tests administered, higher such rates should be expected to be significantly associated with lower numbers of tests administered. Basically, the fewer tests you administer the more likely you’re going to see a higher “positivity rate.”

In view of recent changes to testing, coverage and related problems associated with that data’s aggregation, I would further expect to see the “positivity rate” continue to become more misleading and unhelpful for related reasons. For example, it is unclear whether or two what extent self tests are reported. Further, as coverage continues to become more restrictive, the population seeking COVID tests is more likely to be self-selecting and biased.

—– 214.4 —–2022-04-08 19:47:17+08:00:

Well, I’m glad we’re on the same page.

215: Is there a methodic way to study geopolitics?, submitted on 2022-04-08 19:26:09+08:00.

—– 215.1 —–2022-04-08 19:50:28+08:00:

Try /r/geopolitics2.

216: Hate to have to ask, but what is this piece of equipment called boys?, submitted on 2022-04-09 02:43:11+08:00.

—– 216.1 —–2022-04-09 12:09:52+08:00:

Alternatively, you could get the same exercise by getting a job at Home Depot unloading refrigerators.

217: Pevear/Volokhonsky Bicentennial Edition Changes to Notes from Underground? From “wicked” to “spite.”, submitted on 2022-04-10 08:18:17+08:00.

—– 217.1 —–2022-04-10 10:01:21+08:00:

Volokhonsky’s idiosyncrasies, Peaver’s illiteracy and their collective inability to appreciate the difference between a connotation and denotation are why.