Ebola has come to America - CDC confirms first case.

[Archer77]

You know, I was prepared to post a rough list of all of the wrong statistical interpretations that you have posted in literally every thread I remember you posting a stat, but I don't even have to. This is the perfect example. I assume you're posting this in reference to that study  having less than 10 sample cases for what you interpreted as a black-on-white epidemic. That's not what your quoted text means. "Series incidents "means a crime or a group of crimes involving the same victims and perpetrators. So, if a guy beats his girlfriend several times, it is capped at ten within the statistics.

In the VERY NEXT SECTION of the page you linked to there is this:
So, yeah, you don't understand facts. At all. And this is a habit for you. EVery single time I have looked into any stats you posted, they were either complete bullshit it interpreted wildly inaccurately.

They explain why they use a sample of ten.  It corrects any statistical imbalances that can skew the data.  It's right there. 
This is from a PDF you can download from the same site.


Given the findings from this research, BJS will enumerate
series victimizations using the victim’s estimates of the
number of times the victimizations occurred over the past 6
months, capping the number of victimizations within each
series at a maximum of 10. This strategy for counting series
victimizations balances the desire to estimate national rates
and account for the experiences of persons with repeated
victimizations while noting that some estimation errors exist
in the number of times these victimizations occurred.

[Soul Crusher]

Meet America's New Ebola Czar
Zero Hedge ^  | 10/17/2014 | Tyler Durden

Posted on ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2014‎ ‎2‎:‎00‎:‎05‎ ‎PM by tired&retired

Forget medical experience, what the USA needs to combat the worst Ebola pandemic ever is "an American lawyer and political operative best known for serving as Chief of Staff to two Vice Presidents - Al Gore (1995–1999) and Joseph Biden (2009–2011)."

Ronald A. "Ron" Klain is an American lawyer and political operative best known for serving as Chief of Staff to two Vice Presidents - Al Gore (1995–1999) and Joseph Biden (2009–2011). He is an influential Democratic Party insider. Earlier in his career, he was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Byron White during the Court's 1987 and 1988 Terms and worked on Capitol Hill, where he was Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. He was portrayed by Kevin Spacey in the HBO film Recount depicting the tumult of the 2000 presidential election.

Lobbying Klain helped Fannie Mae overcome "regulatory issues".

Klain apparently signed off on President Obama's support of a $535 million loan guarantee for now-defunct solar-panel company Solyndra.

Clinton administration Klain joined the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992. He ultimately was involved in both of Bill Clinton's campaigns, oversaw Clinton's judicial nominations, and was General Counsel to Al Gore's recount committee in the 2000 election aftermath. Some published reports have given him credit for Clinton's "100,000 cops" proposal during the 1992 campaign; at a minimum, he worked closely with Clinton aide Bruce Reed in formulating it. In the White House, he was Associate Counsel to the President, directing judicial selection efforts, and led the team that won confirmation of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...

[Al Doggity]

They explain why they use a sample of ten.  It corrects any statistical imbalances that can skew the data.  It's right there.  
This is from a PDF you can download from the same site.


Given the findings from this research, BJS will enumerate
series victimizations using the victim’s estimates of the
number of times the victimizations occurred over the past 6
months, capping the number of victimizations within each
series at a maximum of 10. This strategy for counting series
victimizations balances the desire to estimate national rates
and account for the experiences of persons with repeated
victimizations while noting that some estimation errors exist
in the number of times these victimizations occurred.

And lime i said in the previous post, you dont understand the basics of what they are talking about.
They are not talking about case studies there. They are talking about "series victims". People who have been the victim of the same perpetrator multiple times. You keep posting something that doesnt say what you want it to say. You dont know how to interpret data.

[Soul Crusher]

Watchdog: Obama to bring non-American Ebola victims to U.S. for treatment
Washington Examiner ^  | 10/17/2014 | Paul Bedard

Posted on ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2014‎ ‎4‎:‎31‎:‎02‎ ‎PM by Rusty0604

While the bipartisan voice grows to ban Ebola victims from entering the United States, a new report claims that President Obama is considering a plan to bring the world’s Ebola patients to the United States to be treated.

Judicial Watch, the conservative public watchdog group, says in a shocking report that the president is “actively formulating plans” to admit Ebola-infected non-citizens just to be treated.

“Specifically, the goal of the administration is to bring Ebola patients into the United States for treatment within the first days of diagnosis,” said the group.

Judicial Watch, which probes federal spending and uses federal and administration sources to root out corruption, said it is unclear who would pay for transporting and treating non-Americans.

But they have details nobody else has. “The plans include special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.”

The organization added, “the Obama administration is keeping this plan secret from Congress. The source is concerned that the proposal is illegal; endangers the public health and welfare; and should require the approval of Congress.”


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

[Dos Equis]

Watchdog: Obama to bring non-American Ebola victims to U.S. for treatment
Washington Examiner ^  | 10/17/2014 | Paul Bedard

Posted on ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2014‎ ‎4‎:‎31‎:‎02‎ ‎PM by Rusty0604

While the bipartisan voice grows to ban Ebola victims from entering the United States, a new report claims that President Obama is considering a plan to bring the world’s Ebola patients to the United States to be treated.

Judicial Watch, the conservative public watchdog group, says in a shocking report that the president is “actively formulating plans” to admit Ebola-infected non-citizens just to be treated.

“Specifically, the goal of the administration is to bring Ebola patients into the United States for treatment within the first days of diagnosis,” said the group.

Judicial Watch, which probes federal spending and uses federal and administration sources to root out corruption, said it is unclear who would pay for transporting and treating non-Americans.

But they have details nobody else has. “The plans include special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.”

The organization added, “the Obama administration is keeping this plan secret from Congress. The source is concerned that the proposal is illegal; endangers the public health and welfare; and should require the approval of Congress.”


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Good grief.  I guess this is consistent with bringing terrorists here from Guantanamo for trial and opening the borders to illegal aliens. 

[Pray_4_War]

Good grief.  I guess this is consistent with bringing terrorists here from Guantanamo for trial and opening the borders to illegal aliens. 

At this point does it not look like Obama is trying to destroy the United States and kill us all?

[Al Doggity]

They explain why they use a sample of ten.  It corrects any statistical imbalances that can skew the data.  It's right there. 

Even if you didn't understand what the report was you were posting, you should have realized that A) in the very blurb you posted it acknowledged that it was not an accurate estimate and B) it had NOTHING to do with your point. You just saw the number 10 and ran with it. You do that all the time: see something that looks "official" and then you run with it, not taking any time to try to understand what it means. If you had read just four more paragraphs, you would have seen this in the report you posted:

In cases where the CV is greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate is noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

In other words,  data based on fewer than 10 case studies is HIGHLY UNRELIABLE. In their own words. From your own link.

If you need me to explain further, I can do so. Line by line if necessary.

[Al Doggity]

At this point does it not look like Obama is trying to destroy the United States and kill us all?

That report is highly dubious. It needs to be taken with a huge tub of salt. No named sources, no timelines, no one else reporting, etc. On its face, the plan is logistically unsound. Unless it's something like treating Mexicans or people who live in the Caribbean, it makes no sense to transport the afflicted to America. It would be faster, cheaper, easier to just try to get aid worker to ebola hotspots. This sounds like crap.

[RRKore]

That report is highly dubious. It needs to be taken with a huge tub of salt. No named sources, no timelines, no one else reporting, etc. On its face, the plan is logistically unsound. Unless it's something like treating Mexicans or people who live in the Caribbean, it makes no sense to transport the afflicted to America. It would be faster, cheaper, easier to just try to get aid worker to ebola hotspots. This sounds like crap.

It could be that Obama wants to bring the newly infected here for research...into creating super-lethal bio-warfare disease vectors...to unleash on red states before the next presidential election...at Hillary's urging, of course.

-  Coach

[Dos Equis]

At this point does it not look like Obama is trying to destroy the United States and kill us all?

Well Soul Crusher has been saying that for years.  lol

I wouldn't go that far, but the level of incompetence and dishonesty from this administration is staggering.

[Pray_4_War]

Well Soul Crusher has been saying that for years.  lol

I wouldn't go that far, but the level of incompetence and dishonesty from this administration is staggering.

The dude is in over his head.  He's all about college classroom intellectualism and theoretical concepts. 

Real world problems are obviously not his thing.

[Shockwave]

The dude is in over his head.  He's all about college classroom intellectualism and theoretical concepts. 

Real world problems are obviously not his thing.

thats because it directly conflicts with college classroom theory.

Real world issues fly in the face of classroom idealism. Its been shown over and over again throughout history.

[Archer77]

This is from the Weekly Standard.  I'm admitting this upfront because there will be individuals who will rush to dismiss the information because of the source.    This is what I've been saying for some time.


Frieden’s entire argument is so strange—and so at odds with what other epidemiologists prescribe—that it can only be explained by one of two causes: catastrophic incompetence or a prior ideological commitment. The latter, in this case, might well be the larger issue of immigration.

Ebola has the potential to reshuffle American attitudes to immigration. If you agree to seal the borders to mitigate the risks from Ebola, you’re implicitly rejecting the “open borders” mindset and admitting that there are cases in which government has a duty to protect citizens from outsiders. Some people on the left admit to seeing this as the thin end of the wedge. Writing in the New Yorker, Michael Specter lamented, “Several politicians, like Governor Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana, have turned the epidemic into fodder for their campaign to halt immigration.” And that sort of thing just can’t be allowed.

What would happen in the event of an Ebola outbreak in Latin America? Then America would have to worry about masses of uninfected immigrants surging across the border — not to mention carriers of the virus. And if we had decided it was okay to cut off flights from West Africa, would we decide it was okay to try to seal the Southern border too? You can see how the entire immigration project might start to come apart. [Six Reasons to Panic, Jonathan V. Last, October 27 (Print Edition) ,2014]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/six-reasons-panic_816387.html

[TheGrinch]

can any Obama lover please explain all these recent actions?? do democrats and POTUS lovers alike really agree with these Ebola policies??



just curious to hear the other side here....

[240 is Back]

A whole lot of repubs that got on the "act of love" side of hispandering last year, are probably wishing they'd held off now.

Hopefully this gives Ted Cruz a huge push for his 2016 chances.  We can paint Rand, Rubio, Perry, Christie and Jeb with that same "open borders/amnesty" brush that we assign to obama and liberals now.  Only TED CRUZ stood steady against amnesty.

[Al Doggity]

can any Obama lover please explain all these recent actions?? do democrats and POTUS lovers alike really agree with these Ebola policies??



just curious to hear the other side here....

Which ones are confusing you? The report posted above about bringing infected patients into America is obviously just low level trolling.

Choice of ebola czar? The main point of contention repubs seem  to be throwing out is that is that he doesn't have a medical background. Historically, most czars don't have field specific experience. It's probably more important that the ebola czar have the ability to coordinate with multiple agencies, especially considering organizational structure and solid protocols have been the main problems officials have had in dealing with this problem.

Here is a list of administration czars. Click on the bios, specifically in the health fields and you will notice that most don't have field specific experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#By_administration

[Al Doggity]

This is from the Weekly Standard.  I'm admitting this upfront because there will be individuals who will rush to dismiss the information because of the source.    This is what I've been saying for some time.

It would be easier to dismiss because of the Getbigger posting it. But it's great to see that you are big enough to "admit upfront" where you've sourced an article from. 

[Archer77]

It would be easier to dismiss because of the Getbigger posting it. But it's great to see that you are big enough to "admit upfront" where you've sourced an article from. 

Don't be sassy and make this personal.

[Al Doggity]

Don't be sassy and make this personal.

LOL... you spent how many posts in  this thread trying to get at another poster for not being "data driven"? Only making sure you realize how delusional that makes you.

I guess you can take it personally, since you, personally, lack the ability to figure out what you are reading, but that's not my problem.

[Archer77]

LOL... you spent how many posts in  this thread trying to get at another poster for not being "data driven"? Only making sure you realize how delusional you that makes you.

I guess you can take it personally, since you, personally, lack the ability to figure out what you are reading, but that's not my problem.

The data explained itself.  You just don't want to believe it. I showed you exact methodology used by the NCVS and explained why 10 cases are used.  There isn't much more I can do for you at this point.  The NCVS knows what they are doing and I trust their conclusions more than I ever would yours.    Im at a loss why people like you won't acknowledge the dysfunction in your community. 

[Al Doggity]

The data explained itself.  You just don't want to believe it. I showed you exact methodology used by the NCVS and explained why 10 cases are used.  There isn't much more I can do for you at this point.  The NCVS knows what they are doing and I trust their conclusions more than I ever would yours.    Im at a loss why people like you won't acknowledge the dysfunction in your community. 

Good... you and I are both here at the same time so I will take you through that blurb  step-by-step to explain to you what it means.

[Archer77]

Good... you and I are both here at the same time so I will take you through that blurb  step-by-step to explain to you what it means.

I already told you what it means.  You just can't handle the fact that you come from a violent group.  Are you going to provide more information from a black supremacist site? 

[Al Doggity]

The first thing I'll post is this:

BJS also calculates a coefficient of variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the CV is greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate is noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).

So, this is actually all  most people would need to understand what that report said.

CV=standard error of the estimates

 "In cases where the CV is greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate is noted with a “!” symbol "

So  what they are saying here is that when the sample consists of fewer than 10 cases, the CV is high. It could be greater than 50%.


Then just to make sure theré's no confusion, they posted this:

"Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases,"

That is everything you need to know right there.  I'll continue with the other paragraph, but what about this confuses you?

[Al Doggity]

I already told you what it means.  You just can't handle the fact that you come from a violent group.  Are you going to provide more information from a black supremacist site?  

This is taken right out of the report you posted. Please let me know what parts from the above post you don't understand.

What do you think it meant when they wrote "Please interpret data with caution. Based on 10 or fewer sample cases"?

[Archer77]

This is taken right out of the report you posted. Please let me know what parts from the above post you don't understand.

What do you think it meant when they wrote "Please interpret data with caution. Based on 10 or fewer sample cases"?

Why do they use 10 few sample cases?  To fix balancing errors.


The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included.

In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS web, April 2012.