Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: AMuzi Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 12:34:52 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 103 Message-ID: <10275vs$lnlk$1@dont-email.me> References: <101up3r$295cs$4@dont-email.me> <101urbl$2955p$1@dont-email.me> <1b264klb366b08fn2586kogus2rpoj3o9a@4ax.com> <101vc92$2dgpg$5@dont-email.me> <8oc84khpmkcoscs15r3rtmudhqnaionua2@4ax.com> <1022tlj$3jak1$10@dont-email.me> <10244vl$3s1io$7@dont-email.me> <5fac4kdh0ag6hlpd3c824c3u4c8kvm42nm@4ax.com> <1025bfe$4pr1$4@dont-email.me> <1025hi3$a74t$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:34:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="84282b3258c8b736832babfd5ac7a2ad"; logging-data="712372"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1yqB0dL/JRaS/+ZdoAdI2" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:gf+7lJFDUGuQztPAUl47ruwrdlI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US On 6/9/2025 12:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 21:40:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote: > >> On 6/8/2025 8:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 19:56:14 -0500, AMuzi wrote: >>> >>>> https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil >>> >>> "Estimated cumulative excess deaths per 100,000 population during >>> COVID-19, Jun 17, 2024 for USA and Brazil" >>> >>> >>> Identical rates for excess deaths per 100,000 for USA and Brazil >>> sounds like someone has been tweaking the data from Brazil to make the >>> number more believable. >>> >>> Also, notice that the confirmed cumulative (total) deaths per 100,000 >>> population for Brazil is a constant 307 (flat line) from Mar 1, 2022 >>> to May 11, 2025. This means that either Brazil has successfully >>> controlled the spread of Covid-19 (unlikely), or that Brazil simply >>> stopped reporting new cases (more likely). >>> >>> >> >> More poking about shows various totals but not over one >> million. I may have missed something more definitive. >> >> Maybe 500K >> https://www.statista.com/topics/6168/coronavirus-covid-19-in-brazil/#topicOverview >> >> Maybe 700K >> https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/ >> >> Maybe 711K >> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/ >> >> I don't know but 3 million seems high for a 213 million >> population. > > The problem with predicting fatalities is that every country had their > own method of counting fatalities. The WHO tried to define something > resembling standards, which mostly worked in countries where the > government was sufficiently stable that it was unlikely to be > overthrown by a failure to protect its citizens. I added to the > confusion by providing a graph that showed Excess Mortality numbers, > which are themselves little better than a guess. Most of the early > trend estimates came from the very rapid rise of new cases in the > early days of Covid-19. Extrapolating from such data after the > initial panic resulted in wide variations in projected new cases. > Looking at the world graph for cases and deaths, trying to estimate > anything before May 2020 was futile because of the rapid rise. Between > May 2020 and Feb 2022, it might be possible to speculate a trend. > After Feb 2022, it was all over, basically flat line, and fairly > useless for projections. > "Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, United > States" > > and Brazil" > > > Another problem was that the data collection and interpretation was > often performed by those who had a vested interest in the conclusions. > We had some of that in Santa Cruz County. Initially, every hospital > and public health organization created their own Covid-19 dashboards. > In multiple stages, various governmental organization literally > grabbed control of the data and produced their own dashboards. It was > amazing how the same data could produce dramatically different > projections. > > Since the slope of the curve was initially very steep, the computer > models produced results that suggested that everyone would soon be > dead or dying. Later projections were not so pessimistic, but since > they tended to continue using 2020 data (because that was all that was > available for a year or two), the projections continued to predict > that we're all doomed. That's probably where the 3 million cases came > from. > > Meanwhile, the politicians did their best to interfere and add > additional layers of confusion. I'm too lazy to provide some examples > but let's say that all sides did their best to "adjust" the numbers to > make themselves look comparatively better than their critics (and fund > their supporting organizations). Meanwhile, every student, scientist, > and politician was producing "survey" research articles in the belief > that averaging the widely varying data sources would somehow produce > sane projections on the assumption that all the errors would somehow > cancel each other out. Meanwhile, the only journals worth reading are > those that itemize retractions: > > > > Yes much agreed all around, especially with early predictions from various Cassandras, which did of course not come to be. I was intrigued by Dr Shadow's '3 million dead in Brasil' comment. I remain skeptical on that point. -- Andrew Muzi am@yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971