Yeah, it's essentially identical to the one I posted earlier with the following visualization differences:
- X axis is weeks by year instead of just weeks (and years as separate series),
- bars instead of lines and dots.
I'll reproduce it later today and send you the result and the link to the data.
Indianapolis: hospitals require masks for all customers here.
I refused to wear one based on an alleged personal exemption, so I could bypass the reception, but the doc very politely refused to see me without a mask.
It seems, red states are more susceptible to this bullshit. People are complacent, they don't know how bad things will be once their freedoms are taken away.
How does one change that?
Indeed, what are the chances that out of 233 precincts 203 would have:
- an identical number of votes (675), and
- an identical split between candidates (421 Biden, 233 Trump, 17 Jorgensen, 4 other)?
https://i.maga.host/yqNvW3y.png
Cmon man!
Resources mentioned in the video:
-
Tom Wood's book:
http://wrongaboutlockdown.com/ -
A resource with multiple references for everything he mentions in the video:
https://tomwoods.com/covid/
Yes! Masks stopped being just something you "agree to disagree" on.
At this point, it is clear as fucking day they do nothing when worn properly and changed regularly, so what is happening in reality (read: dirty rags) is truly preposterous.
Read an article today that Elkhart county did.
Speaking of the resistance... I reckon if it continues at this rate, the following will happen (has to):
- many good people will lose their businesses and everything they had,
- many of them will experience concomitant loss of spouse, child, or friend(s),
- many of those will have literally nothing else to lose, and
- since good people are generally well-armed people,
- the Tree shall be watered.
Yeah, he doubled down on enforcement last week -- $20M in snitch funding for the counties that want it.
Health Department gestapo are hassling businesses, apparently.
I was refused service today in a neighborhood liquor store for the first time since this bullshit started... Fuck'em.
I hope that's the case -- but I am observing a nearly 100% compliance even in places that do not enforce this bullshit.
I am not wearing a face diaper -- and I do not see people going "oh, I don't have to do that here, hooray!"
Huh...
FWIW... Indy: just yesterday saw three contrails in the air and one of them was being made as I observed by an airplane way up, much higher than any commercial aircraft I ever saw.
It was so unusual that I drew my wife's attention to it.
Also helicopters and police sirens were very active in the past few days.
This dude (who bears an uncanny resemblance to a penis) is indeed a professional gaslighter -- he has other videos DEBOOOOOOOOOOONKING the patterns indicative of fraud.
He's not just dead wrong (at least) on this one -- there's an almost imperceptible (until you start looking into this) sleight of hand at play.
Let's define what's being discussed for simplicity: %forTrump = % for Trump among votes cast "by-candidate" %forRep = % for Republicans in votes cast "by-party"
Here are his points and the concomitant explanations:
If you do the same thing as Dr. Shiva did for Biden, you get the same negative slope -- but you'd expect to get a positive slope!
What's wrong with it:
The entire point of Dr. Shiva was that the more Republican the precinct was, the fewer votes Trump got.
Conversely -- if those votes indeed were transferred to Biden -- we can expect (watch the juxtaposition of words carefully) that the less Democrat the precinct was, the more votes Biden got.
And this is exactly what we see!
In other words, Trump-Republican plot has a nosedive because votes are taken away from heavily Republican precincts -- while Biden-Democrat plot has an early start.
That's why (1) both plots look similar and (2) Biden's plot is higher on the Y axis.
If you plot %forTrump vs. %forRep, you have a positively correlated slope!
That is what you'd expect: the more republican the precinct is, the more votes are cast for Trump.
What's wrong with it:
This correlation is irrelevant per se. In these coordinates, Dr. Shiva's point would translate into an expectation of a specific slope magnitude -- namely, we'd expect a slope of 1 (perfect correlation between %forTrump and %forRep).
Conveniently, the Talking Dick does not talk about the magnitude of the slope.
We can't subtract percentages.
What's wrong with it:
Shockingly, we can -- when we do not use them for further computations (and we do not).
We simply look at the difference in the performance of an individual candidate vs. his party by precinct.
This difference in performance can be measured in percent -- or in any arbitrary units.
The absolute value of the difference here is not important.
What is important, however, is that we expect such difference to be INDEPENDENT of the political inclinations of the precinct.
In other words, %forTrump - %forRep = constant
Look, it's simply Y = MX + B, so when we take Y - X as a function of X it becomes (M-1)X + B.
This is simply the same MX + B graph turned 90 degrees, and that's why it is sloped down in Dr. Shiva's coordinates.
(he says "you get a line that goes down", but draws it at 90 degree angle)
What's wrong with it:
Oh boy.
That is... not how math works.
TL;DR:
it doesn't matter how we look at this function, Y = MX+B or Y-X = (M-1)X + B, it shows the same exact thing.
What is the angle between the lines MX + B and (M-1)X + B?
if M = tan(a), and
M -1 = tan(b)
where a and b are angles of these graphs, then
tan(b-a) = (tan(b) - tan(a))/(1+tan(b)tan(a)) = -1 / (1+M^2-M)
and
b-a = arctan(-1 / (1+M^2-M)
Here are some edge cases:
(1) M = 0:
b-a = arctan( -1 / (1+0-0)) = -45 degrees
(2) M=0.5
b-a = arctan( -1 / (1+0.25-0.5)) = -53 degrees
(3) M = 1:
b-a = arctan( -1 / (1+1-1)) = -45 degrees
(4) M >> 1, e.g. 100:
b-a = arctan( -1 / (1+10,000-100) = -0.006 degrees
Graphically, here's what it looks like:
https://i.maga.host/gwKNWDX.png
Isn't it curious? Mr. Talking Dick oversimplified it to the point... of being completely wrong.
Two take-home points:
(1) Dr. Shiva's points can be illustrated using either equation:
In Y = MX + B, we expect M = 1, that is, the same proportion of votes for Trump and for Republicans, which results in Y = X + B -- or a graph with 45 DEGREE SLOPE.
In Y-X = (M-1)X + B we expect M - 1 = 0, meaning no difference in votes for Trump and Republicans, which results in Y - X = C (constant).
It's just the second form illustrates the point better, and it SHOULD HAVE NO SLOPE.
(2) What we actually see is M < 1 -- that is, as precinct becomes more Republican, fewer people vote for Trump.
Then, e.g. for M = 0.8 the starting angle of the graph is arctan(0.8) = 39 degrees, and Y = (M-1)X + B will be positioned at an angle of arctan(-0.2) = -11 degrees.
This means it WILL BE SLOPED DOWN JUST AS WE SEE.
Here's the code and data:
https://github.com/alex/nyt-2020-election-scraper
Here's an archive of the whole thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201109074519/https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1325592112428163072.html
Love you all.
You're gonna get a ton of shit for that even though you're right...
I said this same thing using actual data -- and I was told that since the data came from the CDC it is all wrong.
Okay, but