-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Trump's approval rating for handling the Pandemic has flipped 13 points in one week, 92% of americans approve of social distancing.
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
Trump to reporter asking about ventilators: Don't be a cutie pie — CNN Politics
During a White House coronavirus task force briefing, President Donald Trump responded to a reporter's question asking for a guarantee on ventilator availability saying "don't be a cutie pie."
apple.news
You don't need to be a statistician to know how sample sizes work lol.
I learned stats in 11th grade of high school. You know what I remember now? Nothing about z-scores and chi^2 tests. But I do remember that you don't need to sample a tot population for a representative sample lmfao
Well said! Also, say you poll 1 million people. The millionth person doesn't move the needle in any significant way. It's a waste of time and resources.
Probably that and seeing him extorting several states for medical supplies while people are dying.
Yeah I was a little worried that people might rally behind the president during a crisis, but this has not been good for Trump. He's still trailing behind Biden in Fox News's newest poll.
Oh there are some people who are that brain washed, just got off the phone with my father who basically said "your generation is screwed if we keep the economy closed for months to keep old people alive who'll be dead in 5 years" *sigh*
The methodology for how they obtain the sample is much more important than the actual number of people in the sample. A poll with 686 participants can be way more accurate than a poll of 10,000 if the poll of 10k uses biased methodology.
Trump to reporter asking about ventilators: Don't be a cutie pie — CNN Politics
During a White House coronavirus task force briefing, President Donald Trump responded to a reporter's question asking for a guarantee on ventilator availability saying "don't be a cutie pie."
Reporters should hold their ground.
Yes, they'll probably be blacklisted, but it's not like many actually ask him a good question, and if they do it's not answered.
It's a few months before the election. He doesn't have much time until he gets kicked out.
The only thing Trump has working for him is that the rural areas with a lot of his voters will be those with a relatively smaller impact. You can see the start of the narrative already by some deranged people that "god is hitting blue states harder than red ones". I don't even want to imagine the effect the crisis will still have on the election itself when people may still be scared to go out and vote. Combine that with the stupid idea of an electoral college and I see a lot of things actually working in Trump's favor.
To be fair that particular reporter was trying to bait him. What a stupid question to ask. He was obviously trying to get Trump to say something stupid to spin another news story.
What will be the narrative in a week when Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi all equal or surpass NYC's numbers?
If enough old people in swing States die from Coronavirus it's gonna certainly make it harder for him.
This. People everywhere thinks that this is all a joke, not just America. Because they're refusing to practice social distancing, the positive cases for the Coronavirus along with deaths are going to continue rising further & further.
If anything, the way he's handling the Pandemic is going to wind up costing him the election.
Short of marital law, which would tank his re election more quickly then his response to this disaster will, his ratings will drop off a cliff once the true extent of the case and death explosion becomes known in the us. The military needed to be on the streets last week.
It's not about flattening the curve in the us now, its about managing it best as possible.
It's not about flattening the curve in the us now, its about managing it best as possible.
This. Your state being less populated or more spread out gives a longer lag time, but without proper precautions and testing every metropolitan area in the world will be infected, and eventually all of their surrounding burbs.
Georgia, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania are all swing states that are days away from NJ's numbers, meaning they're weeks away from NY numbers. And I don't think it's outrageous to point out a lot of red states don't have hospitals (or healthcare options) as good as NY, CA, and MA.
None of this "haha lib states" grandstanding is going to matter by mid-April, everyone will be begging for supplies and wondering aloud why we're not ahead of this thing.
This seems to be a common sentiment and it's just fucking revolting.
Florida has many counties on lock down and the numbers haven't bloomed. The vast majority of cases are a Broward and Miami-Dade.
Edit: I see others have already made my point and in more depth.
Give it a week. The Spring Break morons either just left or are still there.
I know full well how many cases. Changes nothing I said.
Check the county map maybe.
I hope that's true, but the Republicans in general seem to be very much on the "I'd rather be dead than wrong" train. I don't know if a dead loved one will change their mind or actually make them double down out of hate and spite.
It's that state's governor that hasn't been doing a great job at doing that. He hasn't closed down the boarders to his state, & hasn't gotten Trump on the phone to halt all incoming flights to Florida.
It may be small right now, but check back in a week. It's only going to get worse.
Again. Check the county map. And the counties have taken care of stay in lock ins themselves.
Im saying it is not trending to NY numbers at all.
That's a really cool way of explaining it. I'm gonna remember that for sure.
Do you think they want to help him?
If you dig long enough you'll get out of the prison and find freedom.
He should keep digging; keep looking for a way out. Subconscious desire to not have to deal with any of the "responsibility" (re: burden/criticism) associated with the job.
I hope he breaks free.
Lol yup. 11th for me. And then I did econometrics in undergrad. Par for the course.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this and not just be a total asshole.
Don't mention it.
Nobody is born with knowledge, and it's amazingly counter intuitive to think that you can get anything remotely meaningful from that few answers.
I'm pretty damn sure no one here figured that shit on their own, someone had to explain it to them at some point, I can tell you for sure I I was taught that, so why not return the favor?
The exact opposite is going to happen.
It's hitting big cities first because that's where the population is. As time goes on, it's going to expanding into more rural areas.
Here's the figures for South Dakota, one of the more rural states. They're currently at 68 cases and it's growing almost daily (went up 10 from yesterday). A few days ago, Meade County had their first confirmed case, and that person had interacted with over 100 people before their confirmed case.
This thing is going to wreak havoc on rural states as the infection spreads and if you think it's bad with bigger hospitals lacking supplies, wait till you see what's going to happen when more smaller hospitals start getting overwhelmed.
I live in a rural county in California and, while we don't have any confirmed cases (to my knowledge), our local hospital isn't going to be able to handle this thing if it blows up in our area. I live 80 miles from Reno, where there's 18 confirmed cases in Washoe County. Our backup hospital are the ones in Reno. If it overwhelms the hospitals there, we'll have nobody to send our influx of patients.
I like Qualtrics a lot as a service, but this is not helpful.
Sample Size Calculator - Qualtrics
Need to quickly calculate sample size? Use our calculator to find your ideal sample size now! ✓ Learn more with this complete guide.www.qualtrics.com
In a cross-sectional, descriptive survey like this, the population size really doesn't matter much, neither does the confidence interval or statistical power.
Basically, bigger sample size = better, but the main thing that people need to know is that it is a SAMPLE. A sample is a subset of the population. It is not the population. The best thing you have to go off of is what the norm is for surveys of this sort, in which case 600-700 is by no means terrible.
I promise y'all, laughing at sample size happens a lot more online for these kinds of studies than it does with actual researchers, especially with a number like 686. A *relatively* small sample size is not mocked as much as it changes the interpretation of the data.
OP
OP
Fewer than half of Americans believe their daily routine will return to normal by June, as fears over coronavirus rise: POLL
Fewer than half of Americans believe their daily routine will return to normal by June 1, amid sharply rising concerns over coronavirus, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll shows.
abcnews.go.com
Which is very comforting. The more people disapprove, the better I feel. I have no idea if that's a healthy mindset, but hey.
No better way to honor their deceased family members.
I have a Trump supporting family member who is just obnoxious at this point in the outbreak.
"The stupid Democrats still wasting time going after Trump, just think of the shit that poor man is going through during this"
kill me.
"The stupid Democrats still wasting time going after Trump, just think of the shit that poor man is going through during this"
kill me.
True.
And make no mistake, I want the current administration to do well. But that does not erase how fucking piss poor a job they did leading up to the crisis and the mistakes they still continue to make.
If they do something good I'll say it, but I won't award them for doing what's right.
Last edited:
That's why these "statistic" threads always make me laugh.
Wow.
Sadly, I'm worried about how he'll respond with this. He's such a slave to polls and perceived approval that he may do what he's done in other areas, and basically jsut go all in on decisions that jive with people who approve of him. Like he'll look at his approval from 2 weeks ago which was ~52% or something and think that's when he was calling it a hoax, open by easter, "cure is worse than the disease," and so therefore he should double-down on that.
Pollsters aren't idiots, most of them are data scientists who do this for a living. And while people like to bag on pollsters after 2016, first, most pollsters were right when it comes to 2016 it's just tthat the conclusions people took from those polls were largely wrong, and second, polling is generally very accurate in the last 4-8 years.
I'd recommend listening to this podcast episode of Stay Tuned with Preet where he interviews Ann Selzer, the polling expert who runs 'Selzer' which is one of the most reputable polling firms in the US:
cafe.com
THey go into how smaller sample size does not necessarily mean less reputable data, but it usually just correlates a larger margin of error or a different polling denominator (e.g., "Of likely voters" or "Of Democratic caucus goers," etc). ~700 registered voters is not an unusually small sample size, and depending on the rigor of the polling it can be more accurate than a larger sample size that may be more biased or less refined. There are logistical challenges to getting more than "700 registered voters" that are representative of public opinion aND doing so in a short period of time in this hyper-active news cycle. For instance, if it takes a pollster 7 days to get access to 1000 registered voters, but only 4 days to get access to 700 voters, then the more relevant data with 700 voters is more valuable than the data with 1000 voters where a bunch of the polls might have been taken a week ago. If it takes 3 weeks to get 3000 registered voters polled, then that data is almost useless, 3 weeks is before people started dying en masse. THe numbers have doubled in 3 days.
There's a balance at work with polling, and a perception of smaller polling numbers does not corroborate to less accurate results.
Sadly, I'm worried about how he'll respond with this. He's such a slave to polls and perceived approval that he may do what he's done in other areas, and basically jsut go all in on decisions that jive with people who approve of him. Like he'll look at his approval from 2 weeks ago which was ~52% or something and think that's when he was calling it a hoax, open by easter, "cure is worse than the disease," and so therefore he should double-down on that.
Pollsters aren't idiots, most of them are data scientists who do this for a living. And while people like to bag on pollsters after 2016, first, most pollsters were right when it comes to 2016 it's just tthat the conclusions people took from those polls were largely wrong, and second, polling is generally very accurate in the last 4-8 years.
I'd recommend listening to this podcast episode of Stay Tuned with Preet where he interviews Ann Selzer, the polling expert who runs 'Selzer' which is one of the most reputable polling firms in the US:
Stay Tuned Transcript: Born to Poll (with J. Ann Selzer) - CAFE
Preet Bharara: From Café, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara. Ann Selzer: There’s not …
cafe.com
THey go into how smaller sample size does not necessarily mean less reputable data, but it usually just correlates a larger margin of error or a different polling denominator (e.g., "Of likely voters" or "Of Democratic caucus goers," etc). ~700 registered voters is not an unusually small sample size, and depending on the rigor of the polling it can be more accurate than a larger sample size that may be more biased or less refined. There are logistical challenges to getting more than "700 registered voters" that are representative of public opinion aND doing so in a short period of time in this hyper-active news cycle. For instance, if it takes a pollster 7 days to get access to 1000 registered voters, but only 4 days to get access to 700 voters, then the more relevant data with 700 voters is more valuable than the data with 1000 voters where a bunch of the polls might have been taken a week ago. If it takes 3 weeks to get 3000 registered voters polled, then that data is almost useless, 3 weeks is before people started dying en masse. THe numbers have doubled in 3 days.
There's a balance at work with polling, and a perception of smaller polling numbers does not corroborate to less accurate results.
Last edited: