@earl-of-trumps saidFirst thing to do here is to "de-FoxNews-ify" the very headline itself:
Report: 55 Chicago Public Schools Have Zero Students Proficient in Math, Reading
[i]Dozens of Chicago schools have reportedly claimed none of their students are proficient in math or reading.
Findings reported by Wirepoints are from the Illinois Department of Education’s 2022 data showing in 55 of the city’s public schools, zero students were proficient ...[text shortened]... om/education/2023/02/21/report-55-chicago-public-schools-have-zero-students-proficient-math-reading/
It's 53 schools in the entire state of Illinois that are deficient in mathematics, and 30 schools deficient in reading, for a total of 55 schools in Illinois that are deficient in at least one of these subjects (so heavy overlap).
22 of the 30 schools deficient in reading are in the Chicago area, so about 73%. The Chicago area contains 65% of the population of Illinois. So, not a big discrepancy.
As for mathematics, 33 out of 53 deficient schools are in Chicago. That's 62%. But again, 65% of the state population is in Chicago.
So now we can draw a real-world conclusion using our basic math and reading skills: Chicago schools are performing about on par with the state of Illinois as a whole. Putting this in the tribal terms the simplest minds here can't process any other way: the big blue city is doing about as well as the sprawling red countryside.
Later.
26 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidHey guys, re Marauder and Shav.....do you think they will come back on this one
C'mon, Shav, let's parlay on this one. You will see the I just wrote that skin color is not relevant. A Chinese, a Japanese, an Indian and a White and Black person all live on the same block, cook hamburgers together (yankees say 'burger'😉,) see each other in church. Share the same culture, but, Aha!.., not the same skin color. If the Japanese person of yellow color run ...[text shortened]... s left but his culture.
Oh dear, I have my Sunday Logic and Common Sense meeting at noon, Ciao
@sh76 saidFunny thing about that op-ed piece. It says in the piece:
We'll see.
Studies are coming out showing that mask mandates were useless (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html), that having had covid was at as protective as having been vaxxed (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/natural-immunity-protective-covid-vaccine-severe-illness-rcna71027) making vax mandates for people who'd had covid pointle ...[text shortened]... s is that since most of the media was complicit in it, there will be plenty of amnesty to go around.
The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous.
“There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”
But in the op-ed piece the first link is this:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
And at this link it says
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.
Something is rotten here, but I lack time to go deeper.
The foremost reason for instituting mask mandates was, however, to keep hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. The op-ed piece, and the study it cites, ignores this completely from what I can tell.
The methodologies appear to move goal posts around in fluid fashion. There's a mention that places with mandates end up in the same place as those without mandates, whatever that means.
27 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidI asked you the question; I wouldn't ask a sociologist it because none use the term "culture" in the way you do i.e. as a cover for spouting racist stereotypes.
Would that not be a question for a sociologist?? Could it be a group that customarily, as a matter of course, manifests itself in a way that goes against the basic mores of the society around them?
You haven't answered it.
27 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidSorry, bone fishing, missed it. Guess I will have to get their definition this evening. We will get to the bottom of this!🐠🐟🐡
I asked you the question; I wouldn't ask a sociologist it because none use the term "culture" in the way you do i.e. as a cover for spouting racist stereotypes.
You haven't answered it.
27 Feb 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidHere's the question again for your convenience:
Sorry, bone fishing, missed it. Guess I will have to get their definition this evening. We will get to the bottom of this!🐠🐟🐡
Please specifically describe the" culture" that you think condones and supports acts of extreme violence.
Obviously that refers to a "culture" that presently exists in the US.
27 Feb 23
@soothfast saidThe thing about that piece is that everyone who reads it seems to skip the headline.
Funny thing about that op-ed piece. It says in the piece:
[quote]The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous. ...[text shortened]... n that places with mandates end up in the same place as those without mandates, whatever that means.
The headline wasn't that masks do nothing, it was that mask MANDATES do nothing.
It's common sense that masks can help. And if everyone wore a properly fitting N-95, I am sure masks would (and do) help.
The problem with mandates is that the marginal person captured by the mandate is someone who is uninterested in wearing a mask. So he wears a useless cloth face covering or wears it below his nose. As we all know from experience, it's impossible to enforce proper mask wearing. And a cloth mask is little more than a virtue signal.
Neither I nor anyone I know has ever said people shouldn't wear masks. But that the government should mandate it seems to be pointless.
27 Feb 23
1 edit
@sh76 saidWith the usual scientific caveats, this study concluded:
The thing about that piece is that everyone who reads it seems to skip the headline.
The headline wasn't that masks do nothing, it was that mask MANDATES do nothing.
It's common sense that masks can help. And if everyone wore a properly fitting N-95, I am sure masks would (and do) help.
The problem with mandates is that the marginal person captured by the mandate is so ...[text shortened]... r said people shouldn't wear masks. But that the government should mandate it seems to be pointless.
" counties that introduced a mask mandate early on in the pandemic experienced lower county-level COVID-19 case incidence in the six weeks following enactment as compared to similar counties without a mandate. How much the mask mandate benefited communities varied across counties and over time, with the strongest effects seen in more crowded communities or those with a reticence toward voluntary masking. We also observed that case incidence declined the most between the third and fourth weeks after the mandate started and the effect of the mandate waned between weeks six and eight in some counties. "
https://policylab.chop.edu/blog/how-effective-are-mask-mandates-stopping-spread-covid-19
A more detailed abstract of that study is here. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01072 Interestingly:
"The most concentrated effects of masking mandates were seen in urban counties; the benefit of the mandates was potentially stronger within Republican-leaning counties."
27 Feb 23
@soothfast saidThis is a rather blistering rebuke of the Bret Stephens opinion piece sh76 cited: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/column-covid-deniers-think-a-new-study-says-mask-mandates-dont-work-they-should-try-reading-it/ar-AA17Thcv
Funny thing about that op-ed piece. It says in the piece:
[quote]The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous. ...[text shortened]... n that places with mandates end up in the same place as those without mandates, whatever that means.
27 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidAre you suggesting that there is an established name for a certain group of people, which I would call a culture, who kill people? I think not, but it might be a good idea to start naming them. But there are a lot of them, and I don’t know if they have a common thread. The ones in Chicago might not be in the same culture of the ones in New Orleans.
Here's the question again for your convenience:
Please specifically describe the" culture" that you think condones and supports acts of extreme violence.
Obviously that refers to a "culture" that presently exists in the US.
27 Feb 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidJust a thought, I know u r messing with me. We can always start now….every savage that qualifies would assigned a Hyena ID number, and we will build an established website of them, whatever, like sex offenders.
Are you suggesting that there is an established name for a certain group of people, which I would call a culture, who kill people? I think not, but it might be a good idea to start naming them. But there are a lot of them, and I don’t know if they have a common thread. The ones in Chicago might not be in the same culture of the ones in New Orleans.
What they should be called? Savages. What else. What would u suggest ? A second offense would earn them a nice 'S' on their forehead, not unlike the Scarlett Letter!!!
27 Feb 23
3 edits
@averagejoe1 saidMurderers are not a "culture".
Are you suggesting that there is an established name for a certain group of people, which I would call a culture, who kill people? I think not, but it might be a good idea to start naming them. But there are a lot of them, and I don’t know if they have a common thread. The ones in Chicago might not be in the same culture of the ones in New Orleans.
According to Merriam-Webster, "culture" is defined as:
: "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group."
So please tell me what racial, religious or social group presently existing in the US condones acts of extreme violence.
27 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidContrare'. You suggest that they operate within the confines of a society, thus following rules of whether they identify or are labeled as 'this or that'.
Murderers are not a "culture".
hahahahah
Maybe rephrase, because at the moment the only answer I would have is that a culture can say We Are A Culture of Murderers. Who are you, we, to tell them "Oh, no no, you cannot say that".
27 Feb 23
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidI wouldn't expect someone as stupid as you to actually know what a "culture" is and you don't. Therefore, when you repeat a bunch of racist stereotypes and then say "oh, no. it's not race, it's culture" it's clear you're just trying to evade a correct categorization of your views as racism.
Contrare'. You suggest that they operate within the confines of a society, thus following rules of whether they identify or are labeled as 'this or that'.
hahahahah
Maybe rephrase, because at the moment the only answer I would have is that a culture can say We Are A Culture of Murderers. Who are you, we, to tell them "Oh, no no, you cannot say that".