forums

OT/ CanesFam....dsddcane is doing Better...

Advertisement
JD08 said:
If there was a problem, there's a method for reporting it. There's a difference between whistleblowing and insubordination.

If she's telling the truth, it will all come out in the trial when she sues for wrongful termination. Has she filed suit?

All I can do is go with what I know. And that's the fact that nobody I know has any doubts about the data, nor does any credible source.
Click to expand...

If you're fine with a governor changing the formation of scientific health data mid crisis than that's fine. Here's a very simple timeline of how the data was manipulated to fit a reopening agenda benchmark set by the governor himself. It's a blatant dilution of positive result %.

The state’s testing tally now reflects the number of tests conducted, not how many people were tested, a state data guide shows. - Beginning of April

Desantis reopening plan is demanding that less than 10 percent of those tested in every county have positive test results before a county could reopen - End of April

According to "DOH Policy" yes she was insubordinate and deserved to be fired. I don't dispute she violated policy but PUBLICLY speaking about PUBLIC data shouldn't be a fire able offense to begin with. Desantis himself held a press conference to say he was changing the formation of the data. LEAVE THE ******* SCIENCE TO THE ******* SCIENTIST. Keep the politicians the **** away.
 
Last edited:
CFLCane said:
If you're fine with a governor changing the formation of scientific health data mid crisis than that's fine. Here's a very simple timeline of how the data was manipulated to fit a reopening agenda benchmark set by the governor himself. It's a blatant dilution of positive result %.

The state’s testing tally now reflects the number of tests conducted, not how many people were tested, a state data guide shows.

Desantis reopening plan is demanding that less than 10 percent of those tested in every county have positive test results before a county could reopen.
Click to expand...
With more available testing, it's even more likely that an individual could have multiple tests. How do you reconcile that? Let's say I go to CVS today and an urgent care tomorrow. Are you under the impression that the state has enough information to know that John Doe DOB 1/1/1970 MRN A1234567 at CVS is the same John Doe DOB 1/1/1970 MRN 007654321 at the urgent care?

There's almost certainly nothing untoward going on here.
 
JD08 said:
With more available testing, it's even more likely that an individual could have multiple tests. How do you reconcile that? Let's say I go to CVS today and an urgent care tomorrow. Are you under the impression that the state has enough information to know that John Doe DOB 1/1/1970 MRN A1234567 at CVS is the same John Doe DOB 1/1/1970 MRN 007654321 at the urgent care?

There's almost certainly nothing untoward going on here.
Click to expand...

I'm going to use your own words against you.

I left my last employer because the new BI director who had no healthcare background kept pushing dashboards out that weren't 100% accurate. He'd say that 80% correct was good enough to give you an accurate trend. The reailty in healthcare is that 99% correct means you've still got 1% to fix. I found a new job. Accuracy matters.

Accuracy matters right? If there is no way to reconcile test by patient than that's a massive glaring hole that deserves to be exposed and repaired not buried under a mountain of inaccurate data. A lady i work with has an auto immune disorder and gets tested twice a week. That's 32 test of dilution for 1 person.

At the very LEAST both sets of data should be measured. The dilution of data is clearly linked to the 10% benchmark desantis set and has since decided to not even follow. To assume otherwise is willfully ignorant
 
Last edited:
CFLCane said:
I'm going to use your own words against you.

I left my last employer because the new BI director who had no healthcare background kept pushing dashboards out that weren't 100% accurate. He'd say that 80% correct was good enough to give you an accurate trend. The reailty in healthcare is that 99% correct means you've still got 1% to fix. I found a new job. Accuracy matters.

Accuracy matters right? If there is no way to reconcile test by patient than that's a massive glaring hole that deserves to be exposed and repaired not buried under a mountain of inaccurate data. A lady i work with has an auto immune disorder and gets tested twice a week. That's 32 test of dilution for 1 person.

At the very LEAST both sets of data should be measured. The dilution of data is clearly linked to the 10% benchmark desantis set and has since decided to not even follow. To assume otherwise is willfully ignorant
Click to expand...
Yup, and there's also pool testing where 10 samples are combined and tested. 10 patients, 1 test. There are a whole lot of ways that it can go wrong. Nobody outside the DOH knows exactly how they validate their data. But she was originally reprimanded for including data that hadn't been verified, so its safe to assume they have procedures for doing so. And I can assure you this isn't a one or two person job. Unless you have visibility to the methodology they use, we're all guessing. One thing I do know is that as the volume of data grows, sometimes you have to make changes to your methodology.

I know you think there's something wrong going on, but that's not something that stays quiet. And I don't mean one disgruntled ex-employee trying to get revenge. I mean among the people that provide and consume DOH data.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Yup, and there's also pool testing where 10 samples are combined and tested. 10 patients, 1 test. There are a whole lot of ways that it can go wrong. Nobody outside the DOH knows exactly how they validate their data. But she was originally reprimanded for including data that hadn't been verified, so its safe to assume they have procedures for doing so. And I can assure you this isn't a one or two person job. Unless you have visibility to the methodology they use, we're all guessing. One thing I do know is that as the volume of data grows, sometimes you have to make changes to your methodology.

I know you think there's something wrong going on, but that's not something that stays quiet. And I don't mean one disgruntled ex-employee trying to get revenge. I mean among the people that provide and consume DOH data.
Click to expand...

What we do know now is the DOH has a policy against informing the public how their data is formed and that the governor at will can manipulate the methodology. What could go wrong. What a great way to build public trust.
 
When the next shoe drops, before the election, will you be
1) shocked
2) excited
3) more likely to vote
4) all of the above
 
CFLCane said:
What we do know now is the DOH has a policy against informing the public how their data is formed and that the governor at will can manipulate the methodology. What could go wrong. What a great way to build public trust.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that is both unique and inappropriate.
 
Advertisement
CFLCane said:
I dont think its unique at all. Seems pretty par for the course in todays america. Question nothing or fear retaliation.
Click to expand...
Find me an organization that approves of random employees publicly criticizing their organization without repercussion. Why did she speak publicly in the first place? Because she was chastised for insubordination.

Take politics out of it. If you had an employee that was releasing data before it was verified, would you be okay with it? No, you'd call her in your office and giver her a warning. Then imagine she gets ****ed about that and decides to make comments about it publicly. Now you've got cause to fire her for insubordination.

I'm good with the DOH data quality because the professionals I know are good with it. I'm certainly going to believe the team of professionals over the disgruntled ex-employee facing charges for cyberstalking and sexual cyberharassment of the man she cheated on her husband with.
 
JD08 said:
Find me an organization that approves of random employees publicly criticizing their organization without repercussion. Why did she speak publicly in the first place? Because she was chastised for insubordination.

Take politics out of it. If you had an employee that was releasing data before it was verified, would you be okay with it? No, you'd call her in your office and giver her a warning. Then imagine she gets ****ed about that and decides to make comments about it publicly. Now you've got cause to fire her for insubordination.

I'm good with the DOH data quality because the professionals I know are good with it. I'm certainly going to believe the team of professionals over the disgruntled ex-employee facing charges for cyberstalking and sexual cyberharassment of the man she cheated on her husband with.
Click to expand...

The issue of her firing is not the crux of my argument. Its the manipulation of data by a politician. So yes, it political and it sets a bad precedent. I have no doubt the rest of the DOH is fine putting their head down and following orders. Again par for the course.
 
CFLCane said:
The issue of her firing is not the crux of my argument. Its the manipulation of data by a politician. So yes, it political and it sets a bad precedent. I have no doubt the rest of the DOH is fine putting their head down and following orders. Again par for the course.
Click to expand...
How do you know a politician is manipulating data? By taking the word of a person whose action scream integrity? I've already told you that there can be several reason for making a change that are completely valid and harmless.
 
JD08 said:
How do you know a politician is manipulating data? By taking the word of a person whose action scream integrity? I've already told you that there can be several reason for making a change that are completely valid and harmless.
Click to expand...


Sure thats quite possible , but i also showed you a timline showing his announcement of changing the data formation which directly lead to dilution of positive result %s. Thats not debatable thats math. You have the right to assume that is harmless and blindly trust desantis integrity.
 
Advertisement
CFLCane said:
Sure thats quite possible , but i also showed you a timline showing his announcement of changing the data formation which directly lead to dilution of positive result %s. Thats not debatable thats math. You have the right to assume that is harmless and blindly trust desantis integrity.
Click to expand...
And I showed you how pool testing can affect those numbers also. I'm not trusting any politician. I'm trusting the career professionals in the DOH.
 
caneinorlando said:
@Rellyrell...Dee's my boy...known him for 25yrs...since he was a Jit...literally like family..
Click to expand...

tenor (4).gif
 
Advertisement
Gatorhater said:
You ignore the fact that CDC was the maker of the tests in the beginning. That is the system our government agencies set up and maintained for decades to hold power. They were totally unprepared for this despite decades of their glorious efforts. Fauci has been in control of NIAID since early 80's and his only idea for dealing with this was destroying the economy that is at the heart of our strength. Hey, anyone can fall asleep at the switch or even just ***** up, but I have not heard ONE word of acceptance of any sort of blame from his golden lips. Oh, he did admit to lying through his teeth about the mask thing. But you know how that goes, where lying then or are you lying now?

I am no fan of today's massive companies and their greed and I agree with you that proper combinations with government in emergencies like today is best way to go. I think we might have seen the best of both the last few months but greed could easily resurface and return to agency power grabs. I am in the camp of not trusting either big business or big government.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that we weren't the only nation to make its own kits. The WHO always focuses on getting kits into the hands of the third world countries that do not have the capacity to make their own. The U.S. always develops their own along with tons of other nations including Germany, Japan, China, and France...these nations have advanced research capabilities and always want to make their own tests that they trust. It just so happens that this time the CDC botched it due to various factors. One being there wasn't an abundant supply of viral sequences early on.

So TheOriginalCane left out many key facts that basically turns his statement into an untruth. Funny when it comes under the guise of not being political...either it was a just ignorance or being intellectually dishonest.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top