|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On April 18 2017 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 12:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of Rasmussen's presidential tracking. It doesn't have an abstain option from what I remember, focuses on "strongly approve" vs "strongly disapprove" in most of its postings and analytics, and overall has shown way better numbers for Trump than every other poll out there (which have not shown as potent bounces).
Basically I'd take it with a grain of salt especially until any other polls show similar trends (as any systematic bias in sample selection or pure R/D slant won't really change the trend numbers much).
If you squint it seems like there's been less disapproval in some other polls, but it's not necessarily converting into approval in the ones with neutral/abstain options. I don't know, looks pretty clear that the warmongering and the media thinking that makes him presidential has been improving his numbers. How much or for how long is another story, but for now, more war talk has been better for Trump, as crazy as that is.
That chart looks like it's over for Syria, North Korea and Iran.
|
On April 18 2017 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 12:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of Rasmussen's presidential tracking. It doesn't have an abstain option from what I remember, focuses on "strongly approve" vs "strongly disapprove" in most of its postings and analytics, and overall has shown way better numbers for Trump than every other poll out there (which have not shown as potent bounces).
Basically I'd take it with a grain of salt especially until any other polls show similar trends (as any systematic bias in sample selection or pure R/D slant won't really change the trend numbers much).
If you squint it seems like there's been less disapproval in some other polls, but it's not necessarily converting into approval in the ones with neutral/abstain options. I don't know, looks pretty clear that the warmongering and the media thinking that makes him presidential has been improving his numbers. How much or for how long is another story, but for now, more war talk has been better for Trump, as crazy as that is.
Or perhaps, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regression_to_the_mean
|
On April 18 2017 15:30 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2017 12:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of Rasmussen's presidential tracking. It doesn't have an abstain option from what I remember, focuses on "strongly approve" vs "strongly disapprove" in most of its postings and analytics, and overall has shown way better numbers for Trump than every other poll out there (which have not shown as potent bounces).
Basically I'd take it with a grain of salt especially until any other polls show similar trends (as any systematic bias in sample selection or pure R/D slant won't really change the trend numbers much).
If you squint it seems like there's been less disapproval in some other polls, but it's not necessarily converting into approval in the ones with neutral/abstain options. I don't know, looks pretty clear that the warmongering and the media thinking that makes him presidential has been improving his numbers. How much or for how long is another story, but for now, more war talk has been better for Trump, as crazy as that is. Or perhaps, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regression_to_the_mean
regression to the mean doesn't mean regression to 50 percent. It means regression to whatever the normal/average number is. we haven't really seen what that is for trump due to lack of data. Hard to say where the mean is in this case. I don't remember how to calculate what the average of his approval rating would be but again it's still too short to probably get a good idea. for all we know the mean could be -10 percent disapproval. Historically it's iffy and there's problems but on average presidents approval ratings have fallen after the first 100 days.
In sports regression to the mean is usually used for numbers that are either flukey or for players who've been in the league a long time. Or for stats that historically are shown to be more luck based. Little harder with actually poll numbers.
If I had to eyeball a mean so far I'd say about 50 percent disapproval 43 percent approval based on fivethirtyeight but again that's not calculated.
now obviously he's doing stuff that's not as stupid and is actually seen as decent so far (at least with Sria, NK too early it seems) so obviously his numbers are going to go up a bit. But maybe the mean is him doing irrational things.
|
On April 18 2017 07:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again imagine if the USA was a modern country. Show nested quote +More Americans than ever before suffer from serious psychological distress, and the country's ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services is rapidly eroding.
Researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center analyzed a federal health information database and concluded that 3.4 percent of the U.S. population (more than 8.3 million) adult Americans suffer from serious psychological distress, or SPD.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which conducts the National Health Interview Survey on which the research is based, SPD combines feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and restlessness that are hazardous enough to impair people's physical well-being. Previous survey estimates had put the number of Americans suffering from SPD at 3 percent or less.
The findings — believed to be the first analysis of its kind in more than a decade — were published in the journal Psychiatric Services online April 17. More than 35,000 U.S. households, involving more than 200,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64, in all states and across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups, participate in the yearly survey.
Among the study's other key findings is that, over the course of the surveys from 2006 to 2014, access to health care services deteriorated for people suffering from severe distress when compared to those who did not report SPD.
"Although our analysis does not give concrete reasons why mental health services are diminishing, it could be from shortages in professional help, increased costs of care not covered by insurance, the great recession, and other reasons worthy of further investigation," says lead study investigator Judith Weissman, PhD, JD, a research manager in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.
Weissman says the situation appears to have worsened even though the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) include provisions designed to help reduce insurance coverage disparities for people with mental health issues. She adds that the new report can serve as a baseline for evaluating the impact of the ACA and in identifying disparities in treating the mentally ill.
Comparing self-reported SPD symptoms across nine years, the NYU Langone research team estimates that nearly one in 10 distressed Americans (9.5 percent) in 2014 still did not have health insurance that would give them access to a psychiatrist or counselor, a slight rise from 2006, when 9 percent lacked any insurance. About 10.5 percent in 2014 experienced delays in getting professional help due to insufficient mental health coverage, while 9.5 percent said they experienced such delays in 2006. And 9.9 percent could not afford to pay for their psychiatric medications in 2014, up from 8.7 percent in 2006.
"Based on our data, we estimate that millions of Americans have a level of emotional functioning that leads to lower quality of life and life expectancy," says Weissman. "Our study may also help explain why the U.S. suicide rate is up to 43,000 people each year."
She says her group's next research report will detail how underdiagnosis of SPD impacts physician practices and encourages overuse of other health care services.
Senior study investigator and NYU Langone clinical professor Cheryl Pegus, MD, MPH, who also serves as director of general internal medicine and clinical innovation, says physicians, especially in primary care, can play a bigger role in screening people and detecting signs of SPD and potential suicide.
"Utilizing tools at the time of intake on all patients allows us to collect important data and devise strategies for care," says Pegus. "Our study supports health policies designed to incorporate mental health services and screenings into every physician's practice through the use of electronic medical records, and by providing training for all health care professionals, as well as the right resources for patients." Source
This is not only in the usa, in Europe as well there have been severe cuts to mental health services. The mental health services are a huge loss for the economy,they often concern people who are not productive or have a low productivity. The mental health care only makes their personal situation better but it has no good chance to increase their productivity in the long run,this contrary to non mental healthcare. The increase in confused and mentally ill people on the streets as a result of this leads to a small loss,but this is much smaller then the cost associated with caring for them properly. It is just a hard cost/benefit calculation. For the usa this does not surprise me,they have a different system and a slightly different culture then Europe but it is happening in Europe as well.
|
|
|
I don't like AT ALL this Trump's move of complimenting Erdogan over the referendum.
|
On April 18 2017 18:08 SoSexy wrote:
I don't like AT ALL this Trump's move of complimenting Erdogan over the referendum.
Wait he did that? What even is this world.
|
|
|
On April 18 2017 18:08 SoSexy wrote:
I don't like AT ALL this Trump's move of complimenting Erdogan over the referendum.
But remember, that's the guy who won't shake Merkel's hand. Cause even though she is the moderate, serious, competent leader of one of America's most powerful and solid ally, she did hurt The Donald's ego. Sad!
|
Trump’s love of dictators and authoritarian figures has been well documented. No surprises here.
|
On April 18 2017 18:08 SoSexy wrote:
I don't like AT ALL this Trump's move of complimenting Erdogan over the referendum.
Reminds me about that quote regarding Jeff Sessions, "He supported the KKK until he found out they smoked pot."
Maybe you're just starting to realize that these far-right populists like Trump and Le Pen aren't really out for your best interests at all. Congratulations, most of the first-world knew that before the race began.
|
I'll revise what I said (had only looked at the 538 aggregator): we're definitely seeing the edge taken off Trump's disapproval by maybe 2%, and maybe a small tick upward in approval (1-2%). But compare it this image Nettles posted (which is all Rasmussen):
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/04/13/20170417_trump_0.jpg)
which has him enjoying a meteoric rise to 50% support. That's just not borne out in any of the other polls.
Of course, the only poll Trump reads is probably Rasmussen because it historically looked best for him, so it would not be surprising if he took his guidance from there.
|
They got mad when the vote to take away people's healthcare failed, but are happy with militaristic saber rattling. I'm starting to think the people who like Donald Trump are really just craving a North Korean-style regime for themselves. Use nukes to bully the world into subsidizing our economy, spend that money on bribes for the wealthy and more nukes, I bet that exact platform could win Trump a second term.
|
On April 18 2017 17:47 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 07:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again imagine if the USA was a modern country. More Americans than ever before suffer from serious psychological distress, and the country's ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services is rapidly eroding.
Researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center analyzed a federal health information database and concluded that 3.4 percent of the U.S. population (more than 8.3 million) adult Americans suffer from serious psychological distress, or SPD.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which conducts the National Health Interview Survey on which the research is based, SPD combines feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and restlessness that are hazardous enough to impair people's physical well-being. Previous survey estimates had put the number of Americans suffering from SPD at 3 percent or less.
The findings — believed to be the first analysis of its kind in more than a decade — were published in the journal Psychiatric Services online April 17. More than 35,000 U.S. households, involving more than 200,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64, in all states and across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups, participate in the yearly survey.
Among the study's other key findings is that, over the course of the surveys from 2006 to 2014, access to health care services deteriorated for people suffering from severe distress when compared to those who did not report SPD.
"Although our analysis does not give concrete reasons why mental health services are diminishing, it could be from shortages in professional help, increased costs of care not covered by insurance, the great recession, and other reasons worthy of further investigation," says lead study investigator Judith Weissman, PhD, JD, a research manager in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.
Weissman says the situation appears to have worsened even though the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) include provisions designed to help reduce insurance coverage disparities for people with mental health issues. She adds that the new report can serve as a baseline for evaluating the impact of the ACA and in identifying disparities in treating the mentally ill.
Comparing self-reported SPD symptoms across nine years, the NYU Langone research team estimates that nearly one in 10 distressed Americans (9.5 percent) in 2014 still did not have health insurance that would give them access to a psychiatrist or counselor, a slight rise from 2006, when 9 percent lacked any insurance. About 10.5 percent in 2014 experienced delays in getting professional help due to insufficient mental health coverage, while 9.5 percent said they experienced such delays in 2006. And 9.9 percent could not afford to pay for their psychiatric medications in 2014, up from 8.7 percent in 2006.
"Based on our data, we estimate that millions of Americans have a level of emotional functioning that leads to lower quality of life and life expectancy," says Weissman. "Our study may also help explain why the U.S. suicide rate is up to 43,000 people each year."
She says her group's next research report will detail how underdiagnosis of SPD impacts physician practices and encourages overuse of other health care services.
Senior study investigator and NYU Langone clinical professor Cheryl Pegus, MD, MPH, who also serves as director of general internal medicine and clinical innovation, says physicians, especially in primary care, can play a bigger role in screening people and detecting signs of SPD and potential suicide.
"Utilizing tools at the time of intake on all patients allows us to collect important data and devise strategies for care," says Pegus. "Our study supports health policies designed to incorporate mental health services and screenings into every physician's practice through the use of electronic medical records, and by providing training for all health care professionals, as well as the right resources for patients." Source This is not only in the usa, in Europe as well there have been severe cuts to mental health services. The mental health services are a huge loss for the economy,they often concern people who are not productive or have a low productivity. The mental health care only makes their personal situation better but it has no good chance to increase their productivity in the long run,this contrary to non mental healthcare. The increase in confused and mentally ill people on the streets as a result of this leads to a small loss,but this is much smaller then the cost associated with caring for them properly. It is just a hard cost/benefit calculation. For the usa this does not surprise me,they have a different system and a slightly different culture then Europe but it is happening in Europe as well.
More mentally ill white males on the streets increases the odds of mass shootings, you know. Do you want to build a wall and impose extreme vetting on Muslim visitors? Where is your cost benefit analysis there?
|
On April 18 2017 22:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:I'll revise what I said (had only looked at the 538 aggregator): we're definitely seeing the edge taken off Trump's disapproval by maybe 2%, and maybe a small tick upward in approval (1-2%). But compare it this image Nettles posted (which is all Rasmussen): which has him enjoying a meteoric rise to 50% support. That's just not borne out in any of the other polls. Of course, the only poll Trump reads is probably Rasmussen because it historically looked best for him, so it would not be surprising if he took his guidance from there.
Just to illustrate how stupid that trend line is, I redrew that graph.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Aw9xtbt.jpg)
In fact, I redrew it twice, just to hammer the point home. I reckon my point of inflection makes about as much sense as zerohedge's does, given the small dataset we are dealing with here.
So yeah, how about we stop posting stupid meaningless graphs?
|
I didn't say I agree with it lol,and what do white males or a wall have to do with it? mental illness is colorblind as far as I know. your post is confusing,i don't get the point nor the intended sarcasm. @doodsmack.
|
north korea needs to be dealt with and we got trump to deal with it. Better that then Hillary
|
On April 18 2017 23:22 sertas wrote:
north korea needs to be dealt with and we got trump to deal with it. Better that then Hillary
opinion noted, but not very thoroughly founded. you have anything to backup your claims/elaborate? or just adding your opinions?
|
On April 18 2017 23:22 sertas wrote:
north korea needs to be dealt with and we got trump to deal with it. Better that then Hillary
What do you propose as to "dealing with" North Korea. Not to be overly restrictive, but on a SC fan website, I would suggest limiting oneself to solutions that do not result in Seoul being wiped off the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
