COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 125

starting strength gym
Page 125 of 2631 FirstFirst ... 25751151231241251261271351752256251125 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 26309

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1241
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    RS WY


    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    • starting strength seminar june 2023
    • starting strength seminar august 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by magadorm View Post
    Could the numbers reported be lower than the actual numbers.
    Certainly an interesting potential anomaly, though I would like to see how it ends up averaging out over the course of the year. It should be reasonable to assume that deaths don’t occur at regular clock like intervals but instead come in spurts. Maybe there was something in the water?

  2. #1242
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Lakeland, FL


    I'm just gonna ask that everyone who is OK with policies being made based upon the absurd numbers the WH is using to please send me their bank account routing numbers.

    Don't worry though.

    I promise not to take any more than 2/3 of you income.

    You won't even notice.

    Just use IMHE math and you should still see peak income in the next few weeks. After that it might drop a little, but the money still won't run out until sometime next year.

    Again. DON"T worry!

    You'll be FINE.

    There's some great low interest loans going around if things go south.

    Easy to get too.

    These predictions so far have sucked so bad that weathermen are laughing at them.

    More On Coronavirus Model Accuracy – William M. Briggs

  3. #1243
    Join Date
    Jul 2019


    Quote Originally Posted by BrunoLawerence View Post
    ...All I am seeing is that the current strategies appear to be working....
    Unfortunately, I know many people who are buying into the narrative (Even many intelligent people who are fearful after watching CNN). I wish it was just Bruno here.

    I believe Churchill once said the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter... He obviously didn't have access to the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    ... squat numbers probably have a direct correlation with getting through this thing....
    Squat numbers have a direct correlation to general fitness and cardiovascular fitness in particular which in turn directly correlates with survival probability.

    Do we have the same numbers from a reputable source? I will not visit any CNN cites, because I don't want to feed them and I do not enjoy their style of journalistic fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    Is the standard for returning to work, school, etc, that you have “papers” demonstrating that you’ve had the virus and have antibodies?
    It’s being discussed. Can anyone defend this?
    Bill Gates appears to be lobbying hard for this to support his (and Micrsoft's) ID2020 initiative.
    It is a common situation in China, but the black market provides fake papers for many.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Watch this before it's pulled down. Hurry.
    This brings up another major issue: The politically biased censorship/information control machine has kicked into a higher gear. How do we counter this widespread censorship?

  4. #1244
    Join Date
    Jan 2019


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    She gives a decent introduction to the formatting of death certificates, and the inherent metaphysical uncertainty of establishing a single cause of death. However, she has not presented any reasoning or evidence why COVID-19 deaths are being inflated.

    1. It is not the case that every sick patient, “in this climate”, is being tested. The whole point of the presumptive case rule, is that even highly symptomatic patients are not necessarily tested.

    2. The nosologist’s algorithm, which may not correctly identify a single cause of death, don’t affect the numbers. The CDC reports deaths where COVID-19 was determined as a contributing cause, not “the cause”.

    3. More specifically, the CDC reports occurrences of code U07.1, which requires a positive test. There is a different code for presumptive or clinical diagnoses. Prior to the implementation of the code on April 1st, there was some confusion over “probable” cases, but that has been clarified in the final guidelines.

    4. Her quote about the coding rules making “COVID-19 the underlying cause, more often than not” is out of context and intentionally deceiving. This refers to the position of COVID-19 in the sequence of the death certificate. If the patient is initially admitted for COVID-19, then it takes the position of principal diagnosis (and underlying cause of death, if they die). It doesn’t if the patient came in for other reasons.

    Sorry, but if you’re gonna lecture in a white coat about how your colleagues are supposedly making shit up, then you might actually want to read the final published guidelines, and not just cast shade on some 1-page preliminary note. COVID-19 does not present some intellectually novel challenge to death coding practices.

  5. #1245
    Join Date
    Sep 2017


    So, that means in Bergamo, they are digging up dead bodies and claiming they died from Covid? I’m not sure how the death rate would increase by nearly 600% otherwise.

  6. #1246
    Join Date
    Oct 2019


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Watch this before it's pulled down. Hurry.
    Absolutely scandalous! This should be headline news!!!! If I die of a heart attack in rage about all this, please have the authorities put as cause of my death “The Lie Agreed Upon”.

  7. #1247
    Join Date
    Apr 2020


    A super nice British lady has presented the UK Governments data on COVID19 today.

    Skip the video 08:26 (Ends 11:45)


    Are we able to take anything significant away from this data? I might be a bit thick but I'm not getting all this talk on "flattening the curve". Would this not be achievable for any Government by increasing / maintaining the daily test limit per day or/and testing people from different areas / environments i.e. (hospitals, care homes or in people's houses) etc? The concept looks open to manipulation or basic probability i.e. the more tests you do the more positives you will likely see, the equal number of tests per day will likely mean no increase from the previous day.

    Why are these politicians so hell bent on wrecking our economy and putting people onto a welfare system?

    It feels like a lunatic has hijacked the local bus and is about to drive us off a cliff edge. If I'm wrong please tell me and explain, just looking to make some sense of this situation over here in England.

  8. #1248
    Join Date
    Dec 2017


    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    ...or maybe this is how the whole thing was going to pan out regardless... Spread of an infectious disease will be reduced by cutting down personal contacts.

  9. #1249
    Join Date
    Aug 2015


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Watch this before it's pulled down. Hurry.
    So, the actual document is linked in the comments on the tweet. I skimmed it and can't find that in there, and there are other comments complaining about the same thing. I concede that I read it quickly and may have missed something, but it appears to say the opposite of that. It's basically "death certificates for dummies".

    Says that where COVID-19 is the underlying cause of death, it should be listed last in the chain of causes leading to death (IE "ARDS" due to "pneumonia" due to "COVID-19"), that unconfirmed cases should be clearly specified as "probable" or "presumed", and that pre-existing chronic conditions that did not cause COVID-19 but made someone more vulnerable to dying from it should be listed in Part II, "other significant conditions leading to death", rather than the other way around.

    It explicitly says only to note COVID-19 if it played a role in the death. It also explicitly warns that it's a common mistake to use "illogical sequences" in the cause of death, in other words, to do goofy things like claiming something was "due to COVID-19", when it was not.

    Fake news.

  10. #1250
    Join Date
    Jan 2018


    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Boggs View Post
    Two parts here.

    If “Stay at home” is necessary to stop the pandemic from reaching apocalyptic numbers of infected and deaths, why isn't Virginia out of control?, why isn't Virginia already a 'Hot spot'? Because except for bars, seating at large restaurants, and social venues, the choice of what is essential has largely been left up to each person and business.
    Probably two things:

    #1 - They (NY) just may be ahead of VA of things time wise. Remember about 3 weeks ago when Italy first started looking like hell on earth, and everything was still fine in NY? Like that.

    #2 - You have no big/dense metro areas in VA:

    Virginia Most Dense Cities, note the national rank all the way to the right.
    # Location (# Zip Codes) City Report Population People / Sq. Mile National Rank
    1. Andover, Virginia (1) 98 7,823.29 #205
    2. Arlington, Virginia (9) People / Sq. Mile in Arlington, VA 188,617 7,742.43 #210
    3. Falls Church, Virginia (5) People / Sq. Mile in Falls Church, VA 107,647 5,686.87 #373
    4. Burke, Virginia (1) 42,938 5,170.22 #438
    5. Alexandria, Virginia (14) People / Sq. Mile in Alexandria, VA 293,462 5,154.60 #442
    6. Norfolk, Virginia (13) People / Sq. Mile in Norfolk, VA 238,337 4,157.41 #641
    7. Annandale, Virginia (1) 53,029 4,105.89 #652
    8. Herndon, Virginia (2) People / Sq. Mile in Herndon, VA 71,925 3,524.51 #819
    9. Springfield, Virginia (4) People / Sq. Mile in Springfield, VA 100,208 3,521.91 #822
    10. Reston, Virginia (3) People / Sq. Mile in Reston, VA 55,805 3,420.13 #858
    11. Newport News, Virginia (7) People / Sq. Mile in Newport News, VA 178,026 3,101.60 #978
    12. Selma, Virginia (1) 186 3,101.44 #979
    Top 10 Densest Cities in the enitre USA?
    U.S. cities with the highest population density
    1. Jackson Heights (NY) 97,325 people / sq. mile
    2. Sunnyside (NY) 74,459 people / sq. mile
    3. New York (NY) 66,648 people / sq. mile
    4. Elmhurst (NY) 60,549 people / sq. mile
    5. Rego Park (NY) 48,499 people / sq. mile
    6. West New York (NJ) 47,972 people / sq. mile
    7. South Richmond Hill (NY) 43,351 people / sq. mile
    8. Astoria (NY) 41,248 people / sq. mile
    9. Corona (NY) 38,864 people / sq. mile
    10. Union City (NJ) 37,931 people / sq. mile
    11. Kew Gardens (NY) 35,355 people / sq. mile
    12. Brooklyn (NY) 34,582 people / sq. mile
    13. Woodside (NY) 34,536 people / sq. mile
    14. Bronx (NY) 31,759 people / sq. mile
    15. East Elmhurst (NY) 31,227 people / sq. mile
    See the difference?
    VA is a joke compared to NY or NJ density wise....and just in overall population in general.
    And VA doesn't anywhere NEAR the mass transit system NY/NJ does.
    And I don't mean any of this in a negative way against VA.

    Mass exodus form NY once this thing blows over.
    Who is going to leave?
    #1- Those who are most vulnerable. (older people)
    #2- Those who can afford to move on a whim. (people with money)

    I think when its all said and done, you'll just rank deaths per-city-capita (not State), and then correct for city-density, and then correct for the age demographics.
    It shouldn't seem so mysterious to the bureaucrats.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts