COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 158

starting strength gym
Page 158 of 857 FirstFirst ... 58108148156157158159160168208258658 ... LastLast
Results 1,571 to 1,580 of 8562

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1571
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,623

    Default

    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    • wichita falls texas february 2021 seminar
    • starting strength seminar april 2021
    Quote Originally Posted by Fulcrum View Post
    actually ...

    they killed quite a few (million) people by overdosing aspirin in 1917-18 for the flu.

    may want to pump the breaks on the current wonder drug talk.

    Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918–1919 Pharmacology, Pathology, and Historic Evidence | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic
    Yes. Like respirators, if used inappropriately, Tylenol and aspirin can have life-threatening consequences.

    Today's NYC Daily Counts: COVID-19: Data - NYC Health

  2. #1572
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    879

    Default

    Second, everybody keeps saying "the models were wrong" -- but that just shows that nobody bothers actually reading the papers. I did. The Imperial College paper from which the 2.2M estimate for an unchecked outbreak came from, also *explicitly* presented a wide variety of scenarios *with interventions*.
    You mean the one that uses the word ďassumeĒ 23 times in itís twenty pages and is based primarily on data provided by the CCP, who coincidentally? is one of the many entities that will be profiting enormously by this crisis?

    Are we stuck in this logical quagmire because you are that naive or because we are that cynical?

  3. #1573
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Thought-provoking piece. Read it before Medium takes it down:

    Ground Zero: When the Cure is Worse than the Disease

  4. #1574
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    for fucks sake Rip, you're the one who keeps asking for an adult conversation.

    I'm trying to establish agreed upon premises here, I'm *not* yet attempting to come to conclusions. That was the whole point of the post where I outlined some potential strategies.
    Hey pal, I'm not trying to make fun of you, but we are at war here. There is no time for triple blind studies and doctor's with doctor's degrees trying to rip millions of dollars out of our estates while old people die on life support late in their live and bankrupting anyone who's not currently up and up on the health insurance lottery (their normal system actually, it looks like this is just a government backed version of the normal healthcare system actually).

    We have the data. Seven states have not shut down their economies or activities at all. Between those seven states there are 100 total corona virus deaths. But thankfully, the media has even told us that they have super complicated models showing that these states haven't peaked, and their approximate peaks are on May 1, +/- 3 or four days which translates to +/- $500,000,000 in localized economic activity per day in each state. Bro these are data points. The article is even titled, "Seven states have not shut down their economies due to corona virus, here's why." Does that sound like a triple blind doctor study with my best interest at heart or some bitch 32 year old wine aunt with three cats trying to kill every white male she sees?

    7 states with no stay-at-home orders over coronavirus - CNNPolitics

    Also, when this broke in February really (I know earlier but the info became a bit clearer in February) they said "It can stay dormant and spread for fourteen days, most people don't know they have it, and if you do have it the best thing to do is go home and rest because there is nothing we can do to help". That is what the news said. CNN said that. Based on that fact, my response is why even bother, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead. If you can't do anything to mitigate it, why even bother.

    If a hellslinging plague was after us we'd already be dead or not dead and not have time to use the numbers and 5-day rna transcriptase tests to manipulate whether or not this is bad or REALLY bad. You would know. What we have here is an existential crisis of critical thought. This is not new or surprising, critical thought and humanity has been being stamped out of the American public since ~circa 2016(hmm I wonder).

    This is the logical end of political correctness and the suppression of creative expression. People have to intensify the remaining feelings they have, and all that's left now is "Muh Money!!!, and Muh Liberal, and Muh Guns". Humanity is a very valuable resource which people have been defaulting on for quite some time now. The fact that this virus pandemic is so twilight zone weird is just a manifest of the reality of the bankruptcy of critical thought, extinction of humor, and the mega dream of political correctness people.

    I know these ideas and thought processes harm the very basis on which your ego bases it's foundation upon. But I can no longer hold back while my country and those I care about are tormented right in front of me because people are so boring they can't find a hobby or make human connections on a creative level.

    Rip I know we're just young whippersnappers, but we really are trying our best out here.

    I hope you watch this vid(made in 2013) and it brings a light bit of joy in this nice springtime

    YouTube

  5. #1575
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Ok, so now instead of "you already have as many deaths *right now* as in a fairly standard flu season", it's "you almost already have as many deaths as the second lowest flu season in the last 9 years". Totally the same thing, got it.
    As I'm writing this, the number of deaths is already higher than that in the second lowest flu season in the last 7 years for which there is complete data. And yeah, that's "fairly standard" in my book. (Would replacing "fairly standard" with "not unusual" make you happier?) As I'm sure you know, an outlier would be defined as something like 1 in 20 or less. But whatever: if 2 in 7 makes it an outlier for you, give it another week or two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    The site I'm getting that from is: Cases in U.S. | CDC.
    Look Rob, you're just wrong on this. We are talking about *deaths* but the site you're linking to is about *cases*. (The numbers on that page also don't match those you mentioned, but that's probably a typo or something.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Also, I'm calling bullshit on your knowledge of the Imperial College paper. There's no way you can say "the numbers for those scenarios are pretty well aligned with those we're seeing". Their scenarios do not contain enough granularity to compare the numbers we're seeing.
    I don't know what to tell you, other than to read the paper. Tables 4 and 5 show a huge range of scenarios and their impact on things like the number of deaths. The actual number in the table are for the UK, but as the Table 4 caption explicitly states "Results are qualitatively similar for the US." The table shows that, depending on which exact strategy is adopted, the number of deaths will be reduced by factors between about 5 and 50 (for their reference case of R0 = 2.4 -- they even show numbers for other values of R0). In the US, where the detailed strategy is decided at state level, there is obviously no single "correction factor". (Maybe this is what you mean by granularity?) But you can still tell pretty easily that the numbers they predict are perfectly reasonable. As a country, the US is going to be somewhere in the middle of the severity of those restrictions. So that would be about a factor of 15 or so. So 2.2M for an unchecked outbreak then becomes 150,000 (with obviously significant uncertainty). And, as they explicitly state, the IFR they adopted at the time was 0.9%, so if we think it's 0.4% now, that number becomes 65,000.

    I know that everybody here is now going to jump up and down about how useless models are that are that uncertain, etc etc. But that's just a misunderstanding of how models work or what they are used for. Everything you need to vet what they've done is provided for you. If you don't like the IFR -- or better data becomes available -- you update it. That's the point of models. It's not a flaw. And the fact that different suppression measures produce different degrees of suppression is just that -- a fact. It's not a flaw of the model -- it is what it is.

    OF COURSE, all models are wrong in detail -- but some are useful. At the level at which this one is intended, it's pretty good -- it allows you to make better informed decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    How about you answer one of the thought experiment questions I've asked you over the last several days before I answer one of yours, ok?.
    You may not have noticed this, but it's a little unrealistic to expect me to respond to every poster on here who thinks I'm wrong. But fuck it, here are a couple of questions you apparently wanted answered:
    • [W]hen schools need to close because of a snowstorm, should that decision be made by the principal, the superintendent, the school board, the board of freeholders/county legislature, the state governor, Congress, the President, or the United Nations?
      • This may shock you, but snowstorms aren't infectious. I am totally comfortable with localism where it's appropriate. It's appropriate for a snowstorm. It isn't for a pandemic. Ask Nassim Taleb (who I would have thought you'd like better than I do, even though we can probably both agree he's not stupid).
    • [Do you think the] only answer [to the epidemic] is martial law, ankle bracelets, movement tracking, etc.?
      • No, because that would be stupid. What I said was that, if and when a suppression based on social intervention has worked, we will need a strategy to avoid major second (and third, and fourth...) waves. And that strategy will probably have to include mass testing and contact tracing. But there should obviously to strict rules: (a) all of it needs to be temporary, ceasing at the very latest when a vaccine becomes available; (b) testing and contact tracing should be done in an anonymized/encrypted way, with anonymization only relaxed to allow actual positive tests to be contacted and traced; (c) if the numbers are kept small enough, it might even be possible to ONLY contact trace new infections. And no, I'm not actually comfortable with any of this at all. But I'm still waiting to hear better alternatives.
    • Are you ok with the government telling Walmart what they can and can not sell?
      • Yes, in an actual emergency, why the hell not? If it stops a bunch of idiots going out to buy a nicer pair of shoes during a pandemic, great. It's not about those idiots, it's about everybody else those idiots may put in harm's way. In fact, I think it was *workers* in those stores who complained they were being put at risk by bored idiots browsing the stores.


    I'll probably take another break from posting here for at least a few weeks, though I would still like to hear your (and Rip's!) response to three questions:

    • (1) What's your best estimate of the number of deaths you'd if the outbreak wasn't suppressed? If it's substantially less than, say, 1 million, what was the assumed IFR and fraction of the population who was infected? And where did those numbers come from?
    • Regardless of what your estimate for COVID-19 is, if *some* epidemic could be expected to produce, say, 1 million deaths without strict social interventions:
      • (2) Would such interventions be justified?
      • (3) Do you think the economy could continue to function more or less normally while such an unchecked infection goes on?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Not sure where you're getting your data...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    He's jerking it out of his New York City ass.
    This is pretty rich, considering that pretty much all I've done in this thread is vet data-based claims *you* have made. I've yet to find a single instance where the data actually supported your view. I also think it's telling that every time this happens, you immediately switch topic. You don't even try to justify your incorrect claims (and God forbid you might acknowledge that they were wrong.)

    You know, the only reason I'm even part of this community is that I've always valued what you've done for strength training. Specifically, that you logically and rationally analysed both the technique of the basic lifts and the way in which they can be efficiently programmed. As you might expect, there are many aspects of your "Corporate Culture" statement I couldn't sign up to, but I could sign up to this: "We value reason and logic over feeling and emotion, since quantification and verification are preferable to subjective assertion and whim.". But this is not what I see in this thread. All I see is subjective assertion and whim -- and then getting pissed off when anybody actually does use quantification and verification. This is not how the scientific method works.

  6. #1576
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    give it another week or two.
    Someone smarter then me should go through this thread and quote how many times you’ve said that in as many weeks.

  7. #1577
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    You may not have noticed this, but it's I'll probably take another break from posting here for at least a few weeks, though I would still like to hear your (and Rip's!) response to three questions:

    • (1) What's your best estimate of the number of deaths you'd if the outbreak wasn't suppressed? If it's substantially less than, say, 1 million, what was the assumed IFR and fraction of the population who was infected? And where did those numbers come from?
    • Regardless of what your estimate for COVID-19 is, if *some* epidemic could be expected to produce, say, 1 million deaths without strict social interventions:
      • (2) Would such interventions be justified?
      • (3) Do you think the economy could continue to function more or less normally while such an unchecked infection goes on?
    You are an irrational, uneducated person. You've been given answers to all these questions. What kind of job do you have that lets you get away with this kind of reasoning?

  8. #1578
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    879

    Default

    (1) What's your best estimate of the number of deaths you'd if the outbreak wasn't suppressed? If it's substantially less than, say, 1 million, what was the assumed IFR and fraction of the population who was infected? And where did those numbers come from?
    Previously:
    Ok so letís run some numbers:

    US population: 328,200,000

    German study infection rate: 15%

    Theoretical US infections: 49,230,000

    German study IFR: .37%

    US theoretical deaths: 182,151

    Italian data no comorbidities: 12%

    Total US deaths sole cause: 21,858

    Compare to the 2017 statistics for chronic respiratory (160,201) and flu/pneumonia (55,672) for a grand total of 215,873.

  9. #1579
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    (1) What's your best estimate of the number of deaths you'd if the outbreak wasn't suppressed? If it's substantially less than, say, 1 million, what was the assumed IFR and fraction of the population who was infected? And where did those numbers come from?
    At this point I don't really care if a million people die. They might, but not of COVID-19. In 2018, 2,839,205 died in the US. That goes up 33%, it's bad, but it won't, because your model is wrong and you are wrong, as several of us have pointed out several times. So far, ~23,000 are dead, so like I said before, you'd better get busy killing some people. ("Just wait a couple of weeks" Yeah, okay.) And if it does, the survivors will do better in a functioning economy, as opposed to the wreckage you and your buddies have handed us. But I'll give you this: you're a pig-headed motherfucker. That's kind of admirable.

    Regardless of what your estimate for COVID-19 is, if *some* epidemic could be expected to produce, say, 1 million deaths without strict social interventions:
    (2) Would such interventions be justified?
    No.

    (3) Do you think the economy could continue to function more or less normally while such an unchecked infection goes on?
    It will function better if it's allowed to than it will if it's not allowed to. You don't actually know much about economics, which is why you never deal with it in your quasi-intellectual bullshit posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    Previously:
    Previously:
    Ok so let’s run some numbers:

    US population: 328,200,000

    German study infection rate: 15%

    Theoretical US infections: 49,230,000

    German study IFR: .37%

    US theoretical deaths: 182,151

    Italian data no comorbidities: 12%

    Total US deaths sole cause: 21,858

    Compare to the 2017 statistics for chronic respiratory (160,201) and flu/pneumonia (55,672) for a grand total of 215,873.
    I thought this was pretty clear. But Lazy only reads his own posts, because no one else is capable of such clear distillation of Lazy's obviously correct analysis.

  10. #1580
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    296

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    You know, the only reason I'm even part of this community is that I've always valued what you've done for strength training. Specifically, that you logically and rationally analysed both the technique of the basic lifts and the way in which they can be efficiently programmed. As you might expect, there are many aspects of your "Corporate Culture" statement I couldn't sign up to, but I could sign up to this: "We value reason and logic over feeling and emotion, since quantification and verification are preferable to subjective assertion and whim.". But this is not what I see in this thread. All I see is subjective assertion and whim -- and then getting pissed off when anybody actually does use quantification and verification. This is not how the scientific method works.
    If you're having trouble understanding why you're getting so much pushback, it might be a good indicator that you are the one who is operating on subjective assertion and whim.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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