COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 159

starting strength gym
Page 159 of 850 FirstFirst ... 59109149157158159160161169209259659 ... LastLast
Results 1,581 to 1,590 of 8491

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1581
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Ocean City, MD
    Posts
    1,670

  2. #1582
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Provo, Utah
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    I've yet to find a single instance where the data actually supported [my] view.
    You misspelled "your" so I fixed it for you.

    The only reason I can think of that Rip hasn't banned you is because he is no longer writing to you...but to the rest of us on the board.

    Dude...your models are wrong. It's ok to change your opinion when you are presented with new facts. Even my sister, a corporate HR attorney for a financial company (and a lifetime Democrat) called me today and ranted, "Can you believe what they [Democrat Governors across the country] are doing??? Are they actually competing with each other to see who will be the first to violate all 10 Amendments at once??? Are they TRYING to destroy the economy? What the hell has happened to my party? They aren't Democrats any more they are all Socialists!"

    She's voting for Trump in November. I just sat there smiling, sipping my beer waiting to do my next set of squats.

    There are creators and destroyers in this world. You guys are destroyers.

  3. #1583
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    Look Rob, you're just wrong on this. We are talking about *deaths* but the site you're linking to is about *cases*.
    My God man, is your attention to detail really that poor? Did you actually click the link or just read the hyperlink title? The page lists total deaths on the line RIGHT BELOW CASES. I’m not sure I have the energy to deal with the rest of your bullshit now that I’m pretty sure you’re just trolling.

  4. #1584
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

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

    US population: 328,200,000

    German study infection rate: 15%

    Theoretical US infections: 49,230,000
    You're missing a crucial variable here - physical distancing. The German study infection rate would be higher were it not be for physical distancing.

    So yes, theoretical US infections with same physical distancing as Germany (and timed similarly) would be 15%.

  5. #1585
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,597

    Default

    The Germans are better at measuring 6 feet (~2 meters) than we are?

  6. #1586
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbm77 View Post
    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).
    So clearly you're not in favour of strategy A (and I don't think I am, either).

    Which of the other strategies do you think is wiser? B, C, or D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    The Germans are better at measuring 6 feet (~2 meters) than we are?
    I'm saying that there are two sets of figures being thrown around here.

    One is the expected deaths without physical distancing, and the other is expected deaths with physical distancing.

    The current US deaths reflect those with physical distancing.

    Every time someone tries to explain why it's reasonable to expect [close to a million deaths in the US without physical distancing], you counter this by showing the current deaths. But the current deaths are with physical distancing.

    I'm actually open to the notion that a million deaths (in the US) might be a necessary sacrifice (i.e. I'm open to the idea that stalling the economy like this may actually present a worse outcome).

    But if you're unwilling to even engage with basic reasoning, discussion is impossible.

  7. #1587
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,597

    Default

    We are distancing, currently, I suppose to the best of our abilities. So current deaths -- the ones I'm referring to, the ones that actually happened -- are at the rate that is occurring under real conditions now, with the distancing recommendations. Those are the statistics that matter, the ones we're actually seeing. It's not reasonable to assume people are intentionally ignoring commonsense hygiene practices for flu season we all learned before Tony and Deb became our 3rd grade teachers. Therefore, it's not reasonable to expect close to a million deaths, especially since this goddamn thing has been here 3 months and only 23,000 are dead so far (2.3% of a million), while 20 million of us are now unemployed. What the hell are you talking about? Fiction World? Where Rippetoe wants everybody to slobber on each other and Joe Biden the girls?

    And were I not willing to engage in basic reasoning, I wouldn't be doing it. Like I just did. And were I not willing to air the other side, lazygun's annoying ass would have been gone quite a while ago.

  8. #1588
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Therefore, it's not reasonable to expect close to a million deaths, especially since this goddamn thing has been here 3 months and only 23,000 are dead so far (2.3% of a million)
    This is a point that I have not seen addressed (although I may have missed it), and it's a strong one, if the premise is true.

    I've seen people estimate that given what we (think) we know about the virus's transmissibilty, that the entire globe would be infected in 2 months if unchecked.

    But if the virus actually has been here since, say December or even January, then why hasn't the entire US population already been infected, since it's had a huge head start before we began physically distancing?

    Here are some possibilities that I can come up with:

    1) It hasn't actually been here since Dec/Jan.
    2) We are overestimating its transmissibility.
    3) We are overestimating its IFR.

  9. #1589
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    879

    Default

    You're missing a crucial variable here - physical distancing. The German study infection rate would be higher were it not be for physical distancing.
    I don’t think so. A cursory examination of similar pathogens indicates a 10-25% attack rate is a quite reasonable expectation for “unchecked” spread. “Unchecked” is difficult because generally humans are apparently decent at avoiding infection. Even something as simple as not sharing a cup with your sick sibling could be considered “social distancing“, and apparently the study in Germany involved some kind of festival which seems like an ideal place for “unchecked” viral spread.

    But we can also run the numbers in reverse if you like. Let’s even ratchet up the IFR to .5% shall we:

    1M deaths @ .5% IFR = 200M infections
    Attack rate = 200M / 328M = 61%

    So for >1M deaths you would need an infection rate of >60% (which seems a comparatively excessive weighted average across all demographics for this type of pathogenic spread) at an IFR of .5% (which is probably closer to accurate as current data is zeroing in on)...

  10. #1590
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    43,597

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    This is a point that I have not seen addressed (although I may have missed it), and it's a strong one, if the premise is true.

    I've seen people estimate that given what we (think) we know about the virus's transmissibilty, that the entire globe would be infected in 2 months if unchecked.

    But if the virus actually has been here since, say December or even January, then why hasn't the entire US population already been infected, since it's had a huge head start before we began physically distancing?

    Here are some possibilities that I can come up with:

    1) It hasn't actually been here since Dec/Jan.
    2) We are overestimating its transmissibility.
    3) We are overestimating its IFR.
    It's probably been here since early November. We are overestimating several things. Why? In whose interest is this overestimation?

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
  •