starting strength gym
Page 219 of 3003 FirstFirst ... 1191692092172182192202212292693197191219 ... LastLast
Results 2,181 to 2,190 of 30027

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2181
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You may be salvageable. Can you think of a good reason that might be true?
    I know this wasn't directed at me. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to not be able to share with you the myriad of things you don't know that would adequately demonstrate how it's not malicious, but how that makes it worse. And that's just the little piece that I know about. It's like if you tripped on a rock in your yard, so you decided to dig it up. Two weeks later you realize it's at least twice the size of your house. In reality, you've discovered a solid rock mass roughly the size of India.

    In short: shrink all government.

  2. #2182
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    332

    Default

    If you’re a business owner in Virginia, now’s the time to move. Northam is trying to ruin your life. This is complete madness. Don’t let a maniac destroy everything you’ve worked for.

  3. #2183
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    and now, even with all the data fuckery, we see Millions of cases...small amount of death

    No matter how many walls of text are posted here by "experts", the field of Epidemiology has been permanently disgraced by the actions of a few.

    Fuckery. That's the parameter some of you failed to include in your analysis. And the fuckery permeates all "science" because "scientists" are for sale.
    Post Of The Week. Email the store for the T-shirt of your choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    The poor decision being to modify regulations when the landscape changes?

    Since I believe that regulations are an important and often necessary tool for the good of society, I don't agree that is necessarily a poor decision to modify regulations.

    For example, we have building code regulations for a reason. Suppose that a region's risk of earthquake is suddenly understood to be much higher than previously thought, and that most buildings need to have an expensive upgrade to improve resilience against earthquakes (assume such an upgrade is possible in this thought experiment). Do we rely on the market alone as force to motivate these upgrades? If so, then why have regulations in the first place?

    I'm perfectly willing to have my mind changed about the above bolded statement, and am happy to discuss.

    I'll even try to steelman the other side:

    "yes, in theory regulations might be a good thing. But in practice, governments aren't highly rational actors, and other interests dominate decision making. As a result, regulations are rarely commensurate with the landscape, and tend to accumulate rather than dynamically adapt to new conditions and new information. The harms associated with this outweigh the harms of not having regulations".

    Are there any other considerations I should take into account?
    I am not completely opposed to regulations, because they are often necessary to mitigate the consequences of stupidity. It would be better if they took into consideration the stupidity of the regulators themselves.

  4. #2184
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    One of the unintended consequences of this shit is that we are all having a conversation now that nobody in the government intended for us to have. They have shown everyone their quality, and people who had previously never considered it are beginning to realize that these incompetent and power-mad fools are destroying our society for reasons they cannot explain to rational people. They are minting a whole new batch of libertarians.
    I have some hope because I am picking up on a rumbling around Seattle that is a "hey, wait a second..." kind of attitude.

    Of course, many hear are "making" more in unemployment than they were in their jobs, so its a very faint rumbling...

    But even they will soon see the there is a bill being tallied in the background.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kirkham View Post
    I saw something very interesting tonight on my way home. People out smiling and hugging in groups, taking photos, laughing (it’s graduation time at BYU). The traffic is back up to pre-crazy levels.

    I think Provo just collectively decided this time out is over.
    This is an interesting observation and I've kinda wondered if that's how this will play out. People will just start going about their lives and the governors will back into it by lip service talking about opening things up.

    Face saved.

  5. #2185
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dillon Spencer View Post
    The market disposes of shitty restaurants quickly and thoroughly? Explain Taco Bell then Although, the fact that you acknowledge that the Health Department shouldn’t allow dirty kitchens to poison people shows that we have a bit of common ground. Now we’re back to talking about how much regulation is acceptable, rather than arguing from unrealistic extremes.
    You're of course joking about Taco Bell, because you don't understand that just because you and I don't eat there doesn't mean it's shitty. If people ate there and died from food poisoning, that would qualify as shitty, and the market would close them.

    I just think we’re talking about different aspects of this. You’re saying the shutdown never should have happened, but that ship has sailed. I’m talking about what we can realistically expect to see if we’re going to get the economy reopened, and saying that gloves and masks on grocery store employees is probably the minimum public burden we can expect going forward for a while. It seems pretty fucking minimal compared to keeping restaurants, bars, gyms, stores, and lots of other places closed indefinitely.
    Let's see your data on the number of COVID-19 cases transmitted by ungloved grocery store employees. You do know that even the people working produce at Walmart already wear gloves, right?

    I know there are people that want to stand by ideology on this, but I don’t think too many owners of restaurants, bars, gyms and stores are going to stand on principle if given the choice between reopening with PPE, or staying closed. It may be a bullshit choice in many people’s opinion, but it’s probably the choice we’re looking at. Getting outraged because your PPE equipped Costco employee wouldn’t touch your receipt doesn't seem helpful.
    Well, you got me here. The fact that all the bars, restaurants, gyms, and stores are still closed, many of them permanently, means that "standing on ideology" was a worse option than bankruptcy. The government won that argument. Congratulations.

  6. #2186
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    No matter how many walls of text are posted here by "experts", the field of Epidemiology has been permanently disgraced by the actions of a few.
    While I know exactly what you mean here, I offer this: Epidemiology, in itself, is not at all disgraced by this. I've been pondering this for quite a while, that epidemiology is "doing" exactly what it was intended to do all along as a science. It is ALL about predictive models (ultimately hypothetical, existing in a vacuum with a lot of assumptions) and it has done that. Hell, probably done it well.

    The problem is what was done with a purely hypothetical model.

  7. #2187
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    419

    Default

    What if it is in fact a total FAKE....a case of you find what your looking for and hammers seeing nails and mass hysteria fueled by the media....

    Lets say Coronaviruses are already widespread in the population....lets say it's a bad flu season ....lets say that people who are sick are more likely to have a number of germs jump in them when immunity is down...many people are coming into hospitals from those traditional flu areas....high density population with poor air quality...now I know for an absolute fact that they are counting as positive for coronavirus anyone who has been exposed to anyone that tested positive and are exhibiting symptoms...their also , as been mentioned, considering it a COVID death if someones dies of ANY cause AND tests positive for coronavirus....so if you ADD these FUZZY stats to a bad flu season might that explain ALL the numbers...just saying

  8. #2188
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,610

    Default

    This is standard bureaucratic procedure.

  9. #2189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnst_nhb View Post
    While I know exactly what you mean here, I offer this: Epidemiology, in itself, is not at all disgraced by this. I've been pondering this for quite a while, that epidemiology is "doing" exactly what it was intended to do all along as a science. It is ALL about predictive models (ultimately hypothetical, existing in a vacuum with a lot of assumptions) and it has done that. Hell, probably done it well.

    The problem is what was done with a purely hypothetical model.
    This doesn't mean the field hasn't been "disgraced." Disgrace involves how highly or lowly one should regard something. For the people paying attention, epidemiology has been stained by this debacle and we're going to be immediately more skeptical the next time epidemiologists offer their, ahem, services.

    The problem is that most people aren't paying attention, and since we already fetishize "science" and treat scientists as something between oracles and saints, we're already being told how the colossal failure of the epidemiology models actually means they're super-duper correct and thus we need to intensify the lockdowns because they're working so well. It's nuts.

  10. #2190
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    536

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
    This doesn't mean the field hasn't been "disgraced." Disgrace involves how highly or lowly one should regard something. For the people paying attention, epidemiology has been stained by this debacle and we're going to be immediately more skeptical the next time epidemiologists offer their, ahem, services.

    The problem is that most people aren't paying attention, and since we already fetishize "science" and treat scientists as something between oracles and saints, we're already being told how the colossal failure of the epidemiology models actually means they're super-duper correct and thus we need to intensify the lockdowns because they're working so well. It's nuts.
    Easy there, little shooter.

    I am simply saying there was not a colossal failure of the epidemiological models. There was a colossal failure of the humans who interpreted, manipulated and made policy judgements from a hypothetical model. You can take a plethora of diseases and model how they *might* spread through a population. But its just a model. Real life offers variables that cannot be accurately modeled (for a variety of reasons.)

    I believe predictive models have an important role in understanding certain processes (even if just a baseline of understanding), so I don't blame the model itself.

    All of my opinions lend themselves to what I believe has been really happening: It now has very little to do with epidemiology or covid-19.

Posting Permissions

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