COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 2456

starting strength gym
Page 2456 of 2549 FirstFirst ... 145619562356240624462454245524562457245824662506 ... LastLast
Results 24,551 to 24,560 of 25486

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #24551
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,919

    Default

    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    • starting strength seminar june 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilead View Post
    The kid is surely on something here man. Look at his head shake and bite his lips while he goes through the script he was told to say.
    https://twitter.com/BobBish40288847/...35076505264129
    It is a nervous tick. A "tell," as gamblers say.

  2. #24552
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South of France
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Apologies for straying off the CoVid main thread; I would just like to leave this here. It's, imho, the best summary of the current geopolitical situation that one could make in such a short allotted time.

    https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/st...66227847888896


    IPB

  3. #24553
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilead View Post
    -----------------------------------

    Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away, when journalism was allowed to have integrity.
    Why The WHO Faked A Pandemic - Forbes.com
    Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, "The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness."

    This quote is hilarious.

  4. #24554
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VNV View Post
    On a much smaller scale, I remember one of the top performing engineering students at university who prided himself on being a scholar, athlete (surfer), and musician (amateur concert pianist). He too was eccentric, but not in adiposity - he looked like pigpen everyday (except on his way down to Black’s beach) - jeans which were more holy than St. Francis.
    This is not the first time I've heard this story. It is exceedingly common among those who are close to what we'd call "genius."

  5. #24555
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VNV View Post
    One great counterexample in physics is Schramm, who was a greco roman wrestler in college.
    What they need to hear is “doing NLP will make you better at your job.” Citing outliers is counterproductive, because it engages the competitive spirit which deranged them. Everything from college admissions to Instagram has told them that if an outcome isn’t good enough to put on their resume (or reels), then they shouldn’t bother.

  6. #24556
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    Forum Conversation: Norman Fenton

    Suppose that at a given time there is data available suggesting that, in the general population, one in a thousand asymptomatic people were likely to have the virus. Such data was never confirmed of course, the infection rate varied over time, but I will use it to explain the Bayesian reasoning.

    If I take a PCR test and it’s positive but I’m not feeling ill, I would want to know if I really have the virus. In other words, if I am one — of the one-in-a-thousand people — who is asymptomatic but carrying the virus, I’d want to know the accuracy of the test. There weren’t any reliable studies about the reliability of the PCR test, but the public was assured these tests were very accurate. Let’s suppose there was only a one-in-a-hundred chance that someone who doesn't have the virus will test positive — a 1% false positive rate. Then conversely, if I don't have the virus, there's a 99% chance of a negative test. With this information most people assumed if you tested positive you almost certainly had COVID. But that is not the case.

    Think about a group of 10,000 asymptomatic people getting tested. Because we are assuming one-in-a-thousand asymptomatic people have the virus, that means about 10 of the 10,000 really have the virus. Let’s also assume these genuinely infected people test positive. Then we are left with just under 10,000 people — 9990, who do not have the virus. But a PCR test with only a 1%false positive rate still means that about 100 of these people would falsely test positive. So in total there are 110 people testing positive of whom we know only 10 will actually become ill from the virus. So, the actual probability that you've got the virus if you test positive is closer to 10%. This means that with reasonable assumptions about the underlying infection rate and test accuracy, the PCR test used as a standard for life-impacting decisions and mandates, had a 99% inaccuracy rate for asymptomatic people testing positive.
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams shoddy research - Big Think

    The IHME scientists had been observing the shoddy nature of health science for decades. Each year, hundreds of frankly lazy studies are published that simply attempt to find an observational link between some action — eating a food for example — and a health outcome, like death or disease. In the end, owing to sloppy methods, varying subject populations, and inconsistent statistical measures, everything, especially different foods, seems to be both associated and not associated with cancer. How is the lay public supposed to interpret this mess?

  7. #24557
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    What they need to hear is “doing NLP will make you better at your job.” Citing outliers is counterproductive, because it engages the competitive spirit which deranged them. Everything from college admissions to Instagram has told them that if an outcome isn’t good enough to put on their resume (or reels), then they shouldn’t bother.
    Also, I think the de facto assumption is that the genetic line of the best of us are going to evolve into aliens with big heads and pencil-thin bodies, representing relative usage. Like Spieldberg’s benign and magnanimous aliens in “A.I.”. (If that’s the cost of having spacecraft like theirs, I am tempted.)

  8. #24558
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlPrincipeBrutto View Post
    Apologies for straying off the CoVid main thread; I would just like to leave this here. It's, imho, the best summary of the current geopolitical situation that one could make in such a short allotted time.

    https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/st...66227847888896


    IPB
    Ours is the most effeminate empire. Neither the Persians, Romans, Huns, nor Mongols requested anything be done voluntarily​ by one if its provinces.

  9. #24559
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,065

  10. #24560
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    For decades, the medical community has viewed the symptoms and diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome as an incontrovertible truth. Waney Squier spent many of these years offering expert testimony in court cases before new evidence convinced her to change her perspective. In this important talk, Waney explains her reasons for speaking out, argues a new case for Shaken Baby Syndrome and discusses the challenges she faced when she questioned the conventional way of thinking. Dr Waney Squier is a Consultant Neuropathologist to the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals and Honorary Clinical lecturer at University of Oxford.

    Her specialism is in the pathology of the developing brain in the foetus and neonate. Other areas of interest are developmental causes of epilepsy and muscle pathology.

    Dr Squier has carried out extensive research into the nature and timing of brain damage due to intrauterine and perinatal insults. As a result of this research, Dr Squier has published widely in peer-reviewed journals, edited a book on developmental brain damage, and acted as a prosecution and defence expert witness in cases of unexpected infant death.

    However, her court testimonies were shrouded in controversy after she began to question the research evidence and in 2001 changed her mind about the causes for ‘shaken baby’ cases.
    I believed in Shaken Baby Syndrome until science showed I was wrong | Waney Squier | TEDxWandsworth - YouTube

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
  •