COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 275

starting strength gym
Page 275 of 2466 FirstFirst ... 1752252652732742752762772853253757751275 ... LastLast
Results 2,741 to 2,750 of 24654

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2741
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,022

    Default

    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainstream View Post
    But the more simple question is...Should this be considered a "Natural Disaster"?
    What aspect of this is a natural disaster, you fool?

  2. #2742
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,995

    Default

    This doesnít surprise me at all. Does it really surprise you?

  3. #2743
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Law enforcement depends heavily on how much it's going to benefit those writing them and their underlings enforcing them. In the current state of affairs not enforcing lockdown laws may lead to more individuals ignoring them, which indicates that the government has lost control of its people, something it cannot possibly be seen doing. I'm interested to see what happens in those Northern California counties. State troopers vs county sheriffs? That has its own set of political consequences so we shall see what Comrade Newsom does.

    Coronavirus: Newsom slams Yuba, Sutter counties for re-opening

  4. #2744
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mainstream View Post
    Businesses can have catastrophic insurance and interruption of business insurance caused by catastrophes but currently it does not cover pandemics, epidemics, etc...however Congress can pass a law requiring covering pandemics or even more specifically COVID -19...
    Yeah, let's ask the government to fix it. Fucking on point.

  5. #2745
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mainstream View Post
    She was stupid and wanted attention....legally they could open Friday ...so she just had to wait 5 days...she could have spent that time calling her clients and setting up back to back to back appointments for the next couple months...get the place ready with supplies and all the stuff she'll need to have that place humming...she wanted to make a statement
    So what?

    People are only justified in bucking the completely unbearable tyrannies?

    I don't give a crap if she just wanted to buy her kid a pony, but was otherwise able to live off her vast wealth for decades. I'm glad at least some peoples till have courage.

    And as far a stupid goes: we all have seen the cases where folks have cashed in via GoFund me, so it was really just a calculated inconvenience (even if she did the 7 days, fans would pay the fine) that turned into a free commercial for her business.

    It's not like she had to be at work or anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You know how many people have the balls to defy an order from a government official -- even an illegal order that is proven unenforceable? Me and her, and maybe 20 other people. Most people will obey, since most people are farm animals, and loath any possibility of confrontation. You know this to be true, now. The "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" shit just passed the expiration date. It's very sad to watch it happen so fast.

  6. #2746
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    I donít know what Taleb thinks about reproducibility in general, but he thinks Ioannidis is an idiot.
    He's been proving himself one recently.

  7. #2747
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Provo, Utah
    Posts
    521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mainstream View Post
    However, Congress having power over Interstate Commerce could write a law stating that COVID -19 is a Natural disaster and thus would be covered by these types of policies...

    ...and then pass a Stimulus bill that includes Insurance companies
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    What aspect of this is a natural disaster, you fool?
    Yea Rip, he actually typed that.

    I know! I know!!! Letís pass a law that prints even MORE money (only for our buddies). Yea. Thatís the trick. Thatíll work THIS time. Trust me.

  8. #2748
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    I think reproducibility is a problem, but mostly for unsexy, non-statistical reasons: overstating conclusions, omitting details, fudging data, etc. Ioannidis discusses these in his section on "bias", but that part of his model is completely tautological and does not explain anything. Literally, let u be the probability that the authors are lying; then, as u increases, be astounded that the false publication rate increases!

    The phenomenon he actually investigates: if there are many independent research teams, each with a small sample of data, and a result is published if and only if it is positive, and if legitimate positive results are rare - then there will be many published false positives. At a high level, this is known as the multiple testing problem, and has been known for decades. (That's why this paper is published in PLOS Medicine, not a statistical venue.) His point is that control of false discovery may be done within individual studies, but is not done at the meta-level of multiple studies. The novel contributions are the quantitative estimates obtained by carrying out the napkin math.

    Unfortunately, these arenít good enough to convince me that multiple testing (rather than the "unsexy" stuff) is to blame for the replication crisis. Are there really that many teams working on the exact same utterly hopeless study? His quantitative estimates depend critically on the prior probability that a study should yield a positive - what he calls R/(R+1). This value is unknown, and there is no attempt to estimate them from data. He just uses values that he thinks sound reasonable (Table 4). But I wouldn't trust his intuition: his example value of R=10^{-4}, in a GWAS, is misguided. He considers every comparison within a single study as a study in its own right. In reality, one would employ a statistical method which accounts for the multiple testing. In other words, he is repeating the same intra-study/inter-study mistake that motivates the paper! (As an aside, I am dismayed by the equality R = R/(R+1) = 10^{-4}).

    In machine learning, there are concerns about reproducibility and multiple testing. (Conducting and submitting lots of junk studies is similar to trying lots of predictors on a benchmark, hoping one does well by chance). Well, empirically, multiple testing doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as we thought. It is crucial to look at actual data.

    Oh well. Ioannidis lets his toy model drag him into baseless conclusions. For example, consider his claim that "the hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true." Conventional understanding is that more scrutiny, bigger datasets, and less stress about funding all lead to better research. But no, the toy model (which doesnít account for any of those phenomena) says otherwise!

    Catchy titles are admissible in sleepy technical fields, like the one I work in, for authors to drum up general interest in their work. This paper does not qualify. The title is absurdly aggressive for these brief musings. "Multiple testing in scientific publication" would have been reasonable. Of course, no one here would have cited that. Because this paper brings popular attention to reproducibility and p-values, lots of statisticians don't scrutinize it. I'm not that kind.
    I appreciate the gold you just dropped here.

    Thanks for taking the time and effort.

  9. #2749
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    427

  10. #2750
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    527

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    She's been posted a couple of times already, but it seems like a side issue to me. We already know about Fauci.
    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    I haven't seen any reference to the documentary vignette that was posted then promptly removed the promptly re-posted by someone else on the utuber today...

    Plandemic Movie
    I just watched it, production quality is high and the interview is compelling so it wasn't boring. It's not just about Fauci, he's just a particularly nasty symptom.

    Since this fiasco has proven to be a very effective tool in the statist arsenal, the info presented might be good to take into account in helping to prevent a recurrence.

    As always, follow the money: Bayh–Dole Act - Wikipedia.

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
  •