COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 42

starting strength gym
Page 42 of 472 FirstFirst ... 3240414243445292142 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 4716

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #411
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,202

    Default

    • texas starting strength seminar september 2020
    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    Thank you! That's why I said it. Now let's see your quantitative analysis.
    You, sir, are a fool. The world's economy has been far more thoroughly damaged by this that it could have been by nuclear weapons, and you want a fucking quantitative analysis of a bell curve, the tail of which gets here with warmer weather in a month. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that it doesn't matter how many people are going to die of COVID19, because the rest of us just lost incalculably more than has ever even been contemplated before. This will be far more destructive than World War II, unless people get their heads out of their asses tomorrow.

  2. #412
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.T View Post
    I am showing that the mortality rate of COVID-19 is lower than initial projections and dropping as more data rolls in.
    Did you even look at the plot of the mortality data that you and Mark keep invoking?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.T View Post
    I also maintain that a writer citing Italy while ignoring other countries is an indicator that the writer is heavily biased to Corona Fear Mongering.
    I agree. If you tell me who that writer is I will tell them to stop. In the unlikely event you are referring to me, it would be great if you could show me where I've ignored other countries or implied that Italy's raw CFR is typical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.T View Post
    I am also pointing out that S Korea and other countries have not shut down public businesses and are still doing quite well with COVID19
    Again, I agree. And I would love to have *that* discussion with you, because it's an important one. They've been able to do this because their initial response was drastic and fast, with loads of early testing. As a result, they have been able to use contact tracing far more effectively. This should give us hope that, if we can suppress the outbreak, we don't have to have restrictions in place forever. But first we have to suppress it, and we're already way beyond the numbers you can contact trace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.T View Post
    I have opined, as have Mark and others, that the State shutting down a large portion of the US economy will likely have more grave and serious effects than COVID 19.
    As I keep saying to Mark, I don't know where you get the idea that the two are mutually exclusive. If COVID-19 ends being even half as bad as epidemiologists and doctors think it could be (if we don't do more than we're doing right now), then how on Earth are you going to have a functioning economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.T View Post
    Are you disputing these or are you copy/ pasting out of a Stats 101 textbook? I assure that is persuasive to exactly nobody.
    I don't have to copy and past out of a Stats 101 textbook, because I literally teach stats and use it in my research. Could you at least admit that you haven't read a Stats 101 textbook and therefore shouldn't really talk about statistics like CFR?

  3. #413
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,202

    Default

    More racism:

    A low probability of catching COVID-19
    The World Health Organization (“WHO”) released a study on how China responded to COVID-19. Currently, this study is one of the most exhaustive pieces published on how the virus spreads.
    The results of their research show that COVID-19 doesn’t spread as easily as we first thought or the media had us believe (remember people abandoned their dogs out of fear of getting infected). According to their report if you come in contact with someone who tests positive for COVID-19 you have a 1–5% chance of catching it as well. The variability is large because the infection is based on the type of contact and how long.

    The majority of viral infections come from prolonged exposures in confined spaces with other infected individuals. Person-to-person and surface contact is by far the most common cause. From the WHO report, “When a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it was most often (78–85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person.

    From the CDC’s study on transmission in China and Princess Cruise outbreak -
    A growing body of evidence indicates that COVID-19 transmission is facilitated in confined settings; for example, a large cluster (634 confirmed cases) of COVID-19 secondary infections occurred aboard a cruise ship in Japan, representing about one fifth of the persons aboard who were tested for the virus. This finding indicates the high transmissibility of COVID-19 in enclosed spaces
    Dr. Paul Auwaerter, the Clinical Director for the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine echoes this finding,
    “If you have a COVID-19 patient in your household, your risk of developing the infection is about 10%….If you were casually exposed to the virus in the workplace (e.g., you were not locked up in conference room for six hours with someone who was infected [like a hospital]), your chance of infection is about 0.5%”

    According to Dr. Auwaerter, these transmission rates are very similar to the seasonal flu.
    Air-based transmission or untraceable community spread is very unlikely. According to WHO’s COVID-19 lead Maria Van Kerkhove, true community based spreading is very rare. The data from China shows that community-based spread was only a very small handful of cases. “This virus is not circulating in the community, even in the highest incidence areas across China,” Van Kerkhove said.
    “Transmission by fine aerosols in the air over long distances is not one of the main causes of spread. Most of the 2,055 infected hospital workers were either infected at home or in the early phase of the outbreak in Wuhan when hospital safeguards were not raised yet,” she said.

    True community spread involves transmission where people get infected in public spaces and there is no way to trace back the source of infection. WHO believes that is not what the Chinese data shows. If community spread was super common, it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the new cases through “social distancing”.

    “We have never seen before a respiratory pathogen that’s capable of community transmission but at the same time which can also be contained with the right measures. If this was an influenza epidemic, we would have expected to see widespread community transmission across the globe by now and efforts to slow it down or contain it would not be feasible,” said Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of WHO.

    An author of a working paper from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton University said, “The current scientific consensus is that most transmission via respiratory secretions happens in the form of large respiratory droplets … rather than small aerosols. Droplets, fortunately, are heavy enough that they don’t travel very far and instead fall from the air after traveling only a few feet.”

    The media was put into a frenzy when the above authors released their study on COVID-19’s ability to survive in the air. The study did find the virus could survive in the air for a couple of hours; however, this study was designed as academic exercise rather than a real-world test. This study put COVID-19 into a spray bottle to “mist” it into the air. I don’t know anyone who coughs in mist form and it is unclear if the viral load was large enough to infect another individual As one doctor, who wants to remain anonymous, told me, “Corona doesn’t have wings”.

    To summarize, China, Singapore, and South Korea’s containment efforts worked because community-based and airborne transmission aren’t common. The most common form of transmission is person-to-person or surface-based.

  4. #414
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You, sir, are a fool. The world's economy has been far more thoroughly damaged by this that it could have been by nuclear weapons, and you want a fucking quantitative analysis of a bell curve, the tail of which gets here with warmer weather in a month.
    What the hell are you talking about? "A quantitative analysis of a bell curve?" That's the grand total of your understanding of epidemiology? I think even that imbecile Nassim Taleb thinks that you are just plain wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    [I]t doesn't matter how many people are going to die of COVID19, because the rest of us just lost incalculably more than has ever even been contemplated before.
    I think it will matter to the people who die.

    I can't remember how many times I've now asked you: what is your alternative master plan? You know, the one that ensures the
    economy won't tank far worse than right now if the outbreak keeps developing as it is right now?

    How about this: as soon as I see this plan -- and assuming it makes any sense at all -- I will publicly support your call to return to business as usual. Because, believe it or not, I also don't like the situation we're in.

  5. #415
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    1,680

    Default

    Just asking. If the US comes through this about the same as or better off then all of the other industrialized nations of the world, what does this say about the argument for single payer health care?

    I’m on the fence for single payer, but I always found the argument that all nations do it, to be weak.

  6. #416
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    I think it will matter to the people who die.
    This is your entire argument. Get your eyes up off your desk and see the bigger picture.

  7. #417
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Here's a good short discussion of the risks between Nassim Taleb and Yaneer Bar-Yam

    YouTube

    Nassim's point is that uncertainty around a risk should be treated with more precaution rather than less. As he illustrates plainly, when in Bear country, if you're uncertain about a distant object, better to treat it like a bear than the more likely possibility that it's a stone. Risk mitigation is less costly earlier than later, think a slight course correction vs frantic running. I'd be surprised if anyone here disagrees with that.

    However, continuing with the analogy, I think Rip's point is that we may have set ourselves on fire to scare a stone away. Thus, I think the real question is, when dealing with a pandemic what is the correct course of action when the mitigation strategies themselves are explosive and fat-tailed? But they didn't have to be, Mike Osterholm spoke at my college back in 2005 on emerging infectious diseases. Everyone left the talk properly terrified and with the distinct impression that we need to invest heavily in research and especially vaccine production scaling. That would have been a relatively cheap mitigation strategy devoid of explosive risk from public panic.

  8. #418
    Noah Ebner's Avatar
    Noah Ebner is offline Owner, Starting Strength Los Angeles
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Yucaipa
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You, sir, are a fool. The world's economy has been far more thoroughly damaged by this that it could have been by nuclear weapons, and you want a fucking quantitative analysis of a bell curve, the tail of which gets here with warmer weather in a month. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that it doesn't matter how many people are going to die of COVID19, because the rest of us just lost incalculably more than has ever even been contemplated before. This will be far more destructive than World War II, unless people get their heads out of their asses tomorrow.
    heads out of their asses yesterday, is what I think you mean. The damage has already been done and it only gets worse the longer these draconian quarantine rules stay in effect. This will probably be about as destructive as the 1930 depression. The fix for that was WWII. Since the practice of war as a human endeavor has advanced tremendously in the last 80 years and assuming that this bullshit global quarantine continues for as long as the asshats in power want it to, the possibility that this will quite literally "be far more destructive than World war II" is not negligible.

  9. #419
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You, sir, are a fool. The world's economy has been far more thoroughly damaged by this that it could have been by nuclear weapons, and you want a fucking quantitative analysis of a bell curve, the tail of which gets here with warmer weather in a month.
    Rip, I've learned loads from your work, but you're making a mistake by quoting this Aaron Ginn piece. It is scientific garbage. It's the epidemiological equivalent of what functional training is to Starting Strength - half-understood, superficially plausible and ultimately worthless junk. It's hardly worth debunking it's so bad but just two points: it's wrong to think most epidemics follow a bell-curve of cases, and it's unlikely this thing will just go away in the summer.

  10. #420
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    121

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
  •