COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 23

starting strength gym
Page 23 of 2470 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533731235231023 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 24692

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    26

    Default

    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    YouTube

    Make damn sure you watch this.
    Interesting. But what I don't understand is why do we have so many people suffering with pneumonia such that they need to be assisted with ventilators. This is not a normal flu to me. Then we can discuss about how the media handled the situation (especially here) creating panic between the population especially the older people. Every day there is the count of the victims, the infected, the healed. Every virologist has his own idea about the dangeurosness of this virus and so the confusion reigns. A lot of fake news also spreading on the net. So, basically, nobody knows shit about what is really happening but the fact that you have to stay at home (until when, who knows?).

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Village of Afton, Virginia
    Posts
    947

    Default

    I've lightly playing with comparing the seasonal flu with the Chinese virus. Here's some disorganized bullets:

    Schools are having to close, Oh mygod!!! Well, actually, all over the US, we regularly close schools during the seasonal flu, but except for local news, you seldom hear about it. Before the CV came to the public's eye, Virginia had already been closing schools in response to this year's flu season. Apparently it's been a harsher one then normal.

    Flu deaths vs Chinese Virus. While at first, if you made the mistake of listening to the WHO, CV appeared to be a super killer, but if you compare flu rates with CV, they're about the same. The difference is in the fact we're accustom to the flu deaths and the CV is new (Novel) and been made scary by the media. Hell, some years it's estimated by the CDC, that in the US, as many as 61,000 people died from the flu and it doesn't even get notice. We're at over 18,000 this year, but the season isn't over yet and we won't know the CDC numbers for a year. 100 deaths CV and we're in a state of panic. Kind of a disproportionate response.

    Italy. According to an article in the International journal of Infectious Diseases, November 2019. 24,981 deaths were attributable to influenza during the season 2016/17. A quote from the summary page “The observed excess of deaths is not completely unexpected, given the high number of fragile very old subjects living in Italy.” Yes, old sick people are particularly susceptible to the Chinese Virus, as they are to the flu.

    The only real difference I see between the flu and Chinese Virus, is the CV appears to be more contagious. How much, don't know and no one will know until the dust is settled or civilization has collapsed. Which reminds me, I need more ammo, because about the only thing still open is the gun range and I might as well get in some practice for the coming apocalyptic

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    I'm really sorry, but this is just wrong. Confidence intervals of the sort you are describing are routinely used in cases where *random statistical errors* dominate the uncertainties. For example, if you find 100 new cases in 1 day, there is an unavoidable and completely random uncertainty on the true rate being 100 per day of +/- 10 per day (at 68% confidence). But for things like what is being modelled here, it is *always* going to be the *systematic errors* that dominate the true uncertainties. They are exactly the sort of things you criticize later, i.e. the types of assumptions the modeller has to make about all manner of things. And the only way to assess *those* uncertainties is to run grids of models covering a range of different assumptions. Which is precisely what they did in this report. Hence phrases in my post about "the most optimistic mitigation scenario". To be clear, the uncertainties in this sort of modelling are always going to be big. But analysis like this one do the best possible job of exploring and accounting for them.
    I understand the difference, I just donít agree. When I look at the data from the CDC on past flu seasons, the 95% uncertainty intervals are pretty wide. Like, 20 million cases wide, and thatís on years old data. I just donít see that uncertainty reflected in the paper, but maybe I missed it.
    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    Again, I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but this is just a serious misunderstanding of the data. As I made explicitly clear in my post, the 5-day (approximately) doubling time applies only in the exponential growth phase. By using global numbers you are mixing up China, for example, with the rest of the world. Now China alone contributed around 80,000 of the cases you mention, and the case load in China was basically completely flat over this period. And that's because they are *not* in the exponential growth phase anymore. As I said in my post, they *have* taken the drastic steps that are needed to make suppression work, at least for now, i.e. at least for the short term. So subtract China's number off and look at the rest of the world. Then, going by your own numbers, you've got about 40,000 cases on 3/11, moving up to about 90,000 five days later. Which is more than doubling.
    OK, so letís look at the US using the data from the CDC (for whatever reason, I keep getting an error when I try to link the page). As an aside, can anyone make sense of the way they present their data? The ďat-a-glanceĒ total cases is 4226, the ďunder investigationĒ is 3752, the sum of the confirmed cases by date is 1295 or 1013 depending on how you read the footnoteÖ if someone on my team presented data to me this way, Iíd tell them to take another stab at it and come back when they were really ready. Iíll use the ďCOVID-19 cases in the United States by date of illness onsetĒ data until 3/9/20, since they say that illnesses after that may not be reported yet. The last 9 daysí worth of data show perfectly linear growth. As in, R squared of 0.9994 linear. Are we just not in the exponential growth phase yet? Weíre over two months in, doe the paper say when it starts? I couldnít find it. If you look at the WHO SITREP data by region, the Western Pacific does not seem to be growing exponentially. Neither does South-East Asia. The Eastern Mediterranean might not either.
    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    This is precisely why I think it's dangerous for all of us to think we know better than those stupid experts. (And to be clear, I'm not an expert in epidemiology -- I just happen to do a lot of modelling and statistics in my area of research also.)
    I donít think I know better, I just have different biases.
    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    Hopefully you'll at least agree that your point about the "especially egregious" last point is just factually wrong. And I'm not going to argue with you about the other things, because that is *precisely* the sort of thing that I'm pretty sure they know more about than you or me. And, again, they did explore a wide range of different models. So I guess the question is really to you: whatever quibble you have about whatever detailed assumption, do you have a clear and compelling reason to think it would completely invalidate their conclusions?
    No, I do not agree that itís factually wrong based on what I typed above. As far as their conclusions, my point is that there is enough uncertainty that they should not be taken as gospel truth when making major policy decisions.
    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    Second, remember that in the most optimistic mitigation scenario in the paper, hospitals were overwhelmed by a factor 8 at peak. So even if you reduced that peak by a significant factor (which would be great!), you would *still* overwhelm the health services. And again that's in the most *optimistic* mitigation model. Would that be OK?
    Iíll admit to not understanding how they came to this conclusion. In the US weíve had an estimated 490,561 hospitalizations due to the flu already. Itís not clear to me why COVID-19 will overwhelm the system when the flu hasnít already, but Iíd need to dig into the paper more deeply.
    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    And what it suggests is that you are severely underestimating the risk.
    Or they are severely overestimating risk. Each has some non-zero probability of being the case.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    YouTube

    Make damn sure you watch this.
    Very long-winded way of saying what has been said many times, on this forum and elsewhere: until we have widespread testing, we don't have a true number for the number of cases, and can't calculate an accurate case/fatality ratio. And that's a key # to answer the question of "how bad is this bug?" And without knowing how bad it is, the media and government response is based on imperfect forecasting (and confounded by political and economic agendas) and cannot be exactly right. We can assume we have an upper end of the possible fatality rate range at maybe 3-5% by looking at populations that have been tested, but that number will only come down as asymptomatic carriers are found. This will require testing large numbers of asymptomatic people, which we cannot do yet, in the US at least, because of limitations on the availability of tests. Some estimates are much lower and some are even much higher.

    If I had to place money on it, I'd say the fatality rate will settle at around 1%. This is about 10x the usual rate for the flu, which kills a lot of people, so it's still pretty bad. And the rate will be higher among vulnerable populations and lower among the young and healthy, of course.

    Just like most of life, we have to make big decisions based on limited, imperfect information. The question for later will not be "did we over or under-react?" It will be "did we make the best decision based on the available information, and did we do all we could to get that information?"

    Is 1% (or whatever it turns out to be) bad enough to shut the country down for a month? That's debatable. So, carry on with the debate.

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Piece of advice: don't overtrain during an epidemic.

    I've had bad flu once and another time a terrible sinus infection (my first) when I've tried to do 3 days/week intermediate alongside other taxing physical activities (e.g. boxing). Leave something in the tank for your immune system. I'm 53, so this advice is directed definitely towards my peers but everyone else should watch out, too.

    If you're doing NLP, don't do anything else other than sit, stand, stroll, sleep and procreate.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    YouTube

    Make damn sure you watch this.
    I watched it. While compelling, there was a pretty significant flaw in his argument. The main flaw being that he is seeming to say that all corona viruses are created equal (talked about historical rates of corona virus deaths). They arenít. SARS had a mortality rate of 15%, and MERSí was even higher. What people seem to miss frequently (not saying thatís the case with that particular gentleman) is that there is an entire family of viruses under that corona virus umbrella. Each and every one behaves differently than the others. The appropriate response for one wonít necessarily be the same as another.

    The argument he made that did make sense to me is that we wonít know how dangerous this current version is until all is said and done. That being said, I donít think that any rational person could argue that we should let a fire burn until we see how bad it was going to be instead of doing what we can to stop the flames from spreading. Mass hysteria isnít useful, but neither is sitting around and doing nothing.

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Jax, FL
    Posts
    993

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    YouTube

    Make damn sure you watch this.
    I'm not the smartest guy, so I wanna make sure I got the key takeaways.
    -The virus was first discovered to exist in Wuhan, but it could very well have existed before and been around all over.
    -Mortality rate statistics are calculated only based on people who test positive and die. It is highly possible people are just dying of other things, while carrying this coronavirus, which they may even just be catching in the hospital while sick with the actually lethal thing.
    -There are many scientists hungry for cultural relevance and influence, as well as getting grant money, and are using this as an opportunity to get these things by getting politicians scared and reacting.

    Anything I missed?

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tallison View Post
    Have I followed your logic there, Tex?

    If the readers of your board cannot see through the ridiculous leaps in logic and the tired king-has-no-clothes 4chan conspiracy talk on this video, you deserve each other.
    It's not my logic, Herr Tallison. Did you like this one? Has Cornavirus Been Here… Since Last Year!? - Justin Hart - Medium

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    I'm not the smartest guy, so I wanna make sure I got the key takeaways.
    -The virus was first discovered to exist in Wuhan, but it could very well have existed before and been around all over.
    -Mortality rate statistics are calculated only based on people who test positive and die. It is highly possible people are just dying of other things, while carrying this coronavirus, which they may even just be catching in the hospital while sick with the actually lethal thing.
    -There are many scientists hungry for cultural relevance and influence, as well as getting grant money, and are using this as an opportunity to get these things by getting politicians scared and reacting.

    Anything I missed?
    That's a pretty good summary. It bears some resemblance to the HIV/AIDS "epidemic in this respect.

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,166

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    It's not my logic, Herr Tallison. Did you like this one? Has Cornavirus Been Here… Since Last Year!? - Justin Hart - Medium
    I'm really strongly suspecting I've had it already, as have my parents. I had something that lines up perfectly with the description of the "normal" course of this disease's symptoms last year. Dry cough, fever, and then finally coughing up some bloody sputum toward the end. My parents got it too after that, my dad was pretty bad for more than a week. Everyone got over it though. I think it maybe took me out of the gym for a total of one workout. I wonder what public perception will be like after the celebrities who tested positive like Tom Hanks and Idris Elba go through its full course. It's already sounding like Hanks hasn't really been too bothered by it.

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
  •