starting strength gym
Page 156 of 3004 FirstFirst ... 561061461541551561571581662062566561156 ... LastLast
Results 1,551 to 1,560 of 30039

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1551
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    418

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    South Dakota as far as I can tell has had the most reasonable response to this whole thing.

    “South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) announced plans to launch a statewide trial Monday to formally test the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine”
    South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem announces statewide hydroxychloroquine trial to formally test its effectiveness against COVID-19 - TheBlaze

    And her response to people calling for her to lockdown the state:
    Noem maintained that the government has no role in keeping citizens locked in their homes, arguing it is instead individuals’ personal responsibility to wisely use the “expansive freedoms” granted under the federal and state constitutions to follow health officials’ guidelines.

    “The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety,” Noem said. “They are free to exercise their rights to work, to worship and to play or to even stay home or to conduct social distancing.”

    That’s a hell of a leader.

  2. #1552
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I don't believe you.
    You can believe what you want, but I still don't live in NYC.

    Regardless -- enlighten me: since you apparently longer believe that the IFR is 0.4% and/or that herd immunity is the way to go, what *is* your reasoning here? What's your best estimate of the number of deaths you might expect from an *unchecked* outbreak, and what is it based on? And please, for the love of God, don't use any more Medium articles or blog posts as your prime supporting material.

    Incidentally -- I am no fan at all of the surveillance society we're all in (well before this outbreak). And I think it's fucking awful what this pandemic is doing to the economy -- by which I mean small business and workers. As I've already said, I think the state (which is all of us) should step in and do whatever is necessary to help the people and businesses that are most affected. And I agree that the way this is actually happening -- *especially* in the US -- is a complete shit show. But as I also keep saying, unless you actually have a viable alternative, bitching about the public health interventions is a bit pointless. And *wishing* that this thing is just a bad flu is NOT a viable alternative. Which is why I keep coming back to the numbers and facts.

  3. #1553
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Murphysboro, IL
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnsonville View Post
    South Dakota as far as I can tell has had the most reasonable response to this whole thing.

    “South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) announced plans to launch a statewide trial Monday to formally test the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine”
    South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem announces statewide hydroxychloroquine trial to formally test its effectiveness against COVID-19 - TheBlaze

    And her response to people calling for her to lockdown the state:
    Noem maintained that the government has no role in keeping citizens locked in their homes, arguing it is instead individuals’ personal responsibility to wisely use the “expansive freedoms” granted under the federal and state constitutions to follow health officials’ guidelines.

    “The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety,” Noem said. “They are free to exercise their rights to work, to worship and to play or to even stay home or to conduct social distancing.”

    That’s a hell of a leader.
    Be all of that as it may, if she decides to run for higher government office at the Federal level, either legislative or executive, she will get the same treatment Palin got by the media and dems. But I repeat myself.

  4. #1554
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    980

    Default

    And yes, of course the current fatalities are far lower than that expected for an unchecked outbreak.
    How do you know what an unchecked outbreak would look like in order to make the comparison?

  5. #1555
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    It is tiresome. You keep citing numbers in support of your position that are just blatantly wrong. Not a little off. Just completely and utterly wrong by large factors.
    Speaking of...

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    FFS: you already have as many deaths *right now* as in a fairly standard flu season.
    Not sure where you're getting your data or what you consider "a fairly standard flu season", but today's CDC count is 21,942. The 95% lower bound of deaths from the flu has been higher than that for 8 of the previous 10 flu seasons including the current one. The mean estimated deaths for 2010-2019 is just over 33,000. That does not seem to support your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    And we're *at best* nearing the peak of the outbreak.
    Again, not sure what data you're looking at. The worst day as reported by the CDC was back on April 6th (reported on the 7th) with 3154 deaths. The following days were 690, 1942, 1900, 1920, 1970, and 1456 as of noon today. So *at best*, we hit the peak a week ago and are trending downwards. I'm not saying that's the case, but that would in fact be *best*.

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    How on Earth are you still making this argument that it's just a little bit worse than the flu?
    Because the data doesn't exist to confidently claim otherwise, so we fail to reject the null. Of course, everyone who supports lockdown will claim that it has been successful and that's why we haven't seen 2.2 million deaths in the US. Because they have to claim that.

    Interestingly, the deaths in Sweden (the one that didn't lock everything down) look like this for the past few days: 114, 96, 106, 77, 17, 12.

    As a slight aside, check out how the Washington Post covers Sweden.

    They do everything possible to make it seem like the Swedes are dropping like flies. Their disingenuous coverage is actually quite sickening, even for WaPo.

  6. #1556
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Not sure where you're getting your data
    He's jerking it out of his New York City ass.

  7. #1557
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    You can believe what you want, but I still don't live in NYC.
    .
    In which State do you live Lazygun?

  8. #1558
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnsonville View Post
    the government has no role in keeping citizens locked in their homes, arguing it is instead individuals’ personal responsibility to wisely use the “expansive freedoms” granted under the federal and state constitutions to follow health officials’ guidelines.

    “The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety,” Noem said. “They are free to exercise their rights to work, to worship and to play or to even stay home or to conduct social distancing.”
    And that’s the gist of the issue... the defining differences.
    Personal responsibility,
    vs
    We need to do it for you.

  9. #1559
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    It is tiresome. You keep citing numbers in support of your position that are just blatantly wrong. Not a little off. Just completely and utterly wrong by large factors.

    And yes, of course the current fatalities are far lower than that expected for an unchecked outbreak. Do you think that could have something to do with the fact that, I don't know, it's not unchecked? As indicated by, you know, the very interventions you are so vociferously complaining about?

    FFS: you already have as many deaths *right now* as in a fairly standard flu season. And we're *at best* nearing the peak of the outbreak. And that is *with* massive lock-downs implemented all over the place. How on Earth are you still making this argument that it's just a little bit worse than the flu?

    It's your prerogative to think that what's happening is an over-reaction. And I know you believe that we're all just one small step away from North Korea. And by all means argue for the secession of Texas. All fine. But don't keep making up facts to justify your position along the way. That's just bullshit. I thought you were better than that.
    So, you still believe that Sweden is nowhere near its peak?

    Sweden Coronavirus: 10,948 Cases and 919 Deaths - Worldometer

  10. #1560
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    95

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Not sure where you're getting your data or what you consider "a fairly standard flu season", but today's CDC count is 21,942. The 95% lower bound of deaths from the flu has been higher than that for 8 of the previous 10 flu seasons including the current one. The mean estimated deaths for 2010-2019 is just over 33,000. That does not seem to support your position.
    I explicitly linked to the CDC data in my original post on this, where I used the 7 most recent years for which complete (non-preliminary) data is available (2010/11 - 2016/17). The number of flu deaths was about the same or lower than the current number of COVID-19 deaths in 2 out of 7 of those seasons (2011/12: 12,000; 2015/16: 23,000). That makes the current COVID-19 numbers "pretty typical" for a flu season in my book -- certainly not atypical. And what the hell? I cited the actual numbers in my original post, so if I was trying to mislead anybody, that would be a pretty stupid way to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Again, not sure what data you're looking at. The worst day as reported by the CDC was back on April 6th (reported on the 7th) with 3154 deaths. The following days were 690, 1942, 1900, 1920, 1970, and 1456 as of noon today. So *at best*, we hit the peak a week ago and are trending downwards. I'm not saying that's the case, but that would in fact be *best*.
    Where are you getting this from? Could you link to the CDC site you are using? The de-facto standard for COVID-19 stats is the JHU collection, available at COVID-19/csse_covid_19_data at master * CSSEGISandData/COVID-19 * GitHub
    I just pulled the latest data from this, in which the maximum number of daily deaths is 2108 occurring on April 10. The Worldometer data set shows a peak in daily deaths on the same date, at 2035 deaths. And, of course, the apparent drop in the two later days is almost certainly due to incomplete reporting in the most recent data. So I don't see any evidence at all that the peak was last week. Do you? If there is something hopeful, it's that the number of new daily *cases* may be plateauing, and those should lead the number of deaths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Because the data doesn't exist to confidently claim otherwise, so we fail to reject the null. Of course, everyone who supports lockdown will claim that it has been successful and that's why we haven't seen 2.2 million deaths in the US. Because they have to claim that.
    First, Sweden vs Norway shows that interventions do something. You quoted the Swedish daily deaths -- the highest number there (114) is only slightly lower than the *total* number of deaths in Norway so far (134). (Incidentally, I'd be extremely wary of trusting any data from the last 3 days or so, just because they always get updated.) Second, everybody keeps saying "the models were wrong" -- but that just shows that nobody bothers actually reading the papers. I did. The Imperial College paper from which the 2.2M estimate for an unchecked outbreak came from, also *explicitly* presented a wide variety of scenarios *with interventions*. And the numbers for those scenarios are pretty well aligned with those we're seeing. You can easily check this for yourself. Third, the IFR estimate spacediver cited from German data (0.4%) is in line with other estimates. In particular, random testing in Iceland shows that about 0.3% to 0.8% of their population are infected, i.e. between about 1000 and 3000 people. They have had 8 deaths so far in Iceland, suggesting an IFR between 0.3% and 0.8%. Small numbers, but consistent. Given a reasonably well established IFR, and the fact that herd immunity happens at ~70% infected, what logic would lets you assume you would NOT have a large number of deaths?

    Just as a thought experiment, suppose that some hypothetical disease was really as bad or worse than people like me say COVID-19 is. Epidemiologists tell you that you can dramatically reduce the number of deaths by doing something unpopular. Are you saying you should *never* do because you couldn't ever prove that it was your unpopular action that reduced the number of deaths? I'm a huge fan of randomized controlled trials, but this doesn't seem a good time or place for one.

Posting Permissions

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