COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 190

starting strength gym
Page 190 of 2479 FirstFirst ... 901401801881891901911922002402906901190 ... LastLast
Results 1,891 to 1,900 of 24784

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1891
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    533

    Default

    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    Not to be mean, Rip, but I donít care for the video - statistical learning theory is my job. I think there are 2 show-stopping issues with the paper. As you can see from the surrounding comments, other statisticians have identified these same issues.

  2. #1892
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,099

    Default

    Fair enough, Shiva. But they are claiming an IFR of 50-85 times lower that previously modeled. Is 100% of that difference explained away by your reservations? See my point? You guys said it was terribly TERRIBLY infectious even while asymptomatic, so why would be surprising that everybody has already been infected?

  3. #1893
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    Is this a serious argument? Do you have a background in epidemiology? Maybe each of us should state his academic credentials before posting?
    Did I cover it quite a bit in my studies? Yes. Am I claiming to be an expert? No, and I am not pretending to be. However, if I am going to post information it would be far more conductive to cite the recommendations based on actual experts, as opposed to just random people. As I said in the previous post, it is an easy back and forth where each of us could cite random people who support our viewpoint. This doesn't get us anywhere now does it?

  4. #1894
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    533

    Default

    The first issue is: their dataset has only 50/3300 positives. It is possible (within the 95% CI) that all of those are false positives, i.e. there is zero seroprevalence in Santa Clara. I identified the reason why zero seroprevalence escapes their reported CIs - basically, a dubious modeling assumption.

    The second issue is a seeming mathematical error, which also casts doubt on their CIs.

    Unlike others, Iím not out for the authorsí blood. They can fix this. But, as is, I donít think those 50-85x conclusions are justified, and the whole thing could be a wash.

  5. #1895
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    Further inspection of the Stanford paper reveals some more major statistical flaws - see the discussions here and here.

    These flaws can potentially be fixed. They need to validate the specificity of the antibody test on a much larger sample of known negatives (which should be easy to obtain en masse), and correct their computation of the final CIs.
    Thanks. Very interesting. Looking forward to reading through Gelman's analysis -- he's particularly fastidious about these things, so I wonder what the implications are.

  6. #1896
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You guys getting tired of this imbecile yet? He's not paying any attention to the topic being discussed, and is no longer making a contribution. Say the word...

    You genuinely did not understand that asymptomatic individuals can in fact carry disease and spread it. This would be the very definition of "typhoid mary", which was what I was referencing in my previous post to someone else, and where you felt you needed to interject your opinion.

  7. #1897
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    The first issue is: their dataset has only 50/3300 positives. It is possible (within the 95% CI) that all of those are false positives, i.e. there is zero seroprevalence in Santa Clara. I identified the reason why zero seroprevalence escapes their reported CIs - basically, a dubious modeling assumption.

    The second issue is a seeming mathematical error, which also casts doubt on their CIs.

    Unlike others, I’m not out for the authors’ blood. They can fix this. But, as is, I don’t think those 50-85x conclusions are justified, and the whole thing could be a wash.
    I see your point. But: Governments destroyed the economy of the world on the basis of models so shitty that they have been revised downward by orders of magnitude AFTER the damage was done. But now we have to wait for perfect analysis before we even begin the process of trying to unfuck that which they have probably already irrevocably destroyed. Does this study in Santa Clara County not even challenge the basic assumptions? Imagine my frustration.

  8. #1898
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    No, David, at best he's about 105 with a large dose of Dunning-Kruger. He's an LVN somewhere, who only sees one point of view, even though we have tried to get him to read some other shit.
    You don't appear to read anything other than propaganda websites and right wing blogs. My suspicion is that a lot of the country will start to open up at the end of the month. Other places that are current hotspots will take longer. My hope is that we have proper testing so we don't end right back here again.

  9. #1899
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    1,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrunoLawerence View Post
    You genuinely did not understand that asymptomatic individuals can in fact carry disease and spread it. This would be the very definition of "typhoid mary", which was what I was referencing in my previous post to someone else, and where you felt you needed to interject your opinion.
    How do you not recognize rhetoric, and how have you not extrapolated that high rates of asymptomatic carriers completely negated the "stay-at-home" course of action?

  10. #1900
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    999

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    In the next year or two, you're gonna see government spending at levels that you previously thought were completely impossible. You will also likely see government interventions like nationalizing sectors of economy, that the Anglo-American world can't even begin to fathom.
    I think you are right.

    The government has taken a small stake in the airlines in return for the recent $25 billion loan. Education has already been 90% nationalized. Healthcare is already 50% nationalized. The monetary and banking systems are semi-nationalized. The housing market is semi-nationalized through loan requirements, regulations, immigration policy and government interventions. Hell, we even already have state-run media, like NPR and PBS. This nationalization has been increasing gradually for over a century. Many industries are only one or two steps from full nationalization.

    The wealth gap and demographics gap between older and newer generations in the US will determine the outcome domestically:

    On one hand, older generations disagree with socialism, share common values and remember the failures of communism.....but have been willing to tolerate gradual nationalization schemes, because they were financially very comfortable.

    On the other, more idealistic younger generations have experienced unopposed indoctrination and a large admixture of diverse populations from socialist countries who are unwilling to culturally assimilate..... but, because they now realize they will always be living as poor men in an increasingly crowded, unfriendly, uncomfortable country, they will not tolerate the schemes.

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
  •