COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 197

starting strength gym
Page 197 of 2312 FirstFirst ... 971471871951961971981992072472976971197 ... LastLast
Results 1,961 to 1,970 of 23113

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1961
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,580

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    Although my opinions of Marx have not changed, I have been reading him the past couple of weeks. I do agree that we will likely see "socialism 2.0" or whatever it is. An area I disagree with is the 10 year time frame. For a moderately wealthy country, I think it could last 10 years. For the wealthiest countries per capita, I think it could last 50 years before the general rise in standard of living comes close to matching the decline due to the new system.
    I doubt poor immigrants hold much of a political opinion in absolute terms. The vote democrat, or social democrat outside of the US, because those parties give them better promises. Seems like pure market dynamics in demographic groups.

    I donít see why it would have to take 50 years, provided the new accounting system is set up properly, there may not even be much of a drop in living standards at all. There is historical precedent for large scale debt restructuring like the one we are about to see, going back to Babylon.

  2. #1962
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noah Ebner View Post
    The FAO/WHO flew Rob and I to Rome to present them a whole bunch of bullshit dressed up in some fancy-looking equations.
    Your unfortunate experience of misrepresenting research to an unwitting audience is not representative of the whole field of statistics.

    a well-designed ML/AI/Statistical experiment, at best, will tell us remarkably little about serology, epidemiology, economics, or any other application you wish to apply it to.
    Properly-conducted serology tests will give us information reliable enough to direct the course of policy. Away, it seems, from lockdowns. (I will listen to your very specific criticisms of this, not of the entire statistical enterprise).

    Those tests would be aided by someone with mathematical preparation. Yet, no such person was among the 17 authors on the Stanford paper. Considering the egregious errors, maybe no such person even read the paper, prior to it being posted. Why is that? This is very peculiar.

    FWIW, machine learning was in its infancy in 2011 when we did that research, so we were using the best tools at our disposal (itself an indictment of the always behind-the-curve nature of Statistics as a discipline).
    This is about correct use of mathematical tools, not modern sophistication. All the methods in the Stanford paper were known before Kolmogorov.

  3. #1963
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    This is once again ignoring the arguments presented by that someone and an appeal to authority.



    Yes, when you write a paper you refer to other works that prove the facts you are using. You do not refer to a person who is an expert in the field, you refer to the arguments presented in his work.

    It's fine if you want to ignore someone because you don't like his credentials, just don't use that to dismiss his claims. I hope the difference is clear.
    This is, once again, not how this works when presenting an argument. Referring to relevant citations and experts in the field is a way of providing substance for the argument you are making. This is also not something that is really subject for debate. Well, technically it is, but any arguments against this would just be silly. Even people who are experts in one field have have no idea what they are talking about in another. E.g. I don't want my medical advice coming from a lawyer, just as I don't seek out a physician for legal advice. Do you not understand why people seek out experts in fields of study when presenting an argument? Is this a bad thing? If you prefer no facts being presented in an argument and wold prefer to rely on random youtube videos for advice you have certainly come to the right corner of the internet.

    Regardless, let's talk about the merits of the specific video we are discussing. Why should I take this man's opinion as sacrosanct? Wouldn't also the posting of such a video itself be an appeal to authority. The ironic thing about the video that was posted was that one of the concerns expressed were in regards to overreaction and panic leading to the stay at home measures effects on the economy. The same type of panic also exists in the folks predicting doom/gloom regarding the economy who state the the economy is never coming back and the tinfoil hat gang who insists that the government wants to lock us in our houses forever. Would they not be panicking, creating dangers to others around them? I didn't realize that if I sat myself in front of a camera and discussed this viewpoint and later posted it on youtube exactly how much more official that viewpoint would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    This is once again ignoring the arguments presented by that someone and an appeal to authority.



    Yes, when you write a paper you refer to other works that prove the facts you are using. You do not refer to a person who is an expert in the field, you refer to the arguments presented in his work.

    It's fine if you want to ignore someone because you don't like his credentials, just don't use that to dismiss his claims. I hope the difference is clear.
    Also, why the random bolded words?

  4. #1964
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    East Haddam, Connecticut
    Posts
    109

    Default

    YouTube

    "The only measure we know will work is washing your hands is good for you and good for others when you’re in epidemic, but the rest, like border closures, school closures, social distancing, there’s almost no science behind most of these,” -Prof. Johan Giesecke

  5. #1965
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrunoLawerence View Post
    This is, once again, not how this works when presenting an argument. Referring to relevant citations and experts in the field is a way of providing substance for the argument you are making. This is also not something that is really subject for debate. Well, technically it is, but any arguments against this would just be silly. Even people who are experts in one field have have no idea what they are talking about in another. E.g. I don't want my medical advice coming from a lawyer, just as I don't seek out a physician for legal advice. Do you not understand why people seek out experts in fields of study when presenting an argument? Is this a bad thing? If you prefer no facts being presented in an argument and wold prefer to rely on random youtube videos for advice you have certainly come to the right corner of the internet.
    This is exactly how it works. Last time I checked you are citing a paper with actual content, and your citation does not say "Some expert in the field claims this to be true". I usually want a medical advice from a doctor because a doctor has the data I need with higher probability than a lawyer does. But this does not automatically disqualify a lawyer's argument on a medical subject.

    I think this is going nowhere, so I am going to drop it.

    Also, why the random bolded words?
    I was hoping you would understand.

  6. #1966
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Here's Zdogs review of the antibody test YouTube

  7. #1967
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    I was hoping you would understand.
    See what I mean?

  8. #1968
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Where does one find a known negative population to test that aspect of the antibody test?

  9. #1969
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Bruno, I'm not sure you're grasping the point of the video, and why it is relevant. Let me explain.

    There are two aspects to this pandemic. One is the lives lost (or not) as a result of policy (call this A). The other is the livelihoods/freedom lost (or not) as a result of the same policy (call this B).

    In figuring out any policy response to this epidemic, both A and B must be weighed against each other. This is how public policy works: it involves a trade-off between public safety and economic/social activity and individual freedoms. To not realize this is foolish. You see that we allow cars on the road, right? Despite the fact that car crashes sometimes kill people. That's the cost-benefit of A vs. B in action. Do you understand this?

    Now the video. It features a distinguished jurist from the UK, and is meant to illustrate just how damaging a (potentially overstated) existential might be to our individual liberty, our freedom and our livelihood -- in other words B, as above. As a distinguished jurist, he absolutely has the expertise to weigh-in on the matter.

  10. #1970
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    476

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    (Tentative) good news: the LA county seroprevalence study (with many of the same authors) is more numerically convincing. However, only their abstract is available.

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
  •