COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 198

starting strength gym
Page 198 of 2312 FirstFirst ... 981481881961971981992002082482986981198 ... LastLast
Results 1,971 to 1,980 of 23113

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1971
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Yucaipa
    Posts
    110

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    I didn't say it was a feature, more like a bug. Maybe one of those bugs that are really features.
    I like you Jovan. You've actually done the heavy lifting. To quote the man himself: "Every mode of production contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction." Its been a while since I read Vol. II but, iirc, there is a pretty lengthy discussion of debt accumulation in the section on fictitious capital.

  2. #1972
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    Have you ever been to a gym? Do you advocate PE for school children? Movies? Weddings ? Rock concerts? Subways? Air travel?

    If yes to any of the above, why was it ok then and not now? Specifically, what has changed and by how much?
    Because there's outbreak of a novel coronavirus that no one has/had an immunity to Barry.
    10,000 dead New Yorkers..... probably will be 20,000 by the time this is all said and done. No one is prepared to just let a bunch of old people die apparently.

    I do think what's going on is a bit of an over-reaction the way it's been applied through the US. But if one was to implement "smart lockdowns" in higher(eat) risk communities, now of in the future, public gyms will be one of the first things to go right after large sports events, etc.

  3. #1973
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George Christiansen View Post
    Simple summary of why the Stanford study is almost certainly providing HIGHER numbers than reality.

    YouTube

    I watched that this morning. Good video, but he does get at least one thing wrong. At the 5 min mark, he says that out of the 30 negative samples they tested, all 30 indeed tested negative. So zdogg is correct that the (point estimate) of the false positive rate is 0.

    But there are two issues here:

    1) this was based on internal testing. When you combine the manufacturer's testing with the internal testing (to increase the power of your estimate), you get an estimate of ~0.005 for the false positive rate (0.5%).
    2) Whether your sample size of actual negatives is 30 (internal testing) or 401 (combining internal with manufacturer testing), the confidence intervals are large enough to be extremely problematic.

    This is explained beautifully here (so far I've only read part 1, which deals with the confidence interval issue):

    Peer Review of “COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California”

    They show that in their internal calibration, 30 out of 30 known negatives tested negative. In the manufacturer’s calibration, however, 369 out of 371 known negatives tested negative. If we follow the authors and just combine these, they had 2 false positives out of 401 total. As Jeffrey Spence observed, this is actually a high enough rate to potentially mess up the whole study.
    ...

    This is just a sketch of an argument. You can throw a lot of math at this problem if you want to make it complicated. But at this point we’re breaking a butterfly on a wheel. The only raw inputs after all were “2” and “401”. And the main conclusion is that we don’t have high confidence that the false positive rate is low enough.

    TLDR: because the authors reported 2 false positives out of 401 tested samples, there is a really wide confidence interval on what our actual false positive rate could be, and it could be significantly higher than 1.2%. This could account for many if not all of the 50 reported positives in their study.

    This is one possible failure mode.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post

    In this regard, the Stanford study just wasn’t well-planned. It is the first of its kind, a study with major policy implications, maybe changing the world economy. To validate the specificity of the brand-new antibody test which has never been used before, they obtain a total of...30 negative samples???
    Yea this is disappointing, and it may happen more often that we're aware, given that these errors, if they were to occur, would be usually sorted out in peer review.

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingoDeFranc View Post
    Here's the full interview with Dr. Loannidis YouTube

    He's got a good answer for all of it.
    Started this earlier, looking forward to it.

  4. #1974
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Hello!

    First time poster on this forum. I'm from Sweden and just thought I'd offer a short update on our covid situation; As you know, we've had quite relaxed lockdown measures in place here. In Stockholm, where the disease hit the worst, epidemiological modeling and initial anti-body testing suggests that at least 30% of the population has been infected. This gives us an estimated 292,222 infected (Sthlm pop. is 974,073), with 944 fatalities, and a preliminary IFR of about 0.3%. On the news today, the focus has been quickly shifted away from the panicked counting of the dead to geriatric patients being released back home, with happy doctors cheering on. Do with this information what you like. Best, /s

  5. #1975
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I’m bummed out... I’m feeling like what’s the freakin’ point? The USA (and other countries) are ruined beyond repair.

    Citizens encouraged to snitch on other citizens... politicians and the media lying regardless of the “side” they’re on. Can’t socialize, let alone grocery shop..

    Sucks.

  6. #1976
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    (Tentative) good news: the LA county seroprevalence study (with many of the same authors) is more numerically convincing. However, only their abstract is available.
    The most surprising aspect of this study is the use of the classification “non-binary.” How dare a scientific endeavor classify people as whether or not they are genetically male or female. Political correctness is far more important in California than actual science it would seem.

  7. #1977
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SebastianA View Post
    Hello!

    First time poster on this forum. I'm from Sweden and just thought I'd offer a short update on our covid situation; As you know, we've had quite relaxed lockdown measures in place here. In Stockholm, where the disease hit the worst, epidemiological modeling and initial anti-body testing suggests that at least 30% of the population has been infected. This gives us an estimated 292,222 infected (Sthlm pop. is 974,073), with 944 fatalities, and a preliminary IFR of about 0.3%. On the news today, the focus has been quickly shifted away from the panicked counting of the dead to geriatric patients being released back home, with happy doctors cheering on. Do with this information what you like. Best, /s
    What are your thoughts about it being in the trenches?

  8. #1978
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SebastianA View Post
    Hello!

    ...I'm from Sweden and just thought I'd offer a short update on our covid situation; As you know, we've had quite relaxed lockdown measures in place here. In Stockholm, where the disease hit the worst, epidemiological modeling and initial anti-body testing suggests that at least 30% of the population has been infected. ...
    Link to study? This would be ground-breaking.

    As Shiva and Spacediver have correctly pointed out, unfortunately the Stanford seroprevalence study is simply not powered enough to correctly determine the population prevalence at this time. The link in Shiva's post to Gelman's blog lays out the analysis quite nicely.

    [Separately: I echo Rip's frustration that we didn't think nearly this hard when shutting down the whole world. Whatever. Too late now.]

  9. #1979
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulcrum View Post
    Because there's outbreak of a novel coronavirus that no one has/had an immunity to Barry.
    10,000 dead New Yorkers..... probably will be 20,000 by the time this is all said and done. No one is prepared to just let a bunch of old people die apparently.
    You understand that NYC is an outlier, right? Even there, it's tailing off: COVID-19: Data - NYC Health

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulcrum View Post
    No one is prepared to just let a bunch of old people die apparently.
    You seem to understand the demographics. In the future, no one may be prepared to let a bunch of old people join their gym. If this becomes the case, it will be very sad, because they desperately need the strength training.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    Where does one find a known negative population to test that aspect of the antibody test?
    Preserved specimens from pre-SARS-Cov2. Ioannidis talks about it.

  10. #1980
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    94

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Fulcrum View Post
    not sure if serious ^.
    I'm about pro exercise as anybody, but if you can't see the problem with a bunch of people frequenting to a centralized location, sharing/touching a bunch of barbell equipment, huffing and puffing all about in the same space, and then dispersing back into society to go about their business....well, I don't know what to say.

    Sure healthily fit people probably have a better immune response to things like this.
    But that isn't earned in the short term.
    Its not like a person is going to make their 'co-mobidities' disappear within a few workout sessions to have a better chance fight off The Conora-Aides.

    Public gyms are pretty much a worse case scenario.
    They should've been the first thing to shut down; and will be the first thing to shut down next corona-season again.
    I’m very serious about these things. I trust that people with co morbidities would have the sense to not present themselves at any gatherings of people, for exercise purposes or otherwise.

    There are ways and means of keeping gyms open, for example, off the top of my head, allowing no new members to join during the lockdown period, reducing the likelihood of a surge of bored individuals who can’t frequent their usual bars and restaurants.

    My gym (I can’t speak for others) was practically empty 2 weeks in, before it was even closed, because some took the risk to train but most didn’t. In some respects gyms should perhaps have the same cleaning protocols as hospitals; after all they are, as I have explained, part of the palette of preventative medicine, which government has neglected in favour of big pharma and it’s pill for everything solutions.
    Answer me this question (and this isn’t just to do with Coronavirus but touches on broader policy issues); do you think that if there was a drive for preventative medicine (diet, exercise etc) that so many people would have died in this pandemic in western nations? The government clearly doesn’t because it’s quite clear that their approach to health and well-being is based upon what you can read in Rips ‘Exercise Government Style’ article.

    My argument is that we can no longer see gyms as luxuries. In our increasingly sedentary city dwelling existence, gyms have become our substitute caveman activity, having the potential to equip us with the tools we need to live healthier lives.

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
  •