COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 201

starting strength gym
Page 201 of 2470 FirstFirst ... 1011511911992002012022032112513017011201 ... LastLast
Results 2,001 to 2,010 of 24692

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2001
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by SebastianA View Post
    However, the rough IFR calculation is in line with the guesses we've seen from most (honest) experts in the field, such as Johan Giesecke, who gave a brilliant interview with UnHerd on YT a couple of days ago (I'm sure someone has posted that here already). I will get back to you with published results when testing ramps up if you're interested!
    I watched that a day or two ago. It was good listening, but I wish the interviewer had pushed him harder to justify his strong opinion that 50% of people in Sweden (and UK!) have already been infected.

    He may be correct, but I would have loved to hear his reasoning.

  2. #2002
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,043

  3. #2003
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    55

    Default

    It's interesting that the two main arguments logged against the Santa Clara seroprevalence actually contradict each other. The statisticians say that the number of positives from the study fall in line with the false positive ratio of the antibody test. Therefore they argue the entire population tested could have been entirely devoid of all coronavirus antibodies and that all positives are the resultant inaccuracy of the test.

    The next point is that the testing was too selective by using Facebook. Meaning, the ads targeted an audience who may have been more likely to apply for the antibody test under the suspicion that they have already had the virus. The detractors argue that this could have artificially raised the prevalence of Covid19 antibodies in the tested population.

    My point is that these two arguments cancel each other out.

  4. #2004
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingoDeFranc View Post
    My point is that these two arguments cancel each other out.
    No. Both would erroneously inflate prevalence estimates.

  5. #2005
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,043

    Default

    I agree with Shiva about this. But my question, not answered before, is about the fact that the study shows a 50 to 85-fold increase in the number of cases -- are all of these reasonably explained away by the two arguments stated above?

  6. #2006
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    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.



    I was hoping you would understand.

    Let's try this again. I am going to provide you a video that I also found on youtube. Please feel free to call me out on why posting such a video should not be sufficient for evidence of my claims.


    YouTube

  7. #2007
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    529

    Default

    The first study's CI should look like 1-90X, which is not very useful. (Apparently they are collecting more validation data, as I hoped, so this will likely improve.)

    The second study is more promising. But right now, it's an unsubstantiated claim, not a study.

  8. #2008
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    No. Both would erroneously inflate prevalence estimates.
    I see.

  9. #2009
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrunoLawerence View Post
    Let's try this again. I am going to provide you a video that I also found on youtube. Please feel free to call me out on why posting such a video should not be sufficient for evidence of my claims.


    YouTube
    No one on this entire thread has tried to support their position by linking to a late night show host; except for you just now.

    Many of the youtube videos that have been shared here are videos of intelligent and well studied scientists, epidemiologists, and statisticians with opinions well worth taking into consideration.
    Many of these opinions just so happen to disagree with your stance. So I guess they're not 'reliable' sources according to you.

  10. #2010
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Yucaipa
    Posts
    110

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling View Post
    NY and CA are prime examples of when morons elect fascists. Which is particularly apropos when you think of names like De Blasio, Cuomo, and the daddy of fascism, Mussolini.
    Fascists, by definition, are not elected. They are self-appointed. Also, I can only speak for California but Newsom only dreams of having power as absolute as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, etc.

    As to your second suggestion, do the names Sacco and Vanzetti ring a bell? Italian-Americans are definitley not fascist by default...

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
  •