COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 205

starting strength gym
Page 205 of 2376 FirstFirst ... 1051551952032042052062072152553057051205 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,050 of 23756

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2041
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    Don't bother engaging him. Bruno is just trolling the discussion. He's allegedly an LVN, but my suspicion is that he's a college kid whose first language isn't English.
    I've kind of had a similar hunch for a while. I have never in my adult life seen someone pluralize "PPE" into "PPEs" as he repeatedly has here.

  2. #2042
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    62

    Default

    All-cause excess mortality does indeed seem to be higher right now:

    25,000 Missing Deaths: Tracking the True Toll of the Coronavirus Crisis - The New York Times

    I see figures like the above, and then the lockdowns seem reasonable. Then I look at unemployment numbers, and can't help but wonder if the trade-off is worth it.

    What's a principled way to evaluate each alternative?

  3. #2043
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,554

    Default

    Note that "New York City" is listed in the table. How about Wichita Falls? How about the rest of the country?

    Here's the latest NYC data: COVID-19: Data - NYC Health

  4. #2044
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Jax, FL
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    This is wrong. Sweden has been implementing physical distancing measures. The difference is that they are voluntary and not as intense as most other places.

    Sweden would be doing even better had they more aggressively protected vulnerable populations (e.g. nursing homes).
    The difference is they chose not destroy their economy over 2,000 deaths. They have acknowledged that they need to do better with vulnerable populations but also that the severe measures that are destroying national economies, in their estimation, cannot be justified by the current position of the crises. In simple terms, a balanced perspective of needs across their populace.

  5. #2045
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    419

    Default Don't you think they will want to get up and running full steam quickly...

    Quote Originally Posted by sethiroth95 View Post
    Thanks for the encouraging words. I reasoned that being young and inexperienced comes with its own hassles and expenses that employers wouldn't want to deal with during these times. But perhaps you're right and young people like me will be favored more.

    However, I don't want to succeed at someone else's expense. I hope older workers don't have it rough either.
    So they will want their current employees back so they don't lose any time...

    But it is a good point to see how this might affect our overall economy in unforeseen ways

  6. #2046
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Note that "New York City" is listed in the table. How about Wichita Falls?
    You've had two corona19 deaths Rip.

    Two.

    Better be careful, if you have one more death, that'll be a 50% increase in total deaths !

    According to my modelling, your whole county will cease to exist by Dec. 2020.

  7. #2047
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Yucaipa
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    How do you reckon?

    The CIs are large enough that we have no fucking clue about the prevalence based on this study. The study provides hardly any useful information at all.
    Technically speaking, you are correct; however, I'm being a bit generous and assuming the actual results likely fall somewhere within the median of this interval, resulting in a statistically significant (or at least not non-significant) 'increase' in prevalence. I say 'increase' in air quotes because this is the first empirical study of its kind, so we don't really know if it marks an increase because the only baseline we have to go from comes from modeling, which is the only cancer worse than vanilla statistical analysis--just ask Shiva.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    Rip, Noah is not correct. I've explained why, and don't care to explain further, since a 2nd version of the paper will soon address the shortcomings.
    You did no such thing. Rip asked this question 3 times and you ducked it every single time and here again you fail to cite this alleged explanation. These are what are called 'weasel words'. I change my mind; you now work for Fox News, not the NYT.

    I've laid out a coherent argument for why I think prevalence is higher than previously assumed above. Until you can counter with the same, I am correct and you are not. Playground polemics are sooooo much fun...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    CIs are important precisely when sample sizes are small. Maybe your papers were published with grim mathematical errors, but this one received scrutiny and is being fixed.
    Important to anal pedants absolutely. (Incidentally, anal fixation is a universal prerequisite for statistics graduate programs the world over.) The rest of us, instinctively, look at a sample size of 30 and say, meh, ok, I'll take that for what its worth. Also, that tweet you linked is nothing more than typical academic mudslinging--it doesn't mention anything about any fixes or revisions.

  8. #2048
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    Sweden would be doing even better had they more aggressively protected vulnerable populations (e.g. nursing homes).
    What is this claim based upon?

    I am fairly certain that Prof. Johan Giesecke said that there were mandatory restrictions on nursing homes.

    But the idea that fully functioning adults of an advanced age should somehow not be allowed to make their own risk evaluations is crazy.

    Sweden.jpg

  9. #2049
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

  10. #2050
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    10

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by George Christiansen View Post
    This has been happening already for over a decade, but more with cheap foreign imported workers.
    But now most countries have closed their borders. I don't see the U.S. opening up our national borders anytime soon which means you can't import foreign workers unless they make some sort of exception.
    This is interesting to contemplate. Will we see jobs that usually go to cheap foreign workers occupied by locals? Or perhaps these positions will remain unfilled?

    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    Don't bother engaging him. Bruno is just trolling the discussion. He's allegedly an LVN, but my suspicion is that he's a college kid whose first language isn't English.
    His response to my last post directed at him will probably decide if I engage again. It's likely that I won't.
    I spent far too much time finding those links and then arranging my thoughts for that post. I don't think that he'll deliver a well thought out reply.

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
  •