COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 226

starting strength gym
Page 226 of 2228 FirstFirst ... 1261762162242252262272282362763267261226 ... LastLast
Results 2,251 to 2,260 of 22280

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2251
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    709

    Default

    • starting strength seminar august 2022
    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Santana View Post
    Furthermore, you do NOT defer to government employees that have a decades long track record of making significantly false predictions.
    Robert, I am assuming you're referring to Fauci here. If yes, do you actually have the quotes from him? I asked Rip earlier and he didn't have them, but did recall them.

  2. #2252
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    980

    Default

    So you're stuck having said all this stupid bullshit for as long as there are electrons.
    (Un)fortunately? that will only be until October, when the entirety of the known universe will have been converted into virus particles. Remember?

  3. #2253
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    62

    Default

    A few weeks ago there was a brilliant interview with the Swedish Professor Johan Giesecke (European CDC, advisor to WHO, big-time epidemiologist, etc.), in which he criticized the Imperial College study.

    Here's a a response to that interview from Professor Neil Ferguson, who was the lead author of the Imperial Study.

    Worth watching both.

  4. #2254
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rocksprings, TX
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post
    Actually, both things are the point. I agree that very early on, there was this idea that the main thing we had to do was "flatten the curve", while keeping the total area under it (the number of infections) constant. But I don't think any government is actually still pursuing that -- "mitigation" -- as the only or even main goal. The Imperial College study was influential in this, because it suggested that, even successful mitigation was likely to lead to very large number of fatalities. This led to a shift in thinking towards "suppression", i.e. the attempt to actually *curtail* the outbreak, i.e. not just flatten the curve, but also reduce its area.

    Assuming that China and Singapore, for example, don't suffer huge second waves in the near future (which is to be seen), this does seem to be possible, at least in some cases.

    Iím also really becoming depressed by seeing what this thread has turned into.
    Go outside more.

    Here's the thing. The strategy was/is flawed. It assumes that this is a virus on the level of Ebola or something similar. It is just not.

    Good luck.

    sb

  5. #2255
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazygun37 View Post


    Actually, both things are the point. I agree that very early on, there was this idea that the main thing we had to do was "flatten the curve", while keeping the total area under it (the number of infections) constant. But I don't think any government is actually still pursuing that -- "mitigation" -- as the only or even main goal. The Imperial College study was influential in this, because it suggested that, even successful mitigation was likely to lead to very large number of fatalities. This led to a shift in thinking towards "suppression", i.e. the attempt to actually *curtail* the outbreak, i.e. not just flatten the curve, but also reduce its area.

    Assuming that China and Singapore, for example, don't suffer huge second waves in the near future (which is to be seen), this does seem to be possible, at least in some cases.
    This is something I am interested in discussing.

    Is suppression a viable strategy even if the rest of the world doesn't play along? It seems that suppression only works if your neighbours play along. If they don't, you have to maintain non porous borders with them or continue lockdown.

    And then there is the looming vulnerability of a virgin population that is constantly threatening. Once society is ramped up to a certain level, you basically need to be a Laplacian Demon to achieve successful contact tracing to prevent embers becoming wildfires.

    Isn't the stronger argument to allow deaths to occur at a manageable rate, and to target suppression measures only for the vulnerable?

    If you're not comfortable posting here, and want to take the discussion offline, send me an email: spacediver99@gmail.com

  6. #2256
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    48,761

    Default

    He's been comfortable so far. But he keeps promising to leave.

  7. #2257
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Here's a slightly different virw from the non-economic side of things:

    My grandpa died last Sunday. Not of Covid, just of being 92 years old. Thankfully he was living in a smaller Wisconsin community that has minimal cases. The funeral director bent the rules and allowed children, grandchildren, and spouses to have a viewing and small funeral over the weekend.

    I'm very thankful he passed away later into this pandemic. I'm fine with grandparents dying, but it was nice to be able to see the body and get together with the family. I doubt we could have done that if he died a few weeks earlier.

    That being said, my grandmother was not able to be with him when he passed. They let her in the day before when they knew it was almost time, but no other family was able to see him since they put him into hospice two weeks ago. I didn't ask grandma, but I have a feeling she would have risked catching the corona virus for the chance to be with her husband when he died.

    Frustrating stuff, but it makes me feel for those people in places with even harsher lockdown regulations who weren't even able to do what my family did.

  8. #2258
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rocksprings, TX
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy Rich View Post
    Heroes.

    No joke.

    sb

  9. #2259
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    1,109

    Default

    Rip: gas in some places is under a dollar. If I remember correctly, you were in the oil industry at one point, correct? Do you think they've started capping the higher cost wells yet? Any idea on that timeline? I figured that last week may have been THE last week before severe closures of industry sectors was necessary. Crude oil production was what I picked for the strongest indicator of the point of no return.

    Maybe I'm missing something, though. Figured I'd ask the board.

  10. #2260
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    48,761

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    That being said, my grandmother was not able to be with him when he passed. They let her in the day before when they knew it was almost time, but no other family was able to see him since they put him into hospice two weeks ago. I didn't ask grandma, but I have a feeling she would have risked catching the corona virus for the chance to be with her husband when he died.
    Thank you, Dr. Fauci. This is the kind of shit that makes me very mad. I won't be past it soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Rowe View Post
    Rip: gas in some places is under a dollar. If I remember correctly, you were in the oil industry at one point, correct? Do you think they've started capping the higher cost wells yet? Any idea on that timeline? I figured that last week may have been THE last week before severe closures of industry sectors was necessary. Crude oil production was what I picked for the strongest indicator of the point of no return.
    I saw it for $1.28 today. Most of the stripper wells are shut in right now. The problem is that the big expensive frack-job wells do not shut in without damage to the formation they are producing. I don't know that much about it, and maybe somebody reading the board can confirm this, but I think this is the reason the futures price went negative last week -- it's so expensive to shut down an unconventional black shale well that it's worth the immediate loss of margin on the product to preserve the hole.

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
  •