COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 254

starting strength gym
Page 254 of 2312 FirstFirst ... 1542042442522532542552562643043547541254 ... LastLast
Results 2,531 to 2,540 of 23113

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2531
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    • starting strength seminar august 2022
    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    Perhaps. It is certainly lower on the self-righteous volume dial, but it still relies on the premise that someone “rational” knows better than someone “irrational”. Those are arbitrary definitions and relative to someone else’s perception. One persons trash is another’s treasure and all that.
    Perhaps I'm less of a relativist than you are when it comes to questions of rationality and morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    I personally find many reactions to the current crisis to be quite “irrational” while many others like yourself find them quite reasonable. Which one of us requires less governing?
    I also find many of the current reactions to be irrational, fear based, and harmful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Sure, anything is possible. However, the IFR of COVID19 looks to be around 0.1% (1M cases * 55 under-ascertainment rate from the Stanford paper / 55K fatalities). I do not believe the harms are sufficient to begin restricting freedoms. Lots of people disagree with me though.
    The Stanford study has been re-analyzed by the original authors, and other authors in a separate analysis. The lower bound of the under-ascertainment rate estimate is on the order of 10 times smaller than the figure you cite (the figure you cite is from the flawed analysis).

    Thus, assigning an IFR of ~0.1 is irresponsible at this moment.

    But that aside, I'll grant you this: If the harms associated with allowing arbitrarily large mass gatherings are small enough, then I fully agree with your position (this is somewhat tautological, but I mean it: I could be wrong - it's an empirical question after all).

    Quote Originally Posted by wiigelec View Post
    Have you ever traveled in a motorized vehicle? If so you are by your definition an asshole.
    You can drive responsibly. You can't gather in mass gatherings responsibly, unless you quarantine yourself for 2 weeks right after attending the said mass gathering.

    Quote Originally Posted by 12345 View Post
    I honestly appreciate your input over the course of this conversation but your questions about what role the government has in suppressing individual liberties for the greater good just aren't interesting or germane to this situation because the virus isn't dangerous to the vast majority of us. The data continue to show that it is dangerous only to a very small segment of the population - those who have serious preexisting health issues and the elderly. 99% of the population is protected from COVID19 by their well-functioning immune systems, not by forced isolation. So how do these measures that may protect 1% of the population constitute the "greater good"?
    This is where I can begin to find agreement. As you say, the risk to healthy younger people is very small. In kids, it's probably smaller than a typical flu. My concern is that mass gatherings can have dramatic acute effects on large numbers of vulnerable people who never attended in the first place.

    There's an empirical question here:

    If a mass gathering of size X occurs, what is the expected death rate that occurs as a result? The degree to which vulnerable people are protected (through a combination of their own actions and other actions) will affect this number. If a mass gathering happens in a city, it could mean that the chances of being exposed to the virus simply by going grocery shopping skyrocket for everyone in the city. It's worth thinking about what this means - does this mean that older folk now have to spend the little money they have on home deliveries? Well, maybe not if a government subsidy was put in place for this purpose. Or if community volunteer programs started springing up to help out.

    Until these sorts of measures are in place, the argument here is that mass gatherings (of above a certain size) pose an inordinate risk to others. What I'm saying is no large concerts, sporting events, religious pilgrimages, etc.

    Here's a pretty sobering series of network simulations. They're not perfect, and they lack some important variables, but they do illustrate the very interesting concept of clusters.

    Can’t I please just visit one friend?

    Note: I'm not saying I agree that visiting friends should be banned. That's not the point I'm making here.

  2. #2532
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    419

    Default

    The flu kills up to 646,000 a year in the world...the Coronovirus has killed 235,000...

    Flu Kills 646,000 People Worldwide Each Year: Study

    Its the Goddamn flu people...I am not insensitive...I caught the flu 3 years ago ..It almost killed me...shivering while sweating....fever, chills, couldn't breathe, it can kill you , cant even move your so weak lost 10 pounds ...after 3 days I was totally ok with dying...it sucks...I hope we get a vaccine...

  3. #2533
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    That's not the point I'm making here.
    None of this is the point we're making here. It just eludes you, for some reason. This is not about a virus anymore. The virus isn't even interesting.

  4. #2534
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewG View Post
    Sad news, just been told my co-worker, passed away yesterday. To give you some background she was a 33 year old, diabetic, I recall her having a couple of blood transfusions in last few years because of it, also suffered from early stages of liver failure. She used to sit directly behind me for last 4 years up until the point of us being ordered to work from home at the end of March. I remember her last words before we left work that she was concerned as her treatment to remove a build of fluid in her legs had been postponed until September. If not dealt with by then it would become life threatening for her. Difficult to provide comfort at the thought of hospitals cancelling routine appointments made me sick to my stomach with anger. Little was I to know that would be the last time we would speak. Anyway my manager phoned me to let me know she'd been sent into hospital during lockdown because of the increased swelling. Unfortunately she contracted COVID19 in hospital and died. No one can attend the funeral but it will be broadcast on Facebook for family and friends to watch! I'm at a loss to all this, was it her diabetes that killed her, postponement of her treatment as the hospital was making way for COVID care, or was it her picking up COVID that did it? Sounds like we shall never know as no one is allowed in the hospitals.
    Sorry for your loss, especially at 33 tragic

  5. #2535
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Ocean City, MD
    Posts
    2,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    Perhaps I'm less of a relativist than you are when it comes to questions of rationality and morality.



    I also find many of the current reactions to be irrational, fear based, and harmful.



    The Stanford study has been re-analyzed by the original authors, and other authors in a separate analysis. The lower bound of the under-ascertainment rate estimate is on the order of 10 times smaller than the figure you cite (the figure you cite is from the flawed analysis).

    Thus, assigning an IFR of ~0.1 is irresponsible at this moment.

    But that aside, I'll grant you this: If the harms associated with allowing arbitrarily large mass gatherings are small enough, then I fully agree with your position (this is somewhat tautological, but I mean it: I could be wrong - it's an empirical question after all).



    You can drive responsibly. You can't gather in mass gatherings responsibly, unless you quarantine yourself for 2 weeks right after attending the said mass gathering.



    This is where I can begin to find agreement. As you say, the risk to healthy younger people is very small. In kids, it's probably smaller than a typical flu. My concern is that mass gatherings can have dramatic acute effects on large numbers of vulnerable people who never attended in the first place.

    There's an empirical question here:

    If a mass gathering of size X occurs, what is the expected death rate that occurs as a result? The degree to which vulnerable people are protected (through a combination of their own actions and other actions) will affect this number. If a mass gathering happens in a city, it could mean that the chances of being exposed to the virus simply by going grocery shopping skyrocket for everyone in the city. It's worth thinking about what this means - does this mean that older folk now have to spend the little money they have on home deliveries? Well, maybe not if a government subsidy was put in place for this purpose. Or if community volunteer programs started springing up to help out.

    Until these sorts of measures are in place, the argument here is that mass gatherings (of above a certain size) pose an inordinate risk to others. What I'm saying is no large concerts, sporting events, religious pilgrimages, etc.

    Here's a pretty sobering series of network simulations. They're not perfect, and they lack some important variables, but they do illustrate the very interesting concept of clusters.

    Can’t I please just visit one friend?

    Note: I'm not saying I agree that visiting friends should be banned. That's not the point I'm making here.
    Are you some kind of mentally challenged little shit? You're talking in circles to yourself about pointless shit that no one will ever an answer to. You can keep posing the same stupid questions and out thinking yourself about endless topics for the rest of your life if that's really how you want to live.

  6. #2536
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbm77 View Post
    I am not a perfect person. I have many flaws, I think the dark triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy was a blueprint for my entire being. But this does not change the fact that the very foundation of my being knows what is coming by this state by state narcissism. Interestingly enough, 5 million of my ancestors, 2 million roma gypsies, and 3 million polish nationals were murdered in the Holocaust. To add insult to insult, Soviet socialism took the opportunity to overthrow and take over these countries after world war 2. To date, my great grandmother will still murder a communist in cold blood just on principle.

    You faggots who think that this is a mathematics game have no idea what is in store for you. What makes it even more repulsive is my grandfather from northeastern America liberated Jewish prisoners from concentration camps and this is how (they) repay us. He even spared the German guards of the camp. Additionally all my ancestors have emigrated to America post 1920 so we have never held slaves. If these woke motherfuckers actually care, why am I not a protected citizen? But the fact of the matter is that all this mathematical learned ignorance is a cover for fuckheads who want to enforce a new world slavery order and they believe that everyone who dies adds to their spiritual power. It is no longer a question of what is right, but what is might. The only miscalculation is that I am the baddest motherfucker ever to walk the planet and that if you fuck with Mark Rippetoe hell is the least of your worries, there will be a whirlwind to reap and you will not enjoy the consequences.

    I will double-down on the fact that you made the wrong choice and overstepped your bounds and heads on a stake won't even make me bat an eye. You started this shit, and you're afraid to finish it...... Not my problem in the famous words of Communists. You fuck with the gypsies and we are going to remove your soul from your being without a second glance

    These are videos of hype for real men

    YouTube

    YouTube
    My great grandfather was a gypsy, so where does that put us?

  7. #2537
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Perhaps I'm less of a relativist than you are when it comes to questions of rationality and morality.
    Then from what base do you erect your absolute rational and moral platform from whence you so profoundly posit?

  8. #2538
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    The Stanford study has been re-analyzed by the original authors, and other authors in a separate analysis. The lower bound of the under-ascertainment rate estimate is on the order of 10 times smaller than the figure you cite (the figure you cite is from the flawed analysis).

    Thus, assigning an IFR of ~0.1 is irresponsible at this moment.

    But that aside, I'll grant you this: If the harms associated with allowing arbitrarily large mass gatherings are small enough, then I fully agree with your position (this is somewhat tautological, but I mean it: I could be wrong - it's an empirical question after all).
    I KNEW you were going to say that. Fine. Take the midpoint of the other guys’ estimate. That’s about an IFR of 0.18% instead of 0.1%. Are the potential (or realized) harms large enough in your opinion to justify what was done? Or are they small enough to let me have some friends and family over this weekend for a bbq?

  9. #2539
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,222

    Default

    Well, Rob, it's not arbitrarily large if you carefully select the barbeque-ees for rationality, intelligence, and having passed differential equations. People like that can be allowed to attend. Allowed. Permitted.

  10. #2540
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Well, Rob, it's not arbitrarily large if you carefully select the barbeque-ees for rationality, intelligence, and having passed differential equations. People like that can be allowed to attend. Allowed. Permitted.
    Allowed by who? Who do I submit the request form to?

    I’m smoking ribs - does it matter if they prefer tomato-base, mustard-base, or dry rub?

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
  •