COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 518

starting strength gym
Page 518 of 2381 FirstFirst ... 1841846850851651751851952052856861810181518 ... LastLast
Results 5,171 to 5,180 of 23808

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #5171
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Woodside, CA (aka The San Francisco Bay Area or as I like to call it, the belly of the beast)
    Posts
    40

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    Reminds me of several personal accounts of great harm done by trusting the experts. I had a relative who had the wrong type of surgery for an injury based on the opinions of the "expert team of doctors"; It unnecessarily ended his professional athletics career.

    When I was younger and more naive, I had a doctor recommend cortisone injections for a tendon injury based on historical precedent and the medical literature. I got a second opinion from a more intelligent doctor who told me that thinking was severely outdated and the treatment would likely cause the tendon to rupture within a few months.



    Is it intentional or is it ideology, hubris and incompetence?




    Bullshit Jobs: A Theory by David Graeber review Ė the myth of capitalist efficiency | Society books | The Guardian

    Robot Check
    Third leading cause of death in the US is medical malpractice (you know, those "experts" that we rely on for our health). Approximately 250,000 people die every year due to the incompetence of medical "professionals" aka experts, that is behind Heart Disease at ~650,000 and Cancer at ~600,000.

  2. #5172
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Village of Afton, Virginia
    Posts
    947

    Default

    Biobutton device Biointellisense continues efforts to fight COVID-19 with Biobutton | 2020-05-08 | BioWorld

    This is super scary. A patch that monitors and transmits your physical data. Already some governments have expressed interest in using it on visitors entering their country. Sounds very much like something NY and Cal would use.

    Oddly, there have been no reports of protests against it.

  3. #5173
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drewcar View Post
    Whatís the difference between a p-value of 0.04 and 0.06? The evidence is still leaning towards a given direction.

    Personally, Sully has the best takes on this whole thread. He recognizes complexity and uncertainty, and doesnít cherry pick evidence. Thatís more than I can say for 95% of the posters here, including Rip.
    Seconded. In bold.

  4. #5174
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Redding, NorCal
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    Ok, cool. So whatís the difference between a p-value of 0.06 and 0.96? Itís not 1.00, so thereís some chance itís not completely random, right? So I can say the evidence leans towards my desired conclusion, canít I? In fact, whatever p-value I get, Iíll just say itís ďclose enoughĒ (after I run the analysis of course).
    Because 0.06 is suggestive evidence whereas 0.96 is weak as fuck evidence. Of course, this depends upon the quality of the study design, sample size, etc.

  5. #5175
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Woodside, CA (aka The San Francisco Bay Area or as I like to call it, the belly of the beast)
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrfunk View Post
    Our surgeon general said he was wrong back then and that we've learned so much more now.


    "It's important for people to understand that once upon a time, we prescribed cigarettes for asthmatics and leeches and cocaine and heroin for people as medical treatments. When we learned better, we do better..."

    He said we're supposed to listen to him now, though. You know, the guy who self-admittedly was telling us to do things that are the equivalent of using leeches and cigarettes for medicine.
    According to Dr Fraudski
    Hand shaking should be eliminated because of the risks to health but hooking up with a stranger for sex on Tinder is totally cool:
    Fauci: You can hook up with an asymptomatic Tinder date but it'''s risky - Insider

  6. #5176
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bikesandcars View Post
    In my older age I've noticed that there is only 1 way to change someones mind... they need to do it themselves.

    Yes, as a non-mask believer you can go right in their face, defy what they believe, bombard them with statistics, argue with them, maybe it goes to the next level shouting match I see all these protestors using against cops... just basically yelling without listening... that's one way to convince them masks are useless. Your logic is impeccable, but their defenses are hardened by your approach. Have you seen the HUGE negative reactions of the "coughing karen" video's... that doesn't convince anyone to not wear a mask.

    OR

    You can wear the harmless mask, keep calm, let the statistics lead us to where we all know this is going (more infections, more death, more news, more spin against the "orange man", but eventually the light at the end of the tunnel). Being a mask activist gets us nothing in modern times. People who are indoctrinated and believe the mask hype are not bad people, they simply need to be convinced otherwise, and the better way to convince them is for everyone to wear comfy masks and still have covid spread, as it will regardless because bad masks are almost useless. ... as long as folks aren't wearing masks their narrative will always be "it's the non-maskers spreading it".

    I urge everyone to take the long view, the calm calculated approach, to love and respect your neighbors and to not evangalize or be a shouting activist, but rather a voice of reason. Turn off the news, help your neighbors, be kind.

    Unless of course someone is breaking into your house to steal your toilet paper, then let em have it.
    Neither of these choices have anything to do with my own action of not wearing a mask at Walmart or Lowes.

    I am not trying to change anyone's mind while shopping. I am aware that I am emboldening some people who agree with me but are scared to act on their convictions and I know that I am pissing some Karens off. The former is a bonus. The later is neither here nor there so long as they continue to social distance from me. I certainly can't give both groups what they really want anyway....and what about the other guy or gal that may not be wearing a mask?

    Should I be one more unkind person silently telling them that they are crazy, stupid, or hateful?

    Believe it or not. Not everyone is an activist. And even though I am sharing things here and elsewhere, not everything that needs to be said needs to be said everywhere and all the time. And aside from an occasional snicker (myself), I have yet to see a single person who doesn't wear a mask in stores feel compelled tell any of the mask wearers a single solitary thing about their opinions on masks while shopping.

    The reverse cannot be said to be true though.

  7. #5177
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    You are correct, strictly speaking. I think that as long as you realize what the term "trend" means in this context, however, that it is fair to report.
    My first instinct is to kind of repeat myself and say that "a trend" is impossible to identify because it is a made up thing in this context. Maybe I just don't understand what you're getting at, so I'll ask you: what is "a trend"?

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    For example, in the meta-analysis we were discussing, a trend toward mask effectiveness would not "prove" anything, so citing it to say that it "disproves" the effectiveness of masks is incorrect.
    Strictly speaking, inferential statistics never "prove" or "disprove" anything. They only "fail to disprove". I agree with you that citing the meta to say masks don't work is incorrect. However, it's not incorrect to say that the review did not find evidence to suggest that masks are useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    Often, a trend means there is something there, but that the study was not able to prove it.
    JF, I value your input in this thread very highly, but regardless of how you define a trend, this is wholly incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    This could be due to an issue with study design or size, or because the issue at hand is inherently hard to study. When I see a "trend" in a study or analysis, I look to see if there is reason to think it is a random finding or whether there are reasons that would dilute the study findings and prevent a finding from reaching statistical significance. This is what I was getting at in the post above about the issues I had with the individual studies in the meta-analysis on masks that we were discussing.
    The only reason something doesn't reach statistical significance is that there is not enough evidence for it to do so. Full Stop. Whether you have small sample bias or study design is difficult or whatever else you come up with, there isn't enough evidence. Additionally, you can disagree with the inclusion criteria of the meta, but that's a different argument altogether.

    Not to sound like a broken record, but my position in this thread has been (I think) pretty consistent. This isn't a case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Despite cries of "we must follow the SCIENCE" and such drivel, objective decisions are not being made based on evidence. Case in point: in NJ, wrestling is ok (as long as it's outdoors), but I still can't go to a damn gym. I can go to a BLM protest, but I can't sit down and eat a meal inside a restaurant. What objective evidence led to those genius decisions?

    Decisions are being made based on politics, emotions, and money. As they almost always are.

  8. #5178
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    1,163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BMueller View Post
    Seconded. In bold.
    A summary:

    1. Masks have never been given the level of scrutiny that other medical devices or practices have been. It's a practice that seems logical and has continued because of some obvious benefits in very specific environments.

    2. This has only been identified and seriously challenged within the last ten years. A significant amount of data is from modeling and laboratory experiments, and their conclusions fail immediately for clinical settings, RCTs and case studies in various populations and countries the world over.

    3. Up until this year, almost universally all studies and meta-analysis have concluded that far more needs to be taken into account and more data is necessary. So, they have largely recommended that healthcare workers continue mask usage and the general public does not use masks. There is not sufficient evidence either way, and there are more than enough unanswered questions to give pause in the creation of policy or law.

    4. Two of the critical studies this year are extremely suspect with one having an official letter of retraction submitted to PNAS to have it pulled (Zhang et al. 2020). Even if they weren't intentionally used to subvert understanding of medical professionals and policy makers, they would have absolutely not been given the level of scrutiny and verification necessary to be useful in such important capacities.

    5. Suddenly, while the pandemic is already beyond the point where our minuscule knowledge base and consensus (read: collective best guess) speculates you would have to begin interventions like mask usage in the general population, local and state governments pass ordinances, laws, and issue mandates to wear masks. Even by the data this is absurd, and by every measure of scientific, medical and professional ethics is unconscionable at best.

    In conclusion:

    If you want to wear a mask, you always were afforded the option to do so until well beyond the point where the extremely small potential benefit you propose might have had some effect. That Rip or anyone else might laugh at you for it is absolutely unimportant.

    Nothing, on the aggregate, was cherry-picked in this thread. Not everything may have been presented explicitly, but more than enough has been presented and discussed so that the meta-analysis gist of what transpired was well established -- as well as it possible could be given the inherent limitations of the circumstances we find ourselves in. Which is that there is much yet we still have yet to learn about the virus, but petty tyrants there will always be. And the road to hell is still paved with good intentions.

  9. #5179
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    This is literally debatable, which is why we are having this debate! I think we have to weigh the real risks of the virus against the real risks to our economy and freedom, and to have a real conversation about those things we can't just assume that the either side is totally full of shit. That's increasingly been the approach in discussion of social issues, and I think we can all see that the divides among us have been deepening due to this approach, rather than resolving. BTW, I'm not talking about this forum specifically, moreso the social and pundit media.
    Right. I understand that people should try to avoid contracting Covid-19, especially if you are not a particularly healthy person. If you are sick you should not expose others. If you are scared of getting it, stay home. Or wear a mask. I understand in the beginning of all this the proper response may not have been crystal clear, so some delay of rationality is acceptable. But its been 4 months of this now and it seems to me, as others have mentioned, that this is no longer about the virus, its about politics, certain groups agendas, and the continued fear mongering. Our response right now should be one of learning to live WITH this thing(even if its mostly gone) and get back to normal rather than continuing to have mask mandates, keeping people out of work, cancelling school, sports, etc. In NYC there is still no date where gyms are even "allowed" to open. Its very troubling that there is no end in sight(end of flu season next year?).

  10. #5180
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Drewcar View Post
    Because 0.06 is suggestive evidence whereas 0.96 is weak as fuck evidence.
    Where do you draw the line between "suggestive" vs. "weak as fuck" for the efficacy of masks? What level of confidence do you think is appropriate? And do you not see a problem with determining this after the analysis is done? Finally, you know they used a p-value of .25 for the mask portion of the meta and still didn't find statistical significance, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drewcar View Post
    Of course, this depends upon the quality of the study design, sample size, etc.
    How does the calculated p-value depend on the quality of the study design?

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
  •