COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 521

starting strength gym
Page 521 of 2473 FirstFirst ... 2142147151151952052152252353157162110211521 ... LastLast
Results 5,201 to 5,210 of 24721

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #5201
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,031

  2. #5202
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ayrsson View Post
    Since 1942 Europeans have endured enough to philosemitism (from youngest school child to the oldest adult slumped in front of their television) to make anti-semitism an almost completely unheard of thing amongst Europe's native population (excluding Poland, Ukraine and Russia perhaps).
    ...?!? So are you saying there was no antisemitism in Europe in, say, 1943? Your homework is to watch Band of Brothers, episode 9.

  3. #5203
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    725

    Default

    This, x10000000

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
    This is where I get frustrated and despondent. Arguments like this around masks are still premised, implicitly, on the idea that this virus is super deadly and warrants this kind of debate in the first place. At the outset early in the year, we were shocked so severely into regarding this virus as a world-altering pathogen killing between 5-10% of the people it infected. Even though we know now this virus has an estimated mortality rate of 0.2-0.6% (and this range keeps dropping) we're still treating it like Ebola. A healthy and asymptomatic college athlete tests positive and we lower the flags to half mast, say prayers, and sniff that this means college sports simply cannot continue.

    The data is in, but we're still scared shitless. So if the data cannot bring us back to rationality, what can?

  4. #5204
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    This is true for some hypothesis tests, but not for statistics in general.
    I'm genuinely curious what you mean here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    One can start with the same data, and make two different, mathematically-sound analyses, with only one achieving statistical significance.
    100% agree

  5. #5205
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
    This is where I get frustrated and despondent. Arguments like this around masks are still premised, implicitly, on the idea that this virus is super deadly and warrants this kind of debate in the first place. At the outset early in the year, we were shocked so severely into regarding this virus as a world-altering pathogen killing between 5-10% of the people it infected. Even though we know now this virus has an estimated mortality rate of 0.2-0.6% (and this range keeps dropping) we're still treating it like Ebola. A healthy and asymptomatic college athlete tests positive and we lower the flags to half mast, say prayers, and sniff that this means college sports simply cannot continue.

    The data is in, but we're still scared shitless. So if the data cannot bring us back to rationality, what can?
    Very well summarized! Logic and reason no longer apply. This is driving many of us to the brink.

    American Airlines just advised me that in their continued efforts to keep me safe, they will require face coverings for all travelers over the age of 2. It matters not since I'm not (as long as my boss lets me) flying/traveling as long as they keep these rules in place; this is about $35K annually not being spent on airfare/hotels/rental cars/meals. Same for other businesses (Lowes, Home Depot, Total Wine, etc.) that have proudly announced mask requirements.

    But we're counseled to just wear a mask to make this nightmare social experiment end sooner (as if logic/reason applies); which is just more incentive for businesses to require masks that ineffectively protect us from a virus barely (if at all) worse than the flu (based on questionable data/statistics) and so contagious that we cannot escape being exposed to anyway.

    The ONLY reliable data are the economic effects of this insanity and they continue to be ignored. So, we know that economic realities won't be bringing us back to rationality anytime soon.

  6. #5206
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Western NY
    Posts
    2,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling View Post
    Mike Nifong of Duke lacrosse infamy. Although I'm not sure of his political affiliation.
    Democrat

    Large "D"

  7. #5207
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
    The data is in, but we're still scared shitless. So if the data cannot bring us back to rationality, what can?
    Back?

    Most people couldn't find rationality on a map......and they are now burning the maps.

  8. #5208
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    OK, I am not a statistician by a long shot. As a physician, I think I am reasonably good at critically reading studies and basic stats, but I may not have the jargon down, and I may misunderstand even some basic stats. When I refer to a trend, I am saying that a study calculated, say, an odds ratio that was not 1, but the confidence interval included 1. Sometimes it is close enough to 1 that it seems clear there's nothing there, and we should embrace the null hypothesis. Other times, it's clear the results are diluted by study limitations. When I was on an IRB, we had a resident statistician who would frequently point out that a proposed study was underpowered to test the hypothesis they wanted to test. So they were never going to disprove the null hypothesis, whatever they found. Let's say their hypothesis was correct, but they were unable to clearly demonstrate it due to the study design. In that case they may find a "trend" toward their hypothesis being true, but their CI may still include the null hypothesis. If study finds this and was well-powered and properly designed, you're probably done. If not, the "trend" may be a signal that there may be something useful there to retool and study again.
    I pretty much agree with the second half of this (especially underpowered tests - see it all the time). The first half sounds like you might be conflating clinical significance with statistical significance. You can have a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.01, for example, where you're statistically confident that one outcome is VERY slightly more likely than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    I agree, yet we have often seen a study fail to prove something, and many people interpret it as "disproving" it. Most people aren't used to the precision and subtlety of the language here, and sometimes get annoyed that you're being lawyerly or something if you try to clarify for them. In the majority of the mask studies discussed in the video linked above, for example, they were not actually looking at masks vs no masks, so saying they "proved that masks did not work" was wrong on several levels. I can see how the video narrator sloppily made that leap, and then he simplified further to get an exciting conclusion. This was the main problem I was trying to point out.
    Agree, happens all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    I would say that what you're saying is true within the context of a specific study, but does not mean that the evidence or reality is not out there. If a study is underpowered and poorly designed, it may not be able to demonstrate that lifting weights makes you stronger, for example, yet other studies have shown this to be true, and we all would agree that it is essentially fact. I have seen many poorly designed studies that failed to find statistically significant results where these same results were later shown by larger or better-designed studies.
    True, but that's what meta-analyses try to overcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    I agree that most people do things that don't make rational sense, and/or don't match their stated motives (I am a psychiatrist after all, I make a living off of this particular human discrepancy you might say). This is especially true of politicians, and I agree that politics and emotions clearly overtake rational thought for most people. I am not immune to this, but I do my best to consciously struggle against these tendencies, and I'm willing to change my mind based on new information. It's not always comfortable to do so. I'm glad that many people here, for example, still want to talk about the evidence and the science, and I don't think we should give that up just because so many people have essentially gone mad. It's easy and fun to say "we should follow the SCIENCE!" but following scientific findings in real time is a fool's errand. I'm sure you agree, and thanks for your thoughtful comments.
    Definitely agree. Also got a chuckle over the "make a living off of this particular human discrepancy" line.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    My personal views, based on experience combined with my reading of the evidence, are that surgical masks are likely modestly helpful at containing germs to the wearer. Combining this with rigorous hand hygiene and social distancing should further reduce the rate of covid spread, possibly to near zero if there were 100% proper compliance (which is of course unlikely). Also, N95 masks are likely quite effective at keeping germs like covid out of the mouth and nose of the wearer, but are only maximally effective when combined with full PPE. I saw COVID sweep rapidly through an inpatient hospital unit before we were using masks, infecting both patients and staff, and also saw that there were no new staff infections once patients had surgical masks and staff was using full PPE/N95, even though all patients on the unit were covid+. This experience biases me for sure. We may never have great evidence on some of these things, but we have to make decisions and act now, as it will take too long for high quality evidence to arrive in most cases, if it ever does.
    My experience/bias is almost the complete opposite: living in NJ (arguably the worst spot outside of NYC), I only know ONE person who had COVID, and she worked in a nursing home and is fine now. Most of the people I associate with don't even know anyone who got it. So how bad could it really be, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by jfsully View Post
    It does annoy me that the masked vs unmasked factions seem to take it out on each other, since neither really have the facts or cost/benefit calculations entirely on their side. I have been berated in person by people for wearing and also for not wearing a mask, in fact. It (the berating) didn't help anyone or change my behavior. I do my thing as I see fit, and offer opinions only when they are sought (or, in the case of this forum, when I think I have something useful to add). If someone asks me why I am wearing or not wearing a mask in a particular situation, I'll explain myself. If they scold me, I roll my eyes and move along. If I am not willing to change my mind as a result of a particular conversation/argument, I generally don't bother with it. I don't like to debate in bad faith. Once it's clear that the other person is a zealot who will not engage in some legit back-and-forth and is unwilling or unable to change their mind, I'm out. Some people might enjoy those kind of interactions, and at times I have too. Lately, though, I have other places to devote my energy. Again, despite a fair amount of posts in this thread getting heated, I think there has been some good discussion here. Thanks again Rob for your comments.
    Thank you for engaging in an actual (albeit digital) conversation. Too often it just devolves into, "just wear your damn mask you idiot, the science is settled, stop trying to kill me with your germs...". No one seems to be able to admit that the other person might simply be interpreting the data differently, or performing their own cost/benefit calculation and coming up with a different conclusion.

  9. #5209
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Excellent

  10. #5210
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,056

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
    This is where I get frustrated and despondent. Arguments like this around masks are still premised, implicitly, on the idea that this virus is super deadly and warrants this kind of debate in the first place. At the outset early in the year, we were shocked so severely into regarding this virus as a world-altering pathogen killing between 5-10% of the people it infected. Even though we know now this virus has an estimated mortality rate of 0.2-0.6% (and this range keeps dropping) we're still treating it like Ebola. A healthy and asymptomatic college athlete tests positive and we lower the flags to half mast, say prayers, and sniff that this means college sports simply cannot continue.

    The data is in, but we're still scared shitless. So if the data cannot bring us back to rationality, what can?
    An excellent summary. Send it around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Goddamn, this guy is GOOD.

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
  •