Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Miyagi also said Balance not just for karate. Balance for all life. Or something like that
 
S.T.Fanatic said:
Going to be a market adjustment soon. Buy low and sell high right? I urge people to be happy with the gains you have seen and plan for the worst. How high do you really see this thing going?
Click to expand...
Somewhere between 30-30500 by end of year
 
S.T.Fanatic said:
Going to be a market adjustment soon. Buy low and sell high right? I urge people to be happy with the gains you have seen and plan for the worst. How high do you really see this thing going?
Click to expand...

Ask me in early November.
No wait, mail in voting, contested results, lawyers, Judges, chads...

ask me in January..
 
Troubles Trees said:
These are not new tests my friend, if anything accuracy should have improved as we go along, yet here is a very recent case just a few weeks ago where they were 0 out of 77 on a scale of accuracy.
https://www.nfl.com/news/all-77-false-positive-covid-19-tests-come-back-negative-upon-reruns

The CDC says the antibody tests (had Covid prior) are 95% accurate, the virology tests (currently have Covid) are 80% accurate. The problems seem to be inconsistent reporting for the most part. An example would be that quite a few states were submitting their positive antibody tests with their positive virology tests and it increased the total "spike in cases" which effects how Governors respond. And those mistakes are never subtracted from the total positives, despite "experts" admitting that even a positive positive antibody test "could mean" you had SARS COV1 otherwise known as Swine Flu. Cov1 and Cov2 are scientifically 78% identical.

The media reports the maximum number constantly which should give clues to their agenda, not just the truth as usual. Another clue should be that all politicians considered the CDC as the "Gold Standard" until the CDC announced that "it is safe for people vote in person in November", then they started questioning the CDC. None of this is hidden or secret information my friend, feel free to message me if you have questions you would like answers to. I don't give my opinion unless I say "just my opinion". Everything I post I can show you where I found it (and I usually do) and you can interpret it however you like.
Click to expand...
I think we are saying the same thing, but perhaps focused on different aspects. I can't argue with false positives coming back negative. By definition, they are false positives, and hence should be negative on retesting. But how many players were tested overall? If 77 were false positives, that's the numerator. What's the denominator? Here's another question: how many actual positives resulted from the testing? If I were in the NFL, I'd like to think that there was a better chance of false positives than false negatives. Positives get retested. Yeah, it's a PIA. But what isn't, these days?

You are spot on about the reporting. It's all in how the news is reported. The tests are the tests are the tests, and as you say, it's publicly available data. But all of these caveats are acknowledged "by the experts". And when there's a mistake, such as the NJ lab in the NFL case, it's fairly easy to see and readily acknowledged (one testing site of five screwed up - red flags galore - didn't take long to recognize a mistake). I don't argue with data. I do argue with how people use data to support their bias (no finger pointing here, general observation).

My point is that it is easy to support a position without considering the details, if it fits your narrative. Just as it is easy to dismiss a position when it doesn't. I'm not placing blame on anyone - but it's my job to identify bias in our underlying assumptions. In science, we literally try to disprove ourselves on a daily basis. And sometimes, it is difficult to see the entire picture, or even to get what you might be missing. There's an old Indian parable about the blind men and an elephant, each trying to describe the animal based on what they feel. I think it applies to a lot of what we take home from these reports. I hope I don't sound too pedantic or preachy. If so, I apologize.

I won't apologize though for defending the middle of the road though, regardless of Miyagi-san wisdom. I've done so through my entire career, and it's served me well. Sometimes it's good to be a switch hitter. Squish.
 
I don't know that "Middle of the road" is a good term. To me that indicates not really feeling one way or the other. I don't think we should use that term for people who have definite feelings about issues, but don't run totally along the right or left side of the road. I always considered myself more fiscally Republican but socially and environmentally leaning towards the left. I think that makes me more of an independent because I don't just follow hard party lines. Just because I believe in Capitalism doesn't mean I can't support gay rights or support environmental protection issues. I would say that most people on this forum, especially the TNM crowd, are showing concern for the environment.
 
Knehrke said:
I think we are saying the same thing, but perhaps focused on different aspects. I can't argue with false positives coming back negative. By definition, they are false positives, and hence should be negative on retesting. But how many players were tested overall? If 77 were false positives, that's the numerator. What's the denominator? Here's another question: how many actual positives resulted from the testing? If I were in the NFL, I'd like to think that there was a better chance of false positives than false negatives. Positives get retested. Yeah, it's a PIA. But what isn't, these days?

You are spot on about the reporting. It's all in how the news is reported. The tests are the tests are the tests, and as you say, it's publicly available data. But all of these caveats are acknowledged "by the experts". And when there's a mistake, such as the NJ lab in the NFL case, it's fairly easy to see and readily acknowledged (one testing site of five screwed up - red flags galore - didn't take long to recognize a mistake). I don't argue with data. I do argue with how people use data to support their bias (no finger pointing here, general observation).

My point is that it is easy to support a position without considering the details, if it fits your narrative. Just as it is easy to dismiss a position when it doesn't. I'm not placing blame on anyone - but it's my job to identify bias in our underlying assumptions. In science, we literally try to disprove ourselves on a daily basis. And sometimes, it is difficult to see the entire picture, or even to get what you might be missing. There's an old Indian parable about the blind men and an elephant, each trying to describe the animal based on what they feel. I think it applies to a lot of what we take home from these reports. I hope I don't sound too pedantic or preachy. If so, I apologize.

I won't apologize though for defending the middle of the road though, regardless of Miyagi-san wisdom. I've done so through my entire career, and it's served me well. Sometimes it's good to be a switch hitter. Squish.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for you to apologize for defending your point of view bud, that is the difference between a debate and an argument. I don't argue, I debate and I only debate with facts and those facts don't come from "news" sources. I will read something in a news article and want to know if it is true and research it.

"Here's another question: how many actual positives resulted from the testing?" My guess would be all of them? Unless you mean how many positives weren't false positives? If that is the question, the answer is 80% according to the CDC.

Look, all of our lives have been affected by this, small businesses are closing for good while Amazon and Walmart thrive, lives are ruined because people are coming out of this more in debt than they were going in, houses going into default and we have a right to know ALL sides of the data. For instance, something that is never discussed is the harmful effects of wearing a mask. Anytime I bring this side of the debate up people always respond with "well doctors and nurses wear them all day long everyday". Well that is true, doctors and nurses also work in an environment that is not only temperature controlled but the oxygen levels are monitored and much better than a construction site or in mechanical spaces that I work in. Temperatures in the 90's and humidity here in NY is unbearable and then add in the mask, it isn't the safest conditions when working on ladders or any heights at all which puts people at risk while allegedly "keeping them safe". Safe is a relative term, like freedom is and we are all responsible for both individually throughout our lives. At this point everyone knows the risk they take when we leave our house each day, just driving to or from work we could be killed in a car accident yet we don't refuse to drive or to work because of it, it is a risk we take.

Another question that is NEVER asked, "when does this end?" We quite literally went from "lets just pause for a couple of weeks" back in March, to 5+ months later "the new norm"? Are we waiting for a vaccine? Are we waiting for effective treatments? This is never discussed, but what is discussed daily here in NY is which new states have to quarantine if they travel to NY (even though the CDC now says there is no need to quarantine healthy people). Meanwhile the mask masters like Cuomo are commonly seen without a mask, he literally walks his dog daily out in the public without a mask, when he went to Georgia he was seen many times shaking hands and even hugging one lady without a mask. Pelosi getting "set up" by the salon is a joke, I think you see that for what it is, we enjoy the same dictatorship here in NY with EO's like "chicken wings aren't food". But this is the control I spoke of in my other comments in this thread. They are stoking fear and some of us don't buy it, some people can't keep their business closed for 5 months without permanent damage being done.
As far as the media, they are as corrupt as politicians and maybe they are working hand in hand, the positive we get out of all this, is that more people are aware that "news" is more often giving their opinion than just the facts. The problems I have with all this is people will counter my CDC information with a MSNBC article, those people aren't going to change their minds about anything and I am not wasting my time trying to convince them. It just further proves that if you control the information, you control what people think and feel about a particular topic.

For the record, I am an Independent but registered as a Republican because here in NY you can't vote across party lines in Primaries. As a Republican, I voted for Obama in 2008, he had a good message of "hope and change" yet I am constantly harassed online for being a racist because I support the police lol
 
S.T.Fanatic said:
Going to be a market adjustment soon. Buy low and sell high right? I urge people to be happy with the gains you have seen and plan for the worst. How high do you really see this thing going?
Click to expand...

Doesn't it feel great to hit one on the nose .... so to speak :emoji_relaxed:
 
I love your "chicken wings aren't food" comment!! I was just at the Distillery laughing with my lab about it. I grew up on chicken wings. Not food? Sacrilege.

For those of you not in NY, our emperor decreed that you can't purchase alcohol unless you also purchase food (to keep bars from overcrowding). And when people started buying the cheapest thing on the menu (ie., toast or such) just to get a drink, he went so far as to dictate what constituted food. Chicken wings weren't food. Obviously, this guy is from downstate. He walked his decision back very quickly. So much for using data to drive decision-making. My montage has always been, "trust, but verify". Our emperor has begun speaking with a forked tongue.
 
Well...the local school didn't make it even as far as I figured they would. The kids went back just a few weeks ago and already they announced today that they are shutting the school down for the next 2 weeks. I figured they would be lucky to make it to Halloween.... They have a staff member that has it and of the 500 kids in the school they have recently sent home 100+ for either being exposed OR showing symptoms.
 
I think that's what most schools will do---as soon as one kid has the sniffles they will shut it down for the year. jmo
 
They had to realize it was inevitable. The lack of foresight and an appropriate action plan kills me. You can't yo-yo people's lives indefinitely.
 
Ain't that the truth! That was as predictable as anything. They hopefully announced the plan in advance. There will be a nationwide increase again with school exposures.
 
j-bird said:
Well...the local school didn't make it even as far as I figured they would. The kids went back just a few weeks ago and already they announced today that they are shutting the school down for the next 2 weeks. I figured they would be lucky to make it to Halloween.... They have a staff member that has it and of the 500 kids in the school they have recently sent home 100+ for either being exposed OR showing symptoms.
Click to expand...
Our schools are running full bore around here. Heck they're letting the browns and bengals have fans in Ohio.

Was just at a wedding this weekend. 230+ people. 3 masks. I think, whether you felt it was an overreaction initially, or just felt we didn't know how serious it was, a lot of people are more confident that we have a handle on it and since it's not a flesh eating, gory death kinda virus, we just keep plugging.

My 6 year old had a fever yesterday, so he's staying home. We'll be smart, but not panic. Why is that so hard to undertand for people?
 
I am not to confident in the numbers that are being advertised, two examples that may make one question their numbers.

There was a wedding in a small town in Southern MN, they said there was something like 250 people at the wedding, the media is reporting that after the wedding 57 people has contracted Covid at the wedding, although on Facebook the bride and groom, and their family and friends have all said they havent heard of a single person that has even gotten tested, or that was feeling ill after the wedding. So where did they come up with 25% of the people who have attended, have covid, when the bride, groom, and what seems the majority of the people that went to the wedding, all have said they havent heard of anyone that even got tested, or is feeling ill?

Example 2, I live in a small town(3000 people), and a county with a small population(28,000), and yet the city I live in is reporting that 50+ people a day are testing positive, for the last week and a half. The numbers would be scary, but when you live in a small town, every one talkes, and I havent heard of anyone that has it, and few of my friends know of anyone that has it. By their numbers 25% of the city has gotten it in the last 2 weeks.

I think something is off!
 
I haven't known a single person who actually tested positive until last week. Our neighbors (who we haven't seen since Cubscouts ended months ago) just came out of their 2 week quarantine. The dad was in a new job, and tested positive while taking his physical. His 2 young sons also tested positive. His wife and young daughter tested negative. The whole family never had a symptom, always felt perfectly normal. Glad they're ok.
 
Wonder if it was a true positive or a false positive?
 
Good question, probably an NFL positive.
 
Serious question, has anyone heard what the end goal is? I was listening to the AM radio this morning and this was being discussed. The whole point of the lockdown initially was to slow the spread and build up PPE levels. Every government scientist was saying we cannot stop the virus, but we can "slow the spread" to the point the hospitals can keep up with the massive need for ventilators that was on the horizon.

Places that locked down hardest have the biggest spikes as they reopen, which is what was supposed to happen, and what the plan was. Do we have a new plan? What's the metric for getting back to living. If I've got 30 years left with good knees and a good back, I wanna know if I'm forfeiting 5 of them because the wrong man is in the white house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top