Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Commish

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Commish last won the day on April 9

The Commish had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,414 Excellent

About The Commish

  • Rank
  • Birthday August 28

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Debary, Florida

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Carolina Panthers

Recent Profile Visitors

45,853 profile views
  1. The pandemic has destroyed your sarcasm meter GB.
  2. It dissolved faster than it took to put it together.
  3. This caught me by surprise:
  4. Well they are on the rise. They have been for most of the 2000s and it's something we need to take action on. "Keeping an eye" on time was during the 90s. Now's the time to act. That's why there's been such a push to get mental health services into the health bills.
  5. It's pretty MIL isn't getting much sleep these days. She had a "break" this last week because her mother is on her death bed in Alabama and took a few days off to go over there. It's kind of F'd up when one considers it a "break" to go and do something like that. Though, her mom's been sick for some time and I think, while sad, she's very much in the, "I'll be glad when this is over for her. This is no way to live" stage of the process. Second waves for specific areas you mean? It's been what I'd consider a "jagged increase trying to plateau" that's not quite gotten there here in Florida. I guess if you squint and turn your head you could see what's happening as a second wave. The country is still in the middle of the 1st wave...kinda hard to have a 2nd without completion of the first.
  6. this gives me a sense of what 50/50 in testing means. Good to know However, I am still left wondering why the CDC, in one breath says, "Hey, this testing isn't good enough to make decisions on" and in the next says "we're using it to predict death rates and are rather comfortable in doing so. Is it that the math is so significantly different for predictive models that it tolerates poor foundational starting points so accuracy of the "input" doesn't alter the "output" all that much? I had a couple stats classes in college, but never heard anything like that.
  7. Wisconsin isn't alone in this. Florida has two communities where the hospital is completely full and it's not even making the news down here. They went from about 30% full to 99% full in about a week and a half. I only know about it because I live here and my MIL is an ER nurse at that hospital. She's freakin' out. It's interesting, but on my version of this thread, I see none of the those who were pounding the "follow the guidelines!!!!!!" shtick into the ground speaking up any longer...well, other than you and me. It's weird right?
  8. I think it is equally as unlikely that someone would date someone with polar opposite political views. Now, if someone is middle of the road republican, or democrat, then the opposite isn't really all that different The whole sentiment seems "off" to me. It takes two to tango, so in the case where "opposites" are dating/married, who is the one being tolerant over the other? Seems like a logical fallacy to me. Seems like they'd both have to be equally tolerant, no? If not, the reality would have to be one where conservatives were walking around opining for a liberal to date but just couldn't catch a break. That seems weird to me
  9. Friend said they have batted the idea around of switching out the cars throughout the day and for the rides that are like Haunted Mansion (constantly moving) doing every X car, then each time around, switching out what X is and sanitizing the ones that had just been used.
  10. Bayes Rule. We've discussed it here at length. If you don't know what it is and how it applies I strongly suggest looking it up. I consider it second only to compound interest and ahead of exponential growth in the practical power that understanding the concept behind it will have on your life. I guess I got to this thread after this discussion. Read a bit about it, but I don't see how it answers the question I was posing. Can you help me out? If, in one breath, the CDC is saying they lack confidence in antibody testing results to make any sort of policy decisions based on them, then in the next breath throw out "death rate" stats based on antibody testing, how does this rule apply to that? This theorem seems to be about forecasting stats. That's not really what I am asking about.
  11. Of course...values are where it would go off the rails for me. This seems rather obvious so perhaps I am missing the question?
  12. Thanks for the reminder...why I came back into this thread in the first place was to give an update on my wife's journey. Got side tracked reading through. Anyway, Advent health sent her a letter this week saying they don't have confidence in the results from antibody test she was given. We are in central Florida (Orlando area). She has now gotten two letters saying that they feel she can't rely on the results of either. So , at this point, the ONLY thing we KNOW for sure is she had all the symptoms of COVID except for loss of smell/taste. It's maddening.
  13. It seems very complicated. Something like false positives and number of confirmed cases has an impact on the accuracy results. I have to admit I didn't understand it all. And I may have heard incorrectly...that's why I am asking instead of dismissing it on it's face. I thought I had heard the CDC announce that the antibody testing isn't accurate enough to be making decisions off the results. If that's true, I am puzzled as to why they'd then start talking about using the antibody tests to try and determine the death rates or infection rates etc. It seems pretty irresponsible to me. If this interpretation is accurate (you guys can confirm) they are essentially saying "Hey, based on our tests that we aren't all that confident in, seems death rate is X"