Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

On 3/8/2021 at 11:48 AM, Snorkelson said:

Sure, and trending up every period studied. Restaurants reopening didn’t result in a change in numbers likely because of limited capacity and continued use of masks. 
1.8% of the 29,000,000 cases in the US would equate to 522,000 fewer cases. That seems significant to me, as 522,000 more carriers would result in much more spread as it is an exponential equation. 

It wasn't total US, only counties with mask mandates.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is going to be a one off post because I don't want to get trolled or banned but if I were American, the context of Canada would be the biggest damning fact of how things have been handled in the

Australia has had months of little to no community spread and even then it was confined to one state. By and large Australians are running around doing the right thing, sport was and is still hap

I am confident we are going to hit >750K deaths.  I think it might be a million.  I don't post a ton but I'm an ER doc in a big city. This is by far the worse I've seen since the pandemic star

1 hour ago, matuski said:

Could be (didnt really read it), just saying that using the conclusion as a retort to the data is a weird way to go about things... backasswards.

Simply presenting the data and excluding the conclusion of the scientists at the cdc and accepting OANN interpretation is stupid in my opinion. I suppose what we consider “significant” could be left to interpretation. I’m not a cdc scientist, and OANN is definitely a biased outlet, so I’m more inclined to listen to their conclusions. Feel free to read their report if you want to continue the discussion. You’re a laymen looking at one group of statistics and telling me the cdc is wrong without even looking at their report. I’m not willing to accept that as worth much consideration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

It wasn't total US, only counties with mask mandates.  

Thats a fair distinction in those numbers. That was my own thrown together data point to show the significance of 1.8%, but still seems like a significant number of less people infected early who didn’t further pass it along. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

This environment where we are socially distanced, wearing masks and improving basic hygiene.  Those are all having an impact on the flu in a very different way than they are COVID.  There is no theory there.  It is what it is.  I haven't gone beyond that.  I don't need to.  Clearly they are different beasts and not "the same".  If they were, our remediations would impact them in a similar fashion.  They aren't.

think back - people never got much closer than 6' anyway in grocery stores, wal-mart etc

people have always washed hands do still, and those who didn't don't

masks are worn in public - well they were - but outside of public few did

 

I see your theory - that the things done impacted the flu ..... I see that. I also think that a lot of covid cases are really the flu - many symptoms are the same you know

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Simply presenting the data and excluding the conclusion of the scientists at the cdc and accepting OANN interpretation is stupid in my opinion. I suppose what we consider “significant” could be left to interpretation. I’m not a cdc scientist, and OANN is definitely a biased outlet, so I’m more inclined to listen to their conclusions. Feel free to read their report if you want to continue the discussion. You’re a laymen looking at one group of statistics and telling me the cdc is wrong without even looking at their report. I’m not willing to accept that as worth much consideration. 

I haven't said the CDC was wrong.  I have said you are going about this wrong by focusing on perhaps the most worthless part of a study - the conclusion.

I use clinical papers and studies, break them down and present them to surgeons daily.

You seem to have a high bar for the term "laymen".

 

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

think back - people never got much closer than 6' anyway in grocery stores, wal-mart etc

people have always washed hands do still, and those who didn't don't

masks are worn in public - well they were - but outside of public few did

 

I see your theory - that the things done impacted the flu ..... I see that. I also think that a lot of covid cases are really the flu - many symptoms are the same you know

The tests tell you which one you have :shrug: 

You can think what you want.....doesn't matter when the tests are telling you what you have.  The only way to get by that is to believe there is some global, coordinated effort to lie to everyone about what those tests say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matuski said:

I haven't said the CDC was wrong.  I have said you are going about this wrong by focusing on perhaps the most worthless part of a study - the conclusion.

I use clinical papers and studies, break them down and present them to surgeons daily.  My bag is full of them right now.

You seem to have a high bar for the term "laymen".

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Thats a fair distinction in those numbers. That was my own thrown together data point to show the significance of 1.8%, but still seems like a significant number of less people infected early who didn’t further pass it along. 

Significance and statistical significance are not the same thing.  I'm not aware of what the distinction is, maybe someone who paid attention in statistics class could opine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The tests tell you which one you have :shrug: 

You can think what you want.....doesn't matter when the tests are telling you what you have.  The only way to get by that is to believe there is some global, coordinated effort to lie to everyone about what those tests say.

<cough> Andrew Cuomo <cough>

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, matuski said:

I haven't said the CDC was wrong.  I have said you are going about this wrong by focusing on perhaps the most worthless part of a study - the conclusion.

I use clinical papers and studies, break them down and present them to surgeons daily.

You seem to have a high bar for the term "laymen".

 

Well you admittedly didn’t read the source material, so I stand by that distinction until you do. I’m happy to listen and read any info you want to share; I’m admittedly a layman that refuses to simply take the OANN statistic they want to focus on over the cdc conclusions. My aim is the truth of the matter, and if someone is spreading biased information I’d like to call it out. If I’m wrong I’d like to be enlightened as to why, and OANN isn’t where I’m going for that info. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine we’re in a Stealthycat reality where OANN is reputable and it was merely drawing its own conclusions from the CDC data.  Wouldn’t it be an important part of the story that the CDC was reaching incorrect conclusions from the data that it had compiled?  Seems like OANN should have led with that.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Imagine we’re in a Stealthycat reality where OANN is reputable and it was merely drawing its own conclusions from the CDC data.  Wouldn’t it be an important part of the story that the CDC was reaching incorrect conclusions from the data that it had compiled?  Seems like OANN should have led with that.

that would require having a rudimentary understanding of science.   not OANN's forte, nor that of its target audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I looked at the study, the .5-1.8% increase appeared to be the change in the DAILY growth rate number.

If that's correct, over 60 or 90 days it results in higher rates of infection.  Over the course of a year it would be significant.

And of course masks are just one element of prevention.  Masks change the daily growth rate EVEN THOUGH we're also doing other things.  Social distancing, closures, etc.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Well you admittedly didn’t read the source material, so I stand by that distinction until you do. I’m happy to listen and read any info you want to share; I’m admittedly a layman that refuses to simply take the OANN statistic they want to focus on over the cdc conclusions. My aim is the truth of the matter, and if someone is spreading biased information I’d like to call it out. If I’m wrong I’d like to be enlightened as to why, and OANN isn’t where I’m going for that info. 

You arent reading what you are responding to apparently.

You are doing it wrong.  I am not debating the paper or its content.. I am trying to help you understand how to do so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

<cough> Andrew Cuomo <cough>

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean given the context of the words you are replying to :shrug: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matuski said:

You arent reading what you are responding to apparently.

You are doing it wrong.  I am not debating the paper or its content.. I am trying to help you understand how to do so.

Well as I said, I’m not a scientist or an expert. There’s a lot of data in there, and I’ve read through it but probably would need to spend a day on it to truly understand it, even then I might not fully grasp all the nuances. Ill take this moment to apologize for the layman statement; feel free to explain where the cdc makes mistakes. 

Do you accept OANNs interpretation of this data over the conclusions of the cdc scientists preparing the report? Why or why not? You aren’t debating the paper or it’s merit but I don’t think you’ve read it either, so why are you calling me out here, while letting stealthy rest on his oann interpretation as if it’s an obvious conclusion? Are they not a “biased media outlet that might twist words or ignore data” as he pointed out? Is he also doing it wrong by only looking at one chart?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So new advice from the LA teacher's union:  Don't post pictures from your international trips and beach trips as we need help keeping you from having to go back to work.  Hysterical if it wasn't so sad.  This is the union that just voted 90-10 that it was unsafe to go back to school.

School choice is today's biggest civil rights struggle.  These unions are absolutely crushing education, particularly for our most vulnerable children.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gov Newsome should not be comparing COVID death rates in California with other states. He just compared the overall death rate of California with Texas and NY. CA is much better than NY - that's because it hit NY before anyone know how to deal with COVID. CA is incrementally better than TX. The same for DeSantis. So many factors go into the death rate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

Significance and statistical significance are not the same thing.  I'm not aware of what the distinction is, maybe someone who paid attention in statistics class could opine.

When researchers say that they found a "significant" link between X and Y, they always mean "statistically significant."  As you've noted, that term has a very specific, technical meaning.  Basically it means that their data show a relationship between X and Y that's very unlikely to be due to random noise in the data themselves.  

Consider flipping a fair coin -- it comes up heads with probability 0.5 and tails with probability 0.5, but we all know that if you flip that coin ten times, you probably aren't going to get five heads and five tails.  If you flip that coin ten times and get seven heads, your data are telling you "the probability of this coin coming up heads is 0.7" but that doesn't really mean anything because that's just how luck works. Our data are too noisy to draw any meaningful conclusion at all from that sort of result.  In technical terms, our result is well within the window of outcomes you might expect from chance, so it's not a statistically significant result.  

If I flip that same coin a billion times and it comes up heads 51% of the time and tails 49% of the time, the sheer number of tosses makes me more confident that something's wrong with this coin.  51/49 is a lot closer to 50/50 than 7/3, but the former result probably isn't due to chance.  (There's a formula somewhere for this that I'm too lazy to look up, and it doesn't matter for purposes of explanation).  

So a coin that comes up heads 51% of the time in a billion tosses is "significantly" biased in the sense that I'm confident that it's not 50/50.  But it's not "significantly" biased in the normal English sense of being "largely" biased -- it's just slightly off.  

I hope that helps.  TLDR a result can be statistically significant but still really small, and results can also be really large but statistically insignificant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Commish said:

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean given the context of the words you are replying to :shrug: 

Andrew Cuomo hid the number of COVID deaths in nursing homes due to his bad policy.  He's coming under fire for it now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

Andrew Cuomo hid the number of COVID deaths in nursing homes due to his bad policy.  He's coming under fire for it now.  

Yes...I'm aware of what he did.  What I don't understand is what that has to do with this global conspiracy that would have had to happen in order for some things in this thread to be plausible  

Edited by The Commish
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

a result can be statistically significant but still really small, and results can also be really large but statistically insignificant. 

Indeed.  It's tough to drive policy decisions with anecdata or your latter scenario of "large but statistically insignificant".

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

The CDC recommends washing your mask after each use

 

I bet nobody does this - after each use

Most people who wear masks on a daily basis have several masks they rotate and wash in between. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

The CDC recommends washing your mask after each use

 

I bet nobody does this - after each use

Ive used the same mask unwashed for 6 months now. I just leave it in my car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Ive used the same mask unwashed for 6 months now. I just leave it in my car.

Umm, that is nasty dude. I am a sloppy dude, and I certainly don't wash my mask after every use, but 6 months is really pushing it man

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

The CDC recommends washing your mask after each use

 

I bet nobody does this - after each use

I triple mask, do I have to wash all 3? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Why is it nasty?

Because you are breathing heavily into it after eating all sorts of different foods and having stanky breath and such. It deserves a good washing every once in a while. Just like undies and socks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dawgtrails said:

Because you are breathing heavily into it after eating all sorts of different foods and having stanky breath and such. It deserves a good washing every once in a while. Just like undies and socks

Speak for yourself dude. I wear mine to go food shopping or any activities that require one. I dont eat in a mask.I dont goto restaurants and my breath certainly does not stink. The mask does not stink.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Because you are breathing heavily into it after eating all sorts of different foods and having stanky breath and such. It deserves a good washing every once in a while. Just like undies and socks

Yeah...that isn't even covid related.  Putting the same thing up against your mouth for 6 months seems unwise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biff84 said:
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

The CDC recommends washing your mask after each use

I bet nobody does this - after each use

Most people who wear masks on a daily basis have several masks they rotate and wash in between. 

Comments like Stealthy's remind me that there a lot of folks in meatspace who never really have wrapped both arms around wearing masks. For them, wearing masks has always been an intrusive 'extra' or even a total bother ... not something that ever fit seamlessly into their daily routines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yeah...that isn't even covid related.  Putting the same thing up against your mouth for 6 months seems unwise.

Oily skin + dirty masks = acne :( 

A dirty mask can still serve as source control, though. It's not like "dirty mask" = "no mask".

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Unwise how?

Still waiting for an explanation 

Warm moisture from your breath create a nice breeding ground for mold/bacteria/etc.

When this fisr went down I wore the same (cloth) mask w/o washing a few days in a row and suddenly my asthma started acting up.  I switched to a clean mask and could breathe fine again. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

The CDC recommends washing your mask after each use

 

I bet nobody does this - after each use

I'm guessing you don't wash your hands much.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us who only throw the mask on the chin when absolutely required, like the 30 seconds from the door of the restaurant to the table, and breath through our noses - the masks don't get very dirty very fast.  HTH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Warm moisture from your breath create a nice breeding ground for mold/bacteria/etc.

When this fisr went down I wore the same (cloth) mask w/o washing a few days in a row and suddenly my asthma started acting up.  I switched to a clean mask and could breathe fine again. 

Wearing a mask an hour a day or every other day and leaving it in the car isn't gonna breed mold

 Gtfo here

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I can't believe this is a real conversation.

Good explanation... I'm guessing it's because you couldn't come up with one other than your own personal disgusting breath.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jobarules said:

It's amazing all these germs breeding on my unwashed mask you would think I would've gotten sick at least once

You have to factor in them thinking that you're supposed to be wearing it 24x7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Wearing a mask an hour a day or every other day and leaving it in the car isn't gonna breed mold

 Gtfo here

I didn't say an hour a day, did I?  

*checks notes* nope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jobarules said:

It's amazing all these germs breeding on my unwashed mask you would think I would've gotten sick at least once

Maybe you don't have allergies to mold or asthma?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...