Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Government Response To The Coronavirus (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter James Daulton
- Start date
- Status
Snorkelson
Footballguy
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.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
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.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
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
matuski
Footballguy
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".
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
The tests tell you which one you have
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.
matuski
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
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.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
<cough> Andrew Cuomo <cough>The tests tell you which one you have
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.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
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.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
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.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean given the context of the words you are replying toSnotbubbles said:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
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?
Sand
Footballguy
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.
School choice is today's biggest civil rights struggle. These unions are absolutely crushing education, particularly for our most vulnerable children.
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.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
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.Snotbubbles said:
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.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Andrew Cuomo hid the number of COVID deaths in nursing homes due to his bad policy. He's coming under fire for it now.I don't even know what this is supposed to mean given the context of the words you are replying to
The Commish
Footballguy
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
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Indeed. It's tough to drive policy decisions with anecdata or your latter scenario of "large but statistically insignificant".
Stealthycat
Footballguy
The CDC recommends washing your mask after each use
I bet nobody does this - 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.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
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
GoBirds
Footballguy
dawgtrails
Footballguy
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.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
People really don't wash or change their masks? I hope they don't mind when their doctors do the same.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yeah...that isn't even covid related. Putting the same thing up against your mouth for 6 months seems unwise.
Doug B
Footballguy
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.
Doug B
Footballguy
Oily skin + dirty masks = acne :(
A dirty mask can still serve as source control, though. It's not like "dirty mask" = "no mask".
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
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.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
Wearing a mask an hour a day or every other day and leaving it in the car isn't gonna breed mold
Gtfo here
Good explanation... I'm guessing it's because you couldn't come up with one other than your own personal disgusting breath.
moleculo
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
