|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
Slow News Day posted:Plenty. you somehow made it through this post that's supposed to answer my question without posting a single actual tweet by him or anything else he has actually said, the closest you came is talking about them and saying it was deleted. If there are this many examples, why can't you post one? Are you saying that every single time he has been wrong he's deleted the tweet and made it impossible for you to show what you are talking about?
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
It’s pretty circular the arguments I see here in this thread (and other threads). On one side you have folks arguing the effective outcome. On the other hand you have folks arguing the means while ignoring the effective outcome. Example of what I mean by “means”: Trump told folks to inject themselves with UV light -> That is bad. Biden told folks to get the vaccine -> That is good. Example of what I mean by the effective outcome: More children are catching covid under Biden than this time under Trump. 2021 is on track to have more child cases and deaths than 2020. It is why posters like myself get frustrated in this thread because folks are talking past each other to the point it feels like it is on purpose. If the effective outcome is more cases, more harm, and more death, then arguing the means are good sounds a bit insane to me. Personally I’d prefer an outcome with minimal death and harm and use whatever means are necessary that will not give more power to capital. But that’s just me  An epidemiologist posting tweets that advise folks to be more cautious to obtain a better outcome is okay in my books. For those more concerned about the means and are comfortable with the negative outcomes being boiled down to a statistical percentage, then fine. Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess. In covid related news: Capital is done with giving handouts to folks impacted by an ineffectual government and have started punishing those that contract the virus, even if they are vaccinated https://www.seattletimes.com/nation...with-big-bills/ posted:
Edit: 
virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:He has been frequently misleading, if not flat out wrong, from the very beginning. The most notable instance of this happened at the start of his Twitter fame. In January 2020, a paper about the novel coronavirus spreading out of Wuhan was published on MedRxiv. It estimated the R0 of the virus to be a whopping 3.8. In fairness to Dr. Ding we don't need to look at such a statement in a vacuum. We can look at the outcome of covid-19 being introduced into human populations and we can judge his prediction with the benefit of retrospect. Is covid a "thermonuclear" pandemic? I would argue that yes, it has turned out to be thermonuclear. Millions are dead, common consumer goods are difficult or impossible to source, the economic impacts have been catastrophic for lower income people all over the world, and the severity of this disease has eclipsed any other in recent memory, probably going back to the introduction of influenza. I think the claim that he was exaggerating is really a question of framing. He may have gotten the specifics slightly wrong, but the overall message was correct. We didn't falter by over estimating the dangers of covid-19 in 2020 due to Dr. Ding, and in fact we under estimated it and allowed it to become the horrific situation we see today. You might not enjoy the necessity of acting on imperfect information, but the disease moves more quickly than the peer review process. Keeping everyone safe required mobilization and messaging that's imperfect. Sitting here now and taking cheap shots at people for their ultimately correct, but flawed, predictions in January 2020 feels petty rather than some insightful meta-review of Dr. Ding's credibility. The majority of criticisms I see of him is "well he was right, but the way he said it felt dramatic" and I don't see that I'm able to exclude yours from that pile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I'm not inviting a known and unrepentant covid denialist/minimizer back in without good reason that I can run up to higher powers What the gently caress are you talking about. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
The “HOLY MOTHER OF GOD” tweet was right in its thesis if not it its predicates. Criticism of that particular tweet rings more than a little hollow. The “Wuhan coronavirus”, as it was then known, would not be contained. It would go global, not because its basic reproductive number was so high as to be simply uncontainable, but because it had an ace up its sleeve in asymptomatic spread and because Western governments were unwilling to take decisive action against it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What the gently caress are you talking about. quote:When you got threadbanned from two separate COVID megathreads in separate forums, it wasn't because anyone wanted to hear your input on other people's posting about COVID. User loses posting privileges for 3 days. quote:You are threadbanned, remember? User loses posting privileges for 1 day. quote:Repeated violation of threadban. User loses posting privileges for 3 days. quote:Stop posting your incorrect idiot ideas about covid-19. User loses posting privileges for 6 hours. I probably got you mixed up with someone else but you're still not welcome in either covid thread, not with that rap sheet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Genuinely curious, but has this thread levied similar criticism at influencers like Monica Gandhi, Vinay Prasad, Nate Silver etc. ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
Gio posted:Genuinely curious, but has this thread levied similar criticism at influencers like Monica Gandhi, Vinay Prasad, Nate Silver etc. ? Nate, certainly
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Ignore the Natesayer
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Gio posted:Genuinely curious, but has this thread levied similar criticism at influencers like Monica Gandhi, Vinay Prasad, Nate Silver etc. ? As the resident “contrarian” or “put on ignore list” of this thread, I haven’t seen anyone praise Nate Silver or any Twitter personality. This is very good. Biden on the other hand…
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Maybe you need to put a walkthrough on YouTube. I mean I’ve followed your ‘how to’ (IMO) for a year now but as a layperson I am likely not the best judge of how well I’m actually doing, you know? Dunning-Kruger and all that. How do I ‘check my work’ as it were? That's a great question. My answer would be you can "check your work" and evaluate how you're doing by discussing with other people (and ideally, some experts) and seeing where your understanding matches theirs and where you missed things. Nobody is going to be 100% perfect at interpreting scientific literature. If you ever go to graduate school you'll spend quite a bit of time reading literature and then discussing it with classmates and professors. It's a collective effort.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Double posting because this is a totally different topic that I don't want to get lost. Here's an interesting article from last week: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/ Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number Is Losing Meaning: A new study suggests that almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic cases. This is interesting and good news in some sense. Almost half of people in the "COVID hospitalization" statistics have mild or asymptomatic cases. They're being hospitalized while being COVID-positive and not necessarily because of severe COVID. This is also true in pediatric cases: quote:For two separate studies published in May, doctors in California read through several hundred charts of pediatric patients, one by one, to figure out why, exactly, each COVID-positive child had been admitted to the hospital. Did they need treatment for COVID, or was there some other reason for admission, like cancer treatment or a psychiatric episode, and the COVID diagnosis was merely incidental? According to the researchers, 40 to 45 percent of the hospitalizations that they examined were for patients in the latter group. and the share of patients hospitalized with mild/asymptomatic COVID has increased in 2021, both because of vaccination and because it tends to be a younger cohort: quote:The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease. The takeaway here is the hospitalization metric may not be our greatest way of tracking the pandemic right now. Deaths are still very high, so I'm not trying to minimize the pandemic at all. Also I don't intend this as commentary on boosters, that's a separate but related conversation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
for months that dude has struck me as being more concerned with breathlessly reporting anything on twitter than on actually educating people imo he’s too bombastic and is really enjoying his newfound notoriety (which fine most people like some popularity occasionally). all that said i think nate is much worse. constantly sending out takes on matters that have even less to do with his area of expertise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Double posting because this is a totally different topic that I don't want to get lost. I am having a hard time reconciling this with reports of critically overloaded hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I am having a hard time reconciling this with reports of critically overloaded hospitals. It's good for those people's health outcomes. It doesn't, unfortunately, uncrowd the hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Double posting because this is a totally different topic that I don't want to get lost. Thank you for sharing this info, it's more heartening news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I am having a hard time reconciling this with reports of critically overloaded hospitals. Here in Canada it's almost exclusively ICUs that are overloaded, so people occupying normal beds wouldn't impact things one way or another. Not sure if the states are similar. Also overloading is usually more a function of staffing than literal beds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I am having a hard time reconciling this with reports of critically overloaded hospitals. It just means a lot of the "base load" has or acquires covid, leading to hospitalized numbers higher than the number of ppl who actually have severe covid. The hospitals are still ALSO full of people with severe covid, it doesn't help them any but skews the math on severe breakthrough cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:
wow I had to triple-check your username to make sure this post was really by you, when did you crack-ping
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:It just means a lot of the "base load" has or acquires covid, leading to hospitalized numbers higher than the number of ppl who actually have severe covid. The hospitals are still ALSO full of people with severe covid, it doesn't help them any but skews the math on severe breakthrough cases. Yeah, my takeaway from that article is that "number of hospitalizations" as it's currently defined/reported is a bit misleading in 2021 because there's a ton of vaccinated and younger/healthier people hospitalized for non-COVID reasons who happen to have mild/asymptomatic COVID. The ICUs are still overflowing with severely ill, mostly unvaccinated people and deaths are high. But keep in mind when you see something referring to number of hospitalizations that it includes anyone who tests positive for COVID and is in the hospital. Up to half of them are there for other reasons and simply have mild/asymptomatic COVID.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
I’m not sure it effectively matters as people are still being denied care that is sorely needed at hospitals due to overcrowding. Many stories have come out of folks dying in the waiting room. It’s also not like mild covid is a tummy ache. That poo poo still feels like you are about to die at any moment. vvvvv ah ok. I might have misunderstood the intention of the posts then. Mea Culpa. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:I’m not sure it effectively matters as people are still being denied care that is sorely needed at hospitals due to overcrowding. Many stories have come out of folks dying in the waiting room. It matters for assessing vaccine effectiveness against severe covid, that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
Edit: Oops, wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:It’s also not like mild covid is a tummy ache. That poo poo still feels like you are about to die at any moment. It can be like that for sure, it can also be basically a mild respiratory thing or even asymptomatic. Given that we're taking about people admitted for unrelated reasons and testing positive for Covid, the latter group is likely more common.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
That study is interesting and it definitely calls into question the comparability of hospitalization statistics without additional severity metrics. Some random thoughts: - I don't think SpO2 alone is necessarily sufficient to distinguish hospital admissions because of COVID from hospital admissions for other factors that happen to end up with a positive COVID test. BU's clinical admission algorithm also includes "dyspnea or increase respiratory rate (≥30 breaths per min)" and "clinical concern for outpatient failure due to risk factors" along with SpO2. I'm not sure what the rates of admission based on those different presentations are, though, and it's possible that admissions standards change over time or with hospital load as well. Some proportion of the detected COVID from other admissions might also meet one or both of those standards, so there's some overlap. Would dyspnea without progression to low SpO2 be considered mild or moderate COVID? - The hypothesis that a large portion of the non-severe COVID admissions are simply admissions for other reasons that test positive lines up with the decrease in admissions with low SpO2 in 2021. As cases declined and people started feeling like COVID was over hospitals had a huge backlog of non-COVID services that people had been putting off. The increase in the ratio of non-COVID- to COVID-caused admissions means that we would expect more non-COVID admissions that test positive. - It's also possible that shifting admission standards could increase the proportion with low SpO2. If hospitals have more space because cases are declining, perhaps they would start admitting less severe cases for observation. - I don't agree with Dr. Griffin's view that this is good evidence that vaccinated hospitalizations are less severe. The whole point of the study is that we don't know why the less severe cases were admitted. Since vaccinated folks are hospitalized at a lower rate than non-hospitalized folks, we would expect a greater proportion of their admissions to be due to incidental COVID detected in a non-COVID hospitalization (because the ratio of non-COVID to COVID health issues should be higher in the vaxxed group). It's possible that more vaccinated people were admitted under dyspnea or high-risk-factor guidelines, but if it's a small factor for unvaxxed it's probably a small factor for vaxxed too. If we actually wanted to show that outcomes for severe cases were better for vaxxed folks, we'd need to pick a baseline clinical threshold and then look at conditional outcomes from there. - If vaccinated folks do have a lower proportion of COVID-caused admissions, estimates of VE vs hospitalization will be biased low, but probably not by much since the issue affects both vaxxed and unvaxxed. Any VE vs severe disease based on clinical presentation wouldn't be affected. - They didn't adjust for any possible confounders, which is a little disappointing because it might help tease apart the "non-COVID hospitalizations" from "non-low-SpO2 COVID admissions". Of course the best way to do that would be to do their own data abstractions for a sample of cases; maybe they'll do that in a follow up? - I do like their suggestion for using "severe COVID" based on clinical definitions instead of hospital admissions as a proxy. Of course they're still relevant for hospital loading, though it would be important to have some way of distinguishing admission reasons. Stickman fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
It sounds like all of the cases they are calling "moderate-to-severe" should just be "severe" and the non-low-SpO2 admissions are likely "moderate". From one of the preprint comments: Margaret Chapman posted:I wonder why the team decided to deviate from the NIH definition of “moderate” covid (signs of respiratory infection but blood O2 at greater than 94%)? The cases they have categorized as moderate to sever would all be categorized as severe by the NIH guidelines. NIH clinical spectrum definitions: quote:symptomatic or Presymptomatic Infection:
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:wow I had to triple-check your username to make sure this post was really by you, when did you crack-ping I started reading c spam more and delta happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:You only saw a small level of how bad it is Dr butts, like that tangent was just scratching the surface. Words cannot describe how bad it is, and I'm only in an area of the country that isn't in severe outbreaks. I cannot imagine how people in the south or high impact areas are feeling right now. Is there a particular thread on here for this? I looked and didn't see one, I'd appreciate a link.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 05:14
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:It just means a lot of the "base load" has or acquires covid, leading to hospitalized numbers higher than the number of ppl who actually have severe covid. The hospitals are still ALSO full of people with severe covid, it doesn't help them any but skews the math on severe breakthrough cases. Hospitals in many areas aren't just covid, it's actually massive sick patients from people not being able to or not wanting to see their doctors due to covid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 06:10
|
|
|
enki42 posted:You can take a precautionary approach without spreading misinformation. An R0 of 2-3 still justifies swift action if it's spreading and has severe enough outcomes. Using sketchy data to justify harsh actions is super risky, once they're proven to be false your justification is gone. HK is inching towards it, claiming 21+ day incubation periods and the risk of new Greek-letter variants that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else. Mainland China even claimed a case with a 37-day incubation period, ostensibly so that they could say it was imported from Singapore rather than local. It’s all confusing as hell and seems increasingly driven by politics in PRC than science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 06:48
|
|
|
Stickman posted:That study is interesting and it definitely calls into question the comparability of hospitalization statistics without additional severity metrics. Some random thoughts: thanks for giving it an actual read, shame on me a little bit I didn't dig into the underlying publication you have more background to examine methodology and such anyway though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
Pfizer submission for 5-12 looks like it's imminent, and from the sounds of it, no real warning signs (notably, no evidence of myocarditis): https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/health/pfizer-child-vaccine-data/index.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 13:08
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Pfizer submission for 5-12 looks like it's imminent, and from the sounds of it, no real warning signs (notably, no evidence of myocarditis): https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/health/pfizer-child-vaccine-data/index.html It’s possible 5-11 might have vaccines by Halloween!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 13:36
|
|
|
Smeef posted:HK is inching towards it, claiming 21+ day incubation periods and the risk of new Greek-letter variants that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else. Mainland China even claimed a case with a 37-day incubation period, ostensibly so that they could say it was imported from Singapore rather than local. It’s all confusing as hell and seems increasingly driven by politics in PRC than science. Back in 2020, Public Health Ontario had looked at a number of studies and concluded that "95% of individuals show symptoms by 11.2 to 11.7 days after exposure. However, the evidence for the incubation period at the tail end of the distribution (97.5th percentile or higher) is limited with a high degree of uncertainty." This old study had a large sample size and should have better results in the tail:  "The estimated tail probability that incubation period is longer than 14 days is between 5 and 10%" The CDC shortened the US quarantine period to 10 days in response to to many complaining that 14 was too long and ignoring the orders. It certainly was a political decision, and not based on any science at all. If you really want to avoid introduction by failed quarantine, 14 days isn't quite enough. Blitter fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I started reading c spam more and delta happened.  buddyIt's actually been good for my mental health because I'm a lot more focused on enjoying whatever time I can each day with my kids and family. The future is coming, we're taking steps to protect ourselves from COVID and taking what steps we can to protect ourselves from the future, but poo poo just looks pretty dark and so I find it very refreshing to just try to be mindfully aware of how hosed everything is, not shying away from that but also breathing deeply and enjoying the sunshine etc. I can't promise my kids that we're not all going to die in a desert together in 20 years, but I can help all of us enjoy the time we've got now -- and for most of human history that seems to have been an important skill, because life for most humans seems like it's always been pretty uncertain and lovely and full of abrupt unpleasantness. Got new P100 filter carts for my 6xxx, but that's really for (actual) shop use. I wanna see if I can get mastervlad's skull mod on an envomask....
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 15:02
|
|
|
Sounds like my new employer tests all employees twice a week, 24 hour turnaround. This is a huge change from my last employer that talked a good game but did basically nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Hey goons, is a little self promotion ok in this thread? I recently started a goon project in another thread to make a silly little COVID SIMULATOR. It's made to show how quickly covid can spread in a workplace, and how the odds of complications due to covid are NOT as small as they look on paper/charts. My personal goal is to get some people vaccinated or to improve their covid precautions  mask, remove mask, vaccinate, give alternative medicine, etc...  adjust time to see how fast it can spread  workers can become pro/anti vax as time goes on (either making them vaccinate more, or making them use alternative medicines more)  you can adjust the variables of the game each time. I've based the game's "dice rolls" off of the CDC web page info, and 2020 US Census data. I have also made all the "dice rolls" the game makes editable in a text file in case someone doesn't agree with the way the game operates.  I got a lot of requests for twitch integration. Took about a day, but people in chat now appear as characters and the can talk in game (this can be turned off)  obligatory title screen which implies a better game than it really is Its free in order to remove any boundary to play. Someone could donate / pay what they wanted. The 'game' is more a simulator or fun visualization. maybe a fun 10-15 minutes messing around with variables to see what happens. https://coldrice.itch.io/covid-simulator My plans for this week are to make the procedural generated rooms have a "function" and to give the characters a "schedule." I'm also hoping to add a "profits" mechanic which rises/falls as you workers do work, or don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that looks wild, can't wait to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Seems like you could have the workers face forward while working and display masks on them for their status? Could help reduce some visual clutter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Disargeria posted:Seems like you could have the workers face forward while working and display masks on them for their status? Could help reduce some visual clutter. Hey good idea. It would be pretty trivial to implement ha ha
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 18:50
|
|