Coronainsanity

[Gulo Blue]

More on Ct value: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii4RRiMUxa8

How did this guy convert from a log plot with 4 data points to a linear plot with enough points to render a smooth curve? The way he replotted it, it looks like it's clearly a strong peak on day 5, but in the first figure, it looks like there's no data for days 3, 4, or 6-10. I understand the point he's trying to make, but the 2nd plot is a misrepresentation of the 1st - misrepresenting the exact thing he's talking about: certainty of the timing of the peak. He even says "2, 3, 4, 5 days max" well that's not what his replotting of the data suggests at all. That's more the read I'd get from the first figure.

Friggin' Harvard. Think they know everything.

 

[zyxt9]

Also, the particles vary in size so much they behave differently and their evaporation rate, which varies with temp and humidity, will cause them to transition from heavy particles that drop out of the air fairly quickly to smaller ones that won't. If Dyson can use a vortex to get particles out of air flow without blocking it, why should it be hard to believe that the specific details of a building would yield unequal concentrations from spot to spot?

Obviously the true dynamics of a given space will have different flows between A and B, even changing from one second to the next. This is partly why someone 12' away could get it while the person 6' away does not. However, the basic Science stands firm even with all the dynamics taken into account, the person 6' away wearing a mask would have 8x greater probability of becoming infected compared to the person 12' away. For any doubling of distance, there is an 8x differential in probability. Would some experiments show it to be less than 8x, sure...and others would show it to be greater than 8x. Averaging out over infinite experiments will most likely yield close to an 8x differential. That's just simple basic Science, based on a math formula, and this is what has been lacking from all of Fauci's statements. It is like they believe the only people who are capable of basic math is themselves and all of us underlings would never be able to comprehend their greatness.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Obviously the true dynamics of a given space will have different flows between A and B, even changing from one second to the next. This is partly why someone 12' away could get it while the person 6' away does not. However, the basic Science stands firm even with all the dynamics taken into account, the person 6' away wearing a mask would have 8x greater probability of becoming infected compared to the person 12' away. For any doubling of distance, there is an 8x differential in probability. Would some experiments show it to be less than 8x, sure...and others would show it to be greater than 8x. Averaging out over infinite experiments will most likely yield close to an 8x differential. That's just simple basic Science, based on a math formula, and this is what has been lacking from all of Fauci's statements. It is like they believe the only people who are capable of basic math is themselves and all of us underlings would never be able to comprehend their greatness.

If you have a restaurant, and it's an order of magnitude more safe in one spot or another due to the ventilation, that would be good to know. You want to avoid the specific cases that are bad, and allow the specific cases that are ok. If the average isn't very representative of a lot of situations, then advice based on averages isn't as useful. But we need to figure that out.

Average family income in the US was $116k in 2019. Financial advice for families making $116k doesn't apply to a lot of people.

 

[Spartanmack]

"... but I'm not saying minorities are responsible for racial wealth inequality."

why would you need a qualifier for something that isn't an actual issue?

 

[Gulo Blue]

why would you need a qualifier for something that isn't an actual issue?

You should use 'but-I'm-not-saying' footnotes along with sarcasm punctuation and a special font for 'jokes'.

 

[byco42]

How did this guy convert from a log plot with 4 data points to a linear plot with enough points to render a smooth curve? The way he replotted it, it looks like it's clearly a strong peak on day 5, but in the first figure, it looks like there's no data for days 3, 4, or 6-10. I understand the point he's trying to make, but the 2nd plot is a misrepresentation of the 1st - misrepresenting the exact thing he's talking about: certainty of the timing of the peak. He even says "2, 3, 4, 5 days max" well that's not what his replotting of the data suggests at all. That's more the read I'd get from the first figure.

Friggin' Harvard. Think they know everything.

I don?t know ... maybe something to do with the weighting. I was just trying to learn more about this.

 

[Spartanmack]

You should use 'but-I'm-not-saying' footnotes along with sarcasm punctuation and a special font for 'jokes'.

I don't use "but I'm not saying" qualifiers so no need for the footnotes. and if I did, should I have make special accommodations for the benefit of one person? last I checked not having a sense of humor isn't a disability recognized in the ADA.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't use "but I'm not saying" qualifiers so no need for the footnotes. and if I did, should I have make special accommodations for the benefit of one person? last I checked not having a sense of humor isn't a disability recognized in the ADA.

It ain't about missing a joke or a sarcastic remark or an exaggeration. It's about weaseling out of the things you say by exaggerating or 'joking' and leaving it ambiguous the degree to which you meant it after you 'correct' whoever you're talking to. It doesn't fool anyone. You just declare victory and everyone moves on with a different understanding of what happened.

 

[Spartanmack]

It ain't about missing a joke or a sarcastic remark or an exaggeration. It's about weaseling out of the things you say by exaggerating or 'joking' and leaving it ambiguous the degree to which you meant it after you 'correct' whoever you're talking to. It doesn't fool anyone. You just declare victory and everyone moves on with a different understanding of what happened.

the only person fooling anyone into anything is you fooling yourself into thinking I've done any of that. And fyi, by everyone, you're talking about you and MC - the two people with the pathological need to disagree with me to the point where you have to make up arguments I never made then accuse me of denying them.

 

[Gulo Blue]

% of women in the workforce has been set back to 1988 levels.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/28/928253674/stuck-at-home-moms-the-pandemics-devastating-toll-on-women

 

[Gulo Blue]

It gave the same ?plausible? adjective to both fomite and aerosol transmission, but no one never hears about fomite transmission, and the aerosol transmission was in laboratory conditions with Ct values between 20 and 22 ?similar to ?those observed in samples obtained from upper and lower respiratory tract in humans.?

Another thought on transmission vectors: it looks like we crushed the flu last year. To some degree this could point to covid being far more contagious than the flu, or it could point to covid being transmitted differently and the preventative steps we took being better suited to flu than covid.

 

[byco42]

Another thought on transmission vectors: it looks like we crushed the flu last year. To some degree this could point to covid being far more contagious than the flu, or it could point to covid being transmitted differently and the preventative steps we took being better suited to flu than covid.

The only thing I'm certain of is that I'm not certain of anything. And neither is anyone else, whether they realize it or not.

The exception is the people who keep adjusting the narrative, and, for some reason, we keep believing them.

 

[Michchamp]

Another thought on transmission vectors: it looks like we crushed the flu last year. To some degree this could point to covid being far more contagious than the flu, or it could point to covid being transmitted differently and the preventative steps we took being better suited to flu than covid.

I'd say it's more contagious than the flu (and also, as people have been saying since like Feb 2020, 30 times more deadly).

Wearing masks and generally being safe would crush the flu also, but if there's not a pandemic around, few Americans would do that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The only thing I'm certain of is that I'm not certain of anything. And neither is anyone else, whether they realize it or not.

The exception is the people who keep adjusting the narrative, and, for some reason, we keep believing them.

It's not as black and white as believe/not believe. It more, in the absence of sufficient data, these are the best guesses by the people who know the most on the subject.

 

[Michchamp]

It's not as black and white as believe/not believe. It more, in the absence of sufficient data, these are the best guesses by the people who know the most on the subject.

Going back to Feb/Mar 2020, the "educated" guesses and predictions for how the COVID-19 pandemic would play out have done a lot better than the guesses from the category of people I'd call The Dunning-Kruger Effect Personified.

 

[byco42]

It's not as black and white as believe/not believe. It more, in the absence of sufficient data, these are the best guesses by the people who know the most on the subject.

The people who "know most" can't agree on what they know. Or even with themselves.

?I mean, this is a physical covering to prevent droplets and virus to get in. So if you have a physical covering with one layer, and you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective,? Fauci said."

* Five days later *

?There are many people who feel, you know (sic) if you really wanna have an extra little bit of protection ?maybe I should put two masks on.? There?s nothing wrong with that, but there?s no data that indicates that that is going to make a difference. and that?s the reason why the CDC has not changed their recommendations.? (said Fauci)

I'm gonna wait until his next confusing, obtuse, and oblique statement before I take action.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm gonna wait until his next confusing, obtuse, and oblique statement before I take action.

If everyone took that approach, I think a lot more people would have died. People start dying from a virus, we start doing general virus prevention stuff. Over time we learn more about what seems to be working and what isn't and we adjust. I don't blame the experts for the stuff they've been wrong about because my impression is that there's no way to know these things with certainty until maybe long after it's too late (if ever).

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's like pointing to religious leaders disagreeing and saying I'm going to wait until I'm dead to see what the right approach towards religion is for certain.

 

[tinselwolverine]

If you have a restaurant, and it's an order of magnitude more safe in one spot or another due to the ventilation, that would be good to know. You want to avoid the specific cases that are bad, and allow the specific cases that are ok. If the average isn't very representative of a lot of situations, then advice based on averages isn't as useful. But we need to figure that out.

Average family income in the US was $116k in 2019. Financial advice for families making $116k doesn't apply to a lot of people.

What???

$68,703

Only a little more than half of that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

What???

$68,703

Only a little more than half of that.

Median is the number in the middle, which is different from the average.

1,2,3,4,5,6,1000

Median is 4
Average is 146

So half make more than $68k, half make less, but when you include everyone calculating the average, the people at the top skew the number away from the median.