CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Gatorubet 30064]

We’re proper fucked. Mask usage in my estimation has dropped to approximately zero.

I was the only person wearing one at the grocery store today.

The possibility of Tubbervile breathing in the fake miasma - because he eschewed the anti-freedom mouth covering - is the only positive take I could find here.

Stay safe BC

[Anastasis 23375]

27 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I get the fatalistic approach, but what people don't understand is that it's not about them.  It's about everyone else.

And particularly about those 70+ years of age and those in nursing homes. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Anastasis

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[BradInATX 9208]

What a whiny bitch

[Chooky 13292]

14 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

You would think that you would want to strive to make sure that your human capital stock is well-maintained and healthy in the most economical way possible.  Like with a national maintenance plan.  A "health care" plan if you would.  Avoids maintenance down-time and such.

Spray them with a concentrated fly repellent when they get packed together. They'll resent it while it's happening but will enjoy the lack of flies later. They're too stupid to appreciate all the things we do for them prior to slaughter. 

[Nivek 16808]

 

I would love to give myself performance reviews. Honey, i killed that pussy. This is the best bowl of cereal kids. I deserve a boat.

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[PsychMike 1537]

53 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

   45 minutes ago,  triplehorn said: 

“Yeah, but in a way — I mean, I don’t want to die,” the recent college graduate replied. “But if that’s what God has in store for my life, then that’s okay.”

I get the fatalistic approach, but what people don't understand is that it's not about them.  It's about everyone else.

It also reminded me of this from the Galveston paper:

“We haven’t noticed anything different other than having to stand in line at the restaurant,” said David McGinnis, who drove to Galveston from Belton, about five hours away, on Friday. His family’s trip to Galveston this weekend was a small makeup for a canceled April trip to Mexico.

“Personally, I feel if God’s going to call you home, he’s going to call you home here, at home or in Canada,” McGinnis said. “So it doesn’t matter. But, I mean, we’re not being stupid and shaking hands with everybody we meet.”

It's as if they are all listening to the same talk radio shows.

[Nope 3111]

 

 

[Bigpoppapump 529]

Today is the day, on the cusp of 100k.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

45 minutes ago, Bigpoppapump said:

Today is the day, on the cusp of 100k.

Could have been 2.2 million, so be grateful.

[Mo Horn 8795]

1 hour ago, Bigpoppapump said:

Today is the day, on the cusp of 100k.

But we were assured that we wouldn't reach this number at all, or at the worst not until September. Is it September already? Wow the summer went quickly. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

1 minute ago, Mo Horn said:

But we were assured that we wouldn't reach this number at all, or at the worst not until September. Is it September already? Wow the summer went quickly. 

I thought it was 60K or was it we only have 15 people with it and soon it would be zero.  Really hard to keep track of what number of deaths we were told to expect.  

[RPM 26185]

I was told this would miracle away in April. April sure is long this year.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I thought it was 60K or was it we only have 15 people with it and soon it would be zero.  Really hard to keep track of what number of deaths we were told to expect.  

Wait til he starts in with the tweets about how the death total is fake.  Then you'll really be confused.

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, Bigpoppapump said:

Today is the day, on the cusp of 100k.

oh, we're surely already there.  actually, as i write this, worldo has us over 100k.  weekends are always slow to report (mondays too), so i can only imagine what a holiday weekend is like.

wasn't there some crackpot who tweeted "i think we can all agree that if the death toll stays under 200,000 then donald trump is the best president ever?"  it sounded like a joke, but it wasn't.  it was over a month ago, and i did a quick search but couldn't find it.  just so hard to keep those goalposts in place.

[BrickHorn 18176]

1 hour ago, Bigpoppapump said:

Today is the day, on the cusp of 100k.

I fear this thing is going to start ramping up again. It’s not like we snuffed it out. We’re at 20k new cases per day nationwide. Hopefully the warm weather, continued caution from a sizable chunk of the population, and the typical summer social distancing will keep it from spreading like wildfire. But COVID is still smoldering and by reopening with spotty precautions at best, we’re basically throwing kindling on the coals.  

[SimonBolivar 10898]

20 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Wait til he starts in with the tweets about how the death total is fake.  Then you'll really be confused.

That's already the talking point.

[gmr548 16463]

Today is the day, on the cusp of 100k.

Of course it's a Tuesday.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

We'll be fine. It's not like Trump has been wrong before.

[Nivek 16808]

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

That's already the talking point.

Yeah, I heard that as well.  Someone with cancer gets covid and they blame it on covid?  Crazy?  (yeah asshole, just like when someone had HIV and died from the flu, they looked at the reason their body couldn't fight the infection)   It is not like someone who was hit by a car but also had covid was blamed on covid.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

4 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Yeah, I heard that as well.  Someone with cancer gets covid and they blame it on covid?  Crazy?  (yeah asshole, just like when someone had HIV and died from the flu, they looked at the reason their body couldn't fight the infection)   It is not like someone who was hit by a car but also had covid was blamed on covid.

Actually, I had a Trumper tell me over the weekend that some of the deaths were people that died in a auto accident but tested positive for Covid in the autopsy so they blamed Covid for the death.  They did not have proof of this so I guess it was a talking point from right wing radio or TV.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

36 minutes ago, RPM said:

I was told this would miracle away in April. April sure is long this year.

Trump didn't say what year the April miracle would occur though did he?  4 d chess.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah, I heard that as well.  Someone with cancer gets covid and they blame it on covid?  Crazy?  (yeah asshole, just like when someone had HIV and died from the flu, they looked at the reason their body couldn't fight the infection)   It is not like someone who was hit by a car but also had covid was blamed on covid.

Surely many of the victims of 9/11 had cancer or heart disease or diabetes.

Republicans would have flipped their lids if anyone would have tried to brush off even one of those deaths like they’re doing now.

[BrickHorn 18176]

26 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Actually, I had a Trumper tell me over the weekend that some of the deaths were people that died in a auto accident but tested positive for Covid in the autopsy so they blamed Covid for the death.  They did not have proof of this so I guess it was a talking point from right wing radio or TV.

I heard that most COVID deaths are actually old people who flash their brights at passing motorists whose lights are off, only to be murdered as part of an MS-13 Obamagate caravan’s gang initiation.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

3 hours ago, Bigpoppapump said:

Today is the day, on the cusp of 100k.

Of course it's a Tuesday.

Oh shit!  Gotta eat the birds!

[jimmyjazz 45513]

54 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I fear this thing is going to start ramping up again. It’s not like we snuffed it out. We’re at 20k new cases per day nationwide. Hopefully the warm weather, continued caution from a sizable chunk of the population, and the typical summer social distancing will keep it from spreading like wildfire. 

My old stomping grounds:

[InkaUtexas 25426]

41 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My old stomping grounds:

Rules man.... WTF.  

[Queen Bitch 1692]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

 the typical summer social distancing  

Huh?

[jimmyjazz 45513]

24 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Rules man.... WTF.  

That photo was from this weekend.  I haven't been there in 35 years.  I suppose I could ask some old HS girlfriends for current swimsuit shots, but I don't think anybody is gonna want to see them.

[Red Five 40593]

I think you overestimate this place. 

[RDCanecutter 26239]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I suppose I could ask some old HS girlfriends

I thought you said you were an engineer.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

11 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I thought you said you were an engineer.

Yes, but I was gonna be a business major up until a few months before college started, so I had a couple of years where I clearly outkicked my coverage in high school.

[InkaUtexas 25426]

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That photo was from this weekend.  I haven't been there in 35 years.  I suppose I could ask some old HS girlfriends for current swimsuit shots, but I don't think anybody is gonna want to see them.

pretty weak excuse man. Um, we have other forums. They might have hints for you. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

I heard that most COVID deaths are actually old people who flash their brights at passing motorists whose lights are off, only to be murdered as part of an MS-13 Obamagate caravan’s gang initiation.

So does that count as a covid death or a MS13 death?  Both?

 

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Surely many of the victims of 9/11 had cancer or heart disease or diabetes.

Republicans would have flipped their lids if anyone would have tried to brush off even one of those deaths like they’re doing now.

Republicans struggle to understand "but for" causation when it comes to contagions.  They get 9/11 because it was an openly violent act.  So are car accidents so they get that too.  They also get that firing a gun at someone is a potentially deadly act.  They don't get that coughing on someone can also be a potentially deadly act.  Remember, this is a "war against an invisible enemy."  Trump says that line so much because he still doesn't understand it.

Most have also gone so far down the "individual liberty" rabbit hole that they can only think in selfish terms.  They can't even grasp that others may have "individual liberties" that their selfish actions may infringe upon.  For this reason, many, if not most, still believe that masks protect the wearer rather than others.   "I don't wear a mask because I'm not worried about being sick."  They still fail to realize that those around them who are wearing masks are being considerate while they are being complete dickheads.

Even when making driving regulation comparisons, I have seen smart libertarians continue to compare mask wearing to seatbelt laws.  It is actually more comparable to DUI laws.  I also haven't seen anyone actually want to repeal DUI laws, traffic signals, or any other regulation designed to protect others from potentially deadly drivers.  Yet the fuckers still can't apply that logic to wearing a mask around strangers. 

If everyone had been wearing a mask since March, hardly anyone would have gotten coronavirus, and we would already be fully open again while still wearing masks until there is a vaccine.

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Well... fuck

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[Anastasis 23375]

50 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Somewhat misleading tweet. Positive predictive value is a function of the prevalence of the condition in the population,.  The tests are sensitive and specific and perform well, what they are pointing on in that article is the population performance of the tests in the setting of a low prevalence condition.   

[Captainant 27311]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Somewhat misleading tweet. Positive predictive value is a function of the prevalence of the condition in the population,.  The tests are sensitive and specific and perform well, what they are pointing on in that article is the population performance of the tests in the setting of a low prevalence condition.   

If the testing criteria yields a roughly 50% correct outcome, I'd say that's being wrong up to half the time. The mechanisms may be consistent and perform well, but if the lab analysis leads to misinterpretation of the results it's not a good test

[Anastasis 23375]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If the testing criteria yields a roughly 50% correct outcome, I'd say that's being wrong up to half the time. The mechanisms may be consistent and perform well, but if the lab analysis leads to misinterpretation of the results it's not a good test

It's the same test whether you deploy it in NY or MT.  The sensitivity and specificity of the individuals tests will remain the same, the PPV may vary widely as a result of more fewer false positives in NY due to the greater ratio of true positives/negatives, and a greater number of false positives in MT due to lower ratio of true positives/negatives.  There are implications in the way that you should use the tests in a public health setting, and they should try to improve the performance of the tests from 95%ish sens/spec to 99%+. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Can you put some hypothetical numbers to that?  I think what you're saying is that if 20 in 100 tested in NYC are truly positive, but only 2 in 100 tested in Butte are positive, then the PPV will look different?

[Captainant 27311]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

It's the same test whether you deploy it in NY or MT.  The sensitivity and specificity of the individuals tests will remain the same, the PPV may vary widely as a result of more fewer false positives in NY due to the greater ratio of true positives/negatives, and a greater number of false positives in MT due to lower ratio of true positives/negatives.  There are implications in the way that you should use the tests in a public health setting, and they should try to improve the performance of the tests from 95%ish sens/spec to 99%+. 

Gotcha, so it's more of a situation where a larger set of data and tests for a region lets the error bars shrink enough to make a more accurate determination?

[BrickHorn 18176]

57 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Nothing says “Totally not a pussy” like a guy heckling a sickly woman. 

[BrickHorn 18176]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can you put some hypothetical numbers to that?  I think what you're saying is that if 20 in 100 tested in NYC are truly positive, but only 2 in 100 tested in Butte are positive, then the PPV will look different?

Yep.  Think of it this way: the test is 99% specific, meaning that it only yields a false positive result for 1% of the test takers who are actually negative. Also assume the false negative rate is 0% (for purposes of simplicity).

Assume a region of 10,000 people with a prevalence of the disease = 1% - that is, only 1% of the population (100 people) has actually been infected.  Now run the test. You’ll get 100 true positives. But you’ll also get 99 false positives (9,900 negative test subjects * 1% false positive rate). Out of the 199 positive results, just barely more than half are correct. Meaning your chance of having antibodies if you receive a positive result is approximately 50%. 

Now run the same test on a population of 10,000 that has a 20% prevalence. In that case, you get 2,000 true positives and only 80 false positives.  So the probability that you actually have the antibodies if you test positive is over 96%. 

Bayesian probabilities are fun. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

14 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Yep.  Think of it this way: the test is 99% specific, meaning that it only yields a false positive result for 1% of the test takers who are actually negative. Also assume the false negative rate is 0% (for purposes of simplicity).

Assume a region of 10,000 people with a prevalence of the disease = 1% - that is, only 1% of the population (100 people) has actually been infected.  Now run the test. You’ll get 100 true positives. But you’ll also get 99 false positives (9,900 negative test subjects * 1% false positive rate). Out of the 199 positive results, just barely more than half are correct. Meaning your chance of having antibodies if you receive a positive result is approximately 50%. 

Now run the same test on a population of 10,000 that has a 20% prevalence. In that case, you get 2,000 true positives and only 80 false positives.  So the probability that you actually have the antibodies if you test positive is over 96%. 

Bayesian probabilities are fun. 

Alright, so it seems that the real numbers we should be looking at are false positives and false negatives, because the rest of it is influenced by community uniqueness?

As somebody pointed out, it's the same test, regardless of where one takes it (for simplicity's sake).  If a negative test result is 100% certain, and a positive test result is 99% certain, then we have a pretty good test, right?

This gets back to a question I had weeks ago . . . what would it do to the statistics if everyone were tested twice?

Edited May 26, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[washparkhorn 9931]

How the nations stack up:

The nations on their way to eliminating the virus:

The nations on their way to first tier status:

The left behind:

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/personal-update-37433490

Edited May 26, 2020 by washparkhorn

[BrickHorn 18176]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

If a negative test result is 100% certain, and a positive test result is 99% certain, then we have a pretty good test, right?

The point is that even a “pretty good test” is pretty much worthless if the prevalence is low enough. Saying the positive result is “99% certain” isn’t quite right. The certainty of a positive result depends on both the specificity AND the underlying prevalence. If the latter is on the same order as (1 - specificity), the accuracy of positive results will be quite low.

[Zepol87 9163]

55 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Nothing says “Totally not a pussy” like a guy heckling a sickly woman. 

Yea he is a bitch. I was out of town for work in Feb and my gf got Flu type B and it fucked her up. She went to walgreens to get her prescription and her PCP told her to wear a mask for 48 hours. She caught people taking pictures of her in the mask and a had a couple dudes tell her the mask was worthless. This was all before this shit started

[Anastasis 23375]

51 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Bayesian probabilities are fun. 

That’s right. The prevalence is basically a ore-test probability.