#191
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 3:17:56 AM UTC+1, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2020 13:07:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I get a pop-up for creating an account. After removing the related cookies, when I hit refresh, the pop-up appears again after 15 seconds. So, I speed read, refresh, speed read, etc. Sigh. Viewing "no style" removes pop-ups, or at least stops them from covering what you are trying to read. Some pop-ups disable keyboard access to the view menu, but the mouse can get around them. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ If you have a Mac or at least use the Safari Browser, in the address bar there is on the left a few parallel lines. Clicking this icon gives you a "reading" version, larger text, out to the margins of the window or tablet (well, it works on all my iPads -- I don't have any other tablets), with no sidebars or superimposed advertising. Andre Jute I'm not paying to have my blood pressure elevated |
Ads |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
John B. writes:
On Fri, 29 May 2020 21:58:39 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: John B. writes: On Fri, 29 May 2020 20:42:32 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: John B. writes: On Fri, 29 May 2020 12:56:00 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 5/28/2020 8:32 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 15:40:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 5/28/2020 3:00 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 5/27/2020 7:21 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:42:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 5/27/2020 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/27/2020 11:42 AM, wrote: On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:17:19 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I have a very low respect for doctors because so few of them want to be competent. Top of the list in that category is Dr. Fauci of the CDC who has continually acted an expert at things he knows very little about. Dr Fauci has been director of the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) since 1984. He does NOT work for the CDC. NIAID is part of the NIH (National Institute of Health). He's has been involved with controlling several previous epidemics, which I presume qualifies as experience: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/niaid-history Can you provide the name of someone in the US who is better qualified to discuss pandemics than Dr Fauci? There is a place for those who sit around, think and read papers. I do not deny Fauci that much. But he is not working in the real world as many other epidemiologists are and they often interview them on FOX and they ALL say what I've been saying. There isn't much you can do about a pandemic with a linear growth rate. I see. You want to be advised on how to protect yourself from a viral epidemic by an epidemiologist via Fox News. I don't think that's what you intended to say, but that's what you wrote. You also seem to have changed your position on Dr Fauci from: "Dr. Fauci of the CDC(sic) who has continually acted an expert at things he knows very little about." to: "I do not deny Fauci that much." That's quite a change from calling the leading expert on infectious diseases in the US an incompetent, to not denying him something you didn't bother to specify. Of course, you're entitled to have an opinion about anyone and anything, but I'm also entitled to discount your opinion as rubbish. Anyway, kindly stabilize your opinion about Dr Fauci. If it's critical, please provide the name of someone in the US that is equally or more qualified to advise on how to handle a pandemic. Incidentally, I could probably provide some names in China that are substantially more qualified and equally experienced, but such experts would not be considered as candidates for advising our president, who knows more than any or all of them, Here's one candidate that might have qualified had he not resigned for having is bureau eliminated by the Trump administration: "A top pandemic expert is leaving the Trump administration amid the coronavirus crisis" https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pandemic-expert-leaving-the-trump-administration-amid-coronavirus-2020-5 No bicycle related content this time. Sorry(tm). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 The leading expert? Jeff, that is about the most foolish thing that you could say. Fauci is NOT an expert. Sitting around in hallowed halls of government does NOT make you an expert. The epidemiologists in the field say the opposite and that you like some sort of moron deny that they know anything for the simple reason that they are interviewed on FOX shows that you are nothing more than some stupid biased punk. Your homework, Tom: !) Find or assemble a CV for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I say that because you obviously know very, very little about him. 2) Find or assemble a CV for the guy you allude to whom Faux News managed to dig up. Analyze and compare those to prove to us that your guy with his predictable complaints is more qualified than Fauci. We'll even give bonus points for a little more work: 3) Give us your own CV. Show us why we should listen to your opinions on epidemiology... and history, genetics, theology, ballistics, human anatomy, politics, engineering, medicine, sociology, geology, meteorology, technology, etc. You know - all the other things about which you, as a high school dropout, claim to be much smarter than hundreds of trained, experienced, and recognized experts. Fauci is probably a successful agency administrator and political survivor who knows something but surely not everything. Dr John Ionnidis who's no slouch in the area has different opinions but gets no media traction: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ge-establishm/ And yet, countries that did institute a lock down, in a timely manner, have noticeably lower cases and deaths. (please note the phrase "timely manner") Italy did and lost many. Japan did not and lost few. Sweden is not out of line to her neighbors and yet still has some GDP remaining. There's no correlation. You can imply one as you will but it's not clear at all that such relationship exists. You might like this article from the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0 They show excess mortality statistics for countries where they are available, and plot versus infections per million on "lockdown day". In the absence of a legal lockdown, they use the day when transit usage fell to 50% of pre-pandemic levels. It's not clear to me how comparable the "infections per million" figures are, given the wide variation of testing capabilities over space and time. They claim to find a correlation between early lockdown and lower excess deaths, but their points are very widely scattered. Spain comes off worst in excess mortality, followed by the UK, and then Italy. Food for thought: https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0 Regarding testing, I read a report yesterday interviewing RNs who have tested both positive and negative on different days, back and forth, for weeks. I don't know but I'm reasonably certain that any conclusion based on large population testing is inaccurate. BTW I'm not disagreeing with you generally, just stopping short of accepting ratios dependent on current testing. I have read several news articles stating that some of the testing does not give accurate results. https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...u-have-illness https://abc7.com/covid-19-coronaviru...-core/6112137/ https://www.11alive.com/article/news...4-2297526c0cc0 Yes, as at least one of the articles stated, all lab tests give some false positives and some false negatives. And interpreting those results can be mathematically surprising, as the computation known as Bayes Theorem shows. The less common the disease, the weirder the math. Accuracy of the tests is the least of the problem; the big issue is sampling bias. As far as I can tell, in the US only people that go out of their way to be tested are -- this is not a random sample at all, and not representative of the population. There have been a few studies that tried to sample deliberately, eg on all residents of a Boston homeless shelter. That one showed a very high number of asymptomatic cases. This article has an example: https://math.hmc.edu/funfacts/medica...bayes-theorem/ But from what I read the U.S. has conducted nearly 17 million tests, at least 4 times that of any other country except Russia. Was it all a waste of time and money? Depends on what you want to do. If you want a good estimate of the proportion of the total population that is infected, then yes, mostly a waste of time and money. Oh! and I thought that the U.S. was, well, bragging about all the tests. More than any other country in the world. Here (Thailand) they will only test those who exhibit some symptoms of the disease. Elevated temperature usually. In either Thailand or the US estimating the total number of cases is not the first object of testing. I don't know about the U.S. but here is used to determine whether you will be admitted to the hospital. So if you don't feel sick, you don't get tested. Same here. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 7:19:42 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes: On Fri, 29 May 2020 21:58:39 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: John B. writes: On Fri, 29 May 2020 20:42:32 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: John B. writes: On Fri, 29 May 2020 12:56:00 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 5/28/2020 8:32 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 15:40:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 5/28/2020 3:00 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 5/27/2020 7:21 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:42:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 5/27/2020 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/27/2020 11:42 AM, wrote: On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:17:19 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I have a very low respect for doctors because so few of them want to be competent. Top of the list in that category is Dr. Fauci of the CDC who has continually acted an expert at things he knows very little about. Dr Fauci has been director of the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) since 1984. He does NOT work for the CDC. NIAID is part of the NIH (National Institute of Health). He's has been involved with controlling several previous epidemics, which I presume qualifies as experience: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/niaid-history Can you provide the name of someone in the US who is better qualified to discuss pandemics than Dr Fauci? There is a place for those who sit around, think and read papers. I do not deny Fauci that much. But he is not working in the real world as many other epidemiologists are and they often interview them on FOX and they ALL say what I've been saying. There isn't much you can do about a pandemic with a linear growth rate. I see. You want to be advised on how to protect yourself from a viral epidemic by an epidemiologist via Fox News. I don't think that's what you intended to say, but that's what you wrote. You also seem to have changed your position on Dr Fauci from: "Dr. Fauci of the CDC(sic) who has continually acted an expert at things he knows very little about." to: "I do not deny Fauci that much." That's quite a change from calling the leading expert on infectious diseases in the US an incompetent, to not denying him something you didn't bother to specify. Of course, you're entitled to have an opinion about anyone and anything, but I'm also entitled to discount your opinion as rubbish. Anyway, kindly stabilize your opinion about Dr Fauci. If it's critical, please provide the name of someone in the US that is equally or more qualified to advise on how to handle a pandemic. Incidentally, I could probably provide some names in China that are substantially more qualified and equally experienced, but such experts would not be considered as candidates for advising our president, who knows more than any or all of them, Here's one candidate that might have qualified had he not resigned for having is bureau eliminated by the Trump administration: "A top pandemic expert is leaving the Trump administration amid the coronavirus crisis" https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pandemic-expert-leaving-the-trump-administration-amid-coronavirus-2020-5 No bicycle related content this time. Sorry(tm). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 The leading expert? Jeff, that is about the most foolish thing that you could say. Fauci is NOT an expert. Sitting around in hallowed halls of government does NOT make you an expert. The epidemiologists in the field say the opposite and that you like some sort of moron deny that they know anything for the simple reason that they are interviewed on FOX shows that you are nothing more than some stupid biased punk. Your homework, Tom: !) Find or assemble a CV for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I say that because you obviously know very, very little about him. 2) Find or assemble a CV for the guy you allude to whom Faux News managed to dig up. Analyze and compare those to prove to us that your guy with his predictable complaints is more qualified than Fauci. We'll even give bonus points for a little more work: 3) Give us your own CV. Show us why we should listen to your opinions on epidemiology... and history, genetics, theology, ballistics, human anatomy, politics, engineering, medicine, sociology, geology, meteorology, technology, etc. You know - all the other things about which you, as a high school dropout, claim to be much smarter than hundreds of trained, experienced, and recognized experts. Fauci is probably a successful agency administrator and political survivor who knows something but surely not everything. Dr John Ionnidis who's no slouch in the area has different opinions but gets no media traction: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ge-establishm/ And yet, countries that did institute a lock down, in a timely manner, have noticeably lower cases and deaths. (please note the phrase "timely manner") Italy did and lost many. Japan did not and lost few. Sweden is not out of line to her neighbors and yet still has some GDP remaining. There's no correlation. You can imply one as you will but it's not clear at all that such relationship exists. You might like this article from the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0 They show excess mortality statistics for countries where they are available, and plot versus infections per million on "lockdown day". In the absence of a legal lockdown, they use the day when transit usage fell to 50% of pre-pandemic levels. It's not clear to me how comparable the "infections per million" figures are, given the wide variation of testing capabilities over space and time. They claim to find a correlation between early lockdown and lower excess deaths, but their points are very widely scattered. Spain comes off worst in excess mortality, followed by the UK, and then Italy. Food for thought: https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0 Regarding testing, I read a report yesterday interviewing RNs who have tested both positive and negative on different days, back and forth, for weeks. I don't know but I'm reasonably certain that any conclusion based on large population testing is inaccurate. BTW I'm not disagreeing with you generally, just stopping short of accepting ratios dependent on current testing. I have read several news articles stating that some of the testing does not give accurate results. https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...u-have-illness https://abc7.com/covid-19-coronaviru...-core/6112137/ https://www.11alive.com/article/news...4-2297526c0cc0 Yes, as at least one of the articles stated, all lab tests give some false positives and some false negatives. And interpreting those results can be mathematically surprising, as the computation known as Bayes Theorem shows. The less common the disease, the weirder the math. Accuracy of the tests is the least of the problem; the big issue is sampling bias. As far as I can tell, in the US only people that go out of their way to be tested are -- this is not a random sample at all, and not representative of the population. There have been a few studies that tried to sample deliberately, eg on all residents of a Boston homeless shelter. That one showed a very high number of asymptomatic cases. This article has an example: https://math.hmc.edu/funfacts/medica...bayes-theorem/ But from what I read the U.S. has conducted nearly 17 million tests, at least 4 times that of any other country except Russia. Was it all a waste of time and money? Depends on what you want to do. If you want a good estimate of the proportion of the total population that is infected, then yes, mostly a waste of time and money. Oh! and I thought that the U.S. was, well, bragging about all the tests. More than any other country in the world. Here (Thailand) they will only test those who exhibit some symptoms of the disease. Elevated temperature usually. In either Thailand or the US estimating the total number of cases is not the first object of testing. I don't know about the U.S. but here is used to determine whether you will be admitted to the hospital. So if you don't feel sick, you don't get tested. Same here. It is probably better that you don't get tested. Who knows that use that the Democrats would do to a test that shows that you once had covid-19. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
On Fri, 29 May 2020 22:17:53 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 13:07:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I get a pop-up for creating an account. After removing the related cookies, when I hit refresh, the pop-up appears again after 15 seconds. So, I speed read, refresh, speed read, etc. Sigh. Viewing "no style" removes pop-ups, or at least stops them from covering what you are trying to read. Some pop-ups disable keyboard access to the view menu, but the mouse can get around them. Good idea and thanks. No Style is a feature in MS Internet Exploder 11. I don't use IE11. View - Style - No style In Firefox, the "reader view" icon in the address bar works and the article is readable (but is missing all photos). For Chrome, a browser extension is required. There are about 10 such extension on the Chrome store web pile. I tried this one, and it works: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/reader-view/ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh Right click, select "Switch to Reader View". Edge is the MS replacement for IE11 and is based on Chrome. The aforementioned Chrome extension worked when I tried it. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
On Thu, 28 May 2020 19:14:08 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
A bit of Internet wandering shows the groups I could not remember are thermoplatic and thermoset, the latter being generally less volatile. There's a NASA paper on outgassing tests in vacuum for materials used in outer space. Also, some indication that both thermoplastic urethanes and thermoset urethanes can have low volatility. It's not such a bright line between groups as I thought. The distinction between thermoplastic and thermosetting is that heating thermoplastic turn it back into a liquid, while heating thermosetting will cause it to burn or decompose, but not melt. For example epoxy, silicone, polyurethane, Bakelite, and phenolic are thermosetting, while the various styrene and polyethylene based plastics are thermoplastic. There are plastics, such polyester and urethanes, which have variations that can be either thermoplastic or thermosetting. Water bottles are usually some form of PE (polyethylene) and are therefore thermoplastic. I mentioned the NASA outgassing web site in my previous rant in this thread: https://outgassing.nasa.gov I noticed that LDPE doesn't outgas very much, which makes me wonder about the outgassing explanation for how it deteriorates. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
On 5/29/2020 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
I thought that the U.S. was, well, bragging about all the tests. More than any other country in the world. Well, one weird guy and those deluded by him may be bragging about all the U.S. COVID tests. But please don't equate him or them with the country as a whole. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
I'm hesitant to step into this mud war, but here's a straightforward graph, compiled from government data by Yale Medical school:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ss-deaths-may/ It compares COVID 19 deaths and total recent deaths to expected deaths from historical data. It shows that COVID 19 deaths in excess of expected flu, etc., deaths and that the COVID 19 tabulations are most likely underestimated. Jim |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
On Sat, 30 May 2020 08:54:43 +0100, Tosspot
wrote: On 29/05/2020 23.51, John B. wrote: snip Of course it is, you fool. It is the Yellow Buffoon in the White House trying to eliminate all the Democrats so he can be re-elected. (and it's taken you all these months to realize it) Point of order, Orange. As in https://transparent-aluminium.net/wp...st-Signs-2.jpg Hmmmm Red in this picture https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/19...-ties-with-who -- cheers, John B. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Fun with exponents
On Sat, 30 May 2020 09:09:30 +0100, Tosspot
wrote: On 30/05/2020 01.55, sms wrote: On 5/29/2020 3:56 PM, John B. wrote: snip But from what I read the U.S. has conducted nearly 17 million tests, at least 4 times that of any other country except Russia. But per capita the U.S. is way behind. Nothing funny about Covid-19 but the lies by Trump are still interesting to see. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52493073 A whole cottage industry has sprung up fact checking the draft dodger, but I fear it will need to be industrialised to keep up. I thought Twitter was keeping him in line? -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|