wasmania
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by wasmania
-
-
Defensiveness and condescension free discussion
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, iramurphy said:
I think Keikla understands confidence intervals as well as asymptomatic. You have made a very valid point in that the important information being gathered by epidemiologists/statisticians is in a state of flux. I’m not sure until one reviews all of the variables, parameters etc that we can reach conclusions but I think that is one of the points you and others are debating. Unfortunately, that makes it almost impossible for the government leaders to know what to do next.
Yes I know he understands but I'm being criticized for talking down to the average joe on this site, which I cop to but also want to note that the subject matter is inherently complex. Perhaps my hot button is that some posters seem to want to conflate the nature of the epidemiology beast with malevolent intent and/or sheer incompetence of the epidemiologist. If I didnt feel like I was battling that, perhaps it would be easier for me to tone it down.
-
4 minutes ago, keikla said:
I made a conscious effort to make medical posts as understandable to everyone as possible. Even then, I'm sure there were terms that most people didn't understand (i.e QTc prolongation). There were terms Yzerman used in relation to finance/insurance that went totally over my head. The difference between those instances and what you've been doing is that we're not being a condescending twat whenever someone not in the specified field doesn't fully understand and/or asks a follow up question.
there is truth to this, the condescension, driven perhaps wrongly by assuming most questions posed were not really seeking an answer but expressing rage at being bottled up, anger over people from away making decisions that impact them, etc. But the language - this is statistics and science after all. Is the term 'asymptomatic' or 'confidence interval' really just me boasting about my education, or might it be common language that needs to understood (and googled if need be) before an answer is understood. I'm being honest here I'd like your advice on this.
-
12 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:
So if the models usefulness currently can be described as "not very", what is the point of constantly defending their results? Instead of the roller coaster of calm and fear they are currently providing, why don't they just wait with the announcements until they can provide some useful stats with a margin of error something less than 1000's of percent?
Defending the process of epidemiology is not the same as defending results. The process is scientific method. The results are what they are, objectively calculated given the data at hand but innacurate. If by stating the obvious over and over, that the models are misspecified and wont be as accurate as you want until the data matures is 'defending the models', what do you want, should I join the tantrum and the conspiracy mongering?
-
1 minute ago, NDSU grad said:
So are you advocating for daily, rapid testing? As far as I know Abott Laboratories has the only rapid test available, and it's only available in a medical setting. And this technology is only a month old so I don't know if it's as accurate as PCR based testing. IMO, a vaccine will come before that kind of testing becomes available.
not so much advocating as resignedly accepting that our lifestyles will likely need to change until vaccine or effective treatment is developed. Maybe for a deeply rural state like North Dakota people will resist this consequences be damned, but the tone elsewhere, especially in the major cities and among those folks who can choose whether to use public transport, go to big events, travel freely, there is likely to be alot of people who simply will not resume their past behavior. So back to normal may be kind of moot. UND hockey will still sell out. Will Madison Square Garden? Business economics will change given the consumer behavior changes. Calls to 'open up the states' by decree don't seem to get this.
-
7 minutes ago, iramurphy said:
So we have one pseudo-intellectual who disguises his limited knowledge by attempting to chase some poor souls to their “google dictionary “ to see what he is talking about. Other than the political bend, there seems to be nothing of substance. Reminds me of the Harvard geek who was put in his place by a janitor (albeit a bright one) for regurgitating other people thoughts and ideas in the movie Good Will Hunting.
At one time there was an exchange of information and thoughts from medical people dealing with the crisis directly. There were discussions and comments from folks who have lost friends or loved ones, or folks suffering, both economically and socially, as a result of this pandemic.
The blame game can wait and their will be plenty of blame to go around. If anyone thinks multiple federal and state administrations, both political parties, world, federal, state, county, and city health departments, government health care providers, private health care providers as well as individual citizens must assume their share of the responsibility, then you need get get your head out of the sand.
To dismiss the need for precautions whether it be social distancing, stay at home orders, masks, testing etc would be a mistake. At the same time to dismiss the suffering of those that have lost their jobs, face financial difficulties or financial disaster, and social isolation would also be a mistake.
Regardless of what the Trump administration decides or your state government administration decides there will be risk involved. Testing is important but testing negative this week doesn’t mean much for next week. Antibody testing may indicate immunity but we aren’t sure yet. The medical community is still in the trial and error mode with different hospitals/institutions forming conflicting opinions with regards to same or similar treatments. Same with our government leaders.
In the meantime, as people start to return to work, take precautions such as masks, hand washing, social distancing and resist the temptation to gather in groups for social events without being careful. There are too many people and families facing financial collapse to disregard their plight.
At the same time returning work and other normal activities will involve the risk of spreading the infection. Reasonable arguments on both sides and because we aren’t the decision makers we need to focus on best practice. In addition to the recommended precautions accept the personal responsibility to get healthy.the torches and pitchforks brandished as you chase the unlucky statistician who blundered by speaking college level to people on a college website are spectacular. But agreed it would be better if we all did shut up and invited the real doctors back who are treating the disease.
-
43 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:
So if the believed infectious rate numbers are possibly off by 5000%, what good are the models?
not very much use except to build planning scenarios that need to be updated constantly until the data is known, and its still being discovered. every day. all over the world.
-
5 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
Ummmmm.....we already know who those folks are. Do that and let the rest of us get back to living, buying paint, going to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park and taking a Sunday drive without getting a ticket.
yes, if you are not spreading disease currently
-
Just now, Oxbow6 said:
Couldn't I turn into a killing machine by Thursday though?
maybe some compromise that reduces everyone's likelihood of being a killing machine at any given time by 75% or something through a smart test/retest protocol? Paid for by public health and financial support to those needed to isolate for a period of time for the greater good?
L
-
Just now, Cratter said:
Antibody testing makes more sense to see if you've already had it.
that would be great if we knew it doesnt recur. Hopefully thats the case but it hasnt been proved yet.
-
1
-
-
Just now, SIOUXFAN97 said:
so you get tested...it's negative...let's go see grandma but stop at happy harry's on the way...you get the 'rona at happy harrys from the guy working the till...your NEGATIVE test is as as *&()*U
no you test negative and you social distance while doing your commerce and go see grandma. get up and do it again the next day.
-
8 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
So in your wise opinion lockdown everyone until when? Or comes to grips that life needs to start being lived and those who are at risk need to shelter?
....and I'm talking ND.
given the many variables in flux, like availability of robust tests, changes to protocols at events and transportation to accomodate the test process and fairly adjudicate decisions on who is safe and who is not, changes to configurations of meeting places etc. your question is not answerable at this early time without a huge confidence interval around any forecast for when and how much. And this board by and large does not tolerate such things as large confidence intervals. they interpret this as systemic failure in epidemiology and partisan undermining of their preferred despot
-
Just now, UND1983 said:
So how do we separate the healthy mystery killers from the vulnerable?
testing? massive testing? if you wouldnt mind the inconvenience
-
Just now, Oxbow6 said:
Both questions....specifically first one.
many more infected than originally expected probably means that asymptomatic carriers are everywhere and will be killing machines of the infirm and elderly if not managed to avoid contact. Fewer deaths is not that meaningful expressed as a percentage of cases. Much better if it were fewer in absolute terms.
-
3 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:
Three hours later...
he did use the inclusive 'we'. perhaps this poster has a soul that has not been poisoned
-
53 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
You're our resident NASA math guru. I'd like you to put down your breakfast burrito and comment on what if our current data is even off by 50 times the reported infectious rate.
you mean implications for policy? or just want me to weigh on how to torture the scientists who are now learning more about the disease and reporting it honestly?
-
16 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
So some journalist in London has the inside scoop on what's happening in Sioux Falls SD?? The BBC can't even report accurately what Mehgan is wearing on her walk through the Canadian woods on a daily basis.
geez next thing you know they will be saying that Pace picante sauce is made in New York!
-
5 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
Thank you for the information. I believe all of it and have a feeling we do need to wait a bit longer to understand what we got locally.
awesome. you came to heel fast.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, UND1983 said:
Ok that's enough clogging up the board with dipshit responses. I actually wanted to know what people thought we were doing now to get through this of it's that prevalent.
what are your ideas?
-
8 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
If we are all going to get it, what are we doing right now...waiting for a cure to be developed?
another resume item
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, dynato said:
This thread is for conversations and arguments. Each are entertaining in their own right. Some of us have nothing better to do haha. I'm not trying to force people into thinking a certain way, but I am trying to be thought provoking. And others are being just as thought provoking, so I'm definitely not being ignored.
Most of the people here are a part of this community in some way. It is easy to forget that there is a person behind every comment. Just like it is forget that all the deaths we are talking about are real people dying.you did good the first shame. now a hint of sanctimony
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Cratter said:
What was the question?
perfect answer, thanks.
-
Just now, dynato said:
Careful on the aggression. I just want to have a conversation and comments like that take away from the chance of having a good one. We are all trying to figure this out and learn from one another
hereby shamed. but the idea of 'having a good conversation' on the internet is a bit idealistic these days. How long can you stand having your facts, data and ideas completely ignored, and continue to believe you were actually having a conversation? Longer than me obviously, good on you.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Nodak78 said:
Ah ha they are not objective.
where is the lack of objectivity. do you know what objectivity means in science?
2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)
in Community
Posted
This article is a better explanation of my attempt above
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-do-we-overcome-fear-americans-need-confidence-before-life-can-return-to-normal/2020/04/18/0b6ed6b8-80b7-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html