Jump to content

NewfoundlandFreeFrog

Members
  • Content Count

    21,951
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

NewfoundlandFreeFrog last won the day on June 23

NewfoundlandFreeFrog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,705 Excellent

About NewfoundlandFreeFrog

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • TCU Class Year or School affiliation
    1980

Recent Profile Visitors

4,161 profile views
  1. Pretty much my experience so far as well.
  2. Homemade 3 cheese-stuffed raviolis with toasted pine nuts, brown butter, and chopped parsley is very good!
  3. What a libbie. He's trying to stifle the freedoms of all Texans.
  4. Made up a quickie R Markdown notebook to explain the point I raised above. To do this fully, one needs to use calculus. But constructing 3 bins instead of an infinite number of them shows the principle... Notebook NFF 7/2/2020 Increased Testing with Lowered Criteria As increased testing is done the criteria necessary to obtain one are relaxed. With limited testing, you test only those who are very ill. With wider testing you relax the criteria. Only true random sample testing actually gives an unbiased indicator of population prevalence. Let’s make it easy, we define 3 groups: Group A: Is very ill and presently exhibits COVID-like symptoms. Group B: Somewhat ill and presently exhibits at least mild COVID-like symptoms. Group 😄 Asymptomatic, but exposed. Lets say the true rates of disease and death in the 3 groups are: Group A: n = 10,000, 50% COVID, 5% hospitalized, .5% dead. Group B: n = 100,000, 20% COVID, 2% hospitalized, .2% dead. Group 😄 n = 1,000,000, 5% COVID, .5% hospitalized, .05% dead. Let’s say we have 10,000 test kits available. We reserve them to Group A and find COVID prevalence of 500K/million tests, hospitalization rates of 50K/million tests, and 5K dead/million tests: Now lets say we have enough tests to test both groups A and B. Now we get (per million tests): (((500000/1000000) + 10 * (200000/1000000))/11) * 1000000 ## [1] 227272.7 positive tests per million tests, (((50000/1000000) + 10*(20000/1000000))/ 11) * 1000000 ## [1] 22727.27 hospitalizations per million tests, and (((5000/1000000) + 10*(2000/1000000))/ 11) * 1000000 ## [1] 2272.727 dead per million tests. Finally, let’s say we have enough tests available to test all three groups. Now we find: (((500000/1000000) + 10*(200000/1000000) + 100 * (50000/1000000))/ 111) * 1000000 ## [1] 67567.57 positive tests per million tests, (((50000/1000000) + 10*(20000/1000000) + 100 * (5000/1000000))/ 111) * 1000000 ## [1] 6756.757 hospitalizations per million tests, and (((5000/1000000) + 10*(2000/1000000) + 100 * (500/1000000))/ 111) * 1000000 ## [1] 675.6757 dead per million tests. So…more testing, with its concommitant lowering of criteria for getting one, leads to exactly apparent lowered rates of hospitalizations and lowered rates of death. What it really indicates is a closer and closer value to what you’d find if you randomly tested the whole population. Something which is only just now being done as enough tests become available to start that sort of work.
  5. You haven't tracked the criteria it took to get tested at the various points in time. The point about increased testing is you WANT to find lower rates of positives/serious cases. This assures you that you are excluding fewer and fewer less obvious cases--some fraction of which will turn more serious and some fraction of which will infect others--from the testing pool as more testing is done and getting closer to what would be found if true random sampling of the whole population were done. Basically this is what you'd mathematically expect as more tests are available and the criteria for obtaining one are relaxed. No need to add additional "interpretations" good or bad.
  6. Trump wanted to emulate Putin and Bolsonaro. He has. Citizens of all 3 are now banned from travel to more advanced countries. Good club to be a member of! Exceptional, even!
  7. Well THAT sure pwns them libbies!!!
  8. Just curious: Is this conscious or unconscious projection?
  9. Well duh... The MSM together with those nasty scientists bent on taking over the world ARE in control unless countered by the brains and strategic thinking of Trump, Gohmert, Gaetz, DeSantis, and company!
  10. Not sure quite how to square the above with your previous assertion "As a fellow moderate..." a couple of pages back.
  11. 20 something anarchists destroying stuff of no value seems like a safe way for them to let off steam, actually.
  12. Speaking of old campaign promises: Whudda thunk that the rest of the world now wants to wall off the US? They are even willing to pay for it!
  13. They tended to have a lot of mask wearing. That seems to make a large difference. According to the research to date, anyway which is likely a lot more accurate than Fox/Breitbart.
  14. Newfoundland, being an island and all, was hit pretty hard very early but has stopped the pandemic in its tracks, so far. Kinda' like New Zealand and Iceland. Zero new infections for 30 days now and if I read the tables correctly the last people are just now resolved and out of the ICU and even the hospital. Of course 1 tourist could change all that very quickly...if tourism was allowed. Presently not even summer home owners are getting in. We are opening a Maritime bubble with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI todayish or so.
  15. EU opening to much of the non-EU world. Not the US. Current list of countries on the EU list: Algeria, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Rwanda, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay. China is not on the list for tit-for-tat reasons. They meet the EU criteria but are currently keeping EU travelers out. List is defined scientifically by whether each country is in line with the present EU epidemiological situation or better. Worse--i.e. "shiithole" countries in the words of the president--are those which have failed to deal with the pandemic in an effective manner.
×
×
  • Create New...