Jump to content

NewfoundlandFreeFrog

Members
  • Content Count

    21,967
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by NewfoundlandFreeFrog

  1. The best evidence I've read is that the protest spike outdoors with generally a lot of mask wearing well isn't much of a spike compared to other--especially indoor w/ no mask like bars and gyms--sources. Certainly any protest spike in NYC is nowhere near the FL spike. Just look at the numbers.
  2. You've surely read it, but if not here is Clemen's on the invasion of the Philippines and religious nationalism. https://warprayer.org/ Only takes a few minutes.
  3. Ewoks are pretty much on a par with Jar-Jar Binks.
  4. Looks like my observation of a bit ago is coming to fruition: Right now a goodly portion of the country appears to have given up re COVID. I know many here have not and it is clear that there are many local areas/groups which have not. Sadly this does not include the WH which failing to protect people in general is now focusing on Confederate-praising stones and bronze which take rather less brainpower and hard work to wall off compared to that required for virus protection. That is, the nice thing about stones is they aren't susceptible to viruses and therefore make great targets for "protection" and for then claiming "victories". (Truly great "strategic thinking" there!)
  5. Well you, for one, given the evidence before us.
  6. Yet that's what I was clearly addressing where you joined in.
  7. I ask again. What evidence is there for the original contention that CNN really didn't want to publish this interesting news?
  8. Nice fact free ad homs. What was inaccurate here? Be specific.
  9. Not hard to "pretend" they didn't when well, er, they in fact did not. Why make things up?
  10. True. And in this case on the basis of what is right there on the page as opposed to a more prejudiced outlook, the "agenda" appears to be to report the news accurately. What an idea!!! Scientists have "agendas" too. Just not the ones the prejudices of certain primarily partisan sources posit. So do many other people and groups. But they are not necessarily partisan political ones either. Partisan political types always make the assumption on zero or very limited evidence (kinda' the definition of "prejudice") that everyone else's "agenda" is as partisan political as their own. This is most certainly not the case. Oklahoma voters voting for evil socialism is a good case in point. Their agenda is their health and that of their families, not partisan politics since a sufficient proportion of voters from both parties clearly supported the notion as part of their "agendas".
  11. Why? After all they DID post it so it is quite apparent they did not "mind". Is it possible what is bothering you is they reported a finding when you know the reverse wouldn't happen on some other sources? Interesting double layered projection: You know how they are "really" thinking even when the evidence is 180 degrees the opposite!
  12. Well now that even the citizens of Oklahoma have voted to enshrine socialism into their Constitution with Obamacare, the country has gone to complete hell anyway. Throw the masks away and be done with it!
  13. Pretty much my experience so far as well.
  14. Homemade 3 cheese-stuffed raviolis with toasted pine nuts, brown butter, and chopped parsley is very good!
  15. What a libbie. He's trying to stifle the freedoms of all Texans.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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!
  19. Just curious: Is this conscious or unconscious projection?
  20. 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!
  21. Not sure quite how to square the above with your previous assertion "As a fellow moderate..." a couple of pages back.
×
×
  • Create New...