Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

SSVol

Opinionated Old Guy
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
4,254
Likes
9,736
Yeah, obviously the principle is logically consistent. I’m saying that “not a uniquely serious pandemic” is the null hypothesis of “uniquely serious pandemic,” which means they are dependent on the same variables. And if you’re going to reject one of these because the data is unacceptable for whatever reason, you can’t affirm the opposite based on the very same data.
My goal isn't to plumb the depths of logical consistency, but to present common sense arguments. I'm basing my assumptions on a few situations where the total exposed population is somewhat bounded: healthcare workers, Diamond Princess, and South Korea. Those limited populations are following a similar trajectory that conflicts with the assumptions brought by those who posit that there are far, far more cases than known.

My interest isn't in being right, or driving fear, or politics, or any of that nonsense. My only interest is in trying to arrive at the best truth among the many being offered. I am a small business owner and am concerned for the welfare of my employees. I just want to make the best decisions I can right now, knowing that my decisions may affect how many get sick, lose their jobs, or even die.
 

Catbone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
58,998
Likes
42,668
Wow .. read the details of the new 2T bill. People are going to be begging their employers to lay them off. Weekly unemployment benefits will be the normal weekly State check ($200 - $550 depending on the state) on top of $600 federal weekly up to 4 months. This works out to $20 - $27 per hour depending on the state to stay at home for 4 months. It will be tough to convince a lot of people to return to work before this 4 months expires.

What's in the $2 trillion stimulus package - CNNPolitics
I assume that's full-time work only?
 

SSVol

Opinionated Old Guy
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
4,254
Likes
9,736
I think Iceland's testing has managed to shed some light on the unknown. They tested a random sampling of 1.5% of their population and found that ~50% of those testing positive showed no symptoms of covid-19.

Which I will add, doesn't make the 1.4% mortality rate elsewhere significant more hopeful.
No, but it gives us an upper limit on how many asymptomatic cases *may* be out there.
 
Likes: VOLSONLY

OGbabyaviVol

Performing horse rectal exams for a living
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
21,083
Likes
20,617
I think Iceland's testing has managed to shed some light on the unknown. They tested a random sampling of 1.5% of their population and found that ~50% of those testing positive showed no symptoms of covid-19.

Which I will add, doesn't make the 1.4% mortality rate elsewhere significant more hopeful.
Did that study say what percentage tested positive overall?
 

delfonic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
2,415
Likes
4,097
Did that study say what percentage tested positive overall?
Iceland health authorities and deCode Genetics have undertaken comprehensive screening for the virus that causes COVID-19 among the Icelandic population. The testing by deCode Genetics started Friday 13 March and the results of the first 5 571 diagnosed tests have yielded 48 positive samples (0.86%) indicating that the prevelance of the virus is modest among the general population.
 

SSVol

Opinionated Old Guy
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
4,254
Likes
9,736
Iceland health authorities and deCode Genetics have undertaken comprehensive screening for the virus that causes COVID-19 among the Icelandic population. The testing by deCode Genetics started Friday 13 March and the results of the first 5 571 diagnosed tests have yielded 48 positive samples (0.86%) indicating that the prevelance of the virus is modest among the general population.
We still don't know how many of the unaffected are so because they haven't been exposed, or aren't susceptible. But again, among limited populations people exposed tend to get it, which suggests strongly that those who don't have it haven't been exposed. That kinda stuffs the argument that there are tons of asymptomatic cases out there and the mortality denominator is far too low. I really wish that were the case, I just haven't seen anything that convinces me of that,
 
Likes: SmokinBob

bcmbvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
684
Likes
951
My goal isn't to plumb the depths of logical consistency, but to present common sense arguments. I'm basing my assumptions on a few situations where the total exposed population is somewhat bounded: healthcare workers, Diamond Princess, and South Korea. Those limited populations are following a similar trajectory that conflicts with the assumptions brought by those who posit that there are far, far more cases than known.

My interest isn't in being right, or driving fear, or politics, or any of that nonsense. My only interest is in trying to arrive at the best truth among the many being offered. I am a small business owner and am concerned for the welfare of my employees. I just want to make the best decisions I can right now, knowing that my decisions may affect how many get sick, lose their jobs, or even die.
Understandable. I know we disagree, but it’s clear you’re motivated for good things. At the end of the day, we have the same objective.
 

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top