Page 473 of 1110 FirstFirst ... 373423463471472473474475483523573973 ... LastLast
Results 9,441 to 9,460 of 22195
  1. #9441
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinDevil View Post
    OK, fair enough. You continually want to be optimistic about herd immunity, among other topics. The only reason to *be* optimistic about herd immunity is to view it as something that we can rely on, and achieve, by having the majority of the country be infected. So I agree that you've never stated this further part, but it's the only reason to be talking about one of your favorite topics.
    I disagree with this. Herd immunity (which has become a politically charged term unfortunately) can be achieved through a combination of a) infections, b) pre-existing immune response, and c) vaccines. Since my recent comments were about b, I have no idea how you concluded that I am saying the majority of the country should get a.

    Also, if you are against achieving herd immunity, then how would you suggest we ever get out of this? It's the only way out as far as I can see. The more of it comes from b and c, the better.

  2. #9442
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    So do I. But the cost of not getting Covid-19 under control is inherently uncertain. Even if the expected loss is greater than the more-known cost of another bailout (and coincident shutdown), most people will prefer to take the gamble that the actual cost of the former will be much lower than experts think.

    This is, IIRC, one lesson of Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory in behavioral finance: most people are risk-seeking in a loss context.

    Simple example: suppose you are given a choice: 1) a certain loss of $100, or 2) a 50% chance of no loss, and 50% chance of $200 loss. Most people prefer choice #2. [The reverse is true if those were gains instead of losses].
    Depends a lot on the numbers. If the choice is 1) a certain loss of $100 , or 2) a 99% chance of no loss and a 1% chance of a $9,500 loss, people start to choose #1 and call it insurance.

  3. #9443
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Dur'm
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    Depends a lot on the numbers. If the choice is 1) a certain loss of $100 , or 2) a 99% chance of no loss and a 1% chance of a $9,500 loss, people start to choose #1 and call it insurance.
    But many don't, which is why the ACA had a mandate. Now that there is no mandate, there are more uninsured for health care than there otherwise would be, which strikes me as a terrible idea in a pandemic. But granted, while still pandemic-related, that is substantially changing the context from the original risk discussion.

  4. #9444
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    But many don't, which is why the ACA had a mandate. Now that there is no mandate, there are more uninsured for health care than there otherwise would be, which strikes me as a terrible idea in a pandemic. But granted, while still pandemic-related, that is substantially changing the context from the original risk discussion.
    Similar story with homeowner's insurance and car insurance, which are mandated in most places (because otherwise people wouldn't get the insurance).

    Although there clearly are some things that people do buy insurance for intentionally that run counter to expected value.

  5. #9445
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    In the news headlines there's a study out from Duke on the efficacy of various types of masks and mask material.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...sciadv.abd3083

    Working from memory (and with a question of my own, or two, to follow):

    Some of the highlights include:

    Stretchy material, which I think means like that of "buffs" (a tube design that can be worn many ways) fared particularly badly. IIRC it performed worse, on average, than no mask at all! Knitted material performed worse than average.
    Bandanas were barely better than no mask at all. It appears they tested bandanas in what some have termed "7-11 mode".
    Short of FITTED N95 and surgical masks, poly/cotton blends performed best, with cotton masks also doing well.

    Questions - assuming these findings can be replicated / are true:

    Would bandanas perform as badly if folded to hold the shape of a more traditional mask? I.e., is it gapping around the jawline that allows relatively more particles to escape?

    I ask because in the early rush for masks, I opted to wear bandanas. I already had many of them and I wear them tight enough to be uncomfortable over the bridge of my nose. In my observations they certainly seal as well as most masks I see worn, esp. the 2 of mine which are 100% polyester. They're very clingy, and larger than the others, so I feel they seal quite well. The rest of mine are cotton, save for 1 cotton blend. I don't feel these others seal as well along my jawline, if worn in "triangle" aka 7-11 mode. I briefly tried another folding method that cradles the nose to chin area better, but the elastics (hair elastics borrowed from Mrs. Cspan) pulled on my ears to an extent that makes them a bit more prominent than I prefer. Maybe I'll work on finding a way to get a strap to wrap around the back of my head instead yanking open my car doors.

    I've seen a couple non-surgical, non-N95 designs that are nicely shaped and probably seal better than the rest. They're shaped in such a way that the front of them is somewhat ridged or peaked, rather than flat. Some examples I've seen are the Keen-labeled ones worn by REI employees when their stores reopened. I think those would be good; I don't know how they are secured, though. Didn't notice.

    Anyway, if these findings are accurate I realize I should change how I mask up, so for reusable masks, what's the retail landscape look like now? Any recommendations - particular brands, models, or stores to find them in? Prefer to buy in person. Thanks!!
    Pictures of the masks that were tested:

    DukeMaskListing.jpg DukeF2.large.jpg DukeMaskResults.jpg

  6. #9446
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    Depends a lot on the numbers. If the choice is 1) a certain loss of $100 , or 2) a 99% chance of no loss and a 1% chance of a $9,500 loss, people start to choose #1 and call it insurance.
    Yes, I know, but the numbers we're talking about aren't balancing a small sure loss against a very large, yet unlikely one.

  7. #9447
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Dur'm
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    [Duke study information redacted. See prior posts.]
    Duke has already sent out some masks to employees. I wonder if they are using the results of their own study to acquire "better" masks for additional distributions in the future (since not all employees have been given masks at this point)?

  8. #9448
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    In the news headlines there's a study out from Duke on the efficacy of various types of masks and mask material.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...sciadv.abd3083

    Working from memory (and with a question of my own, or two, to follow):

    Some of the highlights include:

    Stretchy material, which I think means like that of "buffs" (a tube design that can be worn many ways) fared particularly badly. IIRC it performed worse, on average, than no mask at all! Knitted material performed worse than average.
    Bandanas were barely better than no mask at all. It appears they tested bandanas in what some have termed "7-11 mode".
    Short of FITTED N95 and surgical masks, poly/cotton blends performed best, with cotton masks also doing well.

    Questions - assuming these findings can be replicated / are true:

    Would bandanas perform as badly if folded to hold the shape of a more traditional mask? I.e., is it gapping around the jawline that allows relatively more particles to escape?

    I ask because in the early rush for masks, I opted to wear bandanas. I already had many of them and I wear them tight enough to be uncomfortable over the bridge of my nose. In my observations they certainly seal as well as most masks I see worn, esp. the 2 of mine which are 100% polyester. They're very clingy, and larger than the others, so I feel they seal quite well. The rest of mine are cotton, save for 1 cotton blend. I don't feel these others seal as well along my jawline, if worn in "triangle" aka 7-11 mode. I briefly tried another folding method that cradles the nose to chin area better, but the elastics (hair elastics borrowed from Mrs. Cspan) pulled on my ears to an extent that makes them a bit more prominent than I prefer. Maybe I'll work on finding a way to get a strap to wrap around the back of my head instead yanking open my car doors.

    I've seen a couple non-surgical, non-N95 designs that are nicely shaped and probably seal better than the rest. They're shaped in such a way that the front of them is somewhat ridged or peaked, rather than flat. Some examples I've seen are the Keen-labeled ones worn by REI employees when their stores reopened. I think those would be good; I don't know how they are secured, though. Didn't notice.

    Anyway, if these findings are accurate I realize I should change how I mask up, so for reusable masks, what's the retail landscape look like now? Any recommendations - particular brands, models, or stores to find them in? Prefer to buy in person. Thanks!!
    Right after WRAL in Durham aired this story, they interviewed Cutcliffe wearing the gaiter-styled one. Oops. Hope he saw it.

  9. #9449
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The People's Republic of Travis County
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    I disagree with this. Herd immunity (which has become a politically charged term unfortunately) can be achieved through a combination of a) infections, b) pre-existing immune response, and c) vaccines. Since my recent comments were about b, I have no idea how you concluded that I am saying the majority of the country should get a.

    Also, if you are against achieving herd immunity, then how would you suggest we ever get out of this? It's the only way out as far as I can see. The more of it comes from b and c, the better.
    Sure—with your newly stated caveats that *if* any significant number of people have transferable coronavirus immunity and also *if* we achieve a workable vaccine anytime soon, the argument is not unreasonable.

  10. #9450
    NC hit a two month low on new cases today with 626. This is the first time new cases have been under 1,000 since the end of June and the last time cases were this low were the beginning of June.

  11. #9451
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinDevil View Post
    Sure—with your newly stated caveats that *if* any significant number of people have transferable coronavirus immunity and also *if* we achieve a workable vaccine anytime soon, the argument is not unreasonable.
    They are not newly stated. I said from the first discussion on existing immunity that it’s a big if. And everyone knows vaccines are in the if category. Still no idea how you concluded I was suggesting that a majority of people should be infected.
    Last edited by freshmanjs; 08-10-2020 at 04:36 PM.

  12. #9452
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    NC hit a two month low on new cases today with 626. This is the first time new cases have been under 1,000 since the end of June and the last time cases were this low were the beginning of June.
    Would be nice, but today's not over, and worldometers has today's NC case count at 1,164 ... so far. Maybe you're not using them, but has your source finalized the day's counts? It appears you posted at 3:42pm.

  13. #9453
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rent free in tarheels’ heads
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    Would be nice, but today's not over, and worldometers has today's NC case count at 1,164 ... so far. Maybe you're not using them, but has your source finalized the day's counts? It appears you posted at 3:42pm.
    They posted their figures today at 2:20pm when normally they are posted around 12:00pm. I’m wondering if they had some trouble and have a bad number. I would love for it to be accurate but my bat sense tells me there’s something whacky about today’s number. Still, the 7 day average is moving in the right direction.
    “Coach said no 3s.” - Zion on The Block

  14. #9454
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Gee, the March and April surge affected mostly so-called "Blue States." Could that have had an effect on Federal Government policy? Nah!
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I would say, no.

    The President has been fairly consistent in his policy even with Red States getting his hard this summer. I think any changes he's made in messaging is due to poll numbers, not states impacted. I think this is an appropriate application of Hanlon's razor.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    I don't want to turn this into a political thread and I admittedly have my biases, but as a resident of New York City, it sure felt like politics played into the response. We were begging for resources (including ventilators, PPE and funding) and were not receiving them. Part of the explanation was "you have not thanked me enough for what I have already done." There was a very clear tone of "not my problem" coming from the rest of the country. Kind of like the many congresspeople who voted against Sandy relief (in a much less politically polarized time). Not much more I can add to that without being thrown in the penalty box, so I suggest we move on.
    I too am in the northeast and mentioned on this thread months ago the blue state-red state virus link. In retrospect, I also think there was, and still is, an aspect of this that's "I'm not gonna worry about what I don't see." Not many people in the US seemed all that worried when it was in China and then in Europe. When those cases appeared in Washington state, and on cruise ships, there was still a defiance of "it's not going to come here." Then it hit NYC and its close suburban neighbors in NJ and CT and the rest of the country didn't seem to care. Then it hit other cities like LA and Chicago and New Orleans and still the rest of the country seemed to say, "well, it's a big city thing, it's not here so I can do what I want to do." And over time it hit the smaller cities, the suburbs, and now the heartland and rural America. And you know what, people STILL don't think it's gonna affect them if they haven't met someone who has been incapacitated by this.

    If we had a strong and convincing leader who said in March or even April, "you or someone you know will contract coronavirus so we all need to do the right thing now and quarantine for a period of time and then start wearing masks and social distancing for the common good of all Americans. The economy will take a hit, people will lose jobs, but then we'll be able to come back faster in this new normal of masks and distancing until we have a cure or vaccine."

    That's what we needed and didn't get. Forcing the governors to make these decisions created a disjointed and inconsistent response (that became political fodder) that could not overcome a President who did not have the foresight, want to admit, or communicate a consistent policy that was necessary based on the science. And this enabled US citizens who supported the administration's position to openly defy what the science dictates and believe, regardless of what happens somewhere else, "I don't see it, it's not here so I'm not gonna worry about it...oh, and by the way, go f*ck your masks and your liberal rules!"
    Last edited by Rich; 08-10-2020 at 09:50 PM.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  15. #9455
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Pooty Poot is evidently approving a vaccine in Russia (who else would dare approve it there?) before clinical trials are completed. What could go wrong?

  16. #9456
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Pooty Poot is evidently approving a vaccine in Russia (who else would dare approve it there?) before clinical trials are completed. What could go wrong?
    Ah... There's our 2020 zombie outbreak!

  17. #9457
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    They posted their figures today at 2:20pm when normally they are posted around 12:00pm. I’m wondering if they had some trouble and have a bad number. I would love for it to be accurate but my bat sense tells me there’s something whacky about today’s number. Still, the 7 day average is moving in the right direction.
    If you're talking about Worldometers, I had noticed in the past, at least with my state, that the numbers increase throughout the day until some final update. In other words, by midday there are partial counts and they update them as info comes in. One isn't assured that a day's number is final until they move it to the "yesterday" tab with all the others. In my state (TN) I typically see the last update between 4 and 7pm ET. Note that a lot of TN is on Central time.

    I've also noticed a "seasonality" on the weekends - under-reporting. I.e., I think declining numbers for Fri-Sat-Sun are common and meaningless. At least here.

  18. #9458
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    I think declining numbers for Fri-Sat-Sun are common and meaningless. At least here.
    Locally, we are told that this is a result of fewer tests being done over the weekend.

  19. #9459
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Linky-link

    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Pooty Poot is evidently approving a vaccine in Russia (who else would dare approve it there?) before clinical trials are completed. What could go wrong?
    Here's a link to the WaPo story about the Russian vaccine: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...129_story.html

  20. #9460
    Quote Originally Posted by aimo View Post
    Locally, we are told that this is a result of fewer tests being done over the weekend.
    Which is why 7 day averages are useful. When we were peaking in new cases, some of the weekend days were very high test wise.

    Fewer tests is a dual edged sword. If fewer people feel sick, fewer people will seek out testing.

Similar Threads

  1. Masters 2020
    By OldPhiKap in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 11-20-2020, 09:24 PM
  2. 2020 NBA Playoffs
    By cato in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1349
    Last Post: 10-17-2020, 11:29 PM
  3. Coronavirus - those we've lost
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-08-2020, 09:42 PM
  4. FB: 2020 Schedule is out
    By nocilla in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-22-2020, 07:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •