What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

We have an extensive body of law to guide us on due process and first amendment issues in the context of civil protest. Unless something truly different comes along, there's not a lot of room for debate other than our own positions on the substantive issue (SIP Orders).
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

Ankeny, Iowa, Population 65284*




* US Census Bureau 2018 estimate
 
The Rube said:
A lot of things. Or nothing.

My point is, some people are beeching about THESE protesters, but weren't beeching about the BLM protesters. Hypocrites.

I'm looking at them in the same way.
Click to expand...

It's almost like there are different circumstances present today wherein people being in close quarters constitute an active threat to public health.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

I'm a little concerned about the antibody test results Cuomo is touting. First, I don't know a lot about antibody testing but I would be very cautious if they exclude a couple things:
1. Specificity of the tests (essentially gives the number of false positives). This is especially important given that we don't seem to know if someone who had a different coronavirus that's essentially harmless but has not been infected by COVID-19 could give a positive result on these tests.
2. How they selected the samples
3. A caution that a positive test result doesn't mean you're immune, even if it's not a false positive. We don't know that yet. We can predict, but we don't know.
4. Relatedly, if the false positive rate is fairly high, that's... not good.
5. How did they process the data.
6. Whether they are using resolved cases that correspond to the sampling dates to determine any kind of fatality rate


Regarding point 4, there's a great short video from Pro Publica (I really, really need to subscribe/donate to them) that helps explain why proportion of FP to total positives is important:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In some situations, antibody tests generate more false positives than real ones. It’s because of ... math. Here's what you need to know. <a href="https://t.co/jyertTc60Z">pic.twitter.com/jyertTc60Z</a></p>— ProPublica (@propublica) <a href="https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1256568874365063168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

For point 5, here's a fairly good but dense thread on why there are some issues with the studies coming out of Santa Clara right now and why they might be important for the NY testing results.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The statistical analysis in the Bendavid et al. revision still seems to have at least one fatal bug.<a href="https://t.co/bLqgRdflkj">https://t.co/bLqgRdflkj</a></p>— Will Fithian (@wfithian) <a href="https://twitter.com/wfithian/status/1256308404194144256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

unofan said:
It's almost like there are different circumstances present today wherein people being in close quarters constitute an active threat to public health.
Click to expand...

nah, Rube's in favor of that, as long as they're healthy. Why should they have to change their lives?
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

And roofie once again is the pigeon that is playing chess.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A Message from President George W. Bush<a href="https://twitter.com/TheCallToUnite?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheCalltoUnite</a> <a href="https://t.co/FIn9wuOPTF">pic.twitter.com/FIn9wuOPTF</a></p>— George W. Bush Presidential Center (@TheBushCenter) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBushCenter/status/1256607729151619073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

Morons. NYC.

Morons. DC.

Let's celebrate our health care workers by packing the hospitals.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

rufus said:
If it sounds stupid, its only because I'm quoting you.
Click to expand...

You mean like how I've said that the MN is doing this the right way? Step by step, slow openings? And be ready to dial it back if need be? Those quotes? lol, you aren't even good at trolling.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

rufus and Brent: A Love Story.

Don't know who's playing who in the Lifetime Original Movie.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

The Rube said:
You mean like how I've said that the MN is doing this the right way? Step by step, slow openings? And be ready to dial it back if need be? Those quotes? lol, you aren't even good at trolling.
Click to expand...
No, your quotes from way earlier in this whole thing. You know, about healthy people being able to go out to the bar and such. Live their lives. You remember writing that, don't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top