poker news
blondepedia
card room
tournament schedule
uk results
galleries
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
May 15, 2024, 03:30:00 AM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Search:
Advanced search
Order through Amazon and help blonde Poker
2272683
Posts in
66756
Topics by
16947
Members
Latest Member:
CassioParra
blonde poker forum
Community Forums
The Lounge
COVID19
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
« previous
next »
Pages:
1
...
121
122
123
124
[
125
]
126
127
128
129
...
305
Author
Topic: COVID19 (Read 363949 times)
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1860 on:
April 29, 2020, 08:04:13 PM »
Quote from: nirvana on April 29, 2020, 07:50:18 PM
Anyway, Kuku it's not about judgement, we were talking about bias. There are so many known unknowns in this whole thing that our biases (and other aspects of our characters) inform the view we take on Government performance during this crisis.
So, we could both make a judgement that if we'd locked down sooner it is probable that fewer people would have died to date. Our judgement would be the same but our perspectives on whether locking down sooner could reasonably have been expected or would have been desirable would probably be different.
Good shout š
Logged
Woodsey
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 15846
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1861 on:
April 29, 2020, 08:09:15 PM »
Quote from: nirvana on April 29, 2020, 07:50:18 PM
Anyway, Kuku it's not about judgement, we were talking about bias. There are so many known unknowns in this whole thing that our biases (and other aspects of our characters) inform the view we take on Government performance during this crisis.
So, we could both make a judgement that if we'd locked down sooner it is probable that fewer people would have died to date. Our judgement would be the same but our perspectives on whether locking down sooner could reasonably have been expected or would have been desirable would probably be different.
Trust me....if we locked down sooner it would just be a different whine about fking the economy or something else......either way there would be a whine about the govt making a mess of things you can be 100% sure of that.
Logged
DungBeetle
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 4925
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1862 on:
April 29, 2020, 08:21:58 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 04:04:42 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on April 29, 2020, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 10:02:15 AM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:52:53 AM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 09:26:35 AM
Quote from: Pokerpops on April 29, 2020, 09:06:07 AM
...
Kush, Just out of interest and itās a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?
I think Iāve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.
In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.
Kush - you know a bias is a prejudice right?
So if you're saying your bias is based on "I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government" you're saying that you don't think that's an objective opinion(?)
"I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany. "
Is closer - a more realistic description might be you're biased against anything you think doesn't lead to a more equitable society - primarily anything the Tories do :p
I guess I was simplifying the language for the purpose of responding to PP. Youāre quite right to correct me. I donāt believe there is any bias in my belief that the governance of this country has been getting progressively worse since around 2012. Same for my view that having a populist government, led a by a clown who believes in English exceptionalism, was unfortunate timing for this crisis.
Iām not the biggest fan of Boris but calling him āa clownā demonstrates your bias even though you donāt believe itās a biased view.
Youāve bought the act, hook line and sinker. He plays up to that image and ensures he is underestimated by opponents.
My view is a bit more complicated than that, I havenāt bought his act at all. I usually call him āthe clown showā, this was just the abbreviated version. Calling him a clown is just being a bit charitable, he should be and usually is, called a lot worse.
My feelings about Boris are objective, my choice of words sometimes leave room for improvement. An incompetent liar who believes in little Englander exceptionalism would be a more accurate and therefore better way to describe him. Letās not make it about what I think of Boris though. As I say, whatever you think of biases I might have, my judgement on this issue has been sound, the last 6 weeks of the thread are an interesting reread.
Lol
Logged
Marky147
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 22798
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1863 on:
April 29, 2020, 08:33:51 PM »
Quote from: Chompy on April 29, 2020, 07:18:09 PM
Quote from: Marky147 on April 29, 2020, 06:34:01 PM
I always think my judgement is good... Then I crash my mobility scooter driving back to the Cosmo, end up breaking my glasses, and need help picking the scooter up off the deck
Anyone seen lolrron? It's been a while.
Probably trying to get his week in the 'rife upgraded to a fortnight in Vegas, for free.
Logged
Burning $$$ in Vegas 2021
http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=68840.0
Jon MW
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 6191
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1864 on:
April 29, 2020, 09:08:24 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 06:42:02 PM
...
The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext
Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?
which is in that study published 27th April 2020
As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.
I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)
When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on āscientific evidenceā, they didnāt have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.
But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.
That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?
Just to check youāre saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youāre also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?
They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.
You said, "The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."
The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.
Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.
So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?
Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.
«
Last Edit: April 29, 2020, 09:11:25 PM by Jon MW
»
Logged
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield
2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1865 on:
April 29, 2020, 09:27:16 PM »
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:08:24 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 06:42:02 PM
...
The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext
Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?
which is in that study published 27th April 2020
As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.
I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)
When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on āscientific evidenceā, they didnāt have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.
But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.
That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?
Just to check youāre saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youāre also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?
They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.
You said, "The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."
The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.
Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.
So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?
Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.
It was a peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence, the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itās a huge stretch to call that evidence. There was no way they could have had relevant evidence at that point. They did specifically say āscientific evidenceā, which is a clumsy term but what they had is really struggling to pass any test to be called that.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 6191
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1866 on:
April 29, 2020, 09:37:18 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 09:27:16 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:08:24 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 06:42:02 PM
...
The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext
Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?
which is in that study published 27th April 2020
As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.
I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)
When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on āscientific evidenceā, they didnāt have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.
But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.
That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?
Just to check youāre saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youāre also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?
They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.
You said, "The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."
The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.
Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.
So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?
Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.
It was a peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence, the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itās a huge stretch to call that evidence. There was no way they could have had relevant evidence at that point. They did specifically say āscientific evidenceā, which is a clumsy term but what they had is really struggling to pass any test to be called that.
I'm still confused.
The Imperial team used the data available at the time, comparison with previous epidemics and their skills and experience to assess the most likely options.
A peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence suggests that the option they thought most likely in terms of children was indeed likely to be the case.
I guess in science if you have a hypothesis, test it and get a positive result the positive result at the end is technically progress from having the initial hypothesis but still don't see how much confirming the hypothesis really helps in any practical sense.
"... the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itās a huge stretch to call that evidence..."
Apart from they had the data about the disease from China when they did the modelling in February, and the data they had about the disease from China and Italy when they revised the model half way through March.
The disease started at the end of 2019 - The end of 2019 up to the middle of March is a pretty substantial amount of data.
It didn't have extensive analysis like that paper - but that's a lot of raw data.
Logged
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield
2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Jon MW
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 6191
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1867 on:
April 29, 2020, 09:43:22 PM »
To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.
Epidemiologists make extensive studies of (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.
Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.
Logged
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield
2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1868 on:
April 29, 2020, 09:53:15 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 09:27:16 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:08:24 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:33:15 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 07:17:08 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 06:42:02 PM
...
The comment that it is interesting rereading the thread can stand alone. The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext
Do you mean this, "...Moreover, children are at a similar risk of infection to the general population, although less likely to have severe symptoms; hence they should be considered in analyses of transmission and control..."?
which is in that study published 27th April 2020
As compared to the evidence in the Imperial report that informed the governments strategy which instead said, "....We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic, under the assumption that children do transmit as much as adults, even if they rarely experience severe disease..." which was published on the 16th March 2020.
I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is(?)
When the decision was made to leave schools open, they said that decision was based on āscientific evidenceā, they didnāt have any Covid19 based evidence, prepping for the wrong disease is a bit of a theme. Yet we decided to pursue the high risk option.
But I just mentioned the evidence they used. As for the wrong disease, the first model was based on flu studies, but in flu pandemics children have a higher rate, not the same rate - so it does seem like the experts might have taken into account that this wasn't flu.
That might be a surprise to you, but they are experts for a reason. Or have you had enough of so called experts in this pandemic?
Just to check youāre saying they know or even knew a month ago the role of school children in spreading Covid19? Youāre also saying that they know how it compares to flu on that front?
They used a number of assumptions and sometimes a range of values because so many things were unknown.
You said, "The issue that was discussed over āevidenceā for school closures might finally be seeing some progress."
The link you gave was to a study which mentioned about the role of children and the fact that they don't get severe symptoms but spread it at the same level as adults - which basically is the same as the report on the Imperial modelling.
Whether that was because they had sufficient evidence at that point to come to that conclusion, or whether it was an assumption they were making on the insufficient evidence they had - the result is the same.
So my question is still what was your point? Is there something else in that study that I missed because I only skimmed it?
Because saying there's progress and providing a link to a study which says the same thing as what we already thought several weeks ago doesn't seem to be providing evidence of any progress.
It was a peer reviewed paper, based on empirical evidence, the IC only had unsupported assumptions based on a different disease, I think itās a huge stretch to call that evidence. There was no way they could have had relevant evidence at that point. They did specifically say āscientific evidenceā, which is a clumsy term but what they had is really struggling to pass any test to be called that.
I think Iāve thought of a better way to explain, the worldwide scientific community is currently trying to work out the R0 impact of opening/closing schools. Itās a vitally important piece of information and we are still nowhere near having a definitive answer. We didnāt have this evidence or anything similar when we were deciding to keep schools open, which was a decision that was in contrast to all our European equivalents.
Looks like more progress:
https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-patient-age.pdf
Hubei and Lombardy closed their schools really early in their outbreaks, so itās not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model, to say we were leaving schools opened based on scientific evidence. Iāll revisit what we know of their model tomorrow and fully recant if Iām misremembering something important.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1869 on:
April 29, 2020, 10:01:10 PM »
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:43:22 PM
To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.
Epidemiologists make extensive studies of (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.
Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.
I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our āscienceā as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iāll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iāve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day š.
Logged
Woodsey
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 15846
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1870 on:
April 29, 2020, 10:05:15 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 10:01:10 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:43:22 PM
To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.
Epidemiologists make extensive studies of (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.
Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.
I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our āscienceā as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iāll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iāve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day š.
Ohhhhh be quiet.....what are your medical credentials to have any valued opinion on this? Right now you are just a random person with an opinion on the Internet with no credibility......
Logged
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 46971
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1871 on:
April 29, 2020, 10:13:23 PM »
Quote from: Woodsey on April 29, 2020, 10:05:15 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 10:01:10 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:43:22 PM
To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.
Epidemiologists make extensive studies of (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.
Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.
I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our āscienceā as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iāll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iāve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day š.
Ohhhhh be quiet.....what are your medical credentials to have any valued opinion on this? Right now you are just a random person with an opinion on the Internet with no credibility......
It's OK. This is a poker forum, not The Lancet.
Logged
The older I get, the better I was.
Woodsey
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 15846
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1872 on:
April 29, 2020, 10:14:45 PM »
Quote from: RED-DOG on April 29, 2020, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: Woodsey on April 29, 2020, 10:05:15 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 10:01:10 PM
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 09:43:22 PM
To add - the idea that basing any initial response on a model based on a different disease is a mistake kind of plays into the idea of thinking that experts aren't worth listening to.
Epidemiologists make extensive studies of (for example) Ebola or Flu outbreaks to work out how best to handle the next Ebola or Flu outbreak, but they also study them to work out the best way to handle any new viruses that emerge.
Novel just means new - we've had plenty of novel viruses in the past. The more data we have on past epidemics the better we should be able to handle any future epidemic whether it's from an existing disease or a new one.
I do agree with this. My issue is with politicians misrepresenting science to suit their agenda. Our āscienceā as described by our government has consistently been different to that of the countries who have handled the crisis well to this point. That (I think) is down to the influence of politicians, not the scientists. See facemasks for the latest example. Iāll find the preprint of the paper on masks but Iāve had enough for looking back through the thread for one day š.
Ohhhhh be quiet.....what are your medical credentials to have any valued opinion on this? Right now you are just a random person with an opinion on the Internet with no credibility......
It's OK. This is a poker forum, not The Lancet.
For Sure.....until people start quoting the lancet and talking like they have some authority on the subject ffs!
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 6191
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1873 on:
April 29, 2020, 10:15:02 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 09:53:15 PM
... so itās not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...
Evidently.
That would be the raw data mentioned.
The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc
It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.
Logged
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield
2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #1874 on:
April 29, 2020, 10:26:27 PM »
Quote from: Jon MW on April 29, 2020, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on April 29, 2020, 09:53:15 PM
... so itās not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...
Evidently.
That would be the raw data mentioned.
The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc
It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.
They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic, they said this decision was supported by scientific evidence. The scientific community, even now, is in agreement that we donāt have the necessary evidence to make this assessment. I think thatās the closest Iāve come to a decent explanation, Iāve made a dogs dinner of explaining it for sure, itās been a long day by lockdown standards. As I say, Iāll look again at the model and put my hands up if I think Iām wrong.
Logged
Pages:
1
...
121
122
123
124
[
125
]
126
127
128
129
...
305
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Poker Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Rail
===> past blonde Bashes
===> Best of blonde
=> Diaries and Blogs
=> Live Tournament Updates
=> Live poker
===> Live Tournament Staking
=> Internet Poker
===> Online Tournament Staking
=> Poker Hand Analysis
===> Learning Centre
-----------------------------
Community Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Lounge
=> Betting Tips and Sport Discussion
Loading...