Hide Ya Wives, Hide Ya Kids: Worldwide Coronavirus Pandemic!

Are You Getting The Covid Vaccine?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Only if mandatory

  • Not if mandatory

  • Undecided


Results are only viewable after voting.
ii83f2f4txz41.jpg
Plus TV and video games.. :nthat:

cxFX3bV.gif
 
I'm glad you said it, because while I wanted to order I resisted for the same reasons. I'm honestly having a hard time buying ANYTHING that is openly marked "made in China".
I normally wouldn't mind but I just don't trust that there are any safety measures being implemented over there. Plus the shipping from the factories to the US warehouses then to consumers is just too many hands on these.
 
some more corona ****, this time from JPM. hopefully this analysis nips it in the bud, but i'm sure the alt-right crazies will soon be posting the JPM study on their timelines.



Also, from a style standpoint, this graph should be a square (equal aspect ratio) since the abscissa and ordinate are equivalent quantities. Instead, they went with a non-1:1 ratio. Of course, that's not even beginning to get into the big issues with this **** analysis, mostly that a) the uncertainty is way too ******* high, b) there hasn't been enough time to assess the lockdown, and c) there are many dynamics at play that highly correlate with reopening and confound the analysis.
 
Last edited:
Just cut your own hair. Ain’t like anyone gonna see you if you mess up

Or at least wear a mask...........literally, you can have your haircuts if you just ******* wear masks (both barber and customer).

But no, the same idiots protesting for haircuts probably wouldn't want to wear a mask either if mandatory

#COVIDIOTS
 
Or at least wear a mask...........literally, you can have your haircuts if you just ****ing wear masks (both barber and customer).

But no, the same idiots protesting for haircuts probably wouldn't want to wear a mask either if mandatory

#COVIDIOTS
exactly. Barber in my city setting appointments and only doing 1 to 1. Just him and the client and both wearing mask. I’m just going to keep looking homeless cause honestly... I’m not going anywhere and why get a cut just to sit in the house?
 
some more corona ****, this time from JPM. hopefully this analysis nips it in the bud, but i'm sure the alt-right crazies will soon be posting the JPM study on their timelines.



Also, from a style standpoint, this graph should be a square (equal aspect ratio) since the abscissa and ordinate are equivalent quantities. Instead, they went with a non-1:1 ratio. Of course, that's not even beginning to get into the big issues with this **** analysis, mostly that a) the uncertainty is way too ****ing high, b) there hasn't been enough time to assess the lockdown, and c) there are many dynamics at play that highly correlate with reopening and confound the analysis.


explain this to me like I’m 4. I don’t really get JPM thesis in this argument
 
The first intolerable fact is most of these higher class Americans who aren't affected or infected and have money to spend cannot stay at home until a proper vaccine is made for everyone. Call it entitlement, selfishness, no patience, spoiled, etc.

The second intolerable fact is costs or rent are piling up for the lower classes and they cannot afford to close up shop for a long time. Expect some businesses going out of business.

An imbalance in money, care and health, and race. The greatest country in the world, or the country that should made great again cannot unite and agree to achieve balance in this pandemic for some time to make it great again, so that message, "we're all in this together" are just words, not action. :smh:.

To top it off we have a dumb president who goes the opposite direction of the message, whether its Covid-19 or his own campaign slogan. And its these ignorant people that believe in such ignorant leadership, conspiracies and fake news that weakens the message of unity and greatness. :smh:.
 
explain this to me like I’m 4. I don’t really get JPM thesis in this argument
Yea I don't understand it either lol
I'll try my best, although I don't have the JPM paper itself, so I have to make some assumptions.

R0 is an estimate of the number of new infections that are caused by a single infected person. R0 of 1 means that the virus will neither increase or decrease over time. If 1000 are infected today, 1000 will be infected in a month (a different 1000). R0 over 1 means the number of infected people will grow. R0 below 1 means the number of infected people will decrease over time and eventually go away completely. You can think of it like blackjack. If you make on average $1 for every $1 you bet, you will (on average) have the same amount of money forever. If you only make $0.99 for every $1 you bet, you will eventually run out of money if you play long enough.

R0 is not set in stone, and can change dynamically depending on many factors, such as social distancing. More precisely, there is Rt, which is the instantaneous version of R0. Pretend there's no lockdown. Rt on a busy travel day, like the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, might be 10. On the Saturday after Thanksgiving, it might be 2 because everyone's staying home to put up lights.

On to the actual JPM data: we can try to estimate Rt (they should've called it Rt, not R0, I think) based on models that look at the number of cases and deaths reported each day. This can get complicated because it would incorporate many things, such as the incubation period of the virus, to try to recover an estimated Rt for each day. I have no clue how JPM actually did this for their data. Because there are lags (we can't really estimate today's Rt until a few weeks from now) it's unclear how JPM came up with these measures, given that a lot of these states only opened up recently.

So what they did is estimated Rt during the lockdown and then after the lockdown was lifted for each state. If Rt is smaller after the lockdown is lifted, which would indicate the virus is spreading more slowly (because the smaller the Rt, the less the virus is spreading), then the dot on that graph would fall to the right of the diagonal line. They argue that most of the dots fall to the right of the line, indicating that removing the lockdown has actually led to less transmission of the virus.

This is flawed because these estimates of Rt carry huge uncertainties. If I say Rt is 0.86, I'm really saying I think it's between 0.80 and 0.92, for example. So when South Dakota goes from 0.89 to 0.86, the real statement should be: South Dakota goes from somewhere in the range of 0.83-0.95 to somewhere in the range of 0.80-0.92. With uncertainties that large and a change that small, you can't really conclude anything. That's why the tweet said these estimates are "implausibly precise." The dots should really be big circles.
 


Bruh...what is happening to this country



thats something thats been going on before coronavirus too many nuts with guns

this guy must have been planning this before the virus hit the country and when i guess the stay at home order was lifted he was going to strike

i dont know if the order has been lifted in AZ but my guess with that many people outside it has
anyone on here from AZ to confirm what i said ?
 
Here is some more bad science, again from the John Ioannidis clown. I hate to keep harping on this but it is dangerous and this guy just won't quit.

He has been trying to argue since March 17 (!!!!) that this pandemic is overblown and that the true infection fatality rate (IFR) is on par with a mild flu. This past month, his team has put out very poorly done seroprevalence studies, where they measure the percentage of people in a city that have antibodies to covid-19 to try to estimate the true prevalence of infections and the true IFR.

We know from solid, good data from NYC, Madrid, China, and a bunch of other places that the IFR is likely 0.7-0.9%, but can move around depending on the health and age of the population and the access to medical care.

Anyway, now this clown is trying to put out a new paper that is even more ******* awful than his previous papers. He argues that the IFR is as low as 0.02% (!!!!). This thread does a good job breaking down why it is such ****** work:

 
Here is some more bad science, again from the John Ioannidis clown. I hate to keep harping on this but it is dangerous and this guy just won't quit.

He has been trying to argue since March 17 (!!!!) that this pandemic is overblown and that the true infection fatality rate (IFR) is on par with a mild flu. This past month, his team has put out very poorly done seroprevalence studies, where they measure the percentage of people in a city that have antibodies to covid-19 to try to estimate the true prevalence of infections and the true IFR.

We know from solid, good data from NYC, Madrid, China, and a bunch of other places that the IFR is likely 0.7-0.9%, but can move around depending on the health and age of the population and the access to medical care.

Anyway, now this clown is trying to put out a new paper that is even more ****ing awful than his previous papers. He argues that the IFR is as low as 0.02% (!!!!). This thread does a good job breaking down why it is such ****ty work:



yeah I’m mean stuff like this you can tell is ******** right away just given the current death total. If a typical flu season is 30-80k death and we had 95k locking down the entire country then it doesn’t take a genius to realize its more lethal.
 
Back
Top Bottom