Bad News Thread

In order of study - mathematics, chemistry, physics, electronics, and computer engineering. I have even had a touch of biology and psychology training along the way. The most interesting learning I pursued is neural networks - sort of a mix of biology and mathematics, which got really interesting in the '80s when it became possible for electronic circuits to emulate biological mechanisms with a speed and density good enough to be useful (not just theoretical mathematical curiosities any more) and then leading up to now when we have computers able to do biologic-like things faster and more dependably than real brains.

My introduction to neural networks was taking a class thought by Dr. Bart Kosko. It was a UCSD Extension course, so the format was 3 hours one night a week. The first week, we covered Dr. Kosko's recent paper on Bidirectional Associative Memories (after some appropriate leadup material), followed by a quiz on the material just presented. By the next week, about half the class had dropped out.


I don't buy into the personality type hogwash. I judge people as individuals.

BTW, I didn't mean that you were a _good_ poet.

Impressive. I take it from the above you (unlike dad or I) are not an "N", which would also explain our mutual antipathy and is probably another mirror.

No, I would not make a good poet. When I was 25 I tried to write the great American novel. Had always won praise from my teachers through college for fiction and I thought I could do it. I could not. The structure drove me insane even though the language was easy. If I were to be a writer, I would be out of time and would be more interested in writing a 19th century Russian horror of a novel than within the current strictures of writing.

I am a master of reading people. It has been said my father is a gift for judgement, and my mother is empathic on the verge of psychic. It would make me a wonder at the poker table except that I am incapable of lying convincingly myself. The personality types are extremely useful at dissecting people's motivations and for understanding where they are coming from. It is insufficient to analyze an argument purely on its text...you also have to analyze how it is made and how it is making it. The personality tests are extremely useful for this purpose. They, like other tools, are limited and only give out what the situation calls for.
 
So what’s the take on this? Have we been misrepresenting the cases with hypersensitive testing?

Not really. PCR can’t invent a case where none ever existed. They are talking about PCR detecting cases that exist, but are mild on the day of testing.

Some of these are cases that are almost finished. Some are cases that just have not grown yet. And some are patients who just never develop a high viral load at all. But all of them are patients who have an infection.
 
Not really. PCR can’t invent a case where none ever existed. They are talking about PCR detecting cases that exist, but are mild on the day of testing.

Some of these are cases that are almost finished. Some are cases that just have not grown yet. And some are patients who just never develop a high viral load at all. But all of them are patients who have an infection.
Thanks for clarifying...Would such sensitivity potentially lead to detecting other viruses and creating a positive?
 
Not really. PCR can’t invent a case where none ever existed. They are talking about PCR detecting cases that exist, but are mild on the day of testing.

Some of these are cases that are almost finished. Some are cases that just have not grown yet. And some are patients who just never develop a high viral load at all. But all of them are patients who have an infection.

Doesn't it come down to a definitional issue, though? If the person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they never actually develop illness, if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they can't be infectious, and if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they actually develop some-form of immunity, is it a case? Presumably there are some people who have been exposed but the virus doesn't take a sufficient hold in their bodies to replicate because either there isn't enough material there or the immune system is somehow able to clear it out?
 
I am definitely not the panic type but I have to say the stories of the long haulers have been a bit frightening. Mainly because this virus is just so damn weird!
If you can stand Bryant Gumbel there was a good segment on Real Sports about "long haulers" that are athletes. Interesting and a little scary, but fortunately rare. The oddest thing is that it doesn't appear to effect male athletes.
 
Doesn't it come down to a definitional issue, though? If the person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they never actually develop illness, if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they can't be infectious, and if that person doesn't have a high enough viral load that they actually develop some-form of immunity, is it a case? Presumably there are some people who have been exposed but the virus doesn't take a sufficient hold in their bodies to replicate because either there isn't enough material there or the immune system is somehow able to clear it out?
It becomes an epidemiological issue.

Group A is people who already had it, are recovering, and are now longer contagious.
Group B is people who just naturally have a low viral load, and will never be contagious.
Group C is people who have a low viral load, but are contagious anyway.
Group D is people who have a low viral load today, but will be contagious soon.

A and B are safe. C and D are not.

You are asking how many people are in group A or B, and how many people are in group C or D. I don’t know. This is why we need those experts you dislike so much.
 
If you can stand Bryant Gumbel there was a good segment on Real Sports about "long haulers" that are athletes. Interesting and a little scary, but fortunately rare. The oddest thing is that it doesn't appear to effect male athletes.

You have a link? That's fascinating. Men are generally more susceptible to the virus. IIRC almost by a factor of .5. Perhaps because of their superior cardiovascular systems? Come to think of it, most of the longer haulers I know are all women.
 
It becomes an epidemiological issue.

Group A is people who already had it, are recovering, and are now longer contagious.
Group B is people who just naturally have a low viral load, and will never be contagious.
Group C is people who have a low viral load, but are contagious anyway.
Group D is people who have a low viral load today, but will be contagious soon.

A and B are safe. C and D are not.

You are asking how many people are in group A or B, and how many people are in group C or D. I don’t know. This is why we need those experts you dislike so much.

It's the people in group B that most interest me. If it's a large group, it would explain the policy choice. C is the counterfactual. A is baked into the cake already so are irrelevant. D are probably the area of the highest concern from a policy point of view.

You misunderstand my antipathy for experts. I agree this is exactly the type of data situation we need the experts to resolve. Where the problem for the experts come is in interpreting the data and making a policy judgement, which for various reasons they aren't very good at doing and it's why from a public policy point of view we need a check on them (usually it's a market, but as we've seen markets have a tendency to break down, particularly if they are oriented to defer to the experts). When it's a politician, it's a prescription for disaster.
 
You have a link? That's fascinating. Men are generally more susceptible to the virus. IIRC almost by a factor of .5. Perhaps because of their superior cardiovascular systems? Come to think of it, most of the longer haulers I know are all women.
I believe this is the full audio.
 
This actually good news...not bad.

So here you go.

"According to a Bloomberg Vaccine Tracker, 26.5 million people in the US have now received at least one dose of the vaccine, surpassing the 26.2 million coronavirus cases since the onset of the pandemic."

"The milestone comes at a time when the US leads the world in daily coronavirus vaccine rates, with about 1.35 million doses administered per day, according to Bloomberg.

About 7.8% of Americans have now received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, while 1.8% of the population is fully vaccinated, the report said."

 
I wonder if I should use the vaccine that I bought through Alibaba.com and just arrived?

 
I believe this is the full audio.

Thanks. Interesting. My son's heart has checked out o.k., but for the first time since he was 3-5 (when he was in day care and had one RSV, cold and flu infection after another), he's had periodic asthma since he's been sick and has had to get an inhaler. They aren't sure if I had COVID, but I've had issues for up to 8 months, only turning around at the beginning of this year. I can relate to the some days I feel great and some days I don't thing.
 
And not so good news when your gov can do this. Not ours fortunately.


This article raises a fair point. Why is it racist and xenophobic to call this bug "The China Virus" but it's perfectly acceptable to call the variants "The UK Variant" and "The South Africa Variant"?
 
“The lockdowns have been an enormous and ineffective overreaction, not actually protecting the population from COVID. While at the same time, the collateral damage is absolutely devastating,” he said.

“It’s an unfocused overreaction…We just should have focused on the population we knew to be at risk, protected them, thought of creative ways to protect them from the beginning of the epidemic…And for the rest of the population, the lockdown, we should have been thinking about the collateral damage from the very beginning.”

It has taken all of these “geniuses” too long to now realize what many normal everyday people knew in May. I am not professing to be know it’s all but I knew then that kids could play sports and go to school safely. Our politicians knew it too but because they wanted to purposely hurt the economy to gain the presidency they turned on their population and ruined business in their own state. These are the facts and have been for months. Not sure if treason is the proper word but if you define it as being a traitor, Newsom and many other politicians who purposefully hurt our children and many of their citizens livelihoods in the name of power have committed it.
 
This article raises a fair point. Why is it racist and xenophobic to call this bug "The China Virus" but it's perfectly acceptable to call the variants "The UK Variant" and "The South Africa Variant"?
Maybe we should call it the "China Variant", and then it's ok?
 
This actually good news...not bad.

So here you go.

"According to a Bloomberg Vaccine Tracker, 26.5 million people in the US have now received at least one dose of the vaccine, surpassing the 26.2 million coronavirus cases since the onset of the pandemic."

"The milestone comes at a time when the US leads the world in daily coronavirus vaccine rates, with about 1.35 million doses administered per day, according to Bloomberg.

About 7.8% of Americans have now received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, while 1.8% of the population is fully vaccinated, the report said."

The bad news is they wasted some doses by giving them to politician in DC.
 
Back
Top