Maybe you missed the part where I said "Given the current testing patterns,". I apologize for not using all caps.
People have so much trouble with this thinking thing, it makes them shy to do it. I guess not thinking saves brain-cell power dissipation or something.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
Sometimes lies can indirectly reveal a truth.
I'm glad you now regard Trump as stupid.
Yes, mostly about the liars. Their motivations. Their aversion to truth.
It would have been stupid of Xi to say that. That's why I suspected the quote, which turned out to be a lie.
As a hypothetical, the concept is common sense. Test density modulates test results.
One of Trump's issues is that he is disinhibited. So am I, so I have some sympathy.
Being disinhibited really helps in creating new electronics. "Who says that I can't do that?"
Interesting how much effort you put into appreciating lies.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
Am 31.07.20 um 16:06 schrieb snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com:
probably hopeless.
That sentence is not exactly like swearing to the bible, in fact it contains a three-layer disclaimer. And it's even true. I heard me definitely talk when I read the post aloud.
With due apologies to Frank Zappa: Some people would not recognize satire if it came up and would bite them in the arse.
And yes, the presidential gabble was in the evening news, even here; and it has a quite unique style even for me as a non-native speaker. No one else could invent that. It was recognized by others who did read what was there and not what they had decided to read.
Like Xi giving his orders to the WHO and telling so in a press conference. ROTFL!
No, I'm quite pleasant and nice, actually. Glad to help you to rethink your opinion on DT.
cheers, Gerhard
BTW FZ said that on music.
Also about the people that believe them. Also the nature of the lies they are prepared to believe.
You wrote: "Did he actually say that? Not only does power corrupt, it makes people stupid." It is clear that "he" is Xi, and the "corrupt" and "stupid" are in that context.
We can both agree that power corrupts to some extent or other.
We can both agree that the inferences in Gerhard's statement are wrong and stupid.
Quite possibly, but that isn't what you wrote above.
For any job, you want the right person and personality.
"Disinhibited" is not a good characteristic in someone with significant power over other people's lives.
Only an idiot creates a team with only one personality type. A team benefits from a range of personality types where one person's weaknesses are irrelevant because they are another team member' strengths.
So, yes, I'm content that your personality is beneficial in your job. I expect that other people around you are different, and that they add different benefits to your team/company.
The consequences of lies, especially revealed truths.
Between lies.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
Well, my reaction to the lie was scepticism. Justly so.
Right. Xi.
The longer people have power, the more disconnected they get from reality. You can see that in most people who have been in politics for their entire lives; they think they understand everything and should control everything. Mitt Romnney, George Will, Matt Drudge have all gravitated towards top-down perspectives.
I think the randomly selected plumber would be a better than average President. One of Trump's few charms is that he wasn't a career politician.
I'm reading Sowell's book about this now, Intellectuals and Society. That guy is really smart, and has a nice appreciation of institutional wrongness.
I certainly disagree with that opinion. Inhibition is blindness. Truth needs to be said.
People need to think, and then do what's probably best. We don't see a lot of that lately.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
/Anybody/ that made Gerhard's statement would have been stupid.
It happened to have been Trump.
The two term limit does have its attractions. I don't know why, but 8/10 years does seem to be about right in many countries.
That's setting a low bar. I would hope and expect more in the leader of a modern state.
Truth does need to be said - and received. "Yes men" and "flappers" have always been a bad thing, and good leaders avoid that trap. From a distance it looks like Trump doesn't tolerate people that disagree with him and stand up to him.
Inhibition doesn't imply blindness.
If uninhibited is a good characteristic, that can easily be achieved by adding some alcohol or LSD to the water supply.
Once Nixon was sufficiently uninhibited to tell the military to nuke North Vietnam. Fortunately the "inhibited" people around him committed mutiny, and suggested delayed implementing the order until the next morning, by which time Nixon was sober.
Agreed.
Except for the little details that's it's relevant and true. It would have been ludicrous for Xi to say it, given that there are officially no coronaviruses in all of China.
in 3 days
is only
saying:
d of testing over 40
he
where he gave
e would
people
Come on, John
For once just admit you fell for it and you cannot backtrack, and that you agree Trump made a stupid comment
Sometimes "lies" can indirectly reveal truths ;}
I immediately expressed skepticism about a statement that was a lie. That's not my concept of "fell for it." It made no sense for Xi to say that.
That said, people who lie to plant traps are nasty creeps. So are his fans.
The actual comment was candid and obviously true; good reasons to doubt that Xi said it. I have said the same thing here several times, namely that reported cases depends on test rate. And that test rate in the US has ramped up from zero in early March to over 800K/day now.
Test rate is a distorting feedback loop. Trump seems to understand that.
Or direct truths about the liars. And their fans.
In your dreams, Trump understands.
The quote was:
ng over 40
gave
Testing has the purpose of guiding treatment. Leaving half the cases in information limbo doesn't imply half the cases, it means half the knowledge.
If Trump really understood the situation, why would his words obscure all important implications?
The numbers are wrong, too; if 40 million tests find 100k infections, then
20 million will find... 100k infections. The limitation of tests means most likely c ases come first.That quote is meaningless babble from someone who hasn't heard an expert op inion.
Now that's crazy.
So we can save a lot of money by not testing the people who have the virus. Logic!
There is a deluge of expert opinion on this one. All sorts of expert opinions. Lots of data too.
sting over 40
he gave
ll
en 20 million
Not at all. So the 20 million tests, with 100k infected persons, means th e first 1 million gets nine/tnths (90k), the second million gets only 9/10ths of the remainder (9k ), the third million gets only 9/10ths of the remainder (900) etc.
Logic is not what we're using, we're using math. Exponential decrease, ba sically, is the rule for test-allocation-effectiveness.
The tests aren't perfect, by the 5%-test-positive testing intensity, test e rrors can mask further improvements.
Trump can't use logic any better than you can; the presumption of linear re sponse, i.e.. no law of diminishing returns, is a bad premise for a businessman. O r president. Or electronic designer.
...of understanding the size and nature of the problem SO THAT you can propose treatment options and evaluate how they are working
If you can't sample the entire population (and do so, repeatedly cuz things vary over time), then you want a sample that is REPRESENTATIVE of the population.
[If your in-house testing of products shows a failure rate of 1% but you're seeing a 10% DoA return rate, then your in-house testing is suspect. There's a bias in how you are sampling your lots (because the customers are effectively doing 100% sampling: "Hey! This thing doesn't work for sh*t!"!)]Early in a pandemic (which is where we are, despite how long it SEEMS to have been), you assume the population has a low infection rate. Say 5%. If your sample exhibits an infection rate of 20%, then your sample isn't representative of the population, as a whole (or, your estimate of the extent of the virus in the population is way off!).
Likewise, if your sample exhibits an infection rate of 1%.
So, you want to INCREASE the number of individuals tested until the positivity rate starts to bottom out. Of course, if you are slow in increasing your testing capacity, then you'll have a hard time seeing the bottom -- because it will (likely) be RISING from your initial expectation.
Trump only thinks in terms of absolute numbers. "10" is bigger than "9". To him, 10 out of 1000 looks *worse* than 9 out of 100. (And, this may be true of the public's perceptions, as well) I'd wager he has, at best, an "average" IQ (far from that of a "stable genius"). And, probably doesn't understand the nuances of statistics, probability, etc.
"Mr Trump. I flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads EVERY TIME. What are the chances of it coming up heads on the next -- 11th -- flip?"
That depends on how you (artificially) limit the number of tests. If you change the testing policy (or criteria) in such a way that it avoids uncovering infected individuals, then those 20M tests could (improbably!) show ZERO infections.
But, if (currently) you allow folks to self select for testing and don't impose a fee (or other condition that could discourage subpopulations from availing themselves of those tests), then the positivity rate will likely increase as the number of tests decreases as your "sample" isn't adequately representing the population as a whole but, rather, just the folks who THINK they might be infected.
Am 01.08.20 um 05:55 schrieb Don Y:
Even worse. The patient 0 here in Germany shows 0 antibodies after half a year. Nothing left. That does not provide much hope for vaccination.
Gerhard
Yes, lots still unknown. What's disturbing is even the "scientists" are talking like politicians -- lots of (carefully worded!) "happy talk" instead of an acknowledgement of the LIKELY issues to come.
Does exposure grant immunity? If so, how long? How likely is the virus to mutate over (longer periods of) time? How much protection against variants of the virus? How likely for an initial vaccine to be tweeked for (annual?) variants? What is the severity of the disease in a reinfected survivor? How symptomatic will reinfections be? (i.e., if you escape the severity of the disease due to earlier infection, are you more/less likely to become a silent carrier thereafter?) What long-term health consequences do survivors likely face? How do these consequences vary with severity of initial infection?
There's going to be a frenzy of publications in the future that try to (or accidentally!) uncover all of the yet-to-be-knowns about this virus. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing certain "recommended testing" for folks who have been (or MAY have been) exposed to the virus, in the past.
E.g., it is now suggested that ALL "baby boomers" be tested for Hepatitis C -- even those not known to be at risk for the disease. Some bean counter undoubtedly noticed an increased frequency of undiagnosed hep-c in that population and hence the recommendation.
Fun times -- not!
If
Not necessarily the same thing. Vaccination works on different sites and m ay well produce a lasting result. We will only find out if and when the te sts are completed.
-- Rick C. --+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging --+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.