Conoravirus ...

[BeauV]

Some data from 60 days on lockdown. Title - since lockdown - normal usage
- Electric car recharge - three times - 42
- Gasoline purchased - zero - $280
- Restaurant meals - zero - 38
- Drinks out at a bar - zero - 24
- Days on the water sailing - zero - 19
- Hair cuts - zero - 4

[Olaf Hart]

Screen time?

[Benno von Humpback]

Yeah Benno - look at your name - clearly involved with programs like the Boys from Brazil.

That's outrageous!

[Jamie]

Yeah Benno - look at your name - clearly involved with programs like the Boys from Brazil.

That's outrageous!

I know, right? Early program, so it's understandable it had its issues. What I'd like to know is how far you folks are on the Gattaca type protocols?

[Benno von Humpback]

Yeah Benno - look at your name - clearly involved with programs like the Boys from Brazil.

That's outrageous!

I know, right? Early program, so it's understandable it had its issues. What I'd like to know is how far you folks are on the Gattaca type protocols?

I saw that, but it was on an airplane, without sound, on someone else's screen. Great movie!

[Jamie]

Yeah Benno - look at your name - clearly involved with programs like the Boys from Brazil.

That's outrageous!

I know, right? Early program, so it's understandable it had its issues. What I'd like to know is how far you folks are on the Gattaca type protocols?

I saw that, but it was on an airplane, without sound, on someone else's screen. Great movie!

That's funny. I do that too.

[Ajax]

I realize that our stay at home protocols are very "leaky" compared to other countries, and this is one reason for our failure to contain the disease. I read an article that states that the mutation that made its way to the US East Coast via Europe is more infectious and more lethal than the original strain in Wuhan.

Is there any truth to this? Is this a contributing factor when comparing the success of China vs. the rest of the world in terms of deaths and containment?

[Olaf Hart]

A pretty balanced summary of the paper and it’s implications, sorry it’s an interview not text

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/p ... s/12225892

[Ajax]

A pretty balanced summary of the paper and it’s implications, sorry it’s an interview not text

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/p ... s/12225892

There's a text transcript below. Thanks!

[Ajax]

So the answer is, "possibly" but this paper hasn't gone through peer review and we're not really sure yet.
I guess I put more onus on our poor isolation practices than a more virulent strain of the virus.

I read an interesting article on the psychology of masks. The article stated that many people in the US won't wear them because a mask is a visible sign of fear or weakness and these people are subconsciously concerned about broadcasting that fear or weakness. Also, ever since 9/11, facial coverings have taken on a negative connotation in Western culture.

Masks are already a political litmus test. Wear a mask? You must be some sort of fear-mongering libtard who wants the economy to fail so you can install Joe Biden as president. We have GOT to break this fallacy. If we're not going to isolate at home, we've got to contain our respiratory emissions if we're going to be anywhere near each other.

My engineer brain doesn't work this way. I see a video demonstration of how a cotton mask contains my respiratory spew vs. not using a mask and the decision is mechanical and automatic- Use a mask. I don't have concerns about culture or whether I'm broadcasting my fear. I wear eye protection when using a table saw. Does that make me weak and fearful or does it make me vigilant?

I think our elected politicians lack the ability to articulate this to their mask-resistant constituents. We've got anti-mask people spitting on store employees, shoving park rangers into lakes, shooting cops over the wearing of masks. This shit needs to stop.

[TheOffice]

I bet you use a seatbelt, clip in offshore, monitor 16 and would wear a helmet on a bike too you weak bleeding heart liberal! (so do I).

[Benno von Humpback]

So the answer is, "possibly" but this paper hasn't gone through peer review and we're not really sure yet.
I guess I put more onus on our poor isolation practices than a more virulent strain of the virus.

I read an interesting article on the psychology of masks. The article stated that many people in the US won't wear them because a mask is a visible sign of fear or weakness and these people are subconsciously concerned about broadcasting that fear or weakness. Also, ever since 9/11, facial coverings have taken on a negative connotation in Western culture.

Masks are already a political litmus test. Wear a mask? You must be some sort of fear-mongering libtard who wants the economy to fail so you can install Joe Biden as president. We have GOT to break this fallacy. If we're not going to isolate at home, we've got to contain our respiratory emissions if we're going to be anywhere near each other.

My engineer brain doesn't work this way. I see a video demonstration of how a cotton mask contains my respiratory spew vs. not using a mask and the decision is mechanical and automatic- Use a mask. I don't have concerns about culture or whether I'm broadcasting my fear. I wear eye protection when using a table saw. Does that make me weak and fearful or does it make me vigilant?

I think our elected politicians lack the ability to articulate this to their mask-resistant constituents. We've got anti-mask people spitting on store employees, shoving park rangers into lakes, shooting cops over the wearing of masks. This shit needs to stop.

There is no explaining anything to an epistemological rebel who rejects anything the establishment recommends because the Deep State, Big Pharma, and Bill Gates.

I bet you use a seatbelt, clip in offshore, monitor 16 and would wear a helmet on a bike too you weak bleeding heart liberal! (so do I).

Exactly. It's all about identity.

[kimbottles]

In my bicycle racing career I lost one teammate (see below) to not wearing a helmet (training ride) and had several teammates saved from serious injury by their helmets. Riding without a helmet is taking unnecessary risks!!

Butch Peterson RIP (He held the WR for speed on water skis at one time.)

[Ajax]

The tragic difference is, a seat belt protects YOU. If you don't wear one, you die. If you don't wear a mask, someone else dies.

[Benno von Humpback]

The tragic difference is, a seat belt protects YOU. If you don't wear one, you die. If you don't wear a mask, someone else dies.

I don't think most Americans understand that, but I also don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing.

[Benno von Humpback]

In my bicycle racing career I lost one teammate (see below) to not wearing a helmet (training ride) and had several teammates saved from serious injury by their helmets. Riding without a helmet is taking unnecessary risks!!

Butch Peterson RIP (He held the WR for speed on water skis at one time.)

Having had a concussion this January from a motor vehicle hit and run that could easily have been fatal, I am a renewed fan of helmets.

[Slick470]

A friend from high school posted this article on FB this morning. It's from Time and she's the subject of the article. Most likely this wouldn't have ended up in Time if it were not for who she is and her unique personal history, but it is an interesting look into one person's experience navigating getting tested and hospitals. In many ways seems similar to Steve's experience, although she has underlying health conditions that probably made this much more dangerous for her. https://time.com/5833709/coronavirus-false-negatives/

[BeauV]

A friend from high school posted this article on FB this morning. It's from Time and she's the subject of the article. Most likely this wouldn't have ended up in Time if it were not for who she is and her unique personal history, but it is an interesting look into one person's experience navigating getting tested and hospitals. In many ways seems similar to Steve's experience, although she has underlying health conditions that probably made this much more dangerous for her. https://time.com/5833709/coronavirus-false-negatives/

Interesting reading. I certainly understand the math issues of false negatives and false positives, I also accept that all tests have some of each. What I don't see discussed very often is a careful weighing of the consequences of these errors in testing. If the consequence of an error is that a loved one gets sick for a few weeks, then the error rate isn't that big a deal; if the consequence is a death sentence then it's a very big deal indeed.

Keith, would a rational approach be to take the error rate percentage (say 10) and multiple it by the a severity factor (on a scale of 1-10)? Thus, an anti-body false positive rate of 10% with a fatality rate of 20% for those who are infected by someone who thought they were over the disease and immune would be 200. Verses a the same test but with a fatality rate of 5% would be a 50. I'm guessing someone must have a weighting for these factors and thought about how to compare how bad various combinations are.

When one of my kids was born they needed blood. It was the early '80s and HIV was in the blood supply. I was assured the hospital where our kid was born was tossing bad blood, but four years later I got a letter that said my kid needed to be tested as they'd found out that about 2% of the blood was carrying HIV. While I'd make plenty of bets on 98% chance of winning, the idea that there was a 2% chance of my kid having a fatal disease really rattled me.

[Olaf Hart]

One of the interesting side effects of a single payer universal health system is it helps people understand that one persons problem is everyone’s problem.

It is in my interest to protect the health system in case I or my family have to use it, or I have to pay out more in taxes.

So mandatory helmets, seat belts, and those sorts of things become a no brainer.

[SemiSalt]

One of the interesting side effects of a single payer universal health system is it helps people understand that one persons problem is everyone’s problem.

It is in my interest to protect the health system in case I or my family have to use it, or I have to pay out more in taxes.

So mandatory helmets, seat belts, and those sorts of things become a no brainer.

Ironically, only a no-brainer for people with brains. For people with no brains, not so much.

[BeauV]

One of the interesting side effects of a single payer universal health system is it helps people understand that one persons problem is everyone’s problem.

It is in my interest to protect the health system in case I or my family have to use it, or I have to pay out more in taxes.

So mandatory helmets, seat belts, and those sorts of things become a no brainer.

Ironically, only a no-brainer for people with brains. For people with no brains, not so much.

My relatives in Tennessee quite literally used OH's comment as a reason for NOT accepting any sort of single-payer system. "We're not paying insurance for those idiots!"

"There needs to be a punishment for being too stupid to wear a helmet." was another remark.

[H B]

I bet you use a seatbelt, clip in offshore, monitor 16 and would wear a helmet on a bike too you weak bleeding heart liberal! (so do I).

Wait a mnute...this is SOP every day, right?

I will admit, if I am NOT on my road bike, I will ride the 1.5ish miles one-way to the Post Office on my 21 speed Island cruiser with no helmet at 10 MPH. If I am on my road bike at 15+, and getting into traffic that is more than 30MPH speed limit, helmet on. Although, I will also readily admit that I am likely to do myself more personal damage on the island cruiser on the island and have no cars involved, since I might have a bev or two when there were bars open nearby.

[JoeP]

I don't think hitting pavement, sidewalk or curb with your bare head at 10 mph (14.6 FPS) or any speed would result in negligible injuries unless you're lucky.

[kimbottles]

The only bike I would EVER ride without a helmet is a stationary. I have seen too many head injuries from bike accidents.

[Ajax]

Coincidental to this conversation, Ranger M told me that she ordered a new helmet so she can ride her bike.
This prompted me to pull our bikes from the shed and clean, inspect and air them up today. After cleaning and lubricating all the gear stuff I took them both for a spin around the block and they are perfectly serviceable.

I guess I need a helmet now.

[Slick470]

I guess while we're talking helmets. Does anyone have a good recommendation for a new mountain bike helmet? Mine is ancient. Recently bought Sarah and the kids new ones, but I'm due as well. Since we've been home with the kids, Ella has learned to ride her bike without training wheels and Layton is basically there too, but is currently not wanting them off.

[Benno von Humpback]

I guess while we're talking helmets. Does anyone have a good recommendation for a new mountain bike helmet? Mine is ancient. Recently bought Sarah and the kids new ones, but I'm due as well. Since we've been home with the kids, Ella has learned to ride her bike without training wheels and Layton is basically there too, but is currently not wanting them off.

Just get one with one with a MIPS or Wavecell system. No real world data to support it, but they are a good idea and don't add much cost.

[Jamie]

One of the interesting side effects of a single payer universal health system is it helps people understand that one persons problem is everyone’s problem.

It is in my interest to protect the health system in case I or my family have to use it, or I have to pay out more in taxes.

So mandatory helmets, seat belts, and those sorts of things become a no brainer.

Ironically, only a no-brainer for people with brains. For people with no brains, not so much.

My relatives in Tennessee quite literally used OH's comment as a reason for NOT accepting any sort of single-payer system. "We're not paying insurance for those idiots!"

"There needs to be a punishment for being too stupid to wear a helmet." was another remark.

That's funny - that's exactly what I was thinking - Oh No! The creeping nanny state! (I support single payer systems of they are set up right)

[kimbottles]

Coincidental to this conversation, Ranger M told me that she ordered a new helmet so she can ride her bike.
This prompted me to pull our bikes from the shed and clean, inspect and air them up today. After cleaning and lubricating all the gear stuff I took them both for a spin around the block and they are perfectly serviceable.

I guess I need a helmet now.

YES! Please Ajax!

[kdh]

A friend from high school posted this article on FB this morning. It's from Time and she's the subject of the article. Most likely this wouldn't have ended up in Time if it were not for who she is and her unique personal history, but it is an interesting look into one person's experience navigating getting tested and hospitals. In many ways seems similar to Steve's experience, although she has underlying health conditions that probably made this much more dangerous for her. https://time.com/5833709/coronavirus-false-negatives/

Interesting reading. I certainly understand the math issues of false negatives and false positives, I also accept that all tests have some of each. What I don't see discussed very often is a careful weighing of the consequences of these errors in testing. If the consequence of an error is that a loved one gets sick for a few weeks, then the error rate isn't that big a deal; if the consequence is a death sentence then it's a very big deal indeed.

Keith, would a rational approach be to take the error rate percentage (say 10) and multiple it by the a severity factor (on a scale of 1-10)? Thus, an anti-body false positive rate of 10% with a fatality rate of 20% for those who are infected by someone who thought they were over the disease and immune would be 200. Verses a the same test but with a fatality rate of 5% would be a 50. I'm guessing someone must have a weighting for these factors and thought about how to compare how bad various combinations are.

When one of my kids was born they needed blood. It was the early '80s and HIV was in the blood supply. I was assured the hospital where our kid was born was tossing bad blood, but four years later I got a letter that said my kid needed to be tested as they'd found out that about 2% of the blood was carrying HIV. While I'd make plenty of bets on 98% chance of winning, the idea that there was a 2% chance of my kid having a fatal disease really rattled me.

In general game/decision theory provides the formalism for this stuff. The most basic is Bayes' rule. The idea is to start with a prior, the probability that someone is infected. Then given a test for infection, model the probabilities of a positive test given infection and no infection. The negative test probabilities are just the positive probabilites subtracted from 1. Then Bayes rule, p(x|y) ~ p(x)p(y|x) gets what is of interest, the probability distribution of infections given the test data at hand. Penalties for being wrong--positive test when there's no infection or negative test when there is infection require more general decision theory.