OT: Brady caught in closed Tampa park

[primetime]

But will we be "sure" in 2 or 3 weeks? That's the question.

I don't think many of us would argue against a May 1st/May 8th target date. But I don't know what is necessarily going to change much between now and then. My hope is more reliable antibody studies.

Why pick an arbitrary date? The administration has targets like "14 days with no increases in case counts, assuming adequate testing capability" and we're still a long way from that in hard-hit areas like New York or DC.

 

[Ross12]

Why pick an arbitrary date? The administration has targets like "14 days with no increases in case counts, assuming adequate testing capability" and we're still a long way from that in hard-hit areas like New York or DC.

I picked those dates based on the person I was responding to. Agree that the date for your area should be fluid based on what is happening there.

I think NYC is doing antibody tests this week too.

 

[Steve102]

The Diva probably hoped he'd be filmed and praised like he was up here during his suspension but it just shows he's tone deaf and thinks the rules don't apply to him.

100% tone deaf. Follow him on IG and it's beaches, jet skis and happy happy joy joy, mixed in with a TB12 water bottle you too can drink your mineral water out of while you socially distance. All for $35.

 

[Simpelton]

But will we be "sure" in 2 or 3 weeks? That's the question.

Doesn't matter. The math still checks out even if it's a few months from now.

Pros: Thousands of people don't die
Cons: Thousands of people are pissed off

I like that math

 

[primetime]

One other thing to note with the antibody tests is that there appears to be some cross-immunity between the novel coronavirus and established, endemic coronaviruses. (Whether having antibodies from a seasonal coronavirus gives you meaningful protection against covid is another question, one we don't really know, but we also don't even know if antibodies from covid give you protection against covid.)

If a serological test is insufficiently specific, you could just be picking up positives from antibodies based on the cold that HCoV-OC43 or HCoV-HKU1 gave you back in December and not antibodies from exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The test kits being used in these studies were rolled out quickly and were never approved by China's FDA, the only thing we know is they're not just a box of rocks (the Stanford study had 30/30 positive as a validation for people who previously tested positive for coronavirus viral load, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not testing something else either; I could give 100 people who had coronavirus a chicken pox serological test and it'd come back 100/100 too, which says nothing about how effective it is at testing coronavirus).

 

[1960Pats]

The Diva probably hoped he'd be filmed and praised like he was up here during his suspension but it just shows he's tone deaf and thinks the rules don't apply to him.

I'm pretty sure I know what happened.

Gisele was pissed and said, "why don't you go for a jog and get your ugly face out of here."

The GOAT, being new to Tompa Bay, quickly headed out the door and took the first available path, not knowing that there was a restricted area up ahead.

As the GOAT approached the park the gate opened, like any door would for him.

When the police saw him and realized who it was, they asked for his autograph and gave him an escort out.

That had to be it.

 

[Teej]

100% tone deaf. Follow him on IG and it's beaches, jet skis and happy happy joy joy, mixed in with a TB12 water bottle you too can drink your mineral water out of while you socially distance. All for $35.

Maybe he was out scouting a park to be named in his honor...

Tompa Bay Park or Tampa Brady Park

"Tom-ME Tone Deaf Park" sounds more like it.

I got my teeth cleaned before I left NY and no one is taking my picture except me...WAAAAH!

 

[Ross12]

Doesn't matter. The math still checks out even if it's a few months from now.

Pros: Thousands of people don't die
Cons: Thousands of people are pissed off

I like that math

I think it's pretty insensitive to classify the hardships people are going through right now as just being "pissed off." Certainly some people are whiners but many more are in truly devastating circumstances with little to no recourse.

 

[oldrover]

That Stanford study you're quoting is... a statistical model.

Uh... that study started with testing. Yes, they got data from the testing. But it was NOT just a statistical model.

 

[oldrover]

The Stanford study reached out to individuals based on a statistical model, as I understand it.

Yes. But they reached out to individuals and tested them. That is new information... not just somebody manipulating projections on a spreadsheet.

 

[Patsgofor4]

I'm sure that Tommy had no idea that his attempt to work out privately could end up as news. Who knew that an Aston Martin parked in an otherwise empty parking lot would garner the attention of the authorities.


Taking lessons from Gronk about how to stay in the public eye during a pandemic.

 

[oldrover]

How would you even do a "double-blind study" on social distancing?

So then, where's the proof that social distancing flattens the curve?

 

[Teej]

I'm sure that Tommy had no idea that his attempt to work out privately could end up as news. Who knew that an Aston Martin parked in an otherwise empty parking lot would garner the attention of the authorities.
View attachment 26978

Taking lessons from Gronk about how to stay in the public eye during a pandemic.

The marching band playing his favorite tunes while he stretched gave him away...

 

[denverpatsfan]

More public shaming! We excel at that in the USA nowadays. Not so good with making test kits, masks, sanitizer... But we sure as hell can shame someone! God Bless America!

 

[primetime]

Yes. But they reached out to individuals and tested them. That is new information... not just somebody manipulating projections on a spreadsheet.

I think the problem here is that you don't understand what statistics is. In fact it is just, to be unkind, "manipulating projections on a spreadsheet."

In the case of the Stanford study, they collected data, yes, but that data's then been filtered through a bunch of mathematical assumptions - weighting the cases (so each test is assigned a different weight to try to make it representative of the population, because it was not a representative sample) by sub-stratifying. They then apply estimates of specificity to correct for measurement error (because data collection is never a pristine process and here you have severe questions about the instrument being used to collect it) and then applying mathematical tests to account for the fact they're looking at a sample rather than a population, which produces a confidence interval.

This is what a "statistical model" means, it's all these various mathematical techniques and assumptions that get you from imperfect data to a probabilistic result with a certain amount of confidence, given the assumptions you've made and techniques you've employed along the way. The study you're talking about is really no different than the forecasting models you're complaining about, the latter just involves different assumptions and techniques. For example, tweak the test specificity in your "spreadsheet" for the antibody test study from 99% to 95% and the results suddenly look extremely different.

There are always quibbles of varying significance when these sorts of techniques are employed because so many assumptions are involved. This is at the heart of scientific research, banal arguments over assumptions baked into every aspect of the process.

 

[oldrover]

I think the problem here is that you don't understand what statistics is. In fact it is just, to be unkind, "manipulating projections on a spreadsheet."

In the case of the Stanford study, they collected data, yes...

You're contradicting yourself. The problem here is that some people don't seem to see the difference between JUST manipulating numbers... and actively collecting new raw data to THEN manipulate the numbers. Big difference. The former is pure statistical modeling which has proven so unreliable. The latter is actual new research.

 

[primetime]

So then, where's the proof that social distancing flattens the curve?

How do you think viruses spread?

 

[juny]

So then, where's the proof that social distancing flattens the curve?

See South Korea vs Italy

 

[primetime]

You're contradicting yourself. The problem here is that some people don't seem to see the difference between JUST manipulating numbers... and actively collecting new raw data to THEN manipulate the numbers. Big difference. The former is pure statistical modeling which has proven so unreliable. The latter is actual new research.

It really doesn't matter at all if it's new research if the collected data is fraught and the assumptions used in the models are bad. In both cases you're just taking inputs and running them through your assumptions to come up with some estimate. It's the assumptions that you want to quibble with.

 

[FCB02062]

Brady really needs to rethink his priorities in life...think of all the children and elderly Brady put at risk! Brady needs to set an example and hide 'neath his covers and cower...that's the only way we beat this thing..Damn him for daring to set foot outside his Jeter Mansion...until we have a vaccine filled with heavy metals and cow feces, NO ONE should leave their house!