Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General Discussion / Re: Coronavirus
« Last post by Treehugger on Today at 10:08:10 AM »
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.

Maybe. I think it’s more likely that many employers will simply say that a vaccine is available, so remote work and staggered schedules and other accommodations aren’t necessary. Most employers won’t want to deal with grievances and medical exemption paperwork that requiring vaccine would prompt. Large employers may arrange vaccine shots onsite, which will help.

That will surely be the most effective way of spreading vaccination when it becomes generally available.  Vaccine-skeptical employees will have to answer for themselves which are they more afraid of--getting the disease, or trusting the vaccine?  I imagine most will go for the vaccine.  The young invincibles who don't fear getting sick in the first place will be another story.  I kind of like puget's idea of making them bear the medical costs if they get sick.  Then again, a lot of them already don't think they need insurance anyway.

I think we're probably going to have a high rate of take-up for the vaccine among those who consider themselves to be at risk, or are mindful of their own potential to become spreaders.  I'll certainly take it when the opportunity comes, so as not to risk spreading it to co-workers, family, patrons, etc.

To be clear, that was pigou not me. I can understand the temptation but don't think this is a good idea-- its a slippery slope to deciding who deserves healthcare (do you not get health coverage for your diabetes because you should have exercised and eaten better?). I do think there can and will other natural consequences -- no vaccine, no school/college is an obvious one that is already the case most places for other vaccinations. Also maybe no air/train travel, no returning to work in person, etc. There is strong precedent for requiring compliance with public health measures in this way.

Yes, this attitude scares me. I am a never smoker who was diagnosed with lung cancer last year. However, I found out (a nurse at a practice to which I was referred clued me in) that I was most definitely not believed. My original oncologist (whom I “fired”) went on and on and on in my visit notes about how I was a smoker and lying to his face about it. (Believe me, it was a lot more than a simple “patient denies smoking, but I have my doubts”.) In any case, even without such policies, I found that misinformation in file distressing and wound up spending a long time dealing with it. I can’t even begin to imagine the nightmare if I was actually going to be denied insurance coverage because of it.
12
General Discussion / Re: The Breakfast Thread
« Last post by Parasaurolophus on Today at 09:59:57 AM »
The same thing I have every day: a bowl of Nature's Path cereal with two teaspoons of regular Ovomaltine/Ovaltine on top, with skim milk.
13
General Discussion / Re: Why Impotus will resign
« Last post by jimbogumbo on Today at 09:48:23 AM »
538 is good- if you check Nate Silver went above and beyond in 2016 to explain why Trump actually had a "good" chance as compared to the networks' silly statements.

My Jean Dixon comment was aimed specifically at single poll probability statements. By way of contrast, the Covid case/death models always provide a confidence interval.
14
General Discussion / Re: The Breakfast Thread
« Last post by ab_grp on Today at 09:18:06 AM »
Yay! I'm still hungry and getting hungrier.  I think we will have slightly runny fried eggs and leftover potatoes from last night and split an everything bagel.  Or maybe we will each have a bagel.  We have veggie cream cheese and jalapeno cream cheese (which actually also goes really well on cinnamon raisin bagels? spouse tried that, being the jalapeno fiend, but it really is yummy!).  Beverage is and will be plain old coffee without accouterments (and water).

What kind of apricot jam do you get, or do you make it? We have a couple varieties from Bonne Maman.  I think the apricot is preserves, but it's so good.  Now I want to make popovers.

Say more about the hot sauce, please.
15
General Discussion / The Breakfast Thread
« Last post by evil_physics_witchcraft on Today at 09:11:35 AM »
Inspired by ab_grp's post in the "Dinner" thread.

We are about to break our fast, at 12:!0pm EST. On today's menu:

Beverage = Coffee with milk and sugar

Side = Toast with butter and apricot jam

Main course = Scrambled eggs with hot sauce

16
General Discussion / Re: Why Impotus will resign
« Last post by writingprof on Today at 08:53:39 AM »
Thoughts?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls

I'm always awake to the possibility that I am just dumb.  But I have never understood these percentage-based predictions.  Trump has a 91% chance of winning?  Not a 90% chance?  Not a 92% chance?  Since a model like that is not testable after the fact (even if Trump wins, how do we know that he had a 91% chance of winning?), it's not clear to me how the model's veracity can ever be proven.

Fivethirtyeight have talked about how to interpret these numbers quite a lot. It works best if you use your model to make predictions about a lot of races---like, the congressional races and governor races as well as presidential for the last ten years. They went back and looked at how many of the races with an X% chance for a given candidate actually had that candidate won. So for those races in which their model predicted a 25% chance of Susie Stevenson winning, Susie won about 25% of the time.  Here's their work, including downloadable data that you can check for yourself: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-house-elections/ (the link goes to house elections, but they have lots of separate forecast models available.)

Thank you. This is helpful.
17
General Discussion / Re: Coronavirus
« Last post by Puget on Today at 08:49:02 AM »
More will get the vaccine because employers will likely make it mandatory.

Maybe. I think it’s more likely that many employers will simply say that a vaccine is available, so remote work and staggered schedules and other accommodations aren’t necessary. Most employers won’t want to deal with grievances and medical exemption paperwork that requiring vaccine would prompt. Large employers may arrange vaccine shots onsite, which will help.

That will surely be the most effective way of spreading vaccination when it becomes generally available.  Vaccine-skeptical employees will have to answer for themselves which are they more afraid of--getting the disease, or trusting the vaccine?  I imagine most will go for the vaccine.  The young invincibles who don't fear getting sick in the first place will be another story.  I kind of like puget's idea of making them bear the medical costs if they get sick.  Then again, a lot of them already don't think they need insurance anyway.

I think we're probably going to have a high rate of take-up for the vaccine among those who consider themselves to be at risk, or are mindful of their own potential to become spreaders.  I'll certainly take it when the opportunity comes, so as not to risk spreading it to co-workers, family, patrons, etc.

To be clear, that was pigou not me. I can understand the temptation but don't think this is a good idea-- its a slippery slope to deciding who deserves healthcare (do you not get health coverage for your diabetes because you should have exercised and eaten better?). I do think there can and will other natural consequences -- no vaccine, no school/college is an obvious one that is already the case most places for other vaccinations. Also maybe no air/train travel, no returning to work in person, etc. There is strong precedent for requiring compliance with public health measures in this way.
18
General Discussion / Re: Dinner--or Dessert--Tonight
« Last post by ab_grp on Today at 08:45:20 AM »
I haven't had breakfast yet, and this thread is making me hungry.

We had grilled steak with roasted sweet potatoes/mini potatoes and brussels with the balsamic sauce.  It was finally a night with very little wind, not from the wrong direction, and no threat of a storm, so we went for it despite being pretty dang tired.  Still too hot out, and it just takes it out of you.  We also made some hot dogs to have for easy lunches, and there are leftovers from dinner.  I think we will make the jalapeno garlic tilapia dish tonight.
19
General Discussion / Re: What's your weather?
« Last post by ab_grp on Today at 08:41:29 AM »
Having dealt too often with river flooding, that does tend to take some time to arrive after the rains.  It always felt a little surreal that it would typically be a clear and sunny day when the river did start flooding.  But increased development, paved surfaces, etc. also contribute to the flash flooding or more instantaneous flooding that arises with heavy rain.  In addition, if it has been very dry, the ground does not absorb water as well, apparently.  Definitely not fun to unexpectedly arrive at a flooded zone and have to find another route!

We had a pretty wicked storm earlier in the week with strong wind gusts that came suddenly despite a clear forecast and lots of lightning.  Since then, it has just been hot and hotter, nearing 110 for the next few days, with almost no humidity.
20
General Discussion / Re: Why Impotus will resign
« Last post by ergative on Today at 07:59:53 AM »
Thoughts?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-doubles-down-on-prediction-model-showing-trump-having-91-percent-chance-of-winning-election-despite-polls

I'm always awake to the possibility that I am just dumb.  But I have never understood these percentage-based predictions.  Trump has a 91% chance of winning?  Not a 90% chance?  Not a 92% chance?  Since a model like that is not testable after the fact (even if Trump wins, how do we know that he had a 91% chance of winning?), it's not clear to me how the model's veracity can ever be proven.

Fivethirtyeight have talked about how to interpret these numbers quite a lot. It works best if you use your model to make predictions about a lot of races---like, the congressional races and governor races as well as presidential for the last ten years. They went back and looked at how many of the races with an X% chance for a given candidate actually had that candidate won. So for those races in which their model predicted a 25% chance of Susie Stevenson winning, Susie won about 25% of the time.  Here's their work, including downloadable data that you can check for yourself: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-house-elections/ (the link goes to house elections, but they have lots of separate forecast models available.)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10