Welcome Notice

Register Log in

working from home...

S

server

Guest
On Friday, 31 July 2020 22:25:41 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:58:20 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 18:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:26:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:49:55 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 14:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:18:22 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de
wrote:

Am 30.07.20 um 21:59 schrieb John Larkin:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:05:17 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de


We in .de had as much cases in total as the US as the US has in 3 days
currently. Yes, we are only 25% of the US people. But the US is only
25% of China\'s people. _They_ have stopped their epidemic.

Yes, the Communist Party says so.


Oh, yes, I think I heard someone talk that Xi Jinping was heard saying:

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40
million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the
cases,” Xi said at a press conference at a WHO meeting where he gave
new orders. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would
have, yet again, half of that.\"

Gerhard



Did he actually say that? Not only does power corrupt, it makes people
stupid.

Yes, it was said, just not by Xi.

I did copy & paste the text in quotes from a Donald Trump press
conference. Verbatim.

I could not make that up with my limited English. But I invented
the intro and the text between the quotes.

Gerhard



OK, you lied. That\'s why I asked if it was true, because I was
skeptical that Xi would say that.

Sometimes lies can indirectly reveal a truth.

Yes, mostly about the liars. Their motivations. Their aversion to
truth.

Also about the people that believe them.

Well, my reaction to the lie was scepticism. Justly so.

Also the nature of the lies they are prepared to believe.



I\'m glad you now regard Trump as stupid.

It would have been stupid of Xi to say that. That\'s why I suspected
the quote, which turned out to be a lie.

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.

Right. Xi.

/Anybody/ that made Gerhard\'s statement would have
been stupid.

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.
Come on, John

For once just admit you fell for it and you cannot backtrack, and that you agree Trump made a stupid comment
 
J

John Larkin

Guest
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:12:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2020-07-30 23:50, Sjouke Burry wrote:
On 30.07.20 23:39, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-07-30 22:16, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-07-29 21:40, Joe Chisolm wrote:
[...]

ITU says 150ms one way, so called \"mouth to ear\". Cisco says that
can be pushed to a 200ms budget. Also > 30ms packet jitter can be
a problem. If you examine the video you normally see very little
movement with a conference. Some static power point slide while
people talk. Even video of people talking the back ground is very
static. Frame to frame compression can be very high, thus video
can be good but audio is poor.


Problem is, even with only 150msec it can take up to a 1/3rd of a
second (rount trip) to realize that the other guy must have started
talking at the same time. Then we both stop, both start again, stop
again, the usual. A 1/3rd of a second is a long time for audio.

Agreed! 150ms delay in a conversation is far too much. It
completely breaks the flow. I hate digital phones. I can\'t
stand video conferencing. How can people possibly tolerate
this?

Jeroen Belleman

They tolerate it, because they are unable to shrink the earth,
and/or built computers/networks which are 1000 times faster.

You have evidently never used an old analog phone. No perceptible
latency, no drop-outs, no weird distortions. But that era is well
behind us.

Jeroen Belleman
Latency? You had to call the operator to set up a long-distance call.
She\'d call back when they were ready.

The quality could be really bad.
 
J

Joerg

Guest
On 2020-07-31 14:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:12:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2020-07-30 23:50, Sjouke Burry wrote:
On 30.07.20 23:39, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-07-30 22:16, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-07-29 21:40, Joe Chisolm wrote:
[...]

ITU says 150ms one way, so called \"mouth to ear\". Cisco says that
can be pushed to a 200ms budget. Also > 30ms packet jitter can be
a problem. If you examine the video you normally see very little
movement with a conference. Some static power point slide while
people talk. Even video of people talking the back ground is very
static. Frame to frame compression can be very high, thus video
can be good but audio is poor.


Problem is, even with only 150msec it can take up to a 1/3rd of a
second (rount trip) to realize that the other guy must have started
talking at the same time. Then we both stop, both start again, stop
again, the usual. A 1/3rd of a second is a long time for audio.

Agreed! 150ms delay in a conversation is far too much. It
completely breaks the flow. I hate digital phones. I can\'t
stand video conferencing. How can people possibly tolerate
this?

Jeroen Belleman

They tolerate it, because they are unable to shrink the earth,
and/or built computers/networks which are 1000 times faster.

You have evidently never used an old analog phone. No perceptible
latency, no drop-outs, no weird distortions. But that era is well
behind us.

Jeroen Belleman

Latency? You had to call the operator to set up a long-distance call.
She\'d call back when they were ready.

The quality could be really bad.
The longest latency was near a campground in the boonies, Southern Utah
or Northern Arizona. A young German couple wanted to make a phone call
to Europe. The campground manager said to follow the singing wires until
there is a phone on a pole, to take LOTS of quarters and to watch for
rattlesnakes. Half hour walk or so. They came back sad. I asked what
happened. \"We can\'t understand the operator at all, he sounds like
having a hot potato in his mouth\". So I went with them, talked to the
operator, then once the call was connected handed over the receiver. On
the way back I asked them what their professions were. He was an English
teacher (!).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 
T

Tom Gardner

Guest
On 31/07/20 22:35, klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 31 July 2020 22:25:41 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:58:20 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 18:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:26:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:49:55 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 14:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:18:22 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de
wrote:

Am 30.07.20 um 21:59 schrieb John Larkin:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:05:17 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de


We in .de had as much cases in total as the US as the US has in 3 days
currently. Yes, we are only 25% of the US people. But the US is only
25% of China\'s people. _They_ have stopped their epidemic.

Yes, the Communist Party says so.


Oh, yes, I think I heard someone talk that Xi Jinping was heard saying:

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40
million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the
cases,” Xi said at a press conference at a WHO meeting where he gave
new orders. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would
have, yet again, half of that.\"

Gerhard



Did he actually say that? Not only does power corrupt, it makes people
stupid.

Yes, it was said, just not by Xi.

I did copy & paste the text in quotes from a Donald Trump press
conference. Verbatim.

I could not make that up with my limited English. But I invented
the intro and the text between the quotes.

Gerhard



OK, you lied. That\'s why I asked if it was true, because I was
skeptical that Xi would say that.

Sometimes lies can indirectly reveal a truth.

Yes, mostly about the liars. Their motivations. Their aversion to
truth.

Also about the people that believe them.

Well, my reaction to the lie was scepticism. Justly so.

Also the nature of the lies they are prepared to believe.



I\'m glad you now regard Trump as stupid.

It would have been stupid of Xi to say that. That\'s why I suspected
the quote, which turned out to be a lie.

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.

Right. Xi.

/Anybody/ that made Gerhard\'s statement would have
been stupid.

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.

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 ;}
 
J

John Larkin

Guest
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:35:17 -0700 (PDT), klaus.kragelund@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, 31 July 2020 22:25:41 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:58:20 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 18:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:26:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:49:55 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 14:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:18:22 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de
wrote:

Am 30.07.20 um 21:59 schrieb John Larkin:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:05:17 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de


We in .de had as much cases in total as the US as the US has in 3 days
currently. Yes, we are only 25% of the US people. But the US is only
25% of China\'s people. _They_ have stopped their epidemic.

Yes, the Communist Party says so.


Oh, yes, I think I heard someone talk that Xi Jinping was heard saying:

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40
million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the
cases,” Xi said at a press conference at a WHO meeting where he gave
new orders. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would
have, yet again, half of that.\"

Gerhard



Did he actually say that? Not only does power corrupt, it makes people
stupid.

Yes, it was said, just not by Xi.

I did copy & paste the text in quotes from a Donald Trump press
conference. Verbatim.

I could not make that up with my limited English. But I invented
the intro and the text between the quotes.

Gerhard



OK, you lied. That\'s why I asked if it was true, because I was
skeptical that Xi would say that.

Sometimes lies can indirectly reveal a truth.

Yes, mostly about the liars. Their motivations. Their aversion to
truth.

Also about the people that believe them.

Well, my reaction to the lie was scepticism. Justly so.

Also the nature of the lies they are prepared to believe.



I\'m glad you now regard Trump as stupid.

It would have been stupid of Xi to say that. That\'s why I suspected
the quote, which turned out to be a lie.

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.

Right. Xi.

/Anybody/ that made Gerhard\'s statement would have
been stupid.

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.

Come on, John

For once just admit you fell for it and you cannot backtrack, and that you agree Trump made a stupid comment
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.
 
J

John Larkin

Guest
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 23:37:22 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 22:35, klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 31 July 2020 22:25:41 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:58:20 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 18:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:26:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:49:55 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/07/20 14:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 23:18:22 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de
wrote:

Am 30.07.20 um 21:59 schrieb John Larkin:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:05:17 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de


We in .de had as much cases in total as the US as the US has in 3 days
currently. Yes, we are only 25% of the US people. But the US is only
25% of China\'s people. _They_ have stopped their epidemic.

Yes, the Communist Party says so.


Oh, yes, I think I heard someone talk that Xi Jinping was heard saying:

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40
million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the
cases,” Xi said at a press conference at a WHO meeting where he gave
new orders. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would
have, yet again, half of that.\"

Gerhard



Did he actually say that? Not only does power corrupt, it makes people
stupid.

Yes, it was said, just not by Xi.

I did copy & paste the text in quotes from a Donald Trump press
conference. Verbatim.

I could not make that up with my limited English. But I invented
the intro and the text between the quotes.

Gerhard



OK, you lied. That\'s why I asked if it was true, because I was
skeptical that Xi would say that.

Sometimes lies can indirectly reveal a truth.

Yes, mostly about the liars. Their motivations. Their aversion to
truth.

Also about the people that believe them.

Well, my reaction to the lie was scepticism. Justly so.

Also the nature of the lies they are prepared to believe.



I\'m glad you now regard Trump as stupid.

It would have been stupid of Xi to say that. That\'s why I suspected
the quote, which turned out to be a lie.

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.

Right. Xi.

/Anybody/ that made Gerhard\'s statement would have
been stupid.

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.

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 ;}
Or direct truths about the liars. And their fans.
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:46:25 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Test rate is a distorting feedback loop. Trump seems to understand
that.
In your dreams, Trump understands.

The quote was:

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40
million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the
cases,” (?) said at a press conference at a WHO meeting where he gave
new orders. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would
have, yet again, half of that.\"
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 cases come first.

That quote is meaningless babble from someone who hasn\'t heard an expert opinion.
 
J

John Larkin

Guest
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:46:25 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Test rate is a distorting feedback loop. Trump seems to understand
that.

In your dreams, Trump understands.

The quote was:

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40
million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the
cases,” (?) said at a press conference at a WHO meeting where he gave
new orders. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would
have, yet again, half of that.\"

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.
Now that\'s crazy.

> The limitation of tests means most likely cases come first.

So we can save a lot of money by not testing the people who have the
virus. Logic!

That quote is meaningless babble from someone who hasn\'t heard an expert opinion.
There is a deluge of expert opinion on this one. All sorts of expert
opinions. Lots of data too.
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 2020-07-31 17:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:12:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2020-07-30 23:50, Sjouke Burry wrote:
On 30.07.20 23:39, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-07-30 22:16, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-07-29 21:40, Joe Chisolm wrote:
[...]

ITU says 150ms one way, so called \"mouth to ear\". Cisco says that
can be pushed to a 200ms budget. Also > 30ms packet jitter can be
a problem. If you examine the video you normally see very little
movement with a conference. Some static power point slide while
people talk. Even video of people talking the back ground is very
static. Frame to frame compression can be very high, thus video
can be good but audio is poor.


Problem is, even with only 150msec it can take up to a 1/3rd of a
second (rount trip) to realize that the other guy must have started
talking at the same time. Then we both stop, both start again, stop
again, the usual. A 1/3rd of a second is a long time for audio.

Agreed! 150ms delay in a conversation is far too much. It
completely breaks the flow. I hate digital phones. I can\'t
stand video conferencing. How can people possibly tolerate
this?

Jeroen Belleman

They tolerate it, because they are unable to shrink the earth,
and/or built computers/networks which are 1000 times faster.

You have evidently never used an old analog phone. No perceptible
latency, no drop-outs, no weird distortions. But that era is well
behind us.

Jeroen Belleman

Latency? You had to call the operator to set up a long-distance call.
She\'d call back when they were ready.

The quality could be really bad.
I remember doing that in the central post office in Rome back in 1978.
Took hours.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 
S

server

Guest
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:19:32 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 7/31/2020 10:33 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:56:39 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 7/31/2020 8:53 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 07:59:59 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
OK, you lied. That\'s why I asked if it was true, because I was
skeptical that Xi would say that.

Of course, whoever said it, it\'s true. Given the current testing
patterns, if we had half the tests, we\'d have half the positive tests.
In January we had zero positive tests.

No, that doesn\'t necessarily follow. You\'re assuming no change
in the populations being tested.

Maybe you missed the part where I said \"Given the current testing
patterns,\". I apologize for not using all caps.

This past week, in AZ, ~11K PCR tests were administered. (we can go over
the serology tests, too, if you\'d like). 11% of them returned positive
results. By Trump\'s thinking (mirrored in your statements), if we had
administered ~700 times as many tests (i.e., the entire population of the
state), we would have encountered 700 times as many cases, right?
I.e., 11% of the state!

The week before -- WITH THE EXACT SAME TESTING PATTERNS -- 12% of the 43K
tests were positive. So, if we hadn\'t seen this week\'s data (yet), we
would \"conclude\" that testing ~170 times as many people (the same
\"entire population of the state) would lead us to see 170 times as
many cases. I.e., 12% of the state (the population of which is
largely invariant over that 7 day window).

Go back to a month ago. 110K tests. 22% positive. Trump thinks that
testing ~70 times as many people (again, the entire state population)
would yield 70 times as many positives -- 22%.

I guess more than half of the people in the state \"suddenly\" have stopped
testing positive for antibodies, right? How else could you explain the
sudden *absence* of those PROJECTED positives?

Ans: the populations presenting and the prevalence of the virus
are not static. \"Not thinking\" is assuming that a self-selecting
population is representative of the population as a whole.

I doubt that a self-selecting sample could ever include the entire
population. Not everyone would elect to be tested.

But if you arbitrarily threw away hald if the test kits being used,
the number of confirmed cases would about drop in half.

Do you disagree?

If you \"randomly\" discarded half of the TESTS PERFORMED then you
would *likely* see half as many positive results. But, if you
truly were random in your selection of the tests to discard, then
the positivity rate would remain EXACTLY what it was. And, you\'d
have LESS confidence in extrapolating that data to the population
as a whole.

[\"Let\'s not test those people on that cruise ship...\"]

You\'re not interested in NUMBERS of confirmed cases. You are interested
in percent of population who are *likely* positive.

I\'m going to test TWO people. We\'ll either have 0, 1, or 2 \"confirmed
cases\". What does that tell you about the state of the virus IN THE
POPULATION AS A WHOLE?

If both test positive, do we need JUST *two* ICU beds and TWO ventilators
to get this under control?

If both people test negative, do we declare the virus has been defeated?

The US has gone about linearly from zero tests per day in March, to
over 800K/day now. Surely that has affected reported positive tests.

Do you disagree?

And if you look at the totals, they lump ALL tests EVER performed into
the summary.

I usually look at the smoothed daily cases-detected curves. The
integrals aren\'t as interesting as what\'s happening now.

And as there is no standardization, \"now\" and \"yesterday\" have no
bearing to each other! You\'re counting on people to individually
decide that they want to contribute to the dataset (by being tested).

And, pick ANY day\'s numbers... halving the number of tests performed does
nothing to reduce the problem. It just makes people think the problem is
reduced if they only think in terms of absolute numbers!

There are 85K confirmed cases in the 20-44yo population, here. The number
of cases (< 20) + (> 44) total to 88K. \"Clearly\" the 20-44yo population is
The Problem, right? Far more \"years\" represented in that 25 year bracket
than all of the other brackets, combined!

But, there\'s no mention of the size of the 20-44yo *population* in order
to determine a case rate for that portion of the population at large.
And, nothing to indicate what burden those cases place on our health
care system (if the 65+ crowd are obligingly dying off after a couple
of weeks, they place LESS demand on resources than a 40yo who might
occupy a bed for 4 weeks and then \"recovery\" resources for a few more).

If, in hindsight, we discover that folks who survived the virus are
more likely to develop chronic health issues later in life, this
calculus can become even more onerous.

Until you KNOW what you are measuring and measure what you want to
KNOW, numbers are just numbers -- good for headlines but useless for
policy decisions (at a national and PERSONAL level).

Let\'s HOPE that opening the restaurants and bars doesn\'t lead to
a surge in infection rates.

Let\'s HOPE that opening up all these businesses (prematurely?)
doesn\'t end up costing MORE economic distress.

Let\'s HOPE children in close proximity don\'t lead to a surge in
infection rates.

Hey, we can always say \"Ooops! We didn\'t KNOW\" if it turns out that
these were bad decisions, right?

But, we\'re *leading* the world in testing (said by a guy who only
understands absolute numbers, not ratios), right?

(If \"China could have stopped this\" -- trump quote -- then why couldn\'t
Trump? I guess he\'s implicitly acknowledging that China/Xi is better
or smarter than him!?)

Of course, the detection rate is linear on the testing rate.

So, the frequent tests that health-care workers and
first responders have drive the positivity rate down. And, the
INFREQUENT tests (once positive, we don\'t need to check you again!)
that confirmed cases have does likewise.

You can\'t claim that the increased testing has uncovered a *bigger*
problem or if the problem has GROWN!

More testing increases the published case-rate graphs.

Again, TODAY\'S cases don\'t mean anything. What you want to know
is TOMORROW\'S cases. Will they be increasing or decreasing?
Will we be placing greater demands on our FIXED AND DIMINISHING
resources or less?

If your testing patterns today aren\'t consistent with those of yesterday
(because you are relying on folks to self-present for tests), then
what can you truly say about tomorrow?

Lotta typing. Do you have time to design any electronics?

Sure! Lots!
Fun. Show us some.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 7/31/2020 7:14 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Lotta typing. Do you have time to design any electronics?

Sure! Lots!

Fun. Show us some.
That\'s the goal of my next offsite: to demonstrate SYNCHRONIZED
audio -- within a few microseconds -- (and later, video) that
automagically follows you around the house as you move from room
to room; processors that come on-line as other processors (are
deliberately!) fault(ed); computational loads that physically
\"move\" from processor to processor so surplus computing capacity
can be powered down; processors that come online as computational
(or I/O) requirements increase; support for a heterogeneous mix
of processors across nodes; devices that can withstand direct
physical assaults -- as well as communication assaults; etc.

And all on dirt cheap commodity hardware (consumer market)!

You know, run-of-the-mill systems design...
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:36:07 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:46:25 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The quote was:

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40
million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the
cases,” (?) said at a press conference at a WHO meeting where he gave
new orders. “If we did another, you cut that in half, we would
have, yet again, half of that.\"

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.

Now that\'s crazy.

The limitation of tests means most likely cases come first.

So we can save a lot of money by not testing the people who have the
virus. Logic!
Not at all. So the 20 million tests, with 100k infected persons, means the 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, basically,
is the rule for test-allocation-effectiveness.

The tests aren\'t perfect, by the 5%-test-positive testing intensity, test errors can mask
further improvements.

Trump can\'t use logic any better than you can; the presumption of linear response,
i.e.. no law of diminishing returns, is a bad premise for a businessman. Or president.
Or electronic designer.
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 7/31/2020 4:16 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> Testing has the purpose of guiding treatment.

....of understanding the size and nature of the problem SO THAT you can
propose treatment options and evaluate how they are working

Leaving half the cases in information limbo doesn\'t imply
half the cases, it means half the knowledge.
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.

If Trump really understood the situation, why would his words obscure all
important implications?
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?\"

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 cases come first.
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.

> That quote is meaningless babble from someone who hasn\'t heard an expert opinion.
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:30:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 31/07/2020 07:20, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/07/2020 06:31, Ricketty C wrote:

Joe talked about 25 Mbps being ok. I have 7 Mbps max and often only see 2 or 3 Mbps.

It video gets pretty iffy when you get down to 2 or 3Mbps.

My connection is 6Mbps on a good dry summers day and degrades with rain
to about 3Mbps. Anything better than about 3.5M will support HD video
with the occassional buffering lag or sync loss in the video stream but
the audio pretty much continuously OK. On a really bad wet and windy day
it can\'t even stream high quality audio reliably.

All bets are off if there is a hard error on my local line which causes
a 1s glitch whilst lost packets are retransmitted and if they also fail
it enters exponential backoff. I get about 5 of those an hour even with
interleaving error correction enabled. My modem uptime before there is a
completely unrecoverable line error is 2-3 weeks. It gets stuck in a
state where it claims in sync but error seconds increase in realtime.

The odd one according to Murphy\'s Law lands where it can do most damage.

You might want to look at your line statistics attenuation and SNR to
see what proportion of hard and soft errors the modem is encountering.

What would I then do with that information?

You would at least know that you should be asking your ISP to check the
phone line for faults and remake any failing joints.
Really??? You think my phone line is the problem with someone else\'s transmissions that everyone on the call sees as getting corrupted? Have you been reading this thread or did you just show up and reply to this one post?


It happens to me
every couple of years when either rodents chew through insulation, trees
wear it off or corrosion leads to rectification of the ADSL signal.
My problem used to be in the central office, but no longer. I gave up my phone line. That\'s the other reason the phone line is not at fault, I use a WISP for my Internet service provider.


Of course you could choose to remain ignorant of your line quality and
suffer in silence or mutter on about it ineffectually here.

What you measure gets controlled.
Or you can remain ignorant of the details of this issue and continue to make pointless posts. I suggest your reread the thread from the beginning... at least the discussion about my use of Zoom. Right now you seem to be talking about your assumptions rather than my issue.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
G

Gerhard Hoffmann

Guest
Am 01.08.20 um 05:55 schrieb Don Y:

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.
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
 
D

Don Y

Guest
On 8/1/2020 2:03 AM, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 01.08.20 um 05:55 schrieb Don Y:

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.
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.
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.

<https://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/news/20120816/cdc-all-baby-boomers-get-tested-hep-c>

Fun times -- not!
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 5:03:43 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 01.08.20 um 05:55 schrieb Don Y:

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.
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.
Not necessarily the same thing. Vaccination works on different sites and may well produce a lasting result. We will only find out if and when the tests are completed.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
S

server

Guest
(If \"China could have stopped this\" -- trump quote -- then why couldn\'t
Trump? I guess he\'s implicitly acknowledging that China/Xi is better
or smarter than him!?)
Time, and Space, is of the essence. Xi could have, should have, stopped this in WuHan, or even China. Trump might not, could not, have stopped this in Xi\'s shoe either.

CCP leader is too powerful to have done, or not to do anything in China. It\'s a problem with the system, when nobody can speak out as all. They either have to change the system, or we have to completely isolate from them.
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 1:12:22 AM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
(If \"China could have stopped this\" -- trump quote -- then why couldn\'t
Trump? I guess he\'s implicitly acknowledging that China/Xi is better
or smarter than him!?)

Time, and Space, is of the essence. Xi could have, should have, stopped this in WuHan, or even China. Trump might not, could not, have stopped this in Xi\'s shoe either.

CCP leader is too powerful to have done, or not to do anything in China. It\'s a problem with the system, when nobody can speak out as all. They either have to change the system, or we have to completely isolate from them.
China did stop it in Wuhan. Their infection rates are very, very low. They very quickly realized the potential magnitude of the problem (unlike much of the western world) and by responding in kind, they were very little impacted as a whole. Now they only need to deal with localized outbreaks.

You seem to be suggesting that any country has the power to prevent a highly infectious outbreak from crossing any borders even though this disease had spread outside China before anyone was even aware of the disease. That is a pretty absurd idea. Unfortunately this disease only requires a single carrier and there were thousands of travelers every day in both directions crossing the China border. You could have launched missiles to knock down every plane coming out of China and it would have been too late to stop the spread of the disease that was already in Italy and many other places around the world.

Don\'t try to simplify the problem to blaming it on any one government or opportunity to stop this disease. The bottom line is that every country in the world will ultimately be infected and will be subsequently reinfected over and over. How each country fares will be determined by how the country and it\'s citizens respond.

Here in the US we currently are having 20% of the COVID related deaths in the entire world and 25% of the COVID related infections. So I don\'t think you can blame that on anyone other than the US.

The sad part is the US is becoming demoralized and largely giving up on fighting the disease.

It\'s a good think we are in the nuclear age where a war might well be over in a few hours. This country doesn\'t stand a chance of fighting a war that lasts for more than a few months. Eventually we would just give up saying the other forces should not have attacked in the first place, so it\'s all on them!

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top