|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 22, 2020 9:55:00 GMT -6
A lot of people who like to portray themselves as being all about science suddenly start screaming to burn witches when genetics and IQ are discussed To what witch burning were you referring?
I am not sure what part of the academic literature on IQ you are talking about. Some is pretty well established science. But, any science literature combining genetics and IQ mixes a rather reliable science theory in genetics with the much less reliable social science of psychology. The resulting science is quite limited since IQ measures are limited, they measure only a limited spectrum of human intelligence, and are very hard to evaluate as part of overall human intelligence. In important ways it is not entirely clear what IQ measures in practical terms, other than doing well on IQ tests.
There is a similar controversy now about the difficulties of using SAT scores. I have been involved in that since my college values quantitative reasoning highly and the SAT math score is a good measure of that. We are upset we no longer can use SAT for that purpose.
OTOH, SAT scores are not as reliable as you want in predictions of academic success. Success on the SAT test depends so much on factors other than the abilities they measure and the abilities they measure are influenced by educational background where a student can acquire skills in college quickly. They turn out not to predict success of many students, and particularly disadvantaged and minority students for a mix of reasons.
As a result of issues about what IQ actually measures and how much it is important studies of the genetics of IQ are controversial on a number of counts. The most obvious is the developmental issues regarding environment and resulting IQ measure.
|
|
|
Post by cbcjanney on Aug 22, 2020 10:43:40 GMT -6
Wear a mask properly, wash your hands, keep 6-8 ft from others, then go out and do what ever business you need to do. If you can stay home then do so. If you have to leave then do your business and return home. A week ago Sunday I saw three Doctors on the Sunday morning news programs and they all said if we all would follow the above instructions we would see the number of new infections nose dive. It is really quite simple. Follow the science and in a few months we can start returning to normal. In short, do not listen to anyone wearing a red tie elected in a national election 3 1/2 years ago. While it's kind of the so-called experts to imagine a hypothetical scenario of 100% compliance that everyone knows won't happen and thus they won't ever be proved right or wrong, what are these experts saying if say 80% of people comply? or what about 65%? Is it all a worthless inconvenient exercise then for those of us who are trying to comply but can't force 100% of the others to? A very large percentage of the folks that I see are following your above instructions yet we're not seeing a nosedive (perhaps a slight to moderate decrease) in new infections. I'm sure the Auto Association experts would similarly say that a large amount of fatal auto accidents would be prevented if we all would obey the posted speed limits, we all didn't use our phones will driving, or we all didn't drive with any alcohol in our systems - yet I think it's fairly universally realized that no matter how hard the governing bodies try to persuade (especially if you don't have teeth in ability to enforce), there won't be 100% compliance so decisions are made assuming some factor of less than full obedience. And while it's nice for you and the experts to speculate in a few months we can start returning to normal, I'd similarly speculate that no one has any confidence of that right now. Science is being adjusted on the fly as more information is gleaned. What they told us before has been adjusted/changed several times (you know originally it was only social distancing because droplets didn't travel more than 6-8 feet, then it was masking plus social distancing indoors, followed by another recommendation change to masking and social distancing outdoors, now Fauci and others are floating the idea of eye protection, etc etc etc...) It's not crazy to think we'll be wearing full suits of armor combined with removal of many more liberties before we can start returning to normal. It would've been unheard of 4 months ago to think colleges would be suspending persons within the lowest at-risk demographic (.003 of all deaths) for fraternizing outdoors with other members of same the lowest at-risk demographic- yet here we are.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Aug 22, 2020 11:56:18 GMT -6
We've been through 6 months of this at least, most of it with pretty consistent messaging from the scientific community, and people still seem pretty divided on the issue of how to handle things. Some seem ready to conclude science has failed us on this, and are ready to welcome COVID-19 as the new cancer - an illness that will kill folks but it'll mostly be older folks - at least until we reach herd immunity levels.
So once we finalize plans for the American COVID Association, figure out what color the ribbons are going to be and what month is best to set aside for COVID Awareness, it's time to let everyone else start living as they wish, or start dying and possibly killing others as they see fit.
Hand me another bottle of Brawndo.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 22, 2020 11:59:18 GMT -6
Wear a mask properly, wash your hands, keep 6-8 ft from others, then go out and do what ever business you need to do. If you can stay home then do so. If you have to leave then do your business and return home. A week ago Sunday I saw three Doctors on the Sunday morning news programs and they all said if we all would follow the above instructions we would see the number of new infections nose dive. It is really quite simple. Follow the science and in a few months we can start returning to normal. In short, do not listen to anyone wearing a red tie elected in a national election 3 1/2 years ago. Is it all a worthless inconvenient exercise then for those of us who are trying to comply but can't force 100% of the others to? A very large percentage of the folks that I see are following your above instructions yet we're not seeing a nosedive (perhaps a slight to moderate decrease) in new infections.
No it is not useless. The simulations based on 90-95% say we can cut cases in 1/2. Cutting them in 1/2 over the next 4 months would save 70K lives and lots of severe illness. Moreover, it would prevent spread of the flu.
If the R factor is reduced by 50% that would not eradicate the disease but it would put it lower than the levels in May and it would be on the way out as vaccine comes on line and further reduces the active cases by 50-75%.
We are currently at perhaps 50% mask usage. It is not enough to reduce new infections quickly but will probably mean we have a chance to hold our own at about 1000 deaths a day. We surged from 500 to 1000 over 2 months where mask usage was lower. We were then testing 5% positive, now 8%. So the increase in masks has been overwhelmed by the reopening and probably most significantly by lack of social distance and masks in large gatherings.
If we could get to 70% compliant you would see progress. Remember there is a lag of at least a week until any measure shows much impact.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 22, 2020 12:04:40 GMT -6
We've been through 6 months of this at least, most of it with pretty consistent messaging from the scientific community, and people still seem pretty divided on the issue of how to handle things. Some seem ready to conclude science has failed us on this, and are ready to welcome COVID-19 as the new cancer - an illness that will kill folks but it'll mostly be older folks - at least until we reach herd immunity levels. The problem has been we didn't listen to the scientists not that the science failed. The reopening called for consistent use of masks and social distance AND for stages where benchmarks had to be met to proceed to the next stage.
The guidelines had the stages too close together, we did not do contact tracing and quarantine as called for, and besides we did not follow them anyway, even when the benchmarks were not met we proceeded.
The Governor has stalled us at the last stage of the reopening, that's good but it is an inadequate response given the level and rate of spread.
We should back up a stage or two and start over when we have evidence it is the right level.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 22, 2020 17:49:12 GMT -6
I drove through campus last night at 11 and just a bit ago both times there were multiple unmasked groups of 5 to 15 kids walking around unmasked. I did not find the large party that I was expecting. 11 is still a bit early and I suppose the groups could have all met up at some point. Id say percentage is 80 20 unmasked and that's giving some room.. probably closer to 90 10
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 22, 2020 19:21:44 GMT -6
I drove through campus last night at 11 and just a bit ago both times there were multiple unmasked groups of 5 to 15 kids walking around unmasked. I did not find the large party that I was expecting. 11 is still a bit early and I suppose the groups could have all met up at some point. Id say percentage is 80 20 unmasked and that's giving some room.. probably closer to 90 10 Does that mean 80% unmasked or 20% unmasked?
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 22, 2020 19:44:48 GMT -6
80% unmasked
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 22, 2020 22:02:37 GMT -6
Late night update... They are not going to last a three weeks. Went out for a late night drive 11.45 and the small groups of last night and this evening had morphed into the hordes I expected. Large packs on Neely, Riverside, Alameda and lines outside of everywhere on University.. Im not Judging cause if I was 18-24 Id be doing the same thing
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Aug 23, 2020 10:00:06 GMT -6
Yeah I’ve been thinking 3 weeks all along.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 23, 2020 10:32:14 GMT -6
I am curious whether we dropped the ball on warning students about this or trusted their questionable common sense to avoid it.
Also curious whether the President will carry out his threat to enforce the student code of conduct with any disciplinary action, which he talked about, referring to its provision about endangering others on or off campus.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 23, 2020 12:31:48 GMT -6
Well, the universities have a shrewd plan.
If a bunch of students don't mask up, they can send all classes online, keep their money, and blame the students.
Ignore, of course, the fact that the students are "off the clock", so to speak, when they go to a large party off campus.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 23, 2020 13:48:56 GMT -6
Well, the universities have a shrewd plan. If a bunch of students don't mask up, they can send all classes online, keep their money, and blame the students. Ignore, of course, the fact that the students are "off the clock", so to speak, when they go to a large party off campus. I read an article back around May that basically said just that. Said schools were going to dangerously re-open knowing they couldn't make it work and then they were going to blame the students when it didn't work.
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 23, 2020 13:52:56 GMT -6
The scientists do the science, not the left. If you call it selective to use good science recognized in the field, published in authoritative journals maybe so. That is good science however. I am not convinced when you conclude the prevalent opinion is in error citing an article published in an unscientific source one not written by scientists prominent in the field. The nation's best scientists seem to disagree with this source. It's not politicians on the left though making that call. The left and the media they control play-up the science that agrees with their narrative and silence the science that does not. What you should say are the best scientists approved by the left "seem to disagree with this source". The rest of science is censored by the left. However, results are more difficult to suppress than information. That's why I tried to show you a graph indicating where Hydroxychloroquine is being used, fatalities from Covid-19 hospitalizations are lower than where it is not. You obviously just think this is a coincidence. I do not.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 23, 2020 14:05:32 GMT -6
I'll trust the clinical scientific studies reviewed by experts and published in scientific journals.
The data you present leaves out too many factors. Those results you report leave out a lot of variables, but we're not ignored and were followed by scientific study that proved the results were not what they looked like.
|
|