ImaCake

70 ms·

931.
by ImaCake 7y ago
If this is anything like Quality Assurance at manufacturing companies than this COE will be pure performance designed to look like action without anyone having to do more than the bare minimum to look like the problem is resolved.
932.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Yes, but that can be considered assumed knowledge. The specialities of people here lend themselves well to discussing the gritty details of how dystopian surveillance systems are implemented. Which is a far more interesting discussion once
933.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Maybe time to block social media sites in your hosts.txt file and router, and then switch to reading some books in your free time. Good luck, if it helps, a lot of people are feeling the same way.
934.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I'm not sure what you are saying adds to this discussion. In fact I think it mis-directs a useful debate. All the things you are complaining about are true literally anywhere else in the developed world right now. In fact, Australia pr
935.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Well protein production is regulated by other proteins that are indeed made from instructions encoded in the DNA. But you could imagine that a given cell has produced certain proteins that turn some genes on and others off. This pattern of
936.
by ImaCake 7y ago
That varies a lot. Probably simpler to consider a single celled organism like a bacterium. Bacteria will only multiply by splitting themselves into two copies of themselves. When talking about heredity, most people focus on the DNA. But it
937.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Tell that to anyone who is poor in an economic depression. Or anyone who has a serious illness. I once spent three months bedridden from an autoimmune illness. I never once "liked" what I had.
938.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I am not willing to even consider these results until more details about testing are revealed. There has already been so much misinformation about testing and results that I am incredibly skeptical of any results now.
939.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Absolutely, a good point. I would think for the particularly avid birder that you could probably memorize all of them. We certainly have larger vocabularies than that!
940.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Depending on what you are interested in (and where) there will be plenty of enthusiastic users willing to identify your observations. In my experience, birds will always get identified, while insects and plants will only sometimes registe
941.
by ImaCake 7y ago
> ~50% wont even show any symptoms It is closer to 20% A lot of articles stating more are mis-interpreting those numbers from prospective studies. It is possible that the authors of such studies would downplay false positives as well.
942.
by ImaCake 7y ago
>Every Western institution was unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic, despite many prior warnings. This is simply not true. In Australia, New Zealand, and several European countries institutions did act fast enough and did manage to fl
943.
by ImaCake 7y ago
This monograph points to an IgG antibody assay with >99% specificity which means the false positive rate is tiny. Can anybody tell me if there is a commercial antibody test for Covid19 that advertises anything close to this? My thought i
944.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I think you underestimate how effective proper sterile technique is. If all the equipment is available, and the staff appropiately trained, there should be a very small chance of becoming infected. In some countries this is not the case, bu
945.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I am familiar with these drawbacks, having worked as a research assistant doing RT-PCR and qPCR. My understanding from a brief stint in industry is that there is a lot more quality control to be found in industrial and diagnostic labs than
946.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Australia has highest per-capita testing in the world. New Zealand is doing well. A number of other developed nations have been testing people since the start, but Australia and NZ have some added benefits of distance and relatively small p
947.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I looked into this a few weeks ago. The PCR test has an incredibly low false positive rate, below 1%. It is low enough that it is feasible to test a 100,000 people and expect basically zero false positives. The false negative rate is somewh
948.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I feel that the asymptomatic thing is more wishful thinking in places where infection control has failed. Other countries have shown that you can contain the spread of Covid19, even if there are asymptomatic (or more realistic, low symptom
949.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Yes. Or just variations in our immune systems. Immune systems are incredibly complex systems. It is difficult to overstate just how complex and varied they are. And they differ between individuals to an amazing extent. If immunity is import
950.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I want to argue that the flaw in this is with the ability to find any strain that consistently causes only minor symptoms. If you infect a whole group of people with Covid-19 then we would see a distribution of severity from no symptoms to
951.
by ImaCake 7y ago
They mean what they would mean in common english. Specificity because "how specific is the test? Does it measure the true positives correctly without getting a whole heap of false positives as well?" You might ask someone to be &q
952.
by ImaCake 7y ago
I hate the number naming system. I have no idea why anyone would find it preferable to use them for literally any reason. Specificity and Sensitivity already almost mean the right things in common language already, they are perfect words
953.
by ImaCake 7y ago
So looking at the wiki page image of Remdesivir [1] I can see that this looks a lot like the sugar-phosphate backbone that is integral to DNA and RNA. If you imagine DNA as a curling ladder, the nucleoside (adenosine) is the steps, and the
954.
by ImaCake 7y ago
>100% Konformitatsrate (Spezifitatsrate) fur 126 Negativkontrollen mit nicht mit SARS-CoV-2 akut oder vorher infizierten Probanden. Heh, well that's great news. It's an antibody test so it would tell you who has had antibodies
955.
by ImaCake 7y ago
The RTPCR will only work for those with viral RNA in them. So those with active infections. The antibody test won't work until the host produces antibodies against the virus (except for false positives). So yeah, the antibody test will
956.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Last I checked they had a roughly 10% false positive rate. So if 1 in 1000 people were infected but you tested all 1000 with an antibody assay, you would get 100 positives, and probably one of them is actually infected. Basically useless fo
957.
by ImaCake 7y ago
This might be a logistic curve in the long term. But if this runs wild it will look like an exponential for a while longer. If your doubling time is 3 and a bit days. You can't just sit back saying "the inflexion point is coming a
958.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Well, they do. But they were just way to small.
959.
by ImaCake 7y ago
People just dont get exponentials. They don't understand that if you get a total of a million cases in a week's time, most of those cases appear on day 6. They can't see how 1/7th of those cases turns into a million. E
960.
by ImaCake 7y ago
Nope, that is exactly what they are saying. It really is 10% false positive. They tested 128 negative blood samples and got a positive result for 12 of them. There is a frequency table at the end of their paper (0). So I guess you are right

More ›