My ISP has already replaced it with a “wifi access charge.” Because the router they provide has WiFi capability.
1,458 karma · joined July 5, 2020
Do you think that working out entirely alone vs. with a group is the same thing? Do you think there are some people that would derive a differential benefit by going with one vs. the other?
Do you think that emulating being with a group would have value for those that would otherwise value working with a group?
Do you think that anyone who falls into the "works out better with a group and a trainer, or an emulation thereof" must be an idiot? Or do you think that category simply doesn't exist?
From my experience in competitive powerlifting, working out by myself, working out with others, working out with a coach, working out with an app yelling at me, are all very different endeavors, with different outcomes. Maybe I'm just an idiot.
Never mind that even if they didn't, purchasing an ipad that you occasionally stick on your bike is still a far, far higher utility than a tablet affixed to your bike that only works for biking. Those are not of equal value.
My bike is on a trainer, and I see the following down-sides:
a) My bike on a trainer is really loud. Can't do it early; can't do it when the baby is sleeping, etc.
b) It's a moderate pain in the ass to hook and unhook. Not a huge pain in the ass, but I certainly didn't do it any time of the year it was feasible for me to bike to work.
c) It's dirty. I mean, the bike. I dislike washing the tires so I can bring it indoors even a couple of times a year, never mind if it's coming in and out constantly. And never mind the fact that even washed, my wife sure as hell isn't letting me bring that into a corner of the bedroom.
d) My bike has exposed chains and gearing that, if I'm not mistaken, the Peloton and similar bikes do not. I've got a toddler.
e) Indoor exercise bikes are usually reasonably set up to let you have somewhere to put your phone, or ipad, or kindle, etc. Bikes on a trainer do not. When I'm working out indoors, that makes a big difference for me.
This hasn't been enough to convince me to buy a Peloton, but I can certainly see why someone with more disposable income (or square footage) would.
e.g., someone has a run of the mill cholecystitis that needs to come out. It can go when there's an opening in the surgical schedule, or tomorrow morning. That's an "emergency" - it came in through the ED, wasn't elective.
Then there's the person w/ chole that looks septic and you're afraid they're going to perf or already have. That person is going to the OR now.
Under Medicare coding, both of those are lap choles, CPT 47562. This doesn't control for that at all, except in the broadest of ways.
Also, a 65yo surgical candidate and a 99yo surgical candidate are wildly different. 99yo isn't going under the knife for anything other than immediate threat of death or unendurable pain. In the lap chole example above, I'm going with a trial of abx in the 99yo unless he's absolutely about to perf; 65yo, sure, let's take the gallbladder out - once he's progressed to sx chole, odds are really good it'll have to come out within the next two years. I think most surgeons would rather do it at 65 than 67.
Looking at the 2x2 of 65, 99, emergency, and EMERGENCY, you capture an incredibly large variety of severity and risk.
1. Early on in the pandemic it was highly questionable what the value of masking was. We had mixed experiences to go on: on the one hand, even N95 filtration seemed to not be overwhelmingly effective in stopping viral passage in the laboratory, on the other hand we'd had previous SARS breakouts where universal cloth masking had stopped outbreaks. Neither of these things is "false", they're different facts that needed to be incorporated into a single world-view. What has emerged over time is "masking works, both by reducing the rate of transmission and by reducing viral load - the latter mechanism enough to decreased morbidity, mortality, and symptomaticity rates. It doesn't work by outright stopping viral transmission." "Evolving worldview" isn't the same as "lying."
2. Infection fatality rates were >5%. Important note: there are open and closed case rates. Open Case rates are cases that haven't "ended" yet, either by recovery or death. Closed cases are for those that have. When your population under study is accumulating new cases at an exponential rate, at any given time the majority of "open" cases are early in the disease (and thus haven't died or recovered yet), biasing the IFR downward. At the same time, it means the bulk of cases not destined to end in death are delayed into the future compared to those that end in rapid death - so the closed case IFR is biased upward. For a while we had open case IFR <1% and in a number of places closed case IFR >30%. Early in the course of the outbreak in the US, during the first wave before things skyrocketed and our hospitals went to capacity, our open case rate was ~3% and closed case was around 12%. The more we juggled stats, the more it looked like the 'true' rate was going to be around 4-6%. Again, how these rates evolve over time as we improve detection, management, and treatment doesn't change that this was true at the time.
- Immunity via vaccination and immunity via infection are not the same thing. You can develop an immune response that isn't super effective (e.g., targets a highly non-conserved region of RBD, or was adequate at producing antibodies that provoked macrophage activity but not effective at viral neutralization.) Or you can develop an immune response that isn't long-lasting. The vaccine, on the other hand, is designed to target a highly-conserved region (so it's cross-reactive across many sub-strains, which it is); it's tested for the production of neutralizing antibodies (which it does); and it's given in two doses to ensure a better lasting response by intentionally provoking the development of additional memory cells. These things are different. You falsely equated them, and thus determined one of them must be a lie.
I don't know about, for instance, the ebola thing. Not a paper I read. If I were to be generous, I'd say "reporters fail to convey the nuance and context that helps people make sense of apparently contradictory information." Because that's most of what I'm seeing in your post: attempts at making sense of the world, but without enough information to succeed at doing so, and identifying the gaps in your knowledge as 'lies' rather than ignorance.
It's super weird that people seem to constantly start from the premise of, "But their business couldn't possibly [comply with law] profitably at scale! Oh well. I guess until someone comes up with a feasible solution, we'll just have to exempt them from being responsible!"
Imagine if pharma companies went "gosh, but hiring quality inspectors to make sure all of our drugs are untainted just doesn't scale!" I have trouble imagining you saying, "Well, they obviously can't sacrifice scale, so let's just wait and see if a better quality inspection solution comes up."
Known as the Brooklyn Thermostat.
There's no such thing as bad weather; there's just being incorrectly dressed for it.
Phase 1 is essentially to test "will this drug cause terrible harm to people who receive it in a reasonably short time frame?" In terms of dosage guidelines, phase 1 studies often don't have variable dosing, or if they do, not an awful lot - because the question around optimal dosing is the target of phase 2.
(Sometimes you can roll 2 and 3 up together, for instance, if the difference in dosing is in duration of therapy rather than an actual difference in drug administered per unit time.)
Phase 1 usually has terribly small samples, because it's only looking for terribly large effects. Seeing homogeneity there, of any stripe, is neither unexpected nor problematic.
(A lot of the vaccine studies rolled up phase 1/2 together because we already have a pretty good understanding of what these delivery mechanisms do to people, and so while you'd be cautious in administering to the initial study participants, it really didn't merit a "test it on five people and hold your breath" approach.)
Eh, I probably would've noticed something's up.
"Immune compromise" is generally used as a blanket term, but in many people there are specific immune deficiencies, which may or may not factor into the pathway being targeted here. For instance, natalizumab screws with immune cells' translocation across membranes, and shouldn't play a role in responding to a vaccine (I mean, if it wasn't off the market anyway).
If it's a general immune dysfunction (cancer, diabetes), they will see some benefit, but it will be much reduced - specifically because both responding to the vaccine, and responding to the virus post-vaccination, require the activity of the immune system. What this means precisely will vary with the degree and nature of the immune dysfunction: some folks might see some antibody response, and benefit from repeat dosing. Others might fail to seroconvert altogether, in which case it is what it is.
This mechanism was once explored as a means of performing gene therapy in human beings (a couple of decades past). It was abandoned because of its utter failure to produce lasting genetic effects.
That's a big plus here: we have a well-explored platform for having the cells transiently produce a protein we want the immune system exposed to, but which we already know is useless at producing lasting effects. The only lasting effect here will be in the memory of the immune system, not in the cells affected by the shot.
When they take steps that are consistent with one of those roles' responsibilities, they undercut the other. To the extent that they quite intentionally did their best to assume both of those roles, it's not entirely ridiculous to give them flak for failing to meet the expectations of those roles.
I'd be more sympathetic if not for the fact that they got into that position entirely intentionally.
Do you have an overview of his trading history that suggests he's "usually right"?
2) Heh, it's actually a standard board exam question about "homeless guy comes in with scratching in one ear." The official answer is that you /don't/ scope first, because if it's a roach, the sudden light can make them scrabble deeper. Which is actually funny, since different bugs respond differently - there have been case reports where people have reported repeated success with taking the patient to a darkened room, opening the ear as much as possible, and having a light pointed near the outside of the ear - luring the bug to crawl out on its own.
Actually, on second thought, I don't know if it's a "standard" board question. Rather, it was something I studied for boards once upon a time. I'm not in EM/FM, so it's not something I've ever had come up again.
Other fields do this regularly - hospitals often organize their physicians into a distinct staffing org, for instance. It’s entirely legal. So is this anything other than a feel good law that will push some minor corporate restructuring?
And yet years of fantastic RPG community contributions on g+ are absolutely fucking gone. At their best they got taken out into barely-accessible formats, so they technically "exist", even if you can't find any of their content anymore.
So, no. This perfectly above-board version is not what happened.
That you think they are somehow related strongly undermines the rest of your post, as it suggests you are very weakly acquainted with the details of our healthcare system.
Because the author is relaying their personal experiences as a student at MIT.