frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.


Check out my old  Voice of the People page.


Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

jonsdarc@mindspring.com




Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington



ARCHIVES
1662 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
May 2022
April 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Friday, 10 April 2020 at 20h 9m 6s

Latest SF Coronavirus update from the SF Dept of Public Health

Yikes. Up 73. The model now has the a value at 15.0558 and the b value is .0893565, settling into just below 9%, however still exponential.

This spike might be due to Homes of concentrated Elderly that are getting hard hit everywhere, not just California.

Here are the model's updated 14 and 21 day predictions:

39,768 = 797×15.0558×(1+0.0893565)^14

72,399 = 797×15.0558×(1+0.0893565)^21

Potentially almost 72,400 by early May unless we continue bending the curve.

Just to say, the assumptions made in the above model, are as follows:

  1. The a value accurately measures the number of known positive cases, ie. 1 out of 15. Thus multiplying the a value to 797 is attempting to include the unknown cases.
  2. The b value consists of a rate of increase that is both exponential and based upon a consistent percentage rate. The model has been dropping the percentage over the last 10 days, however, the rate of growth is still exponential.

If for instance we assume that only 50% of cases are known (a = 2), and the percentage growth is 8% (1+b = 1.08), then the prediction over the next 3 weeks is ...

8023 = 797×2×(1+0.08)^21

Another calculation I am using is the Gaussian regression model based upon increases per day. I sum over the interval where the model predicts 0.5 per day (currently at x=191 -- about 4.8 months from now) and I get 10,289 cases.


Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 20h 59m 59s

Grifters gonna grift

Because in chaos, they can steal.




Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 19h 33m 43s

Uh-Oh

Click here for an article describing how 51 cases of recovered patients might have caught or reactivated Coronavirus AGAIN !!


At a briefing earlier this week, Jeong Eun-kyeong, director-general of the Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that 51 people previously thought to have recovered completely tested positive again shortly after they got out of quarantine. Jeong said the virus may have been “reactivated” in some fashion since it was in the CDC’s judgment too early after their recovery for them to have been reinfected.

[SOURCE: Donald Kirk | Daily Beast | 9 April 2020]


Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 2h 46m 28s

L'chaim

imagebam.com


Wednesday, 8 April 2020 at 18h 53m 5s

A great analysis of the science on Salt in the diet

Click here for an article in Paleoleap that indicates just how faulty the research was that beget the mantra of "low-salt" good, "high-salt" bad.

The first study in 1972, was based upon feeding rats the equivalent (by body weight) of 250 teaspoons of salt per day. The second study in 1988 was an inter-population study that included 4 outliers (out of 52 groups) which influenced the weak correlation from positive to negative, and


...even the Intersalt study itself admitted that without the four outliers, “both regression analyses showed no significant associations of sodium with median systolic pressure” ...

By 1998, studies were increasingly finding fewer and fewer benefits of salt reduction, even at a public health level undetectable to individual subjects. In August of that year, Gary Taubes wrote an article summarizing the controversy and explaining why the link between salt and blood pressure (if it exists) is so difficult to determine. First of all, blood pressure is regulated by a complex homeostatic system: sodium affects it, but so do potassium, calcium, caloric intake, sex, age, and race. This introduces numerous complications to any study claiming that salt intake alone is responsible for high blood pressure.

Second, the early studies such as INTERSALT are all “ecologic” studies, comparing members of different populations (Yanomami Indians compared to Finns compared to Vietnamese compared to Americans). These studies appear to show that societies with a low salt intake have lower blood pressure, but they can’t account for the results of intrapopulation studies, which compare individuals within a certain population (white middle-aged men in Toronto). Within more homogenous population groups, researchers could find no direct relationship between dietary salt and higher blood pressure. Taking out the confounding factors that plague ecologic studies seemed to also reduce or eliminate the correlation between salt intake and blood pressure.


[SOURCE: paleoleap ]


Wednesday, 8 April 2020 at 17h 37m 22s

Malcolm Nance

On the Stephanie Miller show:

Don't give up the ship.




Wednesday, 8 April 2020 at 17h 3m 57s

Latest SF Coronavirus update from the SF Dept of Public Health

Jumped up 54 from yesterday. I waited a few days since my last update because these crude models that I am using aren't very predicative and can fluctuate based upon incoming data.

Click here if you want to read an excellent article in fivethirtyeight from late March on how difficult statistical modeling can be.

Anyway, in my exponential model the b value has been decreasing, and is now .0944122, which means the rate of increase has been decreasing and is now less than 9.5%. The a value has however shot up and is now 12.7004. Which implies that there are 12.7 times more positives than we have actually measured/tested. So there could be upwards of 8,585 (12.7 times 676) positive cases.

I am keeping data for San Francisco, Alabama, California, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, New York State, and Tennessee, for the sake of comparison. Here are the current b values:

Percentage of increase based upon current COVID-19 positive cases as of 8 March 2020
San Francisco 9.44%
California 12.24%
Alabama 12.84%
Florida 13.68%
Kentucky 13.47%
Mississippi 11.99%
New York State 12.3%
Tennessee 12.56%

Here are the model's updated 14 and 21 day predictions:

30,359 = 676×12.7004×(1+0.0944122)^14

57,090 = 676×12.7004×(1+0.0944122)^21

I am using an additional model, the sideways "S" curve. That's called a logistic model, or 1 over 1 plus the euler growth factor. It enables prediction to the plateau or "flattening out", and I am using it to compare the exponential to the linear (the dashed red line). So you might notice that this morning's SF Department of Public Health release of 54 more cases puts the trend above the linear and logistic but less than the exponential. The trend has been above the linear for the last 5 days.

The small bell curve on the bottom regresses the daily increases from the previous date (which was +54 today). That model gets down to plus 0.5 cases when x equals 75, or 32 days after today, which is 10 May 2020.


Monday, 6 April 2020 at 23h 21m 53s

Excellent discussion

From Dr. MarkAlain Dery, at Tulane Medical Center, on the Coronavirus.




Monday, 6 April 2020 at 22h 59m 18s

This is the Common Cold on Steroids

More communicable than the flu, and 10 to 15 (or more) times lethal.


At timestamp 45:20 Dr Gundry discusses the myths and misconceptions about the coronavirus.

Namely:

  • It is a virus from a bat. It is not a weaponized genetic virus created by a biomedical lab. This is a natural virus that has lived in bats for a very long time.

  • Getting this virus is not a death sentence. Currently, in the USA, the mortality rate is 1.4%

  • This is not like getting the flu. Coronavirus is more deadly, and more contagious.

  • There is no certainty whether this is a seasonal virus. Some nutritionists think the correlation might be more related to fluctuations in Vitamin D levels over the year due to levels of sunlight more than actual seasonal variation due to the virus. The cold virus is not a seasonal virus however.

  • The cold virus mutates rapidly, which is why there is no vaccine for the common cold. It looks like so far over the last 4 months the coronavirus mutates more slowly. If that is the case, then a vaccine can hopefully be developed. However, the flu vaccines are ongoing because the flu virus mutates. Long story short, it's too early to know for sure. We just don't know if people can catch this again, or if the rate of mutation will create regular future infections just like the common cold or flu virus.


Monday, 6 April 2020 at 19h 55m 11s

About science based decision making processes

Over-reacting to non-randomized studies based upon small sample sizes with elements of the study excluded from the analysis of the resulting data set?

Sounds like it's time to be Presidential and all that.

Click here for a video explaining evidenced-based decision making from Perry Wilson, M.D. at medscape.

Here is a great article at Statnews that dissects the limitations of the small-sample studies that are being touted as indicating "some benefit".

Keep in mind that there is a huge problem with testing if a certain drug shows benefits to people who have a disease, and that is how to measure the "severity', because people will improve regardless of what treatments are given. People survived the blood letting during the 1700's to remove "the vigors" from the body, but that didn't mean it was due to the treatment. So in any study using small samples, people can and do improve despite the treatments, which makes it difficult to say whether the improvement was enhanced by the treatment.

The scientific method is currently in the boxing ring with con-artists and a public relations political campaign. Who will win? Who should win?




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS