Forum Replies Created
September 11, 2020 at 12:20 PM in reply to: Interesting COVID numbers article – Pigg thoughts ? #819618
With so much conflicting data/interpretations with regards to the number of cases and deaths from Covid, I tried to find the most unbiased data set, that couldn’t be influenced by testing volume or personal judgement. Looking at the overall number of deaths, it is clear that Covid-19 is very serious and deadly.
[img_assist|nid=27228|title=US Excess deaths|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=38]
The number of excess deaths in the US closely match (and are even higher) than the Covid death tolls published. It far outpaces any flu season, you can see compared the the 2018 “bad” flu year.
If you want to see what unmitigated spread looks like, look no further than NYC where just days/weeks of exponential spread led to death rates almost 8X normal. Not to mention the even higher number of people with serious, and possibly long-lasting symptoms that didn’t die.
[img_assist|nid=27227|title=NYC Excess Deaths|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=39]
Take a look at the different states, you will see the excess deaths closely match the various outbreaks. This is not just overblown media hype, it needs to be taken seriously.
Personally, I’m not in favor of full-shutdowns except to combat severe spikes (e.g. NYC). With proper social distancing and mask-wearing, together we can push the average transmission rate below 1 and continue to live our lives.September 11, 2020 at 11:54 AM in reply to: Interesting COVID numbers article – Pigg thoughts ? #819617
The “false positives” noted by the NYT article refer to cases where the viral nucleic acid was detected, but at “low” levels.
There are many reasons why a sample my have a low target amount:
1. There is high variability between samples taken, even severely ill patents have days with no/low detectable target followed and preceded by high viral load measurements.
2. Patient is at early stage of disease, some of these progress to very high viral load, some remain very low and are typically asymptomatic.
3. Patient was exposed to virus/nucleic acids, but never truly infected. (it’s estimated that it takes ~1000 infectious viral particles to cause an infection in ~50% of people)
4. True false positive- patient had no target nucleic acid, some contamination from collection through processing introduced the target. This is typically <1%(It is extremely rare for the vast majority of these tests to have false positives due to chemistry or off-target amplification)
Initially, the focus was on getting the best sensitivity possible, as the risk of a false negative spreading to others far outweighed the risk of a false positive self-isolating. Now that a single false positive can shut down a classroom/business/etc. more focus is being paid to determining if someone is truly a risk to spread to others.
The NYC article extremely overstated the utility of Ct values by themselves. While Ct values can give some semi-quantitative value, the variability between assay, specimen type, lot, etc. makes it impossible to draw any conclusions from that single number. Any test that wanted to look at viral load would need to run standards to give a quantifiable number, and the value would need to be based on copies per number of cells collected (for most sample types) to have any ability to compare.
Here is a good explanation:
tl;dr: The vast majority of positives came from patients with CoV-2 nucleic acid in their sample. Any effort to further stratify risk by viral load will take much more than the information we have on hand.
I went solar in Early 2016.
-2016 used straight tiered net metering, used slightly more than produced, owed ~$30 at true-up
-2017 went TOU, Summer peak (11a-6p) was about 53c/kwh so production during day gained more credit, the rest of the time was about 24c. Used more energy than 2016, but had $100 credit remaining at true-up.
-2018 SDGE changed peak pricing and hours, but I was grandfathered in (DR-SES-G) for 5 years.. HOWEVER both on peak and semi-peak are paying/costing 43c/kwh, only off-peak time in summer is 10p-6a. To help compensate, I upgraded pool pump to variable speed, so it was quiet enough to run at night and more efficient. Also purchased a plug-in hybrid car, only charge at night in summer.
End of year, used most energy yet, year end credit -$7.
2019- So far this year, running better than last year, even with rainy weather. More efficient pool pump has more than offset additional usage from plug-in car.
2021- I’ll have to revisit plans available, all TOU switching to 4p-9p peak, I think straight net metering will likely be best option.
[quote=Rich Toscano]Wow, duuude, sounds like you’ve really hit on a popular topic here.
Maybe I should make a new forum, titled something like “Home improvement and construction.” That way if you create a lot of posts on the topic, they will be easier to find in one place.
Anyone have feedback on that idea?[/quote]
Great Idea! A lot of Piggs have jumped into home ownership and would be great to get advice/experience from a group of people who like to do their research and spend wisely!
Edit: Of course this is not inflation adjusted (addressed in the article). There was a lot of talk on how long it would take to get back to new nominal highs (https://piggington.com/when_do_you_think_we039ll_see_2005_peak_price_again_in_nominal_t)
Nominal prices came back much faster than most people expected, with relatively low inflation. Nearly there on the more accurate $/sf.
Nominal prices are still important for those who bought near the peak and decided to ride it out.
Came to this site in 2007. While I also predicted a crash during the run-up, I made an arbitrary valuation judgement that when SFH in Mira Mesa got below $400k, it was time to buy. We had an agent, went on a couple showings. Thankfully, I tried to find some data to backup my assumptions, this site gave me everything I needed, and put on the brakes. We waited until Fall 2008, though prices were still dropping, they were within historical norms and it was a good time for us. 5 years later, we were able to sell with a good profit -> down payment to our forever home.
Thank you Rich and all the Piggs!
Agency High Balance increased by County
San Diego will be $612,950 From $580,750 ^5.5%
Orange/LA at max of $636,150 From $625,500 ^1.7%
Pretty sizable increase for the superconforming loan. This could make a difference in the $725k+ market. From personal experience, these loans “only” cost about 1/8% APR more than conforming. This would bring the max 80% LTV from ~$726k to $766k.
I got a great recommendation from the forum and the person/company we went with was very knowledgeable and they did a great job for a great price. Thanks to the sunny weather, we’ve overproduced by ~10-15% from what was estimated so far this year.
I ended up going with the power optimizers, but each setup is different. It was nice being able to talk with a sales person who actually know what he was talking about when discussing the options.
[quote=no_such_reality]Are you forgetting the 2016 tax incentive of 30%?
Or where the cash back/rebates only $400?
At $20K you should be grabbing a $6000 tax incentive for 2016.[/quote]
20,000-6000(tax incentive)-400(cash back)= $13,600
[quote=no_such_reality]Wow, even with SDGE’s high rates, you’re using 1000KWH a month?
I have no idea how many I’m using anymore, I’ve gotten minimum bill now for close to five years. SCE’s rates though are 25% less than SDGE though.[/quote]
In the summer months running Air Conditioning and pool pump, yes. Average yearly usage ~10,000kwh average cost $.30.
$13,600 after rebates/cash back
4.5 yr payback, less if SDGE raises rates.
FYI, I finally pulled the trigger:
6kw system- $20,000 before rebate.
Payback ~4.5 yrs.
Installed mid-February, currently producing more than we use, but will be interesting to see our yearly usage. Been looking at electric cars, still can’t make the math pencil out.
I’ve been getting the 24-packs from Costco:
Stone mixed pack: ~$32 6 each:
Cali-Belguique – I usually pair with food
Pale 2.0- Good for a non IPA, better than original
Coffee Milk Stout- A good heavy stout
Ruination 2.0- A good double, but nothing like the original (was my favorite)
They just got in the Sierra Nevada Celebration for $24
-This is what gets me excited for the season
They sometimes have the Lagunitas IPA 24 pack as well, I think ~$30
When I looked at the problem, I immediately thought 25+11=36. Same way I would have as a kid. I then struggled to figure out the mentality behind the solutions provided.
I like the idea behind thinking about math in a more general way vs. memorizing step by step the same for every problem. My issue is if they limit how students see it, ie. 25+10+1. Not everyone will “get it” in the same or most “efficient” way. This will be interesting to see how it gets implemented and changes over the years. My daughter just started Kindergarten and has really good number sense. I just hope common core math provides more tools to use and not just a different set of rote limitations.
Even better than my seatbelt analogy:
Having the brakes removed from your car is a personal decision
Not far off, Molecular Biology PhD who likes numbers too. I have a feeling most of the Pigg’s are numbers people 😉 I’m glad you found my explanation clear and helpful.
[quote=bobby]you must be a math major (stat), pediatrician or epidemiologist.
I am a physician who love numbers (engineer in previous life) and can’t explain as well as you did
[quote=biggoldbear]Just in case anyone runs into a “informed” anti-vaxer, some vaccines can cause adverse reactions in a small number of people (From CDC) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm
But this argument is similar to saying that some people would be better off not wearing a seat belt because sometimes they trap people in a burning car.
Except not getting vaccines is worse, because of the already mentioned effect on herd immunity. You are not just putting yourself and children at risk, you are putting others at risk too.
The problem is that for some diseases the risk of the vaccine is actually greater than the risk of getting the disease, but this is only because the vaccine works so well. If people start to avoid the vaccine, this math changes quickly (as we all can see clearly now).[/quote][/quote]