30 of the deaths are at PCI, which is basically a nursing home for older prisoners.
EDIT: “Marion houses a high number of older individuals, many who have pre-existing health conditions. Pickaway houses our long-term-care center similar to a nursing home, and Franklin is our state prison medical center.”
Marion is 25% of the deaths. Pickaway 59%. And Franklin 10%.
Then for the general population below whatever that age is (maybe 65?), you'd get roughly `(51-30)/4449 ≈ 0.47% FR` (non-PCI deaths/total positive). It's a bit unclear as it seems the numbers are changing as test results arrive. For the PCI cohort: 30/1258 ≈ 2.38% (deaths/recovered).
The 0.47% FR would seem much more plausible given the spread of the virus and the number of asymptomatic cases that appear to exist from serological testing.
You're hugely overestimating still. You seem to assume that all of the over-65s in the system are at PCI. In fact, only a small fraction of older people, even in late decades, need to be in long term medical care.
True, it's more of an upper-bounds of sort. There's several preprints from European researchers giving IFR's of 0.08% and 0.37%. So it works pretty well from a Fermi estimation method (https://what-if.xkcd.com/84/) (e.g. Bayesian inference really). Also, the age distribution in prison isn't necessarily the same as that of the general population. There's lots of limitations for a comparison to the general population but it gives some bounds.
I'd think the statistic of "average years of life lost" based on expected average of lifetime. Otherwise not sure of a better statistical way to measure age-adjusted IFR, which would be helpful.
One thing I’m curious about is the influence of people having symptoms being more likely to be tested. As others have mentioned this is only 15% of the total prison population.
I’m also curious how you could account for that if you could. Besides random sampling + tracking individuals afterwards even if they left the prison.
I’ve recently started digging more into statistics and probability theory and looking forward to learning how these biases might be factored in.
That’s not an original source to prove the claim in the headline. It’s someone making a claim that the DoJ is making that claim. (A video of “B says that A said” is not the same as an original video or text from A, particularly when A and B are adversaries.)
He is an original source, as a person who saw the filings. Perhaps not unbiased though. And contra your statement, there is no reason to suspect that the DoJ's self-description of their filings would be in any way more accurate. (Do you trust the student's description of his essay, or the teacher's evaluation of it?)
The DoJ filing is an original source for the argument. The video above is much closer to hearsay than to an original source. I would no more (and no less) accept hearsay as original testimony from counsel on either side of the case.
I just looked up the cost for my home for solar on Google's project Sunroof. It would cost me $14,000 upfront, after the personal tax incentives (tax $$) and some ungodly amount of tax-assisted R&D ($$$), and it will save me $8,000 over 20 years. It looks more like a dollar going into a dumpster fire to me.
You’re in the USA? If so, your permit and installation costs are the single largest part of the whole thing. The actual panels and inverters are cheap, utility-scale PV is cheap even in the USA, and even home solar is cheap when the government isn’t getting in your way — my parents and my in-laws in the UK (the entirety of which is north of the entire contiguous USA and which is not known for lacking building regulations) have PV systems which each cost about half your quote and which generate about £1,000/year each.
The cost of solar is now about half what they spent.
A well-done rooftop solar installation in 2020 will last you more like 30 years. That $8,000 comes after the payback period, meaning you end up with a 60% ROI.
Agreed. I have mine in automatic mode. My default browsing experience is that most pages have never seen my computer before (at least as far as cookies go), and don't get to set anything that will stick around, unless I manually add them to a named container.
It's worse than that. Firefox will download non-free javascript and html from pretty much every website you visit. Debian team needs to get on it, fast!
I do not think the sarcasm is deserved here. Debian is committed to free software. You can find a set of guidelines they implement in their social contract website under the heading "The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)" at https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
A substantial user and developer base prefers Debian precisely because of these Guidelines. Inclusion of free software (as-is) that automatically installs non-free binaries would violate almost all of these guidelines.
I'm not sure that these guidelines make a distinction between a call to install a codec on-demand versus a call to download and run (and even cache) a minified Javascript library.
The difference is whether the user has explicitly asked for it. If I point my web browser at a url, I am instructing it to download and execute whatever it finds there. However, if the browser decides to download a codec on-demand, it is making an executive decision as to what code should run on the machine - and to select non-free code without user interaction is a violation of trust.
An analogous situation would be the non-free NVidia blob. Debian fully supports installing it, but it would be very much verboten to do so by default, automatically.
> If I point my web browser at a url, I am instructing it to download and execute whatever it finds there.
And your browser will download linked javascript from third party websites to make it run. As firefox downloads a codec from a third party to make the media you've requested run.
I actually agree about the conflict between this codec behavior and the Debian philosophy. But they need to come to terms with the much greater conflict with their philosophy that the modern internet experience presents.
Stallman, for all his faults, was right about a lot of things. We live in a world where people don't own their own books, and buy software on a subscription model. For a few years back in the late 90s and early 2000s it looked like free software was the answer. But the internet made an end run around it, and Debian, etc., hasn't caught up. We're all digital renters instead of owners.
The URL on Daily Mail that you cite has "factcheck" in the domain name and calls itself "The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource". It has no about page and is exactly the sort of URL that I'd expect to get emailed from my impressionable 78-year-old mother.
Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’"
They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."
The Guardian article you link is simply reporting on the Wikipedia vote from a couple of years ago. Wikipedia keeps a unreliable sources list, and a perusal of it will show you that it's not an impressive exercise in fairness. In fact, Wikipedia's fairness standards are somewhat notorious.
As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow!
My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.
> That ONE Tesla failed with fewer than 6,000 miles is not surprising or remotely concerning.
Yeah, it "just happened" to be one owned by Car and Driver. If they are seeing this sort of failure with review models, you can be sure that the real failure rate is big.
"Everything that happens with Tesla gets amplified 10 fold"
Well, one reason people do that is because of the ridiculous things everybody has been saying for years - like how electric cars are inherently way more reliable than ICE vehicles.
It's like how certain people get enraged over short sellers influencing stock prices, and somehow it doesn't occur to them that way more information is distorted in favor of public companies.
And sure, there's no reason to think it was a special unit, but that's the best case, and it's not rational to assume the most likely case is the best.
Are these reviewers big enough in the industry for there to be any reason to assume they got a pre-tested vehicle? If not there's absolutely no indication that this failure suggests a higher overall failure rate.
