All your blood are belong to us

cams

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
4,927
Likes
14,372
Location
Boston
I go to code orange whenever i have an uninvited guest, and to code red as soon as that person doesn't leave when told.
Ya, I so rarely have company over that even a simple knock on the door or doorbell sound puts me at like a 12 out of 10 level of hyper vigilance. Or maybe that’s where I already am and the doorbell has nothing to do with it? I really should see somebody about that, but f*** it, it is what it is.
 

mwalsh9152

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
5,125
Likes
3,250
Location
Pelham
I will literally sit at my "desk" in the dining room while working and just look at anyone uninvited that rings the bell long enough that they can clearly see that I acknowledge their presence, then go back to work and ignore then until they leave. benefit / detraction of the open floor plan of my house.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
911
Likes
1,317
Location
Western MA
If anyone shows up at your door telling you they need a sample of your blood... Just tell them you are super happy they showed up because you need to get 100% of their blood. Then give them the Jack Nicholson "The Shining" look until they realize this isn't going to end well for them.
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
4,639
Likes
2,575
Is it really optional if the state shows up at your front door for a surprise blood inspection? What happens when you say no? You sure CPS won't get involved?
I have no doubt you could say no without repercussions, but some half assed county health inspector badge plus someone in a white lab coat and compliance will be really high.
 

Mountain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
11,621
Likes
8,968
Is it really optional if the state shows up at your front door for a surprise blood inspection? What happens when you say no? You sure CPS won't get involved?
Well, there's this gem in the linked article:

In some other countries, such as New Zealand, people who refuse to take a COVID-19 test have been forcibly removed to quarantine facilities by health authorities.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
11,390
Likes
4,076
Why not just offer free antibody testing to anyone who wants it and let people voluntarily show up for it. It's been working for the Red Cross. In my area appointments for donations are about 5~6 weeks out at this point, vs them calling you every other day trying to schedule an appointment. The fact that they're looking to select their "randomly selected" subjects and "very strongly encourage" said subjects to comply makes it sound like they're looking for specific people instead of a random sampling.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
686
Likes
1,133
Why not just offer free antibody testing to anyone who wants it and let people voluntarily show up for it. It's been working for the Red Cross. In my area appointments for donations are about 5~6 weeks out at this point, vs them calling you every other day trying to schedule an appointment. The fact that they're looking to select their "randomly selected" subjects and "very strongly encourage" said subjects to comply makes it sound like they're looking for specific people instead of a random sampling.
I can't say for sure because I haven't seen the study protocol (assuming this is a proper study, which isn't clear). Generally speaking, to get an unbiased measure of a relationship, it's better to do random sampling. There are ways to adjust for a non-randomly selected group, but random sampling is the gold standard.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
21,106
Likes
12,317
not mandatory. but IMO they shouldn't even be asking as many people will simply comply from fear or ignorance
Is it really optional if the state shows up at your front door for a surprise blood inspection? What happens when you say no? You sure CPS won't get involved?
People should be "free to invest however they want and F-all SSI and the like" but they aren't free enough to feel intimidated by "the man"????

At that point, shouldn't we outlaw door-to-door salespeople nation-wide. I mean if people don't have an ability to say "no" in the first place. . . .


C'mon. At what point are we holding people's hands on this. Voluntary. People aren't fearing CPS or JBT's or anything else. Shock of shocks, most folks wanna get tested to see if we can figure this thing out. Most folks are NOT conspurrrurrrrsurr thurrrrussssts.

Why not just offer free antibody testing to anyone who wants it and let people voluntarily show up for it. It's been working for the Red Cross. In my area appointments for donations are about 5~6 weeks out at this point, vs them calling you every other day trying to schedule an appointment. The fact that they're looking to select their "randomly selected" subjects and "very strongly encourage" said subjects to comply makes it sound like they're looking for specific people instead of a random sampling.
Because it's still not random. Doing it the Houston way at least imparts some randomness. Your most concerned people (ie: those who are overly health conscious, those who THINK they've been exposed, those who ain't lazy asses) are gonna get tested. It's sort of like adverse selection. You don't want to test just people who WANT to get tested. You want to test a sample of everyone. Which is what Houston is doing. And just like a telephone poll, it's somewhat more accurate than going to your five favorite friends and polling them, but NOT as good as a truly random sample. (Because people can SAY no means you're not going to get a true sample set.)
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
9,587
Likes
6,337
Location
Braintree, MA
People should be "free to invest however they want and F-all SSI and the like" but they aren't free enough to feel intimidated by "the man"????

At that point, shouldn't we outlaw door-to-door salespeople nation-wide. I mean if people don't have an ability to say "no" in the first place. . . .


C'mon. At what point are we holding people's hands on this. Voluntary. People aren't fearing CPS or JBT's or anything else. Shock of shocks, most folks wanna get tested to see if we can figure this thing out. Most folks are NOT conspurrrurrrrsurr thurrrrussssts.



Because it's still not random. Doing it the Houston way at least imparts some randomness. Your most concerned people (ie: those who are overly health conscious, those who THINK they've been exposed, those who ain't lazy asses) are gonna get tested. It's sort of like adverse selection. You don't want to test just people who WANT to get tested. You want to test a sample of everyone. Which is what Houston is doing. And just like a telephone poll, it's somewhat more accurate than going to your five favorite friends and polling them, but NOT as good as a truly random sample. (Because people can SAY no means you're not going to get a true sample set.)
Just because I don't trust the government to start a seemingly innocuous program only to have them go FR statist later once the program is established makes me a tinfoiler, huh? You must not be too big on history.
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
4,639
Likes
2,575
They poison ya with the test then blame the nonexistent virus. When this thing started a lot of people showed up to hospitals a little bit sick, got the test and died 4 hours later. Told to me by people in the hospital that witnessed it not from AJ. Maybe it was cohencidence over and over. I don't know, I do know doctors that are afraid of the test. Obviously every test can't be fatal, and maybe none of them are, but if you think evil isn't capable of bolstering their rona scam this way you are an idiot.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
686
Likes
1,133
People should be "free to invest however they want and F-all SSI and the like" but they aren't free enough to feel intimidated by "the man"????
Absolutely. The government needs to be limited in its ability to coerce vulnerable people. Informed consent is the foundation of ethical research, and I don't think you can give informed consent to a group of government agents on the spot.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
4,972
Likes
3,353
Location
Louisiana
I will f***ing shoot them. Not even kidding.
Billy Badass here is going to shoot an intern working on a PoliSci or Medical Statistics degree.


Why not just offer free antibody testing to anyone who wants it and let people voluntarily show up for it. It's been working for the Red Cross. In my area appointments for donations are about 5~6 weeks out at this point, vs them calling you every other day trying to schedule an appointment. The fact that they're looking to select their "randomly selected" subjects and "very strongly encourage" said subjects to comply makes it sound like they're looking for specific people instead of a random sampling.
The same bias that's happening with testing in general. A lot of hypochondriacs are showing up. It moves the needle in the wrong direction. If you are a hermit who never leaves his house, very little odds of getting this bug.

Now, in theory, this could be an absolutely great thing to happen. If it turns out that 80% of the population has antibodies, guess what, we're at herd immunity and things can open back up and no one will be able to cry about 'the children'. I know of one family personally who tested positive for antibodies and zero idea as to when they had the Covid.
 

ScottG

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 13, 2018
Messages
63
Likes
66
Just because I don't trust the government to start a seemingly innocuous program only to have them go FR statist later once the program is established makes me a tinfoiler, huh? You must not be too big on history.
Remember, the most terrifying words in the English language are:

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

~Ronald Reagan
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
736
Likes
315
Location
NES South: NC
I can't say for sure because I haven't seen the study protocol (assuming this is a proper study, which isn't clear). Generally speaking, to get an unbiased measure of a relationship, it's better to do random sampling. There are ways to adjust for a non-randomly selected group, but random sampling is the gold standard.
^ This
'Mayors' don't have authority to initiate a study. The Houston Health Department May have the authority or may have been given such authority under an Emergency Order.
Still, the department is very unlikely to be equipped and trained to conduct the study and SHOULD enlist services of the Clinical Study Board in a local hospital or Medical Group who are qualified to do such a study. The article isn't clear on any of this, but there are several fine and well qualified Medical Practice Groups or Hospitals in Houston who can/ought to be helping with this.

Community Testing is a Good Thing and i believe, if done transparently with results shared publicly, etc then would be very helpful in forming policy response. However, as EMACS said,
It is Required to have a Written and Approved Protocol, Independent Review Board Concurrence (though it would be easy to get this) and a clear data management plan for both randomization/collection of samples and data and the analysis of results. Again the article is terribly incomplete as it omits any such information.

Finally, the way to do this isn't Door to Door and CANNOT Be compulsory as that would violate FDA and Other Govt Regulations in 21 cfr 56 Institutional Review Boards and Protection of Human Subjects. Of course, these apply to studies where claims about safety / efficacy are to be made but also form general principles for all such studies.
IF the Good Mayor is serious about this, then the Houston Health Department should use local news orgs and internet to 'Recruit Volunteers' via toll free line with IVRS / IWRS doing enrollment and ensuring randomization... Going door to door is NOT Random and calling anyone who declines to participate 'Irresponsible' is non-compliant coercion.

BTW - a smaller community sampling in NYC yielded infection rate less than 20% and severity as mostly mild... data that like Nashville Mayor, i'm not sure they would want to make public.
 
Top Bottom