COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

[rurichdog]

Murphy now creating a "restarting advisory committee" with hundreds of people involved that will inform his 21 person Reopening Commission. The Restarting advisory committee will begin videoconferencing on Monday to create the guidelines for reopening to give the to 21 person Reopening Commission.

More than 1 in 9 New Jerseyans are unemployed. Not 1 in 9 working age New Jerseyans. 1 in 9 including children and retirees. I have many friends who filed for benefits in March, and are waiting, broke, and cannot talk to anyone on the phone or get an email answered. While Rome burns, Murphy creates layers of bureaucracy for political cover to justify his delays. Pennsylvania began reopening today, and Connecticut has circled May 20th. New Jersey, despite continued improving numbers, has no date. We have commissions and committees. It is unconscionable at this point.

But hey, maybe the beaches will be semi-open for Memorial Day Weekend. Perhaps.

My heart truly goes out to those people unemployed as a result of all this. I know more than I'd like to acknowledge from my job are in this situation, and many personal friends are also in this sad state of affairs. At first it appeared this would be a temporary bump, and the extra $600 from the Feds would really help to smooth things out; not make it all better, but certainly helps keep food on the table and the collectors at bay. But former colleagues and friends have not received a single dime from UI yet. And there are no answers. Yet time marches on, the bills keep arriving, and no money is reaching them. I feel absolutely powerless.

 

[wisr01]

Can you share your qualifications with us? That's been more or less de rigueur on this forum for those who are subject matter experts.

Rutgers Undergrad, Satan Hall Graduate both Chemistry,
First 14+ years spent in Pharmaceutical R&D. Promoted first 6 out of 7 years and into management while going to grad school at night. PhD's did not like reporting to someone with BA (from Rutgers College no less).
Last twenty years as Founder/CEO of a software product and consulting firm. Our customers are 7 of the top 15 in the world. Our software products are for R&D scientists and statisticians. I have no formal training in statistics or programming and yet two companies have globally standardized portions of their statistical evaluation process using the software I designed and created. One of them was paying SAS to explore this advanced concept and were told it is so complex it would take a team of 5 or more programmers along with a team of company R&D folks. The cost would be many millions (3.3 to be exact) and at least a year or more. I was done in less than 5 months with one other programmer and software validation analyst. I designed it to use a base SAS engine to boot. I threw in an interface system that allows users to connect it to almost any company data system and import their data directly into the desktop app for analysis. Both customers have been using it for 15 years. I get paid to help data scientists understand and solve problems.

So what are my qualifications? I put some stuff above because that is what people usually do. My view is I was given a gift, it is the 10 lb weight on my neck/shoulders. When I was young my school had me tested by a specialist and I guess was abnormally high on the distribution. On a personal note, I am not a fan of our education system as it is not designed well for those who are advanced. I went through undergrad and grad barely ever attending any classes as I found it boring. You want me to sit and write down what you say and then say it back to you a month later? I could train a baboon to do that. How about learning to critically think and solve problems. That is what our education should be doing. Life is a series of problems, some more difficult than others, that we are challenged to solve. My brain always seeks and prefers the elegant solution. Many people, even those highly educated, do not.

Here is a little anecdote: I don't need a calculator...never have. When I add or multiply numbers I work from left to right. I can get answers faster than you can write the problem down on a piece of paper. I can count upwards given any number meaning if you say 34, I can ssay 34, 68, 102, 136, 170, 204, 238, 272, 306, 240, 374, 408. I can go way faster than I can type or speak. When I add numbers I add them like this:


359
419
876

I see 163 sets of tens for 1630 with an additional 24 ones to give 1654. When I multiply I do it like this

52*68= 50*68=3400 and add 2 more 68's which is 136 for 3536. Sometimes for fun I will do 70 times 52 = 3640 and then subtract 2 52's to get 3536. My mind always seeks the simplest solution and then adjust to correct to solve the problem. I did not come up with that it just does it on it's own. So no credit to me.


When I was in third grade, I developed a routine to estimate square roots in my head to multiple decimal places and also created an error correction factor as the smaller the number the greater the error, once you approach trillions the estimate is accurate to more than 6 decimal places. My teachers understood from a young age that I never needed a piece a paper to answer a math question as I do it all in my head and it takes less than a second. Out of boredom one day as a 9 year old I decided to better understand the relationships betweeen numbers. I noticed that:

For squares: 2^2=4 3^2=9 4^2=16 and the relationship between them is to find the next in the series you add the two consecutive numbers together and add them to the previous square, i.e., 2^2=4 so 2+3 added to 4 is 9 or 3^2. 3+4 3^2=16 which is 4^2. So I decided how would I explain cubes, etc. I found:

For cubes: A*B x3+1 ---- 2^3=8 3^3=27 the difference between is 19 which is 2*3*3+1. So then the difference to the next number in the sequence is 3*4*3+1=37 so 37+27=64 which is 4^3. Next is 4*5*3+1=61 so 125 is the next solution which is 5^3

So my teacher asked me how would I explain ^4 series?
I said ^4: 1, 16, 81, 256, 625. What is the relationship? I looked at it and said to my teacher I see (A*B)*(A+B)*2+(A+B) as explaining the difference between each ^4. So (1*2)*(1+2)*2+3=15-------->1+15=16=2^4
(2*3)*(2+3)*2+5=65-------->16+65=81=3^4
(3*4)*(3+4)*2+7=175-------->81+175=256=4^4

Needless to say my teacher had me sent to a special program to be tested. I guess I see patterns where most people cannot. I was in 3rd grade.

For those interested, my thought process on how to estimate square roots in my head was this:

15^2=225
16^2=256
The difference between them is the two numbers added 15+16=31.

so sq root of say 243 is in between 225 and 256 and in fact (243-225=18) so 18/31 in between. So my initial hypothesis was the answer was 15.5806. But the actual answer is 15.588 so it underestimates it a fraction. What I also noticed was that as the number approaches infinity my result approaches the actual number. So sq root of 1,000,234 would be estimated to be 1000 + 234/2001 which is 1000.11694 and the actual answer is: 1000.11699. If you continue the estimate approaches the actual.

 

[RU4Real]

Rutgers Undergrad, Satan Hall Graduate both Chemistry,
First 14+ years spent in Pharmaceutical R&D. Promoted first 6 out of 7 years and into management while going to grad school at night. PhD's did not like reporting to someone with BA (from Rutgers College no less).
Last twenty years as Founder/CEO of a software product and consulting firm. Our customers are 7 of the top 15 in the world. Our software products are for R&D scientists and statisticians. I have no formal training in statistics or programming and yet two companies have globally standardized portions of their statistical evaluation process using the software I designed and created. One of them was paying SAS to explore this advanced concept and were told it is so complex it would take a team of 5 or more programmers along with a team of company R&D folks. The cost would be many millions (3.3 to be exact) and at least a year or more. I was done in less than 5 months with one other programmer and software validation analyst. I designed it to use a base SAS engine to boot. I threw in an interface system that allows users to connect it to almost any company data system and import their data directly into the desktop app for analysis. Both customers have been using it for 15 years. I get paid to help data scientists understand and solve problems.

So what are my qualifications? I put some stuff above because that is what people usually do. My view is I was given a gift, it is the 10 lb weight on my neck/shoulders. When I was young my school had me tested by a specialist and I guess was abnormally high on the distribution. On a personal note, I am not a fan of our education system as it is not designed well for those who are advanced. I went through undergrad and grad barely ever attending any classes as I found it boring. You want me to sit and write down what you say and then say it back to you a month later? I could train a baboon to do that. How about learning to critically think and solve problems. That is what our education should be doing. Life is a series of problems, some more difficult than others, that we are challenged to solve. My brain always seeks and prefers the elegant solution. Many people, even those highly educated, do not.

Here is a little anecdote: I don't need a calculator...never have. When I add or multiply numbers I work from left to right. I can get answers faster than you can write the problem down on a piece of paper. I can count upwards given any number meaning if you say 34, I can ssay 34, 68, 102, 136, 170, 204, 238, 272, 306, 240, 374, 408. I can go way faster than I can type or speak. When I add numbers I add them like this:


359
419
876

I see 163 sets of tens for 1630 with an additional 24 ones to give 1654. When I multiply I do it like this

52*68= 50*68=3400 and add 2 more 68's which is 136 for 3536. Sometimes for fun I will do 70 times 52 = 3640 and then subtract 2 52's to get 3536. My mind always seeks the simplest solution and then adjust to correct to solve the problem. I did not come up with that it just does it on it's own. So no credit to me.


When I was in third grade, I developed a routine to estimate square roots in my head to multiple decimal places and also created an error correction factor as the smaller the number the greater the error, once you approach millions the estimate is accurate to more than 10 decimal places. My teachers understood from a young age that I never needed a piece a paper to answer a math question as I do it all in my head and it takes less than a second. Out of boredom one day as a 9 year old I decided to better understand the relationships betweeen numbers. I noticed that:

For squares: 2^2=4 3^2=9 4^2=16 and the relationship between them is to find the next in the series you add the two consecutive numbers together and add them to the previous square, i.e., 2^2=4 so 2+3 added to 4 is 9 or 3^2. 3+4 3^2=16 which is 4^2. So I decided how would I explain cubes, etc. I found:

For cubes: A*B x3+1 ---- 2^3=8 3^3=27 the difference between is 19 which is 2*3*3+1. So then the difference to the next number in the sequence is 3*4*3+1=37 so 37+27=64 which is 4^3. Next is 4*5*3+1=61 so 125 is the next solution which is 5^3

So my teacher asked me how would I explain ^4 series?
I said ^4: 1, 16, 81, 256, 625. What is the relationship? I looked at it and said to my teacher I see (A*B)*(A+B)*2+(A+B) as explaining the difference between each ^4. So (1*2)*(1+2)*2+3=15-------->1+15=16=2^4
(2*3)*(2+3)*2+5=65-------->16+65=81=3^4
(3*4)*(3+4)*2+7=175-------->81+175=256=4^4

Needless to say my teacher had me sent to a special program to be tested. I guess I see patterns where most people cannot. I was in 3rd grade.

For those interested, my thought process on how to estimate square roots in my head was this:

15^2=225
16^2=256
The difference between them is the two numbers added 15+16=31.

so sq root of say 243 is in between and in fact (243-225=18) so 18/31 between. So my initial hypothesis was the answer was 15.5806. But the actual answer is 15.588 so it underestimates it a fraction. What I also noticed was that as the number approaches infinity my result approaches the actual number. So sq root of 1,000,234 would be estimated to be 1000 + 234/2001 which is 1000.11694 and the actual answer is: 1000.11699. If you continue the estimate approaches the actual.

Nice. Thanks for that, really.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Rutgers Undergrad, Satan Hall Graduate both Chemistry,
First 14+ years spent in Pharmaceutical R&D. Promoted first 6 out of 7 years and into management while going to grad school at night. PhD's did not like reporting to someone with BA (from Rutgers College no less).
Last twenty years as Founder/CEO of a software product and consulting firm. Our customers are 7 of the top 15 in the world. Our software products are for R&D scientists and statisticians. I have no formal training in statistics or programming and yet two companies have globally standardized portions of their statistical evaluation process using the software I designed and created. One of them was paying SAS to explore this advanced concept and were told it is so complex it would take a team of 5 or more programmers along with a team of company R&D folks. The cost would be many millions (3.3 to be exact) and at least a year or more. I was done in less than 5 months with one other programmer and software validation analyst. I designed it to use a base SAS engine to boot. I threw in an interface system that allows users to connect it to almost any company data system and import their data directly into the desktop app for analysis. Both customers have been using it for 15 years. I get paid to help data scientists understand and solve problems.

So what are my qualifications? I put some stuff above because that is what people usually do. My view is I was given a gift, it is the 10 lb weight on my neck/shoulders. When I was young my school had me tested by a specialist and I guess was abnormally high on the distribution. On a personal note, I am not a fan of our education system as it is not designed well for those who are advanced. I went through undergrad and grad barely ever attending any classes as I found it boring. You want me to sit and write down what you say and then say it back to you a month later? I could train a baboon to do that. How about learning to critically think and solve problems. That is what our education should be doing. Life is a series of problems, some more difficult than others, that we are challenged to solve. My brain always seeks and prefers the elegant solution. Many people, even those highly educated, do not.

Here is a little anecdote: I don't need a calculator...never have. When I add or multiply numbers I work from left to right. I can get answers faster than you can write the problem down on a piece of paper. I can count upwards given any number meaning if you say 34, I can ssay 34, 68, 102, 136, 170, 204, 238, 272, 306, 240, 374, 408. I can go way faster than I can type or speak. When I add numbers I add them like this:


359
419
876

I see 163 sets of tens for 1630 with an additional 24 ones to give 1654. When I multiply I do it like this

52*68= 50*68=3400 and add 2 more 68's which is 136 for 3536. Sometimes for fun I will do 70 times 52 = 3640 and then subtract 2 52's to get 3536. My mind always seeks the simplest solution and then adjust to correct to solve the problem. I did not come up with that it just does it on it's own. So no credit to me.


When I was in third grade, I developed a routine to estimate square roots in my head to multiple decimal places and also created an error correction factor as the smaller the number the greater the error, once you approach millions the estimate is accurate to more than 10 decimal places. My teachers understood from a young age that I never needed a piece a paper to answer a math question as I do it all in my head and it takes less than a second. Out of boredom one day as a 9 year old I decided to better understand the relationships betweeen numbers. I noticed that:

For squares: 2^2=4 3^2=9 4^2=16 and the relationship between them is to find the next in the series you add the two consecutive numbers together and add them to the previous square, i.e., 2^2=4 so 2+3 added to 4 is 9 or 3^2. 3+4 3^2=16 which is 4^2. So I decided how would I explain cubes, etc. I found:

For cubes: A*B x3+1 ---- 2^3=8 3^3=27 the difference between is 19 which is 2*3*3+1. So then the difference to the next number in the sequence is 3*4*3+1=37 so 37+27=64 which is 4^3. Next is 4*5*3+1=61 so 125 is the next solution which is 5^3

So my teacher asked me how would I explain ^4 series?
I said ^4: 1, 16, 81, 256, 625. What is the relationship? I looked at it and said to my teacher I see (A*B)*(A+B)*2+(A+B) as explaining the difference between each ^4. So (1*2)*(1+2)*2+3=15-------->1+15=16=2^4
(2*3)*(2+3)*2+5=65-------->16+65=81=3^4
(3*4)*(3+4)*2+7=175-------->81+175=256=4^4

Needless to say my teacher had me sent to a special program to be tested. I guess I see patterns where most people cannot. I was in 3rd grade.

For those interested, my thought process on how to estimate square roots in my head was this:

15^2=225
16^2=256
The difference between them is the two numbers added 15+16=31.

so sq root of say 243 is in between 225 and 256 and in fact (243-225=18) so 18/31 in between. So my initial hypothesis was the answer was 15.5806. But the actual answer is 15.588 so it underestimates it a fraction. What I also noticed was that as the number approaches infinity my result approaches the actual number. So sq root of 1,000,234 would be estimated to be 1000 + 234/2001 which is 1000.11694 and the actual answer is: 1000.11699. If you continue the estimate approaches the actual.

:)

 

[wisr01]

Nice. Thanks for that, really.

My wife rags on me for never fulfilling my potential because I fell in love with a stupid game called golf while at Rutgers and that has befuddled me for 34 years. I make a really good living but my real focus, please don't tell my customers, has always been on my golf game. Way harder than any problem I have ever tried to solve. Just when i think I got it figured out, boom goodbye. You would blush if you heard some off the things I have said on a golf course. I cannot solve the riddle.

 

[RutHut]

My wife rags on me for never fulfilling my potential because I fell in love with a stupid game called golf while at Rutgers and that has befuddled me for 34 years. I make a really good living but my real focus, please don't tell my customers, has always been on my golf game. Way harder than any problem I have ever tried to solve. Just when i think I got it figured out, boom goodbye. You would blush if you heard some off the things I have said on a golf course. I cannot solve the riddle.

You're not smart enough to figure out that you can't overthink the game.:Wink:

 

[RU4Real]

My wife rags on me for never fulfilling my potential because I fell in love with a stupid game called golf while at Rutgers and that has befuddled me for 34 years. I make a really good living but my real focus, please don't tell my customers, has always been on my golf game. Way harder than any problem I have ever tried to solve. Just when i think I got it figured out, boom goodbye. You would blush if you heard some off the things I have said on a golf course. I cannot solve the riddle.

I used to play golf. I gave it up when I left the employ of the NFL because there was no longer a business need to play and also I sucked at it.

I did learn, however, that I tended to play better when I was really, really high. Drinking, on the other hand, made my game much worse.

Interesting, I thought.

 

[wisr01]

I used to play golf. I gave it up when I left the employ of the NFL because there was no longer a business need to play and also I sucked at it.

I did learn, however, that I tended to play better when I was really, really high. Drinking, on the other hand, made my game much worse.

Interesting, I thought.

Agreed on the drinking. In fact if I am drinking on the course it means I am playing bad and have given up. Drinking does not help your game.

 

[wisr01]

:)

View embedded media

I found her very attractive back then...

 

[wisr01]

You're not smart enough to figure out that you can't overthink the game.:Wink:

I do understand that, I just keep believing there has to be a secret move and that if Ben Hogan could find it, I could too. He must have been the greatest genius of all time because although I play much better than 34 years ago, I still play nothing like Ben Hogan.

 

[e5fdny]

Are we just not going to talk about the “Satan Hall” line?

Typo or not...that. was. awesome. LOL

 

[wisr01]

Are we just not going to talk about the “Satan Hall” line?

Typo or not...that. was. awesome. LOL

Not an accident. I rarely ever mention that I went there. I am a Scarlet Knight and proud of it.

 

[e5fdny]

Not an accident. I rarely ever mention that I went there. I am a Scarlet Knight and proud of it.

Now that info makes it even better. :ThumbsUp

 

[RU4Real]

I found her very attractive back then...

Still would.

 

[RUevolution36]

I do understand that, I just keep believing there has to be a secret move and that if Ben Hogan could find it, I could too. He must have been the greatest genius of all time because although I play much better than 34 years ago, I still play nothing like Ben Hogan.

Didn't you watch and learn from the Legend of Bagger Vance? C'mon man!

 

[SkilletHead2]

Not exactly.

Over the past three days, 88 new deaths have been reported, marking a significant increase from days prior. But many of those deaths may not have actually occurred this week. The number of new deaths reported each day represents the additional known deaths identified by the health department that day, but they are often not identified on the actual death date, and could have occurred weeks prior.

According to the department's data, the dates with the most deaths in a single day so far are April 19 and April 20, with 20 deaths each.


Arizona has significantly increased diagnostic testing over the past two weeks due to loosened testing requirements and the weekend blitz. The percentage of positive tests per week decreased from 11% three weeks ago to 7% last week, likely in part because a broader range of people are being tested rather than just the very sick.

Your last bolding supports my argument. If you are testing the population more broadly, the percent positive will decrease. If the actual numbers increase, then you don't have it under control.

But hey, we'll see if you and the Governor are right in the coming weeks.

 

[wisr01]

Your last bolding supports my argument. If you are testing the population more broadly, the percent positive will decrease. If the actual numbers increase, then you don't have it under control.

But hey, we'll see if you and the Governor are right in the coming weeks.

I viewed the 11% and 7% as apples and oranges. 11% who are really sick cannot be compared to 7% from more widespread testing. If all 7% were tested using the same approach as a few weeks earlier than it would be fine. IMO, to compare them you either need the testing of only the very sick to compare to 11% or more widespread testing a few weeks earlier to compare to 7%. As it stands, 11 apples cannot be compared to 7 oranges.

 

[RU-05]

Agreed on the drinking. In fact if I am drinking on the course it means I am playing bad and have given up. Drinking does not help your game.

Just this past winter I changed my philosophy on drinking while snow boarding. Years past I was trying to attack the sport in as healthy a frame as possible.

Then early this year while riding with some guys who were new to the sport, and were union guys, and thus drinkers by trade, I had a couple easy drinkers throughout the day and I was having one of my best days in awhile.

Now moderation is key, and I don't know if it translates to golf, but it has had a positive effect on the mountain for me.

Haven't taken it to the ice rink yet, my past endeavors typically involved too many beers, and it was a definite negative.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Still would.

She looks pretty good in The Wrestler.

Good grief, that movie was 12 years ago! Time flies.

 

[RU-05]

Rutgers Undergrad, Satan Hall Graduate both Chemistry,
First 14+ years spent in Pharmaceutical R&D. Promoted first 6 out of 7 years and into management while going to grad school at night. PhD's did not like reporting to someone with BA (from Rutgers College no less).
Last twenty years as Founder/CEO of a software product and consulting firm. Our customers are 7 of the top 15 in the world. Our software products are for R&D scientists and statisticians. I have no formal training in statistics or programming and yet two companies have globally standardized portions of their statistical evaluation process using the software I designed and created. One of them was paying SAS to explore this advanced concept and were told it is so complex it would take a team of 5 or more programmers along with a team of company R&D folks. The cost would be many millions (3.3 to be exact) and at least a year or more. I was done in less than 5 months with one other programmer and software validation analyst. I designed it to use a base SAS engine to boot. I threw in an interface system that allows users to connect it to almost any company data system and import their data directly into the desktop app for analysis. Both customers have been using it for 15 years. I get paid to help data scientists understand and solve problems.

So what are my qualifications? I put some stuff above because that is what people usually do. My view is I was given a gift, it is the 10 lb weight on my neck/shoulders. When I was young my school had me tested by a specialist and I guess was abnormally high on the distribution. On a personal note, I am not a fan of our education system as it is not designed well for those who are advanced. I went through undergrad and grad barely ever attending any classes as I found it boring. You want me to sit and write down what you say and then say it back to you a month later? I could train a baboon to do that. How about learning to critically think and solve problems. That is what our education should be doing. Life is a series of problems, some more difficult than others, that we are challenged to solve. My brain always seeks and prefers the elegant solution. Many people, even those highly educated, do not.

Here is a little anecdote: I don't need a calculator...never have. When I add or multiply numbers I work from left to right. I can get answers faster than you can write the problem down on a piece of paper. I can count upwards given any number meaning if you say 34, I can ssay 34, 68, 102, 136, 170, 204, 238, 272, 306, 240, 374, 408. I can go way faster than I can type or speak. When I add numbers I add them like this:


359
419
876

I see 163 sets of tens for 1630 with an additional 24 ones to give 1654. When I multiply I do it like this

52*68= 50*68=3400 and add 2 more 68's which is 136 for 3536. Sometimes for fun I will do 70 times 52 = 3640 and then subtract 2 52's to get 3536. My mind always seeks the simplest solution and then adjust to correct to solve the problem. I did not come up with that it just does it on it's own. So no credit to me.


When I was in third grade, I developed a routine to estimate square roots in my head to multiple decimal places and also created an error correction factor as the smaller the number the greater the error, once you approach trillions the estimate is accurate to more than 6 decimal places. My teachers understood from a young age that I never needed a piece a paper to answer a math question as I do it all in my head and it takes less than a second. Out of boredom one day as a 9 year old I decided to better understand the relationships betweeen numbers. I noticed that:

For squares: 2^2=4 3^2=9 4^2=16 and the relationship between them is to find the next in the series you add the two consecutive numbers together and add them to the previous square, i.e., 2^2=4 so 2+3 added to 4 is 9 or 3^2. 3+4 3^2=16 which is 4^2. So I decided how would I explain cubes, etc. I found:

For cubes: A*B x3+1 ---- 2^3=8 3^3=27 the difference between is 19 which is 2*3*3+1. So then the difference to the next number in the sequence is 3*4*3+1=37 so 37+27=64 which is 4^3. Next is 4*5*3+1=61 so 125 is the next solution which is 5^3

So my teacher asked me how would I explain ^4 series?
I said ^4: 1, 16, 81, 256, 625. What is the relationship? I looked at it and said to my teacher I see (A*B)*(A+B)*2+(A+B) as explaining the difference between each ^4. So (1*2)*(1+2)*2+3=15-------->1+15=16=2^4
(2*3)*(2+3)*2+5=65-------->16+65=81=3^4
(3*4)*(3+4)*2+7=175-------->81+175=256=4^4

Needless to say my teacher had me sent to a special program to be tested. I guess I see patterns where most people cannot. I was in 3rd grade.

For those interested, my thought process on how to estimate square roots in my head was this:

15^2=225
16^2=256
The difference between them is the two numbers added 15+16=31.

so sq root of say 243 is in between 225 and 256 and in fact (243-225=18) so 18/31 in between. So my initial hypothesis was the answer was 15.5806. But the actual answer is 15.588 so it underestimates it a fraction. What I also noticed was that as the number approaches infinity my result approaches the actual number. So sq root of 1,000,234 would be estimated to be 1000 + 234/2001 which is 1000.11694 and the actual answer is: 1000.11699. If you continue the estimate approaches the actual.

Big whoop.

 

[Ronnie_B]

Still would.

We all cursed George when he blew it.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Rutgers Undergrad, Satan Hall Graduate both Chemistry,
First 14+ years spent in Pharmaceutical R&D. Promoted first 6 out of 7 years and into management while going to grad school at night. PhD's did not like reporting to someone with BA (from Rutgers College no less).
Last twenty years as Founder/CEO of a software product and consulting firm. Our customers are 7 of the top 15 in the world. Our software products are for R&D scientists and statisticians. I have no formal training in statistics or programming and yet two companies have globally standardized portions of their statistical evaluation process using the software I designed and created. One of them was paying SAS to explore this advanced concept and were told it is so complex it would take a team of 5 or more programmers along with a team of company R&D folks. The cost would be many millions (3.3 to be exact) and at least a year or more. I was done in less than 5 months with one other programmer and software validation analyst. I designed it to use a base SAS engine to boot. I threw in an interface system that allows users to connect it to almost any company data system and import their data directly into the desktop app for analysis. Both customers have been using it for 15 years. I get paid to help data scientists understand and solve problems.

So what are my qualifications? I put some stuff above because that is what people usually do. My view is I was given a gift, it is the 10 lb weight on my neck/shoulders. When I was young my school had me tested by a specialist and I guess was abnormally high on the distribution. On a personal note, I am not a fan of our education system as it is not designed well for those who are advanced. I went through undergrad and grad barely ever attending any classes as I found it boring. You want me to sit and write down what you say and then say it back to you a month later? I could train a baboon to do that. How about learning to critically think and solve problems. That is what our education should be doing. Life is a series of problems, some more difficult than others, that we are challenged to solve. My brain always seeks and prefers the elegant solution. Many people, even those highly educated, do not.

Here is a little anecdote: I don't need a calculator...never have. When I add or multiply numbers I work from left to right. I can get answers faster than you can write the problem down on a piece of paper. I can count upwards given any number meaning if you say 34, I can ssay 34, 68, 102, 136, 170, 204, 238, 272, 306, 240, 374, 408. I can go way faster than I can type or speak. When I add numbers I add them like this:


359
419
876

I see 163 sets of tens for 1630 with an additional 24 ones to give 1654. When I multiply I do it like this

52*68= 50*68=3400 and add 2 more 68's which is 136 for 3536. Sometimes for fun I will do 70 times 52 = 3640 and then subtract 2 52's to get 3536. My mind always seeks the simplest solution and then adjust to correct to solve the problem. I did not come up with that it just does it on it's own. So no credit to me.


When I was in third grade, I developed a routine to estimate square roots in my head to multiple decimal places and also created an error correction factor as the smaller the number the greater the error, once you approach trillions the estimate is accurate to more than 6 decimal places. My teachers understood from a young age that I never needed a piece a paper to answer a math question as I do it all in my head and it takes less than a second. Out of boredom one day as a 9 year old I decided to better understand the relationships betweeen numbers. I noticed that:

For squares: 2^2=4 3^2=9 4^2=16 and the relationship between them is to find the next in the series you add the two consecutive numbers together and add them to the previous square, i.e., 2^2=4 so 2+3 added to 4 is 9 or 3^2. 3+4 3^2=16 which is 4^2. So I decided how would I explain cubes, etc. I found:

For cubes: A*B x3+1 ---- 2^3=8 3^3=27 the difference between is 19 which is 2*3*3+1. So then the difference to the next number in the sequence is 3*4*3+1=37 so 37+27=64 which is 4^3. Next is 4*5*3+1=61 so 125 is the next solution which is 5^3

So my teacher asked me how would I explain ^4 series?
I said ^4: 1, 16, 81, 256, 625. What is the relationship? I looked at it and said to my teacher I see (A*B)*(A+B)*2+(A+B) as explaining the difference between each ^4. So (1*2)*(1+2)*2+3=15-------->1+15=16=2^4
(2*3)*(2+3)*2+5=65-------->16+65=81=3^4
(3*4)*(3+4)*2+7=175-------->81+175=256=4^4

Needless to say my teacher had me sent to a special program to be tested. I guess I see patterns where most people cannot. I was in 3rd grade.

For those interested, my thought process on how to estimate square roots in my head was this:

15^2=225
16^2=256
The difference between them is the two numbers added 15+16=31.

so sq root of say 243 is in between 225 and 256 and in fact (243-225=18) so 18/31 in between. So my initial hypothesis was the answer was 15.5806. But the actual answer is 15.588 so it underestimates it a fraction. What I also noticed was that as the number approaches infinity my result approaches the actual number. So sq root of 1,000,234 would be estimated to be 1000 + 234/2001 which is 1000.11694 and the actual answer is: 1000.11699. If you continue the estimate approaches the actual.

Interesting stuff, wisr. I used to do a lot of that sort of thing as a kid as well. Most mathematicians (high level ones) have similar stories to tell. And now, we try to teach that sort of thinking to kids in schools. It's referred to as "teaching them to think like mathematicians." But it doesn't work very well. Why? Because they aren't mathematicians. They just don't think that way.

Plus, to me it is questionable whether you would want to teach someone to think like that as it isn't really very necessary in most aspects of life, and it leads to not teaching kids how to actually solve the problems they encounter in real life. Furthermore, for many of the mathematicians I know (I know a lot), I'm surprised that they can find the building in the morning. Good guys, but take them 5 degrees out of their field, and they are pretty much like the rest of society.

And now, for your treat. There is a UK show called "8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown" and part of it is a math problem. The contestants have about half a minute to figure it out, and about 1/3 of the time, one of them does (they are all professional comedians). If they don't get it, Rachel Riley, the insanely hot blonde who puts up the numbers, almost always solves it, often in fascinating ways. The whole show is worth it just to see her (Oxford grad). It's way off-color, but a great show. Here is a clip of what the math problems look like (all the same format). You should check out the show just for the math problems. Super fun:

 

[T2Kplus10]

Interesting stuff, wisr. I used to do a lot of that sort of thing as a kid as well. Most mathematicians (high level ones) have similar stories to tell. And now, we try to teach that sort of thinking to kids in schools. It's referred to as "teaching them to think like mathematicians." But it doesn't work very well. Why? Because they aren't mathematicians. They just don't think that way.

Plus, to me it is questionable whether you would want to teach someone to think like that as it isn't really very necessary in most aspects of life, and it leads to not teaching kids how to actually solve the problems they encounter in real life. Furthermore, for many of the mathematicians I know (I know a lot), I'm surprised that they can find the building in the morning. Good guys, but take them 5 degrees out of their field, and they are pretty much like the rest of society.

And now, for your treat. There is a UK show called "8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown" and part of it is a math problem. The contestants have about half a minute to figure it out, and about 1/3 of the time, one of them does (they are all professional comedians). If they don't get it, Rachel Riley, the insanely hot blonde who puts up the numbers, almost always solves it, often in fascinating ways. The whole show is worth it just to see her (Oxford grad). It's way off-color, but a great show. Here is a clip:

View embedded media

I don't think there was math back then.

 

[SkilletHead2]

I don't think there was math back then.

It was actual math back then. We shifted to new math when you went to school which is why you think the Earth is cooling, and you want a trophy for thinking so.

 

[RU848789]

SIAP, but the Rutgers saliva test was approved for at-home use, although they recommend only using it if you have mild (or worse) symptoms. The huge up side is reduced risk to the patient in not having to go somewhere to get a test where there might be infected people, as well as reduced risk to the health care workers who now don't have to take the risk of getting the virus from taking the sample.

The one down side is that turnaround is ~48 hours, so it's possible one could test negative for it, then positive 2 days later, since every PCR style virus test has limited sensitivity and will miss some infections (false negatives), so the PCR test, in general, is much "better" at confirming who has it, since false positives are rare. Personally, if I did the at-home test or any virus test and then developed worse symptoms after getting a negative test, I'd get retested (this is not just an issue for the RU test).

We truly need instant antigen testing though, in order to get somewhere back to normal, i.e., an instant blood test that detects the virus through antigens and not analysis of the viral RNA. This is the kind of test, once we have it, that would allow screening of people for events and travel, restaurants, bars, and such (the highest risk activities).

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/health/fda-coronavirus-spit-test.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rutgerstoday&utm_content=Research & Innovation

“A patient can open the kit, spit into the tube, put the cap back on and ship it back to our lab,” said Dr. Andrew Brooks, chief operating officer and director of technology development at RUCDR. “We bring the test to the patient, instead of the patient to the test.”

The F.D.A. said it still preferred tests based on deep nasal samples, which involve a health professional inserting a long swab up through the nose and into the back of the throat. But even those have had problems. In mid-April, for example, an unnamed team of health providers reported to the F.D.A. that the new Abbott ID Now test failed to detect coronavirus on six patients who were known to have Covid-19.

Rutgers has 75,000 of the saliva test kits ready to ship and can process 20,000 tests each day, with a 48-hour turnaround. Dr. Brooks said he expected other labs around the country to adopt it for their own use.

 

[SkilletHead2]

I viewed the 11% and 7% as apples and oranges. 11% who are really sick cannot be compared to 7% from more widespread testing. If all 7% were tested using the same approach as a few weeks earlier than it would be fine. IMO, to compare them you either need the testing of only the very sick to compare to 11% or more widespread testing a few weeks earlier to compare to 7%. As it stands, 11 apples cannot be compared to 7 oranges.

Well, you can compare, but you have to take the context into consideration. Better to try to understand data than throw it away.

 

[wisr01]

Big whoop.

I have been saying that myself for a very long time so I agree.

 

[RU4Real]

You should check out the show just for the math problems. Super fun

You guys just aren't right in the head. :)

 

[RU-05]

Murphy now creating a "restarting advisory committee" with hundreds of people involved that will inform his 21 person Reopening Commission. The Restarting advisory committee will begin videoconferencing on Monday to create the guidelines for reopening to give the to 21 person Reopening Commission.

More than 1 in 9 New Jerseyans are unemployed. Not 1 in 9 working age New Jerseyans. 1 in 9 including children and retirees. I have many friends who filed for benefits in March, and are waiting, broke, and cannot talk to anyone on the phone or get an email answered. While Rome burns, Murphy creates layers of bureaucracy for political cover to justify his delays. Pennsylvania began reopening today, and Connecticut has circled May 20th. New Jersey, despite continued improving numbers, has no date. We have commissions and committees. It is unconscionable at this point.

I think the justification of his delay is that we were the 2nd hardest hit state by this. Sure other states are opening up, and for some of those states it might turn out to be a bad idea, but none of those states were hit anywhere near as hard as NJ has been.

I do think it's very important that we get the economy going, I've been saying that since way early on in this process, but when thousands of people are dying every day from this, I can understand the caution in being too quick to open.

As per while Rome burns part? Trump already covered that ground.

 

[wisr01]

Well, you can compare, but you have to take the context into consideration. Better to try to understand data than throw it away.

Sure, if you can estimate how many of the latest 7% would have been likely to test positive under the previous approach. But you do not have that info so your judgement on 11 v 7 is flawed. To what degree? I do not have access to the two protocols to make an intelligent estimate of how many of the 7% would likely have been tested. If it is say 1/3 then, the comparison is 11% to 2% which would mean something very different than 11 v 7.

 

[T2Kplus10]

It was actual math back then. We shifted to new math when you went to school which is why you think the Earth is cooling, and you want a trophy for thinking so.

Ug, the current new math blows. However, the little one seems to be picking it up fine.

 

[wisr01]

SIAP, but the Rutgers saliva test was approved for at-home use, although they recommend only using it if you have mild (or worse) symptoms. The huge up side is reduced risk to the patient in not having to go somewhere to get a test where there might be infected people, as well as reduced risk to the health care workers who now don't have to take the risk of getting the virus from taking the sample.

The one down side is that turnaround is ~48 hours, so it's possible one could test negative for it, then positive 2 days later, since every PCR style virus test has limited sensitivity and will miss some infections (false negatives), so the PCR test, in general, is much "better" at confirming who has it, since false positives are rare. Personally, if I did the at-home test or any virus test and then developed worse symptoms after getting a negative test, I'd get retested (this is not just an issue for the RU test).

We truly need instant antigen testing though, in order to get somewhere back to normal, i.e., an instant blood test that detects the virus through antigens and not analysis of the viral RNA. This is the kind of test, once we have it, that would allow screening of people for events and travel, restaurants, bars, and such (the highest risk activities).

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/health/fda-coronavirus-spit-test.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rutgerstoday&utm_content=Research & Innovation

“A patient can open the kit, spit into the tube, put the cap back on and ship it back to our lab,” said Dr. Andrew Brooks, chief operating officer and director of technology development at RUCDR. “We bring the test to the patient, instead of the patient to the test.”

The F.D.A. said it still preferred tests based on deep nasal samples, which involve a health professional inserting a long swab up through the nose and into the back of the throat. But even those have had problems. In mid-April, for example, an unnamed team of health providers reported to the F.D.A. that the new Abbott ID Now test failed to detect coronavirus on six patients who were known to have Covid-19.

Rutgers has 75,000 of the saliva test kits ready to ship and can process 20,000 tests each day, with a 48-hour turnaround. Dr. Brooks said he expected other labs around the country to adopt it for their own use.

This is excellent news.

 

[wisr01]

Interesting stuff, wisr. I used to do a lot of that sort of thing as a kid as well. Most mathematicians (high level ones) have similar stories to tell. And now, we try to teach that sort of thinking to kids in schools. It's referred to as "teaching them to think like mathematicians." But it doesn't work very well. Why? Because they aren't mathematicians. They just don't think that way.

Plus, to me it is questionable whether you would want to teach someone to think like that as it isn't really very necessary in most aspects of life, and it leads to not teaching kids how to actually solve the problems they encounter in real life. Furthermore, for many of the mathematicians I know (I know a lot), I'm surprised that they can find the building in the morning. Good guys, but take them 5 degrees out of their field, and they are pretty much like the rest of society.

I guess I was blessed then, because my whole framework is solving real problems with real solutions. Combine that with a nature that looks for the easiest and cheapest solution.

Using a bazooka would kill the fly in your kitchen quite effective, but a fly swatter is a much better solution to the problem. BTW, that explains my fascination with HCQ. An existing drug that costs pennies per dose and in-vitro suggests it might be useful against Covid19. But both sides are working against a simple evaluation of HCQ, i.e., 1) MSM and folks who resent Trump (he should have never said anything) and 2)Big Pharma because they can't make money on the fly swatter. Just do a real eval and we can go from there. If it does not help remove it as an option. The motives need to be pure at this point and frankly they are not.

 

[Ridge 22]

Not an accident. I rarely ever mention that I went there. I am a Scarlet Knight and proud of it.

Rutgers undergrad, Seton Hall MBA here. And same thing. Die-hard RU and rarely associate myself with SHU.

 

[Ridge 22]

SIAP, but the Rutgers saliva test was approved for at-home use, although they recommend only using it if you have mild (or worse) symptoms. The huge up side is reduced risk to the patient in not having to go somewhere to get a test where there might be infected people, as well as reduced risk to the health care workers who now don't have to take the risk of getting the virus from taking the sample.

The one down side is that turnaround is ~48 hours, so it's possible one could test negative for it, then positive 2 days later, since every PCR style virus test has limited sensitivity and will miss some infections (false negatives), so the PCR test, in general, is much "better" at confirming who has it, since false positives are rare. Personally, if I did the at-home test or any virus test and then developed worse symptoms after getting a negative test, I'd get retested (this is not just an issue for the RU test).

We truly need instant antigen testing though, in order to get somewhere back to normal, i.e., an instant blood test that detects the virus through antigens and not analysis of the viral RNA. This is the kind of test, once we have it, that would allow screening of people for events and travel, restaurants, bars, and such (the highest risk activities).

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/health/fda-coronavirus-spit-test.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rutgerstoday&utm_content=Research & Innovation

“A patient can open the kit, spit into the tube, put the cap back on and ship it back to our lab,” said Dr. Andrew Brooks, chief operating officer and director of technology development at RUCDR. “We bring the test to the patient, instead of the patient to the test.”

The F.D.A. said it still preferred tests based on deep nasal samples, which involve a health professional inserting a long swab up through the nose and into the back of the throat. But even those have had problems. In mid-April, for example, an unnamed team of health providers reported to the F.D.A. that the new Abbott ID Now test failed to detect coronavirus on six patients who were known to have Covid-19.

Rutgers has 75,000 of the saliva test kits ready to ship and can process 20,000 tests each day, with a 48-hour turnaround. Dr. Brooks said he expected other labs around the country to adopt it for their own use.

How close is anyone to developing an antigen test?

 

[RU-05]

It was actual math back then. We shifted to new math when you went to school which is why you think the Earth is cooling, and you want a trophy for thinking so.

I've been hearing about the new math for years, and while curious, I have not yet given it a good look.

 

[wisr01]

Rutgers undergrad, Seton Hall MBA here. And same thing. Die-hard RU and rarely associate myself with SHU.

Frankly, there is no comparison between the two schools. Rutgers is a top notch education is so many disciplines. The pharma I worked for later told me it was the best kept secret and always sought to hire our grads. I know SHU guys will hate me for saying that but it is based on my life experience. I have the ultimate respect for everyone because I know you got a fantastic education and the fact that you endured the screw and survived means you will be successful in whatever you do.

 

[wisr01]

I've been hearing about the new math for years, and while curious, I have not yet given it a good look.

My dad was a HS math teacher (NCE electrical engineer who got teaching credentials and a Masters from SHU) and he would have not been happy with new math. That is also why I sent my kids to private school through 8th grade that still provided a classical education including mandatory latin, rhetoric, logic, etc.

 

[Wolv RU]

Sure, if you can estimate how many of the latest 7% would have been likely to test positive under the previous approach. But you do not have that info so your judgement on 11 v 7 is flawed. To what degree? I do not have access to the two protocols to make an intelligent estimate of how many of the 7% would likely have been tested. If it is say 1/3 then, the comparison is 11% to 2% which would mean something very different than 11 v 7.

The number of hospitalized with confirmed and suspected covid remains the best single comparison; and also the best way to tell how much capacity there is in the health system at a given time.

 

[wisr01]

The number of hospitalized with confirmed and suspected covid remains the best single comparison; and also the best way to tell how much capacity there is in the health system at a given time.

The first numbers I check everyday after updates along with LTC deaths.