Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Makes you wonder for sure" What are we talking about here?
Quoted post unavailable.
Kim Jung Gi has died
81–90 of 220 posts
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Makes you wonder for sure" What are we talking about here?
Quoted post unavailable.
I googled it (plenty of results...) and this was the basic analysis I found:
"The study of teenagers in Thailand following a second COVID-19 vaccination found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect, and that 1 in 301, not 1 in 43, had confirmed myocarditis. A large proportion of purported abnormalities detected by testing were without symptoms, and 100% of the teens in the study fully recovered after 14 days, the authors reported."
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-heart-teens-vaccin...
I'm not knowledgeable enough about anything regarding this subject to make any determinations about if that is being downplayed or misleading. I don't want to pretend like I understand it.
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#83Is it confirmed? I just recommended him to a friend yesterday. I can't believe it.
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was recently taught in first aid class that the survival rate of an out-of-hospital heart attack is about 10-12%. In my first aid course we were taught that the speed in which an AED is applied is the main contributing factor. Giving that most workplaces/homes/restaurants ...etc don't actually have an AED you would normally get one when the ambulance arrives. Someone in the NHS had worked out the graph for distan…
Imagine if there was a meteor shield the company could buy for £250. If they didn't buy it, is your life worth less than £250 to them? You have to divide the cost by the likelihood of a life being saved to find the proxy figure for what that's worth. If there's a 1% chance that an AED will save a life during its useful lifespan, that suggests that they're valuing the life at less than £110000 (assuming a company woul…
The individual likelihood is not 50 years old and in the high risk category which could put them up to 25%.
So given this plus your statement about the £1100 for a brand new one divided by the lifespan which I think is 5-10 years for each £110 per year I would say the value my life The CEO himself was very high risk and had actually been in the hospital recently for a suspected heart attack (a small one that didn't require intervention).
> Imagine if there was a meteor shield the company could buy for £250
The chance of being hit by a meteor is several orders of magnitude smaller than having a heart attack so this comparison is invalid.
A better comparison is being in a car crash and yes if they didn't spend £250 per 5 years to drastically improve my chance of dying in a car crash my life is worthless to them.
The company never listened to me on any of my suggestions so I think they were not listening and just denied my request the same as ever other request of mine they denied. I once asked for a new mouse and they denied that as well some CEOs are just like that.
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I googled it (plenty of results...) and this was the basic analysis I found: "The study of teenagers in Thailand following a second COVID-19 vaccination found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect, and that 1 in 301, not 1 in 43, had confirmed myocarditis. A large proportion of purported abnormalities detected by testing were without symptoms, and 100% of the teens in the study fully…
This Reuters article is disingenuous at best.
They're downplaying the harm by changing the context.
Re: "found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect"
This research found 1:43 harm - because that harm included detection of damage to the heart via blood:
"Troponin blood test - troponin is a protein which is released into the blood stream when the heart muscle is damaged. The troponin level provides a quick and accurate measure of any heart muscle damage. It's used to help in the assessment following suspected heart attack."
Troponin was part of the research - and in 1:43 trooponin was detected post-shot vs. pre-shot.
And 1:301 is still extremely bad, no? Certainly you can make a judgement on that? It is actually harming 1:43 but even harming a heart - which is permanent damage as the heart doesn't heal - 1:301 of harming a young person's heart is completely unacceptable - especially when they're at very little risk of any significant harm, nowhere near 1:301 from COVID itself.
Also, 100% of the teens didn't recover after 14 days: there is permanent heart damage in 1:43.
They also focus on only including myocarditis numbers to make their numbers seem less worse (1:301 is still horrific) - by excluding the case(s) of pericarditis from their numbers.
Notice how Reuters is at the top of Google, and Reuters has routinely misled people to train them of these shallow-narrow talking points - to give them enough narrative to make them think the alarming research was less true than it actually is.
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#86Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#87Heart attack at 47, and he looks reasonably fit too in that linked video from 2019 (age 44).
What to do with this information? I don't know. Maybe work on cardio, stop coffee?.
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if there was a meteor shield the company could buy for £250. If they didn't buy it, is your life worth less than £250 to them? You have to divide the cost by the likelihood of a life being saved to find the proxy figure for what that's worth. If there's a 1% chance that an AED will save a life during its useful lifespan, that suggests that they're valuing the life at less than £110000 (assuming a company woul…
The individual likelihood is not 50 years old and in the high risk category which could put them up to 25%. So given this plus your statement about the £1100 for a brand new one divided by the lifespan which I think is 5-10 years for each £110 per year I would say the value my life The CEO himself was very high risk and had actually been in the hospital recently for a suspected heart attack (a small one that didn't r…
The likelihood is not "10-15% per person" that, during the operational lifespan of any given AED, that someone would have a heart attack at work, be treated by that specific AED, and have that treatment be life-saving. (That was the point of the meteor comparison.)
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. This is the first time I read this quote, but it resonates so well. Does anyone else program this way? I usually sit for a while thinking about the problem, write the program mentally, try out edge cases, sometimes rework the program a few times, then once I feel it's correct I type out all the code, with that phase taking much less time than the "mental work". I'd estimate my usual process is about 90% thought,…
Some writers work this way, mostly famously George Simenon, who was possibly the most prolific writer ever.
Corin Tellado's 4000 romance novels[1] would like a word. For reference, Simenon would be between Asimov and Stine on this list, I think.
Re: Kim Jung Gi has died
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. This is the first time I read this quote, but it resonates so well. Does anyone else program this way? I usually sit for a while thinking about the problem, write the program mentally, try out edge cases, sometimes rework the program a few times, then once I feel it's correct I type out all the code, with that phase taking much less time than the "mental work". I'd estimate my usual process is about 90% thought,…
I'm the complete opposite. I'll think about the issue a little, but I'll just hack on it until it looks (and performs) right. Lots and lots of trial and error. I draw the same way. My sketches are tons and tons of lines in the wrong places that somehow end up looking right, because the majority of the lines are near to or in the right places.
This is how I often program as well. I’ve realized that when you do this it’s crucial to have lots of tests to validate the program’s behavior, because it can easily look right and mostly run right without actually being correct.
Though this only works for the implementation side of things in my experience; you still need a good mental model of roughly what you’re aiming for architecturally, I think.