はてなキーワード: team mとは
1 Most of what I'm about to write is no different from what I've said and done in the past. However, I have been asked the same question repeatedly, so I would like to reiterate it. We have received many inquiries from overseas as well, so we should have prepared the same content in English, but due to time constraints, I'm afraid I'll have to skip it. This article is designed to be read without basic knowledge of infectious diseases and jargon, but it is rather difficult to understand. Please forgive me for that.
2 The fact that the number of COVID-19 reports in Japan is very low compared to other countries is attracting attention from home and abroad. Is it true? It has been pointed out that the number of tests is so small that we may be misreading the actual number of infected people.
3 However, this point is wrong at various layers. In the first place, Japan does not aim to capture all the numbers of COVID-19. Whether it's administrative testing or insured care, the state basically has a testing strategy in mind to diagnose, hospitalize, and isolate critically ill patients who need to be hospitalized. It is natural that they "haven't figured it out" and they don't intend to. That's not a bad thing.In fact, the situation is the same in every country, large or small, and no country, whether in the United States, Europe, or Asia, is aiming to "capture the whole number.
The WHO is not asking for such a thing. But instead, Japan gives PCR to asymptomatic returnees and isolates asymptomatic test-positive people in hospital (wasn't it home for people with minor illnesses?). It has not been coherent in its principles. So, people get anxious because "we're not sure what they want to do". It's a failure in the press.
4 The difference between Korea and Japan is the "result" and not the "purpose". In South Korea, where the number of infected people had surged in one place, we had to focus on inspections in and around the area. If such a phenomenon (let's call it an overshoot) occurs in Japan, the number of inspections will increase. When the situation is different, arguing only on the basis of the number of tests without observing the situation is like trying to say, "That team made 50 sliding tackles while this team made only one," without watching a football game. In games where you don't have to slide (e.g., when you're in possession the whole time), even 0 times isn't a "mistake," and of course 50 times isn't a mistake.
There are many diseases for which the total number of patients is not known. In Japan, we do not have a "total" number of influenza cases, but only a fixed-point observation. Because that's enough information, both epidemiologically and in terms of infection control. There is no accurate data on how many cases of the common cold occur each year in Japan. It's also a mistake to say that you can tell by looking at the receipt data, because many cold patients (like me) don't see a doctor and wait until they are cured naturally. Not only in medicine, but also in economics and political science, data are mostly based on sampling to estimate population numbers, and "whole numbers" is an inefficient way of grasping the situation.
6 We have not seen the devastation in Japan as in Italy, Spain or New York City. There is no medical collapse in a critically ill patient, no use of the operating room as an ICU, no piling up of bodies on a skating rink with no place to put them. Even if the "numbers" are not known, it is a fact that the current situation in Japan (including Tokyo) is much better controlled than in other countries.
7 Even so, you may be interested in "Well, what about the actual situation? There are estimates. For example, Dr. Hiroshi Nishiura and his group estimate that the number of mild illnesses in Japan may be twice the reported number. The catch rate is 0.44, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.37-0.50.
8 Although the study was based on data from China, there is no guarantee that the Chinese COVID-19 demographic is the same as the Japanese one. Also, since the original study did not include asymptomatic patients or those with minor illnesses that did not require hospitalization, the number of infected patients estimated on that basis would inevitably be an underestimate. If you are more paranoid, it's not unreasonable to believe that "the Japanese and Chinese viruses are different because of the mutation" (although I don't think so).
9 This does not diminish the value of the paper itself. The model must always use existing parameters, and it is often impossible to prove the external validity of these parameters. If the underlying parameters are not reasonable, the predictions will not be correct. A model assumes a simplified world insofar as it is a model. A model without simplification, which is an adjectival contradiction.
To complain about these "assumptions" of the mathematical model is like complaining, for example, "You can't explain disease B," when a randomized controlled trial is conducted for disease A. This is a meaningless tirade against the honor of the industry.
A mathematical model that assumes a certain hypothesis should have internal academic validity, but it is the responsibility of the reader, as a resident of the real world, to appraise it in the real world.
Just as the RCT findings for disease A should not be used for disease B, it is natural to understand the limitations of the mathematical model and to be careful when applying it to the real world. For example, it would be wrong to read the paper and conclude that the total number of infected people in Tokyo is about 500 as of March 26.
11 People make mistakes. The models are also wrong. Being wrong is not a big deal. The problem is to notice your mistakes and make corrections. Already, a group at Imperial College London has admitted that its original estimate that the peak of the infection should be moderated was "wrong" and has revised its prediction that the ICU will soon fail if it does not fight the virus fairly aggressively.
My few interactions with Jeffrey Epstein came at the request of Joi Ito, for the purposes of fundraising for the MIT Media Lab. Prior to these interactions, I was told by Joi that Epstein had cleared the MIT vetting process, which was the basis for my participation. My last interaction with Epstein was in 2015. Still, by agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice. For this, I am deeply regretful.
In an e-mail to the Globe sent after the meeting, Negroponte said he told Ito that “he should” take Epstein’s contribution, and “I would say that again based on what we knew at the time. . . . “Epstein is an extreme case. But then do you take Koch money? Do you take Huawei money? And on and on?” Negroponte said.
I had known of Joi’s contact with Epstein since about the beginning. He had reached out to me to discuss it. We are friends (Joi and I), and he knew I would be upset by his working with a pedophile.
Joi believed that he did not. He believed Epstein was terrified after the prosecution in 2011. He believed he had come to recognize that he would lose everything. He believed that whatever else he was, he was brilliant enough to understand the devastation to him of losing everything. He believed that he was a criminal who had stopped his crime. And nothing in his experience with Epstein contradicted this belief.
エプスタインはもう虐待者ではないと Joi は信じていた。エプスタインは2011年に起訴された後、恐怖に襲われている、と伊藤穣一は信じていた。エプスタインはすべてを失うことになるのを認識するに至ったと伊藤穣一は信じていた。いずれにせよ、エプスタインはすべてを失うという絶望を理解する十分な知性があると、伊藤穣一は信じていた。エプスタインはもう犯罪を犯さない犯罪者だと、伊藤穣一は信じていた。伊藤穣一はエプスタインに会って、その信念に矛盾することを何も感じなかった。
IF you are going to take type 3 money, then you should only take it anonymously. . . . Good for them, for here, too, transparency would be evil.
Sure, it wasn’t blood money, and sure, because anonymous, the gift wasn’t used to burnish Epstein’s reputation.
I know that Farrow’s article is crafted to draw the following sentence into doubt: Everything Joi did in accepting Epstein’s money he did with MIT’s approval. I trust the MIT review will confirm it (yes, I remain exactly that naive). So why is he resigning, rather than others in the administration?
And if Ito must go because Epstein’s wealth was accepted anonymously, who else should go because of blood money accepted openly? Will the planet have an equal advocate who demands justice for the Koch money? Or the victims of opioid abuse for the Sackler money?
So put the parts together: The MediaLab accepted an anonymous contribution from Epstein through the help and direction of Joi. The Lab did not (as “Professor Anonymous” wrote to me, his outrage apparently blinding him to irony) “help reputation-launder a convicted sex offender.” It would have, had it not be anonymous; but that’s the point about it being anonymous.
Peter Cohen, a former director of development and strategy, said in a statement that when he joined the Media Lab in 2014, it already had established procedures for handling Epstein’s contributions. Cohen said he understood that those policies were “authorized by and implemented with the full knowledge of MIT central administration.”
Second, it is now clear that senior members of the administration were aware of gifts the Media Lab received between 2013 and 2017 from Jeffrey Epstein’s foundations. Goodwin Procter has found that in 2013, when members of my senior team learned that the Media Lab had received the first of the Epstein gifts, they reached out to speak with Joi Ito. He asked for permission to retain this initial gift, and members of my senior team allowed it. They knew in general terms about Epstein’s history – that he had been convicted and had served a sentence and that Joi believed that he had stopped his criminal behavior. They accepted Joi’s assessment of the situation. Of course they did not know what we all know about Epstein now.
Joi sought the gifts for general research purposes, such as supporting lab scientists and buying equipment. Because the members of my team involved believed it was important that Epstein not use gifts to MIT for publicity or to enhance his own reputation, they asked Joi to agree to make clear to Epstein that he could not put his name on them publicly. These guidelines were provided to and apparently followed by the Media Lab.
Information shared with us last night also indicates that Epstein gifts were discussed at at least one of MIT’s regular senior team meetings, and I was present.
I am aware that we could and should have asked more questions about Jeffrey Epstein and about his interactions with Joi. We did not see through the limited facts we had, and we did not take time to understand the gravity of Epstein’s offenses or the harm to his young victims. I take responsibility for those errors.
Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com Online Customer Care. We’re sorry to see that you’re considering canceling your digital subscription. An Account Management Specialist will need to speak with you to assist with your request. We hope you’ll reconsider and call us at 1-877-698-5635 to reach a member of our Account Management Team. We are available to assist you from 7:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday-Friday or 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday & Sunday (ET). Please reference this email when speaking with our Account Management team. If you prefer, we can call you. Please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org and provide your phone number and the best time to call you (including time zone). An Account Management team member will contact you to validate and process your request.
Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com. We have contacted our officers to contact you at the number provided. Do let us know if you need any additional assistance and we'll be happy to help. If there is anything else we can do to help you, please e-mail us at email@example.com or call us at 1-800-591-9233 from 6 a.m. to midnight Monday-Friday and 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday & Sunday (ET). Your satisfaction is very important to us and we thank you for your business.
Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com. We’re sorry to see that you’re considering canceling your digital subscription. An Account Management Specialist will need to speak with you to assist with your request. We hope you’ll reconsider and accept our offer to continue your digital subscription and save 50% off for the next 26 weeks.
Please call us at 1-877-698-5635 to reach a member of our Account Management Team. We are available to assist you from 7:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday-Friday or 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday & Sunday (ET). Please reference this email when speaking with our Account Management team.
This email confirms the cancellation of your New York Times subscription. We're sorry to see you go and hope we may be able to serve you again in the future. We would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback regarding your experience as a subscriber. Would you take a moment to fill out a short survey?