Sets Of 10: Fill & Download for Free

I wasn’t going to answer this one but I left a comment on one of the other answers to this question that apparently touched a nerve, because on another answer of mine that person said:You have a tendency to state your personal opinions as irrefutable fact. And you rarely have sources to support your sometimes spurious claims. You also come across as somewhat of a knowitall (sic). You also debate experts in their field with your own opinion when you lack credentials in that area.This was because I expressed doubt over this person’s claim that 25% of under 25’s could do 10 pull-ups, and 10% of over 25’s (in no way rudely, I’d like to clarify). I already wrote an essay of a comment giving my response so I might as well make it an answer now.Yes, I’m petty. And no, barely anyone can do 10 pull-ups.I’m going to use the USA for an example. Here’s a source for gym memberships: Gym memberships in the U.S. 2000-2017 | Statista which states that (in 2017) there were around 60 million gym memberships. The US population was over 325 million (in 2017) so it’s slightly less than 20% of the population. And this is memberships. I’ve worked at a gym and I can tell you that plenty of those sub-20% won’t be attending regularly.Of course, there could be people who do calisthenics workouts and can do 10 pull-ups but don’t have a gym membership, but it’s safe to assume they’re a tiny minority. (Edit- also the military, but that’s also a tiny percentage of the overall population.)Now let’s look at the obesity rate in the US: Obesity in the United States - Wikipedia. The CDC estimates that 3/4 of the American population will likely be overweight or obese by 2020, and the latest figures (from 2015–16) state that almost 40% of US adults and 20% of children/adolescents are obese.It’s safe to assume that obese people will not be doing 10 pull-ups (if it’s going on BMI, perhaps some extremely muscular bodybuilders might classify as obese, but again, this number will be TINY) and most overweight people will also not be able to do 10 pull-ups. There will be a few more somewhat muscular men who are overweight based on BMI (I’m borderline “overweight” at 90 kg and just under 6 foot 2, and can just about do 10 neutral grip pull-ups but most likely not wide grip, palms-out) but not a significant percentage.Already, then, we’ve got a majority of the population being overweight (at least), and an even higher majority of the population not going to the gym, so we can rule out almost all of these people already.Let’s move on to gender. 10 pull-ups for a man is very impressive, but 10 pull-ups for a woman is unbelievably impressive. I’ve never seen a woman do 10 bodyweight pull-ups. Now, I’m not saying there aren’t some crazy impressive women out there who can do, but it’s going to be a tiny minority once again. This isn’t a dig, men just have considerably more muscle mass/upper body strength on average and it’s far more impressive and rare for a woman to be able to do this feat.So, now our pool of potential people who can do 10 pull-ups is (mostly, and ignoring the outliers I mentioned) men who are not overweight or obese, and regularly go to the gym. We can count out excessively skinny people too, because while a low bodyweight is helpful for pull-ups, you need at least a reasonable amount of muscle mass and training for that many reps.Now I’m going to get anecdotal, because I don’t think there’s any way to use stats, but most people at the gym who are in “good shape” still can’t do 10 pull-ups. Having previously worked as a fitness instructor for a little while and trained off-and-on in gyms for the last decade, I have only seen someone do 10 full reps with good form a handful of times. Extremely strong powerlifter/strongman types might be able to lift a shit ton of weight but you don’t see them cranking out sets of 10. It’s usually the lighter, leaner types, but only the ones who have practised a lot. Skinny people with not much muscle mass can’t crank out high reps either usually.So… the main group of people who can do 10 pull-ups are lean, muscular (but not too muscular) adult men (almost always) who work out regularly and train pull-ups consistently. That is not a large percentage of the population. (Adolescents, while less likely to be overweight, are also less likely to have done any resistance training, and it’s impossible for them to have done as many years of training as some adults.)I think this gives a pretty good indication that the other person’s 25% of under 25-year-olds and 10% of over 25-year-olds suggestion is WAY too high.I would legitimately be surprised if 1 in 50 people could do 10 pull-ups with proper form (being generous, could well be fewer).I hope that if the expert in their field who also answered this question reads this they will rethink how spurious my claims were.Or maybe I just wasted far too much time proving one person wrong on the internet, who may or may not read this.No regrets. Maybe the know-it-all part wasn’t so far off the mark, though.Oh and just to clarify, this is what I’m defining as a pull-up:

Why were some scientists convinced for years that we would see a worldwide coronavirus pandemic, even though there hadn’t been one before?The premise of the question is slightly incorrect so let’s first address that. Infectious disease epidemiologists and public health folks have certainly been convinced that we would eventually see a pandemic such as the one we are observing right now, but nobody knew precisely which virus might be the causative agent, its severity, and, more importantly, when the pandemic would occur. At the same time, large-scale epidemics occur periodically, so it’s like when an earthquake occurs in an earthquake-prone area; the threat is always there and it’s only a matter of time.Given our experience with previous pandemics, the most likely candidates for a serious pandemic were always going to be respiratory viruses. Yes, I know about the HIV pandemic; but it has been a slow-burning epidemic going on 40 years. Moreover, HIV is not contracted in a casual setting; you do not contract HIV by shaking someone’s hand or by spending several minutes in their close proximity. With SARS-CoV-2 we’re talking about a virus that has spread to nearly 25 million confirmed cases in 8 months, with 800,000 confirmed deaths. And we know that this is a greatly underreported number because many people never got the confirmatory test.While a coronavirus pandemic was always a possibility, most experts thought that the most likely scenario for a modern pandemic would be a new variant of the Influenza A virus because this virus has caused three recognized pandemics over the past century (the “Spanish flu” pandemic of 1918; the “Asian flu” pandemic of 1957, and the “Hong Kong flu” pandemic of 1968) as well as several other near-pandemics in 1946, 1976, and 1977 (Influenza Pandemics of the 20th Century). More recently, we had the H1N1 scare, when a novel variant of the H1N1 flu strain circulated in North America. From April of ‘09 to April of ‘10, CDC estimated there were some 60 million cases, some 275K hospitalizations, and over 12,000 deaths.That being said, everyone knew that a virus would have to have several features in order to rise to a pandemic-level:A high rate of transmissionA low infectious doseA mode of transmission that would facilitate exposure through casual contactA long incubation period during which the infected person could be infectiousA low rate of physical incapacitation during the incubation periodA significant rate of medical complications or a high case fatality rateNumbers 1–5 all have an effect on the number of people that end up becoming infected, with Numbers 1–3 relating to a virus’ ability to be efficiently transmitted, and Numbers 4 and 5 relating to the number of people that can be infected/infectious and can go about and mix with the uninfected/susceptible population. Number 6 impacts the effects of the virus on the world’s population and on its medical systems.All of these various attributes, to a certain extent, could be used to describe SARS-CoV-2. Of course, there are other viruses that have higher transmissibility, or lower infectious dose, or a higher rate of complications or fatalities, etc. But the point is that this virus does all of these things to some significant extent — or at the very least, to an extent that has a significant public health impact. So it was a bit of a “perfect storm”.No previous coronavirus has had the right combination of attributes in order to rise to a pandemic level. Both SARS and MERS had high fatality rates but ultimately did not infect that many people worldwide. SARS infected 8,000 people, killing roughly 800. For MERS, between 2012 and 2019, roughly 2,500 people have been diagnosed, resulting in some 900 deaths. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 has infected 24 million people and killed 800,000 in 8 months. So, these close relatives of SARS-CoV-2 represented a lesser risk because of the lower risk of transmission. With SARS, most infections occurred in a healthcare setting and among healthcare workers that were not aware of the risk of infection. Moreover, both SARS and MERS were highly incapacitating, with infected people showing severe symptomology and often requiring hospitalization. This means that an infected individual is less likely to be in contact with the general population on account of the severe symptoms. So the only reason that a coronavirus was ever considered as a potential pandemic threat was the possibility of novel coronavirus with emergent features such as the ones I mentioned above (i.e. if a coronavirus such as SARS or MERS were more transmissible, less debilitating, etc.).When all of the books are written, my sense is that the most important driver for this pandemic has been the high rate of new infections associated with transmission events involving people with no apparent symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 leads to a high rate (40–45%) of asymptomatic infections and these people represent a massive pool of seemingly uninfected individuals that are perfectly capable of transmitting the virus. Moreover, among the people that will eventually become symptomatic, people are most infectious in the 1–2 days prior to the development of outward symptoms. Taken together, this means that a good proportion of all transmission events occur when an infected person without symptoms passes the virus to a susceptible individual. Moreover, this virus produces a wide spectrum of outcomes, from no symptoms and no apparent adverse effects to mild symptoms to severe symptoms including death. This has made the virus much more difficult to contain, especially because the more severe outcomes are disproportionately observed among those at the top of the age pyramid, those that have a range of comorbidities (obesity, heart disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes, …), and those that are subject to other health inequities (e.g. persons of color, people of limited financial means, …) and that are more likely to have the underlying risk factors for a poor prognosis.Importantly, this pandemic is currently being driven by people with lower risk factors that are not as motivated to take the measures necessary to avoid getting infected and/or to infect others. These people can, therefore, act as a major reservoir for the virus from which it can spread to others.TL;DR: a coronavirus was one of several possible pandemic-level viruses but it was not the leading contender. It is not the most infectious, nor the most lethal, but its ability to spread to people that show no symptoms of infection while leading to severe outcomes in others has helped to fuel it to a pandemic level. Six months into the pandemic, we know what needs to be done in order to reduce the spread: wear a facemask, avoid indoor crowds, practice physical distancing at all times, avoid getting together with people from multiple households, practice excellent hand hygiene. This shouldn’t be rocket science. Stay safe!!!ps. Added on 2020–08–26: CDC is now recommending that persons that have been in close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 no longer need to be tested unless they have underlying risk factors or they show symptoms of infection. Now, I mentioned above the whole issue of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission. If you reserve testing to only those people that show symptoms, not only are you missing the opportunity to detect people that are pre-symptomatic and infectious but that large pool of infected individuals that will never show any symptoms. If these people aren’t detected, they can spread the virus far and wide. WTF, CDC? this new direction is completely puzzling and goes against everything we have learned about this virus. I am utterly shocked and dismayed. Plus, the number of cases is the wrong metric anyway. The numbers that really matter are the numbers of COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths. Those aren’t going to miraculously disappear just because there are fewer confirmed cases. Not unless you also stop testing people who show up at the hospital in respiratory distress. The CDC is being undermined from the top. Very sad.

The median is the point that minimizes the expected distance to any data point.Let's say that you're at a linear city where are seven buildings, located at points 1, 2, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30. Each one has an equal chance of conflagration.Where should you place the fire station?To minimize the expected time to get to a fire, build at the median (5).*To minimize the expected damage done to the structure while in transit, build at the mean (10).*To minimize the proportion of time that you can't get to the fire instantly, build at the mode (2).* Assumptions: Damage done to a structure is proportional to the square of the time taken to travel. Fire truck travels at constant speed so time is proportional to distance.Mean, Median, and Mode are all measures of central tendency that minimize some sort of distance metric.The mean minimizes the L2 norm (squared distance), the median minimizes the L1 norm (distance), and the mode minimizes the L0 norm (0-1 loss).Colloquially, half of the data is above the median and half of the data is below the median. Formally, if [math]X[/math] is your random variable/dataset, then the median [math]med(X)[/math] is the point such that [math]P(X \leq med(X)) \geq .5[/math] and [math]P(X \geq med(X)) \geq .5[/math].Note that sometimes a set of points can satisfy the definition of median. In that case, by convention we take the middle point of the set. E.g. the median of 1, 2, 3, 4 is 2.5 by this convention.The median is useful when the mean just won't doWhen the distribution you're looking at is symmetrical, the mean and median will be the same and both of them will capture an intuitive notion of "middle". However, when the distribution is skewed, the the mean and the median no longer are the same data point!Source - CDC - Course SS1978 - Lesson 2 OverviewThe mean is the default measure of central tendency, but one main problem is that it can be overly influenced by outliers. This is why distributions like household income or average house value is usually summarized by the median rather than the mean.The mean household income in 2004 was 60.5k, while the median household income was 43.3k. The median household income is more representative of an intuitive notion of the "middle" house, whereas the mean income is much higher than the "middle" household since it includes the incomes of people making 7 figures and more. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Mean_income)