Good morning,
I am due to fly out to the USA at the end of next week. Two weeks ago, in line with the government guidelines at the time, I booked a witnessed (via e-consult) antigen test pre-flight and a witnessed Day 2 antigen test, which was all correct and easy to book. With a discount code, £27 per person for each test? Not bad.
This is the point to note that the conditions of sale for the Day 2 test is that it is non-refundable ( I guess it is to stop people from booking a test for the locator form and then cancelling). There is no mention of the pre-flight test being non-refundable.
As of the 30th November, the guidelines have changed. In response, the company have issued a blanket email stating that we can upgrade our day 2 antigen tests for only £(Insert full price for PCR test - £5). They also automatically cancelled the Day 2 appointments that were originally booked.
Due to the lead time for their PCR test being 48 hours from receipt of the test (which would be the day after posting), I opted to choose to pay for a private PCR test at a local private clinic for only £1 more than the first company's upgrade cost was. I proceeded to email the company to inform them that I am going to opt not to upgrade my day 2 antigen test due to lead time issues but would like to confirm that my pre-flight antigen test consultation was still going ahead. I received no response to this.
This morning, at 00:30, I received a standalone email from the company, cancelling my pre-flight appointment and offering me the opportunity to re-book the appointment for £17 per person. Coincidentally this would bring the total cost per person to the price before discount. There is no explanation for the cancellation. They are not responding to phone calls (No operators are available. Please send us an email. Click), nor are they responding to emails.
What recourse do I have? They are taking the biscuit, especially being a "trusted and reputed" company. My feeling would be to go through a chargeback with them, but I feel bad because the original Day 2 test is supposed to be non-refundable.
EDIT: I'm in England,
Current Banners:
Chance to obtain a specific 5★ focus unit, assuming there are 4 focus units in a banner: 0.75%
Chance to obtain a specific non-focus 5★ unit: 0.03%
Chances to obtain a specific 4★ unit: 0.54%
Chances to obtain a specific 3★ unit: 0.37%
Chances to obtain a specific unit in both the 3★ and 4★ pool: 0.91%
Post-Update Banners:
Chance to obtain a specific 5★ focus unit, assuming there are 4 focus units in a banner: 0.75%
Chance to obtain a specific non-focus 5★ unit: 0.05%
Chances to obtain a specific 4★ unit: 0.54%
Chances to obtain a specific 3★ unit: 0.33%
Chances to obtain a specific unit in both the 3★ and 4★ pool: 0.87%
Day 1 Probabilities:
(This was before the reversal of 4★ and 3★ chances.)
Chance to obtain a specific 5★ focus unit, assuming there are 4 focus units in a banner: 0.75%
Chance to obtain a specific non-focus 5★ unit: 0.06%
Chances to obtain a specific 4★ unit: 0.48%
Chances to obtain a specific 3★ unit: 1.18%
I have a dataset I am trying to analyse from a professional development intervention. I have 199 pre-test participants (18 questions, 4pt Likert) and 72 post-test participants. Participants are anonymised, so I can't pair up the data. I have done an independent samples t-test to compare the pre and post Likert scores and found significant results.
Now I want to compare pre and post, but with other categories as a grouping variable in SPSS. For example, I want to compare male and female pre scores with male and female post scores, I can't use a t-test as that will combine pre and post scores together and just split between gender.
Would a 2-way ANOVA or ANCOVA be the correct way to go?
Thanks.
So I took my first probability test this morning. Was told by the teacher it would be very straightforward and borrow heavily from the homeworks.
First problem had the exact questions from our first homework. Solved it with ease.
Second one however, was not. I'm sure I bombed it.
In it, we are given a set of all possible outcomes: S = {a, b, c, d, e}
p[a] = p[b], and p[c] = p[d] = p[e]
There were 3 events. A = {a, b, d}, B = {b, c, d, e}, C = {b, e}.
P[A] = 5/9, P[B] = 5/6, P[C] = 7/18
The first problem asked to find P[a] and P[c]. To do this, I used events A and C. expressed P[A] as p[a]^2 p[c], and P[C] as P[a]P[c], assuming they were independent events. On solving, I got P[a] = 10/7, P[c] = 49/180. Then, to check to see if they were truly independent, I plugged these values in and multiplied them to see if the result was equal to P[B] and P[C]. They were not, so I figured they couldn't be independent.
Second problem I didn't have time to do. I know it required the use of baye's theorem, so I just put that down.
Third problem asked if events A, B, and C were mutually independent. For this I used the results I computed in A, and used the probability of the only common event: b.
If they were independent, P[A intersection B intersection C] would equal P[A]P[B]P[C]. Since the only common term between all events was b, this would mean P[b}^3 would have to equal P[A]P[B]P[C]
two problems, my answer from part a was definitely incorrect, so I couldn't accurately verify this. Then, I couldn't find the proper answer for part a BECAUSE I couldn't verify independence.
It seems like some vital information is missing from the problem. I'd greatly appreciate if someone could explain how the correct answers are found, if I'm wrong
Hey guys! so, I sat for REG today and I had a couple of MCQs and 1 SIM that I had to 100% guess on because I had never seen that information on becker, it was extremely specific and nothing could've prepared me for them because again, I had not read about them. Is there are high possibility that maybe those could've been the pre-test questions/SIM?
I am a 49 year old male with chronic fatigue syndrome. I haven't had blood work in two years. My previous test was pre kratom and my new results are after taking kratom, approximately 33 grams per day, for the last 9 months. Previous I was pre diabetic and I had a fatty liver. New results were not pre diabetic and no issues with my liver! All results are now in the normal range! Not only does Kratom help me with pain, it definitely has not effected my liver! I was VERY pleased with my results and thought I would share with everyone here who might wonder!
Yeah for great blood work!
https://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124
I was reading the article above about the man with 44 chromosomes. For the sake of conversation, I'm going to assume this article's guess is correct that the probability of a human having this mutation is 1-in-7 billion and also assume it would be similar for other primates mutating from 48 chromosomes to 46.
If this were true, then if I'm correct, the probability of two non-human primates mating with each other, while each possessing a mutation for 46 chromosomes instead of 48, is one in [7 billion x 7 billion = 49 sextrillion].
Even assuming a large population of pre-human primates frequently mating over the course of 55 million years, its difficult to imagine these primates beating 1-in-49,000,000,000,000,000,000 odds even after billions of iterations.
Even when I assume a higher probability for this mutation, like 1-in-1 billion instead of 1-in-7 billion, I get astronomically small probabilities for this kind of thing. Am I missing something?
We're in a bit of a football lull, so let's make broad predictions about how next season will go!
If you fill out this Google Form with your predictions, I'll compile them all to give the subreddit's overall predictions in a day or two.
For discussion purposes, post your predictions on the probability that we win each game next year as a comment. You can copy the text below (and replace "<enter decimal number>" with the probability). Put that in your comment and it'll format it in a nice table.
|Opponent |Win Chance
|:- |:-
|Charleston Southern |<enter decimal number>
|Kentucky |<enter decimal number>
|Colorado State |<enter decimal number>
|Tennessee |<enter decimal number>
|Mississippi State |<enter decimal number>
|LSU |<enter decimal number>
|Vanderbilt |<enter decimal number>
|Georgia |<enter decimal number>
|Missouri |<enter decimal number>
|South Carolina |<enter decimal number>
|Idaho |<enter decimal number>
|FSU |<enter decimal number>
My rough predictions:
| Opponent | Win Chance |
|---|---|
| Charleston Southern | 0.99 |
| Kentucky | 0.85 |
| Colorado State | 0.9 |
| Tennessee | 0.65 |
| Mississippi State | 0.55 |
| LSU | 0.5 |
| Vanderbilt | 0.9 |
| Georgia | 0.4 |
| Missouri | 0.55 |
| South Carolina | 0.55 |
| Idaho | 0.99 |
| FSU | 0.4 |
I made an Excel tool that takes individual game probabilities and calculates overall record predictions. Based on my set of probabilities, here's the distribution of likely records:
| Record | % Chance | 1-in- chance | At least ___ wins | % Chance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-12 | 0% | 1,200,000,000 | 0 | 100% | ||
| 1-11 | 0% | 5,100,000 | 1 | 100% | ||
| 2-10 | 0% | 71,000 | 2 | 100% | ||
| 3-9 | 0.03% | 3,000 | 3 | 100% | ||
| 4-8 | 0.38% | 260 | 4 | 99.97% | ||
| 5-7 | 2.32% | 43 | 5 | 99.59% | ||
| 6-6 | 8.4% | 12 | 6 | 97.26% | ||
| 7-5 | 18.83% | 5 | 7 | 88.86% | ||
| 8-4 | 26.89% | 4 | 8 | 70.03% | ||
| 9-3 | 24.49% | 4 | 9 | 43.14% | ||
| 10-2 | 13.74% | 7 | 10 | 18.65% | ||
| 11-1 | 4.33% | 23 | 11 | 4.91% | ||
| 12-0 | 0.58% | 170 | 12 | 0.58% |
Our expected record based on these probabilities is 8.23 wins and 3.77 losses. We have a 18.65% chance of reaching double-digit wins, and a 97.26% chance of getting six wins and being bowl eligible. There is a roughly one-in-170 chance that we have an undefeated regular season, which is a probability of about 0.58%. The most likely
... keep reading on reddit ➡
TL/DR: I have to stop Keto ASAP or I am (apparently) at a great risk of heart disease.
SO I felt rather great on Keto. More mental energy, tasted delicious, and I certainly lost weight (I am only 13.3 % bodyfat so this was not a goal). I have since bought the hype, and even recommended it to others.
HOWEVER, I think the diet will kill me long term. Below, please find my blood lipid panel numbers before and after Keto.
Please ask if you want me to indicate other indicators. But I will say this, all other markers were “about the same” with these notable exceptions:
Inflammation group went UP.
Cortisol went down, but to far….(to moderate risk from 6.6 – 4.7)
Iron and B vitamins went Up (makes sense more meat)
Testosterone went up only slightly, not very notable.
Interestingly, magnesium went down for what it is worth.
HOWEVER here is what we came to see......My Lipid profile numbers all shown in mg/dL.. Eating Keto without question put me into "high risk" on multiple categories, and bumped from normal to moderate risk in 2 others.
NOTE: THESE BLOOD DRAWS ARE ONLY 37 DAYS APART!
For those who understand the cholesterol controversies, please feel free to comment. Need some serious knowledge dropped on me.
| LIPID | PRE-KETO Draw | POST-KETO Draw |
|---|---|---|
| Total Cholesterol | 194 | 260 (high risk) |
| HDL (good) | 75 | 66 |
| LDL (bad) | 103 (moderate risk) | 167 (high risk) |
| Triglycerides | 70 | 132 |
| Non-HDL Cholesterol | 119 | 194 (high risk) |
| Total: HDL Ratio | 2.6 | 3.94 (moderate risk) |
| Trig: HDL Ratio | .93 | 2 (moderate risk) |
Hello, for my thesis I'm trying to find if there is a difference in learning between two different teaching methods. Subjects are randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups of which one group uses one teaching method and the other group uses another teaching method. There are 3 phases:
- In the pre-test the subjects first have to answer a multiple-choice test (12 questions with 4 possible answers of which only 1 is correct), to test their initial knowledge.
- Then they are taught about the subject using the assigned method.
- In the post-test they make a multiple-choice test again, to see how much they improved.
I am trying to find if one teaching method results in a better improvement of the test scores compared to the other teaching method. With what statistical test can I best analyze the data? Does a t-test that compares the pre- and post-test difference between the two group make any sense here?
Wednesday is payday and I was going in with a set amount of money to buy shares so the lower it goes the more I can add to my position.
I averaged up from my January position then down from $70. Gonna bring that average down even lower. Been buying a few here and there throughout the year but blew my major load in the beginning and now again with my holiday bonus.
Thanks "smart money"!
I'm wondering about the details/interpretation of the marijuana laws and regulations for a sales rep position for a liquor & wine distributor. Generally, the pre-employment stuff includes a background check, DRUG TEST/physical, and finger prints, as well as applying for a solicitor's license and joining a union ((Coincidentally, that union also represents the cannabis workers)).
I am specifically curious about how to interpret the emploee protections, now that it's recreationally legal. An article I read stated the following:
"While the sale of cannabis will likely not become legal until sometime in 2022, individuals aged 21 and over are immediately permitted to use cannabis without violating New York State law. In addition to legalizing the use of cannabis, the Act permits adults aged 21 and over to possess, display, purchase, obtain, or transfer without compensation, up to three (3) ounces of cannabis or twenty-four (24) grams of concentrated cannabis (i.e., like an oil).
Effective immediately, the Act also institutes employment protections for cannabis users. Section 201-d of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) has long prohibited New York employers from discriminating against an employee based upon the employee’s lawful outside, off-duty work activities. The Act amends this Section of the NYLL to expressly include the use of “cannabis in accordance with state law” as a lawful outside work activity. Therefore, except as described below, the Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based solely on the employee’s legal use or possession of cannabis products while off duty and outside of the workplace. The Act also provides a private right of action for employees to sue their employers for any alleged violation of the law. Due to the above non-discrimination obligation, New York employers will not be able to make any hiring decision based upon a positive cannabis drug test. While the Act does not prohibit drug testing for cannabis, employers cannot reject an applicant based solely on the positive cannabis test results"
I interpreted this as "If you don't do other drugs, you're good." I don't have the info on company policies, so I don't know if there are federal regulations for that industry.
Thanks in advance!!
The imposter wins ~75% of the time because there are 4 choices and only one answer is its own.
Hello,
My organization created Pre and Post surveys. The Pre surveys were distributed before training and the post surveys were distributed post training. The Pre and Post were labeled with a unique number allowing us to match them to the one specific participant. I.E. We know how the same person answered before the training and after the training. The survey is a ranking scale from (1 to 5) ex. how familiar are you with this training subject? where 1 is not likely and 5 is very likely.
Using excel I created three columns of "participant" "pre score" and "post score." I then clicked data analysis "data analysis" then "t-Test: Paired two sample for means"
In the "variable 1 range" i put my "pre scores" column In the "variable 2 range" i put my "post scores" column
I did not input anything for "hypothesized mean difference"
and "alpha" is .05
My results were very confusing see below:
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 42 t Stat -9.89036677 P(T<=t) one-tail 7.78843E-13 t Critical one-tail 1.681952357 P(T<=t) two-tail 1.55769E-12 t Critical two-tail 2.018081703
I have a few questions that i'm hoping you can help with.
*item 1 Did I use the correct statistical test? (I saw on this subreddit, that sometimes organizations don't care for the statistical significance of training, but would rather see the difference in before and after. if so how do I calculate for the difference?)
*item 2 Did I do it correctly?
*item 3 Why are my scores showing that there is no effect?
*Item 4 Any more advice? or Thoughts?
Apologies if I made a mistake, I'm new to Reddit.
I don't know what to do anymore. Maybe I am not as smart as I thought I was. I took my first pre-study Next Step diagnostics test over 3 months ago and I got a 488. I was fine with it because I had not started studying and I took most of my pre-requisites almost 4 years ago. My test is coming up on April 28, and I am half way through content review. I have been doing chapter based practices all these while, but I wanted to begin full lengths so I decided to take another Next step diagnostics first, just to gauge my improvement. I never reviewed the first diagnostics I took it, so none of the questions were familiar to me. I just finished the diagnostics and I got 489; just 1% overall improvement. I had slight improvements in CARS, but no improvement in biological and physical sections. In fact, I even did worse in psychology. I am so crushed and depressed right now that I can't even bring myself to study anymore. I am self-studying with the kaplan books, and I have been doing good with their practice questions, except for the physics which I sometimes struggle with. Right now, I've lost all faith in my studying techniques and we can't afford to pay for an MCAT tutor or class. Please guys, I desperately need this. I have invested so much time, effort, and the little money I have into this exam preparation to give up now. Please tell me if this is fairly normal, or what I can do to fix this. I am desperate. Thank you for your help
Current Banners:
Chance to obtain a specific 5★ focus unit, assuming there are 4 focus units in a banner: 0.75%
Chance to obtain a specific non-focus 5★ unit: 0.03%
Chances to obtain a specific 4★ unit: 0.54%
Chances to obtain a specific 3★ unit: 0.37%
Chances to obtain a specific unit in both the 3★ and 4★ pool: 0.91%
Post-Update Banners:
Chance to obtain a specific 5★ focus unit, assuming there are 4 focus units in a banner: 0.75%
Chance to obtain a specific non-focus 5★ unit: 0.05%
Chances to obtain a specific 4★ unit: 0.54%
Chances to obtain a specific 3★ unit: 0.33%
Chances to obtain a specific unit in both the 3★ and 4★ pool: 0.87%
Day 1 Probabilities:
(This was before the reversal of 4★ and 3★ chances.)
Chance to obtain a specific 5★ focus unit, assuming there are 4 focus units in a banner: 0.75%
Chance to obtain a specific non-focus 5★ unit: 0.06%
Chances to obtain a specific 4★ unit: 0.48%
Chances to obtain a specific 3★ unit: 1.18%
