FACT vs OPINION

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Given research from Pew linked below, I'd suggest your insight and research on this subject is completely non-credible, while normative for certain types of people who get paid to obfuscate (sort of, perhaps, what this thread is about).

https://www.journalism.org/2020/06/2...might-be-true/

You do realize, the chart you provided says nothing about a Hoax.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Speaking of going off things

That’s nice Jack but I’m not against masks or vaccines.

Mike O’Reilly went off the rails when I said I learned from this pandemic that I couldn’t rely on other people protecting me and I took full responsibility for protecting myself.

Imagine my shock.

[Yihang]

well if you half 266,000, US is still third tied with India.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...de-by-country/

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Yihang

well if you half 266,000, US is still third tied with India.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...de-by-country/

A clear misunderstanding of statistics on display.

Ignoring the wildly different testing & recording procedures and if some countries are purposely manipulating the data and how that could affect the rankings....

You do realize, the USA is the 3rd most populous country in the world...so assuming we were dead on average in response, 3rd would be the most likely outcome.

[Yihang]

Thats what I’m asking, are you cool with half? Its cool if 130k dead is fine with you.

Although the excess death graph above indicates more.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So I feel good that if I have diabetes and smoke and am fat and someone hits me with their car then I didn’t die from being hit by their car. I was going to die anyway, I feel so much better now.

You actually have it backwards. The current official numbers would state you died from diabetes, smoking and being overweight...not from the car crash.

Simply having a co-morbidity is not proof it wasn't covid that got you but it's equally disingenuous to claim someone on their death bed who got exposed, died of covid.

It really needs a more nuanced summary than a single number.
- There are a small number of cases where people had covid but it really had nothing to do with their deaths.
- On the other end of the spectrum there are a small number of cases where they were perfectly healthy and there really was no other cause than covid for their deaths.

In the middle we need a breakdown of how much of it was really due to covid. This is not a new issue and there are ways to quantify it. Co-morbidities are good for getting a very high level idea of who's at risk but they really don't tell us if you died from covid, the co-morbidity or some combination:
- If you otherwise healthy and have a minor bit of high blood pressure, a doctor assessing your case, likely would not list high blood pressure as a proximate cause of death.
- If you had stage 4 lung cancer in hospice and were already struggling to breath with no clear change in symptoms due to a positive covid test, a doctor assessing your case would correctly list the cause of death as lung cancer (or complications related to it if you want to be technical)

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

If we can sometimes discern (or infer) human motives, from their actions (or words), does the same actually hold true for physics?....

First, life's tough. If you don't incorporate some model of genetic epistemology into your perspective of human behavior, life is much, much tougher. If you subscribe to tabula rasa and do not full appreciate evolution, you will never recognize that, at times, you're the professor trying to explain to Thurston Howell III that MaryAnn's family is poor because Thurston is a social Darwinist (i.e. relative sociopath), even if Thurston's behavior is socially acceptable.

Believe it or not, people are born with wiring (epistemology) that is minimally reconfigurable via education. It's as though a community of 8 people is like an 8-track tape....no, 8-track LP, everyone turning around in their own groove. In their groove, they are comfortable. Some groves wider than others. But try to change their groove size, get them to look over the edge of their groove and it's literally painful at some level. Really, it's correct to conceptualize "your beliefs end where my feelings begin." This is why one has to "want to believe" something that is uncomfortable...not just because it doesn't feel natural, but they are wired to only feel comfortable in their groove (reference typically intellectual engagement, openness to new experience).

The largess of Western philosophy is linear-thinking made up language, and most all here grew up in it. Western logic is Spock logic, routinely insane. I agree that Gene Roddenbury didn't understand the Heraclitian/stoic version of logic, which is more pattern logic, which is de facto Eastern philosophy. A stoic is not "reserved, emotionless" because they suppress emotions, rather, like Shakespeare, when you see things a million times, it's hard to be emotional....because your brain isn't stimulated so much. You see your place in the universe (i.e. are cosmopolitan aka one with atma or whatever in Eastern philosophy). Comedians, ordinarily higher IQ and metaphorical/pattern logic thinkers arguably become comedians to entertain themselves....as life is otherwise Groundhog's Day...which is what Shakespeare was all about.

So "motives" (~Western philosophy term) of physics. Sagan said that we're the universe describing itself. If you note Zipf/Pareto distributions you perhaps can sort of appreciate that there's some serious stereotypy going on. Largely, with folks in developed countries, I'd opine that people are not clued into this. Too distracted to see their place in the larger order, too drunk with rewards that they believe they obtained on their own, not wired enough to look over the fence, peak behind the curtain, see what's on the other side.

So again motives.....seems like we're tee'd up to watch a show. I suggest that there are no actors with bad motives, just folks who don't know and cannot care when they are on the wrong side of history. Each side, regardless, playing their part. Notably, I'd suggest, some discretion is important in feeding trolls without any apparent intellectual interest in learning, who, from their reference frame, are "helping" the situation (per their wiring) that the more sagacious understand to be historically foolish from any reference frame that has ever existed, or will exist in the next 14 billion years.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Yihang

Thats what I’m asking, are you cool with half? Its cool if 130k dead is fine with you.

Although the excess death graph above indicates more.

Most of which were going to die very soon anyways, yeah I’m cool with it.

I mean I’m not god, not even fauci is god (well don’t tell the folks who worship at the alter of .gov that), people die, it’s part of life, you guys should have watched more nat geo as kids.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Some context is in order.

As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, Dr. Fauci has lasted through six presidents, and has declined multiple requests to lead his agency’s parent organization, the National Institutes of Health. He has led federal efforts to combat diseases caused by emerging viruses, including H.I.V., SARS, the 2009 swine pandemic, MERS, Ebola and now the new coronavirus.

AIDS began as a frightening medical mystery, with clustered outbreaks in California and New York City. Dr. Paul Volberding saw his first AIDS patient on July 1, 1981, although he didn't know it at the time. It took two years until the virus that causes it, HIV, was identified in May 1983. [1]

In an editorial, in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1983, Dr. Fauci wrote [2] (commenting on a study [3] that suggested “that children living in high-risk households are susceptible to AIDS and that sexual contact, drug abuse, or exposure to blood products is not necessary for disease transmission”), that while AIDS transmission had been observed largely as a function of high-risk behaviors, such as homosexual sex, and intravenous drug use, there was still the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, could spread the disease.

Dr. Fauci wrote:

“... “We are witnessing at the present time the evolution of a new disease process of unknown etiology ...
... The finding of AIDS in infants and children who are household contacts of patients with AIDS or persons with risks for AIDS has enormous implications with regard to ultimate transmissibility of this syndrome,” Fauci says. “If routine close contact can spread the disease, AIDS takes on an entirely new dimension,” he adds...” [4]

That hypothesis turned out to be wrong. Fauci himself, in a presentation a year later, acknowledged that no cases of the disease being spread through "casual contact" had yet been detected. [5]

1. ➥ https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-hum...iscovered-hiv/

2. “The Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome The Ever-Broadening Clinical Spectrum” ~ by Anthony S. Fauci
➥ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/386561

3. “Immune Deficiency Syndrome in Children” ~ by James Oleske et al
➥ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/386504

4. ➥ https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/06/u...ting-aids.html
4. ➥

5. ➥ https://www.econlib.org/great-moments-in-epidemiology/

So, as it turns out, your implication that Dr. Fauci didn’t know what he was talking about, when, in 1983, he hypothesized the possibility of casual AIDS transmission, is partially correct, your implied criticism (that his medical/epidemialogical judgement was/is unreliable), is not. No one knew at that time, and Fauci reflected on the possibility, as suggested by the James Oleski article.

I suspect that you have little appreciation/understanding of the highest level of respect and recognition Dr Fauci has garnered in his field, especially for (but not limited to) his work on HIV/Aids research.


FWIW: BMJ interview: Anthony Fauci on covid-19 (Sept. 2020)
➥ https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3703
➥ https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3774

Well heck, you get a A for effort at least, but that’s exactly what I said that he said.

You can get AIDS through “casual contact"

Which is absolutely stupid, which is why you typed up that whole thing trying to save the covid Jesus.

Speaking of health, if you’re going try to carry THAT much water for him, at least be sure to use proper lifting techniques

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Yihang

Thats what I’m asking, are you cool with half? Its cool if 130k dead is fine with you.

Although the excess death graph above indicates more.

It's not a question of "being fine" with it. That is an attempt to move the discussion into emotions and away from logic.

It's a question of what is a reasonable response.

If the black death is coming and we can expect 50% of the population to die, extreme measures to control/avoid it are very reasonable.

If 0.000001% will die and those are almost exclusively the extreme elderly who were already on their death beds, it's a lot harder to justify extreme measures.

[Yihang]

I guess we go with that number then. Like vahalla says 3rd is where US at population wise. [emoji1360]

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Yihang

I guess we go with that number then. Like vahalla says 3rd is where US at population wise. [emoji1360]

There is no “we” and no “go with”

Folks need to make choices for them, not others.

And going with?
I think people believe they have far more power than they do, almost as silly and self important as to think you’re going to save the oceans by using a junky paper straw to drink your fruity cocktail.

If folks took to heart that
1 they are not important, nor are their kids
2 they can not control others
3 they can not control nature

I think they would be much more happy, and be able to focus their efforts on things that might yield a better ROI

[jackdale]

Soem science on sks by 39 reseachers reveiewing nearly 100 papers.

Public mask wearing is most effective at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high. The decreased transmissibility could substantially reduce the death toll and economic impact while the cost of the intervention is low. Thus we
recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Soem science on sks by 39 reseachers reveiewing nearly 100 papers.



https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

Mandating coverings for the masses is fun, look at all the fun happy people who were like minded




It’s for the greater good





And remember, report violators



To your local government official




Not wearing your coverings is unacceptable




People really should look at historic facts, even just recent ones like 9/11, before they start down draconian roads, roads much harder to near impossible to turn around on.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

... Well heck, you get a A for effort at least, but that’s exactly what I said that he said.
You can get AIDS through “casual contact"
Which is absolutely stupid, which is why you typed up that whole thing trying to save the covid Jesus ...

You misquote Dr. Fauci, and misunderstand/misrepresent his meaning.

Dr. Fauci did NOT say (nor mean) that You can get AIDS through “casual contact".

Note his hypothetical "if", and understand the assumed "then".
"If - then" does not equate to "can", nor should "can" be read to understand "will".

What he did write, as I explained, “... If routine close contact can spread the disease, [then] AIDS takes on an entirely new dimension ....”

In the context of commenting on the findings of Dr James Oleske* et al , to whit:
“... Our experience suggests that children living in high-risk households are susceptible to AIDS and that sexual contact, drug abuse, or exposure to blood products is not necessary for disease transmission ...”
In “Immune Deficiency Syndrome in Children”
➥ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/386504

To give a little perspective on how early this was, in HIV/AIDS research, and how little was known, in 1983:
Though HIV arrived in the United States around 1970, it didn’t come to the public’s attention until the early 1980s.
In 1981, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a report about five previously healthy homosexual men, becoming infected with Pneumocystis pneumonia.
The following year, The New York Times published an alarming article about the new immune system disorder, which, by that time, had affected 335 people, killing 136 of them. Because the disease appeared to affect mostly homosexual men, officials initially called it gay-related immune deficiency, or GRID.
In September of 1982, the CDC used the term AIDS to describe the disease for the first time.
May 6, 1983, Dr Fauci’s article is published in JAMA. (Written sometime earlier)
In September of 1983, the CDC identifies all major routes of HIV transmission, and rules out transmission by casual contact, food, water, air, or environmental surfaces.
In 1984, researchers finally identified the cause of AIDS—the HIV virus—and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed the first commercial blood test for HIV in 1985.
A Timeline of HIV and AIDS ➥ https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overv...-aids-timeline

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

....PS: Star Trek's Spock always bugged me. He lived for pure logic. Yet, even the clinically insane follow logic...it's just that we can't always see all the pathways that it took for that logic to reach it's conclusion. Yet, a supposedly man of pure logic didn't understand this.

Pure logic is seeing the all the trees and the forest at the same time, how everything is connected. With respect, I don't think you understand the origins of logic; to wit below you're doing exactly what Spock did.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

It's not a question of "being fine" with it. That is an attempt to move the discussion into emotions and away from logic.

It's a question of what is a reasonable response.

Insane is not seeing a workable pathway that no one else sees. Instead, that's called genius.

Insane is seeing a pathway that goes nowhere good, that sooner or later will need external support from other humans for basic survival.

The definition of wisdom is having a high degree/number of priors/intuition to know the probability of success with various pathways...and to know which ones are most likely to lead to a place requiring external support from other humans for basic survival. To an expert, the latter tends to be the first corpus of wisdom that forms (BTDT).

So what's the difference between:
A) An insane person
B) A person with less intuition/priors, by definition thus myopic, who cannot be convinced that they are myopic?

The term "reasonable" is a fancy word for counting. Counting priors. The term "ration" refers to apportioning value to that which is counted in the balance.

What is a fool but a man someone who is convinced that taking a knife to a gunfight is prudent because the man cannot discern a knife from a gun? How to reach such a man I think is sort of the point of this thread.