There's always the next variant, though. :sad: — frank

What's happening with new variants? Haven't heard news of any for a while. The last VoC was Mu, but that one seems to have faded away (at least from the media).

I don't know of any. I hope we get a break from it now.

A quick read regarding "the distance" between science/mathematics and the general public, exemplified with the pandemic:

What we've got here is failure to communicate – and adequately educate! (Keith Devlin; MATH VALUES; Oct 1, 2021)

Unfortunately, "the distance" itself invites noise, distrust, ... I'm sure many here already know, but, anyway, here's Devlin.

that's not what you were asking for. Thus, it's not an example of what you were asking for. — Xtrix

So an example has to be exactly the thing itself? That's an unusual interpretation. I'll try to be more specific for you. Variables which we know to affect the risk from the virus (recall we're talking only about the risk of harming others - either by using up medical services or by transmitting the virus, or by contributing to one of the many social and economic consequences) are; Age, sex, obesity, comorbidities, social density, living arrangements, geographic location...and then there's all the variables which affect the social and economic consequences; trustworthiness of the corporations and institutions involved, stability of the economy involved, extent of foreign aid, the state of the virus, the infection rate in the rest of the world, the psychological effects of any course of action, the response of the media, the chaotic effects of mass rapid communication media like Twitter...These are the variables I'm talking about. all will affect the risk from any given course of action, some in known ways, others in unknown ways (but where the direction of change can be reliably predicted - ie reduce or increase the risk).

the 0.00015% still applies to you in the same way a roulette wheel does. — Xtrix

Your decision can be risked based without having individualized numbers for yourself, which don't exist. — Xtrix

Those risks are minuscule -- no matter how you slice the data. They remain so. — Xtrix

the national statistics are still important. If there are 150 strokes per 10 million cases, you can carve up the 150 into males and females, older and younger, etc. -- and I'm sure you'll get some variance (much more likely to occur in the 60 and older subset, for example). Does that really change the risk all that much? No, not at all. — Xtrix

But to argue there can't be "risk analysis" without doing so is disingenuous at best. — Xtrix

As I said to Tim on the other thread, I'm not conducting a poll. This is a discussion forum. You're not an expert on risk, so either you have a serious ego problem, or you need to support your assertions, repeating them contributes nothing to the discussion. If you think the national prevalence is still relevant to a risk-based decision even when we know that key variables affect the risk (variables we also know our values for), then you'll need to explain how. As it stands, risk analysis is not done using national prevalence figures, so if you think it ought to be, the onus is on you to explain how. Simply repeating the view over and over is not convincing.

Thank you for writing this. It seems as though people just want to argue for argument's sake. That's fine -- but not when we have literally millions of people refusing vaccinations during a pandemic because of anti-vaxxer claims and massive amounts of misinformation/manufactured doubt.

Irresponsible indeed — Xtrix

Yes. In fact spreading manufactured doubt in such a time is criminal. It kills people, and I dare say our good friend @Isaac here is close to murder.

Of course it makes for more interesting conversations. I guess Russian roulette is more interesting than casino roulette too. Spices up the game...

So an example has to be exactly the thing itself? — Isaac

:yawn:

You're not an expert on risk, — Isaac

Understanding that 150 out of 10 million is a low risk doesn’t warrant the term “expert,” true.

so either you have a serious ego problem, or you need to support your assertions, repeating them contributes nothing to the discussion. — Isaac

I have supported them with real data. I cited the study— and there are many more. The data is out there for anyone who wants to take a closer look. The risk is simply minuscule.

Exceptions exist? Of course— allergies, for example. There have always been exceptions with vaccines. The reason you and others continue on like this is because it’s been politicized.

If you think the national prevalence is still relevant to a risk-based decision even when we know that key variables affect the risk (variables we also know our values for), then you'll need to explain how. As it stands, risk analysis is not done using national prevalence figures, so if you think it ought to be, the onus is on you to explain how. Simply repeating the view over and over is not convincing. — Isaac

Again, the fact that you’re struggling with simple concepts (hence why I have to repeat myself) doesn’t make it unconvincing. You’re not listening.

Risk analysis is done using national figures all the time. I did it myself, for example. I know plenty of people who do as well. That’s for the group who even care— most just take the shot without knowing the numbers. But for others, seeing that the risk of death, or stroke, or some other such event is extremely low overall is enough to quell any fears. So national and international figures are relevant indeed.

Now, that may not be enough for everyone. Others want to narrow down the data to get closer to their situation — maybe by age or ethnicity or sex. That’s fine too. Those are subsets, much like demographics in polling. That will give a more accurate assessment of risk. If you find out that the odds are much better for you if you’re white, male, and under 30, then you factor that into your decision.

Maybe it goes slightly above or below overall numbers — but not by much. Why?

Because 150 strokes out of 10 million people, for example, is astronomically low. If it turns out that 90% of those 150 people were over 65, that’s important to know — no doubt (especially if you’re over 65). Does that significantly change the overall odds? As I mentioned before: no, it doesn’t. It simply means if you’re over 65, you have a slightly greater chance of having a stroke after taking the vaccine.

If that “slightly greater chance” matters to some people, great. To most people, it doesn’t. And it doesn’t change the odds much at all — perhaps by 0.00001% or something to that effect.

How do I support this claim? With mathematics — which can be checked by everyone.

Of course it makes for more interesting conversations. I guess Russian roulette is more interesting than casino roulette too. Spices up the game... — Olivier5

Yeah, I find it very disingenuous to claim that it’s simply more fun to argue. I don’t see that done on less politicized issues. It’s always the politicized issues that we hear about how science gets things wrong, about how one should ignore or be suspicious of consensus, about how people should be free to ask questions, about healthy skepticism, about corporate power — all of which I generally agree with, when properly applied.

I don’t think it’s coincidence that these justifications get brought out by those who want to appear to be simply “questioning” things. We see it with climate “skeptics” for example, when it’s really denial motivated by other factors (usually money). We see it with creationists as well, who love to say they’re just “questioning” evolution as all good scientists should question things— totally disingenuous, as they are clearly motivated by proving their religious beliefs in a literal interpretation of the a Bible. Etc.

All just truth-seeking, genuine people with questions who are keeping authorities honest. A fine story— and complete bullshit.

Happens all the time. This is no different, really.

There is one primary question - Does what the other country is doing affect the national security of the United States? If the answer is "no," then, generally, the US should not get involved. That may not always be true, but there would have to be extraordinary justification.

Now to get back to the specific question - China's role in the pandemic is definitely a matter of national security for the US, so it is reasonable for us to get involved. On the other hand, there is very little we can do that will force them to comply with what we think is the correct action. To somehow equate action against China as something of equal priority to actions to actually address the pandemic at home is very short-sighted. — T Clark

I would start by removing “the United States”. This is something that concerns the whole international community and I think we should take as broad a view of it as possible. We can narrow it down later on if need be.

As to the specific question, “equating action against China as something of equal priority to actions to actually address the pandemic at home” is something that I definitely do not do. Indeed, dealing with China may be even more important. This remains to be established through careful analysis of all known facts. (As a preliminary thought, what is worse, losing a few million people to Covid or losing everything to China?)

I would not say that there is little we can do, though. In military terms, the West can arm Japan, India, Taiwan, and even Russia against China without getting directly involved.

The military option may prove problematic though, as it tends to involve politics and other agendas that as we have seen tend to create a mess and generate new problems. So, personally, I would go for sanctions and other measures to destabilize the regime and encourage political opposition.

However, I think that one critical question would be, If China is exterminating Tibetans and Uighurs, on what grounds should we believe that it will treat Westerners any better?

Otherwise said, should Westerners wait to be put in concentration camps, or should we take preemptive action now, whilst we can?

Incidentally, it seems that new information is coming to light that may help getting a better picture of the facts.

Revealed: Wuhan and US scientists planned to create new coronaviruses - The Telegraph

Otherwise said, should Westerners wait to be put in concentration camps, or should we take preemptive action now, whilst we can? — Apollodorus

Well, you caught me by surprise, the way you drove off the cliff like that. Earlier in the thread you sounded way to hawkish for my taste, but now you've moved over into Dr. Strangelove territory.

Well, you caught me by surprise — T Clark

What would life be without surprises, huh.

Dr Strangelove? Produced by Hawk Films? I’m not into Soviet era propaganda movies (or movies in general) to be honest and I wasn’t even born at the time!

But I do appreciate your sense of humor …. :smile:

Dr Strangelove? Produced by Hawk Films? I’m not into Soviet era propaganda movies (or movies in general) to be honest and I wasn’t even born at the time! — Apollodorus

Are you not familiar with Dr. Strangelove? It is considered a great film. It is a dark comedy - very, very, very dark. It's not propaganda at all. It is a brutal satire of nuclear militarism.

I actually had to look it up on Wikipedia. If it's about "nuclear militarism" then it definitely sounds like propaganda to me. I'm not a movie person anyway. I prefer socializing or reading a good book when I have the time.

Plus, by action against China I meant economic sanctions not nuking them. It you could take out the evil leadership that'd be great but nuking the whole country, I don't think so.

But it is interesting to see that in the Telegraph article the WHO scientist says:

The problem is that those opposed to a lab leak scenario will always just say that we need to sample more, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Scientists overall are afraid of discussing the issue of the origins due to the political situation. This leaves a small and vocal minority of biased scientists free to spread misinformation.

Revealed: Wuhan and US scientists planned to create new coronaviruses - The Telegraph

So, it seems that misinformation is being spread, not just via movies.

And if even the WHO is demanding more transparency from China, this seems to strengthen the suspicion that the regime has something to hide IMO. Time will tell ....

Are you not familiar with Dr. Strangelove? — T Clark

I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.

For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.

Then he made a series of strange movies:

One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.

One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend ….

Sexuality in Kubrick's films is usually depicted outside matrimonial relationships in hostile situations. Baxter states that Kubrick explores the "furtive and violent side alleys of the sexual experience: voyeurism, domination, bondage and rape" in his films

Stanley Kubrick – Wikipedia

It may be “black comedy” but personally I’m not into that kind of stuff ....

He was one of the greatest movie directors of the 20th Century.

I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.

For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.

Then he made a series of strange movies:

One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.

One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend …. — Apollodorus

:lol:

That last one is based on a book, called "Lolita." All his movies were based on books -- none of them original to him.

Kubrick was fantastic. Kurosawa is better, however.

I think your political cultural views are a bit too much outside the pale for me. We can just stick to philosophy.

Josh Robin, of the Washington Post talks about Daszak, Fauci, government funded misinformation, and how biomedical scientists' fingerprints are all over the creation of Covid-19. Is there a Nobel Prize for Science that Kills Millions and destroys the lives of hundreds of millions?


https://youtu.be/88iZVQGdKgg

I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.

For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.

Then he made a series of strange movies:

One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.

One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend ….

Sexuality in Kubrick's films is usually depicted outside matrimonial relationships in hostile situations. Baxter states that Kubrick explores the "furtive and violent side alleys of the sexual experience: voyeurism, domination, bondage and rape" in his films

Stanley Kubrick – Wikipedia

It may be “black comedy” but personally I’m not into that kind of stuff .... — Apollodorus

That gave me the biggest laugh I have had in ages, thanks. You sound like a gauche country cousin who has just seen a sculpture by Michelangelo and is offended and confused by a marble penis.

That gave me the biggest laugh I have had in ages, thanks. You sound like a gauche country cousin who has just seen a sculpture by Michelangelo and is offended and confused by a marble penis. — Tom Storm

Well, you guys gave me a big laugh too. :grin:

Of course there is nothing offensive about a marble statue. But I think the likes of Harvey Weinstein are a different story.

From the info available on movie directors and producers some seem to believe that they should have power over other people and the right to sexually abuse them. See Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Roman Polanski, Klaus Kinsky, and many others.

Sexual abuse in the American film industry – Wikipedia

I can only guess that it was much worse in the 50's and 60's but fortunately times have changed since ...

He was one of the greatest movie directors of the 20th Century. — frank

You guys are obviously a different generation.

So, sorry to disappoint you, but Kubrick says nothing to me. I can only go by what I read in online sources like Wikipedia which, by the way is pretty mainstream.

Josh Robin, of the Washington Post talks about Daszak, Fauci, government funded misinformation, and how biomedical scientists' fingerprints are all over the creation of Covid-19. Is there a Nobel Prize for Science that Kills Millions and destroys the lives of hundreds of millions? — MondoR

It's hard to know who to believe these days, but something doesn't seem right there.

These are supposed to be "reputable" and "trustworthy" scientists and experts who know what they are talking about. So, why the contradictory statements, misinformation, and propaganda?

And now even the WHO is saying that China isn't being transparent on the true facts about the virus ....

It's hard to know who to believe these days, but something doesn't seem right there. — Apollodorus

What's hard to figure out? Whether the biomedical industry is covering up their latest invention? The industry that invented opioids? The medical industry is SICK.

Sure. But where does that leave China?

Sure. But where does that leave China? — Apollodorus

The CCP is composed of thugs that enslaves the population so it has cheap goods to export to the U.S. and elsewhere. Companies like Apple are knowing accomplices. Daszak, Fauci's cover-up buddy, works hand and hand with the CCP on gain of function "research". Clearly bio weapon research. There are some monstrous people running this world.

The CCP is composed of thugs that enslaves the population so it has cheap goods to export to the U.S. and elsewhere. Companies like Apple are knowing accomplices. Daszak, Fauci's cover-up buddy, works hand and hand with the CCP on gain of function "research". Clearly bio weapon research. There are some monstrous people running this world. — MondoR

Correct. A lot of Chinese goods are made in prisons and concentration camps.

I've always wondered how anyone can trust a bloodthirsty dictatorship like China. Obviously, there are corrupt corporate interests making a lot of money from dealing with the regime. But for Westerners in general to be so naive as to believe that China is the benefactor of the world, seems incomprehensible to me.

But for Westerners in general to be so naive as to believe that China is the benefactor of the world, seems incomprehensible to me. — Apollodorus

Throughout history, beneficiaries of slave labor always found ways to justify it. People in the U.S. only care about the price of Apple's stock. People will sell their soul for very little.

I dived in a few of the different papers to get a better understanding of the different conclusions. So what does the research tell me? Comparing different papers it seems to have a lot to do with "what is a lock down?" and what previous measures were taken in a particular country. Definitely effective are: flight bans, prohibiting gatherings and limiting movement.

Not effective are: stay at home orders in and of themselves, unless they cause less gatherings and limit movement.

Often, stay at home orders were last, while gatherings were already prohibited and commute movements at a much lower rate due to working remotely. Those countries that could support the latter and had a high voluntary uptake for working at home and who had prohibitions against gatherings in place saw little to no benefit for stay at home orders. So in that situation, stay at home orders were (close to) ineffective.

To the extent stay at home orders were necessary to avoid gatherings and limiting movements, they were effective.

Finally, some of the data was skewed due to protests against lock down measures, resulting in (super) spreading events.

Anything in here you think you can agree with it?

Definitely effective are: flight bans, prohibiting gatherings and limiting movement. — Benkei

Are they?

Not effective are: stay at home orders in and of themselves, unless they cause less gatherings and limit movement. — Benkei

If these orders entail those things you say are “definitely effective” then why aren’t they associated with reduced mortality?

Are they? — AJJ

Yes. You're welcome to actually read the research and the caveats they offer if you don't believe me. This includes some of the stuff you shared by the way.

If these orders entail those things you say are “definitely effective” then why aren’t they associated with reduced mortality? — AJJ

If you have a country that goes from "open" to stay at home orders, such a lock down will be effective as the gatherings and limited movement will be a consequence of the stay at home order. If you have a country that already prohibits gatherings and with a lot of working remotely prior to the stay at home order, that stay at home order is not going to really help. This has been the case in most European countries.

That's why it's important to qualify what a "lock down" is.

Moreover, even with that caveat there are still papers that find a positive effect following stay at home orders so I'd say there's no definitive effect established but that's enough for me to assume it won't have a major effect.

Yes. You're welcome to actually read the research and the caveats they offer if you don't believe me. This includes some of the stuff you shared by the way. — Benkei

Great. I’m totally happy to trawl through research papers every time you say something tendentious about them.