Vaccine

Brav520 said:
double vexed and boosted, for a virus where what , 99% survive ( maybe higher). Then these people want everyone else to do the same so that they feel SAFE....Yeah, maybe the ESPOLAs of the world are the ones with the serious problems
Click to expand...
The light will shine over the darkness. You can;t have darkness without the light. They both go together. I used to yell and get all mad at my darkness side that I like to call my, "shadow or ego." I call my shadow 'Karl." You can't love others until you love yourself first and that is 100% forgiving Karl for all his wrongs. You must blame someone and Karl is the one who did it. I love him now for taking the blame and so does my wife. Where crush goes, Karl comes along, always :) The key to life is to live with your shadow and be 100% honest about your shadow. Some have darker shadows then others and thats all because of how they were treated as kids. God wanted us to eat of the tree of Right and WRONG. It was never about picking one over the other. It's learning to forgive the WRONG you have done so you can makes things RIGHT. WHO wants to do wrong because he has that choice as well. I tell people all the time the right thing to do is usually the hardest thing to do. If you find yourself making "easy" money off this heist that some say is the, "crime of the century" well then go right ahead and feel good about that if you want. If you find this to be the hardest time ever in your life, well then your on target and equality and abundance will be here sooner rather then later. I promise!!! Don't take the bait and please dont smash and destroy other people lives because of the hate and evil in your soul!!!!
 
Last edited:
Brav520 said:
decided to take kids to see Santa tomorrow based solely off an ad from this site. I think Dom gets a kick back for me clicking on that ad?

Will I miss out if I go ad free?
Click to expand...
I only talking about editing value brother. I went to Dicks from a add and soccer loco adds. I find the editing amazing. I think fast in my brain and than right what I feel like. Me righting and spelling is not well. Espola used to mock me and call me moron for spelling mistakes back few years ago. I learning gooder each day. Today, the fellas let me slide with poor writing skillz. I spell wards as I feel them to bee. U no what eye mein?
 
Looks like LAUSD blinked and is discussing delaying the vaccine mandate to 2022. That's pretty funny. so far no exemption for athletics....if you want to play they still require the shot.
 
espola said:
The boomers I remember were in the front lines of the civil rights movement, marched and protested and took political action to end an unjust war, forced a corrupt President out of office, and started the environmental movement enshrined in Earth Day. I think you're thinking of Gen X.
Click to expand...

Looky Adam Espola Schiff, a fluffy sock.
 
Grace T. said:
no you are just out and out lying and/or taking statements out of context.

you know my position on masks. I've repeated it several times. I think masks help on a micro level, particularly with limited time exposures. on a macro level I think there are too many factors that degrade their usefulness (people not wearing them properly, build up of viruses on the surface, poor cloth masks, repeated use of masks, the fact most transmissions are at home or at prolonged exposures like work). I think on a macro basis indoor masking (outdoor masking I've said was foolish since March 2020) helped a little bit against the prime (I pinned the number at probably a 15% reduction in overall cases), degrading against the alpha, doesn't do much against the delta. I thought it was foolish for the government to rely on cloth masks, gaiters and bandanas initially and should have put money into producing N95s (a position you came around to agree with).

As to virus is going to virus, I told you that with the exception of vaccines, the NPIs didn't do much (a position which has been upheld in several studies and expert conclusions which you dismiss because they run against your dogma) and that the economy couldn't be held in lockdown forever without collapsing. As to vaccines, I've been very supportive (despite the problems), initially supported a state/employer/school mandate (though I admit lukewarmly) but reversed when the vaccines were shown not as advertised. I said there was not much any of this (short of a bullet proof vaccine) could do to control the virus, and lo and behold 2 years later no country on earth (with the exception of Japan where something weird is going on) and Taiwan (which has kept out the delta) has been able to do it, not even your preferred authoritarian solution of Oz, NZ and (at least not perfectly) China.

It's a sure fire sign you are losing the argument when you have to resort to mischaracterizing your opponents statements and/or outright out and out lying.
Click to expand...

Your macro/macro distinction is a great example of where you’ve gone off the rails. It’s not even clear. To the extent that it is clear, you have it backwards.

You want to think of the mask as PPE, within a fixed risk environment. That is, does the mask change my odds of contamination, given some pre-determined series of future exposures. (single exposure is micro, the whole series is macro.). For a long enough predetermined series of exposures, any non-zero risk is equivalent.

Works great for individuals. You can’t do population level projections this way. By assuming a fixed environment, you are holding constant the exact thing you are trying to measure. It’s no surprise you get “no change” as your answer. It’s what you assumed from the start.

The normal view is that you have to view any change as something which might affect future case counts and thus also affects future exposures. This makes the whole thing either a system of differential equations (the easy case) or a martingale / Markov process (the hard case).

From there, a 10% change to transmission is suddenly a big deal, for the same reason that a 10% weekly inflation rate is a big deal. The one week change is small, but the 6 month change is huge. But, if you start off by assuming fixed prices ( or a fixed exposure profile ), you will never understand it.
 
dad4 said:
Your macro/macro distinction is a great example of where you’ve gone off the rails. It’s not even clear. To the extent that it is clear, you have it backwards.

You want to think of the mask as PPE, within a fixed risk environment. That is, does the mask change my odds of contamination, given some pre-determined series of future exposures. (single exposure is micro, the whole series is macro.). For a long enough predetermined series of exposures, any non-zero risk is equivalent.

Works great for individuals. You can’t do population level projections this way. By assuming a fixed environment, you are holding constant the exact thing you are trying to measure. It’s no surprise you get “no change” as your answer. It’s what you assumed from the start.

The normal view is that you have to view any change as something which might affect future case counts and thus also affects future exposures. This makes the whole thing either a system of differential equations (the easy case) or a martingale / Markov process (the hard case).

From there, a 10% change to transmission is suddenly a big deal, for the same reason that a 10% weekly inflation rate is a big deal. The one week change is small, but the 6 month change is huge. But, if you start off by assuming fixed prices ( or a fixed exposure profile ), you will never understand it.
Click to expand...
1639161539309.png
 
Grace T. said:
A truly insightful piece which includes a critique from the historical perspective of shifts in scientific paradigms. A political centrist (hey he's in good company) who feels lost among the new paradigm.

unherd.com

The agony of the anti-lockdown centrists

The public figures we trusted have a embraced a disturbing new normal
unherd.com unherd.com
Click to expand...
Science has become a religion, or should I say scientists and experts have created a religion, strike that, they've created a cult where your shunned and silenced if you disagree, or even simply question.
 
t just said this about Bibi Netanyahu; "Fuck Him" in interview about the election and lack of loyalty! Damn, the gloves are now coming off. Jeffrey's last words spoken to his old pal Bill was, "Fuck off Bill." These are the fucking facts folks. WHO do you follow today? Are you following a party? Ideology?
 
watfly said:
Science has become a religion, or should I say scientists and experts have created a religion, strike that, they've created a cult where your shunned and silenced if you disagree, or even simply question.
Click to expand...

Questioning is the essence of science. You are describing cultism.
 
dad4 said:
Your macro/macro distinction is a great example of where you’ve gone off the rails. It’s not even clear. To the extent that it is clear, you have it backwards.

You want to think of the mask as PPE, within a fixed risk environment. That is, does the mask change my odds of contamination, given some pre-determined series of future exposures. (single exposure is micro, the whole series is macro.). For a long enough predetermined series of exposures, any non-zero risk is equivalent.

Works great for individuals. You can’t do population level projections this way. By assuming a fixed environment, you are holding constant the exact thing you are trying to measure. It’s no surprise you get “no change” as your answer. It’s what you assumed from the start.

The normal view is that you have to view any change as something which might affect future case counts and thus also affects future exposures. This makes the whole thing either a system of differential equations (the easy case) or a martingale / Markov process (the hard case).

From there, a 10% change to transmission is suddenly a big deal, for the same reason that a 10% weekly inflation rate is a big deal. The one week change is small, but the 6 month change is huge. But, if you start off by assuming fixed prices ( or a fixed exposure profile ), you will never understand it.
Click to expand...

your lack of economic training is why you don't see it, and you've just laid it out perfect. One of the problems in the shift from micro-macro analysis is that of the scaling problem. An entire month is devoted to the scaling problem in economics 202. For example, one you see in education is Finnish schools have better results, if we adopt the Finnish school system we'll have great results, let's adopt the Finnish school system. the problem fails to account that when you shift a problem from a small, homogenous society with a particular welfare system and environment, to a transcontinental one, other variables in the equal change. Similar with "pilot programs" in industries, whether the post office or UBI or pizza delivery. So, while a mask may prevent an exposure from one person to another (in say a dummy test or in a supermarket exchange) when you scale it up to a population level it won't work as well because errors and other variable begin to creep in. The one you most often overlooked (which you yourself admitted) is that masks don't prevent anything in home transmissions, which is the biggest source of transmission. Another one is work: while 2 people wearing a mask may prevent spread in a quick exchange with a supermarket cashier, it's not going to stop the fast food worker working hours on end next to another co-worker (and we KNOW this from mask studies done early on by the German health authorities in their meat process plants and car manufacturing factories). Other errors creep in too: people don't wear masks properly especially over long periods of time, people are sick so they think going out with a mask is o.k. because others are protected, germs build up on masks, masks get worn down in the wash. So if your dummies show a 10% potential change in transmission, that's not going to scale up to 10% change in the overall population or to R.

What's truly astounding is that your faith is blinding you to the fact that you've pointed out yourself exactly the reason why masks are failing on a macro basis all over the world (and we've seen this very clearly now whether the Texas county mask study, or comparing England and Scotland or comparing Los Angeles and Orange County)....masks, particularly with the Delta, have made very very little difference. I know you have to done anything and everything to preserve your sacred talisman. You cannot abide the possibility that you might actually be wrong and your talisman may actually not be that effective. But it is the sad reality of things. And that fact that you YOURSELF have shown this, and can't see it, would be really quite funny, if it wasn't so sad.
 
watfly said:
Science has become a religion, or should I say scientists and experts have created a religion, strike that, they've created a cult where your shunned and silenced if you disagree, or even simply question.
Click to expand...
The article is really good at pointing at why. it's a paradigm shift akin to shifting away from heliocentrism or to evolution or to Newtonian and away from Aristotilian physics. it makes the good point that scientists have always treated scientists in the other paradigm as heretics (he's arguing, in effect, science has always been tainted by religion). The issue is that it's usually been held that science always moves forward...the author points out that's not always the case, and we who have been saying science is "questioning" are actually wrong....every day science usually works to bolster the paradigm and paradigm shifting questioning is actually quite rare. It's an insightful way of looking at it....i hadn't really seen it until now.....it certainly does explain dad4 and his vehemence in the face of all the repeated and frequent failures of his paradigm.
 
watfly said:
Science has become a religion, or should I say scientists and experts have created a religion, strike that, they've created a cult where your shunned and silenced if you disagree, or even simply question.
Click to expand...
The whole point is on what grounds do you disagree. If it is based on social media memes, what some media figure “feels” is happening or just your gut (based off the aforementioned no doubt) yes your opinion is ignored. You have the right to disagree because you “feel” like doing so, but if it’s not researched and peer reviewed it’s meaningless.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
The whole point is on what grounds do you disagree. If it is based on social media memes, what some media figure “feels” is happening or just your gut (based off the aforementioned no doubt) yes your opinion is ignored. You have the right to disagree because you “feel” like doing so, but if it’s not researched and peer reviewed it’s meaningless.
Click to expand...
1639164318598.png
 
Hüsker Dü said:
The whole point is on what grounds do you disagree. If it is based on social media memes, what some media figure “feels” is happening or just your gut (based off the aforementioned no doubt) yes your opinion is ignored. You have the right to disagree because you “feel” like doing so, but if it’s not researched and peer reviewed it’s meaningless.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you just proved my point. So its not true until those that control the narrative say its true. Got it.

There is a religion that has a quote "When the prophet speaks the debate is over". We're treading dangerously close to this with our Covid policies.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
The whole point is on what grounds do you disagree. If it is based on social media memes, what some media figure “feels” is happening or just your gut (based off the aforementioned no doubt) yes your opinion is ignored.
Click to expand...

that's not what's happening and team panic knows it. the signers of the GBD are also "experts". They are just experts your team discounts as "fringe", to use dad4's world. As the article explains, the reason why is because they are outside the paradigm....they are heretics and therefore not worthy of the term "experts" because the paradigm must be defended at all cost.

The author doesn't explain what the paradigm is and why it shifted. Here's a nascent seed of an idea. It came to me thinking about a movie we just watched....call it the "War of the Worlds" paradigm. In the last 60-70 years there has been a radical shift in public health. Through diet, sanitation, medicine and vaccination we have drastically reduced epidemics, particularly childhood diseases that took so many children in their childhood or injured their lives through long term health issues. We have largely forgotten the millenia of our existence that when it came to public health, life tended to be nasty, brutish and short. Our technology (whether the moon landing, jet travel, nuclear power or the internet) has fed that hubris that we have overcome our baser, animal selves that we would prefer to forget, rendering us different from our dogs and cats, let alone the wild animals. It's led to a hubris that we can actually "control" a virus. So, when finally faced with the unthinkable (after years of nightmare books and films ranging from the zombie invasions to Contagion), particularly among public health experts (who faced the unthinkable in their nightmares day to day, and waited for the big one to finally occur), all planning that had gone into preparing for a pandemic such as this was jettisoned and they settled on what to them was a scientific truth: that we could actually control the virus....it was unthinkable to them that we could actually lose such a war (which BTW is where we are...the war, like the war on poverty or war on drugs, or other fanciful utopian schemes....is a failure). Hence, the rise of the new paradigm.
 
Grace T. said:
your lack of economic training is why you don't see it, and you've just laid it out perfect. One of the problems in the shift from micro-macro analysis is that of the scaling problem. An entire month is devoted to the scaling problem in economics 202. For example, one you see in education is Finnish schools have better results, if we adopt the Finnish school system we'll have great results, let's adopt the Finnish school system. the problem fails to account that when you shift a problem from a small, homogenous society with a particular welfare system and environment, to a transcontinental one, other variables in the equal change. Similar with "pilot programs" in industries, whether the post office or UBI or pizza delivery. So, while a mask may prevent an exposure from one person to another (in say a dummy test or in a supermarket exchange) when you scale it up to a population level it won't work as well because errors and other variable begin to creep in. The one you most often overlooked (which you yourself admitted) is that masks don't prevent anything in home transmissions, which is the biggest source of transmission. Another one is work: while 2 people wearing a mask may prevent spread in a quick exchange with a supermarket cashier, it's not going to stop the fast food worker working hours on end next to another co-worker (and we KNOW this from mask studies done early on by the German health authorities in their meat process plants and car manufacturing factories). Other errors creep in too: people don't wear masks properly especially over long periods of time, people are sick so they think going out with a mask is o.k. because others are protected, germs build up on masks, masks get worn down in the wash. So if your dummies show a 10% potential change in transmission, that's not going to scale up to 10% change in the overall population or to R.

What's truly astounding is that your faith is blinding you to the fact that you've pointed out yourself exactly the reason why masks are failing on a macro basis all over the world (and we've seen this very clearly now whether the Texas county mask study, or comparing England and Scotland or comparing Los Angeles and Orange County)....masks, particularly with the Delta, have made very very little difference. I know you have to done anything and everything to preserve your sacred talisman. You cannot abide the possibility that you might actually be wrong and your talisman may actually not be that effective. But it is the sad reality of things. And that fact that you YOURSELF have shown this, and can't see it, would be really quite funny, if it wasn't so sad.
Click to expand...
Please define your terms. You keep referring to “macro” and “micro”.

It is not at all clear whether you mean individual versus population, single event versus repeated, or small scale trial versus full public implementation. These are three different concepts. You have all three mixed together in that rambling post, jumping from one to the other without any warning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top