Steerzing in a New Direction...

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

I'm not actually proposing anything. I am saying that free markets are blind.

The free market doesn't exist. There is only people. If people care than the aggregate behaviour of people we call a market cares.

They are just the best known means of supplying demand relatively efficiently. They are completely oblivious to the consequences of the manufacture, transport and consumption of products.

Only to the extent people are oblivious/don't care.

Experts, by which I mean people who study systems and phenomena of any type and have a good model of their behaviour are the ONLY people who can possibly foresee certain types of developing crises.

Like the 2008 financial crisis? Is the crisis you are talking about the kind of crisis that experts can forsee?

I agree with Weinstein that the chances are good that somewhere along the line blindly following market forces is going to lead down a path with catastrophic results.

Market forces is just people. If we don't like that then the question becomes, is the alertantive better. The proposition seems to be to go with something like the WHO, but to control the global economy. How has the WHO been doing lately?

I am certainly not saying that there are not a whole swathe of disciplines where the "expert" consensus is either wrong or ideologically based or that experts do not approach solutions from a very narrow perspective. I am concerned that the current, growing populist revolt against rule by the elite is becoming dangerously anti-science.

Is it though? It seems more anti-authoritarian to me. Most policy questions are not straight science questions. Whether to lock down isn't a scientific question. Whether to mandate face masks isn't a scientific question. Whether to have vaccine passports isn't a scientific question.

To be clear I agree with the main thrust of the populist argument, I'm just not impressed with some of the attached extreme libertarian Dunning-Krugerites.

I'm not sure that taking the model of the WHO and turning that into the government of the world is an improvement on what ever the flaws are in the Dunning-Kruger folks. It's not even obvious that we have the power to do that. Why would China go along with it and not just compromise the one world government like they did the WHO? The plan as I see it is we give the power to shut down western economies over to an international elite controlled by China because someday too much freedom may lead our countries into trouble? When this plan has a way of forcing compliance from China, or any other country that the international elite choose to secure their wealth in so as not to pay the price of all this, then maybe it is worth considering.

You are missing the point. The 2008 crisis is a case in point. People did foresee it but nobody was interested because they were either making big profits or buying flash houses they couldn't normally afford.

It isn't just about economic consequences. Industries can develop and operate in ways that are fundamentally detrimental to society or to the very sustainability of life. Take social media. It has ended in the current dystopia because it is addictive to consumers, gives the social media companies insane power and profit and the temptation of the ruling elite to collude with them has created a monster. Of course markets are made of people, people who are scratching an itch without the foggiest idea of even how to begin to assess any downside and even if they did the urge to scratch is powerful. The providers have an equally strong incentive too and have little interest in downsides. Whether or not policies are authoritarian or whatever has no bearing on the fact that processes followed blindly can potentially lead to catastrophe. If you actually listen to what Weinstein is saying it isn't that people should blindly follow "experts" he(they) is saying that science is corrupted by market forces, using a broad definition of market, and that we need to find some way of restoring the integrity of disciplines in the interests of having the best information available to inform policy with public trust. That the "experts" have become corrupted is his point.

[John D]

Experts are ignorant about 99% of things. Even then, being an expert means different things in different areas. Being an expert in particle physics means that there is a lot you don't know, but what you do know, you know with a high degree of certainty and replicability. Is it possible to be an expert in economics in the same way as you can be an expert in particle physics? I'm pretty sure in particle physics you are mainly going to get schools of thought at the bleeding edge fringes. In economics you have schools of thought concerning the most basic practical questions about how to run an economy. Lots of areas impacting policy are more like economics than particle physics. I think one needs to show that experts are actually capable of pricing deferred costs and steering markets in a way that leads to good results. Can they? This is starting to feel like it is drifting to the information problem with central planning.

This is supposed to be exactly the point of politicians: facts + values = policy. I think the start of the problem we're seeing is the idea that you can derive values from facts: i.e. The Science™. Add to that several generations of spineless politicians devoid of values themselves, who have started deferring to the "experts" preferred policy positions rather than applying the value positions they were elected on to the set of facts that are actually true.

Until that changes, then yes, any centralised planning will just make things worse.

Every media talking head as well as all my friends keep saying "It is too bad the response to the virus has gotten political." In my way of seeing things, the only proper response must be political. Part of the reason for politics is so we can talk out our differences and reach some sort of plan to go forward. Most people have decided who they want to take instructions from... Fauchi, or the WHO, or that cunt at the CDC, or Trump.... Then, anyone who disagrees says that the other person is being political. Anyone who says they know for sure what to do about the virus is very naïve or perhaps just stupid. Politics is the only tool we have to build some kind of consensus. I think we need more politics.. not less.

I had an argument with my wife and our house cleaner yesterday. Their view is that there is nothing you can do about the government. That it is corrupt and always will be... no matter what. I went into a big speach about how our goal in life should be to seek an ideal government and justice system. It will never be perfect but we need to keep trying. Then my wife says.... "Well what are you doing about it." I almost said... "I can't do much because you don't fucking care and you are totally uninformed.... just like 95% of Americans" But... I just kept my mouth shut and mumbled... "I stay informed and I vote." Pretty weak sauce.

[fafnir]

You are missing the point. The 2008 crisis is a case in point. People did foresee it but nobody was interested because they were either making big profits or buying flash houses they couldn't normally afford.

It isn't just about economic consequences. Industries can develop and operate in ways that are fundamentally detrimental to society or to the very sustainability of life. Take social media. It has ended in the current dystopia because it is addictive to consumers, gives the social media companies insane power and profit and the temptation of the ruling elite to collude with them has created a monster. Of course markets are made of people, people who are scratching an itch without the foggiest idea of even how to begin to assess any downside and even if they did the urge to scratch is powerful. The providers have an equally strong incentive too and have little interest in downsides. Whether or not policies are authoritarian or whatever has no bearing on the fact that processes followed blindly can potentially lead to catastrophe. If you actually listen to what Weinstein is saying it isn't that people should blindly follow "experts" he(they) is saying that science is corrupted by market forces, using a broad definition of market, and that we need to find some way of restoring the integrity of disciplines in the interests of having the best information available to inform policy with public trust. That the "experts" have become corrupted is his point.

Does Weinstein have a realistic plan to fix the experts that doesn't involve him being made God for a day?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Australia young and free

[Steersman]

<snip>

It will never be perfect but we need to keep trying. Then my wife says.... "Well what are you doing about it." I almost said... "I can't do much because you don't fucking care and you are totally uninformed.... just like 95% of Americans" But... I just kept my mouth shut and mumbled... "I stay informed and I vote." Pretty weak sauce.

Conscience doth make cowards of us all. That and keeping an eye out for where our bread is buttered - and ashes hauled as the case may be ...

It's been something of a common feature in many "debates" about the woke how so many in Academia, in particular though not exclusively, are reluctant to speak out because they have some apprehension about the security of their own positions. Generally an unwise if understandable behaviour: Feeding the crocodile and "First they came for the Communists ..." and all that.

But simply going down to ye olde watering hole for brews with the bros to simply vent ain't particularly wise either. At some point, one has to put one's money where one's mouth is.

Bit of a fine line with pitfalls on all sides. Re-read one of Tuchman's books - The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 - the other day which featured an interesting observation and argument about British politics and politicians of the day: generally only the rich, those not particularly beholden to various competing interests could act as politicians with some latitude, some semblance of honesty and commitment to the "common good". DJT in some ways though sadly not as many as might have been possible.

[Steersman]

<snip>

Whether or not policies are authoritarian or whatever has no bearing on the fact that processes followed blindly can potentially lead to catastrophe.

Amen to that. Though the problem is largely that in many cases we simply haven't a clue about all of the possible consequences of any given action. The article on perverse incentives has some "amusing" examples of that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

Unfortunately, often all we can do is roll the dice.

If you actually listen to what Weinstein is saying it isn't that people should blindly follow "experts" he(they) is saying that science is corrupted by market forces, using a broad definition of market, and that we need to find some way of restoring the integrity of disciplines in the interests of having the best information available to inform policy with public trust. That the "experts" have become corrupted is his point.

I had referred to Carson's "Silent Spring" earlier today and I see that her article in Wikipedia - "The People's Encyclopedia (tm)" ;) - referred to just that phenomenon:

Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and public officials of accepting the industry's marketing claims unquestioningly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

And more recently Big Tobacco and Big Pharma and, even more recently, Big Oil with global warming. Interesting bits in Carson's article shows how various spokespeople and "scientists" employed by those groups are rather "motivated" to discount any criticisms. An educated public is really the only solution, but the "dumbing down of America" is not a hopeful sign. From Sagan's Demon-Haunted World:

I don't know to what extent ignorance of science and mathematics contributed to the decline of ancient Athens, but I know that the consequences of scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous in our time than in any that has come before. ....

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time ... when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. As I write (1997), the number one video cassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. Beavis and Butthead remains popular (and influential) with young TV viewers. The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable.

[fafnir]

I had referred to Carson's "Silent Spring" earlier today and I see that her article in Wikipedia - "The People's Encyclopedia (tm)" ;) - referred to just that phenomenon:

Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and public officials of accepting the industry's marketing claims unquestioningly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

Is there a reason for taking Carson's side here against big pharma beyond activist = good, big business = bad? There seems to be at least some debate on the point. In general I'm not sure that activists are any more trust worthy than Pfizer. They're just selling a different product.

[Steersman]

I had referred to Carson's "Silent Spring" earlier today and I see that her article in Wikipedia - "The People's Encyclopedia (tm)" ;) - referred to just that phenomenon:

Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and public officials of accepting the industry's marketing claims unquestioningly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

Is there a reason for taking Carson's side here against big pharma beyond activist = good, big business = bad? There seems to be at least some debate on the point. In general I'm not sure that activists are any more trust worthy than Pfizer. They're just selling a different product.

Would you believe ... 4 legs good, 2 legs bad? ;)



Just a case that sprang to mind that I thought illustrated the problem of technology not being a panacea, often bringing a whole bunch of other problems in its train.

Though I generally agree about not all activists being entirely able to walk on water - often a great many problems in their schtick too. Big push these days - particularly by Biden and Company by the look of it - for electric cars. Few flies in that ointment too, not least the availability and disposal of all the lithium batteries required:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

"[batteries with an] inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly"

And then there's the question of having to build extra electric generating stations - hydro? coal? - to recharge all those batteries. 30 to 100 million electric cars aren't going to run on good intentions.

And wind turbine blades likewise:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -landfills

Whole bunch of "feel-good" schlock motivating many of the environmental activists who apparently don't have a clue about the downsides of their "visions".

Unfortunately, a whole bunch of sticky choices that we probably won't know the full costs of until well after we've made major commitments. Bit of a crap shoot, of a guestimate as to which is the lesser of the two weevils in any given situation.

[AndrewV69]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

"[batteries with an] inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly"

How about batteries that start fires right now? No need to disassemble first.

GM tells Bolt EV owners not to park too close to other cars

GM had previously asked owners to park Bolt vehicles outdoors, away from structures, and to not charge them overnight. GM also urged owners to not leave Bolt EVs charging unattended, even if using a charging station in a parking deck. Bloomberg News reported the recommendation earlier.

I have not noticed any attempts to upgrade the grid. But we will see. Meanwhile :
Unhappy Tesla owners wait in long line to have their electric cars charged ... (When a 45 minute recharge becomes a 4 hour nightmare)"

And then there's the question of having to build extra electric generating stations - hydro? coal? - to recharge all those batteries. 30 to 100 million electric cars aren't going to run on good intentions.

And wind turbine blades likewise:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -landfills

Whole bunch of "feel-good" schlock motivating many of the environmental activists who apparently don't have a clue about the downsides of their "visions".

Unfortunately, a whole bunch of sticky choices that we probably won't know the full costs of until well after we've made major commitments. Bit of a crap shoot, of a guestimate as to which is the lesser of the two weevils in any given situation.

Meanwhile, parts of Europe are going ahead with their plans to dismantle their existing nuclear plants. For example:

Why Is Germany Phasing Out Nuclear Power?

This is going to be interesting.

Winter is coming. Nordstream2 is not just yet online. Russia has not supplied enough gas (the reality is they did not contract "enough" gas), but it is all Russia's fault. Oh ... they have changed their minds

Russian energy giant Gazprom to increase natural gas supply to Europe

Russia-based energy giant Gazprom is ready to increase its supply of natural gas to Europe as gas prices surge, according to media reports. Earlier, Gazprom has been accused of not doing enough to increase its natural gas supplies to Europe by agencies such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and also by many lawmakers in the European Parliament.

In a statement, IEA said, “The IEA believes that Russia could do more to increase gas availability to Europe and ensure storage is filled to adequate levels. Based on the available information, Russia is fulfilling its long-term contracts with European counterparts – but its exports to Europe are down from their 2019 level.

(underline, bold, mine)

That was then, this is now :

NordStream 2 opening faces delay as both of Germany's kingmaker parties oppose controversial pipeline

:? :? :?

Will they or not? Pay through the nose or freeze in the dark?

:lol: :lol: :lol:



Whatever man. Fuck! (Die Antwoord)

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Every media talking head as well as all my friends keep saying "It is too bad the response to the virus has gotten political." In my way of seeing things, the only proper response must be political.
[/quote]

The response has to be political because we are governed by politicians. The prevailing complaint is that determination of facts has become political and we're fucked as long as that is the case. I prefer not to get my facts from politiicians, libertarians, conservatives, SJWs or Nazis. I prefer to get them from qualified "experts".

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

You are missing the point. The 2008 crisis is a case in point. People did foresee it but nobody was interested because they were either making big profits or buying flash houses they couldn't normally afford.

It isn't just about economic consequences. Industries can develop and operate in ways that are fundamentally detrimental to society or to the very sustainability of life. Take social media. It has ended in the current dystopia because it is addictive to consumers, gives the social media companies insane power and profit and the temptation of the ruling elite to collude with them has created a monster. Of course markets are made of people, people who are scratching an itch without the foggiest idea of even how to begin to assess any downside and even if they did the urge to scratch is powerful. The providers have an equally strong incentive too and have little interest in downsides. Whether or not policies are authoritarian or whatever has no bearing on the fact that processes followed blindly can potentially lead to catastrophe. If you actually listen to what Weinstein is saying it isn't that people should blindly follow "experts" he(they) is saying that science is corrupted by market forces, using a broad definition of market, and that we need to find some way of restoring the integrity of disciplines in the interests of having the best information available to inform policy with public trust. That the "experts" have become corrupted is his point.

Does Weinstein have a realistic plan to fix the experts that doesn't involve him being made God for a day?

I don't know. You could ask him.

[Pseudomonas]

Australia young and free

https://www.australianveterannews.com/p ... sacred-sit

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

I had referred to Carson's "Silent Spring" earlier today and I see that her article in Wikipedia - "The People's Encyclopedia (tm)" ;) - referred to just that phenomenon:

Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and public officials of accepting the industry's marketing claims unquestioningly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

Is there a reason for taking Carson's side here against big pharma beyond activist = good, big business = bad? There seems to be at least some debate on the point. In general I'm not sure that activists are any more trust worthy than Pfizer. They're just selling a different product.

qué?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

This is better. Well it's clearer anyway.

Every media talking head as well as all my friends keep saying "It is too bad the response to the virus has gotten political." In my way of seeing things, the only proper response must be political.

The response has to be political because we are governed by politicians. The prevailing complaint is that determination of facts has become political and we're fucked as long as that is the case. I prefer not to get my facts from politiicians, libertarians, conservatives, SJWs or Nazis. I prefer to get them from qualified "experts".

[fafnir]

I had referred to Carson's "Silent Spring" earlier today and I see that her article in Wikipedia - "The People's Encyclopedia (tm)" ;) - referred to just that phenomenon:

Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and public officials of accepting the industry's marketing claims unquestioningly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

Is there a reason for taking Carson's side here against big pharma beyond activist = good, big business = bad? There seems to be at least some debate on the point. In general I'm not sure that activists are any more trust worthy than Pfizer. They're just selling a different product.

qué?

I mean, Carson was an activist. Silent Spring is an activist book. You seem to be taking her perspective at face value. I'm not sure that trusting the experts is so easy. What makes her trustworthy and the companies producing DDT untrustworthy? It's like the Ralph Nader "unsafe at any speed" thing. There still seems to be debate as to whether his claims were true.

[fafnir]

This is better. Well it's clearer anyway.

Every media talking head as well as all my friends keep saying "It is too bad the response to the virus has gotten political." In my way of seeing things, the only proper response must be political.

The response has to be political because we are governed by politicians. The prevailing complaint is that determination of facts has become political and we're fucked as long as that is the case. I prefer not to get my facts from politiicians, libertarians, conservatives, SJWs or Nazis. I prefer to get them from qualified "experts".

Like how Facebook does with their fact checkers?

[fafnir]

You are missing the point. The 2008 crisis is a case in point. People did foresee it but nobody was interested because they were either making big profits or buying flash houses they couldn't normally afford.

It isn't just about economic consequences. Industries can develop and operate in ways that are fundamentally detrimental to society or to the very sustainability of life. Take social media. It has ended in the current dystopia because it is addictive to consumers, gives the social media companies insane power and profit and the temptation of the ruling elite to collude with them has created a monster. Of course markets are made of people, people who are scratching an itch without the foggiest idea of even how to begin to assess any downside and even if they did the urge to scratch is powerful. The providers have an equally strong incentive too and have little interest in downsides. Whether or not policies are authoritarian or whatever has no bearing on the fact that processes followed blindly can potentially lead to catastrophe. If you actually listen to what Weinstein is saying it isn't that people should blindly follow "experts" he(they) is saying that science is corrupted by market forces, using a broad definition of market, and that we need to find some way of restoring the integrity of disciplines in the interests of having the best information available to inform policy with public trust. That the "experts" have become corrupted is his point.

Does Weinstein have a realistic plan to fix the experts that doesn't involve him being made God for a day?

I don't know. You could ask him.

That's the whole question though. Coming up with a plan that we need to have apolitical experts that we all agree on who make rational judgements for the common good is pointless. That's like saying that the solution to politics is to have politicians who govern and make laws motivated by the common good and not on the basis of short term political expediency or personal gain. All socialists need to do to get communism to work is create a society where people aren't motivated by the profit motive or otherwise coerced to work, that doesn't immediately collapse into a dictatorship or starvation or both. Another solution to society's problems might be to invent replicator technology, free limitless non-polluting power generation and robot servants.

The whole difficulty is coming up with a practical plan to get to and sustain utopia. Saying in broad brushstrokes what utopia would look like is easy. Mine has blackjack and hookers.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

This is better. Well it's clearer anyway.

Every media talking head as well as all my friends keep saying "It is too bad the response to the virus has gotten political." In my way of seeing things, the only proper response must be political.

The response has to be political because we are governed by politicians. The prevailing complaint is that determination of facts has become political and we're fucked as long as that is the case. I prefer not to get my facts from politiicians, libertarians, conservatives, SJWs or Nazis. I prefer to get them from qualified "experts".

Like how Facebook does with their fact checkers?

Yes.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

That's the whole question though. Coming up with a plan that we need to have apolitical experts that we all agree on who make rational judgements for the common good is pointless. That's like saying that the solution to politics is to have politicians who govern and make laws motivated by the common good and not on the basis of short term political expediency or personal gain. All socialists need to do to get communism to work is create a society where people aren't motivated by the profit motive or otherwise coerced to work, that doesn't immediately collapse into a dictatorship or starvation or both. Another solution to society's problems might be to invent replicator technology, free limitless non-polluting power generation and robot servants.

Who is asking for for apolitical experts to make judgements? What's being proposed is for experts to give facts and advice on their area of expertees as onestly as they can as basis for elected representatives of the peeples to make judgements from.

The whole difficulty is coming up with a practical plan to get to and sustain utopia. Saying in broad brushstrokes what utopia would look like is easy. Mine has blackjack and hookers.

If someone comes to tell me the kitchen is on fire I'm not going to shit on them for not being a fireman.

[John D]

That's the whole question though. Coming up with a plan that we need to have apolitical experts that we all agree on who make rational judgements for the common good is pointless. That's like saying that the solution to politics is to have politicians who govern and make laws motivated by the common good and not on the basis of short term political expediency or personal gain. All socialists need to do to get communism to work is create a society where people aren't motivated by the profit motive or otherwise coerced to work, that doesn't immediately collapse into a dictatorship or starvation or both. Another solution to society's problems might be to invent replicator technology, free limitless non-polluting power generation and robot servants.

Who is asking for for apolitical experts to make judgements? What's being proposed is for experts to give facts and advice on their area of expertees as onestly as they can as basis for elected representatives of the peeples to make judgements from.

The whole difficulty is coming up with a practical plan to get to and sustain utopia. Saying in broad brushstrokes what utopia would look like is easy. Mine has blackjack and hookers.

If someone comes to tell me the kitchen is on fire I'm not going to shit on them for not being a fireman.

Really... what has happened is that organizations that used to be (more or less) honest have become political bureaucracies. There are no organizations left that you can look to for truth. And... everyone... and I mean everyone... especially scientists are just chasing money and grants. Sure, there are people out there dedicated to truth, but they have no platform.

Just list all the organizations that used to have some credibility. Greenpeace, the ACLU, the NAACP, the ADL, the CDC, the WHO, even Audubon. None of these (and there are many others) can not be relied upon as honest actors. Everything they do is at least half bullshit. It takes all fucking day to fact check them.

Everybody has to justify their existence and keep digging for more bucks.

Some funny stuff...

There are no more prostitutes. Anyone who works by getting money for sex has been "trafficked."

There is no more hunger. Now the charity organization use "food insecure". Food insecure basically means you don't know if you will eat leftovers or go to MacDonald's that night. I always hear that "some 30 million Americans are food insecure." ... and I'm like... "Yeah, but why are they all fat." The real definition for food insecure is "people who don't know where their next meal will come from." What the fuck does that even mean? I think they call people and ask "Do you know where you will get dinner tonight?"

The Audubon Society has had a "Christmas Birdcount" for many decades. Basically, non-professional birders, such as myself, go out on a certain day and count the wild birds. Its fun and you get to see how the birds are moving into and out of territories over time. Audubon always used to say "This is NOT a scientific survey... it is not random or controlled... this is just some interesting information." But then, last year, Audubon used this very imperfect survey to claim that there are billions of fewer birds now than there were years ago. It is complete and utter bull shit. They wanted to make some kind of claim so they could get more money. Sure enough... my own brother quoted this stupid study to me. I explained to him what it really is.... but he didn't care. Somehow he is sure there are half as many wild birds now than 20 years ago.... even though there are more wetlands and more trees, and more wild reserve space in America. Somehow... he can tell based on where his house is that there are fewer birds. Awwww... fuck it.

Anyway... even if I have a pile of facts in front of me I can't get my wife to listen.... and I think this is true for 95% of my fellow citizens. Fuck em if they don't care about the truth. If I was the kind of guy that enjoyed screwing idiots I would be worth millions right now. Instead... I make money the honest way... a day's pay for a day's honest work.

end of rant.

[fafnir]

That's the whole question though. Coming up with a plan that we need to have apolitical experts that we all agree on who make rational judgements for the common good is pointless. That's like saying that the solution to politics is to have politicians who govern and make laws motivated by the common good and not on the basis of short term political expediency or personal gain. All socialists need to do to get communism to work is create a society where people aren't motivated by the profit motive or otherwise coerced to work, that doesn't immediately collapse into a dictatorship or starvation or both. Another solution to society's problems might be to invent replicator technology, free limitless non-polluting power generation and robot servants.

Who is asking for for apolitical experts to make judgements? What's being proposed is for experts to give facts and advice on their area of expertees as onestly as they can as basis for elected representatives of the peeples to make judgements from.

What is the proposal for making that happen? So far, on important issues, my impression is that experts are often horribly compromised.

The whole difficulty is coming up with a practical plan to get to and sustain utopia. Saying in broad brushstrokes what utopia would look like is easy. Mine has blackjack and hookers.

If someone comes to tell me the kitchen is on fire I'm not going to shit on them for not being a fireman.
[/quote]
Yes, but if you and your buddy are standing there looking at your kitchen and your buddy says "dude, your kitchen is on fire" you probably aren't going to look at that observation as profound. If he then says "it would be better if it wasn't on fire", then him not being a fireman doesn't make it a useful or clever thing to say. Does Weinstein have anything clever, insightful or practical to say about the problem he identifies?

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

I had referred to Carson's "Silent Spring" earlier today and I see that her article in Wikipedia - "The People's Encyclopedia (tm)" ;) - referred to just that phenomenon:

Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and public officials of accepting the industry's marketing claims unquestioningly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

Is there a reason for taking Carson's side here against big pharma beyond activist = good, big business = bad? There seems to be at least some debate on the point. In general I'm not sure that activists are any more trust worthy than Pfizer. They're just selling a different product.

qué?

I mean, Carson was an activist. Silent Spring is an activist book. You seem to be taking her perspective at face value. I'm not sure that trusting the experts is so easy. What makes her trustworthy and the companies producing DDT untrustworthy? It's like the Ralph Nader "unsafe at any speed" thing. There still seems to be debate as to whether his claims were true.

I'm sure that's 100% correct, an absolute killer response. Why are you addressing it to me though?

[John D]

and now for something completely different.

I just finished listening to "The Stranger" by Albert Camus. Recently I also listened to some Sartre.

In "The Stranger" the main character has trouble feeling emotions for others. When other people do terrible things he just says he finds it interesting. This ultimately gets him into trouble but he doesn't know why. It was like I was having a conversation with some of my daughter's autistic friends.

This is my theory (and what it is too). All the existentialist philosophers were on the autism spectrum. (also... perhaps Nietzsche... but I don't think he was technically an existentialist.)

Discuss...

[John D]

And while I am on the topic.... I need a suggestion on a book to read.

[fafnir]

I'm sure that's 100% correct, an absolute killer response. Why are you addressing it to me though?

wow! quote malfunction. The original comment was from steersman replying to you. Sorry...

[fafnir]

This is my theory (and what it is too). All the existentialist philosophers were on the autism spectrum. (also... perhaps Nietzsche... but I don't think he was technically an existentialist.)

Discuss...

Does them being perverts who want to justify having orgies fit into the autism thing?

Anyway.... book recommendation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_rebours
The main character is an aesthete whose senses are almost too delicate and sensitive to live.... I think you may find some overlap with some types in modern culture.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

and now for something completely different.

I just finished listening to "The Stranger" by Albert Camus. Recently I also listened to some Sartre.

In "The Stranger" the main character has trouble feeling emotions for others. When other people do terrible things he just says he finds it interesting. This ultimately gets him into trouble but he doesn't know why. It was like I was having a conversation with some of my daughter's autistic friends.

This is my theory (and what it is too). All the existentialist philosophers were on the autism spectrum. (also... perhaps Nietzsche... but I don't think he was technically an existentialist.)

Discuss...

Sartre was a fool who thought himself a genius.

Camus was depressed and depressing as hell, but onto something about human nature. His stories are drudgery to read. In high school French class, we had to read La Peste. I submitted my book report illustrated with Camus' death scene -- a cartoon of a dead guy in beret, striped frog shirt, clutching a baguette, hanging halfway out of a car crashed into a tree. I got an 'A'.

[Brive1987]

Australia young and free

Policing is a State matter. ScoMo is Federal PM. ScoMo is busy ‘encouraging’ States to reopen, to loud raspberries from some

I believe you guys actually have some form in this State vs Fed arena?

…….

Anyway, Ryan Shtuka remains mysteriously missing. From a small safe ski town. 5 min walk between party and apartment. No tracks in fresh snow. No body. Three years of searching. Confused SARS. No green bra.

This one must be UFOs. 👽

[AndrewV69]

Meanwhile:




Winter is coming and YOU are not prepared.

[Keating]

Policing is a State matter. ScoMo is Federal PM. ScoMo is busy ‘encouraging’ States to reopen, to loud raspberries from some

I believe you guys actually have some form in this State vs Fed arena?

I hate that ScoMo is the only person making minor sensible noises. He's no where near strong enough, but it is sad he's the only one vaguely sensible. I mean there's Craig Kelly, but I do mean sensible.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Anyway, Ryan Shtuka remains mysteriously missing. From a small safe ski town. 5 min walk between party and apartment. No tracks in fresh snow. No body. Three years of searching. Confused SARS. No green bra.

This one must be UFOs. 👽

Great friends he had. I'd look into that party. Somebody knows more than they're saying.

[Service Dog]

Fafnir is excellent on this page...

But if i lived in South Africa... I'd also be warmer to 3FJ's point of view.

I doubt that the 'more politics' John recommends = 'more South African politics'.

I'm in the Catskills cabin this week... Tho it feels less like a cabin now that there's new neighbors uphill on the (small) 'mountain'. I can see their houselights at night... so now this is just a shitty little house with neighbors?

And somebody mowed part of the land across the road. So maybe that's up for sale/ or sold & readied for construction? oh well

I'm reading Heinlein's 1942 'Beyond This Horizon' which is similar to Brave New World. Also contains open-carry dueling. & Govt medical ethics, gene manipulation. So it's timely. It interweaves nicely with the posts on this page. But (if i recall the big plot twist coming) it's also an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink book... odd non-seqiturs shoehorned in.

[Service Dog]

Visited the towns of Neversink & Bittersweet today.

Stunning examples of nominative determinism.

[Brive1987]

Anyway, Ryan Shtuka remains mysteriously missing. From a small safe ski town. 5 min walk between party and apartment. No tracks in fresh snow. No body. Three years of searching. Confused SARS. No green bra.

This one must be UFOs. 👽

Great friends he had. I'd look into that party. Somebody knows more than they're saying.

Its hard to imagine his body is still in the area. But most alternatives challenge Ockham's Razor.

Few of the workers had cars. No one saw him actually leave. But my guess is that he exited town in the boot of a car. Hit and Run or murder.

[Keating]

Just had a bright idea about removing mask mandates. (My position is that I have no problem with what measures people use for themselves, but I'm totally opposed to government mandates of any kind). After a walk the other day, I noticed several discarded masks near the river. After checking that they weren't biodegradable, I have been calling all the Green Members of the Legislative Assembly and asking for a ban on single use masks on environmental grounds. This has proved to be much more effective than anything I'd been trying previously.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Fafnir is excellent on this page...

But if i lived in South Africa... I'd also be warmer to 3FJ's point of view.

I doubt that the 'more politics' John recommends = 'more South African politics'.

I'm in the Catskills cabin this week... Tho it feels less like a cabin now that there's new neighbors uphill on the (small) 'mountain'. I can see their houselights at night... so now this is just a shitty little house with neighbors?

And somebody mowed part of the land across the road. So maybe that's up for sale/ or sold & readied for construction? oh well

I'm reading Heinlein's 1942 'Beyond This Horizon' which is similar to Brave New World. Also contains open-carry dueling. & Govt medical ethics, gene manipulation. So it's timely. It interweaves nicely with the posts on this page. But (if i recall the big plot twist coming) it's also an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink book... odd non-seqiturs shoehorned in.

I can't understand what the argument is about. Does anyone disagree that politics fucks up almost anything ? Does anyone disagree that expert knowledge becomes distorted somewhere between the research and the public, that money and ideology are influencing academia? My understanding of what the Weinsteins are saying is that the capture of institutions by money and political power is probably an inevitable consequence of the system and we need to operate a system that doesn't result in these kinds of feedback loops. I think that more of the same shit that got us here is not the solution. I'm not sure of the solution but I am 100% certain that there are people with a lot more knowledge with novel approaches who might come up with something approaching one. I'm also 100% certain that politics is the enemy of knowledge. There's a kind of philistinism about, something akin to a populist cultural revolution that derides intellectuals unless they are blowhard libertarian ones. The intellectually honest scientists and thinkers are going out in the bathwater.

[fafnir]

Fafnir is excellent on this page...

But if i lived in South Africa... I'd also be warmer to 3FJ's point of view.

I doubt that the 'more politics' John recommends = 'more South African politics'.

I'm in the Catskills cabin this week... Tho it feels less like a cabin now that there's new neighbors uphill on the (small) 'mountain'. I can see their houselights at night... so now this is just a shitty little house with neighbors?

And somebody mowed part of the land across the road. So maybe that's up for sale/ or sold & readied for construction? oh well

I'm reading Heinlein's 1942 'Beyond This Horizon' which is similar to Brave New World. Also contains open-carry dueling. & Govt medical ethics, gene manipulation. So it's timely. It interweaves nicely with the posts on this page. But (if i recall the big plot twist coming) it's also an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink book... odd non-seqiturs shoehorned in.

I can't understand what the argument is about. Does anyone disagree that politics fucks up almost anything ? Does anyone disagree that expert knowledge becomes distorted somewhere between the research and the public, that money and ideology are influencing academia? My understanding of what the Weinsteins are saying is that the capture of institutions by money and political power is probably an inevitable consequence of the system and we need to operate a system that doesn't result in these kinds of feedback loops. I think that more of the same shit that got us here is not the solution. I'm not sure of the solution but I am 100% certain that there are people with a lot more knowledge with novel approaches who might come up with something approaching one. I'm also 100% certain that politics is the enemy of knowledge. There's a kind of philistinism about, something akin to a populist cultural revolution that derides intellectuals unless they are blowhard libertarian ones. The intellectually honest scientists and thinkers are going out in the bathwater.

I've only got the beginnings of an answer to this.... I think the corruption of politician, experts and the media is inevitable. I often come back to the description of an election in Dicken's The Pickwick Papers. Corrupt as all hell on all sides. I think the difference between the good times and now is a rational engagement with the real world putting limits on all that. I think what forces a rational engagement with the real world are threats and competition external to the system. You need some kind of Darwinian process going on to kill off the unfit behaviours.

I think one of the features that globalism, international communism, the rules based international system, the liberal hegemony and all those different intertwined things have in common is the idea that their goals can only be achieved when there is nothing outside the system. When there is nothing outside the system they can't be outcompeted by cultures that don't insist 2+2=5, the downsides of optimizing for some notion of fairness rather than performance are hidden by not having a control group

I think the solution to the problem might involve localism. If country X is doing something retarded, there is then a cost for country X. Country X can compare itself to countries Y and Z and ask whether they are heading in the right direction. For the US, I think more has to be done on the state level. The only reason there are counter examples of how different covid policies could have worked are states like Florida. More of that feels like a step in the right direction.

[Service Dog]

Early in 2020 there was a news story about a guy who drove around his rural area... buying every bottle of hand sanitizer he could find... In gas stations, obscure stores. He filled his home's car-garage & tried to resell the stuff on Amazon. He was denounced & banned for 'price gouging'. But I thought he was taking the goods from places where they had little utility & offering it to places where demand was high. And i speculated that we would not be past the dumb/bad/heavy-handed response to Covid... Until a guy doing-that was regarded as productive or even admirable... rather than loathed.

I think he would jave a constituency of support if he did it today... But not a majority by far.
--

As for Keating's mask environmentalism-ploy...

I have contemplated how a box of surgical masks... Muddied, crumpled, stepped-on... Can easily be strewn on the topiary, floated in fountains... making an ugly mess anywhere frequented by elite nanny-bosses. I think their distaste for peasant germs would suddenly switch to forbidding the disposable germ-collector devices.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Democrats add to their 'budget' (sic) bill a provision fining businesses $700,000 for each unvaxxed employee:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... cines.html

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'd look into that party. Somebody knows more than they're saying.

Its hard to imagine his body is still in the area. But most alternatives challenge Ockham's Razor.

Few of the workers had cars. No one saw him actually leave. But my guess is that he exited town in the boot of a car. Hit and Run or murder.

Occam's calls for the simplest explanation that accounts for all observations. The lack of any trace -- e.g. clothes had he experienced paradoxical undressing -- must be covered by the proposed explanation. We don't know whether he ever walked home that route. Per his 'friends', there's no sighting of him shortly beyond the party house.

I suspect he violated one or both of the rules of Not Ending Up In A World Of Shit:
1) Never go stupid places with stupid people who do stupid things;
2) Never get into a vehicle driven by an unknown person heading to an unknown location.

And then any number of things could've led to his demise, including trying to walk home from much farther. But he's not where they looked.

[John D]

This is pretty good if you have some time to kill.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Gladys the Pelican promises to make the lives of the unvaxxed miserable, even after the obedient sheep are released from lockdown:

https://news.trust.org/item/20210928025122-5mqe6

Bitch is a tyrant and deserves what all tyrants always deserve.

[Gumby]

Guess there was a downside to your new diet after all

:clap:

Hey Gumbers!!

Perhaps you could do a funny pic about Brivo's humorous situation?

Hey FT! You know, seems like I haven't done one of my sub-amateur hour shoops in years. I'm not sure I even remember how. What we need is Ape back. Does anyone know how to get in touch with him? I'd love to know how the ol' one eyed bastard is doing.

Brive.
Diet.
Exploding sewer line.

Hmmm.

[Gumby]

Let’s not drag him away from his true love.

Truth. I didn't think anything could make me shelve my barbed wire collection, but once I found out about miniature stone wall building, I was immediately seduced by the glamour of it all.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Democrats add to their 'budget' (sic) bill a provision fining businesses $700,000 for each unvaxxed employee:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... cines.html

They have a big credit card debt to pay off even if they do say it's covered. Every little helps.

[AndrewV69]

By coincidence, this showed up on my timeline:

[screwtape]

A short while ago I mentioned there was a Mennonite community in my province that had chosen not to be vaccinated. Their outbreak has run its course now, with 95% of the community being infected, and thirteen hospitalisations including three deaths out of 250 people. Mostly young families with large numbers of children. I have no information as to how many of the surrounding non-Mennonites they infected. I'm sure they sincerely mourn the three who died, though it is unlikely they will think that through and ask themselves if those three might still be with them if they all had chosen to be vaccinated.
The Mennonites that live in my community apparently belong to a different sect, and have been vaccinated. Good, even admirable, people, but all the same, good people who stop educating their boys at 15 and their girls at 12. Not exactly maximising the potential of the brains of their offspring, but that would seem to be the point. Nonetheless, I loved being able to be part of their world in some small way, and maybe helped influence them to see vaccines as a positive benefit.
In the meantime I am now approved for a third dose as a bone marrow recipient with immunosuppression and limited ability to respond to immunizations. I shall delight in knowing that the deranged crackhead will spew forth bile, vitriol and saliva (such biology he must have!) in my direction as he imagines me rubbing my hands gleefully at the thought of the unvaccinated idiots, and anyone else he imagines I plot against, dying in droves. Paranoia used to worry me greatly when I was responsible for treating it - a schizophrenic who lived here and who moved to Ontario still rings me up every few weeks for a chat. He might be a 350lb psychotic with a criminal record for multiple assaults, but he counts as a friend and fellow Pink Floyd fan. Wish he didn't call after midnight when he can't sleep though. But in unhinged strangers it is oddly entertaining. So do carry on.

[Lsuoma]

Let’s not drag him away from his true love.

Truth. I didn't think anything could make me shelve my barbed wire collection, but once I found out about miniature stone wall building, I was immediately seduced by the glamour of it all.

You been her? (It's on Route 66, in McLean, TX): https://barbwiremuseum.com/

[Lsuoma]

Also, I love this story - it could havr been me: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58746703

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I find it droll how screw, after purifying his Pit experience by ignoring the heretics, still wants to chit-chat about the vax and his time spent playing Albert Schweitzer to the Mennonite followers of Ludd. :angelic-innocent:

Pity his sage counsel fell on our deaf ears and wooden heads.

[Steersman]

I find it droll how screw, after purifying his Pit experience by ignoring the heretics, still wants to chit-chat about the vax and his time spent playing Albert Schweitzer to the Mennonite followers of Ludd. :angelic-innocent:

Pity his sage counsel fell on our deaf ears and wooden heads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-n_zk7e0ZU

:) Looking at screwtape's comment I was thinking I needed to lay in a supply of popcorn given the way the three of you are going at it hammer-and-tongs ... ;)

But I was also thinking that I needed to look through some of his previous comments as I kinda got the impression that he wasn't all that sympathetic to the unvaccinated getting sick and dying though I could be mistaken.

However, he may also have something of a point or two. While you're probably right that most of those who catch Covid aren't going to experience anything more than a bad flu - at worst, the problem is that of those who DO get it, the vaccinated are anywhere from 12 to 34 times less likely to wind up on a respirator - or dead - than the unvaccinated. Unless vaccinations are "contraindicated", I kinda think those are much better odds than winding up with swollen testicles or worse.

From a Google search, I kinda think this is typical:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/here-s-how-much-m ... -1.5568368

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I kinda got the impression that he wasn't all that sympathetic to the unvaccinated getting sick and dying though I could be mistaken.

He reveled in the [imagined] impending deaths of the unvaxxed, as cosmic justice for their stupidity. I'm unvaxxed, for reasons. I took it a little personally.

While you're probably right that most of those who catch Covid aren't going to experience anything more than a bad flu - at worst, the problem is that of those who DO get it, the vaccinated are anywhere from 12 to 34 times less likely to wind up on a respirator - or dead - than the unvaccinated.

For folks under age 65, the survival rate is c. 99.997%. For the healthy, it's likely 100%

It's oymoronic to on the one hand hope the unvaxxed die, but also advocate draconian measures to force them to get vaxxed so they don't die. I suspect the true motivation is less compassion, than a combination of arrogance and disgust.

In any case, if the vaccine works, then you are good to go, and I cannot harm you, So leave me the fuck alone.

But this was never about the medical science. It's a quasi-religious cult.

Unless vaccinations are "contraindicated", I kinda think those are much better odds than winding up with swollen testicles or worse.

Swollen 'nads are no joke, and can lead to permanent sterility. I'll never forget the shock of my pediatrician's cold hand wrapping around my nutsack when I had the mumps. But he checked for a good reason.

Latest study found 1 in 1000 young males had heart inflammation post-vax. Anyphylaxis is also a common side effect, so the jab may well kill me on the spot. So screw and all the other Branch Covidians can go jump in a lake.

Try and force me to get the vax, and I'll administer your 'booster shot' forthwith.

[Steersman]

I kinda got the impression that he wasn't all that sympathetic to the unvaccinated getting sick and dying though I could be mistaken.

He reveled in the [imagined] impending deaths of the unvaxxed, as cosmic justice for their stupidity. I'm unvaxxed, for reasons. I took it a little personally.

Understandable. But I DID say "contraindicated" - if you got reasons then you're good to go as far as I'm concerned. But the "reasons" of many seem little better than being freaked out at the possiblity of stray keys magnetically sticking to their bodies.

While you're probably right that most of those who catch Covid aren't going to experience anything more than a bad flu - at worst, the problem is that of those who DO get it, the vaccinated are anywhere from 12 to 34 times less likely to wind up on a respirator - or dead - than the unvaccinated.

For folks under age 65, the survival rate is c. 99.997%. For the healthy, it's likely 100%

Stats for New York City say that some 25% of the deaths are those 65 and under. Scaling that to US demographics, I'd guestimate that that is about 2%.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ographics/

But whatever the percentage, I doubt that that "survival rate" is much consolation to the 716k US dead and their families.

It's oymoronic to on the one hand hope the unvaxxed die, but also advocate draconian measures to force them to get vaxxed so they don't die. I suspect the true motivation is less compassion, than a combination of arrogance and disgust.

Kinda think that that "argument" is a case of the "Frankenstein fallacy" that Aneris (I think) is responsible for:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Arp2 ... in_fallacy

The people "hoping the unvaxxed die" are probably not, or not entirely, the same group "forcing the unvaxxed to get vaxxed". Expect many of the latter group couldn't give much of a rat's ass whether many of the unvaxxed die - their call. The problem is that the unvaxxed put a serious load on the medical system - which we all depend on - directly by getting sick themselves or indirectly by spreading Covid around.

In any case, if the vaccine works, then you are good to go, and I cannot harm you, So leave me the fuck alone.

But this was never about the medical science. It's a quasi-religious cult.

There's probably some justification for "cult". "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." (Pascal)

But as I've said, the issue isn't just that the vaccine works but that that the unvaxxed put a disproportionate load on the medical system. Seem to recollect that a large percentage of the 50 to 100 million dead due to the Spanish flu weren't the result of the flu itself:

... although the viral infection was apparently no more aggressive than previous influenza strains. Malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, and poor hygiene, exacerbated by the war, promoted bacterial superinfection, killing most of the victims after a typically prolonged death bed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

We're all screwed if the medical system falls apart.

Unless vaccinations are "contraindicated", I kinda think those are much better odds than winding up with swollen testicles or worse.

Swollen 'nads are no joke, and can lead to permanent sterility. I'll never forget the shock of my pediatrician's cold hand wrapping around my nutsack when I had the mumps. But he checked for a good reason.

You're planning on starting a family? But while that sterility is a potential result, being dead is even less likely to permit the propagation of the species.

Latest study found 1 in 1000 young males had heart inflammation post-vax. Anyphylaxis is also a common side effect, so the jab may well kill me on the spot. So screw and all the other Branch Covidians can go jump in a lake.

You have something of a case. But don't think you help that by making unevidenced claims, particularly those that are contradicted by other evidence:

Among every 100,000 patients who get the vaccine, 1 to 5 will likely develop myocarditis who would not otherwise have developed it, researchers reported based on data from Clalit Health Services, a large Israeli HMO.

That rate is much higher - 11 per 100,000 - among people infected with the coronavirus, they said.

https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-08-25/

Try and force me to get the vax, and I'll administer your 'booster shot' forthwith.

You may well have good reasons for not getting the jab, others quite a bit less so. Not sure how you can reasonably argue that society in general isn't somewhat justified in imposing some restrictions on the latter group.

[fafnir]

Stats for New York City say that some 25% of the deaths are those 65 and under. Scaling that to US demographics, I'd guestimate that that is about 2%.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ographics/

But whatever the percentage, I doubt that that "survival rate" is much consolation to the 716k US dead and their families.

Those are for May 2020 and purely for New York. I'm not saying your numbers are wrong just providing a more up to date stats for the whole US:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/119 ... by-age-us/
I make it 23% of of deaths in the under 65s. Obviously this is "died with" rather than "died from" and we shouldn't be looking at those numbers and thinking these were necessarily healthy people.

I'm puzzled by how you get a 2% figure. Are you dividing the number of cases by the number of deaths? That strikes me as a problematic thing to do because you are going to miss off lots of the asymptomatic people who were never tested. Anyway, up to date data below:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/125 ... age-group/
What you see there is that there is huge variance in how these cases are skewed by age. About 4million of the 75million cases are for over 65s and 71million are for the under 65s. That gives a case fatality rate for the under 65s of 158926 / 71m = 0.2% and for the over 65s of 528246 / 4m = 13%.

Personally, I think those numbers are wildly overstating the fatality rate as, like I said these are "with covid" not "from covid" deaths and they are only picking up cases for people they test, and testing isn't random. If we were going to do this seriously, the stats would have to be gathered completely differently. How meaningful even is the case fatality rate to the average person given how skewed the deaths are towards people with significant health issues? The odds of a healthy, non-obese under 65 year old dying of covid is tiny.

[fafnir]

This is more like how you'd go about calculating the infection fatality rate.....
https://academic.microsoft.com/paper/30 ... nce%20data
I haven't done much in the way of systematic checking of it, but they came up with a median infection fatality rate of 0.04% for under 70 year olds. That is the sort of magnitude I've seen from similar papers. This paper was from May 2020, so hopefully we are better at treating covid now. An under 65 year old is obviously going to be substantially lower, a healthy under 65 year old is going to be substantially lower again. I think the 2% fatality rate is close to 2 orders of magnitude too high.

[fafnir]

Here is another report on the same thing:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/
It's a bit tricky to go from the abstract to a infection fatality rate for the under 65s, but "In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%." Again, disproportionately that 0.05% is going to be people 60+ who are obese or have serious health issues. The infection fatality rate for non-obese healthy under 65 year olds is going to be much much less than 0.05%

[fafnir]

Damn! Damn! Damn! That's the same study with a rewritten abstract.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I DID say "contraindicated" - if you got reasons then you're good to go as far as I'm concerned.

For anyone not elderly or health-compromised, the vax is contraindicated. But ultimately, the only reason required is, 'my body, my choice.'

But the "reasons" of many seem little better than being freaked out at the possiblity of stray keys magnetically sticking to their bodies.

Agit-prop of the Branch Covidians to disparage and gaslight people with legitimate concerns over the unprecedented number and severity of adverse reactions.

Stats for New York City say that some 25% of the deaths are those 65 and under. Scaling that to US demographics, I'd guestimate that that is about 2%.

The percentage of total deaths from a given age group is not the same as the fatality rate among that group. Were you aware of that, or just being specious to get a rise out of me?

You don't need to scale up from NYC, which is an aberration -- CDC posts the national figures.

But whatever the percentage, I doubt that that "survival rate" is much consolation to the 716k US dead and their families.

How the hell does it matter whether I get vaxxed now, to a bunch of folks who died because they were old and frail or morbidly obese, and before there was a vax?

This sort of lame sophistry is why I usually don't bother engaging with you.

The problem is that the unvaxxed put a serious load on the medical system - which we all depend on - directly by getting sick themselves or indirectly by spreading Covid around.

That's a fabricated, wag-the-dog crisis. The unvaxxed are not overwhelming our health care system. The ICUs are not overflowing. The only shortages come from the thousands of HC workers being fired for not getting the vax.

As for spread, the vaxxed carry 250x the viral load as do the unvaxxed. And again, if the vax works, the unvaxxed can only spread it to each other.

But don't think you help that by making unevidenced claims, particularly those that are contradicted by other evidence:

Among every 100,000 patients who get the vaccine, 1 to 5 will likely develop myocarditis who would not otherwise have developed it, researchers reported based on data from Clalit Health Services, a large Israeli HMO.

That rate is much higher - 11 per 100,000 - among people infected with the coronavirus, they said.

Cherry-picking -- more sophistry from you.

Note I said 'the latest study':
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 182v1.full

And if the chance of a young healthy man dying of covid is essentially zero, why should he risk any adverse vax reaction?

Not sure how you can reasonably argue that society in general isn't somewhat justified in imposing some restrictions on the latter group.

It's a lie that the unvaxxed pose any threat or cause any harm. That the unvaxxed, covid-recovered with natural immunity are also subjugated to the same punishments, is prove positive that this has nothing to do about 'the science', and everything about conformity and control.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Those are for May 2020 and purely for New York. I'm not saying your numbers are wrong just providing a more up to date stats for the whole US:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/119 ... by-age-us/
I make it 23% of of deaths in the under 65s. Obviously this is "died with" rather than "died from" and we shouldn't be looking at those numbers and thinking these were necessarily healthy people.

I'm sure steerz didn't stumble upon that stat on his own, but rather found it on some vax-nazi site that intentionally sought to deceive.

There are, of course, a lot more people age 45-65* than 75+, so the raw number of dead in each cadre is irrelevant to assessing individual risk.

* Itself an overly broad demographic clearly chosen to obscure the true age-specific severity of the virus.

Personally, I think those numbers are wildly overstating the fatality rate as, like I said these are "with covid" not "from covid" deaths and they are only picking up cases for people they test, and testing isn't random. If we were going to do this seriously, the stats would have to be gathered completely differently. How meaningful even is the case fatality rate to the average person given how skewed the deaths are towards people with significant health issues? The odds of a healthy, non-obese under 65 year old dying of covid is tiny.

If 'covid' was listed anywhere on the death certificate, whether an 'underlying' or 'contributing' cause, it was recorded as a covid death -- a protocol never previously applied. If you've got congestive heart failure, then catch a bad case of the flu, then die, was it the congestive heart failure or the flu what did you in? In the New Era, the answer is always, 'the covid.'

In 2020, CDC recorded 600K covid deaths and 400K "excess" deaths. But there were also 400K "excess" deaths in 2017 -- every year always has at least a couple hundred thousand. It's a meaningless stat. Flu deaths also went from an average of 35,000 p/a to ... 626. Then there's the fact that most of the departed were near or over the mean age of death. Surely for a lot of sick and frail folks, covid pushed them over the edge. But we'll never really know how many died of covid, or of those, how many would've succumbed to something else anyway. But it certainly wasn't 716,000.

[fafnir]

You may well have good reasons for not getting the jab, others quite a bit less so. Not sure how you can reasonably argue that society in general isn't somewhat justified in imposing some restrictions on the latter group.

Is this a general rule now? I mean, it feels like it wouldn't just apply to people with Covid. Maybe we should have everybody on the same STI test regimen as porn stars and and have an STI passport that is checked by dating websites and bars? Fat people put load on health services, maybe the federal government should be counting their calories for them and ban them from purchasing food if they've had too much and are being a drain on society? What is the general principle that the reaction to Covid is a specific instance of?