so, the models in new york drastically overestimated the problem. the politicians are claiming they overestimated the transmission rate, and social distancing slowed the spread; i am skeptical of this claim, and would suggest instead that they overestimated the mortality rate.
in the end, the death toll is going to be equal to the infection rate multiplied by the mortality rate. so, if your death toll is lower than expected, you have three options to correct for:
1) you can hold your mortality rate steady and decrease your infection rate, which is what the government is pushing.
2) you can hold your infection rate steady and decrease your mortality rate, which i suggest is closer to the truth.
3) you can decrease both factors by differing amounts, which is going to inevitably be reality, but isn't an idea that is being advocated by anybody right now. so, it could be that social distancing is working a little bit and the virus is a little bit less deadly than expected. some separation will eventually be required; right now, the debate is which factor is dominant.
we've seen the opposite in canada, but i should caution that the data is national while the reality is local. why then did the models in canada underestimate the number of deaths?
we could just adjust our reasoning, and this would create some problems for people pushing this widely embraced and rapidly developing pseudo-science of social distancing, to the extent that it doesn't turn into a process of collectivist masochism (if that isn't a redundancy).
then, it would follow that one way to explain why canada underestimated the death toll is because it underestimated the transmission rate, and social distancing did not reduce the spread - or wasn't followed. you'd have to conclude, then, that new york actually managed to do more social distancing, and more effectively than canada....despite the fact that it's actually the baseline used to calculate the worst case scenario. that's not quite a contradiction, but it's certainly inconsistent, and the results are definitely incoherent. if you base your models on the assumption that new york is what happens when no social distancing happens at all, and then new york beats your prediction due to overperforming you on metrics of social distancing, all you've managed to produce is nonsense. which is what i said from the start. so, if we're going to conclude that the numbers are wrong because we underestimated the transmission rate, we should really be deducing that social distancing was less effective in reducing the spread than the modelers initially guessed it might be - not that we're not doing it right. and, this is consistent with my analysis of new york.
the second option would be to argue that they underestimated the mortality rate, which would not be consistent with data we have elsewhere in the world. this is so unlikely that i'm going to discard it offhand.
so, then we're left to conclude that the case study comparison of state data in new york (where they were late to act, and overestimated the death count) and federal data in canada (where they reacted very early and then underestimated the death count) actually produces a consistency - in both cases, the modeling seems to have overestimated the effects (or lack thereof) of social distancing. it's actually pretty much perfectly consistent.
oddly, the provincial governments also seem to have largely overestimated rather than underestimated the toll, so it's starting to look like my analysis of ontario is going to be very similar to my analysis of new york. and, this difference is reflected in the public policy, as well.
trudeau has a knack for knowing the right things to say to persuade secularists to vote for him, but he also has a long history of falling head over heels into complete pseudo-science. this was a big issue under stephen harper, who muzzled scientists and tried to reorganize (perhaps succeeded in reorganizing) the research potential of the state as a propaganda tool of the oil industry. they ran heavily on this point; they were supposed to bring back science to the canadian government, to reintroduce the centrality of evidence-based decision making.
this is what we actually got, instead:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trudeaus-deliverology-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-punchline/article37023338/
...as it became increasingly clear that this guy is his mother's child, and he is more into yoga and vague concepts of "spirituality" than he is into science, reason and math.
so, it shouldn't surprise anybody that this is the government that bit the hardest, or that there might be people inside of this government that are legitimately shattered by the failure of the policy.
they put everything on this - the prime minister, the government, the party and maybe even the entire society. in the short run, they're more likely to blame it on us for being stupid than they are to admit they were wrong, despite that position having absolutely no empirical support. whatever they do, you can be sure that it will be full of copious attempts to uphold their point and plead that we stay the course. but, in canada, they can't do what cuomo is doing - because the numbers are worse than predicted.
i don't know what it's going to take for them to admit they were wrong, and this isn't working.
i just hope that, in the end, we all realize that there have been people like me pointing to actual science since day one. the worst thing that can come out of this is a retreat from science, or a return to religious backwardsness.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
who should biden pick as vp?
he says he wants to pick a black woman to "reward their loyalty", which to me is conceptually weird. if he picks a kamala harris or a stacey abrams, would random black women across the country feel as though they were being rewarded? why, exactly? neither candidate is particularly in tune with the issues that most affect black voters, with the exception of the issue of just being black.
regardless, running for president isn't like working in a coffee shop, and this isn't the time for black voters to decide they're going to get their 6th cup for free (especially given that the 2008 election already happened). in order to win, he needs to focus on winning mostly white states in the midwest...
elizabeth warren has demonstrated rather clearly that she's not going to pull very much of the vote. in a move in a very different direction than warren would take, biden has been doing townhalls with mark zuckerberg recently; you'll recall that the central plank in warren's platform was to destroy the internet, and zuckerberg was public enemy number one, for her. she was campaigning directly against him. so, biden doesn't appear to have her on his short list, and i would agree with people that are arguing that she would not be likely to help him win in any substantive way - she might even end up repelling voters that would otherwise lean in his direction, due to whatever hangover from hillary clinton.
likewise, i would strenuously avoid kamala harris, who demonstrated through the course of the process that she's neither a serious thinker nor a competent manager. she's like a black sarah palin. but, this is the outcome i'm more worried about. she could quite foreseeably cost him the election.
stacey abrams is also on the list, and i'm not entirely sure why, given that she's unlikely to even carry her own state. generally, you have to win a few elections before you get promoted to vp - you might want to even be a two-term governor. she may hinder biden less than kamala harris or elizabeth warren, but she won't help him where he needs to win.
so, if you're looking through black female candidates in the upper midwest, who stands out? the mayor in chicago?
he really shouldn't have boxed himself in like that. but, he may have conceded the process the moment he did it - don't be surprised if he does pick a black southerner, and then basically spends the next six months repeating the mistakes of bernie sanders, which were also the mistakes of hillary clinton, in ceding all of the actually competitive states, while trying to win states he has no chance in.
i don't have a suggestion.
but, avoid kamala harris. she's toxic.
he says he wants to pick a black woman to "reward their loyalty", which to me is conceptually weird. if he picks a kamala harris or a stacey abrams, would random black women across the country feel as though they were being rewarded? why, exactly? neither candidate is particularly in tune with the issues that most affect black voters, with the exception of the issue of just being black.
regardless, running for president isn't like working in a coffee shop, and this isn't the time for black voters to decide they're going to get their 6th cup for free (especially given that the 2008 election already happened). in order to win, he needs to focus on winning mostly white states in the midwest...
elizabeth warren has demonstrated rather clearly that she's not going to pull very much of the vote. in a move in a very different direction than warren would take, biden has been doing townhalls with mark zuckerberg recently; you'll recall that the central plank in warren's platform was to destroy the internet, and zuckerberg was public enemy number one, for her. she was campaigning directly against him. so, biden doesn't appear to have her on his short list, and i would agree with people that are arguing that she would not be likely to help him win in any substantive way - she might even end up repelling voters that would otherwise lean in his direction, due to whatever hangover from hillary clinton.
likewise, i would strenuously avoid kamala harris, who demonstrated through the course of the process that she's neither a serious thinker nor a competent manager. she's like a black sarah palin. but, this is the outcome i'm more worried about. she could quite foreseeably cost him the election.
stacey abrams is also on the list, and i'm not entirely sure why, given that she's unlikely to even carry her own state. generally, you have to win a few elections before you get promoted to vp - you might want to even be a two-term governor. she may hinder biden less than kamala harris or elizabeth warren, but she won't help him where he needs to win.
so, if you're looking through black female candidates in the upper midwest, who stands out? the mayor in chicago?
he really shouldn't have boxed himself in like that. but, he may have conceded the process the moment he did it - don't be surprised if he does pick a black southerner, and then basically spends the next six months repeating the mistakes of bernie sanders, which were also the mistakes of hillary clinton, in ceding all of the actually competitive states, while trying to win states he has no chance in.
i don't have a suggestion.
but, avoid kamala harris. she's toxic.
i haven't completely given up on teaching, i just deprioritized it. there were so many other things that were so much more important to me.
and, i actually kind of think that teachers should be older people, not young people. i can understand the argument for young teachers in elementary school, because it's not that different from babysitting, and too wide of a generational gap can be a big problem with young kids. but, certainly once you get to high school and older, i'd rather see a systemic focus on telling young teachers to wait in line, perhaps by increasing the educational requirements. there's something kind of backwards about letting people in their 30s and 40s teach at high schools.
if i ever do this, i'm going to actually find myself preferring to teach adults. i don't have a lot of patience with kids, actually; i'd rather deal with grown-ups. and, i suspect there's probably a demand for that.
but, i'm more interested in my art.
right now, i need to eat.
and, i actually kind of think that teachers should be older people, not young people. i can understand the argument for young teachers in elementary school, because it's not that different from babysitting, and too wide of a generational gap can be a big problem with young kids. but, certainly once you get to high school and older, i'd rather see a systemic focus on telling young teachers to wait in line, perhaps by increasing the educational requirements. there's something kind of backwards about letting people in their 30s and 40s teach at high schools.
if i ever do this, i'm going to actually find myself preferring to teach adults. i don't have a lot of patience with kids, actually; i'd rather deal with grown-ups. and, i suspect there's probably a demand for that.
but, i'm more interested in my art.
right now, i need to eat.
"you can't construct a peak from a plateau, that's just making thing up."
no.
it's what statisticians do - they look at messy raw data and they analyze it for errors and biases to try to reconstruct a reflection of reality from it.
the best way to explain this to a non-technical but educated audience is actually to bring in the allegory of the cave - the data is really shadows on the wall, and what we're tasked with is a way to figure out what's going on by analyzing those shadows.
if you insist otherwise - that the data is reality, and analysis is just making things up - then you are essentially the prisoner shackled to the wall, that can't see things for what they really are.
no.
it's what statisticians do - they look at messy raw data and they analyze it for errors and biases to try to reconstruct a reflection of reality from it.
the best way to explain this to a non-technical but educated audience is actually to bring in the allegory of the cave - the data is really shadows on the wall, and what we're tasked with is a way to figure out what's going on by analyzing those shadows.
if you insist otherwise - that the data is reality, and analysis is just making things up - then you are essentially the prisoner shackled to the wall, that can't see things for what they really are.
this is a useful little find for chromebook purposes and how i made those images on a computer without a hard drive.
https://jspaint.app/
https://jspaint.app/
if the numbers in new york crash over the next week (and, again - easter is a complicating factor. but, we're starting to get enough data in to understand the fluctuations as more than random.), what we're going to have in front of us is a steep incline, followed by a bumpy and short plateau, and then a steep decrease.
from a data analytical perspective, this is the most confusing outcome possible, because we're left with the problem of trying to reconstruct a peak that might or might not be there.
factors to consider include:
- delayed reporting (so, somebody dying on a monday but not being reported until the wednesday, for example)
- the effects of ventilator systems on essentially postponing death by a few days
- just flat out unreported deaths
and, i would need actual, real data in order to do actual, meaningful work in order to get a real handle on that - that's too subtle to eyeball from some bar graphs.
from a data analytical perspective, this is the most confusing outcome possible, because we're left with the problem of trying to reconstruct a peak that might or might not be there.
factors to consider include:
- delayed reporting (so, somebody dying on a monday but not being reported until the wednesday, for example)
- the effects of ventilator systems on essentially postponing death by a few days
- just flat out unreported deaths
and, i would need actual, real data in order to do actual, meaningful work in order to get a real handle on that - that's too subtle to eyeball from some bar graphs.
it will be interesting to see how the msm pivots all of their "covid-19 lab theory debunked !!!1!!!11!" articles, once rachel maddow starts broadcasting anti-chinese propaganda on a nightly basis.
do i think they created this in a lab? well, there wasn't any evidence of this, until the president started pointing fingers, thereby incriminating himself. but, the insistence on trying to write this off without investigating it, despite it being an entirely plausible hypothesis, did raise some eyebrows with me from the start. why were they so insistent on shutting that down?
if this is a bioweapon then:
1) it isn't a very useful one
2) releasing it seems to have backfired and the united states is currently experiencing incredible blowback from it.
but, when was the last time the united states did something that didn't backfire? it was back when joe friday and maxwell smart were on tv. really. before that, even. so, maybe it's blowback, but that's not really a convincing argument against it.
again: i don't currently have any reason to think this was an engineered virus.
...except the people trying very hard to stop me from wondering about it, and the apparent increasing attempt to blame it on china, instead.
Friday, February 28, 2020
i don't understand what's going on with the coronavirus at this point in time, and i haven't presented a hypothesis.
i have pointed out that the reaction seems to be unjustified, given the weakness of the virus. this is really just a variant of the flu.
or so they tell us, anyways. i can hypothesize about actors and motives, but i can't make up data. the data says this is not that scary. but, then, why are they doing this?
so, what i've drawn attention to is that contradiction - they tell us this thing has a 0.5% mortality rate, and then they treat it like it's ebola. they, here, is not the media, it's not "liberal" politicians, but it's rather the global authorities that you expect to operate outside of the alarmism, and actually adhere to the science.
so, when these agencies tell you that this disease is not very dangerous, and then act like it's a serious threat to global health, it makes you wonder what's actually happening.
are they hiding a deeper death toll in order to prevent mass panic? that would explain why they tell us one thing, and act as though another is true.
or, is there some kind of power grab going on behind the scenes?
i don't know....
i know there's a contradiction.
we'll have to see how this plays out, but it really has to be one or the other - either the death toll is far greater than is claimed, or this is going to be used as an excuse to take away people's rights.
again: i could shrug it off if it was a politician overreacting. but, these are the global health authorities, and something is not adding up.
do i think they created this in a lab? well, there wasn't any evidence of this, until the president started pointing fingers, thereby incriminating himself. but, the insistence on trying to write this off without investigating it, despite it being an entirely plausible hypothesis, did raise some eyebrows with me from the start. why were they so insistent on shutting that down?
if this is a bioweapon then:
1) it isn't a very useful one
2) releasing it seems to have backfired and the united states is currently experiencing incredible blowback from it.
but, when was the last time the united states did something that didn't backfire? it was back when joe friday and maxwell smart were on tv. really. before that, even. so, maybe it's blowback, but that's not really a convincing argument against it.
again: i don't currently have any reason to think this was an engineered virus.
...except the people trying very hard to stop me from wondering about it, and the apparent increasing attempt to blame it on china, instead.
Friday, February 28, 2020
i don't understand what's going on with the coronavirus at this point in time, and i haven't presented a hypothesis.
i have pointed out that the reaction seems to be unjustified, given the weakness of the virus. this is really just a variant of the flu.
or so they tell us, anyways. i can hypothesize about actors and motives, but i can't make up data. the data says this is not that scary. but, then, why are they doing this?
so, what i've drawn attention to is that contradiction - they tell us this thing has a 0.5% mortality rate, and then they treat it like it's ebola. they, here, is not the media, it's not "liberal" politicians, but it's rather the global authorities that you expect to operate outside of the alarmism, and actually adhere to the science.
so, when these agencies tell you that this disease is not very dangerous, and then act like it's a serious threat to global health, it makes you wonder what's actually happening.
are they hiding a deeper death toll in order to prevent mass panic? that would explain why they tell us one thing, and act as though another is true.
or, is there some kind of power grab going on behind the scenes?
i don't know....
i know there's a contradiction.
we'll have to see how this plays out, but it really has to be one or the other - either the death toll is far greater than is claimed, or this is going to be used as an excuse to take away people's rights.
again: i could shrug it off if it was a politician overreacting. but, these are the global health authorities, and something is not adding up.
15:02
the data they've given us says that chances are that you'll catch this thing and have it pass without even knowing you have it...
but, again - why is the who freaking out, then?
they don't have elections to worry about. they're not pandering to their base. they're supposed to be beyond all that shit.
we'll see what happens...
like, apparently the country with the second highest death toll is iran.
that's just kind of a curious fact.
so, did they create this thing in a lab?
they could have. if they did, they'd probably let it loose in iran first.
but, you'd think they'd be a little more efficient.
so, i'm going to classify that claim as highly doubtful. but, anybody trying to browbeat you with the idea that that's "debunked" or "wrong" should be treated as a propagandist - it's entirely plausible, in principle.
if a new virus shows up in china and starts killing chinese people, is it more likely that it was created by the chinese or by their enemies?
if the chinese were going to create viruses and let them loose, you'd expect them to let them loose here, right?
so, who is the most likely suspect, if we take the premise seriously? it would be the americans, of course.
which is making the infection rate in iran seem curious.
but, i still think this idea is dubious, because the virus is just too weak for that. it might save the chinese some money on public health care. it's hardly weapons-grade material...
but, again - why is the who freaking out, then?
they don't have elections to worry about. they're not pandering to their base. they're supposed to be beyond all that shit.
we'll see what happens...
at 15:12
that's just kind of a curious fact.
at 15:34
they could have. if they did, they'd probably let it loose in iran first.
but, you'd think they'd be a little more efficient.
so, i'm going to classify that claim as highly doubtful. but, anybody trying to browbeat you with the idea that that's "debunked" or "wrong" should be treated as a propagandist - it's entirely plausible, in principle.
at 15:36
let's kind of think this through, though.
if a new virus shows up in china and starts killing chinese people, is it more likely that it was created by the chinese or by their enemies?
if the chinese were going to create viruses and let them loose, you'd expect them to let them loose here, right?
so, who is the most likely suspect, if we take the premise seriously? it would be the americans, of course.
which is making the infection rate in iran seem curious.
but, i still think this idea is dubious, because the virus is just too weak for that. it might save the chinese some money on public health care. it's hardly weapons-grade material...
at 15:40
so, i got the groceries put away this morning, at least, which is a process of putting fruit into tupperware containers. i got halfway through the dishes, even made some pasta. i fell asleep around 9:30-ish.
so, that was a longer day, and i was able to rebound with only a few hours of sleep.
i'm going to make a bowl of fruit and eat the pasta i made yesterday, now. or, at least, about a third of it.
and, i can get to cleaning after that.
and, then, get to doing some work to close down the month.
so, that was a longer day, and i was able to rebound with only a few hours of sleep.
i'm going to make a bowl of fruit and eat the pasta i made yesterday, now. or, at least, about a third of it.
and, i can get to cleaning after that.
and, then, get to doing some work to close down the month.
again - if we end up dragging this out for the next five years, it's just an admission of guilt on behalf of the deep state, and their crony donald trump.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-u-s-is-trying-to-find-out-if-the-coronavirus-came-from-a-wuhan-lab
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-u-s-is-trying-to-find-out-if-the-coronavirus-came-from-a-wuhan-lab
the reason i'm focusing on new york is that it is the most direct way to understand what's actually happening with the virus and consequently make projections about what is going to happen in canada, soon - that is, whether people like cuomo come out of this looking more like joe friday.......or maxwell smart.
the big drop today is finally aligning the shape of the number of deaths per day with the other stats. this is a tentative step towards the ultimate shape being peakish rather than plateauish, which is suggestive (but, not definitive proof.) of this burning out due to widespread immunity rather than a decrease in infection rates. the other numbers have also declined enough to conclude that any spikes that occur over the next two-three weeks are the result of re-exposure over easter - if that is even possible, anymore, due to such widespread immunity (which does not mean it's safe to visit your nana, yet).
but, this is day-to-day.
if the deaths in the city end up peaking at around 10,000, that is going to suggest immunity levels between 60-70%, and an ultimate mortality rate of between 0.0005% and 0.0020% in my model - which is in line with a seasonal flu, even if the curve doesn't include the very young (and, so, is shifted towards the very old).
we'll see how this continues to work out over the next few days.
the numbers next week are going to be very interesting.
the big drop today is finally aligning the shape of the number of deaths per day with the other stats. this is a tentative step towards the ultimate shape being peakish rather than plateauish, which is suggestive (but, not definitive proof.) of this burning out due to widespread immunity rather than a decrease in infection rates. the other numbers have also declined enough to conclude that any spikes that occur over the next two-three weeks are the result of re-exposure over easter - if that is even possible, anymore, due to such widespread immunity (which does not mean it's safe to visit your nana, yet).
but, this is day-to-day.
if the deaths in the city end up peaking at around 10,000, that is going to suggest immunity levels between 60-70%, and an ultimate mortality rate of between 0.0005% and 0.0020% in my model - which is in line with a seasonal flu, even if the curve doesn't include the very young (and, so, is shifted towards the very old).
we'll see how this continues to work out over the next few days.
the numbers next week are going to be very interesting.
this water v salt delivery mechanism is something that is still being studied.
i used the term "water soluble" and that might be a little misleading. you do want the chemical to eventually pass through the membrane into the cell. but, the basic difference between the hemihydrate (the generic) and the brand name is that the hemihydrate attaches the estrogen to a water molecule in the pill, and essentially releases the estrogen in the presence of water, whereas the brand name attaches the estrogen to a salt molecule, which only releases the estrogen when it gets to the liver, and sort of protects it from the gastric acid.
so, when you take a hemihydrate, it just dissolves in your stomach, because it doesn't have that ester to protect it from the acid - it just dissolves on contact with water. instead, you need to take it under your tongue, where it's released directly into your bloodstream. this produces a peak in blood concentration, followed by a fast decline.
when you take the brand name, the estrogen-ester compound actually absorbs into your blood, to be broken down by your liver - and will then actually even return to your liver for future storage and release. this leads to lower but more stable levels of blood concentration.
the ideal, of course, would be for high and stable levels of blood concentration, but that is hard with this chemical. you could conceivably take massive injections every couple of days, but again - that feels like a drug addiction. i don't want to do that...and i don't want needle marks on my arms. yuck.
i've clearly prioritized having stable amounts that are a little lower over having these spikes. and, let's understand what estrogen is and what these spikes can do - we're talking about crying fits, irrational outbursts, etc. it's pms, basically. every six hours. i have a sneaking suspicion that this is a part of the reason suicide rates are so high - the way this seems to be often prescribed is actually quite reckless.
cis-women can get around this by taking the pill, which is basically what i'm doing. but, let me ask all the cis-women out there - how long do you think you'd survive if your estrogen peaked and fell 2, 3, 4 times a day? that would be hell, right? that is actually what so many of these transgirls are doing to themselves, and it doesn't increase the efficacy, either.
so, the difference is that the generic should be taken under your tongue and produces a steep spike followed by a sharp decline, while the brand name should be taken orally and produces a more stable level over longer periods.
my estrogen blood tests have been sufficient. what my doctor told me, verbatim, was to not change what i'm doing, because the concentrations were quite high. i've boosted dosage twice in the last five years. how many more times? well, i've been more concerned about offloading the effects of the cyproterone acetate on my liver, which i'd like to do by removing my testicles. but, if this was hard before, it's even harder now - that's an elective surgery, and there's going to be a backlog when the virus is over.
but, i just spent some time taking a closer look at numbers coming from studies done over the last two years or so (that is, updated data), and while the general difference appears to continue to be upheld, clarification on the difference in reuptake is making me wonder if i shouldn't be optimizing this by mixing it up.
i currently take one 2 mg pill of estrace four times a day, that is every six hours (obviously, i'm rarely exactly on time). i should get about 50 pg/ml from each one after six hours, and it should stay above 35 pg/ml for almost two days. that means that at midnight every day, i should have about 200 pg/ml from the four pills i took over the previous day, and another 100+ from the pills i took the day before that, for average levels in the high 200s or low 300s, which is what i've been tested at - and is statistically higher than almost all cis-women, even if it cuts out the peaks in the cycle, which are much higher.
if i were to take it under my tongue, i'd jump up to 5-600 pg/ml as quickly as within five minutes, but it would crash within an hour. so, i'd end up with a kind of 45 minute estrogen high, followed by a long crash that is going to level me off by the time it's time to take another one. i'd have to do that every six hours which would actually probably be very difficult, emotionally.
so, i want to be clear that i want to avoid that.
but, a lot of my perception around the downside of the sublingual method was the steepness of the curve. the data i'd seen up to this point suggested you'd be at almost nothing after 6 hours, so you'd be constantly ramping up and down. while the ramp up is reflected in the more recent data, it also suggests a bigger base level, so that you're not falling all the way to zero. i even found some studies that suggest that sublingual application may decay at the same rate as metabolic use.
i still don't want my estrogen spiking every six hours. so, i still need the brand name drugs. and, the data does seem to continue to uphold the previous conclusion that average levels are higher with oral administration, which is what i actually want.
but, i'm considering experimenting with sporadic sublingual applications, just to see what happens. maybe, before i go to a concert, for example.
it's thursday, april 16th. let's see if i can remind myself to try it sublingually on thursdays at noon for the next month and see what happens.
it also seems to be that they've recently added prometrium to the formulary, which is good news. i started off on prometrium, but moved to medroxy because it was covered. i ultimately wasn't happy with the outcome of this, but i had to weight the cost-benefit analysis, and the reality is that the drug was expensive. if i can get the prometrium covered, i'll jump to it in a second...
the appointment is in may.
does chris selley really think the concern is inflation, rather than profit?
i'm going to spin the question around: how do we eliminate our reliance on foreign labour in food production? that's not sustainable, but in some sense it's continuity. has anybody written the report that starts with handing out free (often already occupied.) land to immigrants in the 1800s and ends with tfws, as a narrative on the country's continual reliance on foreign labour for food production?
or the slow collapse of the family farm into these massive corporate conglomerations that have the nerve to import slaves and then send them back?
i've been arguing for a very long time that this system is fundamentally incompatible with a free society - it's just a more humane type of slavery, by another name. i know - capitalism is, in general. maybe i'm the one that even told you that. but, this is ethnic. if capitalism in general is barely tolerable, it's these tfws that are across the line of acceptability, of decency and of dignity. this should simply not exist at all.
so, how do you just shut this terrible system down altogether?
i don't actually want to bring back the family farm. maybe we could have avoided losing it, but maybe it's technological determinism - maybe it was inevitable. maybe. but, right now, trying to move back to family farming would be on par with some kind of communist experiment. a communist experiment, you say? what could go wrong?
i'm in strong support of increasing automation in farming, actually. i'd like to see more indoor growing, and less carbon produced by transportation. my carbon footprint is so low you can't even trip over it, but i do have one guilty habit - it's not air travel, exactly (i'd actually rather take the bus.), but the reliance on fruit in my diet, much of which is imported from the southern united states, or mexico. i want to be able to buy strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, kiwis, pineapple and whatever other fruit you can think of, as well as green peppers, which are the only technical vegetable that i buy regularly, at all times of year, in this country, with a minimal travel footprint. you could probably grow all of these things in leamington.
but, i don't see any particular reason why you actually need humans to do any of this. you may claim that fruit must be picked, but i'll tell you, actually - i'm perfectly happy buying a literal bushel of strawberries out of a bin if it took three hours to transit, instead of sitting three weeks in a plastic container designed to maximize it's shelf-life. you don't have to lay the strawberries down nicely on top of each other in that plastic container. i don't even need the packaging at all; we'd all be better off without it, really. so, this is kind of a weak concern. there's ways around it, even if it means changing how we package and distribute our food, which we need to be looking at ways to do, anyways.
it's never really been cost effective to do this, previously.
is it cost effective now? if not now, when?
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-ottawas-plan-for-quarantining-temporary-foreign-workers-is-more-bizarre-than-comforting
i'm going to spin the question around: how do we eliminate our reliance on foreign labour in food production? that's not sustainable, but in some sense it's continuity. has anybody written the report that starts with handing out free (often already occupied.) land to immigrants in the 1800s and ends with tfws, as a narrative on the country's continual reliance on foreign labour for food production?
or the slow collapse of the family farm into these massive corporate conglomerations that have the nerve to import slaves and then send them back?
i've been arguing for a very long time that this system is fundamentally incompatible with a free society - it's just a more humane type of slavery, by another name. i know - capitalism is, in general. maybe i'm the one that even told you that. but, this is ethnic. if capitalism in general is barely tolerable, it's these tfws that are across the line of acceptability, of decency and of dignity. this should simply not exist at all.
so, how do you just shut this terrible system down altogether?
i don't actually want to bring back the family farm. maybe we could have avoided losing it, but maybe it's technological determinism - maybe it was inevitable. maybe. but, right now, trying to move back to family farming would be on par with some kind of communist experiment. a communist experiment, you say? what could go wrong?
i'm in strong support of increasing automation in farming, actually. i'd like to see more indoor growing, and less carbon produced by transportation. my carbon footprint is so low you can't even trip over it, but i do have one guilty habit - it's not air travel, exactly (i'd actually rather take the bus.), but the reliance on fruit in my diet, much of which is imported from the southern united states, or mexico. i want to be able to buy strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, kiwis, pineapple and whatever other fruit you can think of, as well as green peppers, which are the only technical vegetable that i buy regularly, at all times of year, in this country, with a minimal travel footprint. you could probably grow all of these things in leamington.
but, i don't see any particular reason why you actually need humans to do any of this. you may claim that fruit must be picked, but i'll tell you, actually - i'm perfectly happy buying a literal bushel of strawberries out of a bin if it took three hours to transit, instead of sitting three weeks in a plastic container designed to maximize it's shelf-life. you don't have to lay the strawberries down nicely on top of each other in that plastic container. i don't even need the packaging at all; we'd all be better off without it, really. so, this is kind of a weak concern. there's ways around it, even if it means changing how we package and distribute our food, which we need to be looking at ways to do, anyways.
it's never really been cost effective to do this, previously.
is it cost effective now? if not now, when?
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-ottawas-plan-for-quarantining-temporary-foreign-workers-is-more-bizarre-than-comforting
the fact is that there's no science behind the border closure at all. this is just politics - and it's bad politics, the politics of nationalism, of division and of fear.
the messaging from trudeau is that he wants to take an insular, right-wing approach to this and put up more and more borders to keep us more and more walled off (or in.), apparently under pressure from the evan solomons of the world, which he seems to think produce compelling arguments.
but, the science was always clear - this hinders, it does not help.
it doesn't look like much is going to be open in michigan for a while, so a re-opened border actually probably doesn't help me much, especially not now since i've spent the month's money on food, and pot. but, i'd support reopening the border asap, regardless - even it it's only one-way.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/restrictions-at-canada-u-s-border-could-soon-be-eased-trump-suggests
the messaging from trudeau is that he wants to take an insular, right-wing approach to this and put up more and more borders to keep us more and more walled off (or in.), apparently under pressure from the evan solomons of the world, which he seems to think produce compelling arguments.
but, the science was always clear - this hinders, it does not help.
it doesn't look like much is going to be open in michigan for a while, so a re-opened border actually probably doesn't help me much, especially not now since i've spent the month's money on food, and pot. but, i'd support reopening the border asap, regardless - even it it's only one-way.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/restrictions-at-canada-u-s-border-could-soon-be-eased-trump-suggests
the generics seem to mostly come in from india.
so, up here in canada, where many of the drug stores are run by recent indian emigrants, it makes sense to think that somebody is getting a deal, if they know somebody that knows somebody, in getting supply in at a very low rate - which can then be marked starkly up.
and, they don't care - it's just business.
so, up here in canada, where many of the drug stores are run by recent indian emigrants, it makes sense to think that somebody is getting a deal, if they know somebody that knows somebody, in getting supply in at a very low rate - which can then be marked starkly up.
and, they don't care - it's just business.
i'm not even actually arguing that this pharmacist is wrong.
what i'm arguing is that this pharmacist doesn't seem to have much interest in anything besides maximizing profit. she seems to be pushing the generics because she'll make more money that way, not due to any kind of scientific argument, one way or the other.
i doubt she even knows the difference, let alone cares about the efficacy of the treatment.
and, you have to always remember this when you're dealing with healthcare professionals - we live in a capitalist society, which means the number one priority is always profit.
what i'm arguing is that this pharmacist doesn't seem to have much interest in anything besides maximizing profit. she seems to be pushing the generics because she'll make more money that way, not due to any kind of scientific argument, one way or the other.
i doubt she even knows the difference, let alone cares about the efficacy of the treatment.
and, you have to always remember this when you're dealing with healthcare professionals - we live in a capitalist society, which means the number one priority is always profit.
don't forget to ignore pelosi while you're at it.
https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-urges-americans-ignore-trump-listen-scientists-says-president-caused-unnecessary-deaths-1497922
https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-urges-americans-ignore-trump-listen-scientists-says-president-caused-unnecessary-deaths-1497922
i expected that the first peer-reviewed paper on global warming would be an easily googleable thing, but it doesn't seem like anybody's prioritized making that declaration. some things hit us paradigmatically, others are slow to take root; our understanding of global warming has been slow and incremental, rather than sudden and immediate.
in the end, people aren't going to be looking back at actual bad science in relation to covid-19. i haven't seen a lot of specious articles or reports from actual scientists; my criticism has been towards governments, and towards media. i've often reacted to bad information produced by governments and media (and, to an extent, they're the same thing) by directing readers to pre-print papers. so, let's not confuse the comparison even more.
with that in mind, it is perhaps worth noting how badly the media got it in the 70s.
https://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-prediction-perils-111927
governments, on the other hand, seem to have mostly written it off as pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
so, if you were standing in 1970 and you were waving your copy of newsweek and believing the reports from the white house (do you kids know who was president in 1970? he's a lot like the guy we have now, actually.) at face value, you'd have been pretty much exactly wrong.
and, what would the white knights have said?
you need to wait.
but, if you want a comparison, there it is.
in the end, people aren't going to be looking back at actual bad science in relation to covid-19. i haven't seen a lot of specious articles or reports from actual scientists; my criticism has been towards governments, and towards media. i've often reacted to bad information produced by governments and media (and, to an extent, they're the same thing) by directing readers to pre-print papers. so, let's not confuse the comparison even more.
with that in mind, it is perhaps worth noting how badly the media got it in the 70s.
https://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-prediction-perils-111927
governments, on the other hand, seem to have mostly written it off as pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
so, if you were standing in 1970 and you were waving your copy of newsweek and believing the reports from the white house (do you kids know who was president in 1970? he's a lot like the guy we have now, actually.) at face value, you'd have been pretty much exactly wrong.
and, what would the white knights have said?
you need to wait.
but, if you want a comparison, there it is.
we'll know when we get antibody testing. it doesn't have to be widespread, for this application; we'll know when we get a few representative samples.
you should remain skeptical, until then. i will continue to point out reasons why.
and, for fuck's sake, discard your faith in government bureaucrats stumbling through bad science with worse powerpoint slides. it's disgusting...
you should remain skeptical, until then. i will continue to point out reasons why.
and, for fuck's sake, discard your faith in government bureaucrats stumbling through bad science with worse powerpoint slides. it's disgusting...
this situation will change in the upcoming months, and you'll be able to give these zealous democrats that are eager to jump into battle something more sciencey to make bad arguments from authority around, as they struggle for alpha idiot with the anti-science conservatives, who are unlikely to modify their messaging much, regardless.
right now, what these democrats are really doing is putting their faith in bad science, and that should always be strenuously avoided - because faith has no place in science.
to use a bad word, we're not "progressing" away from religion if we just elevate science to the priesthood, in the end. that's not secular humanism, that's some kind of dystopian nazism.
elevating science past religion means replacing faith with skepticism. that's the point, that's the goal, that's the end - it's how you know you're doing this right. and how you know when you aren't...
but people, today, are what they are.
you white knights need to shut up for a while and let science do it's job, first.
right now, what these democrats are really doing is putting their faith in bad science, and that should always be strenuously avoided - because faith has no place in science.
to use a bad word, we're not "progressing" away from religion if we just elevate science to the priesthood, in the end. that's not secular humanism, that's some kind of dystopian nazism.
elevating science past religion means replacing faith with skepticism. that's the point, that's the goal, that's the end - it's how you know you're doing this right. and how you know when you aren't...
but people, today, are what they are.
you white knights need to shut up for a while and let science do it's job, first.
even at this stage in the pandemic, i wouldn't put higher odds than a coin toss on either side getting the concept right. is social distancing actually working, or is it just widespread immunity? we don't know; flip a coin.
i'll make my arguments as forcefully and convincingly as i can.
but, in the kind of data desert that we have with this, it's a coin toss. really.
governments have a prerogative to lean staunchly towards conservative policies, and that is what the response is reflective of, not any deep reverence to science. you have to remember that the government is ultimately driven by actuaries; they're taking the path that has the least amount of risk, and will do the least amount of harm - and has what they believe is the lowest projected cost. i think they're wrong on the second and third points, but it's the first point that is really the policy driver. our governments are deeply risk adverse, that is they're deeply conservative, when stripped to their core functions.
i'll make my arguments as forcefully and convincingly as i can.
but, in the kind of data desert that we have with this, it's a coin toss. really.
governments have a prerogative to lean staunchly towards conservative policies, and that is what the response is reflective of, not any deep reverence to science. you have to remember that the government is ultimately driven by actuaries; they're taking the path that has the least amount of risk, and will do the least amount of harm - and has what they believe is the lowest projected cost. i think they're wrong on the second and third points, but it's the first point that is really the policy driver. our governments are deeply risk adverse, that is they're deeply conservative, when stripped to their core functions.
so, is the failure of covid-19 modelling reason to think that climate modelling is inaccurate, too?
i guess we should have seen that coming, and it's typical in it's characteristic of being so naively stupid that it's actually kind of complicated to coherently correct. it really pulls the rug out from underneath the entire concept of the scientific method, to try and compare modelling for a problem we've been working on with great interest for 40 years to something we've barely understood for 40 days. it's just simply an absurd thing to even try and make a comparison, regarding.
so, i don't want to take the bait and fall into a partisan argument around this, because i can tell you in advance where this is going, too - you'll have these white knight science defenders coming out swinging for the democratic party (most of whom have something like a grade 10 science education), arguing forcefully that the models are incapable of error, because they're science, and science is, like, the truth, and stuff. right. in fact, these idiots on the fake left will be making exactly the same mistake as their mirror-reflected idiots on the fake right, in trying to compare something we've been studying intensely for 40 years to something we've barely understood for 40 days. i'm not wading into this battle to be crowned alpha stupid fucking idiot. you guys can have that debate without me.
unlike climate change, we don't have enough data on covid-19 to create anything more useful than exceedingly speculative models.
we can do this comparison, if you want to do it, though, and the way to do it is to launch up the wayback machine and search for climate change articles written in the late 70s and early 80s. i'll see if i can find the first peer-reviewed paper on climate change, i'm sure somebody has figured this out. how accurate was it? i'd guess it was pretty brutal.
after all, these same geniuses are no doubt well aware of the global cooling scare in the 70s.
i'll leave it to somebody else to work out the details, but it's scary because of the anti-intellectualism underlying it, in the way that it really does completely sidestep the scientific method. you shouldn't need advanced degrees to realize that the comparison is absurd - that should be intuitive, should be completely obvious. so, why don't these people (on both sides of the debate) have basic levels of intuition towards things that any idiot can see are obviously true?
i guess we should have seen that coming, and it's typical in it's characteristic of being so naively stupid that it's actually kind of complicated to coherently correct. it really pulls the rug out from underneath the entire concept of the scientific method, to try and compare modelling for a problem we've been working on with great interest for 40 years to something we've barely understood for 40 days. it's just simply an absurd thing to even try and make a comparison, regarding.
so, i don't want to take the bait and fall into a partisan argument around this, because i can tell you in advance where this is going, too - you'll have these white knight science defenders coming out swinging for the democratic party (most of whom have something like a grade 10 science education), arguing forcefully that the models are incapable of error, because they're science, and science is, like, the truth, and stuff. right. in fact, these idiots on the fake left will be making exactly the same mistake as their mirror-reflected idiots on the fake right, in trying to compare something we've been studying intensely for 40 years to something we've barely understood for 40 days. i'm not wading into this battle to be crowned alpha stupid fucking idiot. you guys can have that debate without me.
unlike climate change, we don't have enough data on covid-19 to create anything more useful than exceedingly speculative models.
we can do this comparison, if you want to do it, though, and the way to do it is to launch up the wayback machine and search for climate change articles written in the late 70s and early 80s. i'll see if i can find the first peer-reviewed paper on climate change, i'm sure somebody has figured this out. how accurate was it? i'd guess it was pretty brutal.
after all, these same geniuses are no doubt well aware of the global cooling scare in the 70s.
i'll leave it to somebody else to work out the details, but it's scary because of the anti-intellectualism underlying it, in the way that it really does completely sidestep the scientific method. you shouldn't need advanced degrees to realize that the comparison is absurd - that should be intuitive, should be completely obvious. so, why don't these people (on both sides of the debate) have basic levels of intuition towards things that any idiot can see are obviously true?
unfortunately, there are no doubt many people that didn't do this research, and are going to end up swallowing water-soluble estrogen, which will do absolutely nothing for them.
i'd guess these are going to be women taking estrogen for menopause, mostly.
and, then you'll hear them complain...
"the estrogen therapy doesn't work!"
well, you've been taking a placebo, you daft bitch.
i'd guess these are going to be women taking estrogen for menopause, mostly.
and, then you'll hear them complain...
"the estrogen therapy doesn't work!"
well, you've been taking a placebo, you daft bitch.
again - why don't i want the generic?
because it's water soluble. that means i'd have to take it sublingually, which is going to absorb it directly into the blood, which is going to create spikes in blood levels and ultimately lead me to experience the hormone like i'm taking a drug - i'll get "high" on estrogen for an hour or something, and then i'll just piss it out through my kidneys. if i swallow it like an actual pill, it will just get destroyed by my stomach acids, and that would be completely useless.
it's not a different drug, it's a different delivery system, and it matters, in context. i was smart enough to actually look into this and figure it out. i'm not going to make the mistake of swallowing water-soluble estrogen.
if you can find me generic estrace that is actually metabolized, i'll take it.
but, i don't want to get high on estrogen (and then crash from it) over and over again, what i want is stable & constant levels, with minimal peaks and valleys.
because it's water soluble. that means i'd have to take it sublingually, which is going to absorb it directly into the blood, which is going to create spikes in blood levels and ultimately lead me to experience the hormone like i'm taking a drug - i'll get "high" on estrogen for an hour or something, and then i'll just piss it out through my kidneys. if i swallow it like an actual pill, it will just get destroyed by my stomach acids, and that would be completely useless.
it's not a different drug, it's a different delivery system, and it matters, in context. i was smart enough to actually look into this and figure it out. i'm not going to make the mistake of swallowing water-soluble estrogen.
if you can find me generic estrace that is actually metabolized, i'll take it.
but, i don't want to get high on estrogen (and then crash from it) over and over again, what i want is stable & constant levels, with minimal peaks and valleys.
so, i got through a few more calls today...
the pharmacy tried to push the generic estrogen on me, yet again, and actually got a little bit pushy with me about it.
"the brand name is on back-order. what we have is the generic, and that is what you will get!"
yeah. right. just call her the estrogen nazi, i guess. no estrace for me.
obviously, that's not acceptable customer service, and i was hardly going to tolerate anybody talking to me like that. so, i called around, found a store with the brand name and moved my prescription there, instead.
it is a bit of a walk, which is frustrating. but, we'll see how it works out from here. there are literally drug stores everywhere. i'm sure i can figure something out.
i was told it would be ready in the morning (early on the 16th), so i found myself in a bit of a quandary. i wanted to get up and clean, but i wanted to finish my shopping for the next couple of weeks, first. if i couldn't get the pills until the morning, should i wait? i decided i'd be better off doing the shopping today, and getting the pills last thing in the morning.
so, i left a little after 5:00 and, after two heavy trips, was back around 20:00 with basically everything i'd need to hermit until mid-may. i got immediately to putting some of this stuff away, and made some progress on it, before i sat down for a minute to check what time the store opens at.
and, the answer is that the store doesn't close.
"wait. so, that means i could pick up the pills at midnight, then. but, what if they're already bottled, then? if i can get them now..."
so, i gave them a call and they were indeed bottled, leading me to a third trip out around 21:30.
it's a 45 minute walk in both directions, so it's not sustainable, but i got what i wanted, along with a few other scattered things and was home by 11:30 - for the next roughly three weeks, solid. i don't plan to even open the door...
i did not buy any marijuana, this time, so i should be alert and focused and productive for the next three weeks, so long as the computers in the apartment continue to work.
the pharmacy tried to push the generic estrogen on me, yet again, and actually got a little bit pushy with me about it.
"the brand name is on back-order. what we have is the generic, and that is what you will get!"
yeah. right. just call her the estrogen nazi, i guess. no estrace for me.
obviously, that's not acceptable customer service, and i was hardly going to tolerate anybody talking to me like that. so, i called around, found a store with the brand name and moved my prescription there, instead.
it is a bit of a walk, which is frustrating. but, we'll see how it works out from here. there are literally drug stores everywhere. i'm sure i can figure something out.
i was told it would be ready in the morning (early on the 16th), so i found myself in a bit of a quandary. i wanted to get up and clean, but i wanted to finish my shopping for the next couple of weeks, first. if i couldn't get the pills until the morning, should i wait? i decided i'd be better off doing the shopping today, and getting the pills last thing in the morning.
so, i left a little after 5:00 and, after two heavy trips, was back around 20:00 with basically everything i'd need to hermit until mid-may. i got immediately to putting some of this stuff away, and made some progress on it, before i sat down for a minute to check what time the store opens at.
and, the answer is that the store doesn't close.
"wait. so, that means i could pick up the pills at midnight, then. but, what if they're already bottled, then? if i can get them now..."
so, i gave them a call and they were indeed bottled, leading me to a third trip out around 21:30.
it's a 45 minute walk in both directions, so it's not sustainable, but i got what i wanted, along with a few other scattered things and was home by 11:30 - for the next roughly three weeks, solid. i don't plan to even open the door...
i did not buy any marijuana, this time, so i should be alert and focused and productive for the next three weeks, so long as the computers in the apartment continue to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)