Friday, April 24, 2020
i understand that the graph isn't perfect.
but, the up and down nature of it (no plateau of sustained levels) is pretty strongly suggestive of the lockdown having almost no effect.
this is just one city, and i must concede that new york was often presented in the modeling as the worst case scenario, as what happens when you do nothing at all - despite the fact that they did in fact do quite a bit. so, if it turns out that the actions taken by statist authorities had little to no effect on the outcome in new york, that may actually have minimal forecasting effects for other cities, for the reason that they acted too late; we don't yet know whether the numbers we're seeing in new york are proof of the futility of acting against the virus, or just evidence that they were too slow to act. we'll need to see the numbers in other cities, first.
but, they're saying now that there were thousand of cases in new york as early as january, meaning it took months to actually ramp up like this. what that means is if you're a city like toronto which we think is weeks behind new york, and you're watching your numbers tick up from 30ish to 50ish, this graph should scare the hell out of you.
one thing that we appear to have learned from this week is that immunity was high enough in new york to prevent an easter spike, but wasn't in detroit. it seems like toronto isn't far enough along the curve to be able to even detect an easter spike, yet.
this could be a vicious week here, in eastern canada. and, i suspect it will be. so, despite confusing messages, it's more important to be careful in ontario if you're at high risk than ever before.
whatever the effects of the quarantine end up being here in the end, i hope that locking down too early doesn't have the effect of creating lockdown fatigue. but, if people don't understand the risk this causes the elderly at this point, will they ever?
right now, convincing examples of bent curves are almost non-existent - almost everywhere, we're seeing peaks and falls or slower ramp ups than initially thought. but, it will be this week and the next that the regions that locked down as early as possible will get to the point in the curve where you can start to really make more serious deductions.
i hope that the loss of life is minimal.
but, eastern canada should brace for the worst.
thankfully, it seems clear that we have.
i just want to tersely comment on the falling new york death toll.
i think everybody would like to see these numbers fall faster than they are, but this is a fairly rapid and steady decline that we're seeing. it's certainly not a sustained death toll. or, not yet, anyways.
again: there should be some background level, in the end, so don't expect it to fall to zero.
the term i used, crash, may have been somewhat unfortunate. but, the question is whether it's falling steadily or levelling off, and it's the former that is clearly more true.
i think everybody would like to see these numbers fall faster than they are, but this is a fairly rapid and steady decline that we're seeing. it's certainly not a sustained death toll. or, not yet, anyways.
again: there should be some background level, in the end, so don't expect it to fall to zero.
the term i used, crash, may have been somewhat unfortunate. but, the question is whether it's falling steadily or levelling off, and it's the former that is clearly more true.
one more update...
and, i had to sort through this, but this month was far less eventful than the second half of last month, and the update will reflect that.
i'm very, very close to getting back to work, for the first time since february. finally...
=====
- spent morning of 31st shopping
- had panic attack at far store, after experiencing some sore legs from walking.
- made it home, slept for 12 hours.
- back up early on 1st without turning modem back on, ate a big meal, was back out for more shopping. out all day, again. leg still sore...
- got soy milk last, and picked up some pot at store downtown to deal with sore leg. crashed when i got home.
- up early on the 2nd, and finally turned modem back on after roughly 48 hours, but just briefly. there was serious traffic logged for the 31st (and should have been almost none), with minimal traffic on the 1st (should have been exactly none.)
- went for long walk to get soy (using pot as aid), finally found it at closest store, on way back. crashed all day, up late in the evening.
- checked usage stats early on the 3rd and saw no traffic for the 2nd, which should have been for the first. odd, but the server seems to have reset.
- was there entry when i was gone? hard to say. some weak evidence. more importantly, server reset...because they came in and reset it?
- finished smoking the pot and kind of relaxed for the day. read the news. slept some more.
- usage stats on the 4th were in my normal range, if offset. this repeats itself from here on in.
and, i had to sort through this, but this month was far less eventful than the second half of last month, and the update will reflect that.
i'm very, very close to getting back to work, for the first time since february. finally...
=====
- spent morning of 31st shopping
- had panic attack at far store, after experiencing some sore legs from walking.
- made it home, slept for 12 hours.
- back up early on 1st without turning modem back on, ate a big meal, was back out for more shopping. out all day, again. leg still sore...
- got soy milk last, and picked up some pot at store downtown to deal with sore leg. crashed when i got home.
- up early on the 2nd, and finally turned modem back on after roughly 48 hours, but just briefly. there was serious traffic logged for the 31st (and should have been almost none), with minimal traffic on the 1st (should have been exactly none.)
- went for long walk to get soy (using pot as aid), finally found it at closest store, on way back. crashed all day, up late in the evening.
- checked usage stats early on the 3rd and saw no traffic for the 2nd, which should have been for the first. odd, but the server seems to have reset.
- was there entry when i was gone? hard to say. some weak evidence. more importantly, server reset...because they came in and reset it?
- finished smoking the pot and kind of relaxed for the day. read the news. slept some more.
- usage stats on the 4th were in my normal range, if offset. this repeats itself from here on in.
- went out on saturday morning (4th) to get more soy milk + a quarter of marijuana at the store, as they were closing indefinitely (past 4/20). crashed when i got back...
- still sleepy on the 5th, but starting to refocus. smoking through quarter.
(so, week was spent shopping. internet issue resolved itself.)
- finally finished very long sunsquabi/beethoven review on 6th.
- finished control top review on 8th.
- back to blog cleaning until the 11th
- realized on the 10th that the court was open this week. sort of. for virtual sittings, not filings...
- concert list on 11th, formatted laptop hard drive, then reviews over the 11th/12th, ending in list
- created bounds for vlogging cleanup on the 13th
- finished quarter on 13th
- not great pot, didn't have intended effect
(so, week was spent smoking pot and cleaning up blog & ranting about virus)
- slept for a few days...
- made multiple calls on 14th,
such as calling court to ask if hearing has been cancelled, and if there's a process to reschedule. sent email instead. (answer: day-today, not clear yet).
called cra.
called human rights tribunal, sent email for clarification. (answer: everything on hold, will pick up when feasible)
- finally woke up on the 15th
- called pharmacy, still pushing generic estrogen. got pushy. so, switched to other pharmacy instead.
- grocery shopping on afternoon of 15th (needed salami.), then picked up pills very late on 15th.
- after analyzing different delivery systems, decided to experiment with sublingual application on a weekly basis
- prometrium switch?
- much ranting on 16th/17th + eating & get smart. cleaning. laundry. shower.
- 18th: finished laundry, reimaged laptop, ate, etc
- 19th: back to vlogging, but not really. first entry, then concert lookahead, actually.
- 20th: sat down to switchover, got most of the vlogging updates done.
(so, week was spent cleaning in various ways & ranting heavily)
- 21st/22nd: built notes for long vlog update, ranted
- 23rd: notes posted, vlog updated over morning of 23rd.
- 23rd/24th/25th: finished these notes, last vlog updates before return
to be clear, i'm not a doctor. but, my analysis here is not medical.
i've certainly studied a wider range of science at a higher level than even the general educated public, so i will sometimes take the initiative to clarify or correct the mass ignorance in the media reports. i don't even look at social media any more; the lack of scientific literacy just makes me sad. but, making corrections to the science is not the focus, here.
so, i have heightened scientific literacy, but i'm not a scientist. but, that's not the focus of the analysis, so pointing it out is what's called a red herring.
rather, my degrees are in mathematics, computer science and law. what you should cite me as is an independent mathematician. and, that's what my analysis here is about.
but, my education aside, my passion is my art, and that is where i would prefer to focus my labour, my life and my mind.
i'm really providing this as a public service out of a sense of altruism. like, there's not even ads on the blog. i gain nothing from this besides clarity gained from the process of typing, and there's certainly some stress release in it.
so, take it for what it is - and take it or leave it. but, don't misconstrue it. i'm neither a doctor, nor pretending i am one. but, this isn't a problem for a doctor, it's a problem for a mathematician - and i am qualified to speak from that perspective.
i've certainly studied a wider range of science at a higher level than even the general educated public, so i will sometimes take the initiative to clarify or correct the mass ignorance in the media reports. i don't even look at social media any more; the lack of scientific literacy just makes me sad. but, making corrections to the science is not the focus, here.
so, i have heightened scientific literacy, but i'm not a scientist. but, that's not the focus of the analysis, so pointing it out is what's called a red herring.
rather, my degrees are in mathematics, computer science and law. what you should cite me as is an independent mathematician. and, that's what my analysis here is about.
but, my education aside, my passion is my art, and that is where i would prefer to focus my labour, my life and my mind.
i'm really providing this as a public service out of a sense of altruism. like, there's not even ads on the blog. i gain nothing from this besides clarity gained from the process of typing, and there's certainly some stress release in it.
so, take it for what it is - and take it or leave it. but, don't misconstrue it. i'm neither a doctor, nor pretending i am one. but, this isn't a problem for a doctor, it's a problem for a mathematician - and i am qualified to speak from that perspective.
again: the president gets the biggest, greatest, bestest briefings in the whole world.
i don't know why he insists on speaking like a character in a lewis carroll novel. but, he certainly doesn't have a deficit of information available to him. and, like the most allegorical texts, he shouldn't be discarded offhand - as absurd as he so frequently sounds, his statements need to be analyzed carefully.
no. that's what we learned. and, unlike you, i'm not a slow learner.
i don't know why he insists on speaking like a character in a lewis carroll novel. but, he certainly doesn't have a deficit of information available to him. and, like the most allegorical texts, he shouldn't be discarded offhand - as absurd as he so frequently sounds, his statements need to be analyzed carefully.
no. that's what we learned. and, unlike you, i'm not a slow learner.
so, what i've learned at this point is that trump is talking in riddles that he thinks his supporters are more likely to understand, rather than deferring to technical language that he likely has problems with, himself.
these statements appear at first glance to be delving into schizophrenia, or dementia. they simply come off as insane.
but, there have been reports about vitamin d deficiency being a risk factor not just for covid-19 but for a variety of health concerns. vitamins don't cure diseases on their own, but your body is essentially a factory that produces chemicals that control your body's operation, and deficiencies of raw materials will make it difficult for your body to function properly. vitamin deficiency is widely understood as a major underlying problem in the general health of americans. the culture is practically defined by it's romanticization of eating what most of the rest of the world would consider poison or garbage.
is he trying to get people to get outside to synthesize enough d?
and is that a general point we should all be reminded of, as we spend weeks inside, with no sun?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-coronavirus-trump.html
these statements appear at first glance to be delving into schizophrenia, or dementia. they simply come off as insane.
but, there have been reports about vitamin d deficiency being a risk factor not just for covid-19 but for a variety of health concerns. vitamins don't cure diseases on their own, but your body is essentially a factory that produces chemicals that control your body's operation, and deficiencies of raw materials will make it difficult for your body to function properly. vitamin deficiency is widely understood as a major underlying problem in the general health of americans. the culture is practically defined by it's romanticization of eating what most of the rest of the world would consider poison or garbage.
is he trying to get people to get outside to synthesize enough d?
and is that a general point we should all be reminded of, as we spend weeks inside, with no sun?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-coronavirus-trump.html
Thursday, April 23, 2020
now, this....
is this permanent?
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/canada-post-warns-of-delays-as-it-handles-christmas-level-volume-of-parcels-1.4908484
is this permanent?
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/canada-post-warns-of-delays-as-it-handles-christmas-level-volume-of-parcels-1.4908484
might they consider extending the school year to make up the lost time?
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/gradual-return-to-school-isn-t-just-welcome-it-s-necessary-quebec-pediatricians-association-says-1.4908988
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/gradual-return-to-school-isn-t-just-welcome-it-s-necessary-quebec-pediatricians-association-says-1.4908988
i posted this two weeks ago, and we seem to be falling more in the middle range in new york city (which is past it's peak), whereas the other three cities are very far behind new york on the curve and can't really be analyzed the same way.
if detroit got an easter spike, it would indicate it has a long way to go, still.
and, my official analysis is that montreal & toronto are both still on the very low end of the curve, and essentially recording background deaths. i wouldn't expect either city to peak until mid-may at the earliest.
the low range was .1%, the middle range was .3% and the high range was .5%.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/04/so-it-looks-like-some-places-are.html
if detroit got an easter spike, it would indicate it has a long way to go, still.
and, my official analysis is that montreal & toronto are both still on the very low end of the curve, and essentially recording background deaths. i wouldn't expect either city to peak until mid-may at the earliest.
the low range was .1%, the middle range was .3% and the high range was .5%.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/04/so-it-looks-like-some-places-are.html
michigan might be getting an easter spike, indicating there's still a lot of uninfected people.
new york doesn't seem to be seeing that. but, it's too early to rule it out.
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2020/04/22/coronavirus-in-michigan-heres-where-we-stand-as-of-tuesday-night/
new york doesn't seem to be seeing that. but, it's too early to rule it out.
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2020/04/22/coronavirus-in-michigan-heres-where-we-stand-as-of-tuesday-night/
again: you don't get an early sentence from a pandemic for good behaviour. the more you comply, the worse off you are.
it's the areas that ignored social distancing that are going to be back to normal sooner, not the ones that did what they were told.
well?
stop interpreting yourself as a child.
and stop interpreting the state as your parents.
it's the areas that ignored social distancing that are going to be back to normal sooner, not the ones that did what they were told.
well?
stop interpreting yourself as a child.
and stop interpreting the state as your parents.
i want to reverse a misperception i'm seeing show up, though.
as talk of reopening is increasing, there's this implication in the media coverage over the last couple of days, never stated explicitly but always easily inferred from the writing, that you want to open the areas with the lowest infection rates first, and the highest infection rates last.
this is perfectly representative of the ignorance in the media around the topic.
it's the areas with the lowest infection rates that are the most vulnerable to a higher level of spread, and the areas with the highest infection rates that are least vulnerable.
it would follow that you want to open the areas with the highest infection rates first - and the areas that are the least infected last.
i know this is counter-intuitive, if you're a calvinist. but, you'd think the media would have a higher level of scientific literacy, and it's increasingly clear that they just don't.
as talk of reopening is increasing, there's this implication in the media coverage over the last couple of days, never stated explicitly but always easily inferred from the writing, that you want to open the areas with the lowest infection rates first, and the highest infection rates last.
this is perfectly representative of the ignorance in the media around the topic.
it's the areas with the lowest infection rates that are the most vulnerable to a higher level of spread, and the areas with the highest infection rates that are least vulnerable.
it would follow that you want to open the areas with the highest infection rates first - and the areas that are the least infected last.
i know this is counter-intuitive, if you're a calvinist. but, you'd think the media would have a higher level of scientific literacy, and it's increasingly clear that they just don't.
it's not my responsibility to stay inside so you don't get sick.
it's your responsibility to stay inside so you don't get sick.
yes - i would support aid packages to keep people inside, when it's unsafe for them to venture out.
but, at the end of the day, we all need to take responsibility for our own health, and any decisions we do or don't make to further it.
it's your responsibility to stay inside so you don't get sick.
yes - i would support aid packages to keep people inside, when it's unsafe for them to venture out.
but, at the end of the day, we all need to take responsibility for our own health, and any decisions we do or don't make to further it.
i want to see the experiment done.
but, i want to be clear on a point: there's little reason to expect that georgia has the kind of widespread immunity appearing in new york. that means that opening the economy needs to be done in a way that protects the vulnerable, as the virus is going to spread through the state very quickly, once it opens.
but, i want to be clear on a point: there's little reason to expect that georgia has the kind of widespread immunity appearing in new york. that means that opening the economy needs to be done in a way that protects the vulnerable, as the virus is going to spread through the state very quickly, once it opens.
but, the fact is that the mortality rate of this disease is very low.
i think this can be done safely without locking everybody up for the whole summer, if there is a proper focus on keeping the disease out of long-term care homes and people with high co-morbidity are cognizant that they are at higher risk, and take steps to protect themselves.
there are lots of ifs, there.
but, somebody has to take the risk, and i actually applaud the georgian governor for having the courage to be the one to do it.
and, i think that shifting the responsibility to those that are at risk to protect themselves, rather than collectivizing the responsibility indefinitely, is actually the correct moral decision, as well.
there's only one way to find out what's going to happen.
but, i would call on the state of georgia to take particular care to protect those that require it.
and, i think that shifting the responsibility to those that are at risk to protect themselves, rather than collectivizing the responsibility indefinitely, is actually the correct moral decision, as well.
there's only one way to find out what's going to happen.
but, i would call on the state of georgia to take particular care to protect those that require it.
so, if we have an upper bound around 25% from the actual data, and i suggest the sick are being undersampled due to being in quarantine, how high can you guesstimate it is actually?
35%? 45%?
and, could we get herd immunity with numbers around or less than 40%?
if the reproductive number is low, perhaps.
but, that would contradict the basic deduction that it's actually higher than expected.
again: the key takeaway is that it is currently more widespread than previously modeled. more precise bounds are forthcoming.
my guess is that it is much higher in new york city, specifically.
35%? 45%?
and, could we get herd immunity with numbers around or less than 40%?
if the reproductive number is low, perhaps.
but, that would contradict the basic deduction that it's actually higher than expected.
again: the key takeaway is that it is currently more widespread than previously modeled. more precise bounds are forthcoming.
my guess is that it is much higher in new york city, specifically.
see, given that the epidemic has burned itself out and new york city seems to be approaching herd immunity, i'd guess that it seems far too low.
the media has made real idiots of themselves out of this, and has a lot of face-saving to do. you're probably not going to get a full mea culpa from anybody - nobody is going to go on tv and say "we were wrong.". these people rely on their perceived credibility, which should and hopefully will take a major drubbing. likewise, you're likely to get a lot of obfuscation from governments, and social media will just amplify the ignorance.
the data is preliminary, and while i can point to problems in the study that suggest that it undersampled sick people in quarantine, i can't make numbers up. the upper bound right now from these numbers is 25%. other studies suggest it may be higher, but we'll need to wait for more data to come out of new york to corroborate them.
i would expect that the incidence level will be revised upwards as more data is released, not be revised downwards.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/what-we-can-can-t-take-away-new-york-s-n1191106
the media has made real idiots of themselves out of this, and has a lot of face-saving to do. you're probably not going to get a full mea culpa from anybody - nobody is going to go on tv and say "we were wrong.". these people rely on their perceived credibility, which should and hopefully will take a major drubbing. likewise, you're likely to get a lot of obfuscation from governments, and social media will just amplify the ignorance.
the data is preliminary, and while i can point to problems in the study that suggest that it undersampled sick people in quarantine, i can't make numbers up. the upper bound right now from these numbers is 25%. other studies suggest it may be higher, but we'll need to wait for more data to come out of new york to corroborate them.
i would expect that the incidence level will be revised upwards as more data is released, not be revised downwards.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/what-we-can-can-t-take-away-new-york-s-n1191106
i've been clear for years that i'm a self-identified nerd; i've never suggested otherwise, and i don't have any desire to identify otherwise.
rather, i'm more likely to viciously attack anything that is popular, trendy or mainstream. so, that's my own bias - if something is trending or seen as 'cool', i'm more likely to stand up against it than go along with it.
but, that doesn't change the reality that we should have waited for better data before making all of these mistakes.
rather, i'm more likely to viciously attack anything that is popular, trendy or mainstream. so, that's my own bias - if something is trending or seen as 'cool', i'm more likely to stand up against it than go along with it.
but, that doesn't change the reality that we should have waited for better data before making all of these mistakes.
so far, as i've gone through the divisional court process, i've come face-to-face with an administrator that has falsified documents and have had to launch a complaint with the judicial council against the chief justice of the superior court.
i just hope it gets better as i pull the process up the ladder, on my way to the supreme court.
i just hope it gets better as i pull the process up the ladder, on my way to the supreme court.
nononono.
i realized what was happening, that the court-appointed legal people were working closely with the prosecution, and got up and yelled over them.
if i had not done that, the collusion would have resulted in the obvious outcome.
if you're ever in the situation of being arrested on bullshit charges, don't delude yourself - they don't work for you, and they don't care about you.
yes: i had to shout down my own lawyer, who probably went for drinks with the prosecutor at the end of the day.
and i fully realized the reality of the scenario, and who duty counsel was actually working for.
if you haven't been following this space, i was arrested and charged with harassment for repeatedly applying for an apartment. the charges were eventually dropped. i have since launched a human rights complaint against the property owner for discrimination, which i expect to win. and, i'm suing the police for arresting me without a warrant, a process currently in divisional court.
and i fully realized the reality of the scenario, and who duty counsel was actually working for.
if you haven't been following this space, i was arrested and charged with harassment for repeatedly applying for an apartment. the charges were eventually dropped. i have since launched a human rights complaint against the property owner for discrimination, which i expect to win. and, i'm suing the police for arresting me without a warrant, a process currently in divisional court.
so, i got an email out.
based solely on the population, 1300 people sampled in a population of nine million should create a margin of error of 2-4%, depending on the preferred confidence interval, if the sampling is truly random. so, if they pull 21% out of the numbers then the upper bound is around 25%.
but, i'm making a lot of assumptions that would be clarified in a typical report.
based solely on the population, 1300 people sampled in a population of nine million should create a margin of error of 2-4%, depending on the preferred confidence interval, if the sampling is truly random. so, if they pull 21% out of the numbers then the upper bound is around 25%.
but, i'm making a lot of assumptions that would be clarified in a typical report.
remember: the value of an educated opinion is not in the educated authority of the opiner, but in the ability of the educated individual to present a detailed argument. you don't want to reduce educated opinion to the fallacy of an appeal to authority. that would be very unfortunate.
so, i want to refer you to my own posts in this space to clarify that i'm not trying to argue against the science. my point here has never been to impugn or attack anybody working in the field. at all. rather, what i've been trying to do is to point out that these government bodies are often not following the evidence, but rather caving into public pressure (as sometimes articulated by social media) or "common sense" fallacies, and this is being reinforced by the media, which is generally not capable of producing an educated analysis, in a cyclical process of mutual reinforcement. so, you end up with these three sources of ignorance - media, government, the public (as articulated through social media) - feeding off of each other to produce popular but irrational policy.
so, i'm not playing the role of a copernicus or a newton (or a lord monckton.) here, in trying to overturn the established wisdom. rather, i'm playing the role of a joe bauers here in trying to draw attention to what the established wisdom and developing science actually is in the face of staggering mass ignorance from every direction. no, we're obviously not actually that far gone. but, the future is going to look back and laugh at us - if it doesn't end up in worse shape than we're in, or doesn't end up flooded by melting polar ice caps.
if the educated opinion that you're relying on can't present a convincing argument to you, then you should question it, not obey it. as chomsky is famous for stating in his arguments against post-modernism, and i paraphrase, if you have a cogent point and understand it properly and are convinced that it's valid then the best way to prove as much is to condense it into language that a child is capable of understanding. if you can't do that, then you don't have a valid point, or you don't understand it, or it isn't cogent.
so, i want to refer you to my own posts in this space to clarify that i'm not trying to argue against the science. my point here has never been to impugn or attack anybody working in the field. at all. rather, what i've been trying to do is to point out that these government bodies are often not following the evidence, but rather caving into public pressure (as sometimes articulated by social media) or "common sense" fallacies, and this is being reinforced by the media, which is generally not capable of producing an educated analysis, in a cyclical process of mutual reinforcement. so, you end up with these three sources of ignorance - media, government, the public (as articulated through social media) - feeding off of each other to produce popular but irrational policy.
so, i'm not playing the role of a copernicus or a newton (or a lord monckton.) here, in trying to overturn the established wisdom. rather, i'm playing the role of a joe bauers here in trying to draw attention to what the established wisdom and developing science actually is in the face of staggering mass ignorance from every direction. no, we're obviously not actually that far gone. but, the future is going to look back and laugh at us - if it doesn't end up in worse shape than we're in, or doesn't end up flooded by melting polar ice caps.
if the educated opinion that you're relying on can't present a convincing argument to you, then you should question it, not obey it. as chomsky is famous for stating in his arguments against post-modernism, and i paraphrase, if you have a cogent point and understand it properly and are convinced that it's valid then the best way to prove as much is to condense it into language that a child is capable of understanding. if you can't do that, then you don't have a valid point, or you don't understand it, or it isn't cogent.
ok.
so....i guess the data was published at the briefing?
these are very specific numbers with no error bars. generally a study with 1300 people would have a margin of error of a couple of points, at least.
i'm going to send them an email.
but, if that's all there is, i don't have much further analysis, other than to remind you to mentally draw the error bars in.
so....i guess the data was published at the briefing?
these are very specific numbers with no error bars. generally a study with 1300 people would have a margin of error of a couple of points, at least.
i'm going to send them an email.
but, if that's all there is, i don't have much further analysis, other than to remind you to mentally draw the error bars in.
sorry.
that's hundreds of thousands in state-ordered quarantines due to having tested positive. these people should all be inside.
....plus hundreds of thousands or potentially millions more in self-imposed quarantine because they're experiencing mild symptoms.
so, setting up at a grocery store among people that feel well enough to not quarantine is excluding all of the people that are quarantining.
i'm more awake now, let me see if i can find the actual study.
that's hundreds of thousands in state-ordered quarantines due to having tested positive. these people should all be inside.
....plus hundreds of thousands or potentially millions more in self-imposed quarantine because they're experiencing mild symptoms.
so, setting up at a grocery store among people that feel well enough to not quarantine is excluding all of the people that are quarantining.
i'm more awake now, let me see if i can find the actual study.
so, there's preliminary results from new york.
media reports are...i want to see the studies, and i'm kind of sleepy right now. soon.
for now, i just want to point out that the very high numbers i was throwing around had to do with the city itself, where the media reports suggest the number is higher. i wouldn't have expected those numbers to hold upstate. so, the media suggests around a 20% infection rate in the city, with a mortality rate around 1%, give or take. that's spanish flu territory, still much stronger than a seasonal flu - and 10x higher than my own bounds.
sampling at a grocery store is not truly random. you can present arguments about bias in either direction - maybe people that went to the store are more likely to come into contact with the virus because they're out, and people that stay in are less likely to come into contact. or, maybe people that stay in are in because they're sick, and the bias is the other way, in the waning stages of the pandemic. these are hypotheses, and they are useful as caveats before you take the information as truth. but, you need to do random sampling to really know.
the value of a test like this to guide public policy is to help political leaders understand where we are, and the conclusion to draw is that the virus is indeed quite widespread.....in new york city.
does that mean that 20% of people in toronto have it? the precision of the numbers and the efficacy of social distancing aside, toronto is weeks behind new york. whatever the true value is in new york, you should expect lower values in toronto, at this time.
i'll look at the actual data and provide further analysis when i'm more alert.
media reports are...i want to see the studies, and i'm kind of sleepy right now. soon.
for now, i just want to point out that the very high numbers i was throwing around had to do with the city itself, where the media reports suggest the number is higher. i wouldn't have expected those numbers to hold upstate. so, the media suggests around a 20% infection rate in the city, with a mortality rate around 1%, give or take. that's spanish flu territory, still much stronger than a seasonal flu - and 10x higher than my own bounds.
sampling at a grocery store is not truly random. you can present arguments about bias in either direction - maybe people that went to the store are more likely to come into contact with the virus because they're out, and people that stay in are less likely to come into contact. or, maybe people that stay in are in because they're sick, and the bias is the other way, in the waning stages of the pandemic. these are hypotheses, and they are useful as caveats before you take the information as truth. but, you need to do random sampling to really know.
the value of a test like this to guide public policy is to help political leaders understand where we are, and the conclusion to draw is that the virus is indeed quite widespread.....in new york city.
does that mean that 20% of people in toronto have it? the precision of the numbers and the efficacy of social distancing aside, toronto is weeks behind new york. whatever the true value is in new york, you should expect lower values in toronto, at this time.
i'll look at the actual data and provide further analysis when i'm more alert.
(Pavel) Bure was usually seen by North Americans as a riddle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma, a brilliantly talented athlete who, in the course of his career, seemingly became less of a team player and more focused on contracts than scoring goals.
maybe this is a particularly canadian application of the churchill quote, but it's how i first interacted with it.
i'm sure you can google this all night if you insist.
maybe this is a particularly canadian application of the churchill quote, but it's how i first interacted with it.
i'm sure you can google this all night if you insist.
when i was a kid, my dad used to drag me to hockey pools with him, and i'd end up reading through the draft magazines, because it was the only thing around to read.
and, there was this phrase that was often reserved for highly talented but under-performing russian prodigies, who had a margin of error in projection of roughly 50 points per year:
a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma.
that's donald trump, for you.
and, the smart analysts should not forget that, as i did.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ARiddleWrappedInAMysteryInsideAnEnigma
and, there was this phrase that was often reserved for highly talented but under-performing russian prodigies, who had a margin of error in projection of roughly 50 points per year:
a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma.
that's donald trump, for you.
and, the smart analysts should not forget that, as i did.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ARiddleWrappedInAMysteryInsideAnEnigma
here's an article that repeats what i said using words that you probably don't understand.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161506/
we all knew this, right - trump can rarely be taken at face value. he has no interest in truth; he will routinely lie his face off as a means to an end, whatever that end actually is. you consequently can't believe anything he says, and you're insane to think otherwise.
but, it's easy to forget that he's just a front, too - that there's an entire bureaucracy writing his lies for him, and there are subtle and complex motives underlying the dishonesty.
i initially couldn't figure it out. was he invested in this drug? what the fuck?
but, i dug around a little (something journalists are supposed to do.) and figured it out, and realized that there was some kind of method underlying this particular madness. it didn't have much to do with what he said, but he had reasons to secure a supply of this drug, nonetheless.
i still don't understand why he wasn't forthright.
but, it's a reminder that this president is very complicated.
but, it's easy to forget that he's just a front, too - that there's an entire bureaucracy writing his lies for him, and there are subtle and complex motives underlying the dishonesty.
i initially couldn't figure it out. was he invested in this drug? what the fuck?
but, i dug around a little (something journalists are supposed to do.) and figured it out, and realized that there was some kind of method underlying this particular madness. it didn't have much to do with what he said, but he had reasons to secure a supply of this drug, nonetheless.
i still don't understand why he wasn't forthright.
but, it's a reminder that this president is very complicated.
lupus is a disease that causes cytokine storms.
cytokine storms lead to organ failure.
hydroxycholoroquine is a drug that reduces those cytokine storms. for that reason, it is given to lupus patients to try to prevent organ failure.
covid-19 can also cause cytokine storms, in it's final stages before death - of organ failure.
the hope has been that hydroxycholoroquine may therefore be useful in stopping cytokine storms in covid-19 patients in the same way that it does in lupus patients.
this is still experimental. and, it may be the case that other immunosuppressants may be better suited for the task.
again: i don't know why trump did what he did. it certainly wasn't the most rational way to secure a supply of the drug. and, as the drug is an immunosuppressant, it is a bad idea to take it as a prophylactic.
but, there is a valid use of this drug as a last resort, for people that are already on the brink of dying of organ failure, as a complication of the disease caused by the novel virus - and articles or media reports citing studies correlating use of the drug with organ failure as a reason to avoid it's use are misunderstanding what it's use is, and consequently losing the plot.
i'm not interested in defending the use of hydroxycholoroquine as a prophylactic (i've been pretty critical of that.), and i don't imagine that the associated antibiotic would be useful at all, except perhaps to fight off infections picked up in the hospital, but i do have to comment on the results of some tests, which are being rather badly reported. the focus of this space is to act as a fact-checker and ensure honesty in media, so i need to be consistent on the point, even if i backtrack or contradict myself.
i'm not going to embarrass anybody directly on this, because the misreporting is total, and this is a subject that is beyond the (limited) intellectual capabilities of most journalists, let alone most readers.
as mentioned previously, this drug is an immunosuppressant, which means it should only be prescribed to patients that are going through the complication of sepsis. as sepsis is pretty much game over when it clicks in, it should also only be being prescribed as an absolute last resort. two things follow from this:
1) if the drug is being prescribed properly (and, despite unreliable media reports to the contrary, i'd have to assume that it actually is.), you would expect higher than average mortality rates to be associated with it's use, because it's essentially a last resort.
2) the end result of sepsis is organ failure, including heart failure. as most cases of the disease do not lead to organ failure, you would also expect use of the drug to be highly correlated with organ failure in a way that separates from non-use rather clearly.
stated simply, you wouldn't prescribe this drug unless you were concerned that the patient was going to die of heart failure in the first place. as such, even a very low success rate would be better than nothing.
so, a statement like "trials of the drug were correlated with higher levels of organ failure" is starkly misleading. the old cliche here is exceedingly relevant - correlation and causation are not the same thing.
it would be sort of like saying "80% of patients treated with ventilators end up dying". while a true statement, if used to imply that ventilators were the cause of these deaths, that would be deeply unfortunate, as 100% of the patients put on ventilators were in extremely bad shape. the ventilators were their last chance. such is also true of hydroxycholoroquine.
i don't fully understand why trump did what he did. was it some kind of performance art? was he trying to justify buying up so much for use in patients that are experiencing sepsis, as a last stage of the disease? or was he just trying to one-up boris johnson?
but, the gotcha journalists should pick a different target, because they sound absurdly ignorant in keying on this one.
you shouldn't take the drug unless you're exceedingly sick, and a doctor gives it to you as an absolute last resort. but, if a doctor does give it to you, you should realize what it's being used for, which is to stop your immune system from attacking itself.
i'm not going to embarrass anybody directly on this, because the misreporting is total, and this is a subject that is beyond the (limited) intellectual capabilities of most journalists, let alone most readers.
as mentioned previously, this drug is an immunosuppressant, which means it should only be prescribed to patients that are going through the complication of sepsis. as sepsis is pretty much game over when it clicks in, it should also only be being prescribed as an absolute last resort. two things follow from this:
1) if the drug is being prescribed properly (and, despite unreliable media reports to the contrary, i'd have to assume that it actually is.), you would expect higher than average mortality rates to be associated with it's use, because it's essentially a last resort.
2) the end result of sepsis is organ failure, including heart failure. as most cases of the disease do not lead to organ failure, you would also expect use of the drug to be highly correlated with organ failure in a way that separates from non-use rather clearly.
stated simply, you wouldn't prescribe this drug unless you were concerned that the patient was going to die of heart failure in the first place. as such, even a very low success rate would be better than nothing.
so, a statement like "trials of the drug were correlated with higher levels of organ failure" is starkly misleading. the old cliche here is exceedingly relevant - correlation and causation are not the same thing.
it would be sort of like saying "80% of patients treated with ventilators end up dying". while a true statement, if used to imply that ventilators were the cause of these deaths, that would be deeply unfortunate, as 100% of the patients put on ventilators were in extremely bad shape. the ventilators were their last chance. such is also true of hydroxycholoroquine.
i don't fully understand why trump did what he did. was it some kind of performance art? was he trying to justify buying up so much for use in patients that are experiencing sepsis, as a last stage of the disease? or was he just trying to one-up boris johnson?
but, the gotcha journalists should pick a different target, because they sound absurdly ignorant in keying on this one.
you shouldn't take the drug unless you're exceedingly sick, and a doctor gives it to you as an absolute last resort. but, if a doctor does give it to you, you should realize what it's being used for, which is to stop your immune system from attacking itself.
these are my notes for the long vlog update.
i'm going to eat, first, before i do it.
====
- 11th - first response
i'm going to eat, first, before i do it.
====
- 11th - first response
- sent email requesting denial of consent
- received consent over the 12th
- on 13th, was told coordinator is not available
(spent weekend ranting and sleeping, got pizza & watched debate on sunday)
- checked email on 16th, got pdf with second judicial response
- file complaint against judge
- tried to file consent motion at night, realized i can't. asked instead to file without notice.
- early on 17th, asked respondents for consent to file reference to s. 38.0.6 in writing
- slept until around noon
- left messages in afternoon
- went out on evening of 17th for pills, came back and realized door was unlocked
- it seemed like somebody was going through my stuff
- was missing court documents, some vodka
- decided that enough was enough (after weird stains on sheet, etc)
- sent email to landlord, who claimed to check camera
- landlord said he didn't see anything; clearly lying
- more evidence that landlord is a cop and i have to stay inside as much as possible to prevent further entry
- court shut down for three weeks on the 17th, when i was focusing on other things
- notice indicated court would continue filing documents and timelines are being respected,
- got response back on morning of 18th indicating that i can file reply factum when court reopens
- also got back response from oiprd indicating it wouldn't allow me to file a reference request without a consent motion
- after back and forth, sent request to acknowledge disability on afternoon of 19th
- received response on morning of 20th indicating they insist on a formal motion request
- sent motion request early on 21st.
- after reimaging several times, spent weekend cleaning up february blog posts up to debussy show on the 16th
- debussy review late on the 22nd & early on the 23rd
(so, the week was spent on court stuff & ranting about the virus while cleaning up the blog)
- realize internet usage spike early on the 23rd. 1000% usage increase.
- noticed electrical spike on morning of 13th when i was in detroit.
- turned computer off all day
- response from court early on the 23rd indicating everything is shut down indefinitely, even filing
- i responded in the evening informing them that the directive from the court indicated filing was continuing
- finished blog clean-up until the man or astroman show on feb 24th
- finished blog clean-up until the man or astroman show on feb 24th
- turned modem & all computers off all day on the 24th
- they responded on the 24th that the directive was written on the 15th, and that filing ended on the 17th. nobody is in the office.
- turned modem back on early on the 25th and found 9 gb of traffic on a day with modem physically unplugged
- sent email to landlord, who claimed he has a fibre optic connection (i know this is false because i've received his cable bills in my box). more evidence that he's a cop...
- spent 25th reimaging laptop and looking for backdoors, then lost it all due to an error that forced an unwanted reboot. decided that this image was unworkable, moving forward.
- realized early on 26th that some extra traffic was going through router - dropped packets were 50% of total traffic.
- tried to move to 90s laptop to try to hack into router to get logs
- contacted teksavvy about new ip address. had to argue with them to take it seriously, they insisted it was a virus despite no logic, and won't send tech due to covid-19.
- turned modem off around 14:00 on 26th, didn't turn it back on until 13:00 on the 27th. finally got new ip address in afternoon.
- traffic logging still wrong on morning of 28th. slept most of the day.
- tried to move to 90s laptop on 29th, decided it was too slow to be workable
- found workaround instead
- teksavvy tried to sell me a modem, had to push back against it
(so, week was spent fighting with unknown internet traffic while slowly cleaning blog at end)
- finished reviews for man or astroman & grunge shows on morning of 30th
- awake late on 30th, check local traffic stats early on 31st and conclude that my network is compromised.
- completely disable network, get ready for grocery shopping
next segment is next.
next segment is next.
can i point something out, though?
the president might come off as kind of a moron sometimes. most of the time. ok, all of the time.
but, i promise you that he has better intelligence reports than you do, even if he has lower than average actual intelligence.
maybe the numbers he was citing early on were better informed than he let on?
the president might come off as kind of a moron sometimes. most of the time. ok, all of the time.
but, i promise you that he has better intelligence reports than you do, even if he has lower than average actual intelligence.
maybe the numbers he was citing early on were better informed than he let on?
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
south korea remains weird.
we got the delayed spikes in the other east asian countries that the science predicts. i've been over this, so i'll be terse: when you react to a pandemic with authoritarian tactics, what you do is scare the population into avoiding medical care. the result is that the curve stays flat for a while due to under-reporting and then explodes upwards once it can't be ignored any further. that is what the science actually "predicted" would happen, and what has actually happened.
.....except in korea. why is that?
well, either the koreans are doing some specific thing in an absolutely flawless way, or the data is stunningly flawed.
there are some reasons to think the data is funny. for example, people are testing negative, and then testing positive. we don't have to jump to conspiracy theories. are they testing properly? it would seem as though they aren't.
but, you don't get false negatives when you test for death, or at least you don't get them in a sustained manner.
so, i don't know. not yet...
if they're doing something spectacularly well, it would have to have something to do with keeping it away from the vulnerable. i can draw whatever conclusions i want about underreporting, but if people aren't dying it means that the weak are being protected. it would follow that if you want to learn something worthwhile about what they're doing differently, you should look at how they're protecting the elderly and other high risk groups.
it could very well be that the virus is actually running rampant in the general population, but has been effectively kept out of nursing homes. that would be the best-case scenario, anywhere, as you get immunity without killing people. but, they're not even logging the unlucky deaths. like, even in the absolute best case scenario, there should be a kind of background death rate of a few dozen people a day, and they're not even seeing that.
so, i don't know. not yet...
we got the delayed spikes in the other east asian countries that the science predicts. i've been over this, so i'll be terse: when you react to a pandemic with authoritarian tactics, what you do is scare the population into avoiding medical care. the result is that the curve stays flat for a while due to under-reporting and then explodes upwards once it can't be ignored any further. that is what the science actually "predicted" would happen, and what has actually happened.
.....except in korea. why is that?
well, either the koreans are doing some specific thing in an absolutely flawless way, or the data is stunningly flawed.
there are some reasons to think the data is funny. for example, people are testing negative, and then testing positive. we don't have to jump to conspiracy theories. are they testing properly? it would seem as though they aren't.
but, you don't get false negatives when you test for death, or at least you don't get them in a sustained manner.
so, i don't know. not yet...
if they're doing something spectacularly well, it would have to have something to do with keeping it away from the vulnerable. i can draw whatever conclusions i want about underreporting, but if people aren't dying it means that the weak are being protected. it would follow that if you want to learn something worthwhile about what they're doing differently, you should look at how they're protecting the elderly and other high risk groups.
it could very well be that the virus is actually running rampant in the general population, but has been effectively kept out of nursing homes. that would be the best-case scenario, anywhere, as you get immunity without killing people. but, they're not even logging the unlucky deaths. like, even in the absolute best case scenario, there should be a kind of background death rate of a few dozen people a day, and they're not even seeing that.
so, i don't know. not yet...
i'm not gloating.
i'm just pointing out that the data to deduce this was there from the start.
the more important point to get across is not that i was right, it's to be skeptical of corporate media. you shouldn't listen to every math nerd with a blog. but, you should consult a variety of sources with contradictory perspectives in analyzing the data for yourself.
all authority is flawed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html
i'm just pointing out that the data to deduce this was there from the start.
the more important point to get across is not that i was right, it's to be skeptical of corporate media. you shouldn't listen to every math nerd with a blog. but, you should consult a variety of sources with contradictory perspectives in analyzing the data for yourself.
all authority is flawed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html
we need an anti-authoritarian left to emerge out of this, one that points to real science to undo the statist response, and one that takes back these slogans that the right has appropriated.
if we just quietly sit inside through this, we're essentially conceding to capitalism.
this is the time to revolt. let's get a move on it.
if we just quietly sit inside through this, we're essentially conceding to capitalism.
this is the time to revolt. let's get a move on it.
the people out on the street are the soldiers we need for a socialist revolution.
don't look at me - i'd just yell at them and call them names. i don't have any people skills.
i'm sorry.
i don't organize, i type.
if you're good with people, if that's your skillset, then get out there and do it. so long as you're not fat or old...
don't look at me - i'd just yell at them and call them names. i don't have any people skills.
i'm sorry.
i don't organize, i type.
if you're good with people, if that's your skillset, then get out there and do it. so long as you're not fat or old...
we're in a very confusing time on this continent right now.
not just this virus, but in general.
these are left-wing ideas, and leftists are right to feel a twinge of support for people they wouldn't normally associate with. but, this is a condition that has been building for some time, now; the novelty and shock should have largely worn off.
i want to actually make the opposite argument to the one that the fake left media has been so keen on pushing: it's important that the left doesn't let this get away from us. there is no revolutionary potential in the obeisant middle class reaction of cowardly sitting at home, and doing what we're told.
our people are out on the streets, holding up republican placards yearning for freedom.
it's bizarre, but it's real - and we need to get our people back.
there's no way forward in building alliances with people that slavishly do what they're told.
not just this virus, but in general.
these are left-wing ideas, and leftists are right to feel a twinge of support for people they wouldn't normally associate with. but, this is a condition that has been building for some time, now; the novelty and shock should have largely worn off.
i want to actually make the opposite argument to the one that the fake left media has been so keen on pushing: it's important that the left doesn't let this get away from us. there is no revolutionary potential in the obeisant middle class reaction of cowardly sitting at home, and doing what we're told.
our people are out on the streets, holding up republican placards yearning for freedom.
it's bizarre, but it's real - and we need to get our people back.
there's no way forward in building alliances with people that slavishly do what they're told.
while i do have some solidarity with the anti-lockdown protesters, i don't think their tactics are very useful.
if they are business owners, they should just open and dare the cops to shut them down.
and, if they are workers, and their bosses won't open, then they should take advantage of the situation to seize the means of production and open without management's blessing.
going to the state capitol and yelling is just pointless.
the ancient pagans were at least empirical; even if they didn't fully understand what they were observing, they at least gave it a go. it was the right approach, even if they didn't really get it.
the abrahamic faiths have no such redeeming values - it's just a bunch of stupid rules designed to make you more pliable slaves.
the abrahamic faiths have no such redeeming values - it's just a bunch of stupid rules designed to make you more pliable slaves.
listen, i'll say this again: worshipping the sun at least makes a little bit of sense. it's the source of all energy, all life.
arguing that god was incarnated as a human and died for our sins is, comparably speaking, actually a pretty fucking stupid idea. it's a step backwards in terms of complexity, and in terms of usefulness in understanding the world.
i don't really expect the sun to react to any kind of magic verses, or anything. but, i'd be far more likely to participate in a solar ritual than a christian one, as it would make far more sense to me.
well?
here's your history.
there'll be a quiz tomorrow, read up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii#Wars_with_the_Romans
here's your history.
there'll be a quiz tomorrow, read up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii#Wars_with_the_Romans
so, i got half done what i was doing yesterday before i crashed hard, again. these are 16 hour days, which are maybe not short for some people, but i'm used to only sleeping 3-4 hours a day, and i think even that is too much. i wouldn't sleep at all if i didn't have to. i hate it. maybe i need to drink stronger coffee.
i shouldn't be tired like this after 15-16 hours...
whatever it is, i'm going to focus on getting the vlogging update finished before i do anything else.
it's just one stupid thing after another, i know. i'm hoping to get back to work soon. really. it's just that there's a process, and it's linear, and i can't multitask...
i shouldn't be tired like this after 15-16 hours...
whatever it is, i'm going to focus on getting the vlogging update finished before i do anything else.
it's just one stupid thing after another, i know. i'm hoping to get back to work soon. really. it's just that there's a process, and it's linear, and i can't multitask...
am i the one that didn't assimilate?
should i go back to norway?
honestly? i didn't decide to migrate here. if you were to buy me a plane ticket, i'd be gone in a minute.
i'm sure i'd fit into the culture there a lot better.
that's not reality; i was born here, i'm stuck here and i will fight to change the culture here to reflect my values and morals.
should i go back to norway?
honestly? i didn't decide to migrate here. if you were to buy me a plane ticket, i'd be gone in a minute.
i'm sure i'd fit into the culture there a lot better.
that's not reality; i was born here, i'm stuck here and i will fight to change the culture here to reflect my values and morals.
"but, in the history of western civilization, the church has played a central role in maintaining normalcy in the face of collapse."
well, that would be a correct perception, if you're approaching the situation from a roman or christian perspective.
but, if you're approaching the situation from a german or pagan perspective, or a turkish one for that matter, then the church is a relic of a vanquished culture, not a place of solace during difficult times.
i identify with the forces of revolutionary change that overthrew the empire, not the forces of conservatism and stasis that searched for something to hold on to in times of crisis.
am i getting my point across, here?
and, as inheritors of the british empire, are we not also inheritors of heresy, of henry viii, of anti-popes and of skepticism towards papal absolutism?
as inheritors of the french revolution, are we not also inheritors of the replacement of superstition with reason, and the overthrow of the ancien regime?
and are both of these traditions not inherently pagan, inherently german, in their rejection of roman christianity?
well, that would be a correct perception, if you're approaching the situation from a roman or christian perspective.
but, if you're approaching the situation from a german or pagan perspective, or a turkish one for that matter, then the church is a relic of a vanquished culture, not a place of solace during difficult times.
i identify with the forces of revolutionary change that overthrew the empire, not the forces of conservatism and stasis that searched for something to hold on to in times of crisis.
am i getting my point across, here?
and, as inheritors of the british empire, are we not also inheritors of heresy, of henry viii, of anti-popes and of skepticism towards papal absolutism?
as inheritors of the french revolution, are we not also inheritors of the replacement of superstition with reason, and the overthrow of the ancien regime?
and are both of these traditions not inherently pagan, inherently german, in their rejection of roman christianity?
back in the middle ages, these were called buboes and gave their name to the bubonic plague.
do we really know what's going on, here?
https://globalnews.ca/news/6848644/covid-toes-skin-rash-coronavirus-symptom/
do we really know what's going on, here?
https://globalnews.ca/news/6848644/covid-toes-skin-rash-coronavirus-symptom/
i'm still young enough that it's not a total culture shock. i've spent much of my life watching this flip.
but, older democrats are going to be in for a real generational shift, as they watch biden become the butt of every joke on every tv show.
we'll see how long it takes for the colberts of the world to crack. but, it's just too tempting.
wait for it.
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
it's interesting how stark the line down the middle of the map is, isn't it?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/650px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png)
what's also interesting to me is that, in a few cycles, that might actually flip over, as that line from north dakota down to texas increasingly leans democrat, while the line from minnesota to louisiana is increasingly lost. minnesota is the last to fall. will it fall in 2020?
i'm not going to predict the map.
but, this is going to be sort of an interesting experiment. how long can snl and etc avoid lampooning joe biden for? it's sooooo tempting.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/650px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png)
what's also interesting to me is that, in a few cycles, that might actually flip over, as that line from north dakota down to texas increasingly leans democrat, while the line from minnesota to louisiana is increasingly lost. minnesota is the last to fall. will it fall in 2020?
i'm not going to predict the map.
but, this is going to be sort of an interesting experiment. how long can snl and etc avoid lampooning joe biden for? it's sooooo tempting.
i'm actually opposed to this. religion has no role to play in this response; directing these resources to charities is something you'd expect from a right-wing government. it's thatcherian. and, it's exactly what donald trump just did.
the way to help poor people is not to force them to deal with religious groups but to give it to them directly, and that's supposed to be what government does. they could do this through the cra, or they could do it through local assistance programs set up by the municipalities.
but, this money should not have been given to charity groups, and canadians should not be forced to deal with religion in order to access it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6845930/coronavirus-support-vulnerable-canadians/
the way to help poor people is not to force them to deal with religious groups but to give it to them directly, and that's supposed to be what government does. they could do this through the cra, or they could do it through local assistance programs set up by the municipalities.
but, this money should not have been given to charity groups, and canadians should not be forced to deal with religion in order to access it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6845930/coronavirus-support-vulnerable-canadians/
so, if we're going to bring poor people in on purpose, we need to be properly funding support systems; if we're not going to fund the support systems, we should stop bringing them in on purpose. the market will not take care of it on it's own.
the people we bring in on purpose should be properly screened for educational requirements to ensure they can succeed and contribute.
the people we bring in on purpose should be properly screened for educational requirements to ensure they can succeed and contribute.
the "mistake" that democrats tend to make (and it's disingenuous to call it a mistake. they generally know what they're doing.) is to take these studies that are about skilled immigrants and apply them to unskilled immigrants. so, you'll see them argue that farm workers create multiplier effects, when all of the actual data suggests that they don't. or, they'll argue that refugees are a net benefit on the social system, by citing studies about skilled immigrants.
i'm happy to bring in refugees, if we're willing to fund the social infrastructure - housing, language training, cultural adjustment classes, etc. but, the argument from our leaders in recent decades has been that we don't need to do that because "the market" will take care of it, and that is really the crux of my dissent.
the market will not take care of it; if you saturate population levels at the lowest levels of society without funding the systems required to deal with it, you just put enormous strain on the system, and everybody suffers from it. the likelihood of anybody succeeding in this mess, domestic or foreign born, is exceedingly low. what people call "the american dream" was at best a delusional fantasy in the 20th century that was propped up to advance statist interests - it's not even a desirable fairy tale in the 21st century. the entire concept should just be flushed down the toilet as utter nonsense.
they did nutritional tests on the huddled masses on staten island back in the middle of the twentieth century and found that italian immigrants had shrunk in size due to malnutrition. they were better off in sicily. but, that wasn't the point - american businesses were looking for cheap labour, so they brought them in with fraudulent appeals to a false utopia that almost nobody actually got to. what we got instead was widespread organized crime.
i don't see any use in being foolish about this, given the hindsight of history - your chances of success on this continent if you don't have an education are approaching zero. yes, there's an epsilon, but that epsilon itself is reduced by the number of people competing for sparse resources. people arguing otherwise are either dishonest or stupid.
but, the bourgeoisie is of course famously short-sighted.
it's a shame that it's not critical mass, isn't it?
i'm happy to bring in refugees, if we're willing to fund the social infrastructure - housing, language training, cultural adjustment classes, etc. but, the argument from our leaders in recent decades has been that we don't need to do that because "the market" will take care of it, and that is really the crux of my dissent.
the market will not take care of it; if you saturate population levels at the lowest levels of society without funding the systems required to deal with it, you just put enormous strain on the system, and everybody suffers from it. the likelihood of anybody succeeding in this mess, domestic or foreign born, is exceedingly low. what people call "the american dream" was at best a delusional fantasy in the 20th century that was propped up to advance statist interests - it's not even a desirable fairy tale in the 21st century. the entire concept should just be flushed down the toilet as utter nonsense.
they did nutritional tests on the huddled masses on staten island back in the middle of the twentieth century and found that italian immigrants had shrunk in size due to malnutrition. they were better off in sicily. but, that wasn't the point - american businesses were looking for cheap labour, so they brought them in with fraudulent appeals to a false utopia that almost nobody actually got to. what we got instead was widespread organized crime.
i don't see any use in being foolish about this, given the hindsight of history - your chances of success on this continent if you don't have an education are approaching zero. yes, there's an epsilon, but that epsilon itself is reduced by the number of people competing for sparse resources. people arguing otherwise are either dishonest or stupid.
but, the bourgeoisie is of course famously short-sighted.
it's a shame that it's not critical mass, isn't it?
yesterday got away from me, i guess. i broke a plate early in the morning trying to cram it into my fridge and it kind of threw me off for the day. i just dropped it, out of clumsiness. i ended up sleeping earlier than i wanted, and later than intended; i wanted to get the recycle out this morning, and missed it altogether. i ended up unexpectedly tired all day...
i could smell some drugs in the air from the neighbours and am going to blame it on that. but, i was out shopping on wednesday night. if i finally got it, that's fine, i'd rather beat it myself, but let's hope it's quick.
it seems like the divisional court is canceled until the fall, but i'll want to get a verification on that. right now, i'm going to plan to get to toronto, regardless, so i can file these stupid motions in person, and yell down the coordinator if i need to. this is the end of june. if social distancing isn't actually working, and the peak hits in mid may rather than late may, there's some chance they may be open by then.
let's see if i can type up a point form list of things to do today and stick to it:
- i was going to finish the rest of the pasta today, but i had to toss it. so, i'm going to make some eggs, instead.
- i need to redo my sheets due to complications from breaking the plate of pasta.
- i'll have to reimage the 90s laptop, as well. i can do that while waiting for laundry.
- i'll want to get in the shower, after that.
- and then i'll want to finish that vlogging update, for the second half of march, and then do one for the first half of april, as well.
it seems like the divisional court is canceled until the fall, but i'll want to get a verification on that. right now, i'm going to plan to get to toronto, regardless, so i can file these stupid motions in person, and yell down the coordinator if i need to. this is the end of june. if social distancing isn't actually working, and the peak hits in mid may rather than late may, there's some chance they may be open by then.
let's see if i can type up a point form list of things to do today and stick to it:
- i was going to finish the rest of the pasta today, but i had to toss it. so, i'm going to make some eggs, instead.
- i need to redo my sheets due to complications from breaking the plate of pasta.
- i'll have to reimage the 90s laptop, as well. i can do that while waiting for laundry.
- i'll want to get in the shower, after that.
- and then i'll want to finish that vlogging update, for the second half of march, and then do one for the first half of april, as well.
if seasonal influenza has a r-nought around two and was stopped with social distancing, and covid-19 wasn't stopped with the same practices in the same places at the same time, it would have to have a much higher r-nought value.
i'm not going to guess. but, it's a bound.
i think this is stretching, though.
i'd like to see more widespread testing for influenza in covid-19 patients.
i'm not going to guess. but, it's a bound.
i think this is stretching, though.
i'd like to see more widespread testing for influenza in covid-19 patients.
well. where'd all the flu deaths go?
you need to answer this in some way.
nononononono, let's think this through.
let's say the haphazard hypothesis is correct - that social distancing has brought down flu deaths. it obviously hasn't been so successful for covid-19. if influenza deaths have crashed to almost zero, while covid-19 deaths have skyrocketed, in the same period and the same geographic spaces, what conclusion can we draw?
it must be that the coronavirus is a lot more contagious than the flu, right? so, just how high is that basic reproduction number, then?
you need to answer this in some way.
nononononono, let's think this through.
let's say the haphazard hypothesis is correct - that social distancing has brought down flu deaths. it obviously hasn't been so successful for covid-19. if influenza deaths have crashed to almost zero, while covid-19 deaths have skyrocketed, in the same period and the same geographic spaces, what conclusion can we draw?
it must be that the coronavirus is a lot more contagious than the flu, right? so, just how high is that basic reproduction number, then?
while also approaching the situation from the opposite direction, these people are explicitly recommending that both viruses be tested for.
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Citation/9000/Coinfection_of_Influenza_Virus_and_Severe_Acute.96209.aspx
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Citation/9000/Coinfection_of_Influenza_Virus_and_Severe_Acute.96209.aspx
this article is making the opposite point, which is no less valid, in theory. but, the context is that flu deaths are strangely down.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/covid-19-can-coexist-with-other-respiratory-viruses.html
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/covid-19-can-coexist-with-other-respiratory-viruses.html
i need to present a little caution: just because the information coming out of china is being increasingly realized as completely wrong doesn't mean that this happened on purpose, or that it's some kind of nefarious ploy.
they could have just been wrong.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764787
they could have just been wrong.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764787
like i say, it makes you wonder what the co-infection rate is, and how often the cause of death is being misreported.
just because you died with covid-19 in your body doesn't mean it was the cause of death. but, nobody has time for the autopsies just right now, and it may be creating a confused perception.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0299_article
just because you died with covid-19 in your body doesn't mean it was the cause of death. but, nobody has time for the autopsies just right now, and it may be creating a confused perception.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0299_article
so, supposedly the executive order is to ban people with green cards.
these are legal immigrants - skilled workers. they aren't depressing anybody's wages. they're the kind of migrants america should want more of.
dumb policy, through and through.
we should make an announcement that we're willing to look at any skilled applicants that the americans don't want.
these are legal immigrants - skilled workers. they aren't depressing anybody's wages. they're the kind of migrants america should want more of.
dumb policy, through and through.
we should make an announcement that we're willing to look at any skilled applicants that the americans don't want.
if i'm not clear, when i say "enforce labor laws", i mean sending employers that hire migrants under the table to jail.
i'd like to see a major clampdown...
but, i'd almost never support deporting somebody. and, i'd eventually like to see the borders largely erased - once some of the things i've talked about are in place.
i'd like to see a major clampdown...
but, i'd almost never support deporting somebody. and, i'd eventually like to see the borders largely erased - once some of the things i've talked about are in place.
the short answer is that bringing in skilled labour will usually increase aggregate demand, because these are people that end up with spending money that is recycled back into the economy. you actually want to talk about multiplier effects, not wage suppression.
however, bringing in unskilled labour will generally have minimal effects, as they are paid so poorly as to only be able to subsist, if they aren't sending their excess wages out of the country. if they aren't occupying jobs that domestic workers can do directly, they are at least setting the wage floor much lower than it otherwise would be.
it would follow that you would want to put a focus on skilled immigration to plug holes in labour demand, while insisting that labour laws for unskilled labour are strictly upheld, to prevent employers from taking advantage of immigrant labour.
however, bringing in unskilled labour will generally have minimal effects, as they are paid so poorly as to only be able to subsist, if they aren't sending their excess wages out of the country. if they aren't occupying jobs that domestic workers can do directly, they are at least setting the wage floor much lower than it otherwise would be.
it would follow that you would want to put a focus on skilled immigration to plug holes in labour demand, while insisting that labour laws for unskilled labour are strictly upheld, to prevent employers from taking advantage of immigrant labour.
again: you're going to have a hard time pinning me down into a partisan position on this, because i denounce both parties equally. i don't believe in borders, and i'd like to erase them from the map. but, i'm staunchly critical of the democrats for upholding what is essentially a system of slavery, designed to maximize profits for corporate farmers, while keeping prices low for consumers. this is not a just system, and should not be maintained.
if you think you're standing in solidarity with migrant workers by standing with their employers, you're either a delusional idiot or you're a fascist asshole. these people are underpaid, they're not protected by labour rights, they face massive abuses and they are often void of basic civil rights in the process. i don't use the term lightly - they are enslaved.
making the issue about immigration is a cop-out. the issue is about labour rights, and standing in solidarity with the workers - not with the employers - means standing up for their rights to collective bargaining, to fair wages, to safe workplaces and to everything else that workers fight for and largely get in the united states and in canada. they are not lesser than us, and they should not be treated as though they are - they deserve the same rights as us.
now, it follows that if you were to actually enforce all of these things then mexican labour would lose it's absolute advantage. if employers had to pay all of the same things for imported labour that they do for domestic labour, imported labour would just have added costs attached to it. this would increase the competitiveness of domestic applicants; it would even the playing field.
but, that's just a corollary to the basic point, which is that a legitimately leftist position means standing in solidarity with the rights of workers, and not with the rights of corporations or the rights of consumers.
i don't know what he's doing, so it's hard to analyze. but, it's not clear to me that a ban on foreign workers is a worse idea than the status quo is.
if you think you're standing in solidarity with migrant workers by standing with their employers, you're either a delusional idiot or you're a fascist asshole. these people are underpaid, they're not protected by labour rights, they face massive abuses and they are often void of basic civil rights in the process. i don't use the term lightly - they are enslaved.
making the issue about immigration is a cop-out. the issue is about labour rights, and standing in solidarity with the workers - not with the employers - means standing up for their rights to collective bargaining, to fair wages, to safe workplaces and to everything else that workers fight for and largely get in the united states and in canada. they are not lesser than us, and they should not be treated as though they are - they deserve the same rights as us.
now, it follows that if you were to actually enforce all of these things then mexican labour would lose it's absolute advantage. if employers had to pay all of the same things for imported labour that they do for domestic labour, imported labour would just have added costs attached to it. this would increase the competitiveness of domestic applicants; it would even the playing field.
but, that's just a corollary to the basic point, which is that a legitimately leftist position means standing in solidarity with the rights of workers, and not with the rights of corporations or the rights of consumers.
i don't know what he's doing, so it's hard to analyze. but, it's not clear to me that a ban on foreign workers is a worse idea than the status quo is.
this is a different issue in canada, which does not share a border with a third-world country, but actually flies in migrant workers who exist under a specialized place in the labour code. we've essentially legalized paying them under-the-table. it's a program that is an absolute affront to any concept of labour rights, is unreformable and should be outright abolished.
in the united states, you could just enforce the laws, and that would most likely be good enough to end the abuses.
in the united states, you could just enforce the laws, and that would most likely be good enough to end the abuses.
so, they seem to be adopting a marxist argument about surplus labour depressing wages, which i don't dispute in specific contexts, but seems a little weird to bring up, in context.
yes, it is true that if you increase the supply of labour while reducing it's demand or otherwise holding it steady then you will suppress wages. that's economics 101. arguments against this rely on the question of what effect immigration has on demand, which is variable by sector. and, demand for labour is indeed rather low right now. but, wouldn't it make more sense to lift the lockdown? as demand is low for labour across the board right now, it's hard to see how banning immigration would have much of an effect on wages.
while i acknowledge that immigration is a factor in reducing wages in the southwest, i don't generally support policies intended to slow or ban migration into these regions. rather, i tend to point fingers at employers that hire people under the table, and a system that is erected to look the other way at it. so, i would rather see increased enforcement of the labour laws than bans on immigration. in the end, i would actually support a schengen-style agreement for the nafta countries that upholds free movement across the borders, but it has to be accompanied with stricter enforcement of labour laws, and the mexicans have to up their game on union rights.
if we actually enforced the labour laws properly, then mexican labour would be more expensive, and the issue would resolve itself.
could he do it?
if he decides that immigration is a threat to national security, he would have the power to ban immigration via executive order, whether that's enforceable in reality or not. i still don't know how you do it, besides completely shutting the border down altogether, which would quickly lead to an economic and social catastrophe.
as was the case previously, the proper way to fight the order is to question it's efficacy, not to argue it's "racist". given that the united states has more cases and deaths than anywhere else in the world, it does not seem as though it would be a particularly rational policy. if somebody challenges it in the right way, they'd no doubt win the case. but, what we've seen from groups like the aclu recently is pretty disappointing, and i don't have a lot of confidence in them to make the right legal arguments.
if he decides that immigration is a threat to national security, he would have the power to ban immigration via executive order, whether that's enforceable in reality or not. i still don't know how you do it, besides completely shutting the border down altogether, which would quickly lead to an economic and social catastrophe.
as was the case previously, the proper way to fight the order is to question it's efficacy, not to argue it's "racist". given that the united states has more cases and deaths than anywhere else in the world, it does not seem as though it would be a particularly rational policy. if somebody challenges it in the right way, they'd no doubt win the case. but, what we've seen from groups like the aclu recently is pretty disappointing, and i don't have a lot of confidence in them to make the right legal arguments.
that's not to say that the grading systems are perfect, or that i don't have criticisms about the way that grading is done, right now. i certainly do, actually.
but, if we want to live in a complicated society then we need to have some way to ensure that the people that are administering it have the qualifications to do so.
otherwise, we end up living in the film idiocracy.
but, if we want to live in a complicated society then we need to have some way to ensure that the people that are administering it have the qualifications to do so.
otherwise, we end up living in the film idiocracy.
arguments against the division of labour came out of a nineteenth century context, where specialization was less pronounced and factory work was particularly vicious - people died in factories all of the time, after having been relegated to the working class, and therefore discarded as expendable. these arguments need to evolve with the technology, and the realities created by it.
holding to the crux of what the anarchists were trying to say on the point means the following:
(1) we should abolish the feudal idea that people are born to perform certain tasks. in a modern context, that would mean something closer to abolishing foreign workers on farms than it would to abolishing grades. the point is that people need a way out.
(2) none of us should be assigned to accomplish the same task for our whole lives. that is, we need to be able to change careers, sometimes. that is something that is normal now, and was quite esoteric 200 years ago, where your entire identity was defined by the task that was assigned to you.
arguing that we should be allowed to change our role in society, which is the point of arguing against the division of labour, does not imply that we should be waiving requirements to demonstrate that you're qualified to do the job in the first place. it just means we shouldn't force people into menial roles for life, which we do continue to do.
holding to the crux of what the anarchists were trying to say on the point means the following:
(1) we should abolish the feudal idea that people are born to perform certain tasks. in a modern context, that would mean something closer to abolishing foreign workers on farms than it would to abolishing grades. the point is that people need a way out.
(2) none of us should be assigned to accomplish the same task for our whole lives. that is, we need to be able to change careers, sometimes. that is something that is normal now, and was quite esoteric 200 years ago, where your entire identity was defined by the task that was assigned to you.
arguing that we should be allowed to change our role in society, which is the point of arguing against the division of labour, does not imply that we should be waiving requirements to demonstrate that you're qualified to do the job in the first place. it just means we shouldn't force people into menial roles for life, which we do continue to do.
i might support a pass/fail system if you decided that you need 90+% to pass. that's probably a better reflection of reality, nowadays, anyways.
but, evaluating technical students on what they learned is necessary to ensure that they're actually able to do the job they want to do, in the end. that's a hierarchy that we need to maintain to ensure that our bridges don't collapse, and our doctors are able to do what they're expected.
i want to make my position clear on this.
if you're a classical civilization major, then going to school is an experience. you're there to meet people, to have discussions, to take part in debates, etc. your letter grade is ultimately somebody's opinion on your arguments and writing style, and doing away with it isn't such a big deal.
but, if you're an engineering student then you need to be evaluated on what you actually learned, which means you need to be tested. a pass/fail system for engineers or doctors or (...) would be reflective of total societal collapse, and this virus really isn't bad enough to be talking like this. so, these people have to be evaluated somewhere at some point, they can't just be passed and moved along. the students will mostly agree with me on this point - they don't want bullshit on their transcripts.
the policy should be centered on what stem students need, not what is convenient for arts majors.
if you're a classical civilization major, then going to school is an experience. you're there to meet people, to have discussions, to take part in debates, etc. your letter grade is ultimately somebody's opinion on your arguments and writing style, and doing away with it isn't such a big deal.
but, if you're an engineering student then you need to be evaluated on what you actually learned, which means you need to be tested. a pass/fail system for engineers or doctors or (...) would be reflective of total societal collapse, and this virus really isn't bad enough to be talking like this. so, these people have to be evaluated somewhere at some point, they can't just be passed and moved along. the students will mostly agree with me on this point - they don't want bullshit on their transcripts.
the policy should be centered on what stem students need, not what is convenient for arts majors.
if you're a good student and you've been keeping up then you probably don't need in-class instruction anyways and you can probably just write the exams like nothing happened. the schools should have that option available, allowing the best students to still get letter grades based entirely on their exam scores. if they're lucky - and next year isn't cancelled anyways - then they should get over this without much more than a hiccup.
slower students that require attention from the teachers, and/or haven't been keeping up, and can't pass an exam in these circumstances should be given the opportunity to repeat without it affecting their gpa.
so, what should it say on the transcripts?
it should say something like CANCELLED.
and, where necessary, students should be refunded entirely.
i know that i wouldn't want to pay for a grade that says PASS. i'd feel ripped off...
slower students that require attention from the teachers, and/or haven't been keeping up, and can't pass an exam in these circumstances should be given the opportunity to repeat without it affecting their gpa.
so, what should it say on the transcripts?
it should say something like CANCELLED.
and, where necessary, students should be refunded entirely.
i know that i wouldn't want to pay for a grade that says PASS. i'd feel ripped off...
see, as maclean's is the asshole of canadian journalism, it is no doubt looking at the situation from a liberal arts perspective, where grades are more important than knowledge. but, if you're studying something technical, you would have actually learned something in the period of classes that were cancelled, and you can't just waive that aside with a pass/fail option.
at some point, these kids have to write exams. that could be done at the high school level, by setting up online testing, which surely wouldn't be particularly difficult.
"but, i didn't study. classes were out."
well, i guess you'll fail the exam then, won't you?
awww.
or, the universities may set up a qualifying process.
but, we can't collapse into the fairy tale reality of a pass/fail system. such nonsense would permanently impugn the credibility of our academic system, and if i was an employer, i wouldn't even look at students that graduated in this period.
i know it's a bitter pill, but i would actually recommend that everybody cut their losses and repeat the year. if you're a high school student, you might have to skip that year off that's become standard. if you're a university student, you should just repeat the courses.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/pass-fail-grades-should-be-the-only-option-during-the-coronavirus/
at some point, these kids have to write exams. that could be done at the high school level, by setting up online testing, which surely wouldn't be particularly difficult.
"but, i didn't study. classes were out."
well, i guess you'll fail the exam then, won't you?
awww.
or, the universities may set up a qualifying process.
but, we can't collapse into the fairy tale reality of a pass/fail system. such nonsense would permanently impugn the credibility of our academic system, and if i was an employer, i wouldn't even look at students that graduated in this period.
i know it's a bitter pill, but i would actually recommend that everybody cut their losses and repeat the year. if you're a high school student, you might have to skip that year off that's become standard. if you're a university student, you should just repeat the courses.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/pass-fail-grades-should-be-the-only-option-during-the-coronavirus/
the initial reports were that this disease didn't cause gastric or intestinal problems, but then there was a slew of evidence suggesting it actually did.
how many of those cases were patients that tested for multiple pathogens?
i know this is a can, but i'm at least pointing to a valid source of error that i hadn't thought of previously. under normal circumstances, just assuming the new virus is the cause of death would be a massive medical error. correlation doesn't imply causality. people may be being a little sloppy on that point, right now, because the resources to work it out are so stretched.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/researchers-report-21-covid-19-co-infection-rate
how many of those cases were patients that tested for multiple pathogens?
i know this is a can, but i'm at least pointing to a valid source of error that i hadn't thought of previously. under normal circumstances, just assuming the new virus is the cause of death would be a massive medical error. correlation doesn't imply causality. people may be being a little sloppy on that point, right now, because the resources to work it out are so stretched.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/researchers-report-21-covid-19-co-infection-rate
it makes you wonder.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i do believe that the assumption right now is that anybody that dies after having tested positive for the new virus died from it. they're not doing autopsies, or otherwise rigorously attempting to determine exact causes of death.
if flu deaths are unusually low, it opens up the question - how many deaths that we're assigning to covid-19 are actually in people that tested positive for covid-19, and actually died of the flu?
what kind of comorbidity is there? are they doing testing for it?
we could just be having a weak flu year. it happens. it was warm this year in europe, right?
but, i'm exceedingly skeptical that the reason flu deaths are down is due to distancing; i'd consider it far more likely that we're not getting the cause of death right in a lot of cases.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/world/remember-the-flu-coronavirus-sent-it-into-hiding-but-at-a-cost-439681/
correct me if i'm wrong, but i do believe that the assumption right now is that anybody that dies after having tested positive for the new virus died from it. they're not doing autopsies, or otherwise rigorously attempting to determine exact causes of death.
if flu deaths are unusually low, it opens up the question - how many deaths that we're assigning to covid-19 are actually in people that tested positive for covid-19, and actually died of the flu?
what kind of comorbidity is there? are they doing testing for it?
we could just be having a weak flu year. it happens. it was warm this year in europe, right?
but, i'm exceedingly skeptical that the reason flu deaths are down is due to distancing; i'd consider it far more likely that we're not getting the cause of death right in a lot of cases.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/world/remember-the-flu-coronavirus-sent-it-into-hiding-but-at-a-cost-439681/
why did i go to a christian school if i'm so axiomatically opposed to judeo-christian morals?
i've told this story before, and a few times, actually. so be it.
back in the 80s in ontario, the public school system didn't have kindergarten. if you're my age, or a little younger, you might be aware of the political struggle around full day kindergarten without being fully cognizant of the reality that it wasn't available at all when you were at that age. however, because i was born in january, i wouldn't have been able to attend pre-school for another year.
my mother, and it was my mother's choice, had two options in front of her:
1) i could skip what would amount to two years.
2) i could get baptized.
so, my mother baptized me at the age of four in order to send me to the catholic school so i didn't have to skip the year. i've heard rumours that they were planning on switching me after, but it never happened.
my father was never religious, but his mother was, and my mother had to really put her foot down to stop me from being baptized as an infant - a decision that is likely at the root of the fact that i have never had a relationship with my paternal grandmother. my mother was basically afraid of the priests, and the reputation they have for molesting young boys, so she wouldn't let me anywhere near a church under real fears that i'd get assaulted. she has some mental issues, but it doesn't mean she didn't actually believe the threat was real, and i don't doubt that she did.
i remember the event - it was scary. i didn't know this guy, i didn't know what he was doing and i found the surroundings to be unsettling. my mom's strict instructions to not go anywhere alone with the priest made me wonder what the fuck was happening. so, it was actually kind of a traumatic experience.
it says a lot about the role that religion played in my mother's life, and by extension my own, though - not only did she refuse to have me baptized when i was an infant, but she had such little concern for the sanctity of the ritual that she cynically performed it on me out of no religious conviction and simply to send me to school when i was a toddler.
there are two other reasons why my mother baptized me at that age besides so that i didn't skip the year:
1) while canada's school system is not explicitly segregated, the catholic schools are about 95% white.
2) my mother was and remains an angry, violent & frequent drunk. i seem to be the only antidote that ever worked - something i'm self-aware of. but, sending me to school would give her an opportunity to drink during the day when i was gone.
i did not participate in the other sacraments, and would not be considered a catholic relative to their own admission criteria.
in hindsight, i wish i had switched, by high school if not earlier. in later years, my dad insisted on the superior quality of the catholic system, but i'm not sure how true the claim actually was.
i've told this story before, and a few times, actually. so be it.
back in the 80s in ontario, the public school system didn't have kindergarten. if you're my age, or a little younger, you might be aware of the political struggle around full day kindergarten without being fully cognizant of the reality that it wasn't available at all when you were at that age. however, because i was born in january, i wouldn't have been able to attend pre-school for another year.
my mother, and it was my mother's choice, had two options in front of her:
1) i could skip what would amount to two years.
2) i could get baptized.
so, my mother baptized me at the age of four in order to send me to the catholic school so i didn't have to skip the year. i've heard rumours that they were planning on switching me after, but it never happened.
my father was never religious, but his mother was, and my mother had to really put her foot down to stop me from being baptized as an infant - a decision that is likely at the root of the fact that i have never had a relationship with my paternal grandmother. my mother was basically afraid of the priests, and the reputation they have for molesting young boys, so she wouldn't let me anywhere near a church under real fears that i'd get assaulted. she has some mental issues, but it doesn't mean she didn't actually believe the threat was real, and i don't doubt that she did.
i remember the event - it was scary. i didn't know this guy, i didn't know what he was doing and i found the surroundings to be unsettling. my mom's strict instructions to not go anywhere alone with the priest made me wonder what the fuck was happening. so, it was actually kind of a traumatic experience.
it says a lot about the role that religion played in my mother's life, and by extension my own, though - not only did she refuse to have me baptized when i was an infant, but she had such little concern for the sanctity of the ritual that she cynically performed it on me out of no religious conviction and simply to send me to school when i was a toddler.
there are two other reasons why my mother baptized me at that age besides so that i didn't skip the year:
1) while canada's school system is not explicitly segregated, the catholic schools are about 95% white.
2) my mother was and remains an angry, violent & frequent drunk. i seem to be the only antidote that ever worked - something i'm self-aware of. but, sending me to school would give her an opportunity to drink during the day when i was gone.
i did not participate in the other sacraments, and would not be considered a catholic relative to their own admission criteria.
in hindsight, i wish i had switched, by high school if not earlier. in later years, my dad insisted on the superior quality of the catholic system, but i'm not sure how true the claim actually was.
i'm not the person that is struggling with my faith, but is essentially a christian in my views.
rather, i'm the person that vehemently rejects every word that is written in the bible and even identifies historically and culturally with groups that fought wars against christianity, all of the way into the enlightenment.
it's not my history, it's not my culture and i won't be smeared as though it is.
rather, i'm the person that vehemently rejects every word that is written in the bible and even identifies historically and culturally with groups that fought wars against christianity, all of the way into the enlightenment.
it's not my history, it's not my culture and i won't be smeared as though it is.
so, it's like...
i can't stop you from building up and tearing down strawmen about me. whatever.
but, if you have a legitimate interest in what i actually think, you should realize that my rejection of christianity is both constant and total and that i've stated my views on these topics rather clearly for a rather long period. nothing i've said recently is inconsistent with my previous views, and if you think it is then you misunderstood me previously.
i can't stop you from building up and tearing down strawmen about me. whatever.
but, if you have a legitimate interest in what i actually think, you should realize that my rejection of christianity is both constant and total and that i've stated my views on these topics rather clearly for a rather long period. nothing i've said recently is inconsistent with my previous views, and if you think it is then you misunderstood me previously.
i just flat out refused to do this - not because i was lazy, but because i strongly hold to the principle that all labour should be compensated for.
it's true that i was working two jobs and had a full course load, so trying to make space for it was nearly impossible. but, that wasn't the reasoning underlying my position - it was a labour rights position, defined by leftist ideology.
and, while i'm thinking about it, i will call on the province to abolish this requirement immediately. nobody should ever be forced to perform unpaid labour, ever, no matter what.
https://www.ocsb.ca/community-involvement/
it's true that i was working two jobs and had a full course load, so trying to make space for it was nearly impossible. but, that wasn't the reasoning underlying my position - it was a labour rights position, defined by leftist ideology.
and, while i'm thinking about it, i will call on the province to abolish this requirement immediately. nobody should ever be forced to perform unpaid labour, ever, no matter what.
https://www.ocsb.ca/community-involvement/
i completed five years of high school at st. pius x in ottawa, and used those credits to get into three different universities (i settled on carleton because it was close) but i don't think i technically have a high school diploma. the reason is that i resisted the community service requirements, under an argument that i felt unpaid labour was unjust. in the end, i decided that holding to my principles in resisting forced service was more important to me than having the diploma was.
so, i've been consistent on the point for a long time.
so, i've been consistent on the point for a long time.
if there's one constant in my public persona for as long as i've been typing for, it's a total rejection of religion. so, nobody should be surprised that i don't have time for sacrifice as a concept, and that i don't see it as a redeeming trait.
so, if that wasn't clear previously, i'll make it clear now: when i talk of solidarity, it is always about advancing self-interest through numbers and power. that's how we win, we work together. it's never about making sacrifices for others, or giving back to the community - those are religious ideas, not anarchist concepts, and they are ideas that i thoroughly reject.
so, if that wasn't clear previously, i'll make it clear now: when i talk of solidarity, it is always about advancing self-interest through numbers and power. that's how we win, we work together. it's never about making sacrifices for others, or giving back to the community - those are religious ideas, not anarchist concepts, and they are ideas that i thoroughly reject.
it is probably the case that a lot of people have the concepts of solidarity and sacrifice intertwined with each other, for the reason that they interpret the world through a religious filter.
when you don't see the world through the filter of a religion because you could never be bothered with it, these ideas are not just separate but largely contradictory. solidarity is mutual aid, which is about advancing shared self-interests - it has nothing to do with sacrificing for others, which is just flat out irrational.
it's important to recognize these linguistic and conceptual subtleties when dealing with the left, which is starkly irreligious. we may perhaps use some of the same words, but they don't always mean the same thing to leftists that they do to religionists.
when you don't see the world through the filter of a religion because you could never be bothered with it, these ideas are not just separate but largely contradictory. solidarity is mutual aid, which is about advancing shared self-interests - it has nothing to do with sacrificing for others, which is just flat out irrational.
it's important to recognize these linguistic and conceptual subtleties when dealing with the left, which is starkly irreligious. we may perhaps use some of the same words, but they don't always mean the same thing to leftists that they do to religionists.
standing with the weak is not an opinion, it's not a feeling, it's not a conviction. it's not an opportunity to be self-righteous, or demonstrate you're a part of the elect.
standing with the weak means designing and implementing policies that will actually be effective in protecting them, and it is nothing more and nothing less than that.
nothing that our governments have forced us to do has been effective, and it is therefore not real solidarity - real solidarity is promoting policies that actually work.
standing with the weak means designing and implementing policies that will actually be effective in protecting them, and it is nothing more and nothing less than that.
nothing that our governments have forced us to do has been effective, and it is therefore not real solidarity - real solidarity is promoting policies that actually work.
yeah.
this is maybe so obvious that i missed it altogether, but, obviously, solidarity cannot be a universal value shared across humanity. how does a slave stand in solidarity with it's master? rather, solidarity requires an external force to act against. so, anybody interpreting solidarity as a universal truth would be kind of missing the plot.
slave owners would stand in solidarity with each other against slave revolts, as bankers would stand in solidarity with each other against regulatory agencies. that's not any less real than working class solidarity, or any other type of it.
so, rather than being some kind of universal truth, individuals need to pick who they are in solidarity with and who they are in solidarity against. so, for example, as an openly transgendered person, i cannot stand in solidarity with religious groups, as they do not acknowledge that i exist - they are my political opponents, and i must stand in opposition to them, not in solidarity with them. to suggest otherwise would be for me to act against my own self-interest.
and, no, solidarity is not the abstention of self-interest, it's the realization that self-interest is best obtained by working together with those that have the same self-interests.
are we all in this together with this disease? no, we're not. this isn't about working together to achieve common goals at all, it's about forcing through laws by gunpoint that only benefit 1% of the population. and, pointing that out is not right-wing, it's left-wing. i am not under any threat from this disease at all, so i am being forced to suffer dramatically from these measures, with absolutely no benefit. none of this is in my self-interest. so, why would i stand in solidarity with something that harms me, and i gain nothing from? you can assign romanticized concepts to such behaviour, but it just strikes me as stupidity. there needs to be reciprocity, or what's the point?
worse, what we've done has been brutally ineffective in protecting the people that require it. this is supposed to be about protecting the elderly, and the fact is that they're still getting killed by this thing at high rates. so, not only is supporting these policies at my expense not in my self-interest, but the fact is that it's not even smart policy - it's not working, and it was predictable that it wouldn't work.
solidarity should be measured by results, not by intentions. supporting very targeted measures to actually protect the weak that would actually work, which is what i argued for, is a stronger level of solidarity with the weak than supporting these ineffective lockdowns that it was obvious from the start would be pointless.
maclean's is the asshole of canadian journalism, and everybody knows that. but, let's not reduce solidarity to stupidity. let's try to be a little more thoughtful than this.
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/what-solidarity-during-coronavirus-and-always-it-s-more-we-re-all-together-u-t-expert
this is maybe so obvious that i missed it altogether, but, obviously, solidarity cannot be a universal value shared across humanity. how does a slave stand in solidarity with it's master? rather, solidarity requires an external force to act against. so, anybody interpreting solidarity as a universal truth would be kind of missing the plot.
slave owners would stand in solidarity with each other against slave revolts, as bankers would stand in solidarity with each other against regulatory agencies. that's not any less real than working class solidarity, or any other type of it.
so, rather than being some kind of universal truth, individuals need to pick who they are in solidarity with and who they are in solidarity against. so, for example, as an openly transgendered person, i cannot stand in solidarity with religious groups, as they do not acknowledge that i exist - they are my political opponents, and i must stand in opposition to them, not in solidarity with them. to suggest otherwise would be for me to act against my own self-interest.
and, no, solidarity is not the abstention of self-interest, it's the realization that self-interest is best obtained by working together with those that have the same self-interests.
are we all in this together with this disease? no, we're not. this isn't about working together to achieve common goals at all, it's about forcing through laws by gunpoint that only benefit 1% of the population. and, pointing that out is not right-wing, it's left-wing. i am not under any threat from this disease at all, so i am being forced to suffer dramatically from these measures, with absolutely no benefit. none of this is in my self-interest. so, why would i stand in solidarity with something that harms me, and i gain nothing from? you can assign romanticized concepts to such behaviour, but it just strikes me as stupidity. there needs to be reciprocity, or what's the point?
worse, what we've done has been brutally ineffective in protecting the people that require it. this is supposed to be about protecting the elderly, and the fact is that they're still getting killed by this thing at high rates. so, not only is supporting these policies at my expense not in my self-interest, but the fact is that it's not even smart policy - it's not working, and it was predictable that it wouldn't work.
solidarity should be measured by results, not by intentions. supporting very targeted measures to actually protect the weak that would actually work, which is what i argued for, is a stronger level of solidarity with the weak than supporting these ineffective lockdowns that it was obvious from the start would be pointless.
maclean's is the asshole of canadian journalism, and everybody knows that. but, let's not reduce solidarity to stupidity. let's try to be a little more thoughtful than this.
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/what-solidarity-during-coronavirus-and-always-it-s-more-we-re-all-together-u-t-expert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)