i'm not isaac newton.
i'm a guitarist on disability.
Friday, April 17, 2020
ok.
*deep breath*.
so, it seems to have taken me some time to burn through the news after waking up around 15:00 this afternoon. i guess that's ok. there was some big news...
i'm going to get my daily fruit bowl now, get a start on the remaining laundry and look to pivot towards finally getting to an update on that vlog. i'm awake, i'm alert and i want to refocus, now.
damn.
i'm not gloating.
but, i wish the public health response - everywhere - was more rigorous in it's analysis.
who was making these choice, at the end of the day? were the decision-makers doctors? or mathematicians?
*deep breath*.
so, it seems to have taken me some time to burn through the news after waking up around 15:00 this afternoon. i guess that's ok. there was some big news...
i'm going to get my daily fruit bowl now, get a start on the remaining laundry and look to pivot towards finally getting to an update on that vlog. i'm awake, i'm alert and i want to refocus, now.
damn.
i'm not gloating.
but, i wish the public health response - everywhere - was more rigorous in it's analysis.
who was making these choice, at the end of the day? were the decision-makers doctors? or mathematicians?
The study estimated that 2.49% to 4.16% of people in Santa Clara Country had been infected with Covid-19 by April 1.
ok. so, that was two and a half weeks ago, actually.
the current number of cases in this county is 1870, according to google. (50*1870 = 93500, 80*1870=149600). the population is about 1928000. so, updated numbers would suggested 4.8-7.7% - if the growth is linear, which is no doubt wrong.
so, that study is a proof of concept because it's 17 days behind.
but, it gets the point across - even in the county with the earliest, strongest lockdowns, you're still looking at widespread transmission and substantive infection rates. i want more studies before i throw numbers out there.
don't get giddy. i've made an attempt to avoid gloating for weeks. this actually suggests it's more important than ever for us to ensure we're continuing to protect the weak; don't think otherwise. but, it's also increasing evidence that these controls are neither working nor were they reasonable.
i know. i'm a nerd. but, listen - there's no reason to think this isn't a huge curve ball. how is your governor or premier going to react to this realization that infection rates are already out of control? i don't know....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/santa-clara-coronavirus-infections-study/index.html
ok. so, that was two and a half weeks ago, actually.
the current number of cases in this county is 1870, according to google. (50*1870 = 93500, 80*1870=149600). the population is about 1928000. so, updated numbers would suggested 4.8-7.7% - if the growth is linear, which is no doubt wrong.
so, that study is a proof of concept because it's 17 days behind.
but, it gets the point across - even in the county with the earliest, strongest lockdowns, you're still looking at widespread transmission and substantive infection rates. i want more studies before i throw numbers out there.
don't get giddy. i've made an attempt to avoid gloating for weeks. this actually suggests it's more important than ever for us to ensure we're continuing to protect the weak; don't think otherwise. but, it's also increasing evidence that these controls are neither working nor were they reasonable.
i know. i'm a nerd. but, listen - there's no reason to think this isn't a huge curve ball. how is your governor or premier going to react to this realization that infection rates are already out of control? i don't know....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/santa-clara-coronavirus-infections-study/index.html
more consistency - 50x-80x.
and, this is basically exactly what i was waiting for, although the numbers seem a little low, to me. but, this is san francisco, where they locked people down early.
i want to see similar testing done in new york.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/antibody-research-coronavirus-widespread/story?id=70206121
and, this is basically exactly what i was waiting for, although the numbers seem a little low, to me. but, this is san francisco, where they locked people down early.
i want to see similar testing done in new york.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/antibody-research-coronavirus-widespread/story?id=70206121
the sewage data would seem to suggest there are about 50x as many cases as are being reported, give or take. yeah.
so, that would suggest that there's actually closer to 1.6 million cases in canada, and a mortality rate around .08%.
for the united states, you're looking at 35 million cases and a mortality rate around .1%.
consistency is a key component of the scientific method, kids.
consistency is a key component of the scientific method, kids.
i've been presenting the infection rate as a percentage of the population. you've heard people on tv, though, talk about this variable, r with a subscript of 0 - called r-not, which looks like R0 and is called the basic reproduction number. you'll note that i haven't done that, that i've stuck with an infection rate instead. why am i doing that?
the reason is that this basic reproduction number is something that should be uncovered empirically, not something that should be guessed at. the modeling is making that number up, and i'm actually assigning that process to quite a bit of the observed error.
i can throw out an infection rate as a rough bound in the context of a conditional (if the infection rate is .666 then....) as that is tautologically contained within itself so long as it's well-formed. i can also calculate an infection rate from an observed death count, and an otherwise derived mortality rate, which i'm far less apprehensive about pulling out of the existing data, even as i recommend some skepticism. however, i'm not going to guess the basic reproduction number by observing the number of found cases. i don't feel there's enough variables there to do that, even as i point to the contagion level appearing to be higher than appears to be the accepted guess, due to the nature of the curve.
for that reason, i've kept my models very simple and preferred to talk in english about the disease being "very contagious" and "not very deadly". if we could find that r-not empirically, though, i might be more willing to talk about things as functions of each other, and look at some more complex modelling. what i've been waiting for is antibody testing.
you'll excuse the pun, but this is a very crude way to measure that number that i hadn't thought of. it's inherently better than a guess, though. and, it's aligning with my general analysis that we might be burning out due to immunity, rather than "flattening the curve".
what does "less critical of the reign of terror" mean?
they kind of went bonkers in the end, clearly.
but, given the reality of the ancien regime, and it's interrelationship with the papacy going back to fucking charlemagne, i don't see what else they could have done. i don't exactly want to justify the barbarity of the reign of terror, so much as i want to realize it as a necessary evil. in the end, i'd rather cite voltaire than robespierre. but, these priests probably needed to die - there probably wasn't any other way to end this.
it didn't take long to collapse, though. and, i'm hardly going to defend the ending stages. but, i'm more likely going to criticize the process in terms of it undoing itself, that is by comparing the cult of reason to a religious group, than in criticizing the actions that were taken. in the end, the fundamental problem with the reign of terror was that it became the ancien regime and continued it's crimes, not how it treated it as it dismantled it. this is the same fundamental critique as ought to apply to stalinism, as a type of neo-czarism, or maoism's current perversion into reconstituted confucianism (even if i think the peasantry lacks true revolutionary potential).
i'm not writing this essay just right now.
they kind of went bonkers in the end, clearly.
but, given the reality of the ancien regime, and it's interrelationship with the papacy going back to fucking charlemagne, i don't see what else they could have done. i don't exactly want to justify the barbarity of the reign of terror, so much as i want to realize it as a necessary evil. in the end, i'd rather cite voltaire than robespierre. but, these priests probably needed to die - there probably wasn't any other way to end this.
it didn't take long to collapse, though. and, i'm hardly going to defend the ending stages. but, i'm more likely going to criticize the process in terms of it undoing itself, that is by comparing the cult of reason to a religious group, than in criticizing the actions that were taken. in the end, the fundamental problem with the reign of terror was that it became the ancien regime and continued it's crimes, not how it treated it as it dismantled it. this is the same fundamental critique as ought to apply to stalinism, as a type of neo-czarism, or maoism's current perversion into reconstituted confucianism (even if i think the peasantry lacks true revolutionary potential).
i'm not writing this essay just right now.
this is the mainstream view, i believe - and i'll allow my opponent the source, given the distance of events.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/edmund-burke-v-thomas-paine-nat-brown/
but, this text here came out of the exchange as well and is quite often defined as the beginning of the left-anarchist tradition, or the point where it became distinct from a general small-l liberalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men
it also has a lot to do with why i may allow myself to use the term "liberal", with a small-l - all of the influences on anarchism before 1800 would have identified as enlightenment or renaissance liberals.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/edmund-burke-v-thomas-paine-nat-brown/
but, this text here came out of the exchange as well and is quite often defined as the beginning of the left-anarchist tradition, or the point where it became distinct from a general small-l liberalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men
it also has a lot to do with why i may allow myself to use the term "liberal", with a small-l - all of the influences on anarchism before 1800 would have identified as enlightenment or renaissance liberals.
see, quebec is the one place where i'm going to actually blame the people, not the government. or, at least, not the provincial government. and, some people...
again: this is a right-wing government, but it is also a secular government. that is a weird mix in the existing era, where right-wing governments have generally used religion as a tool of control. the thing is that the silent revolution cut across party lines, creating a situation where almost all religiosity in quebec is immigrating into it from outside of the province. so, there isn't a nativist right to whip up. what there is is a cultural consensus on secularism, which has ideological roots in the french revolution. that's leaving the fake left to represent immigrant communities, which make up almost all religiosity in the province. as a secular leftist, that puts me in a weird position. but, quebec might be a bit of a taste of the future in places like california, as well - it may represent a taste of the reversal of the spectrum on specific issues that is on it's way towards normalcy, continent wide.
so, what do i do when faced with secular fiscal conservatives and economic keynesians that align with the religious right? i don't know...
i know that the specific issues in front of us have led to me being a lot more lenient on them than i'd like to be, because they align on the secular v religious axis rather than the fiscally conservative v. economic keynesian one.
and, i think i'm going to be badly disenfranchised for quite a while, leading me to do this kind of thing more often. i've remained broadly critical of trump; even if i think he's frequently been less bad than what could have been, or might still be, i still think he's been pretty shitty. the caq, though, seems to at least actually be legitimately on the right side on a lot of these issues of secularism, empiricism, data - anything that reduces to that shift away from catholicism that defined revolutionary france. which isn't to compare legault to robespierre, either - even if i'm actually a little less critical of the reign of terror than the culturally english burkean conservative narrative around the events usually is. anarchism actually has it's ideological roots in defending the revolution against the burkean critique.
the provincial government made the right decisions around senior facilities, and they made those decisions early. i applauded them for it; almost on cue, they were criticized for being draconian, and insensitive to the social requirements of the elderly. but, i doubt those that made those arguments then would make them now. they also specifically cracked down on religious gatherings, and deserve a lot of credit for sticking to it.
the reason they have more cases is that they've done more testing, which is also commendable. they're testing at a far higher rate than anywhere else. that's the right approach; the low numbers in other provinces are reflective of incomplete data, and governments that are taking the wrong approach.
quebeckers also have the highest level of self-compliance with distancing rules, according to a number of metrics.
so, it looks like they're doing everything right....
but, people in certain communities seem to have not listened, and it's created a lot of hardship - within their own communities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/covid-19-quebec-april-17-1.5535556
again: this is a right-wing government, but it is also a secular government. that is a weird mix in the existing era, where right-wing governments have generally used religion as a tool of control. the thing is that the silent revolution cut across party lines, creating a situation where almost all religiosity in quebec is immigrating into it from outside of the province. so, there isn't a nativist right to whip up. what there is is a cultural consensus on secularism, which has ideological roots in the french revolution. that's leaving the fake left to represent immigrant communities, which make up almost all religiosity in the province. as a secular leftist, that puts me in a weird position. but, quebec might be a bit of a taste of the future in places like california, as well - it may represent a taste of the reversal of the spectrum on specific issues that is on it's way towards normalcy, continent wide.
so, what do i do when faced with secular fiscal conservatives and economic keynesians that align with the religious right? i don't know...
i know that the specific issues in front of us have led to me being a lot more lenient on them than i'd like to be, because they align on the secular v religious axis rather than the fiscally conservative v. economic keynesian one.
and, i think i'm going to be badly disenfranchised for quite a while, leading me to do this kind of thing more often. i've remained broadly critical of trump; even if i think he's frequently been less bad than what could have been, or might still be, i still think he's been pretty shitty. the caq, though, seems to at least actually be legitimately on the right side on a lot of these issues of secularism, empiricism, data - anything that reduces to that shift away from catholicism that defined revolutionary france. which isn't to compare legault to robespierre, either - even if i'm actually a little less critical of the reign of terror than the culturally english burkean conservative narrative around the events usually is. anarchism actually has it's ideological roots in defending the revolution against the burkean critique.
the provincial government made the right decisions around senior facilities, and they made those decisions early. i applauded them for it; almost on cue, they were criticized for being draconian, and insensitive to the social requirements of the elderly. but, i doubt those that made those arguments then would make them now. they also specifically cracked down on religious gatherings, and deserve a lot of credit for sticking to it.
the reason they have more cases is that they've done more testing, which is also commendable. they're testing at a far higher rate than anywhere else. that's the right approach; the low numbers in other provinces are reflective of incomplete data, and governments that are taking the wrong approach.
quebeckers also have the highest level of self-compliance with distancing rules, according to a number of metrics.
so, it looks like they're doing everything right....
but, people in certain communities seem to have not listened, and it's created a lot of hardship - within their own communities.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/covid-19-quebec-april-17-1.5535556
chretien's opponent in 1993 was technically kim campbell.
but, the election was a populist backlash against mulroney that permanently destroyed the historical entity called the progressive conservative party of canada. it did not recover.
what exists today is really a different political movement, stemming from a different political ideology, namely the social credit movement, which originated in the west.
but, the election was a populist backlash against mulroney that permanently destroyed the historical entity called the progressive conservative party of canada. it did not recover.
what exists today is really a different political movement, stemming from a different political ideology, namely the social credit movement, which originated in the west.
i actually don't really have an opinion on john turner, given that i have no active memory of him, and he didn't really actually do anything, so there's been no history to look up. he was a sort of caretaker leader for a while in the early 80s, before he lost to mulroney in a major landslide.
but, referring to the fta/nafta as the "sale of canada act" also seems quite prescient at this point.
i wish i knew more about these years myself, actually.
i do remember the tail end of mulroney's years as pm, if vaguely, but i was largely pre-political in those years. my first real memory of any kind of political anything in canada was the populist backlash against the gst in the 1993 election, when i was 12 years old. i don't even remember what i thought about this at the time, but i doubt it was very informed, or that i'd defend any arguments i made at the time. i remember the election, though - the widespread elation and euphoria at the defeat of mulroney, who was just widely despised by this point.
regardless, i'm reading through this right now.
“a monstrous swindle, under which the Canadian government has ceded to the United States of America a large slice of the country’s sovereignty over its economy and natural resources.” - pierre trudeau, describing the fta (the precursor to nafta)
more prescient words would be hard to find, on this date.
more prescient words would be hard to find, on this date.
historically, conservatives supported mercantilism, while liberals supported free trade. this is actually the etymological origin of the terms conservative and liberal in our political system - it refers to the nature of the trade policies supported by each party.
in canada, the conservative party officially opposed free trade until roughly 1985, when it all of a sudden embraced the results of the mcdonald commission, designed to seek renewed reciprocity with the americans, something that nafta is definitely not.
so, if you look at the situation at face value, it seems as though the conservatives switched sides. but, they haven't, actually. rather, the language has reversed. it really is right out of orwell.
it's actually the liberals that switched sides, by embracing a nafta that uses the language of free trade but is, in truth a fundamentally mercantilist agreement. chretien ran against it, but found himself stuck when he got into office, unable to actually undo it. mulroney had sold us out....
despite launching the committee that led to it, the most vocally prominent opponent of nafta in canada until the day he died was in truth almost certainly pierre elliot trudeau.
so, when i attack doug ford as a mercantilist conservative, it's being done in the context of a british-canadian political tradition. that might be confusing to you if you live in the united states, but all i can tell you is that we're a different country and that you'll need to learn the history if you want to follow the discussion.
in canada, the conservative party officially opposed free trade until roughly 1985, when it all of a sudden embraced the results of the mcdonald commission, designed to seek renewed reciprocity with the americans, something that nafta is definitely not.
so, if you look at the situation at face value, it seems as though the conservatives switched sides. but, they haven't, actually. rather, the language has reversed. it really is right out of orwell.
it's actually the liberals that switched sides, by embracing a nafta that uses the language of free trade but is, in truth a fundamentally mercantilist agreement. chretien ran against it, but found himself stuck when he got into office, unable to actually undo it. mulroney had sold us out....
despite launching the committee that led to it, the most vocally prominent opponent of nafta in canada until the day he died was in truth almost certainly pierre elliot trudeau.
so, when i attack doug ford as a mercantilist conservative, it's being done in the context of a british-canadian political tradition. that might be confusing to you if you live in the united states, but all i can tell you is that we're a different country and that you'll need to learn the history if you want to follow the discussion.
but, sitting there and blaming the americans for hoarding supplies is like saying your dog ate your homework.
i'm sick of bullshit excuses from doug ford.
we don't have the capacity. we don't have the manufacturing. we passed the legislation that resulted in this. this is our fault.
and only we can fix it, by undoing the mistakes of neo-liberalism that brought us here.
i'm sick of bullshit excuses from doug ford.
we don't have the capacity. we don't have the manufacturing. we passed the legislation that resulted in this. this is our fault.
and only we can fix it, by undoing the mistakes of neo-liberalism that brought us here.
no.
listen...
if our metrics suggest a steep decline, and it doesn't happen, then we have a contradiction. we have some biases. we have some skewed data.
and that's what statisticians do - they sit down and figure that out.
the hospitalization numbers are probably the best indicators, so the bias is probably on the other side. but, we don't actually know that.
listen...
if our metrics suggest a steep decline, and it doesn't happen, then we have a contradiction. we have some biases. we have some skewed data.
and that's what statisticians do - they sit down and figure that out.
the hospitalization numbers are probably the best indicators, so the bias is probably on the other side. but, we don't actually know that.
we should have the capacity to produce medical supplies in canada, and in ontario specifically. that we do not is a consequence of our failed trade policies going back decades; like so much of what is wrong with this country, the buck stops here at brian mulroney, and his sycophantic relationship with ronald reagan (who is, likewise, the root cause of virtually everything wrong with america).
of course they restricted exports in a crisis. any country would.
don't blame it on them.
it's our policies that failed. it's our fault. and, it's specifically the fault of the conservative movement in this country, which is responsible for embracing these mercantilist trade agreements that were labeled "free trade" as a kind of newspeak.
so, i don't want to hear these nationalist deflections. i don't want to see anybody wrap themselves in the fucking flag. i want a proper analysis on the failure of the trade policies that led to this catastrophe, and i want legislation introduced at the proper level of government to remedy it.
of course they restricted exports in a crisis. any country would.
don't blame it on them.
it's our policies that failed. it's our fault. and, it's specifically the fault of the conservative movement in this country, which is responsible for embracing these mercantilist trade agreements that were labeled "free trade" as a kind of newspeak.
so, i don't want to hear these nationalist deflections. i don't want to see anybody wrap themselves in the fucking flag. i want a proper analysis on the failure of the trade policies that led to this catastrophe, and i want legislation introduced at the proper level of government to remedy it.
"why don't you attack trump like that?"
because he's not half the fucking retard that doug ford is.
...and because trump doesn't have a capable opposition to replace him.
trump is probably less terrible than clinton would have been, and might actually legitimately be less terrible than biden; we don't have that issue in the legislature in ontario.
because he's not half the fucking retard that doug ford is.
...and because trump doesn't have a capable opposition to replace him.
trump is probably less terrible than clinton would have been, and might actually legitimately be less terrible than biden; we don't have that issue in the legislature in ontario.
it's exceedingly frustrating to have to deal with these fucking idiots. constantly. every fucking day.
we have years worth of detailed science to draw on, and these idiots like doug ford and evan solomon don't even bother reading it, they just insist on relying on this set of backwards fallacies that conservatives call "common sense".
and, the media just feeds right into it.
despite popular perceptions to the contrary, the science is absolutely clear that almost the worst thing you can do in a pandemic is introduce travel restrictions.
we have years worth of detailed science to draw on, and these idiots like doug ford and evan solomon don't even bother reading it, they just insist on relying on this set of backwards fallacies that conservatives call "common sense".
and, the media just feeds right into it.
despite popular perceptions to the contrary, the science is absolutely clear that almost the worst thing you can do in a pandemic is introduce travel restrictions.
doug ford does not represent the people of ontario.
at all.
he's a complete embarrassment to the province, to the country and to the universe.
and i am saddened and ashamed that i have to look at his ugly, worthless face every day.
rather than sit there on his fat, lazy piece of shit ass and blame the issue on the united states, why doesn't he do his fucking job and get testing rates up?
at all.
he's a complete embarrassment to the province, to the country and to the universe.
and i am saddened and ashamed that i have to look at his ugly, worthless face every day.
rather than sit there on his fat, lazy piece of shit ass and blame the issue on the united states, why doesn't he do his fucking job and get testing rates up?
i don't want doug ford in ontario. i don't even want him to exist at all.
don't listen to this idiot. the people of ontario always have and always will welcome cross-border interactions with people from the united states.
now, if we could find a way to erase the entire ford family from existence, on the other hand...
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/i-don-t-want-them-in-ontario-premier-ford-fires-back-after-trump-suggests-loosening-border-1.4899199
don't listen to this idiot. the people of ontario always have and always will welcome cross-border interactions with people from the united states.
now, if we could find a way to erase the entire ford family from existence, on the other hand...
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/i-don-t-want-them-in-ontario-premier-ford-fires-back-after-trump-suggests-loosening-border-1.4899199
so, i got a surface clean done, including the rest of the dishes and an overdue shower. i'm actually going to do some very serious cleaning when i finally get done with 01/14 and pivot back to period 3, so this is just for now.
i'll be slowly going through a basket of laundry over the next few days, as well.
but, for now, it's time to nap.
how did that sublingual tablet go yesterday afternoon? i can't claim i've noticed a large difference, really. we're going to do that on thursdays for a while and see what the outcome is...
i'll be slowly going through a basket of laundry over the next few days, as well.
but, for now, it's time to nap.
how did that sublingual tablet go yesterday afternoon? i can't claim i've noticed a large difference, really. we're going to do that on thursdays for a while and see what the outcome is...
so, i found myself in an odd situation last night.
i finally made a large plate of pasta and sat down to eat it around 9:00. i would normally eat a half a plate, and put the rest in the fridge. but, my fridge is so full of fruit and soy milk that i had nowhere to place the leftovers. what do you do?
i decided to force myself to eat all of it, and it took quite a while - time i spent by watching get smart rereuns on dailymotion. i can't remember the last time i watched this much tv, and i actually really don't like it. like so many other people, this computer is my only way to understand what's happening right now, but i don't want to develop a habit of using the device for passive entertainment - it's unhealthy, both physically and mentally.
but, after eating twice as much as normal, i found myself horribly bloated and had to sit down for even longer, meaning i watched some more old reruns.
so, i lost another day.
i need to get up and finish that cleaning, now - including doing laundry, as well as cleaning myself. is it time to wash my jacket and put it away for the year, yet? or should i wait a few more weeks?
the spring has been variable, so far. we've had some warm days and some cold ones; i'd guess it averages out to something relatively "normal", even if it feels more like a series of swings. so, it's hard to tell if i should do it now or wait, but if i'm able to stay inside into mid may like i want then the answer may be more obvious next week.
ok. up i go...
i finally made a large plate of pasta and sat down to eat it around 9:00. i would normally eat a half a plate, and put the rest in the fridge. but, my fridge is so full of fruit and soy milk that i had nowhere to place the leftovers. what do you do?
i decided to force myself to eat all of it, and it took quite a while - time i spent by watching get smart rereuns on dailymotion. i can't remember the last time i watched this much tv, and i actually really don't like it. like so many other people, this computer is my only way to understand what's happening right now, but i don't want to develop a habit of using the device for passive entertainment - it's unhealthy, both physically and mentally.
but, after eating twice as much as normal, i found myself horribly bloated and had to sit down for even longer, meaning i watched some more old reruns.
so, i lost another day.
i need to get up and finish that cleaning, now - including doing laundry, as well as cleaning myself. is it time to wash my jacket and put it away for the year, yet? or should i wait a few more weeks?
the spring has been variable, so far. we've had some warm days and some cold ones; i'd guess it averages out to something relatively "normal", even if it feels more like a series of swings. so, it's hard to tell if i should do it now or wait, but if i'm able to stay inside into mid may like i want then the answer may be more obvious next week.
ok. up i go...
i can acknowledge the point that some people may develop a physical addiction to alcohol, but i reject the premise of keeping the store open to support alcoholics - alcoholism is not a real thing, it's just a made up disorder to try to christianize people. my mother thinks she's an alcoholic, so i grew up around this stuff, and it really is very scary in how it brainwashes people - i've seen it, first hand. she thinks she has a genetic disease that prevents her from being able to control herself, which is incoherent in so many ways that i don't even know where to start. she's just a drunk...
but, that's not the point. alcoholism or not, this is food.
we fought many long and hard battles against prohibition, and i'm not about to let that battle go without a hard fight.
but, that's not the point. alcoholism or not, this is food.
we fought many long and hard battles against prohibition, and i'm not about to let that battle go without a hard fight.
everything else aside, if you ban the sale of alcohol in canada, you're going to see a rise in petty crimes like theft and vandalism.
this is a personal choice that needs to be made by individuals, not something that should be pushed down by authoritarian bodies.
personally, i almost never consume alcohol in my own house; i haven't touched that bottle of vodka since i left on the night of march 12th, and probably won't until i go to another concert, whenever that is. but, i'll be damned if i'm going to let a fucking government make that choice for me.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/stay-sober-who-s-advice-as-canadians-drink-their-way-through-the-pandemic-1.4898528
this is a personal choice that needs to be made by individuals, not something that should be pushed down by authoritarian bodies.
personally, i almost never consume alcohol in my own house; i haven't touched that bottle of vodka since i left on the night of march 12th, and probably won't until i go to another concert, whenever that is. but, i'll be damned if i'm going to let a fucking government make that choice for me.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/stay-sober-who-s-advice-as-canadians-drink-their-way-through-the-pandemic-1.4898528
the science happens to be on their side, and my allegiance is to science, not to political ideologies.
but, i don't think that going to the state capitol with guns is very useful.
rather, they should just open their businesses and carry on. if the cops try to shut them down, they should resist with non-violent tactics, and then fight the issue in court after the fact.
i would like to see a critical mass develop, but this one doesn't appear to have much revolutionary potential.
i do wish that the media would stop calling these people conservatives, though.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/trump-supporters-protest-coronavirus-orders
but, i don't think that going to the state capitol with guns is very useful.
rather, they should just open their businesses and carry on. if the cops try to shut them down, they should resist with non-violent tactics, and then fight the issue in court after the fact.
i would like to see a critical mass develop, but this one doesn't appear to have much revolutionary potential.
i do wish that the media would stop calling these people conservatives, though.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/trump-supporters-protest-coronavirus-orders
the last virus that we dealt with in this region was not the spanish influenza, or polio.
the last virus that we dealt with in this region was nafta. and, from the carnage that was created, emerged a slogan, often stated by the bourgeois elite when challenged about holding to such a destructive policy: there are winners and there are losers.
but, what that means in context is that there are those who are wealthy and own property, and those who are poor and do not - a brutal truth in an economic system that routinely discards life for a few pennies on the dollar.
now, we have a virus that is deadly for the elderly and weak, and largely harmless for everybody else (with statistically valid exceptions for what amount to the unlucky, which is a constant through existence).
do we still have winners and losers, now that this is no longer about class, and the family members of the elite are just as vulnerable as those of the poor?
it's funny how they change their tune, isn't it?
the last virus that we dealt with in this region was nafta. and, from the carnage that was created, emerged a slogan, often stated by the bourgeois elite when challenged about holding to such a destructive policy: there are winners and there are losers.
but, what that means in context is that there are those who are wealthy and own property, and those who are poor and do not - a brutal truth in an economic system that routinely discards life for a few pennies on the dollar.
now, we have a virus that is deadly for the elderly and weak, and largely harmless for everybody else (with statistically valid exceptions for what amount to the unlucky, which is a constant through existence).
do we still have winners and losers, now that this is no longer about class, and the family members of the elite are just as vulnerable as those of the poor?
it's funny how they change their tune, isn't it?
what do we do then?
what i told you in the first place - you lock the old folks up and throw away the key until christmas, and you let everybody else go about their daily lives.
it will kill some young and healthy people, but the universe isn't a safe space; viruses kill people. that's life.
in the end, we ended up locking up the old folks like we should have done from the start. it took thousands of dead geriatrics; we're slow learners, but we got the point, and we adjusted.
at this point, we're clearly going to need to do antibody testing before we're able to realize that what we did had almost no effect, and i'm not expecting a reversal of policy until it happens.
toronto and montreal are each going to have thousands of dead, as will detroit. whether vancouver goes down the same path or not will depend on how long they maintain their protective barrier around their seniors for...
what i told you in the first place - you lock the old folks up and throw away the key until christmas, and you let everybody else go about their daily lives.
it will kill some young and healthy people, but the universe isn't a safe space; viruses kill people. that's life.
in the end, we ended up locking up the old folks like we should have done from the start. it took thousands of dead geriatrics; we're slow learners, but we got the point, and we adjusted.
at this point, we're clearly going to need to do antibody testing before we're able to realize that what we did had almost no effect, and i'm not expecting a reversal of policy until it happens.
toronto and montreal are each going to have thousands of dead, as will detroit. whether vancouver goes down the same path or not will depend on how long they maintain their protective barrier around their seniors for...
what that means is that we should not expect that our earlier adoption of social distancing should lead to substantively different outcomes.
some areas like bc seem to be doing some different things right, and those different things seem to have been high impact. unlike quebec and ontario, bc acted swiftly to protect it's seniors facilities, partly because they were the first to experience an outbreak. there are other factors - bc has a lot of mountains and bodies of water that split the province into isolated regions and act as barriers to spread - but a combination of efficient policy with useful geography and what is no doubt just good luck seems to have worked to at least keep the thing away from the vulnerable. so, they reported 14 cases yesterday, which probably just means that they're keeping it away from the weak and the other 1000 new cases in bc just aren't sick enough to seek care. they need to be careful to keep their measures in place, but this should really be a model, at least in terms of how they're treating the elderly. but, isn't that what i said from the start?
if we had focused on the people that needed the attention like the planning documents suggested, and that only bonnie henry seems to have actually read, we'd be in the same situation bc is in - where there is no doubt still substantial spread, but very low mortality as a result of it.
some areas like bc seem to be doing some different things right, and those different things seem to have been high impact. unlike quebec and ontario, bc acted swiftly to protect it's seniors facilities, partly because they were the first to experience an outbreak. there are other factors - bc has a lot of mountains and bodies of water that split the province into isolated regions and act as barriers to spread - but a combination of efficient policy with useful geography and what is no doubt just good luck seems to have worked to at least keep the thing away from the vulnerable. so, they reported 14 cases yesterday, which probably just means that they're keeping it away from the weak and the other 1000 new cases in bc just aren't sick enough to seek care. they need to be careful to keep their measures in place, but this should really be a model, at least in terms of how they're treating the elderly. but, isn't that what i said from the start?
if we had focused on the people that needed the attention like the planning documents suggested, and that only bonnie henry seems to have actually read, we'd be in the same situation bc is in - where there is no doubt still substantial spread, but very low mortality as a result of it.
to recap, what's my analysis here, so far, for north america?
1) new york overestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a slow adoption of social distancing would have, in combination with an overestimate of the mortality rate.
2) canada underestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a rapid adoption of social distancing would have.
in both cases, the error is that the efficacy of social distancing was overestimated.
is that a proof? well, it wouldn't count as a proof in math, but it's pretty close to one in science - i've essentially falsified the theory as pseudo-science. it's crude, but you can tell me if you're convinced or not.
1) new york overestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a slow adoption of social distancing would have, in combination with an overestimate of the mortality rate.
2) canada underestimated the death toll because it overestimated the effects that a rapid adoption of social distancing would have.
in both cases, the error is that the efficacy of social distancing was overestimated.
is that a proof? well, it wouldn't count as a proof in math, but it's pretty close to one in science - i've essentially falsified the theory as pseudo-science. it's crude, but you can tell me if you're convinced or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)