Other Virus Nonsense

[SteveC]

I'd rather question things rather than be told what to do, or be bullied by liberal keyboard cowboy sheep who put blind faith "one guy" - Like Cuomo, who mandates someone on the other side of the state stay isolated because 1% of the NYC population is infected. Maybe cities with packed in locust like populations need to be checked back into place.

And therein lies the argument for an electoral college! Well said.

millions of people are going to die.... oh wait, hundreds of thousands of people will die.... oh wait, 68 thousand people will die....

Tons of data coming in real time, and the prediction in question goes something like days to weeks in the future, yet the models have been an utter failure. Now, spread the data collection out over 50+ years, using questionable methods to “normalize” subsets of it, and then make predictions decades in the future... If you question conclusions based on that, some label you “denier” to attempt to bully you into submission. There is no honest discourse anymore.

Ill timed, or convenient pre-election outbreak?

While the cause will likely remain a matter of speculation (not enough actually want the truth, as is evidenced in modern media regularly), the situation is absolutely being used by those who oppose low unemployment and a strong America being achieved by a non-establishment player. It’s just sickening to watch the politicking.

Cue the boatload of people not giving a hoot in 3... 2... 1...

 

[fastgtfairlane]

at this point, those that dont see the big picture, never will, until its too late. those who dont care, wont until its too late. both will blast the one who is awake and is trying to inform those that dont care.

 

[smokeysevin]

The comments about "a pandemic under trump" were based on past data... Not some threat or vague promise.

Further context is that Trump cut funding and staff for the specific government agency in 2018 that would have handled a domestic response to said outbreak.

Statistically, a viral outbreak happens every few years.

(https://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/year/en/)

Swine flu 2009

Avian flu 2008

Sars (which was a similar type of corona virus) 2002-2004

Mers 2012

These all had the potential to spread more, but because they were more aggressive/dangrous they were less transmissive. I.E, if you kill your host quickly, you can't spread as much because they have less time to walk around. They were also taken more seriously because the symptoms were much worse.

What makes the current Corona virus more potentially damaging is that it has a long latency period where it is still transmissable but does not show symptoms.

China absolutely had an affect on the way this spread and was handled, specifically because they tried to silence the doctor who discovered it.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382) More generally, I would bet that the state source of the numbers is probably not accurate. China has a history of that type of thing.

Past that, most epidemiologists and viral specialists are in agreement that the virus was a natural byproduct of loads of unsanitary animals in close confines. It did not show evidence of being modified or created. (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronavirus-causes)
(https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...-conspiracy-theories-about-origin-coronavirus)

I do find it telling that any source that has been provided that implies that something sinister is going on (not caused by the current us governement) is not what I would call scientific or even reputable.

All sources of information intrinsically have bias, information is always published with a purpose. Scientists publish information to further human knowledge, corporations publish information to generate revenue, doctors publish information to save/help people stay healthy and alive.

How much energy, manpower, money, and control would it take to overrule all the reasons to be honest about this and get thousands/millions of people to all collectively spin the same story and cover up some plot?

Occam's Razor and Entropy work the same way, the least amount of effort required to do something is usually the way it works. Similarly, Bulllshiiiit doesn't flow uphill.

Believe what you want. In the end, if you really believe what you found on some youtube channel over information found on multiple independent sources, I worry for your children.

Critical thinking is super important, but part of that is learning to sort accurate information from inaccurate.

Like I said in my previous post, I personally know people who have died from this. They died because bad information and poor handling left an open route for them to catch a preventable virus.


Sean

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[SteveC]

Scientists publish information to further human knowledge, corporations publish information to generate revenue, doctors publish information to save/help people stay healthy and alive.

Regarding this tidbit only: This would require that scientists be uniquely imbued with charateristics that prohibit them from acting on anything but a pure motive. They aren’t. E.g., when they put out work that fits the “least publishable unit” criteria to drag on their funding. Likewise, corporations employ plenty of scientists, so the two are not separable like that.

Selective belief in infallibility is clearly a mistake. The truth that I think we’d all not argue is that all people are imperfect, and therefore can and do act on the wrong motives (willfully or not), and can and do make mistakes. It’s from this starting point that critical analysis can flow.

In truth, all of the above groups work to generate revenue-it’s the way it is! What they hope to have come about may be more or less “noble” based the individual (not the profession), but they all work for revenue, and that’s not wrong.

 

[E350]

Does anyone else see the "mission creep?"

Viruses apparently have a life span of their own.

The original reason for killing the economy and putting everyone on the public dole was to:

"Flatten the curve." To "Slow the spread." For the purpose of buying time to amp up the production of ventilators and masks and to educate and amp up the service level at hospitals so that hospitals wouldn't be "over run."

Not to "stop" the spread.

The spread cannot be "stopped." More people will die. That is inevitable. That is the result of the life span of the virus.

We have already flattened the curve. N.Y. Governor Cuomo is now giving excess ventilators to other states for Pete's sake.

We accomplished what the quarantine was supposed to do already.

Now they moved the goal posts. We are now supposed to keep killing the Economy until a vaccine is created and distributed. Really?

Yesterday our water ski buddy took his boat out of the slip to the adjacent marina for fuel. The owner said that he had a 27 year old female employee recently hired at the bait shop who just died of Covid-19. No idea if she had preexisting conditions or not.

I may die of the Commie Flu. You may die of it.

But health professionals are up to speed on what to do if we get it. And there are now excess ventilators in the U.S.

So we have a fighting chance of surviving if we get it.

Can we really expect more than that?

IMHO, life is a risk. And we all die.

Should we continue to kill the economy and our free market culture waiting for a vaccine for the Commie flu which may not come for 18 months or more or which may not come at all because of mutations?

Should 15 California Coast Guard seamen be dispatched to arrest a person paddle boarding alone off a beach in So. Cal.?

Should our public launch ramp on the river remain closed for the Summer?

Or should we accept that life involves risk. Wear masks. Was our hands. Keep social distancing. And avoid touching surfaces if possible and re-start the World's best economy?

 

[smokeysevin]

Regarding this tidbit only: This would require that scientists be uniquely imbued with charateristics that prohibit them from acting on anything but a pure motive. They aren’t. E.g., when they put out work that fits the “least publishable unit” criteria to drag on their funding. Likewise, corporations employ plenty of scientists, so the two are not separable like that.

Selective belief in infallibility is clearly a mistake. The truth that I think we’d all not argue is that all people are imperfect, and therefore can and do act on the wrong motives (willfully or not), and can and do make mistakes. It’s from this starting point that critical analysis can flow.

In truth, all of the above groups work to generate revenue-it’s the way it is! What they hope to have come about may be more or less “noble” based the individual (not the profession), but they all work for revenue, and that’s not wrong.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, it was merely a high level assessment.

Again, bias exists everywhere. The important thing to take away from that is to understand the bias and look at the facts. If you see the same facts from multiple sources odds are that part of the story is valid.

Generally speaking, people involved in science don't primarily seek that career path for fame, fortune, or fornication.

My point was that true science, following the scientific method is impartial. You may have a theory about how or why but if done properly, you should/must be willing to reject your preconceptions.

Medical trials as specifically conducted as double blind trials for the same reason, you can't be partial towards something and expect that to not get in the way.

Science is intrinsically fact based, you can have an opinion and let it lead you to search for something but if you find that you are wrong, its still valuable as long as you don't try and cover that up.

Data is data

Counter conclusions are just as useful as success in science.

Sean


Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[SXIPro]

Once the aliens from another galaxy or the lizard people from middle earth come abduct me, I'll be done with all you fools!! And I will say Hello to Elvis, who is still alive of course, and is just on the lamb for killing JFK.

 

[SteveC]

Generally speaking, people involved in science don't primarily seek that career path for fame, fortune, or fornication.

My experience doesn't corroborate this. I haven't really "studied" it, and certainly haven't documented it, but while the METHOD is fantastic, the practitioners of it (or, those in a profession where they are believed to be practicing it) are very often constantly seeking localized fame, funding, and recognition. In fact that's how so called scientific publication is really structured... "was your work referenced by others" ... "was your work the seminal work"... "do you have a good track record securing additional funding". In short, I'm just reacting to the elevation of a certain group, based on one aspect of their identity, to a position where they are somehow pious beyond challenging. Challenge everything! If it's solid, it'll stand on it's own. If not, it'll get shown to be weak, which is a crowd-sourced way to find counter conclusions, poke holes in methods, etc. It might come back after a revision in an test method, or whatnot, which makes the case even stronger, not weaker. But that round and round of challenging and looking for holes should be encouraged, even long after something has been used to form working theories that actions are being based on. Sometimes waiting isn't an option, so you have to go with the info you have, but that doesn't meant that info and the actions being taken based on it shouldn't be re-evaluated and course corrections occur over time. The problem is all those playing the blame game with current information trying to hold someone accountable who had to take action based on lessor information. Anyway... sorry to waste time belaboring this.

 

[mikidymac]

Or maybe someone is to blame who was given the information and made bad decisions based on that information or chose not to act on that information.

 

[smokeysevin]

Most scientific papers and research that is taken seriously at all, is peer reviewed prior to it being published. Once any work is published, that work is not accepted as cannon or carved in stone but rather is open for review. That is the foundation of science. Things we learn are only a demonstration of knowledge/understanding/throry at a point in time.

This goes back to the method part, any work worth its salt will have enough information in it to replicate the experiment/study. It you can replicate it great, its probably right, if not, it needs further research.

Sean

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[Noah_g]

Most scientific papers and research that is taken seriously at all, is peer reviewed prior to it being published. Once any work is published, that work is not accepted as cannon or carved in stone but rather is open for review. That is the foundation of science. Things we learn are only a demonstration of knowledge/understanding/throry at a point in time.

This goes back to the method part, any work worth its salt will have enough information in it to replicate the experiment/study. It you can replicate it great, its probably right, if not, it needs further research.

Sean

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

I strongly disagree. It depends on what science you're referring to.

Look up Peter Boghossian. The WHO is also notorious for corruption. So is China.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[E350]

Science is absolutely NOT data driven.

Science is MODEL driven.

MODELs are fictional creations of the biased model maker.

Let's try this example. Look at NASA's sea level rise model:



https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE A MODEL WHICH SHOWS A 1.1 MILLIMETER RISE IN OCEAN LEVELS WITH a + or - ACCURACY OF .2mm?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NASA CAN MEASURE 1.1mm from space?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NASA HAS MEASURED a 3.3 MILLIMETER INCREASE IN SEA MASS FROM SPACE with a + or - ACCURACY OF 0.4mm?

THINK OF HOW LARGE THE SEA MASS IS. THINK ABOUT IT. NOW THINK, CAN WE REALLY MEASURE A 3.3mm increase in that mass accurately?

DO YOU WONDER WHY BARACK OBAMA CHARGED NASA WITH PREPARING THESE MODELS RATHER THAN THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA")?

 

[smokeysevin]

As someone in academia, I strongly disagree. It depends on what science you're referring to.

Look up Peter Boghossian. The WHO is also notorious for corruption. So is China.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I guess it depends on the field, do you mind sharing what field you are in?

Regarding the WHO, I only linked them for a list by date, not regarding policy or anything else.

Sean

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[Noah_g]

I guess it depends on the field, do you mind sharing what field you are in?

Regarding the WHO, I only linked them for a list by date, not regarding policy or anything else.

Sean

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

Mathematics. I should clarify, I'm no professor. I do conduct research with CycleGANS for image translations and am in graduate school.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Noah_g]

Science is absolutely NOT data driven.

Science is MODEL driven.

MODELs are fictional creations of the biased model maker.

Let's try this example. Look at NASA's sea level rise model:

View attachment 392603

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE A MODEL WHICH SHOWS A 1.1 MILLIMETER RISE IN OCEAN LEVELS WITH a + or - ACCURACY OF .2mm?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NASA CAN MEASURE 1.1mm from space?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NASA HAS MEASURED a 3.3 MILLIMETER INCREASE IN SEA MASS FROM SPACE with a + or - ACCURACY OF 0.4mm?

THINK OF HOW LARGE THE SEA MASS IS. THINK ABOUT IT. NOW THINK, CAN WE REALLY MEASURE A 3.3mm increase in that mass accurately?

DO YOU WONDER WHY BARACK OBAMA CHARGED NASA WITH PREPARING THESE MODELS RATHER THAN THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA")?

Yes. That science is pretty proven.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[smokeysevin]

Yes. That science is pretty proven.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt the validity of it. Is there any reason to dispute that number or the conclusion its getting at? Even if you doubt the magnitude, can you independently arrive at the same or similar number with a different method?

Even if you just measured sea ice coverage (something nasa does regularly) then convert the volume of ice to volume of water, and divide the volume of water by the ocean surface area. If you are within an order of magnitude its probably pretty close.

As far as the measurment accuracy I have an inexpensive white light scanner than can measure surfaces down to 1 micron. It is reasonably cheap consumer grade stuff, with NASA's budget what can you do?


Sean

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[te4250]

Science is absolutely NOT data driven.

Science is MODEL driven.

MODELs are fictional creations of the biased model maker.

Let's try this example. Look at NASA's sea level rise model:

View attachment 392603

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE A MODEL WHICH SHOWS A 1.1 MILLIMETER RISE IN OCEAN LEVELS WITH a + or - ACCURACY OF .2mm?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NASA CAN MEASURE 1.1mm from space?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NASA HAS MEASURED a 3.3 MILLIMETER INCREASE IN SEA MASS FROM SPACE with a + or - ACCURACY OF 0.4mm?

THINK OF HOW LARGE THE SEA MASS IS. THINK ABOUT IT. NOW THINK, CAN WE REALLY MEASURE A 3.3mm increase in that mass accurately?

DO YOU WONDER WHY BARACK OBAMA CHARGED NASA WITH PREPARING THESE MODELS RATHER THAN THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA")?

I only wonder when we started measuring mass in mm

 

[E350]

Noah_g and smokeysevin I love you both. But I have to ask, do you know how silly you sound to a regular working guy like me?

I have seen so much stupidity result from the arrogance of expertise in my life that, please excuse me, I have to question your statements. Here goes:

At least te4250 looked at the "data" which NASA published above.

Noah_g or smokeysevin did you? Or did you just unscientifically knee jerk respond that "the science was pretty well worked out." Can you answer te4250's question why NASA used mm to measure mass?

I think you will have to ask the lawyer who wrote it, or better yet the law clerk who wrote the mass measurement "data" on NASA's website.

Because the website is a political document. Not a scientific document.

Or better yet assuming that NASA's "measurements" are accurate and just improperly described, do you see how a 3.3"mm" plus or minus 0.4"mm" model-predicted annual increase in sea mass exposes the political power grab that is the COMMUNIST DEMOCRAT POWER GRAB THAT IS THE GREEN NEW DEAL (i.e., no air travel, no fossil fuel (no combustion engines) no nuclear energy, no automobile, gut and rebuild every building in America, a Gov't guaranteed job, a Gov't guaranteed house, Gov't guaranteed health care, a Gov't imposed no meat diet, Gov't free money if you are unwilling to work)?

https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

DATA-DRIVEN SCIENCE NO LONGER EXISTS IN AMERICA.

PERIOD.

GET OVER IT SHEEPEOPLE.

(Or would you have believed the Eugenics movement in America and Germany in the 1920's-1030's because it was "data-driven?")

 

[SXIPro]

So...is the new drinking game every time I read COMMUNIST DEMOCRATIC POWER GRAB I take a drink, or when I read GREEN NEW DEAL??? Somebody help a brutha out, please!!

 

[E350]

I love you too Brutha.

But I would like a response from Noah_g and smokeysevin because I am not attacking them because I love them too.

They just likely put their faith in Man (drink) and in Science (drink), and worship the Earth (drink) and not JESUS CHRIST (and they are missing out because Jesus Christ's first miracle on Earth (don't drink yet...) was as a bartender changing six stone water jugs in to wine (John 2:1-11) - yeah baby, party time! So drink, drink, drink!)