patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,209,071 comments by 14,372 users - AmericanKulak, Patrick, Robert Sproul, stfu online now
What are the biggest errors in thinking about the Corona virus ?
invite response
2020 Apr 2, 4:35pm 6,815 views 58 comments
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 58 of 58 Search these comments
55
Reality
2020 Apr 3, 10:35pm
marcus says
Speak of yourself. You are way too self-absorbed in your "petri dishes" and "buffer" (treating people/population like livestock in your mind) while keep twisting my words instead of trying to listen. Virus doesn't recognize "petri dishes" or "buffer" assignment. Virus only face opportunities vs. lack of opportunities. If the government locks down the healthier human population that statistically carry the less lethal virus strains, while not locking down the hospitals where dying patients go and statistically the more deadly strains are over-represented, the result is that the more deadly strains get more opportunities to find new hosts and replicate than the relatively benign strains do. As the virus continues to mutate (as RNA virii always do), the perverse selection continues at every generation, yielding more and more deadly strains at the expense of less deadly strains. It's really not complicated.
You were not arguing in good faith. It's astonishing that a self-claimed math teacher would have no inkling about the Law of Large Numbers. It's astonishing that such a person would have so little inkling about how evolution / artificial-selection works. It's astonishing that such a person would have no idea that RNA virus mutates frequently, and therefore a survey of the relative lethality of different strains snap-shot at a particular time is nowhere nearly as important/fundamental as statistical dynamics in ongoing generations. Why the insertion of "petri dishes" and "buffer"? neither words I ever used, then for you to build your core argument on them being expendables therefore they'd all be dead by definition of being expendables. My argument did not at all assume them to be expendables; it's simply a statistical Law of Large Numbers argument, pointing out the effective artificial-selection under the societal lock-down while not locking-down the hospitals.
But when someone is too self absorbed to even care or listen to a person they are communicating with
Speak of yourself. You are way too self-absorbed in your "petri dishes" and "buffer" (treating people/population like livestock in your mind) while keep twisting my words instead of trying to listen. Virus doesn't recognize "petri dishes" or "buffer" assignment. Virus only face opportunities vs. lack of opportunities. If the government locks down the healthier human population that statistically carry the less lethal virus strains, while not locking down the hospitals where dying patients go and statistically the more deadly strains are over-represented, the result is that the more deadly strains get more opportunities to find new hosts and replicate than the relatively benign strains do. As the virus continues to mutate (as RNA virii always do), the perverse selection continues at every generation, yielding more and more deadly strains at the expense of less deadly strains. It's really not complicated.
I know you have neither the honesty nor the integrity to admit that I was arguing in good faith.
You were not arguing in good faith. It's astonishing that a self-claimed math teacher would have no inkling about the Law of Large Numbers. It's astonishing that such a person would have so little inkling about how evolution / artificial-selection works. It's astonishing that such a person would have no idea that RNA virus mutates frequently, and therefore a survey of the relative lethality of different strains snap-shot at a particular time is nowhere nearly as important/fundamental as statistical dynamics in ongoing generations. Why the insertion of "petri dishes" and "buffer"? neither words I ever used, then for you to build your core argument on them being expendables therefore they'd all be dead by definition of being expendables. My argument did not at all assume them to be expendables; it's simply a statistical Law of Large Numbers argument, pointing out the effective artificial-selection under the societal lock-down while not locking-down the hospitals.
56
WookieMan
2020 Apr 4, 3:59am
WookieMan
2020 Apr 4, 3:59am
ThreeBays says
Admittedly I didn't watch this. Understand you're looking at a YouTub channel with over half a million subscribers with content that can make them money. This does appear to be a medical channel. But, every YouTube channel on the planet has come out with a Corona video. Why do you think that is? And would you necessarily believe that information?
I'm not a pilot, but a few aviation channels I watch had subscription rates double when Kobe Bryants chopper went down putting out daily updates. People need to open their eyes and understand generating revenue does not equate to truth anymore. Probably never has anyway. This is a moment of opportunity for tons of people that know dick about a virus.
The only people I'd trust right now are nurses and doctors. In my area bordering 2 of the largest cities/town in IL, things have been relatively tame. Rely on Youtube for entertainment, not medial advice. It's almost certainly clickbait. During the Trump era I'd also be HIGHLY skeptical of government, especially from parties that don't agree with Trump. We've seen it time and time again that they'll eat their young to try and take Trump down.
I found this video useful for explaining more of the viruses' lifecycle that we should be considering here.
Admittedly I didn't watch this. Understand you're looking at a YouTub channel with over half a million subscribers with content that can make them money. This does appear to be a medical channel. But, every YouTube channel on the planet has come out with a Corona video. Why do you think that is? And would you necessarily believe that information?
I'm not a pilot, but a few aviation channels I watch had subscription rates double when Kobe Bryants chopper went down putting out daily updates. People need to open their eyes and understand generating revenue does not equate to truth anymore. Probably never has anyway. This is a moment of opportunity for tons of people that know dick about a virus.
The only people I'd trust right now are nurses and doctors. In my area bordering 2 of the largest cities/town in IL, things have been relatively tame. Rely on Youtube for entertainment, not medial advice. It's almost certainly clickbait. During the Trump era I'd also be HIGHLY skeptical of government, especially from parties that don't agree with Trump. We've seen it time and time again that they'll eat their young to try and take Trump down.
58
marcus
2020 Apr 4, 6:47pm
marcus
2020 Apr 4, 6:47pm
Reality says
I was only making a concise statement of what I honestly thought you were saying (i.e. a part of your argument) before refuting it (and I prefaced it with, "have I got this right?"). The purpose of those words was to paraphrase, it was my attempt to be concise and clear as to what I was going to refute.
I don't make rambling statements only designed to impress that are devoid of any logical content or argument . I needed to make my best attempt at understanding what you were saying before I responded. Being concise allowed me to clearly get to my logical point which had nothing to do with that choice of words.
Making a concise statement of what one believes the other is saying, before refuting it, is showing the respect of trying to understand the point the other is making. (and again, I did say, have I got this right ?)
As far as I can tell you are just floundering now in an attempt to explain why you spazzed out after comment # 46.
Why the insertion of "petri dishes" and "buffer"? neither words I ever used, then for you to build your core argument on them being expendables therefore they'd all be dead by definition of being expendables.
I was only making a concise statement of what I honestly thought you were saying (i.e. a part of your argument) before refuting it (and I prefaced it with, "have I got this right?"). The purpose of those words was to paraphrase, it was my attempt to be concise and clear as to what I was going to refute.
I don't make rambling statements only designed to impress that are devoid of any logical content or argument . I needed to make my best attempt at understanding what you were saying before I responded. Being concise allowed me to clearly get to my logical point which had nothing to do with that choice of words.
Making a concise statement of what one believes the other is saying, before refuting it, is showing the respect of trying to understand the point the other is making. (and again, I did say, have I got this right ?)
As far as I can tell you are just floundering now in an attempt to explain why you spazzed out after comment # 46.
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 58 of 58 Search these comments
But that was based on a low end of estimates, based on what will happen with social distancing.
The OP of that thread tries to put this in context asking a sort of concluding question - "was it worth destroying the economy for this, compared to bad flu years that we tolerate"
This of course begs a question. What would the numbers be without "social distancing"
One of the biggest errors in thinking about the CV is the assumption that eventually the numbers of deaths are the same, regardless of social distancing or not. That is, that when you flatten that curve that looks like a normal distribution curve, the area under the curve will be the same, since we know that the area under the normal pdf curve is always 1. I know I was thinking this way early in discussions about "flattening the curve."
In reality the number in the end would not be the same, unless perhaps through a series of recurrences, but even then, a year or two from now we will probably have a vaccine if not more effective treatments, if not sooner.