There's always the next variant, though. :sad: — frank
that's not what you were asking for. Thus, it's not an example of what you were asking for. — Xtrix
the 0.00015% still applies to you in the same way a roulette wheel does. — Xtrix
Your decision can be risked based without having individualized numbers for yourself, which don't exist. — Xtrix
Those risks are minuscule -- no matter how you slice the data. They remain so. — Xtrix
the national statistics are still important. If there are 150 strokes per 10 million cases, you can carve up the 150 into males and females, older and younger, etc. -- and I'm sure you'll get some variance (much more likely to occur in the 60 and older subset, for example). Does that really change the risk all that much? No, not at all. — Xtrix
But to argue there can't be "risk analysis" without doing so is disingenuous at best. — Xtrix
Thank you for writing this. It seems as though people just want to argue for argument's sake. That's fine -- but not when we have literally millions of people refusing vaccinations during a pandemic because of anti-vaxxer claims and massive amounts of misinformation/manufactured doubt.
Irresponsible indeed — Xtrix
So an example has to be exactly the thing itself? — Isaac
You're not an expert on risk, — Isaac
so either you have a serious ego problem, or you need to support your assertions, repeating them contributes nothing to the discussion. — Isaac
If you think the national prevalence is still relevant to a risk-based decision even when we know that key variables affect the risk (variables we also know our values for), then you'll need to explain how. As it stands, risk analysis is not done using national prevalence figures, so if you think it ought to be, the onus is on you to explain how. Simply repeating the view over and over is not convincing. — Isaac
Of course it makes for more interesting conversations. I guess Russian roulette is more interesting than casino roulette too. Spices up the game... — Olivier5
There is one primary question - Does what the other country is doing affect the national security of the United States? If the answer is "no," then, generally, the US should not get involved. That may not always be true, but there would have to be extraordinary justification.
Now to get back to the specific question - China's role in the pandemic is definitely a matter of national security for the US, so it is reasonable for us to get involved. On the other hand, there is very little we can do that will force them to comply with what we think is the correct action. To somehow equate action against China as something of equal priority to actions to actually address the pandemic at home is very short-sighted. — T Clark
Otherwise said, should Westerners wait to be put in concentration camps, or should we take preemptive action now, whilst we can? — Apollodorus
Well, you caught me by surprise — T Clark
Dr Strangelove? Produced by Hawk Films? I’m not into Soviet era propaganda movies (or movies in general) to be honest and I wasn’t even born at the time! — Apollodorus
The problem is that those opposed to a lab leak scenario will always just say that we need to sample more, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Scientists overall are afraid of discussing the issue of the origins due to the political situation. This leaves a small and vocal minority of biased scientists free to spread misinformation.
Are you not familiar with Dr. Strangelove? — T Clark
Sexuality in Kubrick's films is usually depicted outside matrimonial relationships in hostile situations. Baxter states that Kubrick explores the "furtive and violent side alleys of the sexual experience: voyeurism, domination, bondage and rape" in his films
I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.
For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.
Then he made a series of strange movies:
One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.
One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend …. — Apollodorus
I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.
For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.
Then he made a series of strange movies:
One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.
One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend ….
Sexuality in Kubrick's films is usually depicted outside matrimonial relationships in hostile situations. Baxter states that Kubrick explores the "furtive and violent side alleys of the sexual experience: voyeurism, domination, bondage and rape" in his films
Stanley Kubrick – Wikipedia
It may be “black comedy” but personally I’m not into that kind of stuff .... — Apollodorus
That gave me the biggest laugh I have had in ages, thanks. You sound like a gauche country cousin who has just seen a sculpture by Michelangelo and is offended and confused by a marble penis. — Tom Storm
He was one of the greatest movie directors of the 20th Century. — frank
Josh Robin, of the Washington Post talks about Daszak, Fauci, government funded misinformation, and how biomedical scientists' fingerprints are all over the creation of Covid-19. Is there a Nobel Prize for Science that Kills Millions and destroys the lives of hundreds of millions? — MondoR
It's hard to know who to believe these days, but something doesn't seem right there. — Apollodorus
Sure. But where does that leave China? — Apollodorus
The CCP is composed of thugs that enslaves the population so it has cheap goods to export to the U.S. and elsewhere. Companies like Apple are knowing accomplices. Daszak, Fauci's cover-up buddy, works hand and hand with the CCP on gain of function "research". Clearly bio weapon research. There are some monstrous people running this world. — MondoR
But for Westerners in general to be so naive as to believe that China is the benefactor of the world, seems incomprehensible to me. — Apollodorus
Definitely effective are: flight bans, prohibiting gatherings and limiting movement. — Benkei
Not effective are: stay at home orders in and of themselves, unless they cause less gatherings and limit movement. — Benkei
Are they? — AJJ
If these orders entail those things you say are “definitely effective” then why aren’t they associated with reduced mortality? — AJJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.