Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@heterodox said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Edit: and even if cloth masks were effective, you'd still have to change them every 15-20 minutes to count it as proper wearing. How many people do you know who change their cloth mask mid-shopping?
The instructions on my box say 4 hours.
The instructions on my deodorant say "48hr protection".
I don't know where you're getting 15-20 minutes from.
All surgical mask usage procedures that were published on or before November 31, 2019 (ie. from before masks became heavily politicized).
Also, boxes of 50 cost 15 bucks.
That adds up to $200/month if you follow the procedures from before masks became heavily politicized.
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And again, people are touching them or they get moist from being worn for too long, if nothing else, which gives stuff another chance at getting aerosolized.
I wear a mask for eight hours a day and it doesn't get moist.
Are you sure it covers your mouth?
But seriously, from my own experience, I can tell you that my face can feel the moisture of the mask after less than one hour. So at least one of us must be doing something wrong.
-
@heterodox said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The instructions on my box say 4 hours. I don't know where you're getting 15-20 minutes from. Also, boxes of 50 cost 15 bucks.
Well, proper PPE for immune deficient patients requires a new mask on entry of the room and doffing of the mask on exit. I believe that there is a time requirement as well but I don't know for sure will have to ask my sister. After the mask is placed if it is touched for any reason the gloves are removed and a fresh pair of gloves is donned.
-
@heterodox said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Edit: and even if cloth masks were effective, you'd still have to change them every 15-20 minutes to count it as proper wearing. How many people do you know who change their cloth mask mid-shopping?
The instructions on my box say 4 hours. I don't know where you're getting 15-20 minutes from. Also, boxes of 50 cost 15 bucks.
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And again, people are touching them or they get moist from being worn for too long, if nothing else, which gives stuff another chance at getting aerosolized.
I wear a mask for eight hours a day and it doesn't get moist. I swear everyone complaining about masks is wearing different masks or something.
Well, in addition to the moisture in my breath, walking around a store I even start to sweat, which adds to it.
A classic fallacious argument: "If masks don't work, then why do...
A response to people who use the classic fallacious argument, "Well, if masks don't work, then why do surgeons wear them?" I'm a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing...
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Are you sure it covers your mouth?
But seriously, from my own experience, I can tell you that my face can feel the moisture of the mask after less than one hour. So at least one of us must be doing something wrong.
Maybe. Or we just have different experiences. My father really likes reusable masks and hates the disposable ones. I hate the reusable masks and really like the disposable ones.
I think it'll be interesting to see the new types of masks that come out and are tested for efficacy after a huge population has basically done market research on what used to be a sector-specific product. I saw one recently that I think was made of silicone - - certainly wouldn't be in the top ten materials I would have thought of but reviews seemed good.
-
Oh, one more thing.
@heterodox said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The instructions on my box say 4 hours.
@heterodox said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I wear a mask for eight hours a day
I'm not sure what to think of it.
-
@Gąska that he needs two a day?
-
@heterodox said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I hate the reusable masks and really like the disposable ones.
I reuse the disposable ones a few times because most of the time I'm only in a place requiring it for a couple of minutes and it'd get silly chucking them out everytime.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska that he needs two a day?
Not if you look at the original post. I omitted some context for brevity.
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@heterodox said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I hate the reusable masks and really like the disposable ones.
I reuse the disposable ones a few times because most of the time I'm only in a place requiring it for a couple of minutes and it'd get silly chucking them out everytime.
I reuse the disposable ones for weeks, and only change them when they rip apart or I lose them (usually the latter). I believe I'm not statistically-significantly more of a threat (or at threat) than @heterodox.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not sure what to think of it.
OHOHO. You got me, you rascal. :fingerguns:
Yes, I need two a day.
-
@heterodox given your statement about moisture buildup, that's not what I expected.
-
Bad news:
Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19 –interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results
BACKGROUND WHO expert groups recommended mortality trials in hospitalized COVID-19 of four re-purposed antiviral drugs. METHODS Study drugs were Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir (fixed-dose combination with Ritonavir) and Interferon-β1a (mainly subcutaneous; initially with Lopinavir,...
No study drug definitely reduced mortality (in unventilated patients or any other subgroup of entry characteristics), initiation of ventilation or hospitalisation duration.
CONCLUSIONS
These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay.
-
@error said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The immediate result of that was that a lot of those being kicked out of bars went to buy alcoholic beverages at shops instead, and therefore gathering in and around those instead of in and around bars
I thought that was covered by the regular curfew.
The last time there was a curfew in the Netherlands, was in the Second World War. (Which, apparently, is why it’s a difficult topic for politicians: it’s associated with occupation.)
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You cough, you get shot. Easy.
Wait, what do you mean there’s no money for bullets?
Why Is There an Ammunition Shortage in the U.S.?
U.S. firearms and ammunition sales have increased significantly in 2020 compared with purchases made last year. And some ammunition makers suggest shortages could last until at least January.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin properly means properly.
No, properly in context (but we can ask @dkf what he meant by it) means people actually wear the masks instead of not wearing them or wearing them as chin-protectors. That would go a long way.
E: s/shin/chin/, not that it's an effective difference
That would be my exact meaning. All effective masks must cover both mouth and nose and must present an actual filter between those respiratory passageways and the outside air. If they do not do this, they are definitely not effective and are not providing a worthwhile level of protection. This is a purely technical definition. You see all sorts of idiots when it comes to masking. One common error is to not cover the nose, yet that's just as important as the mouth. I've also seen masks that completely lacked filters (but which were more like works of art) which is completely missing the point. One's chin does not do a lot of breathing, nor does one's shin. (
)The high-grade filters only really seem to be fully justified when you're spending a long time in a high-hazard environment, such as being a doctor or nurse on an emergency ward. For most people, especially those who are limiting outside contact, cheaper filters (as in most disposable masks) work entirely adequately. Yes, high-grade filters will work a bit better (at much greater cost) but only if worn correctly. Which brings us back to my point about idiots. Idiots are why we can't have nice things. Always.
-
Shadowrun Hong Kong (2016) Bonus Campaign
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin properly means properly.
No, properly in context (but we can ask @dkf what he meant by it) means people actually wear the masks instead of not wearing them or wearing them as chin-protectors. That would go a long way.
E: s/shin/chin/, not that it's an effective difference
That would be my exact meaning.
Then why have you said something different from what you wanted to say? Properly means properly. Following every single rule perfectly all the time. Airtight seal all around (and I mean airtight), replacing them frequently, and never, ever reusing them, even after wash. And zero facial hair where the mask edge is. Anything short of that isn't proper wearing anymore and drastically decreases effectiveness of the mask.
If they do not do this, they are definitely not effective and are not providing a worthwhile level of protection.
I'm going to surprise you now - wearing masks wrong can still be very worthwhile. It's not all or nothing; effectiveness is a sliding scale. Again, I have no specific numbers because not a single one of all the millions of virologists we have around the world bothered to do even one proper study on coronavirus, but generally speaking, wearing a mask in such a way that only 10% of the air gets filtered can still have tremendous effect on transmitting the disease. Again, it all depends on the exposure-to-infection threshold, which is something that nobody, absolutely nobody in the entire scientific community has ever tried to even roughly estimate. But theoretically, if the virus density in the room is right at the threshold, then getting 20% of the people exhale 2% less virus each - for a total reduction of 0.4% in the room - might be just enough to reduce total infections by 10% (depending on thousand of different factors that I skipped over, obviously).
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Shadowrun Hong Kong (2016) Bonus Campaign
OT, but game developer fail there … Shadowrun’s backstory has a pandemic of a disease called VITAS going round in the 2010s–2020s.
-
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
OT, but game developer fail there … Shadowrun’s backstory has a pandemic of a disease called VITAS going round in the 2010s–2020s.
Mm, not quite. The scientist mentions that it's basically SARS with VITAS attached to it. Using the former to deliver the other, then release it in such numbers that VITAS treatment is not viable.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
not a single one of all the millions of virologists we have around the world bothered to do even one proper study on coronavirus
Or at least none of your usual news channels has given you a link to one.
it all depends on the exposure-to-infection threshold
Since that's a stochastic process itself (relating to the probability of a viral particle infecting a cell and not being taken apart by the immune system before it can reproduce) any simple model is misleading. Some people get infected at low exposure by sheer chance, others don't get infected despite high exposure, and yet most people are in-between. (Also, doing carefully controlled studies on how infection works with potentially deadly diseases where there's no good cure, that tends to run into problems with ethical considerations. Because we're not a civilization of Mengele-alikes.)
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it all depends on the exposure-to-infection threshold
Since that's a stochastic process itself (relating to the probability of a viral particle infecting a cell and not being taken apart by the immune system before it can reproduce) any simple model is misleading.
Agreed. But you know what's even more misleading? Assuming a linear correlation between exhaled particles and number of infections, like everyone in the scientific community seems to do.
Also, doing carefully controlled studies on how infection works with potentially deadly diseases where there's no good cure, that tends to run into problems with ethical considerations.
We know enough about the virus by now to be able to pick a group of 1000 subjects such that the probability of even one person dying is miniscule (non-obese people under 40 with no health problems). We've already sentenced thousands of New York grandmas to death. We've already left 10% of the country without any source of income. We've already brainwashed the population to think that any random piece of cloth is as good protection as specifically crafted, multilayer N95 mask. How is a study that's extremely unlikely to hurt anyone, but can potentially save billions of people, is unethical?
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
like everyone in the scientific community seems to do.
You've mentioned the "scientific community" a few times now. I'm curious. Have you actually read anything they've done/reported directly, or are just going off what random news and/or your shoulder aliens say?
-
@cvi I want to be wrong. I really, really want to be wrong on this. It's just I'm not very good at finding real scientific papers, and regular news is less than useless. So I thought maybe someone else will help out.
-
@Gąska That's fair, I guess. You might angling for information in the wrong place, though. I don't think any of the regulars here are active in those fields specifically, or even in medicine in general.
-
@cvi what other place lets me be skeptical of the work of epidemiologists without being immediately banned?
-
@Gąska There's being sceptical, and then there's being downright stupid about it. When being sceptical, always first check whether there is a sane level of evidence that would make you change your mind. If there isn't, you're not actually being sceptical, but rather outright denialist. Scepticism is about checking that the evidence actually does support peoples' claims, not putting your fingers in your ears and calling out “I can't hear you!” over and over.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@cvi what other place lets me be skeptical of the work of epidemiologists without being immediately banned?
What I read from this is that you're not actually skeptical of the work of epidemologists (which you haven't actually been following), but rather, you're here to vent your frustration at the current state of things, and additionally found one amorphous and impersonal group to blame for the shoddy state of their work (without actually knowing about it, and assuming that one can even boil down all that's going on there to a single "their work").
I take back my previous statement, you've found the right place after all.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska There's being sceptical, and then there's being downright stupid about it. When being sceptical, always first check whether there is a sane level of evidence that would make you change your mind.
Is actually determining what needs to be done to stop the virus before making guidelines on how to stop the virus too much to ask?
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@cvi what other place lets me be skeptical of the work of epidemiologists without being immediately banned?
What I read from this is that you're not actually skeptical of the work of epidemologists (which you haven't actually been following)
I have been following to the best of my ability. I wish I haven't. Ignorance is bliss. Now I have to live with knowledge that even the brightest minds of epidemiology don't actually know how diseases spread. There are so many conflicting studies, conflicting models, conflicting predictions and conflicting recommendations that it really isn't funny anymore, it's just sad.
Someone please show me I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'd like you to respect my right to be very justifiably angry at the abysmal allocation of resources between scientific studies that matter and those that don't, without mocking me for having done more of my homework than you've done of yours.
And I am very seriously asking about other places I can ask the questions I am asking here. I wouldn't ask if I knew such.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska There's being sceptical, and then there's being downright stupid about it. When being sceptical, always first check whether there is a sane level of evidence that would make you change your mind.
Is actually determining what needs to be done to stop the virus before making guidelines on how to stop the virus too much to ask?
It is also in large part fault of the governments. Yes, there are conflicting studies and it's difficult to sift through all of the research, much of which is really shoddy, to get some useful information, but it does not sound like the governments are trying much either.
Like here the news ran an interview with somebody doing some, hopefully sensible, modelling (trying to estimate the infection probabilities in different activities and such) and he mentioned that the institute for healthcare information (which would be the official source for the cabinet) uses just the dumbest model taking R and plotting the exponential from that. They don't need an institute for that, the minister's secretary could do that
.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Like here the news ran an interview with somebody doing some, hopefully sensible, modelling (trying to estimate the infection probabilities in different activities and such) and he mentioned that the institute for healthcare information (which would be the official source for the cabinet) uses just the dumbest model taking R and plotting the exponential from that. They don't need an institute for that, the minister's secretary could do that.Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's the same country where phone checking of suspected patients and making test appointments (ie both outgoing and coming administrative calls) absolutely had to be done by doctors in the official capacity. No interns, secretaries, no nurses - specialist doctors only.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Is actually determining what needs to be done to stop the virus before making guidelines on how to stop the virus too much to ask?
Despite the initially poor-quality information coming out of China, what needs to be done was determined pretty rapidly. The basic biology is exactly that of a highly-infectious respiratory virus, after all.
- Develop a vaccine. [Status: Ongoing. Needs to be done right. Doing it wrong might make things much worse.]
- Testing and tracing so that people who become infected can be largely stopped from making the problem worse. For most people, once diagnosed you're going to be out of general circulation for a few weeks, and you may well be feeling bad enough for some of the time that being officially sick is a good plan anyway.
- Reduce amount of spreading of the virus so healthcare systems can cope (and hope that the vaccine comes in time to mean that this isn't just delaying the inevitable). There are two parts to this:
- Reducing social contacts, especially in enclosed spaces. This is what lockdown does. It has a severe economic impact. (Letting the virus run unchecked also has a severe economic impact.)
- Effective masking (which doesn't have to be perfect, but needs to be non-shit) allows for more social contacts with little increase in risk. Economic impact much lower, but vigilance needed because flare-ups are possible. (Some activities are obviously much riskier than others; restaurants and bars are a clear problem here because they need people to be unmasked to be able to operate. I really miss going out for a fine meal…)
- There is no third option that makes any kind of sense as far as I'm aware. Separation or blocking, that's about it.
- All the above needs to be communicated to everyone clearly, and any restrictions and required activities enforced equally and strongly. This does more than anything else to prevent people from cheating or acting the special
because that's how people are.
Almost all of the problems come from people either flailing around like idiots, or deciding that they're a special case and the rules don't apply to them. (Pro-tip: they're not special to the virus. It doesn't care what excuses they have.) Politicians that handle this well will come out vastly stronger at the polls (good leadership in a crisis is one of the key things that many people look for); those that handle it badly will suffer politically. And people compare notes with other countries/states.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Some activities are obviously much riskier than others
Note here that opening schools and universities (for undergraduate teaching) is also very high risk, as kids and students both don't mask and don't stay separated.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's the same country where phone checking of suspected patients and making test appointments (ie both outgoing and coming administrative calls) absolutely had to be done by doctors in the official capacity. No interns, secretaries, no nurses - specialist doctors only.
I believe yes. They definitely said they can't just use interns or generic call centres or anything like that for the tracing, because it requires qualified workers.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
always first check whether there is a sane level of evidence that would make you change your mind.
This is good advice for everyone, not just skeptics, and you should consider following it yourself.
EDIT: This level of evidence should not be significantly higher than the level of evidence that led you to your original conclusion, as that would defeat the purpose of this exercise.
An example of this would be requiring a random controlled trial before allowing off-label use of HCQ, but not requiring a RCT for mask mandates (which has been done, by the way, and the difference between the masked group and the control group was not statistically significant).I will come back with a better example if needed.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
All the above needs to be communicated to everyone clearly
… which our government, and probably most others, suck hard at. It's all dogma, no explanation, and shouting at and defamation of critics instead of actually trying to explain why their arguments are wrong.
We also got a lot of “boo, follow the rules or we'll lock down everything” kind of scaring people last week.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Now I have to live with knowledge that even the brightest minds of epidemiology don't actually know how diseases spread. There are so many conflicting studies, conflicting models, conflicting predictions and conflicting recommendations that it really isn't funny anymore, it's just sad.
First off, I apologize for the previous post. Re-reading it, it did indeed come across as more mocking than intended. That said, I perceive your previous posts to be at least as hostile towards e.g., the scientific community, and as well as a bit ignorant.
To me, having conflicting models, predictions (and even recommendations) is not a weird thing, rather I would expect that. This is such a multifaceted problem that it's not realistic to expect anything else: it covers fields all the way from mathematics, via medicine, to sociology. Worst of all, it involves people's behaviour, which is hard to predict at best of times. Plus, it feeds into itself, so by making some findings known, you affect the outcome.
As others have said, it's also not just "epidemiology". Ultimately, the people in charge (politicians, for the better or worse) will need to act (or not) based on the recommendations that they receive. They need to balance the information they receive from the epidemiologists/medical experts with input from various other sources (economic aspects, mental health, law/justice, ...). The Netherlands are one example. From what I understand, they would like to make masks mandatory in more places, but cannot due to current laws. This is not a contradiction, rather, this is due process.
I also don't agree fully with your skepticism towards some of the recommendations. For example, to me, it seems like the current general consensus is that masks help. There are a few voices that dissent, but that's to be expected. There's no guarantee that this won't change in the future, but we can only act on the available information (and, yes, sometimes acting on incomplete information is better than not). Besides, here, I have the impression that a reasonable balance has been maintained for the recommendations/rules.
Someone please show me I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'd like you to respect my right to be very justifiably angry at the abysmal allocation of resources between scientific studies that matter and those that don't, without mocking me for having done more of my homework than you've done of yours.
Then be angry at the right people. (And, FWIW, I'm highly skeptical of whether or not you can determine if a study matters in the general case.)
-
@Bulb That's likely part of the difference. I don't get that feeling from the government here (or the two others that I follow due to closely friends & family). The communication has been clear, including reasoning behind the various rules (or the lack thereof). I may not agree with all of that, but I can at least understand it. Critics have been given space and leeway (even in terms of not sticking to the rules for gatherings and so on; this to a degree I personally wouldn't agree with).
Here, the "boo, follow the rules or we'll lock down everything" has been "we're trying relatively light restrictions (e.g., closing clubs/... and/or extending requirements for masks) for now; if that turns out to not help enough, we'll have to consider stricter measures (and if it does, we can start relaxing some of the rules again)". I don't conceive that as a threat, though.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
To me, having conflicting models, predictions (and even recommendations) is not a weird thing, rather I would expect that.
Indeed. The problem with that has been that a particular model was chosen to be followed and then any contradictory models or hypotheses or observations have often been attacked as heartless, attempted murder, etc.
I think we've all seen too many Sci-Fi shows where some disease comes along and the doctors cure it in an episode or two. And the public doesn't understand how uncertainty works and just how uncertain we are about stuff when it comes to medicine.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That's likely part of the difference. I don't get that feeling from the government here (or the two others that I follow due to closely friends & family). The communication has been clear, including reasoning behind the various rules (or the lack thereof). I may not agree with all of that, but I can at least understand it.
We in the US are at the level of public discourse where we can't agree about the wetness of water, and that's not really a new thing, though it has intensified in the last few years. Additionally, our federal system allows for vastly different policies from state to state and they vary in their demographics and lifestyles that between the two it's difficult to make intelligent comparisons among them.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The problem with that has been that a particular model was chosen to be followed and then any contradictory models or hypotheses or observations have often been attacked as heartless, attempted murder, etc.
I'm not sure which model you're referring to, but it seems to be that it has been attacked plenty as well. In this thread alone it's been pointed out a that the current scheme is ruining lives, killing people, wrecking the economy, etc etc.
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Additionally, our federal system allows for vastly different policies from state to state and they vary in their demographics and lifestyles that between the two it's difficult to make intelligent comparisons among them.
Agreed. From a demographics and lifestyle point of view, it might be more fair to compare a single (smaller) country here in the EU to a state in the US. Even so, some decisions regarding policies have been delegated to more local levels (regions/cantons, even individual municipalities), for pretty much the same reasons (dominated by city vs country side). I think I would argue that's largely a good thing.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The problem with that has been that a particular model was chosen to be followed and then any contradictory models or hypotheses or observations have often been attacked as heartless, attempted murder, etc.
I'm not sure which model you're referring to, but it seems to be that it has been attacked plenty as well. In this thread alone it's been pointed out a that the current scheme is ruining lives, killing people, wrecking the economy, etc etc.
Well, yes, we've switched models a few times, usually without acknowledging it. I should be clear that I'm using "model" more as an umbrella term for all of the ideas about what the pandemic is and how we should respond to it, not just a particular model for predicting infections or whatever.
And I find it amazing how different people can look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And I find it amazing how different people can look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
In large part because they never state what goals they are trying to achieve, assume they all have same or similar goals, but they don't, actually.
Or because they use completely different data or idea about the other aspects like the economical ones. Or…
-
… there was a large demonstration yesterday in Prague. It turned violent at the end.
Protest against Covid-19 rules in Prague escalates into clashes with police (VIDEOS) — RT World News
Czech riot police deployed tear gas, flashbang grenades, and a water cannon to disperse a crowd of protesters who refused to leave Prague’s Old Town Square after a rally against government measures to fight the coronavirus.
I'll try to translate one of the slogans, because I find it somewhat funny: “Fuck Prymula, it's none of his business to order us wear facemasks, that's facemaskism, like terorism or communism”. (
, not my words anyway)Reactions of officals? Angry, hateful, nothing even remotely like trying to de-escalate the situation.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And I find it amazing how different people can look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
In large part because they never state what goals they are trying to achieve, assume they all have same or similar goals, but they don't, actually.
Or because they use completely different data or idea about the other aspects like the economical ones. Or…
And because their fundamental values and priorities are different, etc.
You can't get ought from is. Science can only do is--you need values and other non-scientific things to get to ought.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I find it amazing how different people can look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And I find it amazing how different people can look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
In large part because they never state what goals they are trying to achieve, assume they all have same or similar goals, but they don't, actually.
Or because they use completely different data or idea about the other aspects like the economical ones. Or…
And because their fundamental values and priorities are different, etc.
You can't get ought from is. Science can only do is--you need values and other non-scientific things to get to ought.
Of course. That's what politics is about. And good politician needs to be able to clearly say which goals they gave priority and how the policies they propose or enact work towards those goals (with reference to science regarding expected effects as appropriate).
Our current politicians are horrible by that standard.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You can't get ought from is. Science can only do is--you need values and other non-scientific things to get to ought.
You can apply a default set of values that gets you a long way: minimise deaths and major disablement, minimise costs, minimise political embarrassment. (It's possible to condense further, perhaps to just “minimise costs”, but that's an option rarely chosen deliberately in public.)
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You can't get ought from is. Science can only do is--you need values and other non-scientific things to get to ought.
You can apply a default set of values that gets you a long way: minimise deaths and major disablement, minimise costs, minimise political embarrassment. (It's possible to condense further, perhaps to just “minimise costs”, but that's an option rarely chosen deliberately in public.)
But that's the thing--which deaths count, how do we count costs, who gets embarrassed, etc. THese are all variables that no one agrees on. There's broad surface agreement--Everyone agrees that we shouldn't gratuitously kill people. No one agrees on anything deeper than that. And how much does economic harm matter? Etc.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And good politician needs to be able to clearly say which goals they gave priority and how the policies they propose or enact work towards those goals (with reference to science regarding expected effects as appropriate).
Any great politician can phrase his values in such a way that everybody thinks he agrees with them.
The Codeless Code:
Case 170 The Purple Beggar
