# Im just angry and dissapointed in humaity



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Six said:


> Climate change *denial*.
> Holocaust *denial*.
> 
> I don't think anyone objects to funding R&D for more efficient solar cells or loosening legal provisions on lithium aluminium hydride for hydrogen fuel cells instead of using fossil fuels - why would anyone and how could anyone?
> ...


Well, if that's news to me. Apparently, it's not a genuine case of COVID-19 if a previous illness was already present and wreaking havoc. I thought the alarm bells were ringing because it was most dangerous to those who have pre-existing conditions. Anyway, if that's the case we shouldn't be too worried.

The point about lifting lockdowns is something that needs to be talked about as the longer the lockdown, the much longer the economic recovery. But I think these separate measures such as the vertical lockdowns saying at risk groups must be isolated while others may slowly reintegrate into business as usual aren't really that controversial after a certain amount of time has passed to make people confident that healthcare systems can keep up with demand. What is controversial is an entire lifting of lockdowns too early which will cause a spike in cases and increased healthcare load. Or the idea that lockdowns were not a good idea in the first place to reduce that demand on healthcare. Looking at hospitals that don't have the resources and have to choose who to treat and who to leave untreated seems like a problem to me, a problem beyond that of some "flu" which people seem to equate it to.

I agree that a lockdown law should in no way be around for a year or more. At best a couple of months because severe implications can occur. But the document also includes provisions for helping businesses and so forth, so it makes sense that the expiry date wouldn't be a few months for the entire document. In fact, there are a number of exceptions to expiry for portions of the document and some talk about ending the provisions or specific provisions of the document earlier or later than expected.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

TBH, I'm now wondering if the US powers that be may be reconsidering whether that multitrillion military budget was worth it in light of this.










And I know those numbers are the product of different levels of honesty, but still...

TBH, people are handling this much better than I expected, so I guess my opinion improved, surprisingly enough.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Not meaning to add insult to paranoia, but what makes you think he's not part of a conspiracy or isn't pushing a hidden agenda? 



Six said:


> 1. Statistics
> 
> In infectiology – founded by Robert Koch himself – a traditional distinction is made between infection and disease. An illness requires a clinical manifestation. [1] Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases.
> 
> ...


I understand this man has quite a reputation, which is why I don't understand his argument. He makes a distinction between infection and disease, but apparently doesn't distinct between disease and illness. 



Disease Illness said:


> According to this way of thinking, disease is something that needs to be cured, such as infection, injury, toxic exposure, cell degeneration, etc. Illness is something that needs to be managed such as feelings of pain, discomfort, distress, weakness, fatigue, etc.


For instance, people can feel ill or experience illness, without knowing whether or what disease has caused it, just like people can have a disease without feeling ill. 



Subclinical Infection said:


> An individual may only develop signs of an infection after a period of subclinical infection, a duration that is called the incubation period. This is the case, for example, for subclinical sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS and genital warts. Individuals with such subclinical infections, and those that never develop overt illness, creates a reserve of individuals that can transmit an infectious agent to infect other individuals. Because such cases of infections do not come to clinical attention, health statistics can often fail to measure the true prevalence of an infection in a population, and this prevents the accurate modeling of its infectious transmission.


However, what you're guy is arguing, is that subclinical infections should *not* be counted as a 'case', only when someone actually experiences illness. So his assumption that cases represent (clinically manifest) illness seems to be not only incorrect, but he seems to favor that inaccurate modeling of infectious transmission. Also, how else would you measure the true prevalence of Covid-19 virus infection in a population? (of which he had already made assertions at the time of this letter). 



Wiki said:


> Cases refers to the number of people who have been tested for COVID-19, and whose test has been confirmed positive according to official protocols.


Which makes me curious to your wisdom regarding this first point.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

mimesis said:


> Not meaning to add insult to paranoia


How can I be paranoid about something that's happened?



> but what makes you think he's not part of a conspiracy or isn't pushing a hidden agenda?











Is this me or you here?



> I understand this man has quite a reputation, which is why I don't understand his argument.


You don't understand his argument because he has quite a reputation?



> He makes a distinction between infection and disease, but apparently doesn't distinct between disease and illness.


It's translated from German for one thing:

"In der Infektiologie - begrundet von Robert Koch Selbst - wird traditionell zwischen Infektion und *Erkrankung* unterschieden. Eine *Ekrankung* bedarf einer klinischen Manifestation."

He uses the same word:

*Ekrankung* - Disease

And it's "distinguish" not "distinct" whilst we're scoring points over petty misreadings sweety.



> For instance, people can feel ill or experience illness, without knowing whether or what disease has caused it, just like people can have a disease without feeling ill.


And you can do visa versa with the same synonyms - I didn't think this would be difficult.



> However, what you're guy is arguing


*"your" - not "you're", whilst we're making hay out of choice of words.



> , is that subclinical infections should *not* be counted as a 'case', only when someone actually experiences illness. So his assumption that cases represent (clinically manifest) illness seems to be not only incorrect, but he seems to favor that inaccurate modeling of infectious transmission. Also, how else would you measure the true prevalence of Covid-19 virus infection in a population? (of which he had already made assertions at the time of this letter).
> 
> Which makes me curious to your wisdom regarding this first point.


What are you quoting? It's not what Bahkti's said - this is what he's said:

*In other words, a new infection – as measured by the COVID-19 test – does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed. However, it is currently assumed that five percent of all infected people become seriously ill and require ventilation. Projections based on this estimate suggest that the healthcare system could be overburdened.

We are Currently Not Measuring the Incidence of Coronavirus Diseases, but the Activity of the Specialists Searching for Them

My question: Did the projections make a distinction between symptom-free infected people and actual, sick patients – i.e. people who develop symptoms?*

In other words if you're modelling to "flatten the curve" under hospital capacity, you want to make sure you're statistically modelling it to actually capture the section of the population in your projections which would actually require hospitalisation.

What part of his first point's confusing you? Help me help you...?


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

Necrofantasia said:


> TBH, I'm now wondering if the US powers that be may be reconsidering whether that multitrillion military budget was worth it in light of this.



The 800 billion (not trillion) dollar military budget keeps the _Pax Americana_ in place around the world. Yes, it's worth it.

American defense spending is only just now recovering from the Obama era cuts, and remains at a historical low vis-a-vis GDP:










Meanwhile, China has been ramping up its defense spending every year, unabated:










And while China's military budget is still just 40% of American levels, China has been growing at 6% per year, far higher than our own performance. Economic growth fuels a lot of military money. And China absolutely would like to get us off their backs so they can push for geographical expansion. Taiwan remains a free country only because of us. And while we absolutely have to hold the DoD's feet to the fire and make sure they are buying military readiness and cybersecurity and not gold-plated toilets for generals, we are _not_ spending too much on the military.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

xwsmithx said:


> The 800 billion (not trillion) dollar military budget keeps the _Pax Americana_ in place around the world. Yes, it's worth it.
> 
> American defense spending is only just now recovering from the Obama era cuts, and remains at a historical low vis-a-vis GDP:
> 
> ...


I feel like I'm looking at an unicorn.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

Six said:


> I don't think anyone objects to funding R&D for more efficient solar cells...


I object.

1) Government should not be wasting taxpayer money on things that can and should be financed by private investment. More efficient solar cells absolutely would make someone a lot of money, so we don't need the government financing it. It can and should be financed by private investors looking to make a profit.

2) Government should not be wasting taxpayer money on inefficient solutions. At their best, solar cells are never going to be anywhere near as efficient as burning a gallon of gasoline. Finding better ways to burn gasoline with less pollution would pay off far better, and could arguably be a better use of taxpayer R&D, as less pollution won't make anyone more money.

3) Government should not be wasting taxpayer money on unreliable solutions. Solar cells can only work when the sun is shining, while our energy needs spike when the sun goes down. Which means the only way to make solar work is with batteries. But no one is arguing that we should be spending R&D money on more efficient batteries, and of course R&D on batteries would fall under objection #1 above.

4) Government should not be wasting taxpayer money on solutions that are as bad or worse than the problem. It's not at all clear that solar power (or wind power, for that matter) is one bit better than gasoline in terms of environmental effects, as solar farms take up a lot of land, increase the ambient temperature in the area, kill birds and occasional other wildlife, and of course necessitate thousands of new batteries, which use mercury, lead, and a half dozen other major environmental contaminants. The solar panels themselves are loaded with lead and cadmium, and only have a life expectancy of 20-30 years, after which they become major environmental contaminants themselves. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/

5) Studies show that government financed projects do worse than privately financed ones. The list of solar companies that have gone belly-up after receiving millions of dollars in government funds is embarrassingly long. And solar is just one of many areas in which government funding hasn't produced anything like a stable, profitable return. Ayn Rand pointed out that the railroads that received government funding did worse in returning a profit to shareholders than railroads that didn't. But the government hasn't learned the lesson from Solyndra and dozens of others, as it continues to shell out millions in taxpayer money for these pipe dream companies. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/re...taxpayer-millions-seems-forgotten-expert-says


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

xwsmithx said:


> The 800 billion (not trillion) dollar military budget keeps the _Pax Americana_ in place around the world. Yes, it's worth it.


Military budget should depend on how much a country needs to defend its borders and trade routes. In the case of the US, the neighbors are either friendly, weak, or both, so it doesn't take much to defend US borders. The strongest neighbor is Canada, which is friendly and isn't that strong. All other powerful nations are separated by an ocean from the US.

China has very strong neighbors, some friendly (Russia, Pakistan) and some not friendly (India, Japan). So, it makes sense for China to have higher military spending. Also, China's main focus has been building infrastructures and establishing trade routes to boost its economy. US doesn't spend enough on building infrastructure, so the excessive military spending should be used for that. US depends too much on corporations, but corporations are unwilling to do anything that cannot be monetized or not profitable in the short term.

Military wars are becoming more and more a thing of the past. How much influence a country has on another country depends on how strong they are economically with each other.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

Addressing these in reverse order...



SouDesuNyan said:


> Military wars are becoming more and more a thing of the past. How much influence a country has on another country depends on how strong they are economically with each other.


This is a short-sighted view that is entirely the consequence of the _Pax Americana_. Before WWII, there hadn't been a 50 year period of relative peace since the _Pax Romana_. Should America fall, there won't be another 50 year period of relative peace for a long long time, either.



SouDesuNyan said:


> China has very strong neighbors, some friendly (Russia, Pakistan) and some not friendly (India, Japan). So, it makes sense for China to have higher military spending. Also, China's main focus has been building infrastructures and establishing trade routes to boost its economy. US doesn't spend enough on building infrastructure, so the excessive military spending should be used for that.


Several studies have shown that infrastructure spending is a lagging indicator... they show how rich a country is and not how rich it will be in the future. And I already showed how China's military budget has been exploding, now more than 20 times what it was 20 years ago. China is getting ready for war and we'd better be prepared for it. Half or more of China's industrial espionage has been aimed at industries crucial to military purposes. A magnet company in the town where I lived was bought by the Chinese, the factory closed, and the entire operation carted off to China. WHY would the Chinese be interested in a magnet company? Turns out this little factory in this little town made proximity fuses, those little doohickeys that make munitions go off when they get near a target without having to hit it directly. They are magnet based, and now the Chinese know how to make them.



SouDesuNyan said:


> US depends too much on corporations, but corporations are unwilling to do anything that cannot be monetized or not profitable in the short term.


Why should they? That's not what corporations are in business to do. They are in business to make money. But you're wrong to think that we rely too much on corporations. Most of the major military breakthroughs come from individuals or small teams working alone and not from major corporations.



SouDesuNyan said:


> Military budget should depend on how much a country needs to defend its borders and trade routes. In the case of the US, the neighbors are either friendly, weak, or both, so it doesn't take much to defend US borders. The strongest neighbor is Canada, which is friendly and isn't that strong. All other powerful nations are separated by an ocean from the US.


Big deal. We were dragged into World War I and World War II by being attacked by nations separated from the US by oceans, and the world has gotten a whole lot smaller since WWII. You probably never heard of Kuwait before it was invaded by Iraq in 1990, but I had, and I knew Kuwait was one of our few allies in the middle east, so as soon as I heard the news, I said, "We're going to war." A dozen other countries joined the US in pushing Iraq out of Kuwait, including some very unlikely allies. So it doesn't take much to involve multiple countries around the world into a war, even if the incident is nowhere near their borders.

p.s. The whole world is our trade route. We have a science base at the south pole. We can put a military unit there within hours if necessary, because we have a sufficiently strong military. As I pointed out before, the only reason Taiwan is still a sovereign country is because whenever the Chinese get antsy, we send a couple of destroyers through the Taiwan Strait. It pisses off the Chinese, but they leave Taiwan alone. Is the Taiwan Strait a trade route? Last year, we sold $31 billion worth of goods to Taiwan and bought $54 billion worth. That's more than our trade with Australia, and Australia is under US protection. Is Taiwan worth less than Australia? Or should we leave the Taiwanese to the tender mercies of the Chinese because we don't want to risk war with China?


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

xwsmithx said:


> Addressing these in reverse order...
> 
> 
> This is a short-sighted view that is entirely the consequence of the _Pax Americana_. Before WWII, there hadn't been a 50 year period of relative peace since the _Pax Romana_. Should America fall, there won't be another 50 year period of relative peace for a long long time, either.
> ...


Sorry, I had to take a jab because you seem biased from the data provided. You were showing US's military spending based on GDP while showing China's spending based on yuan. If you compare GDP to GDP, it's US 3.2% to China 1.9% according to Wikipedia. 

The world is relatively peaceful because it is getting less and less economical to go to war with anyone. No sane government would attack another country that have nukes because the worst case scenario is catastrophic. US attacked Iraq because it's relatively weak and have oil. China took Tibet, which is also weak, for resources and position advantage against India.

I'm actually not that interested in politics and it's off topic from original post, so I'll stop here.


----------



## merlothenry (Apr 11, 2020)

Curlijessi said:


> The reason why I say I am dissapointed and angry at humanity is the mass hysteria I see all around me. The misinformation posted on social media. I tried to adress some of the misinformation but honestly, I dont have time for that and nobody listens.
> 
> When I say the treatment is worse thant the disease, I am accounting for the current and future economic impact. I think this will be worse than the great depression. Im accounting for the suicides, the lives lost because people dont have insurance because they lost their job. The lives lost due to starvation. The looting, stealing. People will get desparate.
> Thats the future that I see coming of this. Only time will tell. I hope Im wrong.


Yes, I will agree finances and economy will be impacted BUT treatment is VITAL. By not social distancing, we’re still letting the virus spread at an exponential growth. We’re making more people infected which use up more our resources and space in hospitals and facilities. 
Have you accounted less resources and space will not be enough for people with common but deadly illnesses such as a heart attack and a stroke? Not only are there a less likelihood of them having space and resources, they are more likely to be infected of corona as well which risks their lives.
Coronavirus is a disease affects more ways than one. 
Unfortunately, this is history repeating itself and like from WWI to WWII, we should learn from our mistakes and not treat this lightly.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Six said:


> How can I be paranoid about something that's happened?


Obviously that implies I was referring to your anticipations and suspicion.

Your argument is like saying "I'm not paranoid, I just don't like being followed"




Six said:


> View attachment 841317
> 
> 
> Is this me or you here?


Haha, a six more likely, don't you think? 




Six said:


> You don't understand his argument because he has quite a reputation?
> 
> Well,
> 
> ...


Well it doesn't make much difference for the argument, from the perspective of subclinical infection. 



Six said:


> *"your" - not "you're", whilst we're making hay out of choice of words.


That must have been utterly confusing and I apologize for that. 





Six said:


> What are you quoting? It's not what Bahkti's said - this is what he's said:
> 
> *In other words, a new infection – as measured by the COVID-19 test – does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed. However, it is currently assumed that five percent of all infected people become seriously ill and require ventilation. Projections based on this estimate suggest that the healthcare system could be overburdened.
> 
> ...


*

He is right about the latter, but that just means statistics should be interpreted correctly. But I'm not sure whether those calculations/projections were based on those testing stats alone, like he assumes. 

Have you looked for a response to these questions or are you still clinging to your suspicion?



Six said:



My question: Did the projections make a distinction between symptom-free infected people and actual, sick patients – i.e. people who develop symptoms?

Click to expand...

*


Six said:


> In other words if you're modelling to "flatten the curve" under hospital capacity, you want to make sure you're statistically modelling it to actually capture the section of the population in your projections which would actually require hospitalisation.
> 
> What part of his first point's confusing you? Help me help you...?


You want to clear things up by posting an open letter which, as we progress learning more about the virus, is a lil outdated. 

Projections are based on assumptions and they are as good as the assumptions.

I read your guy believes 99% or so is already infected. Or perhaps that is outdated and he adapted it based on new findings and stats. Please update me here.

Overall I could answer the questions he raised by responding what my country does and measures, but I don't know about Germany so I can't answer those questions. But we have other ways than testing based on tracing (=activity of specialists), e.g. random sampling, antibody etc. 

This clip below perhaps answers some of the questions, regarding German approach. A higher infection rate as compared to cpr testing rate/million, but it also shows the projections of your guy are even more divorced from reality, with all due ramifications. 






I also know that people who are hospitalized with serious conditions are tested. Regarding cause of death I could compare with AIDS in which case it's also a complex of factors and causes. 

Given the notion that the counted deaths who had been diagnosed with Covid-19 *only* count the ones who died after (hospitalization and) testing, *excluding* the clear peak in deaths outside of the hospital, e.g. nursing homes and people who died at home, the Covid-19 death count (not cfr %) may actually be much higher, in which case the number in the UK would be even higher than it already is, according to stats. 

Also, significantly higher than an influenza peak, which you still seem to like to compare/equate it with.

In enneatype terms, we're collectively in 5 mode, withdraw from participation out of fear of being overwhelmed, to observe and analyze/hoard knowledge so we know better how to cope when we return to participation.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Mass hysteria isn't good of course, but how things go will depend on how your government handles things, how they're gonna help people deal with the problems. So it's gonna vary a lot depending on the place.
> 
> an interesting interview, he's humble, calm and gives some important information and perspective


Good interview, ended up watching the full hour. 

At the time of the interview there was just one death from the Diamond Princess cruise ship outbreak. He had reservations, and said that people could still die, but within a week after the interview it rose to 12 deaths (of 700 who tested positive, which is about 20% of passengers). Which obviously significantly increases the fatality rate he calculated, much higher than influenza (and plusminus 10% outliers), set aside demographics of the passengers that need to be considered.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)




----------



## Curlijessi (Aug 26, 2019)

I dont have enough time and pacience to watch all those videos. Can people reponding post quick articles or summary articles? Short and sweet. Im a working mom. Which equals very little free time.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

*Remington* offers facilities for medical repurposing.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Had the U.S. locked down earlier, it wouldn't be in the shape it's in. Scroll down to the chart showing confirmed cases.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

Now, compare it to Canada who locked down fast.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-hea...pidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html#a3

Rely on the facts, not the misinformation or more accurately, the disinformation campaign garbage being spread around the interwebs.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm disappointed in humanity that people cannot make a mere sacrifice of staying home and are going nuts after a month. It appears there are going to be a bunch of protesters flooding the Wisconsin state capitol on Friday.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

PowerShell said:


> I'm disappointed in humanity that people cannot make a mere sacrifice of staying home and are going nuts after a month. It appears there are going to be a bunch of protesters flooding the Wisconsin state capitol on Friday.


I'm disappointed in humanity where economically secure people cannot make a mere sacrifice to let some people who are in dire situation of directly losing their lives because of starvation, to protest and ask for a solution to their dire problem. 

Dire because they face two death options, one is uncertain death from unseen microscopic thing, the other is certain death from real scenery of zero food. They already tried their best to follow the instruction, proven, but their limit is nearing the end. 

And this is not even exclusively US problem, go out of the safe place and see the whole world is facing the same exact problem. 

I'm so disappointed if anyone think this is partisan issue.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

contradictionary said:


> I'm disappointed in humanity where economically secure people cannot make a mere sacrifice to let some people who are in dire situation of directly losing their lives because of starvation, to protest and ask for a solution to their dire problem.
> 
> Dire because they face two death options, one is uncertain death from unseen microscopic thing, the other is certain death from real scenery of zero food. They already tried their best to follow the instruction, proven, but their limit is nearing the end.
> 
> ...


The economic fallout is real. In many ways, it is a partisan issue as you look at all the handouts going to large corporations and Trump cronies versus actually helping the small guy.


----------

