Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Posts

    21,563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Riedquat

  1. Some point in the 19th century (don't know exactly when) end terrace here, hardly hear anything from my neighbour, although she's not the noisy type anyway. Solid stone wall in between most of it though though. I probably wouldn't hear anything at all if it wasn't for an oddity which means one part of her house is below part of mine (think it's where cellar steps used to be and that next door was originally a larger house that was extended and split in two).

  2. 12 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    The government has a relatively :) safe and effective mitigation of covid - the vaccine, which it believes saves lives and saves money, and saves peoples livelyhoods.

    Would you reasonably expect them not to promote it at every opportunity ? It would be stranger if they didn't. Almost suspect.

    It seems strange to me that people would get angry about the government messaging.

    Ultimately if you don't want to take it, you don't have to. But actually wanting the government to stop encouraging other people to make their decision, that to me seems to be taking it too far.

    It seems strange to you? It shouldn't. People don't react well to being patronised and constantly pressured and nagged. Whether or not it's for a good idea is beside the point (I've certainly no issue at all with getting vaccinated, had both doses months ago, not in a category for a booster). But I am rather sick and tired of their simple black and white messages, worded for children, with threats of things that I do regard as beyond the pale (vaccine passports for going about ordinary tasks), excessive scaremongering (you'd think that Covid was the Black Death) cropping up from all the time.

  3. 13 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

    After a year of their BS? Come on, I would be genuinely surprised if you would put up with such nonsense on your own field of reaserch and career.

    In normal social situations, it would not be acceptable after ten minutes. By this point, they should have been locked in a small cupboard. I imagine they are avoided and ignored so much IRL, they are unaware of how they come across.

    I certainly do not imagine they would wait a year and have spent time trying to engage and explain, as I initially did.

    Like I said I don't disagree with that, just the insistence that it's all about ego.

  4. 3 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    Safe, like big, is a relative term.

    Governments generally use clear and unambiguous messaging with key supporting information to help those that are hesitant make a choice. Any more complexity than that and people are going to become paralysed to make a decision.

    The downside of that though is that people do start to tire of it, to find it excessive scaremongering or patronising (probably because it is).

  5. 1 minute ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    What is it about then ?

    I agree it is not always about ego, sometimes it's about fear. But probably precious little else.

    I've seen a lot of nonsense coming from them I've not seen anything that sounds like it's all about ego though; quite honestly it often sounds like there's more ego coming from some people who are rather closer aligned with reality (the "I'm an expert so shut up and listen to me you sad little people" responses we see from time to time - sure, they've got more relevant to say, but the way it's said often comes across as highly egocentric).

  6. 6 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

    Clearly, I am not a psychologist. I do not claim to be.

    I think there is a big divide between being wary of the vaccine and having lost all self-awareness and grasp on reality. We are not doing some of the posters on this thread any kindness by pretending they are in the first group and have no need to seek therapy.

    I agree they're nutty, I just don't get the "self-important" line.

  7. 1 hour ago, slawek said:

    Less workers => less goods/services produced => lower real wages

    total real wages = total goods/services produced  in the long term

    What matters more is how those wages are divided up. It can still be a net gain for more people than who lose out.

    Even with fewer workers it's all somewhat more complicated than that. Firstly, I assume "as a proportion of the total population", because an even drop across the board should be no net individual change even if the total drops, and that's a "so what?" situation (even if it gets the "GDP must always increase" crowd in a panic). But fewer workers and a high demand for work is a very different situation than fewer workers because they've all been made redundant and are sitting around doing nothing. Even if the total output drops in both cases in the former the well paid take the hit, in the latter the low paid take it. With a greater number of low paid compared to high the latter overall benefits far more people than lose out.

  8. 11 hours ago, yelims said:

    It sure did, tho losing 30-70% of population must have really sucked (especially if that meant losing more of your family than usual for them days)

    So if we can have something which creates demand for labour without killing off huge numbers surely the best of both worlds? (although in the long run losing that proportion of people would be very beneficial but we're definitely in to the ends do NOT justify the means territory there).

  9. 4 hours ago, Bob8 said:

    There is hte world view of the better informed they are, the better their intuition and estimations are likely to be. And then there is the idea that personal self-importance triumphs above all (such as Dr Doom and Arpeggio and their word salad).

    There you go again. Whilst I agree that just about everything Dr Doom and Arpeggio spout is nonsense I don't understand this obsession you've got that it's all about them being self-important.

  10. 7 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

    A smidgeon of sanity from the BBC?

    Covid: Are cases about to plummet without Plan B?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59039739

    Only a smidgeon - it's piled with caveats, as well as "still should consider plan B" at the end. Whilst the caveats are not unreasonable it's very noticeable how many more of them from the BBC about a possible decline than they are when they're reporting on a model taking a very simple "cases will keep rising at a high rate and we'll all be dead by Christmas" approach.

  11. 1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

    What is your own area of expertise?

    The wrong question (yes, I know it wasn't directed at me, but anyway...)

    As a rule I try to avoid bringing up my area of expertise even when it's pertinent to the discussion (since this is a discussion forum, rather than actually trying to solve a particular problem). I prefer not to seem to be relying on "I know what I'm talking about, so shut up and agree with me."

  12. 2 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

    Let me rephrase. Where is the science that says mixing two vaccines gives better protection?

    Don't know, it's just something I recall seeing somewhere. But based on what little I do know it sounds plausible enough that I don't feel any particular need to dig further. Might be a different reason for it but I'm not curious enough to dig around and try to find out.

  13. 23 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

    I took a relative of mine to get their booster jab this morning.

    We were told there is a new directive from the NHS that for the foreseeable future anyone who has had two Pfizer doses must be given the Moderna vaccine for their booster and not a third  Pfizer.

    Is anyone else aware of this new policy?

    One guy said he didn’t want the Moderna vaccine - he didn’t look Swedish or Finnish - and left.

    Seems they are saving the Pfizer doses up for those over 50 who had the AstraZeneca jab.

    AIUI because they don't work in the same way then having two different ones gives a bit more protection than a booster of the same one.

  14. 2 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

    The issue here is that you do not understand what he has written in his article.

    You will also have read (but not understood) that it is about weight of opinion, not being infallible.

    Egotists have a terrible time accepting that this is not about them and they are not the experts. So, they angrily reject everything about. This is not about you, your opinion in ill informed. You are barely an extra in this drama.

    When did the egotists who believe it's all about them enter in to this? I've noticed you've thrown that around once or twice at people who disagree with you. Now I've no more respect than you do about anyone who bases their assessment of the situation on a couple of YouTube videos with the word "TRUTH" emblazoned across them, but why egotists?

  15. 1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    You'd hope so, otherwise what is the point in having them ?

    We could all diagnose ourselves on google at much less cost - some people believe they can...

    Doctors diagnoses these days I suspect are heavily argumented with IT, but there are still some human elements in the diagnostic process that are hard to put in an algorithm.

     

    That wasn't quite the point I was getting at.

    I'd far rather have a doctor diagnose me and tell me what the probabilities are and so on. Much better chance of getting it right than with Doctor Google. What I meant is the assessment of whether or not a risk is actually worth worrying about, e.g. is it worth worrying that it might happen to you at all, rather than given that you've been diagnosed, then what's the best course of action?

    Trying from a different perspective - a policeman will come into contact with criminals a lot more often than I will. It's their job to seek them out. They'll also probably have a far better idea of what the local crime statistics are than I do. But does seeking out criminals lead you to actually feeling overcautious, because you see them all the time? Even knowing what the numbers are how much is their risk perception changed?

  16. 22 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    People generally aren't good with probability. They like yes or know answers, and fallibility is associated with non expertise and people not knowing what they are talking about.

    Medicine isn't an exact science. When you ask your doctor whether you have disease X, there is no guarantee they will get the answer correct. All you can expect is that they have a higher probability of getting the answer right than you would.

    People generally have difficulty coming to terms with this, especially since in many professions people are taught to project a level of infallibility in order to inspire confidence and compliance.

    It's very true that people are poor at dealing with probability, but even when they're not there's the whole question of just what probability is actually a big enough one to be concerned about? And ultimately that's what matters, and it's subjective.

    Are doctors actually better at responding to medical risks? They'll certainly have a better grasp of what the numbers actually are, and understand that there is a lack of yes / no certainty, but does frequently seeing people with certain conditions lead them to be more risk-averse than is reasonable to those conditions? There's an observation bias there (of course doctors see more ill people than most of us do).

    (as I've pointed out often enough in the past it's also not just a case of picking the lowest risk, when risks are sufficiently low "couldn't give a damn at all" is entirely reasonable).

  17. 24 minutes ago, Glenn said:

    The lowest paid workers do need a bump up in pay, but how many small business like retail and catering will be able to afford it?

    The "wages should stay low" argument? If wages increase more people will be able to afford higher costs. Now you could say that just brings us full circle, with extra inflation thrown in unless wages are actually getting rebalanced a bit at the same time so the gap between high and low has narrowed.

  18. 4 minutes ago, anonguest said:

    Arguably the contrary actually! IF you accept conventional wisdom in your field then that field will never make any progress.  Progress is almost always made by those willing to at least question accepted wisdom

    There's a line there though - that argument is too often used by people defending peddling nonsense. Need to be careful of the appeal to ignorance line.

  19. There's quite a tendency of people in the feel to make an "I'm an authority, I know what I'm talking about, so shut up and listen to your betters" line. And there's quite a tendency for other people to latch on to any bit of nonsense they encounter if it sounds like it's saying what they want to hear.

    The problem with the former is that there's generally a fair amount of observation bias going on, as well as a lack of grasping wider indirect factors, and the problems with the latter should be obvious.

    Generally speaking there's no good reason to ignore the experts, but what they say does need some work to put it in to the wider context (and to try to filter out the nonsense that gets inserted when you hear what they say second or third hand, e.g. via journalists who don't really understand it).

  20. On 23/10/2021 at 21:37, PeanutButter said:

    I believe there’s been a recent push to legislate for lobsters being killed humanely before boiling, on the basis that it was shown they were in fact experiencing acute agony during cooking.

    Any claims that they weren't always seemed rather questionable; at any rate it's the sort of thing where you'd have to assume they were unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.

    A general point - there's an important difference between sentience and sapience, pets being cunning is going beyond what you need for sentience. Sentience is just the ability to have a subjective experience of the world (i.e. mice can, trees can't). A sentient creature will avoid fire for example because the experience is unpleasant, which is different from a robot with a heat sensor avoiding fire because it's been programmed to.

  21. 9 minutes ago, anonguest said:

    That is very true. BUT in exceptional times exceptional and unexpected things can happen - particularly to the 'established' political class.

    Well Brexit didn't get UKIP enough support to get an MP despite most parties looking less than enthusiastic about it, and it didn't get the most pro-Remain party (the LibDems) enough support to mount a meaningful recovery, and that's been the biggest political issue of recent decades.

  22. 1 hour ago, anonguest said:

    The issue is not who to vote for to get rid of vaccine passports if, say, they took an Italian style of requirement/use.

    IF enough people were against them then anyone standing for election on a platform to abolish them would win, regardless of whether or not they even have any MPs at present.  Big things have small beginnings.

    The issue is that too many of the populace have been brainwashed into agreeing to them and/or lack the critical thinking skills to work out why they are undesirable, impractical or pointless.

    No, they still wouldn't, because elections are rarely one issue decisions. Furthermore even when they are there needs to be one of the large parties offering the alternative for there to be a plausible chance of it making any difference. When all the main parties seem to be broadly in agreement with something the reality is that you're stuck with it.

    In any case I have no faith whatsoever with the overall population when it comes to matters of privacy or control. They've lost the ability to give a damn about anything other than immediate convenience and laziness, or fear.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.