Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

I told you.


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

After reading a few of your posts, I have no idea what you may or may not find ironic.

  Really?  Do I need to be more explicit?

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

😁😁😁 What fantastic logic.

Ignoring the reality that only 3 people died yesterday because of all the efforts made to reduce infection is a bit like...

Yours is a great example of logical fallacy - just one line after criticism of someone else's logical abilities.

Fact A: "All the efforts made"

(Undisputed, alleged) fact B:  "3 people died yesterday."

Unjustified assumption:  That as many as (or as few as) 3 people died yesterday as a consequence of "all the efforts made".

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, A.steve said:

  Really?  Do I need to be more explicit?

Yours is a great example of logical fallacy - just one line after criticism of someone else's logical abilities.

Fact A: "All the efforts made"

(Undisputed, alleged) fact B:  "3 people died yesterday."

Unjustified assumption:  That as many as (or as few as) 3 people died yesterday as a consequence of "all the efforts made".

Sorry it was too complicated for you to successfully parse/comprehend.  

My posts are pretty much off the cuff, mainly done while I should be doing something else, not attempts to present a precise logical argument. Although hopefully there is enough sense there for most readers to comprehend. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The death rate may be falling due to a combination of things. Mildler mutations may have evolved, but predominantly it is younger and healthier individuals becoming infected - these have a naturally higher survival rate. These are also the group more prone to engaging in social activities / holidays where social interactions occur.

5% of those recovering from a less mild covid are reporting Long Covid or respiratory or other complications that haven't left. Some prevent even formerly fit individuals making it up a flight of stairs.

So given potential long-term, poorly understood effects this could be akin to malaria - with taking of simple precautions help ( cover skin, sleep in mozzie net, repellent) even though unless used perfectly they are much less effective ( I've seen nets with holes, folks leave gaps and the bugs wait patiently until you need that 3am pee)

On the social level it is more like the flu or norovirus in that do things to reduce spread to self and others via interractions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habeas Domus said:

Wearing a mask reduces the viral load which reduces the severity of the disease which reduces the death rate.

The mainstream media have done a terrible job of explaining viral load.

Everyone's done a terrible job explaining just how much difference it actually makes in reality, in the type of day to day situations they're being argued for, resorting to going so far and shrugging the rest of with "it's obvious then innit?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lancet back on 3 June reportedly analysed data from 16 countries, finding risk of contracting Covid dropped to 3% if wore mask effectively

Cambridge uni studies have proven that even makeshift masks can be effective.

The University of Edinburgh showed that wearing a covering over the mouth and nose ( granted lab test ) can reduce the forward distance travelled by an exhaled breath / droplets from talking by about 90 percent. The coverings were a variety not just surgical masks.

So if we spitball this ( pun intended) and say if a droplet at max can do 3 - 3.5m. In economic terms 3m no go so we want 1.5 / 2m for social distancing.

If mask is as lab conditions 3.5m becomes 3.5cm. But this isn't a lab so let's say only half as effective not 90% but 45% distance reduction. That gets us around 2m which is our social distancing goldielocks zone to reopen. But even if it was 5% effective that is the maximum distance travelled. Droplets will come in myriad sizes and many larger will fail to make it 1m. Bigger droplet likely greater ability to carry viral load ( crude I know).

So if these can travel 1m or for greater hit 1.5m a 45% reduction gets you 0.8m or under avg aisle width in a supermarket.

So if only half as effective as the lab suggests you prevent larger droplets hitting someone in the same supermarket aisle width ways and keep almost all droplets under the 2m while they're stood queueing at social distances. Granted ventilation will have an impact as will any air movement.

Now 2 people are wearing masks so we haven't looked at any factors affecting them protecting the wearer either. But in situations where social distancing may not be practical they most likely will reduce your exposure. 

 

 

Edited by Staffsknot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Yes you did refuse, and you still are.

I didn't refuse to answer with a deflecting, uppity, whimsical attitude.  I took no position whatsoever with respect to adopting an uppity attitude - whimsical or otherwise.

I declined the invitation to answer a leading question, and I still still choose to decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Perhaps... but, on the other hand, they've been very effective at publishing a load of viral ...

Steve may I ask if you could just clarify for everyone your exact position in simple one paragraph and easily understandible terms. Not asking for a long justification just let's put this to bed and so nobody goes off on wrong end of the stick.

Would you also indulge us whether hypothetically that would be advocating breaking the law as it stands ( regardless of agreement) where compliance is mandatory. If you are uncomfortable doing the latter please don't as this space is for debate not pushing people out.

Just trying to get to grips with who wants what

Edited by Staffsknot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Fair enough no to both?

I interpreted your first question as being merely rhetorical... an indication of a misguided hope that the opinions, about which I've already posted, can be trivially summarised into a form more ammenable to attack.  I reject the basic premise on which your opinions depend... and, for that reason, it does not make sense for me to allow you to frame the discussion in such a way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, A.steve said:

  Really?  Do I need to be more explicit?

Yours is a great example of logical fallacy - just one line after criticism of someone else's logical abilities.

Fact A: "All the efforts made"

(Undisputed, alleged) fact B:  "3 people died yesterday."

Unjustified assumption:  That as many as (or as few as) 3 people died yesterday as a consequence of "all the efforts made".

 

 But also incorrectly justifying the assumption that previous containment measures has had absolutely no effect on current death numbers?  (alleged, disputed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I interpreted your first question as being merely rhetorical... an indication of a misguided hope that the opinions, about which I've already posted, can be trivially summarised into a form more ammenable to attack.  I reject the basic premise on which your opinions depend... and, for that reason, it does not make sense for me to allow you to frame the discussion in such a way.

 

So in less words. No

You are inferring motive that isn't there - and assuming it was for attack. I just wanted clarity in simple form so nobody could be accused of getting the wrong end of a stick or making false inferrences. 

But you are entitled to whatever position you want.

Can I actually genuinely ask folks not to use this as a whipping tool as it clearly has become a bone of contention for him and he's seeing it as a personal attack.

So let's all take a step back and just keep it friendly enough everyone feels can input

Edited by Staffsknot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

The Lancet back on 3 June reportedly analysed data from 16 countries, finding risk of contracting Covid dropped to 3% if wore mask effectively

Cambridge uni studies have proven that even makeshift masks can be effective.

The University of Edinburgh showed that wearing a covering over the mouth and nose ( granted lab test ) can reduce the forward distance travelled by an exhaled breath / droplets from talking by about 90 percent. The coverings were a variety not just surgical masks.

So if we spitball this ( pun intended) and say if a droplet at max can do 3 - 3.5m. In economic terms 3m no go so we want 1.5 / 2m for social distancing.

If mask is as lab conditions 3.5m becomes 3.5cm. But this isn't a lab so let's say only half as effective not 90% but 45% distance reduction. That gets us around 2m which is our social distancing goldielocks zone to reopen. But even if it was 5% effective that is the maximum distance travelled. Droplets will come in myriad sizes and many larger will fail to make it 1m. Bigger droplet likely greater ability to carry viral load ( crude I know).

So if these can travel 1m or for greater hit 1.5m a 45% reduction gets you 0.8m or under avg aisle width in a supermarket.

So if only half as effective as the lab suggests you prevent larger droplets hitting someone in the same supermarket aisle width ways and keep almost all droplets under the 2m while they're stood queueing at social distances. Granted ventilation will have an impact as will any air movement.

Now 2 people are wearing masks so we haven't looked at any factors affecting them protecting the wearer either. But in situations where social distancing may not be practical they most likely will reduce your exposure.

You are making the huge assumption that distance directly correlates with viral load experienced.

I think it is far more likely to be something like the inverse square law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Mostly applied to sound, but I think viruses are likely to spread in 3 dimensions in a similar way.

Here is distance vs intensity:

0.25 16
0.5 4
1 1
2 0.25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

3 minutes ago, Megadebt said:

 But also incorrectly justifying the assumption that previous containment measures has had absolutely no effect on current death numbers?  (alleged, disputed)

This is a hallmark of situations where pseudoscience has been exploited.

Policies are being justified as 'following the science' - but, science does not promote policies.  Science could, in principle, be used to help assess whether policies are effective with respect to their (pre-defined) objectives... but, in order to do that, great care must be taken to ensure we identify meaningful ways in which the scientific method can be rigorously applied.

In my opinion, what we face is far less a question of science - and far more a question of belief (which, in bygone days, might have been called religion.)  Philosophy (while often seeming aloof and impractical) seems extraordinarily relevant today... as mankind struggles to balance risks and rights... and (as will inevitably be the case) unscrupulous people take advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Everyone's done a terrible job explaining just how much difference it actually makes in reality, in the type of day to day situations they're being argued for, resorting to going so far and shrugging the rest of with "it's obvious then innit?"

If you care to look there is plenty of research out there.

Unfortunately like most things in life its not simple and there is an element of it depends, which those with a political axe to grind use to rubbish the research.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

If you care to look there is plenty of research out there. 

Agreed.  Some is good quality; some is poor quality.

A particular problem is that there is (necessarily) a gulf between good quality scientific research and the policies that are being (and have been) promoted in its name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Habeas Domus said:

You are making the huge assumption that distance directly correlates with viral load experienced.

I think it is far more likely to be something like the inverse square law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Mostly applied to sound, but I think viruses are likely to spread in 3 dimensions in a similar way.

Here is distance vs intensity:

 

0.25 16
0.5 4
1 1
2 0.25

True I was oversimplifying to try and make it easier to model as also stuff hangs around suspended in the air too. The spread is likely in an arc with an area of effect rather than simply 3m dead ahead there be icebergs.

Sound is a good analogy as waveform travel through air, with each cough a new pulse.

I kept it simple 2D as despite living in 3D humans sometimes struggle to think more than 2D as 3D is so automatic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

If you care to look there is plenty of research out there.

Unfortunately like most things in life its not simple and there is an element of it depends, which those with a political axe to grind use to rubbish the research.

 

  

Unfortunately people want controlled study (which labs do) then shout about it being under lab conditions not realworld. When realworld studies are done the cry is that there are too many other factors at play.

As you say if you are so inclined there is always a get out. That goes for all research regardless which side conclusion falls on.

Edited by Staffsknot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, A.steve said:

  

This is a hallmark of situations where pseudoscience has been exploited.

Policies are being justified as 'following the science' - but, science does not promote policies.  Science could, in principle, be used to help assess whether policies are effective with respect to their (pre-defined) objectives... but, in order to do that, great care must be taken to ensure we identify meaningful ways in which the scientific method can be rigorously applied.

 

The objectives back in February were pretty defined: containment to reduce infection, the metric being (slightly clumsy) local/national R(t) values being kept below 1.0 and NHS capacity. As I said here at the time, correct policy approach had to be multi-disciplinary, not just scientists.

 Difficulties with low number statistical noise, testing methodology and accuracy and complete/wrong data is the nature of the game everday for scientists.

 Philosophers construct perfect worlds whilst science attempts to deconstruct the world under imperfect conditions.  Isaac Newton's first thought when hit by an Apple was not an instant universal law of Gravitation, but whether the local boys were out scrumping again.

 Lack of accurate numbers allows psudoscience too: easy to be a climate change denier in the 90's,  with huge amounts of data and really obvious changes we all notice now and it is much harder to deny man made global warming.   Same will be for rationalising containment measures sometime in the future, I suspect, just too early to be sure now.

 Difference being even a tiny 0.05 change in R(t) could totally change this in months,  wheras even major 10% reductions for decades in greenhouse emissions just slows the rate of change.  Reducing population footprints will be easier than reducing individual carbon footprints.

 Newton could have taken years on gravitation and didn't even need to be right , we need to get this right here and now without all the evidence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • 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.