This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Here's your Mask Protocol  (Read 5066 times)

shuddemell

  • Wondering Taoist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2021, 11:28:32 AM »
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

The problem is the idea that stupidity is less dangerous than malice, but it's far worse...

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the expertsRichard Feynman

Our virtues and our failings are inseparable, like force and matter. When they separate, man is no more.Nikola Tesla

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.Bruce Lee

He who lives in harmony with himself lives in harmony with the universe.Marcus Aurelius

For you see we are aimless hate filled animals scampering away into the night.Skwisgaar Skwigelf

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #91 on: January 13, 2021, 01:40:14 PM »
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

A friend of mine visited a nuclear facility there (he has an interesting story about the journey there involving swapping taxis in the middle of a field). He said that it was possible to see in to the core of the reactor. (For those who don't know, this is a very bad thing). He didn't do it himself and he reckoned that either the whole thing was a sort of Potempkin Village or that none of the radiation alarms were switched on and the workers there would die very painful deaths.

I can't speak to their science or energy sectors, but personal experience with the manufacturing sector leaves me unsurprised by these accounts.
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

Zirunel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Z
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #92 on: January 14, 2021, 06:49:10 AM »
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2429
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #93 on: January 14, 2021, 08:12:56 AM »
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.

TNMalt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #94 on: January 14, 2021, 10:37:21 AM »
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.

A friend of mine visited a nuclear facility there (he has an interesting story about the journey there involving swapping taxis in the middle of a field). He said that it was possible to see in to the core of the reactor. (For those who don't know, this is a very bad thing). He didn't do it himself and he reckoned that either the whole thing was a sort of Potempkin Village or that none of the radiation alarms were switched on and the workers there would die very painful deaths.

For the nulcear power sector, depends on plant designs. If based on old Soviet designs, then the safety measures are people, no automatic safety measures to prevent a meltdown. Three Mile Island was a case of people turning off the safety measures that would have prevented it.

I can't speak to their science or energy sectors, but personal experience with the manufacturing sector leaves me unsurprised by these accounts.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #95 on: January 14, 2021, 11:10:00 AM »
Someone passed this along to me.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/18/antibody-dependent-enhancement

Dr. Lowe is not exactly a tinfoil hat nutter, and the prospect of this worries me on several levels.

ArrozConLeche

  • No Más
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #96 on: January 14, 2021, 11:14:08 AM »
Quote
At this point, I would say that the main worry for any ADE effects would be if the coronavirus mutates to the point that the antibodies generated by the current vaccines become non-neutralizing. And honestly, I don’t see that happening (it certainly doesn’t seem to have happened yet).

I hope so too.

Zirunel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Z
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #97 on: January 14, 2021, 12:35:46 PM »
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.

Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into  different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).

EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 12:55:52 PM by Zirunel »

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #98 on: January 14, 2021, 07:19:46 PM »
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!

Influenza reportedly killed 675,000 Americans in 1918. We're in a similar situation now with 383,000+ dead of Covid-19.

This almost certainly misses indirect deaths, where people can't get hospital care for an unrelated serious health issue because hospitals are too full, or people who hesitate to seek medical care where capacity exists that would save them because they're afraid of being exposed. White room comparison the two diseases is false comfort, even for people who don't care about anyone older than 50.

Zirunel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Z
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #99 on: January 14, 2021, 08:33:57 PM »
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!

Influenza reportedly killed 675,000 Americans in 1918. We're in a similar situation now with 383,000+ dead of Covid-19.

This almost certainly misses indirect deaths, where people can't get hospital care for an unrelated serious health issue because hospitals are too full, or people who hesitate to seek medical care where capacity exists that would save them because they're afraid of being exposed. White room comparison the two diseases is false comfort, even for people who don't care about anyone older than 50.

Yeah, I do think you can make the case that Covid is a deal because of hospitalizations rather than mortality, and we can get to that in time but first things first.  Let's not muddy the waters here. The American influenza of 1918 was in a league of its own, but we are not being asked to compare Covid to  1918, we are being told that Covid is a piffle compared to the seasonal flu of 2019-2020 (a flu season characterized as atypically severe specifically for the 18-49 age cohort).

But is it?  Pat's own citations suggest no, Covid mortality is an order of magnitude more severe than the 2019-2020 flu season for that very cohort. Can we address that first?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 08:56:50 PM by Zirunel »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8671
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #100 on: January 14, 2021, 09:08:19 PM »
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.

Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into  different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).

EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!

Without any rate calculation, from the CDC numbers: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

2019-2020 Flu Season, ages 18-49 -> 2,669 deaths

2020 Covid-19 pandemic, ages 25-44 -> 13,090 deaths

That's about five times as many deaths, but just to get there, we have to add in that there is a smaller age range for covid-19. The covid-19 numbers should be roughly 1.5x higher, or about 7.5x as high as the flu.

However, I think there is good reason to think that last year's flu season, people were far less careful about being infected, and so there were more people infected with the flu than with covid-19. I knew a lot more people who got the flu last year than who got covid-19 this year. However much the infection rate is greater for the flu, that indicates that covid-19 is that much deadlier if it is caught.

consolcwby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Feel the despair!
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #101 on: January 14, 2021, 09:28:26 PM »
Did any of you miss what the Dems are saying? Don't worry about the COV! I mean, it's 2021 ~ Orange-man Gone ~ Time to RE-OPEN! FUCK THE SCIENCE! ITS RAY-CIS'd ANYWAY!
https://twitter.com/cbschicago/status/1349778522240389124
One of many instances where your dear leaders now say: To Protect the Public, we need the Public Outside! Out~and~about NAO SHEEPLE!!!!
DO
AS WE
COM
MAND
!
(the whiplash effect will hurt ~ but c'mon! do it! DO IT! I WANNA SEE! DO IT NAO!!!!)

As for VAX~EENZ: https://www.tmz.com/2021/01/14/janice-hahn-la-county-supervisor-enraged-health-department-covid-19-vaccines-thrown-our/
BWHA-HAHAHAHAHAH! Is this... wait for it... BIDEN'S FAULT?!  MIGHTY JOE WHITEY BAD!
Can you just FEEL that DESPAIR???
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 09:45:23 PM by consolcwby »
-----------------------------------------------------------------------                    snip                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   https://youtu.be/Br3LRj2pwAs

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2429
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #102 on: January 15, 2021, 03:24:56 PM »
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.

What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.

Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into  different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).

EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
I get that number as well, but I'm not terribly confident without looking over the data a lot more closely. As you noted, the pages aren't terribly friendly or easy to compare.

But that conflicts with other sources, which suggests the flu has an IFR of 0.1% (the CDC's 38 million infected/22K deaths for the last season is 0.57%, i.e. within in a factor of two but not the same) and that COVID-19's is only a few times larger.
0.15‐0.20% global https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13423
0.26% US/Indiana https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352
0.32% Switzerland/Geneva https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3/fulltext
0.01% Kenya https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.27.20162693v1
0.82% Spain https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.06.20169722v1
... and a lot more. The range is typically 0.1% to 0.5% or so in developed countries -- Africa as a whole is an anomaly (along with other countries like Japan), and Spain is a case where there was a collapse of the healthcare system (NYC and Italy are even higher).

So I suspect we're misreading the CDC data. Wish I could find those Tweets.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 03:39:54 PM by Pat »

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #103 on: January 15, 2021, 04:32:37 PM »
While everyone is sword-fighting with statistics, I wonder why the SCIENCE crowd is so quiet about the latest political decisions and just-released lockdown studies?

The lag between linking to favorable science is usually measured in nanoseconds, so the absence is noted
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

consolcwby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Feel the despair!
    • View Profile
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #104 on: January 15, 2021, 06:33:15 PM »
While everyone is sword-fighting with statistics, I wonder why the SCIENCE crowd is so quiet about the latest political decisions and just-released lockdown studies?

The lag between linking to favorable science is usually measured in nanoseconds, so the absence is noted
What else did you expect from LIARS, THIEVES,  AND MURDERERS?
Their getting their communism now, so it's all good!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------                    snip                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   https://youtu.be/Br3LRj2pwAs