atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#7046: Well, that's an interesting bit of information

"Zero cases among children younger than 15." What? How is that possible?

"Anything's possible if it happens, Toluca." (Angry Beavers.)

No, damn it, I'm serious. Have we ever heard of a disease which utterly ignored anyone below a certain age? How does it know? What do children have that adults do not? (Or, vice versa?)

A commentor says, "The virus attacks cells through the ACE-2 receptor, which is expressed at 5x higher levels in Asians," which is the basis for saying that it has a preference for asian people.

The worst thing about it is that you get infected and are asymptomatic for a while, even after you're contagious. That sort of behavior is a bioweapon engineer's best friend. (No, I have not taken that one off the table; this is China we're talking about. But I still think this was a step in a direction rather than a final product; I think they were trying for something that would prefer any race other than asian.)

Meanwhile someone needs to tell Chuck Schemer that the Internet is forever. He deleted a twettle that was critical of President Trump's "premature travel ban". Trump banned travel to and from China, because--y'know--pandemic, and Schemer called it "premature" on February 5.

I'm pretty sure that means that Trump's decision was anything but premature, and it's become obvious to all and sundry, and--most importantly--Schemer's twattlot doesn't jibe with the new preferred narrative that COVID-19 will spell the doom of the Trump administration, since it indicates that Trump made the right call.

Also,
China's carbon emissions have dropped 25%, equivalent to the annual carbon output of New York state. Understand the magnitudes here: in three weeks, China's carbon outbut being only 75% of normal has cut that country's carbon emissions by an amount equivalent to that emitted by the entire state of New York (the city included!) in a year.

Who is the world leader in carbon emissions again?

...but the econazis don't actually give a rat's ass about carbon emissions. What they care about is destroying the American way of life. China's massive carbon output is "good pollution" because they're communists and totalitarian, and their leftist government properly has its hobnailed boot directly on the throats of the little people. America's considerably lower carbon output is "bad pollution" because we still have at least some of the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

And by the way, THIS POST neatly outlines my own assumptions on what COVID-19 is going to do the US, if it actually cannot be contained.

Everything that I have heard about this thing convinces me that while we have some cause for concern, we don't have to panic. As I've said over and over, this thing's main bugaboo is that it's easily transmitted between people; but in the vast majority of cases it's simply going to amount to a bad cold.

This was an especially good point:
COVID-19 has a reported mortality rate around 2.3% according to CDC-China. But it's important to remember that is some very basic math; it's just the total number of deaths divided by total number of confirmed cases. It doesn't take into account things like people who had mild symptoms and never went to the doctor so they didn't get counted (thus making the denominator larger), elderly age or previous medical conditions, or where and when they became infected.
Emphasis mine.

The guy who got a minor case of the sniffles--maybe a bit worse than his usual annual cold--may or may not have sought medical attention for it, but if he didn't, then he wasn't tested and the people who are doing the sums don't know he had it.

Current stats say "82,586 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide, including 2,811 fatalities".

The information coming out of China is still pretty unreliable, but let's say there were actually an additional 50% of cases in the world because of these mild cases that didn't report. Instead of 82,586 with 2,811 fatalities, there are 120,000. And let's just assume that fatalities there total 3,000 (because you can't under-report being dead). Suddenly the lethality rate goes from 3.4% to 2.5%. And the higher that bottom number goes--80,000 to 120,000 or 160,000--the lower the lethality rate drops. By definition we can't know the answer to the question How many unreported cases are there? but as the blockquote says, the lethality rate we've been given is just simple division.

I don't know a lot about statistics, but I do know that you need to control for things like "unreported cases" and so forth, and simple division doesn't do that.

So: I'm preparing to get a cold, one about as bad as the cold I got when I was a junior in high school and was laying in bed with a vaporizer running 24/7 for most of a week. I don't think we'll need more than that.

Prevention is as simple as washing your freaking hands with soap and water and trying not to touch your face. Seriously--washing your hands is the single most effective disease prevention measure you can take; for sheer effectiveness it beats just about every other measure we take INCLUDING the use of hand sanitizer! Hand sanitizer is what you do when you don't have time to wash your hands; it's not a replacement for it.

Hand-washing won't stop all infections, but you'd be surprised at how many it will stop if you do it.

* * *

It's a matter of who he's competing against.
Elizabeth Warren is a shrill neurotic, Pete Buttigieg is a platitude-spewing dork, Joe Biden is as shockingly corrupt as he is past his prime, Amy Klobuchar has all the charisma of a clock radio, and Mike Bloomberg is a humorless, sour-faced dwarf.
Somehow, Bernie Sanders beats that. "He's tough, hard to catch off guard, comfortable in his skin, actually believes in something,..." which is enough to beat the rest of them.

Enough to beat Trump in the general? I don't think so; and by their actions the Democrat leadership doesn't think so, either. We'll have to see, of course.

* * *

This was pointed out elsewhere, not long ago, and it's a mightily good point. The people who want to take away our guns chide us: "Why do you want to keep them anyway? I mean, the government has bombs and planes and tanks and stuff, while all you have is your AR-48 with a banana clip and a shoulder thing that goes up. You couldn't win against the US Army!"

And yet in Afghanistan and other parts of the middle east, men who are considerably less well-educated than Americans have held off the world's only superpower using nothing more than AK-47s and grit.

...of course, we have to figure that the ruling elite didn't really want to win in Afghanistan, and so the armed forces were hampered in their efforts with insanely restrictive rules of engagement. Against a "militia" that was trying to overthrow a totalitarian federal government, there'd be no such restrictions.

President-for-life Bernie Sanders: "FBI says there's going to be a big militia meeting in Souix Falls. Let's drop a W88 thermonuclear warhead on them, set for maximum yield."

Sanders' chief of staff: "There are almost 200,000 civilians living there, sir!"

Sanders' military toady: "They're aiding and abetting known traitors! Don't worry, Mr. President. They'll be history by lunch."

...and pfoom, there goes Souix Falls, and CNN and MSNBC et alii celebrate the news. "A major victory in the war on hatred and racism" would be the lead-in for the news reports.

But seriously: they argue that mere rifles are insufficient against the might of the US government, and yet we've seen how goat herders armed with mere rifles can do against the might of the US government. The US government would have to resort to nuclear weapons to win that war. If it fought against American rebels the way it fought against muslims in the middle east, it would lose.

* * *

What in the everlasting fuck--? "Apparently there are recordings of [unnamed A+ list director] interviewing young child actors and asking them wholly inappropriate questions." The lede in the post wonders if Steven Spielberg's recent decision to leave production of a new Indiana Jones movie has anything to do with this.

What is wrong with those people? I mean, even if you accept the idea that pedophilia is an alternate sexual preference and not some kind of mental illness (which I can allow under the same theory that homosexuality is the same way) how do these people think they can get away with this kind of thing?

*sigh*

...my mind is not made up about that parenthetical comment above. Proper biological function of the mating instinct is one that leads to offspring: in other words, boys like girls and they put their genitals together for fun, and sometimes babies result. Improper biological function of the mating instict occurs whenever the individual's urges compel mating-like behavior that can never lead to offspring. (Male-male, female-female.)

I'm talking about base level, instinctive, "Boy that person is SEXY and I want to rub my thingy on that body! Just looking, I can feel myself getting ready for it!" So if a man is sexually attracted to another man, biologically speaking that's an improper function of the mating instinct. Ditto for lesbians.

Strictly from a functional standpoint, you can't call that anything but insanity. It's a complete category error; no matter how many times you put it into someone's output port, no child can ever result from it. No matter how many times women rub against each other, no baby. Never.

Something happens to a person (we do not know what or when) that causes their instincts not to work correctly. In some cases these lead to fetishes, where a person requires some object or condition in order to become aroused. In others, a man fins men sexually attractive, a woman finds women sexually attractive, a man or woman find children (same or opposite sex, depending) attractive. The entire thing can be grouped under the heading "paraphilia"; though naming it doesn't explain it, using that label we can say that a paraphilia is a malfunctioning (however benign or malignant) of the sexual instinct. Take all the emotion out of it so we can analyze it.

A paraphilia is a malfunction. By that definition, it's a form of insanity. Prior to the sexual revolution, the most benign of them was still regarded as "perversion" and people generally kept them hidden. People generally knew--instinctively--that what they wanted was "not normal" and so hid their paraphilias from others.

After the sexual revolution we've been encouraged to "let it all hang out" and so forth. It's all good, we're told, and human sexuality is a complex thing and there's nothing bad about it. And ultimately I think that's why pedophiles end up doing these things. If indeed a paraphilia is simply "alternate sexual orientation" then they've got powerful urges compelling them; and if it's insanity, then by definition they're not in their right minds.

In the former case it comes down to, "You need to exercise self-control," and in our society the notion that we need to exercise self-control over your sexual urges has been deprecated so severely that I'm sure our popular culture would look like a whorehouse to our grandparents (or great-grandparents for those of you born after 1970).

Ultiamtely, I don't know what the solution is for this. If we could return our sexual morality to that of the 1950s that would help greatly, though.

* * *

"All of the new Democrats that came in put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bough--got them," said Bloomberg. He was halfway through saying that he bought them.

Straight from the (miniature) horse's mouth.

* * *

This is spot on but for one point on which I disagree.
Panic has set in because Democrats are about to be wiped out like Republicans were in 1932. Americans may not like the tweets and the taunts, but they do like the jobs and the patriotic pride Donald John Trump promised and delivered.
I disagree. I think a hell of alot of Americans do like the "tweets and taunts". They like seeing a man in the White House who has a spine and who acts like an actual alpha male, instead of the soy-latte whatchamacallits we've had since 1989.

* * *

Today is Saturday, and today I am taking it easy, with malice aforethought, and thems that don't like it are out of luck. Tomorrow I need to change oil in both the Jeep and my wife's car. Supposed to be somewhere in the fifties and partly cloudy, so I can handle that, I think.

Right now? RELAXING.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments