Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #25580 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-07 14:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-07 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-07 19:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-08 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-01-08 18:04 +0200
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? dave@661.org (David Griffith) - 2021-01-08 22:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 08:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-09 08:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 09:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 11:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 11:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-10 13:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-09 14:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-09 18:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 16:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-10 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 21:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:44 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:39 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 18:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 20:50 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 21:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 22:04 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 04:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 15:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 19:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr> - 2021-01-13 14:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:45 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 21:05 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 21:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:35 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 19:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:13 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:31 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 05:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-14 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-14 13:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 14:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 12:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 15:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 16:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-11 05:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 15:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-11 23:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 23:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 00:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 01:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 18:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 09:42 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6694.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-12 05:14 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 09:15 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-12 10:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 12:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:28 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-14 08:37 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-13 21:20 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 21:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-14 03:03 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6644.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-10 17:09 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-11 17:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 11:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 22:09 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2021-01-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 12:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 13:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:22 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:40 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:59 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:11 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-01-09 09:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-09 16:59 -0500
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 23:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-10 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 05:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtolv2$q32$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25863 |
On 13/01/2021 20:56, TimS wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote:
>>> I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can
>>> never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
>>> little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
>>> widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
>>> as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
>>> is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does
>>> it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.
>> The problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it
>> goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it
>> is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less
>> useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows
>> us to call it 'truth'.
>>
>> The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works
>> pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works
>> pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the
>> antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that
>> they have it right, and other people have it wrong.
>>
>> Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed
>> in Newton?
>
> Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the time.
> The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's orbit hadn't
> been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went before.
>
> Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by setting
> speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory simplifies down to
> exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict.
>
You are not looking at this from Jim's position. He claims that one or
the other or both are 'demonstrably true'.
And it makes a huge difference. Consider climateChange™. We have three
hypotheses, let's say:
(i) Its all just natural variation in a chaotic system. Nothing can or
need be done except get used to it.
(ii) It's all man made CO2 so we should shut down civilisation to stop
it, maybe, in a hundred years.
(iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop
flying.
Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the
USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern
hemisphere winter.
Yet how many people here would claim that one of these is 'demonstrably
true'?
Or the 'science is settled'
The distinction between a plausible theory, that can't be tested easily
if at all, and a plausible theory that gives the right answer, and the
truth, is very, very, wide indeed. When it comes down to a trillion
dollar industry worldwide.
In the case of gravity, for most practical purposes at a human level
scale it doesn't matter. The canard that "gravity is real and
demonstrably exists in the RealWorld™, just like Newton said" is not a
lie of serious consequence.
The problem is that as long as people *think* that science is about
establishing 'demonstrable truth' and think in the general case that
knowledge is 'demonstrable truth' about the world, then the mere naming
of something by a man from a University, turns the most arrant nonsense
into 'fact' - especially if he has a white coat on. Or lots of letters
after his name, and if a collection of men from universities all say the
same, and so do the computers they have programmed, like the Bandar Log
in Kipling's Jungle book ("we all say it, so it must be true") why then,
it's *more* than true, its peer-reviewed 99.7% consensus guaranteed gold
plated FACT. Isn't it?
It gets worse.
From Eugenics to Lysenkoism, and to current theories of the lack of
importance of e.g. race, we see that theories held to be facts are used
politically to justify massive impacts on society. The Nazis used racial
superiority to justify genocide, today we use racial equality to
justify positive discrimination, after all the only reason black people
don't perform academically as well as white has to be "systemic racism"
doesn't it?
Then how come half the top physicists and concert violinists in the
world are in fact of _Asian_ origin ?
My gripe is that this lazy thinking that starts in Physics, that
hypothetical ideas *about* the world are in fact truths *in* the world,
is not mere sophistry. This is an ingrained habit that results in the
vast majority of people who are educated enough to know better thinking
in terms of 'established truths *in* the world' when in fact they may be
no more than half baked propaganda in their *minds*.
Korzybski once coined a phrase 'the map is not the territory'. Knowledge
is maps of the world. If you start regarding it as the territory
itself, you end up in all sorts of trouble.
Just because its clearly marked on the map doesn't mean its there on the
ground, conversely maps are for specific purposes and what is
fundamentally as useful as what is on them is what is left off them as
'too much detail'....
But going back to Einstein. Its not just a matter of Einstein giving
slightly better results than Newton, it is a paradigm shift in our
actual understanding of the whole world.
Einstein refuted time as a primary axis on the map. Time as a concept
wasn't what we thought it was. It couldn't be, The idea that even if we
couldn't see it and weren't there to hear it, a tree falling on a planet
in a distant galaxy receding from us at n billion parsecs a second, or
whatever, did in fact fall at a given exactly precise-for-all-who-cared
time post the big bang, flew out of the window.
Time was relative to the observer.
Worse, space wasn't flat either. It was bent, depending on what was
sitting on it.
Never mind. We still had causality, didn't we?
Einstein clung on to that one "God does not play dice". And yet
probability theory fitted the quantum 'facts' as observed, better.
This has upset so many physicists that a large number declared
themselves 'instrumentalists' and said that they were not even going to
argue what was real and what was not, as long as their mathematical
models gave the right results recorded on their instruments. Shades of
the Catholic church and Galileo. Never mind reality it's just a
*mathematical model*.
My axe to grind is that all this is far far easier to come to terms with
if, instead of thinking in terms of a reality that is fixed and *out
there*, we humble ourselves and realise that in fact our realities are
all mutable and *in here*. Now they may well be, and it's certainly a
reasonable hypothesis, to regard them as, more or less accurate *maps*
of what is 'out there'. Babies and bathwater, but consider the
possibility that what is actually *out there* is as unknown as the true
nature of the Matrix, and what you see is in fact just your own minds
virtual reality simulation...space, time, energy, materiality,
causality. None of these exist outside of our minds. They are just the
axes on our own personal maps. Our way of organising and categorising
experience into a coherent world-view.
Today we have conflicts between people who consider that 'truth is
relative to culture' (which is to my mind a perfectly valid way of
expressing a something about the way that different cultures draw
different maps of what is we presume the same reality, but who are not
astute enough [being students of the humanities] to realise that that
does not mean that the truth is 'whatever we think it is' and therefore
by mounting massive propaganda campaigns [political correctness] telling
us how to think, the underlying reality will in fact change and men will
become women, just by choosing to think they are], and between those who
say that, no, magic *doesn't* work, and the world is whatever it is,
irrespective of how we think about it, and science reveals it.
The resolution of that conflict, is as I have described. The halfway
house between idealism and realism. The metaphysics of Kant,
Schopenhauer, Korzybski. To regard the *world as we know it* as a
hierarchy of models, that do indeed reflect the nature of a world as we
*presume it really is*, but which are forever inexact, approximate, ad
hoc and pro tem, and are never *ever* to be regarded as the One True
Stick. And if someone claims that his ideas are, then he should be hung
drawn and quartered and his head stuck on a pole.
I think we desperately need to if not adopt this view, to at least
understand it. We are being bombarded with fake news and propaganda from
all sides of every political spectrum there is, for purposes of exacting
our votes and our wallets. So called 'scientific truths' are rammed into
our faces to justify massive expenditures and political changes.
Computer models are held to be more real than the experience of our own
lives, and the weather has become not what is outside the window, but
whatever the clever man on the telly says it is.
In short metaphysics really really matters. It's not 'mere sophistry'
because it underpins the absolute complete way in which we understand
the world, and if we are using a worn out and past its sell by date
metaphysics, like Materialism, we have no defence against the New
Idealists, who tell us that pixie dust and Unicorn farts will run the
world as long as we *believe in theme enough*.
And remember, in the world of human behaviour, it is as approximately
true that what people believe in governs their behaviour, as it is
approximately true that in the world of classical physics belief has no
effect whatsoever.
--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210114102659.4ded5935597b7ea567475563@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #25877 |
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop > flying. > > Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air > transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the > USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern > hemisphere winter. I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it is to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one yet. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 11:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtp9rf$h4d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25886 |
On 14/01/2021 10:26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop >> flying. >> >> Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air >> transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the >> USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern >> hemisphere winter. > > I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average > temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either > that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it is > to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i and ii > proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that ascribes a > single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one yet. > And it throws into question the whole notion of a 'cause' anyway. When you have negative feedback, time delayed, over enough delay paths you will get pseudoperiodic variations with no *external* 'cause' at all. in short your dynamic system will wobble around some sort of attractor, or set of attractors, in a completely chaotic manner. All by itself. But anyone not familiar with the depths of chaos mathematics will look at it and say 'what is *causing* that'? And go looking for a nonexistent driver external to the system. Whilst other seek to find 'cycles' of constant frequency in what is a pseudorandom oscillation. -- “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtpid1$f78$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25886 |
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:26:59 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher > <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just >> stop flying. >> >> Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air >> transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in >> the USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold >> northern hemisphere winter. > > I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average > temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either > that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it > is to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i > and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that > ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one > yet. Its quite possible that both are true and that both are due to the same cause - the absence of jet transport contrails over the continental USA: - daytime temperature rose and the skies looked clearer because there were no contrails reflecting sunlight back into space. NOAA reckon that average daytime temperatures rose by 3 degrees Fahrenheit during the air travel shutdown and many American glider pilots commented, in rec.aviation.soaring, on how much clearer the air had been. - I assume the same happened at night, but it would work in reverse, with the lack of contrails at night allowing the ground to cool more because they weren't there to prevent heat from radiating out through the atmosphere. I don't remember seeing any comment about this though, or seeing any estimate of what the temperature drop was. -- -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtpkl0$rjp$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25911 |
On 14/01/2021 13:53, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:26:59 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher >> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just >>> stop flying. >>> >>> Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air >>> transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in >>> the USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold >>> northern hemisphere winter. >> >> I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average >> temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either >> that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it >> is to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i >> and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that >> ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one >> yet. > > Its quite possible that both are true and that both are due to the same > cause - the absence of jet transport contrails over the continental USA: > > - daytime temperature rose and the skies looked clearer because there > were no contrails reflecting sunlight back into space. NOAA reckon that > average daytime temperatures rose by 3 degrees Fahrenheit during the air > travel shutdown and many American glider pilots commented, in > rec.aviation.soaring, on how much clearer the air had been. > > - I assume the same happened at night, but it would work in reverse, with > the lack of contrails at night allowing the ground to cool more because > they weren't there to prevent heat from radiating out through the > atmosphere. I don't remember seeing any comment about this though, or > seeing any estimate of what the temperature drop was. > > in an effort to get a handle on the net effect I looked at the *average* temperatures in cloudy humid florida and in dry desert sahara on the same altitude. They were pretty much the same... -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtmqv8$8c0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25802 |
On 12/01/2021 20:45, Jim H wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 04:50:12 +0000, in <rtj9q5$jkr$1@dont-email.me>, > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what >> you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in >> which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >> supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked >> it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current >> figure is. >> >> And those are not the only narratives that exist. And they are in the >> end metaphysical. They can't be proved to be correct, only more or less >> useful, in any given context. >> >> Its not turtles all the way down, it's *models*. > > > Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief" > to hang its hat on. > Perhaps. That depends on what your purpose is. Science is about predicting the future, better, that's all. When you bother to think about it. Religion is about regulating a crowded society, and giving people in large societies a personal meaning and purpose in life. Just as useful in many respects. Before you can *do *science, you have to 'believe' in the material world of space time. If you don't there is nothing that science can demonstrate. There is no future to predict, is there? -- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 04:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtgjjq$nfr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25710 |
On 10/01/2021 16:54, alister wrote:
> Hospitals are shutting down essential services because they do not have
> the capacity to cope because of knowledge-less people repeating the
> claims like "Its only the Flue"
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
> ignoring the fact that asymptomatic
> people may spread it to those more susceptible & refuse to wear a mask or
> have one but refuse to wear it properly.
Personally I think masks do pretty much the square root of sweet fanny
adams, but they make people feel safer, so fine
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 12:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25667 |
On 09/01/2021 18:02, alister wrote: >> Which untested mRNA would that be, then? > > that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had & > is simply not worth continuing further > I don't see why. The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a vaccine. mRNA, in particular, is new and hence probably not as well understood. The idea that this is a radical viewpoint is astonishing. The risk of Covid for older people appears to swamp vaccine risk, but that doesn't mean vaccine risk does not exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f664b2ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> |
| In reply to | #25686 |
In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
> The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any
> testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a vaccine.
Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk
from taking the vaccine is even lower.
In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint. There is a much
greater risk that they will contract Covid and pass it on to someone
who has a much higher risk, maybe going on to die or to suffer long
term damage from "long Covid".
Remember, something like a third of people who have Covid are not
even aware that they have it. Such people are highly dangerous,
even lethal.
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25705 |
On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote: > In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me> > Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote: > >> The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any >> testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a vaccine. > > Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk > from taking the vaccine is even lower. > Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is < 0.01%. For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on testing 20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of risk. Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up. Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages. > In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint. I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me. But I don't think the young are being vaccinated yet. I guess they won't be vaccinated for a few months. By then the "test" sample size will be much greater, we will have a little more confidence in the vaccine. We still won't know about long term effects, obviously. > There is a much > greater risk that they will contract Covid and pass it on to someone > who has a much higher risk, maybe going on to die or to suffer long > term damage from "long Covid". > Again, the vaccine effect on transmission is unclear from the testing I have seen. > Remember, something like a third of people who have Covid are not > even aware that they have it. Such people are highly dangerous, > even lethal. > The same applies to school kids > 11, I've not heard people suggesting vaccinating them. Herd immunity appears to be a pipe dream. Remember, in the UK, AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine approval is "for emergency supply". The EU has refused to approve it yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9764d5ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> |
| In reply to | #25707 |
In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote:
> > In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
> > Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any
> > > testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a
> > > vaccine.
> >
> > Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk from
> > taking the vaccine is even lower.
> >
>
> Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is < 0.01%.
> For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on testing
> 20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of risk.
>
> Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up.
> Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages.
Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was
approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days
after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse
effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic
reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such
histories.
So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all
the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the
vaccine is much less that 0.01%.
> > In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint.
>
> I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
> healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
> order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.
You've just stated something that is not true. The vaccines (not a
treatment, incidentally) have been tested just as well and as
thoroughly as all previous vaccines. Don't let the short timescale
fool you.
Nearly 30 years ago, I joined an engineering project right at its
start. This was the first project in the company to use "concurrent
engineering" practices. Everything was planned to happen in parallel
as far as possible, and without delay between stages when serial flow
was inevitable. That's what has been done in the case of these vaccines
- plus a great deal of pressure, in view of the 7-figure mortality.
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 05:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtgpc1$1932$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25722 |
On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:08:19 GMT) it happened David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote in <9764d5ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>: >Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was >approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days >after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse >effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic >reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such >histories. > >So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all >the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the >vaccine is much less that 0.01%. There is a big difference between the Oxford vaccine and the mRNA based ones. The method used by the Oxford vaccine has been proven over the years. How the Oxford vaccine works: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine.html How mRNA based vaccines work: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine.html The mRNA based ones have ones have hardly been tested and several people have mysteriously died after receiving it. https://www.rt.com/news/511524-portuguese-nurse-dies-pfizer-vaccine/ Nurse died: https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/healthcare-worker-dies-48-hours-after-getting-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/story/427050.html Doctor died: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/medical-examiners-investigate-death-of-u-s-doctor-who-got-covid-19-vaccine-1.5256887 2 older people died after receiving mRNA vaccine: https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-two-dead-in-norway-received-pfizer-s-coronavirus-vaccine-recently-2866294 Reuters had a look: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-concerns/fact-check-clarifying-claims-around-pfizer-vaccine-deaths-and-side-effects-idUSKBN28K2R6 So, what is it? Given the small number of people in the Pfizer test and the outrageous conclusions Pfizer makes that it is 'safe' I ask you, 'Do you play the lotteries?" I sometimes do, and this week won 10 Euro back on my 17 Euro lot, I once did win a thousand.. The changes of making a profit ? Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested over generations, so if your kids grow horns or spikes Pfizer denies any responsibility: https://www.rt.com/news/511635-peru-pfizer-legal-immunity/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <21d531ed58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> |
| In reply to | #25737 |
In message <rtgpc1$1932$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:08:19 GMT) it happened David Higton
> <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote in <9764d5ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>:
>
> > Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was
> > approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days
> > after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse
> > effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic
> > reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such
> > histories.
> >
> > So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all the
> > problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the vaccine
> > is much less that 0.01%.
>
> There is a big difference between the Oxford vaccine and the mRNA based
> ones. The method used by the Oxford vaccine has been proven over the years.
> How the Oxford vaccine works:
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine.html
>
> How mRNA based vaccines work:
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine.html
>
> The mRNA based ones have ones have hardly been tested and several people
> have mysteriously died after receiving it.
> https://www.rt.com/news/511524-portuguese-nurse-dies-pfizer-vaccine/ Nurse
> died:
> https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/healthcare-worker-dies-48-hours-after-getting-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/story/427050.html
> Doctor died:
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/medical-examiners-investigate-death-of-u-s-doctor-who-got-covid-19-vaccine-1.5256887
> 2 older people died after receiving mRNA vaccine:
> https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-two-dead-in-norway-received-pfizer-s-coronavirus-vaccine-recently-2866294
>
> Reuters had a look:
> https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-concerns/fact-check-clarifying-claims-around-pfizer-vaccine-deaths-and-side-effects-idUSKBN28K2R6
>
> So, what is it? Given the small number of people in the Pfizer test and
> the outrageous conclusions Pfizer makes that it is 'safe'
Gosh, you do spout some rubbish.
The stuff you cite shows clearly that being vaccinated is far safer than
not being vaccinated. By a very long way.
Being vaccinated against something doesn't magically prevent recipients
from dying of all causes. Some people will die soon after vaccination,
but it is extremely rare for the vaccination to cause death, or indeed
any serious negative effect.
> Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested over
> generations
We can only speculate about how many lives were saved by Jenner's
smallpox vaccine, the first vaccine ever, which had minimal testing.
Like I said, I'll be there for my vaccination as soon as they call me.
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rthr42$giv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25749 |
On 11/01/2021 14:58, David Higton wrote: > Gosh, you do spout some rubbish. > Indeed! > The stuff you cite shows clearly that being vaccinated is far safer than > not being vaccinated. By a very long way. > But the snoflake worldview today is that everything must be '100% safe' or they whine and scream. > Being vaccinated against something doesn't magically prevent recipients > from dying of all causes. Some people will die soon after vaccination, > but it is extremely rare for the vaccination to cause death, or indeed > any serious negative effect. > >> Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested over >> generations > We can only speculate about how many lives were saved by Jenner's > smallpox vaccine, the first vaccine ever, which had minimal testing. > > Like I said, I'll be there for my vaccination as soon as they call me. > Well I am in splendid isolation here, so I'll let others take their turn. > David -- "Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, community, compassion, investment, security, housing...." "What kind of person is not interested in those things?" "Jeremy Corbyn?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtin5s$cv1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25722 |
On 10/01/2021 22:08, David Higton wrote: > In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me> > Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote: >>> In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me> >>> Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any >>>> testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a >>>> vaccine. >>> >>> Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk from >>> taking the vaccine is even lower. >>> >> >> Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is < 0.01%. >> For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on testing >> 20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of risk. >> >> Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up. >> Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages. > > Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was > approved for general use. No half of them were a control group, i.e. not given the vaccine. Hence my 20,000 approximation. [snip] > So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all > the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the > vaccine is much less that 0.01%. > The AstraZeneca vaccine has been out for a week. Even with the Pfizer one I would not expect problems to be reported promptly. Finally you are still ignoring the time aspect, we do not know long term effects. You cannot just wave your hands in the air and say it is safe. >>> In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint. >> >> I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly >> healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in >> order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me. > > You've just stated something that is not true. The vaccines (not a > treatment, incidentally) have been tested just as well and as > thoroughly as all previous vaccines. Don't let the short timescale > fool you. This is not the case, the AstraZeneca vaccine testing was problematic in that they messed up a lot of dosages. With a normal test they would almost certainly have redone the messed up tests. And finally you are again ignoring the fact that problems may not manifest immediately and so a short time span is clearly less than ideal. It is true that problems with vaccines tend to show up early, but we haven't developed enough vaccines to extrapolate this with confidence levels of risk < 0.01%. So yes if you are old, with a clearly high risk from Covid and limited years left anyway, taking the vaccine is a good bet. What is not a good bet is immediately giving it to billions of people under 30. Which would be necessary to achieve herd immunity, assuming the vaccine does significantly prevent transmission, which we aren't sure of. [snip] > That's what has been done in the case of these vaccines > - plus a great deal of pressure, in view of the 7-figure mortality. > You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view. However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtio4s$2je$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25762 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote: > You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving > the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best > way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been > rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view. > Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas. > However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this > vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over > decades. > Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last off a sinking ship' principle? What do YOU think they should do? -- -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtiou0$np5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25763 |
On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote: > >> You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving >> the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best >> way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been >> rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view. >> > Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will > be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not > holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let > alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then > 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas. > Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer), one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to be sure). >> However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this >> vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over >> decades. >> > Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to > show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last > off a sinking ship' principle? > > What do YOU think they should do? > Get vaccinated first, like Her Maj (for UK readers + colonials)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 01:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtiv4m$m9g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25764 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:02:07 +0000, Pancho wrote: > On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote: >> >>> You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving >>> the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best >>> way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been >>> rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view. >>> >> Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s >> will be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not >> holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let >> alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather >> then 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas. >> >> > Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer), > one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to > be sure). > >>> However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this >>> vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over >>> decades. >>> >> Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first >> (to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is >> always last off a sinking ship' principle? >> >> What do YOU think they should do? >> >> > Get vaccinated first, like Her Maj (for UK readers + colonials) Hmmm. I'd leave the Cabinet until last along with those in NHS central office because that might concentrate their tiny minds on doing a better job than they have so far. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they've all secretly crept onto the front of the queue because that would fit nicely with the way that both Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson have seen fit to interpret the COVID-related movement restrictions. -- -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i669lcFe12eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25764 |
On 12 Jan 2021 at 00:02:07 GMT, Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote: > On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote: >> >>> You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving >>> the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best >>> way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been >>> rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view. >>> >> Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will >> be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not >> holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let >> alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then >> 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas. >> > > Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer), > one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to > be sure). Seems my brother (aged 84) has had both jabs. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtjk02$14kj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25763 |
On a sunny day (Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:48:44 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote in <rtio4s$2je$5@dont-email.me>: >On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote: > >> You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving >> the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best >> way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been >> rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view. >> >Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will >be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not >holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let >alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then >3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas. > >> However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this >> vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over >> decades. >> >Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to >show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last >off a sinking ship' principle? > >What do YOU think they should do? gunpowder treason and plot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web