In my last post I started on an assessment of what happened during the era of COCK (Crazily Overexaggerated Covid Kookiness). I am beginning to realise this may have been unwise, as there’s so much astonishing cockishness to cover. This was originally meant to be a kind of covid 4-year anniversary (single) post, but I might still be writing this series this time next year. I’d best brush up on my Roman numerals because I’ve forgotten how to write 4,327 using them.
You have a knack for ranting without going overboard into Hectoring. That's a compliment.
I was (via Die Fackel) looking at gonorrhea-numbers from Norway. They've jumped like a dolphin from 2022 to 2024. Why? Main reason is, STDs erupt in cycles when several high risk groups all at once spreads it around - swingers, BDSM-clubs, homosexuals, Pride-events and prostitution, all of it create a rather even background level of STDs, and once in a while, factors conspire to ensure several groups suffers outbreaks above the norm all at once. Other times, the same factors fail to kick in even to the average level, giving the impression of a drop.
Here's the funny bit: if you're a politician, a capitalist or a clerk in an organisation under the control of either or both, it's in your rational interest to utilise this according to the will of your bosses. And that's why you get alarums about disease or condition X rising rapidly, or measure Y being so very effective condition or disease Z drops rapidly.
The alternative is of course to try and use data to get a comprehensive picture of reality, but where's the profit in that when you can use models to create reality to your benefit?
It really is that easy: ever since the 1980s, rational self-interest (also called rational choice theory) has been the underlying guiding theory in the West, and the ontological measuring rod for ethics re: politics and capital.
Every little functionaire acts in their immediate self-interest before all other concerns. According to the theory, this yields the best results.
Reality speaks for itself as to why this theory is worth less than barnacle-droppings.
Thanks for re-familiarizing me with the mathematics behind false positives. I forgot about that, I was thinking of uncertainty also related to what actually was being tested and how fast they were spinning the test (I forget the official word for that). Brian Mowry implied that pcr's effectively tested for something, I don't know if you read it but here's the link, I'd love to know what you think.
"How did the hysteria get such a hold of so many of us?"
Good effen question. Hard to imagine -- so to speak -- a better answer, at least a synopsis of one, than a quip provided by Charles Mackay, author of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds":
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
You have a knack for ranting without going overboard into Hectoring. That's a compliment.
I was (via Die Fackel) looking at gonorrhea-numbers from Norway. They've jumped like a dolphin from 2022 to 2024. Why? Main reason is, STDs erupt in cycles when several high risk groups all at once spreads it around - swingers, BDSM-clubs, homosexuals, Pride-events and prostitution, all of it create a rather even background level of STDs, and once in a while, factors conspire to ensure several groups suffers outbreaks above the norm all at once. Other times, the same factors fail to kick in even to the average level, giving the impression of a drop.
Here's the funny bit: if you're a politician, a capitalist or a clerk in an organisation under the control of either or both, it's in your rational interest to utilise this according to the will of your bosses. And that's why you get alarums about disease or condition X rising rapidly, or measure Y being so very effective condition or disease Z drops rapidly.
The alternative is of course to try and use data to get a comprehensive picture of reality, but where's the profit in that when you can use models to create reality to your benefit?
It really is that easy: ever since the 1980s, rational self-interest (also called rational choice theory) has been the underlying guiding theory in the West, and the ontological measuring rod for ethics re: politics and capital.
Every little functionaire acts in their immediate self-interest before all other concerns. According to the theory, this yields the best results.
Reality speaks for itself as to why this theory is worth less than barnacle-droppings.
Thanks for re-familiarizing me with the mathematics behind false positives. I forgot about that, I was thinking of uncertainty also related to what actually was being tested and how fast they were spinning the test (I forget the official word for that). Brian Mowry implied that pcr's effectively tested for something, I don't know if you read it but here's the link, I'd love to know what you think.
https://unglossed.substack.com/p/statements-on-severe-efficacy
I think Alice and Bob worked better to make your point than the overly long gun scenario.
"How did the hysteria get such a hold of so many of us?"
Good effen question. Hard to imagine -- so to speak -- a better answer, at least a synopsis of one, than a quip provided by Charles Mackay, author of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds":
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/289693-men-it-has-been-well-said-think-in-herds-it