Oh Dear Mr. Rigger, I am totally traumitized now...math before coffee in the early am. Seriously, I have a headache. Where is the Tylenol? But I do get what you are saying...we know masks don't work against a respitory aerosolized infection. Open windows help. But here is what I would love you to do. Go look at the recent UK, Israel, Gibralta, and US data. Not only do the shots not work, but indeed, if you look at the data, they have succeeded in tamping down mild symtoms, just like they were designed to. So now we do have asymptomatic drivers...all the vaxxed walking around without symptoms, happily giving it to others. Hence, the data shows increasing transmission among the more vaxxed countries...
Since you obviously can do maths and I cannot without serious migraines, please take a look at the vaxxed as asymptomatic super spreaders theory...I would love to know what you think. (no ALGEBRA PLEASE!)
Well you have a very good brain - much better than mine in more than maths. But I agree, there is a "positive" correlation between increased cases and vax rates...at the very least, it is obvious that we have more cases and more deaths and more hospitalizations this year than last year before the vax rollout. We have much less "dry tinder" , and many more recovered and therefore immune. So what is screaming in my pea brain, is that SOMETHING is not right..either we have created vaxxed superspreaders who might be able to get infected again and again because of ADE, or possibily the Vax works opposite and "attracts" covid....or we have pathogenic priming. Whatever it is, I agree it is VERY concerning, but I don't see our scientists or public health authorities doing anything about it. And I think it is URGENT we do before we continue to vax people...
As a mathematician, I don't see mathematics as rule-based in the sense of "restricting". Instead, the "rules" are what makes mathematics so beautiful and powerful. Yes, the definition of a group comes with axioms, and it is not discriminatory that each element is only allowed to have exactly one inverse. But the axioms open up incredible spaces. You (I mean, not "you", but hundreds of mathematicians after tens of years) end up with 26 sporadic simple groups, the largest of them (the "monster") having incredible connections to other parts of mathematics.
One of my professors once explained his theory that non-mathematicians (when mathematics is forced on them, eg, in school) often seem to have this idea of mathematics as an incredibly large tree of only mildly connected rules. They always try to find a suitable place for new rules but they are not able to step back and see the beauty of the tree.
I realize I probably gave the wrong impression about maths - so thanks for pointing this important correction out.
Totally agree with you. I was writing from the perspective of (too many of) my students who really just wanted a "recipe" for solving exam problems.
I tried my best to show the links everywhere. If I was doing maths lectures, I would bring in some physics to give a different perspective. If I was doing physics lectures, I would bring in some related maths stuff. It was a really uphill struggle to get them to appreciate the deep connections in knowledge. Most of them just saw things as a set of "boxes" to learn.
Introduce vectors in Physics I - talk about how this relates to the vector spaces they saw in Linear Algebra. Fourier series lectures, you can talk about vector spaces, bases, and superposition of vectors again. And so on.
All the time I tried to keep bringing in related stuff from other lecture courses they'd taken. Managed to only get a few light bulbs turned on, sadly.
The image of "recipe" is even better than that of "rule" because "recipe" implies the idea of resolution. Beginners in bakistry will need "125g of butter, 100g sugar, 2 eggs, mix each egg for two minutes, then 375g flour, mix carefully" type of recipes. Advanced bakers know their cake, and how to twist the recipe to create something exciting, and what to serve the result with.
Well I'm afraid you lost me again at the first mention of integration etc (O level maths grade E 2nd/3rd attempt 50 yrs ago is clearly not enough for these explanations), but I fully concur with the conclusions.
yeah - maths sure ain't for everyone. I spent hours trying to figure out ways to get some of my students past the basics - their brains just weren't wired in the same way mine was. They weren't stupid (far from it) - just a different wiring going on
I *may* have other, pseudo-substantive comments later, but for now, I only ask this. Where the hell can I get one of those wearable seats? Given that I live in NY State and High Priestess Hochul is likely to impose another banal, randomly-chosen, sciency-sounding, assholishly-recommended-by-CDC, mandate at any point, I need to be ready!
Yep, it is all so exasperating. Most people do not have access to reliable information and if they do, don't have the time to parse it, or have had their curiosity so blunted by the unrelenting propaganda that they won't even attempt to expose themselves to anything that might challenge their spoon-fed assumptions. The result is that they mindlessly embrace, follow, and even actively assist in policing all of the idiotic mandates that are in fact threatening their very lives.
And yes, there is then the question of even having access to reliable publicly available data from which to be able to make any independent assessments assuming that one had the wherewithal to make such assessments.
To my mind -- for anyone who might be interested -- Fenton et al. avail us all of a very solid method analysis that undercuts all claims of efficacy by the pandemicists in favor of any intervention thus far undertaken, and especially for the mRNA injectables -- see this excellent conversation between Norman Fenton and Del Bigtree, which runs for about 40 minutes, and that begins at the one hour mark: https://thehighwire.com/watch/
One of the puzzling things to me regarding those stupid, outrageous, mad rules applied into any schooling institution, from masking, closing, shutupping, forcing is how do our children and their teachers react in the middle of their Biology 101, Probability & Statistics 101, Human Rights and Moral Duties, and so many subjects where they would clearly see a disconnect between whatever it is their text books or lectures state and the very hell they are put to live in.
Maybe we all were told to apply the rules without questioning just to get our grades, thus rendering our whole schooling system useful only for social gathering and bonds forming, and being all the "Knowledge" some form of nice garbage.
"The biggest assumption of all has been that asymptomatic transmission is a significant driver of infection. Let’s label this assumption with the symbol AT."
I very much agree with your approach here, but I think there may be an even more basic assumption about transmission. We cannot, of course, observe transmission in the wild, and attempting deliberately to infect someone is probably not acceptable. Attempts to do just this with influenza proved surprisingly difficult. This leaves a gap - we can test for the presence of the virus in person A and in person B and, should both test positive, we might infer that one 'gave it' to the other. But we never know for sure.
The assumption of direct transmission from a symptomatic sufferer to a susceptible person, soon producing symptoms in the latter, that the chain of transmission may be sustained, probably doesn't stand up to the kind of scrutiny you provide here, either.
Oh Dear Mr. Rigger, I am totally traumitized now...math before coffee in the early am. Seriously, I have a headache. Where is the Tylenol? But I do get what you are saying...we know masks don't work against a respitory aerosolized infection. Open windows help. But here is what I would love you to do. Go look at the recent UK, Israel, Gibralta, and US data. Not only do the shots not work, but indeed, if you look at the data, they have succeeded in tamping down mild symtoms, just like they were designed to. So now we do have asymptomatic drivers...all the vaxxed walking around without symptoms, happily giving it to others. Hence, the data shows increasing transmission among the more vaxxed countries...
Since you obviously can do maths and I cannot without serious migraines, please take a look at the vaxxed as asymptomatic super spreaders theory...I would love to know what you think. (no ALGEBRA PLEASE!)
Good suggestion. However, I tend not to be great with data analysis - too many numbers. I love the squiggles best.
There has been some work done on the *positive* correlation observed between increased cases and vax rates - it's fascinating and very concerning.
I really wanted these vaccines to work - to do a decent job and to be safe. But it's looking like anything but that at the moment
Well you have a very good brain - much better than mine in more than maths. But I agree, there is a "positive" correlation between increased cases and vax rates...at the very least, it is obvious that we have more cases and more deaths and more hospitalizations this year than last year before the vax rollout. We have much less "dry tinder" , and many more recovered and therefore immune. So what is screaming in my pea brain, is that SOMETHING is not right..either we have created vaxxed superspreaders who might be able to get infected again and again because of ADE, or possibily the Vax works opposite and "attracts" covid....or we have pathogenic priming. Whatever it is, I agree it is VERY concerning, but I don't see our scientists or public health authorities doing anything about it. And I think it is URGENT we do before we continue to vax people...
As a mathematician, I don't see mathematics as rule-based in the sense of "restricting". Instead, the "rules" are what makes mathematics so beautiful and powerful. Yes, the definition of a group comes with axioms, and it is not discriminatory that each element is only allowed to have exactly one inverse. But the axioms open up incredible spaces. You (I mean, not "you", but hundreds of mathematicians after tens of years) end up with 26 sporadic simple groups, the largest of them (the "monster") having incredible connections to other parts of mathematics.
One of my professors once explained his theory that non-mathematicians (when mathematics is forced on them, eg, in school) often seem to have this idea of mathematics as an incredibly large tree of only mildly connected rules. They always try to find a suitable place for new rules but they are not able to step back and see the beauty of the tree.
Sorry cm
I realize I probably gave the wrong impression about maths - so thanks for pointing this important correction out.
Totally agree with you. I was writing from the perspective of (too many of) my students who really just wanted a "recipe" for solving exam problems.
I tried my best to show the links everywhere. If I was doing maths lectures, I would bring in some physics to give a different perspective. If I was doing physics lectures, I would bring in some related maths stuff. It was a really uphill struggle to get them to appreciate the deep connections in knowledge. Most of them just saw things as a set of "boxes" to learn.
Introduce vectors in Physics I - talk about how this relates to the vector spaces they saw in Linear Algebra. Fourier series lectures, you can talk about vector spaces, bases, and superposition of vectors again. And so on.
All the time I tried to keep bringing in related stuff from other lecture courses they'd taken. Managed to only get a few light bulbs turned on, sadly.
No worries!
The image of "recipe" is even better than that of "rule" because "recipe" implies the idea of resolution. Beginners in bakistry will need "125g of butter, 100g sugar, 2 eggs, mix each egg for two minutes, then 375g flour, mix carefully" type of recipes. Advanced bakers know their cake, and how to twist the recipe to create something exciting, and what to serve the result with.
Well I'm afraid you lost me again at the first mention of integration etc (O level maths grade E 2nd/3rd attempt 50 yrs ago is clearly not enough for these explanations), but I fully concur with the conclusions.
yeah - maths sure ain't for everyone. I spent hours trying to figure out ways to get some of my students past the basics - their brains just weren't wired in the same way mine was. They weren't stupid (far from it) - just a different wiring going on
Mine too but I am very grateful that some people do get numbers, maybe why I had to marry an accountant, lol!
I *may* have other, pseudo-substantive comments later, but for now, I only ask this. Where the hell can I get one of those wearable seats? Given that I live in NY State and High Priestess Hochul is likely to impose another banal, randomly-chosen, sciency-sounding, assholishly-recommended-by-CDC, mandate at any point, I need to be ready!
Yep, it is all so exasperating. Most people do not have access to reliable information and if they do, don't have the time to parse it, or have had their curiosity so blunted by the unrelenting propaganda that they won't even attempt to expose themselves to anything that might challenge their spoon-fed assumptions. The result is that they mindlessly embrace, follow, and even actively assist in policing all of the idiotic mandates that are in fact threatening their very lives.
And yes, there is then the question of even having access to reliable publicly available data from which to be able to make any independent assessments assuming that one had the wherewithal to make such assessments.
To my mind -- for anyone who might be interested -- Fenton et al. avail us all of a very solid method analysis that undercuts all claims of efficacy by the pandemicists in favor of any intervention thus far undertaken, and especially for the mRNA injectables -- see this excellent conversation between Norman Fenton and Del Bigtree, which runs for about 40 minutes, and that begins at the one hour mark: https://thehighwire.com/watch/
Aye!
One of the puzzling things to me regarding those stupid, outrageous, mad rules applied into any schooling institution, from masking, closing, shutupping, forcing is how do our children and their teachers react in the middle of their Biology 101, Probability & Statistics 101, Human Rights and Moral Duties, and so many subjects where they would clearly see a disconnect between whatever it is their text books or lectures state and the very hell they are put to live in.
Maybe we all were told to apply the rules without questioning just to get our grades, thus rendering our whole schooling system useful only for social gathering and bonds forming, and being all the "Knowledge" some form of nice garbage.
"The biggest assumption of all has been that asymptomatic transmission is a significant driver of infection. Let’s label this assumption with the symbol AT."
I very much agree with your approach here, but I think there may be an even more basic assumption about transmission. We cannot, of course, observe transmission in the wild, and attempting deliberately to infect someone is probably not acceptable. Attempts to do just this with influenza proved surprisingly difficult. This leaves a gap - we can test for the presence of the virus in person A and in person B and, should both test positive, we might infer that one 'gave it' to the other. But we never know for sure.
The assumption of direct transmission from a symptomatic sufferer to a susceptible person, soon producing symptoms in the latter, that the chain of transmission may be sustained, probably doesn't stand up to the kind of scrutiny you provide here, either.