COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[anticausal]

Yes, but my employer (and likely other aerospace firms) is only pushing the mandate because of Biden. There is no apparent internal motivation. HR says as much in their email distributions.

I just read the reaffirmation of the stay from Friday, and it makes me wonder, are these companies dead stupid, or were they part of the confidence racket? They absolutely disemboweled the OSHA workaround, then beat it with a stick for good measure. If these corporations have any good lawyers at all, they would have to have realized this was likely. The muted motivation (we seem to have similar, or maybe even the same employer) seems like plausible deniability for when the whole thing blows up. In the meantime, they had to "do the favor" to keep cozy with the deep state and keep their first-dibs status on freshly printed money. I would argue that making the conscious decision to engage in the con is more contemptible than honestly and enthusiastically being on board with the whole thing. I hope Denninger is right and they pay dearly for their choice.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yep, Perfectly, Crystal clear.

That's a problem, wal, because it's complete bullshit.

There have been a few interesting changes, like releasing pre-existing condition data for the very few fatalities (32) we have had with Covid, and explicit confirmation that the statistic reported is death with, not necessarily from, covid. A few cases actually had family members lobby for the death to attributed to covid.

Why would anybody with the ability to count do anything at all -- especially if it damaged the economy and delayed the diagnosis of other disease -- about a disease that killed 0.00064% of the population? How many people died in car wrecks over the same time? Are cars still legal in NZ? Why?

You have expertly answered a different question to the one I asked. I have not actually defended a position, I'm simply asking you to clarify your position.

Because you keep bringing the low IFR into the discussion, I just want to be clear on what your position actually is. I understand that some of the actions the government has taken you consider would never be justifiable e.g. your position that vaccination and ivermectin/other treatments have been based on lies and self interest.

I just want to understand which of the interventions you think might be appropriate for an outbreak with a 'high enough' IFR - i.e. would lockdowns for the healthy ever be justifiable to attempt to limit potential spread of a really deadly disease, or would this always be a matter of personal responsibility?

I have said that quarantines are for the sick, not the healthy. "Lockdowns" are for prison populations. Do you not understand why?

[Buddy Rich]

That was a hot shit closing by Richards. He knows exactly where the limits are, showed up with his facts organized, and is just driving every nail all the way in.

If you hear anyone shitting themselves about the outcome, ask them to simply take some time to put the closing arguments on in the background.

[Barry Charles]

You have expertly answered a different question to the one I asked. I have not actually defended a position, I'm simply asking you to clarify your position.

Because you keep bringing the low IFR into the discussion, I just want to be clear on what your position actually is. I understand that some of the actions the government has taken you consider would never be justifiable e.g. your position that vaccination and ivermectin/other treatments have been based on lies and self interest.

I just want to understand which of the interventions you think might be appropriate for an outbreak with a 'high enough' IFR - i.e. would lockdowns for the healthy ever be justifiable to attempt to limit potential spread of a really deadly disease, or would this always be a matter of personal responsibility?

I can only express my opinion.

1) you protect the vulnerable.

2) provide resources to highest risk areas with prejudice.

2) continuously asses the situation.

3) adjust the guidelines and response as information increases.

4) get (or keep) people functioning normal asap as the governing principle.

5) review and learn.

It should look similar to a hurricane event. For example, don’t close schools in Denver for a storm vectored at Miami, because you are not sure how fast the wind will blow.

[VNV]

I just read the reaffirmation of the stay from Friday, and it makes me wonder, are these companies dead stupid, or were they part of the confidence racket? They absolutely disemboweled the OSHA workaround, then beat it with a stick for good measure. If these corporations have any good lawyers at all, they would have to have realized this was likely. The muted motivation (we seem to have similar, or maybe even the same employer) seems like plausible deniability for when the whole thing blows up. In the meantime, they had to "do the favor" to keep cozy with the deep state and keep their first-dibs status on freshly printed money. I would argue that making the conscious decision to engage in the con is more contemptible than honestly and enthusiastically being on board with the whole thing. I hope Denninger is right and they pay dearly for their choice.

Just had a nice conversation with HR from high up the chain. We are a federal contractor, so the OSHA rule doesn’t apply to us. Instead, the mandate is being levered through the Safer Federal Workforce Taskforce Guidance (sic?). There are two executive orders. There are (at least) two executive orders: one for federal contractors, the other for private businesses. Of course The Guidance basis is completely undermined by two facts:

1. Masks are ineffective
2. Vaccines do not prevent infection and spread

I informed HR of this and told them to bring it to the brass.

Thumbing this out, perhaps more detail later.

[Mark Le Comte]

Why would anybody with the ability to count do anything at all -- especially if it damaged the economy and delayed the diagnosis of other disease -- about a disease that killed 0.00064% of the population? How many people died in car wrecks over the same time? Are cars still legal in NZ? Why?

The theoretical argument is about the completely unobservable number of deaths avoided by having the restrictions, not just the number of deaths with the restrictions. From a simplified consequentialist benefit/cost ratio view the discussion is about (deaths without interventions - deaths with interventions)/(cost of interventions) not (deaths with interventions)/(cost of interventions). Of course this cannot be calculated and relies on statistics/models to estimate deaths without interventions and the errors that have been discussed very early in this thread. The interesting thing for me here is that it appears NZ is moving away from emphasising/exaggerating the number of deaths.

I have said that quarantines are for the sick, not the healthy. "Lockdowns" are for prison populations. Do you not understand why?

Yes I understand why, appealing to rights to freedom of movement etc. Putting this on a deontological basis is, IMO, a far more clear position that basing on the number of deaths. So no lockdowns for the healthy under any circumstances, presumably no forced evacuations from imminent flood/fires either. That is all clear and understandable.

[Mark Rippetoe]

That was a hot shit closing by Richards. He knows exactly where the limits are, showed up with his facts organized, and is just driving every nail all the way in.

If you hear anyone shitting themselves about the outcome, ask them to simply take some time to put the closing arguments on in the background.

Link?

Yes I understand why, appealing to rights to freedom of movement etc. Putting this on a deontological basis is, IMO, a far more clear position that basing on the number of deaths. So no lockdowns for the healthy under any circumstances, presumably no forced evacuations from imminent flood/fires either. That is all clear and understandable.

No lockdowns for the healthy because they do not work. They do not stop the spread of a virus that will become endemic anyway, and the social and economic costs outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude because the IFR is so low.

[Kitsuma]

New Zealand has reduced the intensity of its lockdowns and cases have increased.

What test is used in NZ for counting "cases"? From Dept of Biology, University of Otago

In New Zealand, we currently use a ‘PCR’ test to find out if someone is infected with the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease called Covid-19.
:
:
:
PCR is also one of the most important techniques that we use in our research at the Otago Department of Biochemistry.

What cycle threshold is used in NZ for PCR tests? From what appears to be like our FOIA response: NZ Ministry of Health

The PCR reaction will continue to run for its full 40 cycles to allow for exponential amplification
of the RNA targets using repeated thermal cycling to allow for enough amplified DNA product to
be detected by the instrument.

If NZ is still using PCR tests AND cranking up the Cycle Threshold to 40, I question NZ's commitment to accurate data. Cycle threshold fuckery has been used here in the US to manipulate case counts up and down. The test has been completely pulled from our US market starting next month. I've learned to assume most people who have really strong opinions have no idea what the PCR test is and why the CT is important. Is this something you pay attention to when drawing conclusions?

Re your interest in understanding how Rip's brain works: One document that helped me understand Rip and Steph's philosophy is The Aasgaard Company's Who We Are page.

[anticausal]

Just had a nice conversation with HR from high up the chain. We are a federal contractor, so the OSHA rule doesn’t apply to us. Instead, the mandate is being levered through the Safer Federal Workforce Taskforce Guidance (sic?). There are two executive orders. There are (at least) two executive orders: one for federal contractors, the other for private businesses. Of course The Guidance basis is completely undermined by two facts:

1. Masks are ineffective
2. Vaccines do not prevent infection and spread

I informed HR of this and told them to bring it to the brass.

Thumbing this out, perhaps more detail later.

I did not know that, but if the OSHA mandate fails, I think everything else will probably follow. At the very least, it will result in an exodus of high talent from federal contractors into private companies, especially if they mandate follow up boosters. They'll just bleed more and more after each new booster. This whole debacle has been about coercing universal vaccination and not at all about vaccination as an employee safety concern. Since it's essentially confidence racket, it relies heavily on that universal vision. So if they fail at the macro level, I suspect the other mandates will be delayed until they just peter out and die.

[cmdrfunk]

Link?

Today's livestream is here.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Monday LIVE - CLOSING ARGUMENTS - YouTube

You can go back earlier today if you want