Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73
  1. #41

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    Agreed !!! Which is why I say, there are three things in statistics :

    1. Raw data. This is actual measurement or observation. There are tables, with rows and columns, and observed data is present. This is what I call evidence. Of course it can be tampered or manufactured with, but more on this in a moment.

    2. Algorithms. This is anything you can do on that data, you can sum them, average them, calculate mean and variance and all that jazz.

    3. Output from those algorithms. This is where the problem starts. The "studies" will say they have observed X% of people do Y. Well, any such deduction must've been achieved by applying some algorithm on raw data or output from algorithm, eventually being applied to raw data. What I ask to any person, who wants me to do something I dont want to at first, is to not bother me with outputs. Just point me to raw data and the algorithms.

    I have said this at other places in the forum to (please) spare me the sermon, and just give me numbers, equations, formulas and procedures.

    About tampering with raw data, you being experienced with data analysis, you must be knowing how hard it is to tamper with raw data and NOT get detected. You never know which algorithm a person will apply on your data, you never know which other data your data will be compared against in future, and that new data may come from you !! Its incredibly hard to avoid detection against someone who knows what he is doing.

    And this is why most of the first evidence is hidden. Of course this is not the only reason. Most people dont know what to do with raw data, they dont have experience with tools which can be used to analyze large volumes of data, and/or they are just lazy and dont care. They just want summaries and conclusions.
    I agree with what you've said. Funny stuff happens between the raw data and what you end up reading as "results" of the studies. You call that in-between part the "algorithm." I would call it statistical procedures. Whatever you call them, there is nothing wrong with them in principle (although some are poorly chosen or misrepresented). We need statistical procedures to make sense of raw data. Raw data by itself is meaningless.

    I would add, though, there is another step in the process -- arguably more important than the others, which you didn't mention. It's a pivotal part of the process, and it is the source of most of the problems. You guessed it -- human beings. Statistics don't interpret themselves. Someone has to interpret what they mean, what they say. Someone has to put them context, give them significance, put them into words and describe what the results are "saying."

    And that's really the tricky part. That is where you'll find most of the bullshit. Sometimes, mistakes get made by the researchers themselves. Sometimes, the mistakes get made by a press corp who want to report an "exciting" story, so they make it sound like something it's not. Sometimes (often, I'd say), the mistakes are made by third parties interpreting what the results mean.

    I could talk for a long while about all the ways statistics get misinterpreted, miscommunicated, and misunderstood. But I don't want to rattle on too long. I need to take my dog for a walk. Cheers.

  2. #42
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    987
    Reputation
    1746
    Type
    Propertarian

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    You guessed it -- human beings. Statistics don't interpret themselves. Someone has to interpret what they mean, what they say. Someone has to put them context, give them significance, put them into words and describe what the results are "saying."
    You can entirely ignore human factor, if you are willing (and can afford) to give time and energy to do that work yourself. If you dont know how to do it, then there are resources all over the internet to help with it. This is why I made the last post about overfitting vs underfitting. Both comes from the desire of humans to save costs. Proper fitting is HARD work, it requires that you put up huge upfront cost of researching lots of data, including data from history to detect patterns, and then test it. And not just that, but also find and learn from people who do this.

    I can take your own situation for example. You said earlier that you just want to know if getting a jab is right or wrong. Unless I understood something wrong, I can guess you meant to say that you'd like to minimize the time spent on this task. And this is what I actually targetted in my first post when I said that its not possible. If you only try to rely on trusting, for the problem you are seeing, what is happening right now, you will end up focusing too much on a very very small set of evidence, and you will end up, inevitably, in anti-conspiracy theory camp, or the over-fitting camp. Because thats exactly what overfitting is, you get an extremely accurate theory (curve) for the observations, but just look how the curve behaves overall. One minor change, one new evidence, and you will get extremely off the rails. Which means this "believe what you see" and "take everything on its face value as much as possible" approach is not very usable for prediction.

    Yes, on the other hand, there can be religious people and conspiracy theorists who will imagine lots of things in the fantasy. It can range from some grand plan of illuminati to some grand plan of cosmic dieties. And then chalk up some overly simplistic theory/curve. But they are still BETTER positioned than overfitters, because they dont get wibbly wobbly unstable with minor changes. Even the statistics, machine learning and related fields can confirm this, look at the MSE (mean square error) values depicted for underfitters vs overfitters. Overfitters got it completely messed up.

    And this is why I ignore the "human". I am willing to pay the right now cost, in order to get advantage over the long term. I will go to great lengths to avoid both sides of the trap. Long term gains over short term comfort, always. If you are old, then I can somewhat get it, but I am not old. I have time, I have energy to do so, I dont need other humans to interpret anything for me. This is what I criticized in my first post on this thread. "Scripture Interpretation". I want no part in that, neither as a priest, nor as a follower. I have (and everyone else have too), amazing machines at their disposal, to do all the interpretations, and its not even hard once you go through the initial cost of education.
    Last edited by rkspsm; August 31, 2021 at 11:07 AM. Reason: minor wording
    Greedy algorithms always get stuck in a local extrema...

    If you cannot determine global extrema... or if the graph (or space) is infinite, genetic algorithms give better results.

    The function space or hypothesis space is not only infinite, but in most cases, have infinite dimensions.

  3. #43

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    You can entirely ignore human factor, if you are willing (and can afford) to give time and energy to do that work yourself.
    But that's not "ignoring the human factor." Who is "taking over the work" in that scenario? You. And unless I miss my guess, you are a human being.

    ... And this is why I ignore the "human". I am willing to pay the right now cost, in order to get advantage over the long term. I will go to great lengths to avoid both sides of the trap. Long term gains over short term comfort, always. If you are old, then I can somewhat get it, but I am not old. I have time, I have energy to do so, I dont need other humans to interpret anything for me. This is what I criticized in my first post on this thread. "Scripture Interpretation". I want no part in that, neither as a priest, nor as a follower. I have (and everyone else have too), amazing machines at their disposal, to do all the interpretations, and its not even hard once you go through the initial cost of education.
    Well, I disagree that you're "ignoring the human." You're just substituting yourself (a human, with blind spots and misunderstandings, like everyone else) for researchers, journalists, or other third parties. You haven't "ignored the human factor." You ARE the human factor. And where do you think your own interpretive lenses come from? From other humans who've taught you how to "see." You aren't naive enough to think you are somehow able to see the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I hope.

    In some way, you're more prone to error if you are trying to do it all yourself. One of the strengths of a scientific community is constructive criticism from others, challenging of your point of view, competing with others who have rival hypotheses, and an open dialog among people who are all looking at the same "facts" from different perspectives.

    It also seems like that would be an extremely time-consuming, laborious way of living life -- not trusting scientific results about anything, but instead researching every issue by yourself, from scratch. There are far too many questions in life for that to be a practical approach.

    If you are old, then I can somewhat get it, but I am not old. I have time, I have energy to do so, I dont need other humans to interpret anything for me.
    It's not about age. It's about what do I want to spend my life doing? Do I want to enjoy it, doing things that are valuable to me, which bring me happiness, peace, and satisfaction? Or do I want to spend it analyzing research data from scratch on every little question that arises? Ain't nobody got time for that.

    I'm more than happy to dig in when it comes to big questions -- I'm a very analytical guy and can get quite obsessed with certain subjects, when they capture my imagination (when they are "big" questions that really impact my life/perspective in major ways) -- but covid vaccine does not fall in that camp (questions that would fall in that range would be, for example, does God exist, is there an afterlife, what is a good life, what is a healthy diet, what is the right attitude toward women or romantic-sexual relationships, etc.).

    So that's why I'm defaulting to what others (who've spent time examining the area more closely) say. Not age -- I've always been this way -- just a reflection of how I want to spend my time.

    Even when I'm digging into the big questions, I'm never ever doing the interpretive work by myself. I'm always doing it within a community of people who are also digging, skeptical, rational, open-minded, informed. I wouldn't trust just myself to get to the bottom of big questions. We have a whole intellectual nexus of people examining these issues from multiple angles. No sense in ignoring all that. I'm not Descartes.

    Ultimately, of course, I rely on my own judgement to make the call about my beliefs on the matter. But that is different than trying to figure it out all by myself (or assuming I can).
    Last edited by Eddie Haskell; August 31, 2021 at 11:48 AM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    987
    Reputation
    1746
    Type
    Propertarian

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    But that's not "ignoring the human factor." Who is "taking over the work" in that scenario? You. And unless I miss my guess, you are a human being.
    No, the machine is taking over the work. Me and any other humans who I collaborate/debate with, are merely to check that I selected correct algorithms, or didnt skip any evidence/input, not different from checking a math proof. Outside that, neither my opinion, nor theirs, matter. Because the machine wont understand it.

    The human factor of "me" being human will come if I decide how to use that output, whether to avoid the short term cost (seek comfort, take shortcuts), or the long term cost (accept the bitterness, even if it costs me money, status, mental peace, etc).
    Greedy algorithms always get stuck in a local extrema...

    If you cannot determine global extrema... or if the graph (or space) is infinite, genetic algorithms give better results.

    The function space or hypothesis space is not only infinite, but in most cases, have infinite dimensions.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,010
    Reputation
    5931
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Yet another variant detected in South Africa? Looks that way, but it's TBD, waiting for peer review.

    I first got wind of this from the Jerusalem Post:
    https://www.jpost.com/health-science...-so-far-678011 (funky formatting, see archive below).
    Archive: https://archive.ph/FCqYD

    The referenced (and not yet peer-reviewed) study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...1262342v1.full
    Archived here: https://archive.ph/AcNnj

  6. #46
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    987
    Reputation
    1746
    Type
    Propertarian

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    Well, I disagree that you're "ignoring the human." You're just substituting yourself (a human, with blind spots and misunderstandings, like everyone else) for researchers, journalists, or other third parties. You haven't "ignored the human factor." You ARE the human factor. And where do you think your own interpretive lenses come from? From other humans who've taught you how to "see." You aren't naive enough to think you are somehow able to see the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I hope.

    In some way, you're more prone to error if you are trying to do it all yourself. One of the strengths of a scientific community is constructive criticism from others, challenging of your point of view, competing with others who have rival hypotheses, and an open dialog among people who are all looking at the same "facts" from different perspectives.
    You are assuming that everything is open to interpretation. No its not. Interpretation only exists in common language and any language which is inflated (analogies, theology, religions). Interpretations, or alternate interpretations, become difficult once you deflate the language. Legal language for example, is deflated language than common speech. Which means it requires more words to write something in legal language to "reinterpret".

    Beyond legal language comes operational language and eventually math. They are all but impossible to reinterpret. You cannot reinterpret an algorithm written as a program. The trick is, you need to represent your thoughts and feelings and opinions in operational / algorithmic language.

    Yes, I am making a bold claim now, may sound cocky, but feel free to test me. I can write ANY HUMAN BEHAVIOR in operational language, which will be impossible to reinterpret. Which doesnt mean that I am immune to mistakes, it means that if there is a mistake it will only be discrepancy in what I said/thought and what I wrote, which is what other humans or a machine can point out.

    Long story of why I am so confident with this claim, but involves following some recent researches into this subject.

    Constructive criticism: can you define in operational/algorithmic terms what it means ? How will I know any criticism is constructive ? How do I know YOUR criticism of my method is constructive. Instead, I dont care about "constructiveness" of criticism. Give me evidence or point the error in algorithm. Anything else is your sermon and your religion. Feel free to follow it, but dont expect me to do it too.

    If I rely on "constructive criticism" of "scientific community" then I might as well rely on priests of my local temple. Same thing, just different religions.

    And I am not trying to do everything myself, in fact just the opposite. The people who are following my method (from whom I learnt), we can all cooperate effortlessly on any topic to arrive at conclusion. Because any discrepancy is immediately resolved, why ? Because there are NO OPINIONS. Everybody talks in terms of evidence and operations/transactions. I dont need to read their mind or feel comfortable or anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    It also seems like that would be an extremely time-consuming, laborious way of living life -- not trusting scientific results about anything, but instead researching every issue by yourself, from scratch. There are far too many questions in life for that to be a practical approach.
    And yet I am quite successful and live a very comfortable life. I have what I want in life, and working towards what I want next. I NEVER experienced any form anxiety or depression or bad times in my life. Am I just lucky ? Or there is a disconnect between what it "seems" to you and what I am doing ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    It's not about age. It's about what do I want to spend my life doing? Do I want to enjoy it, doing things that are valuable to me, which bring me happiness, peace, and satisfaction? Or do I want to spend it analyzing research data from scratch on every little question that arises? Ain't nobody got time for that.

    I'm more than happy to dig in when it comes to big questions -- I'm a very analytical guy and can get quite obsessed with certain subjects, when they capture my imagination (when they are "big" questions that really impact my life/perspective in major ways) -- but covid vaccine does not fall in that camp (questions that would fall in that range would be, for example, does God exist, is there an afterlife, what is a good life, what is a healthy diet, what is the right attitude toward women or romantic-sexual relationships, etc.).
    And yet, regardless of what you find interesting or boring in life, you will always end up making a tradeoff between short term vs long term. You will always make a tradeoff in determining that whether you find happiness in watching a movie or researching into some issues to cut through the crap of the media and people, so the next time when this happens, you will end up having more time for "happiness" because you already done the research.

    There is no way to avoid it. If you avoided it, then its likely you just decided to pay the long term cost. Not saying its bad or good, you do you. Not something I do. I want to feel the pain, here and now, and save my future self the trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    Even when I'm digging into the big questions, I'm never ever doing the interpretive work by myself. I'm always doing it within a community of people who are also digging, skeptical, rational, open-minded, informed. I wouldn't trust just myself to get to the bottom of big questions. We have a whole intellectual nexus of people examining these issues from multiple angles. No sense in ignoring all that. I'm not Descartes.

    Ultimately, of course, I rely on my own judgement to make the call about my beliefs on the matter. But that is different than trying to figure it out all by myself (or assuming I can).
    Neither of us is doing all the work ourselves. The first difference is, you are trying to interpret, I am trying to deflate/reduce. The second difference is in the selection criteria of which people I will collaborate with.
    Greedy algorithms always get stuck in a local extrema...

    If you cannot determine global extrema... or if the graph (or space) is infinite, genetic algorithms give better results.

    The function space or hypothesis space is not only infinite, but in most cases, have infinite dimensions.

  7. #47
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    3,926
    Reputation
    11564
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by kru-kut View Post
    Yet another variant detected in South Africa? Looks that way, but it's TBD, waiting for peer review.

    I first got wind of this from the Jerusalem Post:
    https://www.jpost.com/health-science...-so-far-678011 (funky formatting, see archive below).
    Archive: https://archive.ph/FCqYD

    The referenced (and not yet peer-reviewed) study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...1262342v1.full
    Archived here: https://archive.ph/AcNnj
    Looks like Covid's been working out 5 days a week!

    A bigger badass coming to kick and re-kick some ass?

    Nice.

    Got any more good news? Atomic core meltdown's? Tsunamis? Meteors? Hostile visitors from outer space?

    Just in time for mid term election lockdown, censorship, with widespread unverified mail in voting!

    Every couple years we can expect a new variant and the lockdown's that commonly take place.

    What they need to do is spread the virus and it's variants to get this mass extinction event over and done with! If it doesn't kill you, it'll make you STRONGER!

    Bring it on! I'm joining the nearest cough and sneeze brigade!

    KAMAKAZI!

    Any man that seeks leadership outside himself has a fool for a guide.

  8. #48

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    No, the machine is taking over the work.
    Bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but no machine can do the work I have described. You are missing the point. Despite your knowledge of programming and statistics, you lack comprehension of a basic, fundamental part of the scientific process -- a person at the operator end, who says what the data MEAN, puts them in context, interprets them, describes what they signify. Not to mention, humans all along the process, who are choosing what data to collect and how to collect it, within a framework designed by humans, with measurement systems designed by humans, statistical analytical tools designed by humans, peer reviewed by humans, published in journals edited by humans -- on and on.

    To pretend that you can bypass the "human factor" in all of this is just plain naive. You cannot assign those tasks to a computer.

    I want to correct myself a little. I said earlier my stance wasn't a function of age. That's not really true. One of the benefits of age is that I can look back and see how many times in my life I have just been plain wrong about my interpretation, despite how convinced I was at the time that I had all the relevant facts. It is a humbling experience. I think younger people are more arrogant about their ability to know and understand things -- through no fault of their own, but simply because they have not yet been repeatedly humbled, shown how wrong they are, over and over again. So yes, in a way, my position is related to age. I don't have the intellectual arrogance I did when I was younger.

    You are assuming that everything is open to interpretation. No its not.

    Not everything, no -- I did not say that (your misinterpretation, see?). But many things, even the most important things, ARE subject to interpretation -- all of which you are conveniently ignoring, for the sake of (wait for it) your preferred interpretation.

    I may sound cocky, but feel free to test me. I can write ANY HUMAN BEHAVIOR in operational language, which will be impossible to reinterpret.
    You do sound cocky, yes. But okay. Write "creation of artistic beauty" in operational language. I want something that is clear and specific -- understandable, not a bunch of abstract mumbo jumbo -- and it needs to be free of any element of human interpretation. Good luck with that.
    Last edited by Eddie Haskell; August 31, 2021 at 2:07 PM.

  9. #49
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    987
    Reputation
    1746
    Type
    Propertarian

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    Bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but no machine can do the work I have described.
    Ah, are we going into being blunt territory ?

    Happy to oblige good sir, happy to oblige !!

    First of all, you are full crappy and outdated assumptions. The human factor ??!?! Are you aware that we now completely understand how human mind works ? Or do you want to stay in your ignorance and keep singing "human factorrrrrrrr...hurrr durrr". Go ahead do it, you are an entertainment !

    Oh and here is some more...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    I'm coming to believe that it doesn't matter a hell of a lot, one way or the other -- that both sides of the argument are exaggerated. But I'm not claiming to be some expert. That's just my impression.
    No sir, you are expert in HOOMAN FACTORR !

    Oh and in case you missed it, stanmsl just posted probably gigabytes of data from scientific community in favor of vaccine. Lots of human factor there. Against the vaccine, you will only find religious bunch and nutjobs. Game over, we lost.
    Greedy algorithms always get stuck in a local extrema...

    If you cannot determine global extrema... or if the graph (or space) is infinite, genetic algorithms give better results.

    The function space or hypothesis space is not only infinite, but in most cases, have infinite dimensions.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,010
    Reputation
    5931
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by mgtower View Post
    Looks like Covid's been working out 5 days a week!

    A bigger badass coming to kick and re-kick some ass?

    Nice.

    Got any more good news? Atomic core meltdown's? Tsunamis? Meteors? Hostile visitors from outer space?

    Just in time for mid term election lockdown, censorship, with widespread unverified mail in voting!

    Every couple years we can expect a new variant and the lockdown's that commonly take place.

    What they need to do is spread the virus and it's variants to get this mass extinction event over and done with! If it doesn't kill you, it'll make you STRONGER!

    Bring it on! I'm joining the nearest cough and sneeze brigade!

    KAMAKAZI!

    I remember way back when this virus thing all began, The Donald was having a press conference, and Dr. Birx was asked a question by Fox News reporter John Roberts: "What happens if this thing mutates?" She congratulated him on that question. No one else was contemplating that possibility, or at least if it was being considered, it wasn't getting any air time.

    So yeah, I think you're right. This is going to be like playing Whack-A-Mole for quite some time, I suspect. For each new variant, a different segment of the population will be more (or perhaps less) at risk, based on the particular person's vaccination history and his natural immunity. And, the drug companies may find themselves perpetually playing catch-up to whatever the latest variant is.

    Those new variants may become so adept at evasion that their lifetimes become shorter than the time between lab discovery/identification and a) delivery of a safe and effective vaccination to the public and/or b) natural herd immunity. At that point, it would seem to me that the argument for vaccination vs against it would become purely academic. (Smacked down by reality in other words.)

    I get the sense, the more I pay attention to this whole deal, that yes, we're the middle of a pandemic, but "the pandemic" is not stationary. It's a zig-zagging environment, always in motion, whose behavior re. where it'll go next, or what it'll do to whom, may always be less than fully knowable. Will we forever be in the situation where we're chasing Virus X with vaccinations and lockdowns, in an environment where Virus X+1 has already replaced its predecessor?

    China may not have released a virus on the world. It may have released a terrible monster, because it seems to know how to adapt to whatever the current situation is, vaccine-wise and immunity-wise. Hey, now we've got it all... smartphones, smart refrigerators, smart cars, smart viruses.

    Reminds me of that old margarine commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijVijP-CDVI

  11. #51
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    987
    Reputation
    1746
    Type
    Propertarian

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    Not everything, no -- I did not say that (your misinterpretation, see?). But many things, even the most important things, ARE subject to interpretation -- all of which you are conveniently ignoring, for the sake of (wait for it) your preferred interpretation.

    You do sound cocky, yes. But okay. Write "creation of artistic beauty" in operational language. I want something that is clear and specific -- understandable, not a bunch of abstract mumbo jumbo -- and it needs to be free of any element of human interpretation. Good luck with that.
    Sometimes I wonder why you dont make just a single post and write everything there, and keep editing it.

    "operational language" .... "free from abstract mumbo jumbo"...

    Do you know what operational language means ? It means transactions and testability. How are you going to test whatever I write ?

    Yes, nothing is open to re-interpretation if written properly, by the people who know HOW TO TEST it.
    Greedy algorithms always get stuck in a local extrema...

    If you cannot determine global extrema... or if the graph (or space) is infinite, genetic algorithms give better results.

    The function space or hypothesis space is not only infinite, but in most cases, have infinite dimensions.

  12. #52

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    Ah, are we going into being blunt territory ?

    Happy to oblige good sir, happy to oblige !!

    First of all, you are full crappy and outdated assumptions. The human factor ??!?! Are you aware that we now completely understand how human mind works ? Or do you want to stay in your ignorance and keep singing "human factorrrrrrrr...hurrr durrr". Go ahead do it, you are an entertainment !
    Dunning-Kruger in full effect. You don't know what you don't know. Your confidence is based on your ignorance.

  13. #53
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    987
    Reputation
    1746
    Type
    Propertarian

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    Dunning-Kruger in full effect. You don't know what you don't know. Your confidence is based on your ignorance.
    Because I didnt buy your "scientific community" bullshit ?

    Go on ! I am here with popcorns !
    Greedy algorithms always get stuck in a local extrema...

    If you cannot determine global extrema... or if the graph (or space) is infinite, genetic algorithms give better results.

    The function space or hypothesis space is not only infinite, but in most cases, have infinite dimensions.

  14. #54

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    90% of the UK (where I live) has had at least a single shot.

    I have not, and still won't be until it becomes impossible to live without it due to mandates... but until then:

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,010
    Reputation
    5931
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Looks like Israel's getting hit hard again. Its vax program is compared to the U.K.

    "Despite being one of the most vaccinated nations in world, country is in midst of an unprecedented new wave."

    I found this especially interesting:

    The group believes the UK is in a unique situation compared to countries like Israel and the US because it went with a much longer two dose strategy.

    Britons had their shots spaced out by up to 12 weeks instead of the recommended three-week gap, which officials believe has generated better immunity in the population.

    That decision was hugely controversial at the time but the fact it seems to have paid off has meant the JCVI isn't concerned about being an international outlier.

    Original: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...yesterday.html

    Archive: https://archive.today/VH9xi

  16. #56
    Senior Member MGTOWFOREVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,095
    Reputation
    4824
    Type
    Living on my own terms

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    I got my 2nd vaccine shot. I had zero side effects.

    I'd recommend the Pfizer vaccine. Every time there is a new vaccine or medication you'll always hear conspiracy theories. If there was an HIV vaccine, Im sure someone would say it gives you HIV or the bible says it will turn you gay and force you to sing show tunes.

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,010
    Reputation
    5931
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    As I mentioned in a previous post (https://www.goingyourownway.com/mgto...73/#post162473), I'm getting a stronger & stronger feeling we're facing runaway mutations that will always be a step ahead of the vaccine-du-jour.

    "The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape."

    Even though it's early and the jury's out on Mu's capacity for "immune escape," I still think that's an interesting statement relative to the virus's long-term threat to the world population. "Immune escape" has pretty broad implications. It suggests both prior infection-based immunity and vaccine-assisted immunity. Monster, anyone?

    Original: https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/02/w...us-variant-mu/

    Archive: https://archive.today/xE80L

  18. #58
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    3,926
    Reputation
    11564
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by kru-kut View Post
    As I mentioned in a previous post (https://www.goingyourownway.com/mgto...73/#post162473), I'm getting a stronger & stronger feeling we're facing runaway mutations that will always be a step ahead of the vaccine-du-jour.

    "The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape."

    Even though it's early and the jury's out on Mu's capacity for "immune escape," I still think that's an interesting statement relative to the virus's long-term threat to the world population. "Immune escape" has pretty broad implications. It suggests both prior infection-based immunity and vaccine-assisted immunity. Monster, anyone?

    Original: https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/02/w...us-variant-mu/

    Archive: https://archive.today/xE80L
    This means virus's Kung-Fu is stronger than the CDC's., therefore my mass multi variant forced infection preposition, leaving no human un-jabbed with a cocktail of every strain is the final solution!

    We need to start thinking Kamikaze!

    Load me up!

    Any man that seeks leadership outside himself has a fool for a guide.

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,010
    Reputation
    5931
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Yesterday, on "The Balance" (Eric Bolling's show on Newsmax), he interviewed Steven Hatfill, a virology and bioweapons guy, on the Mu variant. Unfortunately, Newsmax decided to cut away to Dear Leader's photo op on the flooding, but Hatfill did get a chance to make a couple of important points.

    Hatfill has a long list of credentials which you can read here:
    https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Steven-Hat...ont_pop_book_1

    The video is at https://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/Eric...vid/1_0hqexacw beginning at 49:44 and lasts about 2 minutes before Dear Leader intrudes. Audio is muted by default, so you'll have to un-mute it.

    This is the crux of what he was saying:

    1) It's impossible to vaccinate yourself out of this pandemic. You have to use early-use therapeutics.

    2) Early treatment (vs vaccination) helps to keep people out of the hospital and to stop the huge amount of viruses that are now appearing in the human species.

    3) We're vaccinating you with a viral strain that no longer exists. It's extinct.

    When Bolling asks Hatfill whether his (Bolling's) doctor was correct in recommending he get vaccinated despite having already established immunity, Hatfill says in no uncertain terms that the doctor was wrong.

    I wish he'd been given more time.

  20. #60
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    3,926
    Reputation
    11564
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

    Quote Originally Posted by kru-kut View Post
    Yesterday, on "The Balance" (Eric Bolling's show on Newsmax), he interviewed Steven Hatfill, a virology and bioweapons guy, on the Mu variant. Unfortunately, Newsmax decided to cut away to Dear Leader's photo op on the flooding, but Hatfill did get a chance to make a couple of important points.

    Hatfill has a long list of credentials which you can read here:
    https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Steven-Hat...ont_pop_book_1

    The video is at https://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/Eric...vid/1_0hqexacw beginning at 49:44 and lasts about 2 minutes before Dear Leader intrudes. Audio is muted by default, so you'll have to un-mute it.

    This is the crux of what he was saying:

    1) It's impossible to vaccinate yourself out of this pandemic. You have to use early-use therapeutics.

    2) Early treatment (vs vaccination) helps to keep people out of the hospital and to stop the huge amount of viruses that are now appearing in the human species.

    3) We're vaccinating you with a viral strain that no longer exists. It's extinct.

    When Bolling asks Hatfill whether his (Bolling's) doctor was correct in recommending he get vaccinated despite having already established immunity, Hatfill says in no uncertain terms that the doctor was wrong.

    I wish he'd been given more time.
    It's like picking the lock on Pandora's Box after it was already open. The tumblers just keep on rolling like a flu or the common cold, the virus adapts and overcomes, then in time it will be like chickenpox (believed to originate from bubonic plague).

    Looks like it's here to stay in one form or another, or another, or another. A population lockdown for every day of the week! Isn't that wonderful?
    Any man that seeks leadership outside himself has a fool for a guide.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 30, 2019, 11:37 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 5, 2019, 4:37 PM
  3. Feminists Play Grand Theft Auto For The First Time
    By Da Patriarch in forum Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 26, 2018, 9:06 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 11, 2015, 3:51 AM
  5. Replies: 42
    Last Post: November 12, 2014, 4:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •