Jump to content
Coss

The Covid-19 thread

Recommended Posts

Hi,

"It won't happen but what I would beg the G8, the UN, all international bodies to do is treat the threat of a pandemic almost like they would if there was an alien invasion. Meaning a united front.  "

Should be the way this (and climate change!) is treated, but we all know it ain't gonna happen :( Way too many egos involved.

Sanuk!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know KS but it was wishful thinking on my part. I recall the book "Contact' which was made into a movie about an alien life form contacting us.There was a passage from the alien life  form hat said they had to limit contact because we haven't developed as much as we should. Fictional book but Carl Sagan, the author, speaking through the alien with the alien saying that they have seen many different intelligent life and that it was a miracle we haven't blown ourselves up yet. 

In the moment you can't finger point, etc. There can be finger pointing and blame once its all gone away but at the time, you need to handle the problem. I had a great mentor for my first 'real' job. A job where I was working for a huge multi billion firm in management and my first time in a management position. My boss/mentor never chastised me in the moment of a crisis or a fuck up. He was only concerned with solving it in real time. There was plenty of time for blaming and all that once its all over and we went through what happened. It made sense. The last thing you want is finger pointing that may stall the solution and the process to get answers. If the person was of no help, you might remove them if they are likely to fuck things up further...lol..but not before you extract all the information first. 

Nations in a pandemic need to be like that. Need to get as much info from each other and cooperation. Even if we think China engineered it as Cav suggests, its still important to still speak to them in a non accusatory manner in hopes of gleaming info through it all. We hear of Russia (and possible other countries) hacking other governments and companies in hopes of getting a head start on a cure. 

What I would recommend is an agreement from all countries that we will not monetize a cure. That whatever is discovered is shared and some form of system discussed ahead of time for distribution of such. No cure is cheap to come up with. There can be a system in place for that. 

An estimate of costs that globally we all chip in to alleviate. The free exchange of theories, ideas, etc, is paramount in a pandemic. Yes, its dreaming on my part but  the top Chinese, Russian, American, British, German and whatever other scientists and researchers working on a cure should be able to communicate freely among each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...as for climate change, I think the youngest generation in America (gen y and gen z) are very climate conscious. The question is what will happen to the climate before they take over?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

Yes, its dreaming on my part but  the top Chinese, Russian, American, British, German and whatever other scientists and researchers working on a cure should be able to communicate freely among each other. 

I think you'll find, that excepting, where a scientist will not want to give the keys of his research, to rivals, and where some idiot politician has got a scientist locked up for telling the truth, most scientists communicate across borders freely, in language, most politicians, policers and proles don't fathom.

5 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

.as for climate change, I think the youngest generation in America (gen y and gen z) are very climate conscious. The question is what will happen to the climate before they take over? 

As most here know, I profess to oppose the anthropic - pro climate change movement. Without firing up the argument, I'd just like to say that the science for global climate change is not in, there are indications, there are trends, but the outcome, that the popular press or indeed most press are warning against, is the result of models, and models are polls, see political polls and you may understand my caution. I'll try and put a pin in it, climate change yes, Anthropic climate change, yes but a small part of a larger trend, like the proportion of people with an IQ of 135 and above, a small part of the population, but significant in some roles. Until the global warming gets bigger than the {~1°C since 1880} I'll bide my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Coss said:

is the result of models, and models are polls, see political polls and you may understand my caution.

That shows a lack of scientific knowledge. Climate models are NOT polls. They are based on Physics and Chemistry, not a phone poll. A popularity poll will not change the conservation of matter and energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baa99 said:

That shows a lack of scientific knowledge. Climate models are NOT polls. They are based on Physics and Chemistry, not a phone poll. A popularity poll will not change the conservation of matter and energy.

To a certain point you are correct, but models cannot predict the future. Perhaps I didn't elucidate my point clearly.

The parts of the model up until the present day are certainly science. But the future part of the models are based on a consensus of opinion of scientists, ergo a poll.

I'm sorry to labour the point, but if you see the below graph,  you and I and others could feel comfortable about agreeing that the temperature is trending upwards. Not real data, just for illustration.

 

graph1.jpg.4c9183e669c1969ffc7139e9403fa9b8.jpg

 

Now look at the next graph, which is fictitious, but could be based on truth or projection, my point is, until it happens, we can't say for sure. This is not as simple as seeing a ball rolling down a hill and being able to predict it will keep rolling down.

This is a highly complex situation full of wildly variable influences, I'm not sure we can see the science, that actually says "this is not a model, this is true". And I suggest we move this discussion to the predictions thread. or other.

graph2.jpg.5cc563fc6e2e7065ae5f0598aebcdb07.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Coss said:

I think you'll find, that excepting, where a scientist will not want to give the keys of his research, to rivals, and where some idiot politician has got a scientist locked up for telling the truth, most scientists communicate across borders freely, in language, most politicians, policers and proles don't fathom.

As most here know, I profess to oppose the anthropic - pro climate change movement. Without firing up the argument, I'd just like to say that the science for global climate change is not in, there are indications, there are trends, but the outcome, that the popular press or indeed most press are warning against, is the result of models, and models are polls, see political polls and you may understand my caution. I'll try and put a pin in it, climate change yes, Anthropic climate change, yes but a small part of a larger trend, like the proportion of people with an IQ of 135 and above, a small part of the population, but significant in some roles. Until the global warming gets bigger than the {~1°C since 1880} I'll bide my time.

Fair enough Coss. I appreciate your views even though I think differently. The reason being is its not from the conservative viewpoint. Knowing you on here over the years, its an ideologically free viewpoint. The ones against climate change science, etc, in America are primarily against it because progressives are for it. There are people who live in some of the most beautiful pristine areas of Montana, the Dakotas, all of it former native indigenous lands and are against it because their party is against it. 

That said, I am no expert myself.When this was discussed a while ago, I looked at it like this. First, the overwhelming number of scientists and research believe so. We have all experienced it (admittedly it could be the "natural" earth cycle), and lastly the possible consequences. 

Furthermore, any issue where the oil companies are vehemently against and against it to the point they are willing to spend untold millions, using any means fair or foul, I automatically think its something to take serious from the other side of view. They have the worst track record on past issues (unleaded vs leaded gas in the 70s, off shore drilling, pipelines in certain areas being safe, etc.)

If you are wrong, its an existential threat to human life. If you are right, so what? What are the consequences if we pursue this and later on down the road we find out you were right all along? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

"If you are wrong, its an existential threat to human life. If you are right, so what? What are the consequences if we pursue this and later on down the road we find out you were right all along? "

This is exactly it! Climate change turns out to be wrong and we did all these measures anyway, we end up with a cleaner, more efficient, self-sustainable planet; climate change is real and we do nothing, we all die, end of humanity. How the hell is that a choice?

Sanuk!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

Furthermore, any issue where the oil companies are vehemently against and against it to the point they are willing to spend untold millions, using any means fair or foul, I automatically think its something to take serious from the other side of view. They have the worst track record on past issues (unleaded vs leaded gas in the 70s, off shore drilling, pipelines in certain areas being safe, etc.)

My view is that large business will fuck over what ever they can, in the pursuit of profit - people, children, endangered dolphins, the planet...   If we could end shareholder capitalism as a prime directive in our morality, we'd do everyone (expect the top 0.01% of the richest) a favour.

12 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

If you are wrong, its an existential threat to human life. If you are right, so what? What are the consequences if we pursue this and later on down the road we find out you were right all along?

 

7 hours ago, khunsanuk said:

This is exactly it! Climate change turns out to be wrong and we did all these measures anyway, we end up with a cleaner, more efficient, self-sustainable planet; climate change is real and we do nothing, we all die, end of humanity. How the hell is that a choice?

Steve, KS, this is my favourite point ::

I think that blaming a proposed "end of times" on anthropic climate warming/change is not proven, but in the pursuit, of preventing this happening, they are doing all the right things, from a "look after our planet" perspective.

I want to live in an unpolluted environment with species not going extinct prematurely, I just don't think their reasoning is correct.

You see I am a greenie, but from the 60's. Also I think that conservation ≠ set in stone, never changing. Change is normal.

To labour the point again: Tell a school full of kids, that large V8 muscle cars will certainly lead to death. Because they are powerful and when one hits a kid/person/cow/deer, death ensues.  So the solution is to ban the V8 muscle cars. Or we could learn how to drive them in a manner that doesn't kill everything and find that they are useful for towing boats, trailers, powering water mills, etc. 

So in my view, "Look after our Planet" ≠ "stop temperature rise even though we don't know for sure it's us that's doing it"

You see, even the pro Anthropic arguments, point to  a time not so long ago when life survived quite happily, temperatures and CO2 levels that were higher than today.

What life doesn't generally survive is Ice Ages, cornered rat syndrome/overcrowding, and poisoning the environment.

So this all may be a highly skilled P.R. campaign to get the people to look after the planet - because - boogie man. They might be doing all the right things for the as yet unproven reason, because to stop the profit for the top twonks, might directly stop the exploitation and poisoning of the planet.

If you've got 50 minutes and can bear to suffer some advertising, this docco ties big money to environmental degradation quite nicely, note: I went to varsity with the Author/Director/Narrator/bottle washer. https://www.threenow.co.nz/shows/the-price-of-fish/the-price-of-fish/S2260-341/M39425-058

Oh and Covid-19, not man made, Nature giving us a, not so little warning.

Maybe the optimum tribe size for Homo Sapiens is not 40~50 million, housed in a concrete jungle.

Maybe it could be like Laos, where their 7~11 million is spread all over the land in little villages and where word, travels faster than viruses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Coss said:

To a certain point you are correct, but models cannot predict the future.

Yes they do! That is what makes them useful. One can predict the next solar eclipse, how a car performs in a crash, the flight characteristics of an aircraft, the sensitivity of an antenna, the spin of the proton, the spectrum of black body radiation, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...