They have chosen polices that put care home residents at risk, ignored all other health concerns and collapsed the economy
For what?
A virus with a 0.27 IFR.
It's a fact that very few people know about White Rose.
A group of students that spoke out about the Nazi regime which ultimately ended with their imprisonment or execution.
Why is this?
Is it because everyday Germans were embarrassed by what they had allowed to happen.
They have chosen polices that put care home residents at risk, ignored all other health concerns and collapsed the economy
For what?
A virus with a 0.27 IFR.
They are unaccountable for their actions.
With the aid of the bought media they have covered up deaths under the guise of Covid
It is time we unite and learn from the mistakes of 1940s everyday Germans
They lived to regret fighting back
More from Covid
Breaking—UK scientists just reported a case-control study that the mutated UK 🇬🇧B.1.1.7 variant is not associated w/ more severe #COVID19— “found no significant differences in hospital admissions and case fatality at 28 days, & occurrence of reinfections”, says @mvankerkhove
2) That said, the new UK mutated strain is a more transmissible (contagious) variant. Keep transmissibility and illness severity separate. They are two different things. Don’t get them confused.
3) The new UK variant severity study is included in today’s WHO report, to be released soon this afternoon according to WHO sources. Waiting for it to drop. I’ll keep folks posted on the details.
4) Update: here is UK Technical report on #SARSCoV2 variant of concern (B.1.1.7) in 🇬🇧 with prelim findings from their case-control study of no increased severity for the new variant that I reported yesterday.
5) Also keep in a mind that a virus that spreads faster (more contagious) yields much worse total outcomes than a virus that is just merely more severe.
All things equal, a new mutated variant that is more contagious & no more severe is worse. And that is what we now have.
2) That said, the new UK mutated strain is a more transmissible (contagious) variant. Keep transmissibility and illness severity separate. They are two different things. Don’t get them confused.
3) The new UK variant severity study is included in today’s WHO report, to be released soon this afternoon according to WHO sources. Waiting for it to drop. I’ll keep folks posted on the details.
4) Update: here is UK Technical report on #SARSCoV2 variant of concern (B.1.1.7) in 🇬🇧 with prelim findings from their case-control study of no increased severity for the new variant that I reported yesterday.
5) Also keep in a mind that a virus that spreads faster (more contagious) yields much worse total outcomes than a virus that is just merely more severe.
All things equal, a new mutated variant that is more contagious & no more severe is worse. And that is what we now have.
Why a SARS-CoV-2 variant that's 50% more transmissible would in general be a much bigger problem than a variant that's 50% more deadly. A short thread... 1/
— Adam Kucharski (@AdamJKucharski) December 28, 2020
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.