More from For later read
Just a very brief thread (or read the entire document here:
Researchers took 1769 cases of people infected with the new variant and then looked for 1769 cases of people with “normal” virus to compare them to. They chose these so that median age and proporion of females was the same. That’s why it’s called a “matched cohort study”
They then compared hospitalizations for the two groups:
Overall 42 people were hopsitalized,
16 with the variant
26 with wild-type
The difference between the two was not significant.
Caveat: “Due to potential time delays for receipt of hospital admissions data, the identified hospital admissions should be regarded as a minimum number of hospital admissions and further admissions data are likely to be received into this NHS dataset in the future.”
The researchers also compared fatality rate for those cases where 28 days had elapsed since sample was taken:
12 of 1430 (0.89%) variant cases had died
10 of 1360 (0.73%) wild-type cases had died
Again, the difference was not significant.
In other words, when something is self-verifiable or self-iterating, looking too heavily towards the originator can be a distraction along the path. Results speak for themselves.
Some folks have applied that to Bitcoin as well.
For example, sometimes there are debates about Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intent. Should block sizes be increased to facilitate “e-cash” or should block sizes be kept small for any user to run a node?
\u201cIf you meet Satoshi on the road, kill him.\u201d\u2013 The Tao of Bitcoin— Max Keiser (@maxkeiser) February 14, 2019
This is the type of problem encountered by engineers all the time: trade-offs.
A project can iterate or stay the same depending on what the market says.
Sometimes the successful product ends up being very different than the engineer initially envisioned. Sometimes it’s exactly like what they envisioned.
With Bitcoin, there are developer-vs-developer disputes, and disputes between finance-types and earlier users.
This is similar to natural selection, with “nature” as the market. Some creatures haven’t changed in hundreds of millions of years. Others have changed notably, or transformed into something else entirely.
There\u2019s this crazy horseshoe where where having a strong emphasis on human sinfulness just turns into a power washer that blasts all harm and wrong-doing down to the same level of things people (re: men) inevitably do given half a chance. https://t.co/BLOWzpf1RA— Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) February 13, 2021
On the one hand, there's a high standard of holiness. On the other hand, there's a model of growth that is basically "Try Harder to Mean it More." Identify the relevant scriptural truth & believe it with all of your sincerity so that you may access the Holy Spirit's help to obey.
Helping sincere believers believe and obey the Bible facts is pretty much all the Holy Spirit does these days, other than convict us of our sins in light of the Bible facts.
If you know you are sincere and hate your sin and believe the right Bible facts as hard as you can but continue to be enslaved to your pornography addiction, what else left for you to do? Just Really, Just Really, Just Really Trust God and Give it to Him?
To suggest that there are other strategies available sounds to those formed in this model of growth like one is also suggesting that the Bible is insufficient, but it also suggests something just as threatening- that there are aspects of reality that are not immediately apparent.
Some tips you can consider as a bystander depending on the situation (thread)
Have a code of conduct and circulate it. Make it clear that abusive behaviour will not be accepted. Build in accountability strategies (what happens if someone violates it). Have a moderator/chair to observe the dynamics of your group.
This kind of behaviour is very normalised and insidious, so train yourself to spot it. Is there somebody that usually interrupts? Is there somebody that usually gets interrupted and silenced? Are there signs of aggressive communication?
Not everyone might like that you jump at their defense - your heart might be in the right place but it can come across as patronising. Try to bring up the subject with your colleagues and see what they think. Foster a culture of positive communication.
Once you see that somebody is trying to interrupt - politely redirect the discussion towards the person that was originally speaking. Eg "thank you for that, now I'd really like to hear what person xyz was saying earlier".
You May Also Like
Reliable source tells me Withdrawal Deal text contains
- No unilateral exit from backstop
- Large annexe on level playing field
.... after reporting this on @SkyNews I get a call from a different senior source that this is “spot on” and further that the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has not pulled his punches in confirming in legal advice there is “no unilateral exit” from backstop ...
... furthermore I’m told (and this chimes with excellent Times splash this morning re Weyand) that the future partnership then takes its starting point as the activated backstop - ie UK-wide customs union-style arrangement and level playing field.
Understand that a ministerial briefing on the draft Withdrawal Agreement meant to drum up support from some trade organisations due tonight has now been postponed
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
Rosyjski kierowca przyznał, że utrata fotela wyścigowego w Williamsie będzie dużym rozczarowaniem, bo praca wykonana w tym roku powinna zaprocentować w przyszłym sezonie. #F1pl
Haas had argued that the cars had been designed by Force India, but as Haas knows only too well, "outsourcing" is legal. The stewards decided that "there is no regulatory support for the argument that Outsourcing of Listed Parts cannot come from a former or excluded team."
In determining this, the stewards also came to the following conclusion: "In relation to the submission by the Racing Point Force India F1 Team that it is not a new team, the Stewards decide that the Racing Point Force India F1 Team is indeed a new team."
This will have a big knock on effect for Haas in its continued arguments over the rights of RPFI as relates to its eligibility and rights under the complex payments structure. Haas has argued all along that RPFI should be treated as a new team and tread the same path that it did.
TLDR? Haas lost the fight but may have won the war. In having its argument that Racing Point hadn't designed their own car thrown out, they gained clarification that RPFI was a new team.