Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - PeterNSteinmetz

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Spin Zone / sorryantivaxxer
« on: December 03, 2021, 07:41:13 PM »
They didn't exercise a risk vs benefit behavior.  They behaved foolishly and many paid the ultimate price for it.  Moreover, by promoting their idiocy they may have caused others to pay the ultimate price as well.  Public ridicule seems utterly appropriate.
Quite unbecoming of an associate professor I think.

Also, the numbers here are just not so overwhelming in favor of taking the vaccine that we should ridicule those who don’t.

If you are under 65, the odds of dying from COVID-19, if you catch it, are about equal to driving 17 miles to/from work each day. Very few people worry about this level of risk and think “I better change my job and commute because it is too risky”.

Similarly, the odds of seriously bad outcomes from the vaccine are likely on the order of 1-10 per 1,000,000. Not really big but not trivial either.

These tradeoffs fall in the range where reasonable people may make different choices.

Sort of like some people find the enjoyment of flying in small planes with the 1 in 1,00,000 hours risk of death worth it. Others do not. Different strokes for different folks.

These facts likely account for why 30% of doctors don’t want to immunize their young children and a fair fraction of the US population does not choose to be vaccinated.

Were there any cameras filming at the time?
This was my immediate question as well. Also agree he may well have been holding the trigger down. Maybe gun control nuts with no real experience with firearms ought not be using them on the set. Or even making movies with guns, actually.

Pilot Zone / The “Little Puffer”
« on: November 29, 2021, 06:22:51 PM »

Pilot Zone / Re: “Progress in flying machines” by Octave Chanute, 1894
« on: November 27, 2021, 09:12:25 AM »
I think Peter and I are saying the same thing.   Accuracy sucked all around but day was a little better than night.  Then there was the firing bombing of Japanese cities that nobody talks about which was much worse than the two nukes.

Yes. Different times and situation than our world today.  Not judging them, mind you.
Exactly right. Bombing civilians was horrific by modern standards and bombing civilians with conventional weapons likely did little to help end the war. But hindsight is 20/20 and the fog of war was thick.

I believe the post-war assessments concluded that the daylight precision bombing of oil fields and the aircraft supply chain did materially help though.

Pilot Zone / Re: “Progress in flying machines” by Octave Chanute, 1894
« on: November 26, 2021, 05:05:23 PM »
And then came carpet bombing, aka "daylight precision bombing".   ::)
Well, not quite as inaccurate as the night bombing by the British and bomber Harris.

Spin Zone / Re: Stan, What's Going on in Waukesha?
« on: November 21, 2021, 09:18:01 PM »
Proving that a lot of things can be lethal weapons other than firearms.

Spin Zone / Rittenhouse shoots Dirtbags
« on: November 21, 2021, 12:20:20 PM »
They, the Marxists, believe the ends justify the means because they see the big picture and are correct in all their thoughts and policies.   It doesn't matter if it is illegal, immoral, corrupt, violent etc.  They will do and say ANYTHING.
There is a common feature amongst all who want to expand the power of the government that this touches on. They believe that they know the policies will work and that they know this better than others. It is certainly most extreme in Marxists but is present in both major political parties as well.

Since they are very certain they are correct, they think of coercing people as for their own good.

What this blatantly ignores of course is the limitations of human knowledge, the difficulties of predicting with any degree of accuracy the behavior of large numbers of people, and the fact that people don’t like having their autonomy constrained.

Most statists do believe they are doing it for good however. Even Hitler sincerely believed that he was making enormous personal sacrifices for the good of the German people, culture, and state which had been so sorely abused by the Versailles treaty. Very few such people think of themselves as acting from malicious motive. Nonetheless, when their assaults upon the liberty of others become serious enough, they may have to be forcibly stopped.

Spin Zone / Re: Rittenhouse shoots Dirtbags
« on: November 21, 2021, 12:13:33 PM »

Anarchy (a complete absence of state power) cannot work. The mob will self sort into a hierarchy and you end up back at square one. Possibly by “state” you refer to the large state, not the local community. Do you believe the power to deal with criminals should rest with the smallest local districts?  I could meet you at that point for further consideration. But I wonder if modern technology (agriculture, industrialization, WMDs) has made that impossible.

Nice thoughtful post. I agree depending on how you define “state” and “anarchy” - and there are a variety of definitions in common use. The Greek roots for anarchy mean “having no ruler”, not necessarily mob rule.

I tend more toward Rothbard’s thinking on this these days. Fundamentally that while people definitely need organized defensive force administered by third parties according to a defined set of rules, it may not be wise to combine that with a geographically defined monopoly. Monopolies often don’t work very well. Much of his work focuses on how this could work. You might be interested if you have not read much of him.

Personally I don’t think we have enough experience at the lower end of the coercion spectrum of societal organization to be able to judge the minarchy - anarchy question accurately. If we can reduce the size of the government dramatically then we can probably see how low we can go in coercion to minimize overall rights violations by the government, whatever form it may take, and bad actors. Until then, I think the minarchy - anarchy debate is mostly theoretical about what is basically an empirical question about human nature.

Pilot Zone / New rigid airships
« on: November 10, 2021, 02:02:14 PM »
Seems like it would be a fun ride. And maybe if there are more companies doing this obtaining a airship rating would be in reach of more pilots…

The risks of vaccines are miniscule.  The risks of COVID vaccines have been dramatically overstated by those with a political agenda.  The risk of COVID is considerable.

As you may know Prof. Weinstein, applying qualitative descriptions can often lead to mis-understanding and a lot of acrimony.

To be more precise, as I have stated above, the risks of serious adverse events from the Covid-19 vaccines might well be estimated as 1-2 per million and might be more conservatively estimated as 10 per million given the holes in our reporting procedures presently. We really don't have a good handle on this presently and its stratification by age group.

Is that level "miniscule"? Sort of depends on how people are weighing it, but I would not say "miniscule" personally.

At the same time, the risks of dying from Covid-19, if you catch it and are under age 65, are about equal to dying in a car wreck while driving a car to and from work 17 miles each day for a year.

Is that level of risk "considerable"? I don't think most people would say so as most people never even think about that. The risks for younger people, those under 29, are even lower. Actually I would say their risk of having a serious adverse event is "miniscule". The risks for those over 65 rise rapidly and I might describe them as "significant".

But applying these qualitative descriptors in cases where the risks fall into this sort of regime really leads to a lot of misunderstanding. Particularly given the well documented failures of people to adequately assess risk levels. As an academic who can understand these type of risk assessments, I try and avoid this sort of language which can be misleading.

Calman & Royston published a nice paper on this which I try to refer to in serious work, such as describing risks in consent forms. Calman, KC, and GH Royston. 1997. “Risk Language and Dialects.” BMJ 315 (7113): 939–42.

That was a quote from the abstract of the very paper that Peter linked.

As you are likely aware Prof. Weinstein, those kinds of comments are really not the main conclusion or point of the paper. Essentially they are editorial asides by the authors. And often thrown in to address some reviewer comment. I would never rely on those or even cite them in a published article.

Pilot Zone / My new to me 1-26E glider
« on: October 31, 2021, 06:58:02 PM »
New to me 1-26E glider. N126RM at her new base E68 - Estrella Sailport.

Spin Zone / Re: Fauci Lied
« on: October 28, 2021, 10:16:21 AM »
What I'm saying is the best folks in the biz (who know more about this stuff than you and me) posted in the biggest Science journal there is that COVID is a naturally occurring virus.  I don't even know who your source is.

One of the things you said before was "I'm afraid this is pure hogwash.  I saw the fucking sequence when it came out, there wasn't any such thing."

That was in response to my post that "I find it quite plausible that someone in the funded lab thought it would be a very informative experiment to insert that particular active site coded by human codons into a coronavirus and did so."

So your response appeared to be asserting that the active site was not coded by human codons. I gather you are now denying or retracting that interpretation of your post?

Your most recent post is essentially an appeal to authority. I'm not really interested in arguing about authorities.

If on the other hand you want to look at the case made by Wade that the sequence which is coded by human codons in the furin cleavage site suggests that it was inserted by man and did not arise through spontaneous mutation and debate the evidence for and against that proposition, that might be interesting. I actually thought that Wade did a fairly good job of both pointing out the likelihoods and citing to some other expert opinions on the subject.

Overall I regard the case for human engineering of this virus as plausible. It would probably meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. Maybe not a clear and convincing standard. I don't think we may ever really know because the CCP, a tyrannical regime which censors its media, has not allowed free inspection of the laboratories and their records.


Certainly we know the difference between being guilty and being found guilty, no?  He IS guilty of it. 

True and I agree overall with your assessment of the evidence.

However, from a legal perspective, if you state in print in a public forum that someone is guilty of a crime who has not been adjudicated guilty, that can be the tort of libel.

Pilot Zone / Re: Different airplane design back in 1903
« on: October 27, 2021, 11:42:42 AM »
Yes, but they couldn’t be flown there.  They’re had to come to NC to actually fly them.

You mean that initial set of little hops off the rail? To really fly them they went back to Huffman Prairie just outside Dayton  ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4