Claim That Covid-19 Came From Lab In China Completely Unfoun

[bitrex]

On 4/19/2020 12:59 AM, Ricky C wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
Ricky C wrote:

---------------
Phil Allison wrote:


The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.

Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.

So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.

That's not accurate. There have been many events that were kept secret
by the government for many years before they finally were revealed
and acknowledged.

** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.

That's total BS. I was a federal employee and I never had to sign anything about secrets. You make up stuff and then try to pass it on as fact. Why?


But this it not a conspiracy, which is an agreement between persons carrying out an nefarious act.

One good example is the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The experiment went on for 40 years from 1932 to 1972. It involved who knows how many people in the government knowingly participating. It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public to the press that the experiment ended.

** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.

Nope. You are just wrong... again. Sometimes you are a bit like the guy they call alwayswrong.


This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.


** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.

Yes, exactly. So now you are agreeing that this was a conspiracy. That's why you need whistle blowers, to rat out the conspirators. It's not about revealing secrets. The only secrets the government can enforce are sensitive documents they classify as such. That is a whole different matter where you can and will go to jail for releasing.

Whatever. I'm not going to debate this with you. I don't recall any time you have ever backed down from being wrong in any discussion with anyone. So what's the point of endlessly explaining anything to you?

Enjoy..

I don't think it was a conspiracy either because again, AFAIK nobody did
anything illegal. It was not illegal for medical professionals running a
study to lie to negro males in 1932.

It caused a public outcry and they stopped for the same reason like,
using recycled oil in the deep fryer at fast food restaurants. it wasn't
illegal and they didn't hang a lampshade on it but people eventually
found out and decided collectively it was gross.

you have to do something illegal to have a conspiracy! That's why they
call it a conspiracy! that's why they fucking call it non-stick:
<https://youtu.be/U1f4ZfHkICo?t=5>

 

[Ricky C]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Ricky C wrote:

---------------

** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.

That's total BS.

** No it's not.

Govt employees are all sworn not to discuss their work, any persons/businesses they deal with or guide rules they are directed to follow.

The prohibition includes family and friends.

The usual penalty is dismissal with no chance of re-employment.


I was a federal employee ...

** Yawnnn...


and I never had to sign anything about secrets.

** Likely cos a fool like you was never gonna know any.


You make up stuff and then try to pass it on as fact.


** Your arrogant pig ignorance is your only point.



** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.

Nope.

** Fuck me, this wanking fuckwit is soooo stupid.



This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.


** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.

Yes, exactly.


** But such are never evil conspiracies - just bad policies.


Whatever. I'm not going to debate this with you.

** You are totally incapable of debating me or anyone with a modicum of genuine intelligence.

Cos you simply don't have any.


.... Phil

I am blown away by your debating technique. You are truly the master debater.

But it is pretty amazing that you are so full of it. How do you know this about government work? Have you worked for the federal government?

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Allison]

Ricky C wrote:

---------------

** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.

That's total BS.

** No it's not.

Govt employees are all sworn not to discuss their work, any persons/businesses they deal with or guide rules they are directed to follow.

The prohibition includes family and friends.

The usual penalty is dismissal with no chance of re-employment.


> I was a federal employee ...

** Yawnnn...


> and I never had to sign anything about secrets.

** Likely cos a fool like you was never gonna know any.

You make up stuff and then try to pass it on as fact.

** Your arrogant pig ignorance is your only point.

** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.

Nope.

** Fuck me, this wanking fuckwit is soooo stupid.

This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.


** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.

Yes, exactly.

** But such are never evil conspiracies - just bad policies.


> Whatever. I'm not going to debate this with you.

** You are totally incapable of debating me or anyone with a modicum of genuine intelligence.

Cos you simply don't have any.


..... Phil

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/04/20 21:38, John Larkin wrote:
> The problem now is too little observation, too little reliable data,

There's plenty of observation, but the data is still
far from perfect since the measurement tools and
procedures are so poor.[1]

That doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the
air and shout "it is God's will" or "the Rapture
is coming".

and too many opinions and simulations that are having gigantic
consequences.

Simulations are like business plans: neither survive
contact with reality.

Their point is that they give a hand-waving feel for
which tweakable parameters are more and less important.

Two of particular relevance to the UK are the effect
of schools being open and of preventing incoming
travellers from China. Both were deemed relatively
unimportant, and allowed to continue.

If I survive I'll be interested to see which are
true/false.


[1] A good article written by people whose job is to
understand and communicate risks and *relative* risks.
Spiegelhalter in particular is known for trying to get
people to think about whether parachuting is more/less
dangerous than smoking/drinking at different ages

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/coronavirus-statistics-what-can-we-trust-and-what-should-we-ignore

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/04/20 22:01, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

It really matters not if it escaped from a lab or if it was some crazy bat
virus from a slaughter market in Wuhan. What matters is why the immediate
coverup. Why stopping those other scientists (you know the ones in China
that were trying to get the word out about this thing and the Communists did
what communists do....they lied, and punished their scientists. So the real
question is what do we do with a communist country that want the benefits of
interacting with the world, but refuses to play by the rules. What do all
these scientists have to say about that. Also , are these scientists
bothered that the Commies shut down Chinese scientists......Funny, I never
read any stories about the comradary of scientists regarding these things.

Ignoring scientists, actively ignoring scientific advice,
and not taking necessary steps to prevent spread is deplorable.

At least /China/ has stopped being deplorable in that way.

When will the current US administration stop being deplorable?

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

Winfield Hill wrote:


https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/4/21207927/5g-towers-burning-uk-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-link

Best regards, Piotr

 

[Phil Allison]

Ricky C wrote:

=================

I am blown away by your debating technique.
You are truly the master debater.

** While you my narcissistic friend ...

are just another pathetic, public masturbater.




..... Phil

 

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 6:54:13 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:12:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:06:35 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say


--
Thanks,
- Win

Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.

ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.

Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.

Maybe they just transported some bat virus from a cave for research
purposes, and it infected a lab tech and got loose.

That's what I meant by "collected...then lost control." One of the
workers could've gotten ill just crawling around in caves.

Anyway, early on in this panic attack I read that several of the lab
workers fell ill with China's Gift, which might pertain to the
question at hand, or maybe not.

There was a guy on NPR this morning, a bat collector who does crawl
into caves and traps bats and takes varuous iccky samples to look at
their viruses. Bats host huge ranges of viruses that apparently do
them little or no harm. Like another virus I could name.


There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.

The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.

Shanghai resident Assistant Professor? Of course he is an objective
expert.

Yes. And not being dead, in prison, or disappeared definitely adds
both expertise and credibility.

Cheers,
James

 

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 6:26:06 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 5:12:39 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.

ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.

Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.

There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.

The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.


I agree. Say James, what news sources do you read? I find most news
almost impossible to read, because of the 'slant' of the source.
It's not that the 'slants' have gotten worse, but my tolerance is
much lower. (grumpy old man complex)

George H.

That's a good question about news sources. I had to think a bit to
re-trace my process.

In my youth I was exposed to some honest-to-goodness communist
propagandizing from directly across the Iron Curtain, which has affected
the way I process information later in life. I've seen Orwellian police
states personally and heard their official voices deny obvious truths.
And all of that has bred a keen sense for when I'm getting incomplete
information, straw-men, narratives, and rhetorical devices instead of
facts. I can usually spot con-men instantly, too. Same thing.

I think my staying-informed process consists essentially of collecting
seeds from wherever, suggesting possibly interesting happenings to
investigate. From there, I'll possibly read a few treatments of the
issue first to see what's being argued, then go directly to the source
so that I can evaluate the arguments being made.

When I go to the source and watch the actual person saying the actual
thing, or read the law itself, or proposed legislation, I often find
the popular reporting omits critical details, or flat-out
mischaracterizes or even misstates what was actually said.

So when reading an article in the popular press, I just read through
the slant gleaning objective facts. For example, this AP article says

" The punishment of eight doctors for “rumor-mongering,” broadcast
on national television on Jan. 2, sent a chill through the city’s
hospitals.

“Doctors in Wuhan were afraid,” said Dali Yang, a professor of Chinese
politics at the University of Chicago. “It was truly intimidation of
an entire profession.” "
https://apnews.com/68a9e1b91de4ffc166acd6012d82c2f9

Okay, on Jan. 2, China was aware of and suppressing news of their
epidemic. That's useful. But later, after making a balanced
presentation about why Chinese leaders might have wanted to avoid
public panic, the article takes a swipe at President Trump for the
same thing with no such mitigation. Orange Man is Bad, you see.
That's slant.

In pursuit of their Orange Man Bad thesis the AP article makes
ignorant statements about the U.S. response, such as "However, even
the public announcement on Jan. 20 left the U.S. nearly two months
to prepare for the pandemic."

The AP is clearly trying to argue that the U.S. failed to act, and paint
that on The Donald. But I already know the U.S. didn't have its first
known case until Jan. 21st -- by that measure we had exactly one day
to prepare for the pandemic. It's a lame argument. And I also know
that on Jan. 20th, Dr. Fauci had announced the National Institutes
of Health was already working on a vaccine for the coronavirus. That
doesn't sound like inaction or inattention to me. That sounds like our
officials were on high alert, working aggressively to counter the
threat. But the AP doesn't mention those things I already know,
important things devastating to their argument. So, I immediately know
the AP is cherry-picking, poorly-informed, or they're pitching me.

So, I try to dig out the facts wherever I can, read through the slant,
and reach a reasonable understanding of reality.

And never forget -- the most insidious power of the media is the power
to ignore. Whenever you're getting only the costs of a thing but not
the benefits, or only the benefits but not the cost, you're not being
informed, you're being played.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:16:51 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

> Someone remind me, why do we have economists?

We have economists so 50 or so of them (an impressive number anyway) with
no scruples can be bribed to all agree that such-and-such a proposed
course of action would result in financial catastrophe. By these means,
the briber hopes to be able to scare everyone into abandoning the
proposed course of action. Surprisingly, this tactic often doesn't have
the desired effect; the proposed course of action is proceeded with
nevertheless and all the dire predictions come to nothing. Whenever you
hear "x number of economists all agree course of action y would be
catastrophic for the economy" you can safely assume their opinion has
been bought and paid for by someone else with a vested interest.
And *that* is what economists are for, John.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-19 13:16, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?

My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 14:10:48 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-19 13:16, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?




My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Nuance is strongly correlated to paralysis.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

bitrex wrote:

To have an actual conspiracy I'd argue some significant part of the
conspirators have to believe they're actually doing something bad or
against the law they weren't breaking any laws of the time as far as
I know.

My point was that to conspire they have to make a choice. Obeying
authority because you are afraid or believe you have no choice isn't
conspiracy. Conspiracies are needed only by people who are not in
power. Whatever the Chinese government did they didn't conspire. It
doesn't matter then if they think they're breaking the law.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:17:02 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?

Nobody is gong to bother. You couldn't understand the answer, and wouldn't bother to try.

The only science you think you understand are the hard experimental sciences, and you get them wrong from time to time too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 2:57:28 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 6:26:06 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 5:12:39 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.

ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.

Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.

There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.

The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.


I agree. Say James, what news sources do you read? I find most news
almost impossible to read, because of the 'slant' of the source.
It's not that the 'slants' have gotten worse, but my tolerance is
much lower. (grumpy old man complex)

George H.

That's a good question about news sources. I had to think a bit to
re-trace my process.

In my youth I was exposed to some honest-to-goodness communist
propagandizing from directly across the Iron Curtain, which has affected
the way I process information later in life. I've seen Orwellian police
states personally and heard their official voices deny obvious truths.
And all of that has bred a keen sense for when I'm getting incomplete
information, straw-men, narratives, and rhetorical devices instead of
facts. I can usually spot con-men instantly, too. Same thing.

And the expertise you developed is put to use in the material you post here, which is full of incomplete information, straw man examples and rhetorical devices.

<snip>

In pursuit of their Orange Man Bad thesis the AP article makes
ignorant statements about the U.S. response, such as "However, even
the public announcement on Jan. 20 left the U.S. nearly two months
to prepare for the pandemic."

The AP is clearly trying to argue that the U.S. failed to act, and paint
that on The Donald. But I already know the U.S. didn't have its first
known case until Jan. 21st -- by that measure we had exactly one day
to prepare for the pandemic.

But that case didn't start the US epidemic - the US was already quite well enough aware of what was going on to shunt the patient into effective isolation.

The first one that got away and started US epidemic did so some weeks later..

> It's a lame argument.

Not as lame as the one James Arthi]ur is peddling here.

<snip>

So, I try to dig out the facts wherever I can, read through the slant,
and reach a reasonable understanding of reality.

And then post a comment with a slant that makes Trump and his repulbican clown car look good - or at least less fatuously incompetent.

And never forget -- the most insidious power of the media is the power
to ignore. Whenever you're getting only the costs of a thing but not
the benefits, or only the benefits but not the cost, you're not being
informed, you're being played.

James Arthur is extremely fond of ignoring inconvenient facts, and the most obvious fact here is that the US - which has about a quarter of China's population - has now had 764,265 people infected with Covid-19 - a number that is rising by about 30,000 a day - while China managed to limit the number infected to 82,747 and had twelve new cases today (probably all returning travellers).

That makes the US response decidedly inadequate. Other people have managed to do better - with less time to prepare - so the word incompetent isn't out of place.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:35:31 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:17:02 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?

Nobody is gong to bother. You couldn't understand the answer, and wouldn't bother to try.

The only science you think you understand are the hard experimental sciences, and you get them wrong from time to time too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The ChiComm disinformation machine is in full force:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/04/china-fake-news-coronavirus-164652

 

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:10:58 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-19 13:16, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?




My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"

I was wading through a list of Ronald Reagan's quips last night, and
that one was in there

Another: "An economist is someone who sees something that works in
practice, and wonders if it would work in theory." -- Ronald Reagan

BONUS:
“We have 2 classes of forecasters: Those who don't know . . . and
those who don't know they don't know. “ - John Kenneth Galbraith

How has French revolution affected world economic growth? Too early to
say.

Did you hear of the economist who dove into his swimming pool and broke
his neck? He forgot to seasonally adjust.

There were two economists who were shipwrecked on a desert island. They
had no money but over the next three years, they made millions of
dollars selling their hats to each other.

Two economists were sitting at a nudist colony. The one said, "Have
you read Marx?" The other says, "It's these wicker chairs."

Three econometricians went out hunting and came across a large deer.
The first econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the left. The
second econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the right. The
third econometrician didn’t fire but shouted in triumph, “We got it!
We got it!”

Cheers,
James

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:26:15 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 2:10:58 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-19 13:16, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:04:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:45:37 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.

From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?

One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.

I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James

There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?




My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"

I was wading through a list of Ronald Reagan's quips last night, and
that one was in there

Another: "An economist is someone who sees something that works in
practice, and wonders if it would work in theory." -- Ronald Reagan

BONUS:
“We have 2 classes of forecasters: Those who don't know . . . and
those who don't know they don't know. “ - John Kenneth Galbraith

How has French revolution affected world economic growth? Too early to
say.

Did you hear of the economist who dove into his swimming pool and broke
his neck? He forgot to seasonally adjust.

There were two economists who were shipwrecked on a desert island. They
had no money but over the next three years, they made millions of
dollars selling their hats to each other.

Two economists were sitting at a nudist colony. The one said, "Have
you read Marx?" The other says, "It's these wicker chairs."

Three econometricians went out hunting and came across a large deer.
The first econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the left. The
second econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the right. The
third econometrician didn’t fire but shouted in triumph, “We got it!
We got it!”

Cheers,
James

Go ahead and joke. What the Fed and the Treasury have been doing is
serious. They have been playing the markets and riding the tiger's
back and the tiger is getting hungry.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com