OT: Why Is COVID-19 Different?

[Ricky C]

The Washington DC beltway claims a life every couple of weeks. We accept that. Why? Because it is a low enough death rate that we perceive no direct threat from it. We don't see it happening very often. There are a lot of people on the beltway and only 1 a week doesn't sound bad. We just don't think it's going to be us that dies.

COVID-19 is a lot like that. If you lived in New York City or Chicago you might take it a bit more seriously (oddly enough the new infection rate in Chicago is still rising). We just don't think we are going to be infected because we don't see it happening. It's only other groups of people who die. I feel fine. I'm taking my vitamin C. Whatever the rationale is, there are too many people who aren't doing what they need to do to avoid getting sick.

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous outcry and people would be afraid to drive. I remember when the DC sniper was taking out one person every few days. There was no shortage of concern for that. No one told people they were being silly to be concerned about having a bullet rip through their gut.

So why are so many people clearly not worried bout this disease? Why is a threat of a shooting that was less likely than dying in a car accident so much more troubling than a disease that is killing thousands of people a day in the US?

Have we become completely inured to this disease?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:50:54 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

The Washington DC beltway claims a life every couple of weeks. We accept that. Why? Because it is a low enough death rate that we perceive no direct threat from it. We don't see it happening very often. There are a lot of people on the beltway and only 1 a week doesn't sound bad. We just don't think it's going to be us that dies.

COVID-19 is a lot like that. If you lived in New York City or Chicago you might take it a bit more seriously (oddly enough the new infection rate in Chicago is still rising). We just don't think we are going to be infected because we don't see it happening. It's only other groups of people who die. I feel fine. I'm taking my vitamin C. Whatever the rationale is, there are too many people who aren't doing what they need to do to avoid getting sick.

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous outcry and people would be afraid to drive. I remember when the DC sniper was taking out one person every few days. There was no shortage of concern for that. No one told people they were being silly to be concerned about having a bullet rip through their gut.

So why are so many people clearly not worried bout this disease? Why is a threat of a shooting that was less likely than dying in a car accident so much more troubling than a disease that is killing thousands of people a day in the US?

Have we become completely inured to this disease?

--

Rick C.

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

I think it's simple. From what I see, polls show 65 to 70% support the
measures taken and do believe that Covid is a serious threat.
I doubt you're going to get much higher agreement than
that. There are always going to be an assortment of deniers with various
motives, ignoramuses, people who believe in conspiracy theories, people
that want to try to make it a political issue, etc.

 

On Fri, 1 May 2020 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:50:54 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
The Washington DC beltway claims a life every couple of weeks. We accept that. Why? Because it is a low enough death rate that we perceive no direct threat from it. We don't see it happening very often. There are a lot of people on the beltway and only 1 a week doesn't sound bad. We just don't think it's going to be us that dies.

COVID-19 is a lot like that. If you lived in New York City or Chicago you might take it a bit more seriously (oddly enough the new infection rate in Chicago is still rising). We just don't think we are going to be infected because we don't see it happening. It's only other groups of people who die. I feel fine. I'm taking my vitamin C. Whatever the rationale is, there are too many people who aren't doing what they need to do to avoid getting sick.

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous outcry and people would be afraid to drive. I remember when the DC sniper was taking out one person every few days. There was no shortage of concern for that. No one told people they were being silly to be concerned about having a bullet rip through their gut.

So why are so many people clearly not worried bout this disease? Why is a threat of a shooting that was less likely than dying in a car accident so much more troubling than a disease that is killing thousands of people a day in the US?

Have we become completely inured to this disease?

--

Rick C.

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

I think it's simple. From what I see, polls show 65 to 70% support the
measures taken and do believe that Covid is a serious threat.
I doubt you're going to get much higher agreement than
that. There are always going to be an assortment of deniers with various
motives, ignoramuses, people who believe in conspiracy theories, people
that want to try to make it a political issue, etc.

People drive, ski, bicycle, drink beer, have sex, have babies (in that
order), skateboard, eat raw oysters, do all sorts of horribly risky
stuff, if they are not too terrified to leave their basements.

Some people are just more scared than others. Some people take
calculated risks to enjoy life. Some people know that they will die
some day no matter what they don't do. Some people have to pay for
food and rent and stuff.







--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 7:29:05 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

People drive, ski, bicycle, drink beer, have sex, have babies (in that
order), skateboard, eat raw oysters, do all sorts of horribly risky
stuff, if they are not too terrified to leave their basements.

Oh, but we have health agencies monitoring the waters where
oysters are harvested. Used to have a government agency, EPA,
doing it, too. It can be safe.

> Some people are just more scared than others.

Larkin Syndrome: perceiving fear, hysteria, panic in every situation

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 1 May 2020 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 7:29:05 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

People drive, ski, bicycle, drink beer, have sex, have babies (in that
order), skateboard, eat raw oysters, do all sorts of horribly risky
stuff, if they are not too terrified to leave their basements.

Oh, but we have health agencies monitoring the waters where
oysters are harvested. Used to have a government agency, EPA,
doing it, too. It can be safe.

Some people are just more scared than others.

Larkin Syndrome: perceiving fear, hysteria, panic in every situation

Let's quantify that as a function, the x-axis being the albedo of a
person's skin, y axis the value that the world places on their life.
It varies over at least a 1000:1 range. In some cases, a million to
one.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/coronavirus-is-pulling-millions-back-into-poverty/article31475712.ece

It's arguable how many light-skinned lives will be saved by shutting
down the world economy; it might even be zero or negative. But the
side effects of our shutdowns will probably kill millions in the
poorest countries.

With all the Nobel-prize-wearing economists pontificating in the New
York Times, why wasn't that calculated and considered?

Statistically, every life saved by westerners hunkering down in fear
will probably kill many darker people who have no N99 masks, no hand
sanitizer, no beds to hide under.

I need to up our donations budget. So should you.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:14coaf1a7jmhhpm5g4c2ivcdc85d9qov40@4ax.com:

On Fri, 1 May 2020 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:50:54 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
The Washington DC beltway claims a life every couple of weeks.
We accept that. Why? Because it is a low enough death rate
that we perceive no direct threat from it. We don't see it
happening very often. There are a lot of people on the beltway
and only 1 a week doesn't sound bad. We just don't think it's
going to be us that dies.

COVID-19 is a lot like that. If you lived in New York City or
Chicago you might take it a bit more seriously (oddly enough the
new infection rate in Chicago is still rising). We just don't
think we are going to be infected because we don't see it
happening. It's only other groups of people who die. I feel
fine. I'm taking my vitamin C. Whatever the rationale is,
there are too many people who aren't doing what they need to do
to avoid getting sick.

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a
day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous
outcry and people would be afraid to drive. I remember when the
DC sniper was taking out one person every few days. There was
no shortage of concern for that. No one told people they were
being silly to be concerned about having a bullet rip through
their gut.

So why are so many people clearly not worried bout this disease?
Why is a threat of a shooting that was less likely than dying
in a car accident so much more troubling than a disease that is
killing thousands of people a day in the US?

Have we become completely inured to this disease?

--

Rick C.

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

I think it's simple. From what I see, polls show 65 to 70%
support the measures taken and do believe that Covid is a serious
threat. I doubt you're going to get much higher agreement than
that. There are always going to be an assortment of deniers with
various motives, ignoramuses, people who believe in conspiracy
theories, people that want to try to make it a political issue,
etc.



People drive, ski, bicycle, drink beer, have sex, have babies (in
that order), skateboard, eat raw oysters, do all sorts of horribly
risky stuff, if they are not too terrified to leave their
basements.

Some people are just more scared than others. Some people take
calculated risks to enjoy life. Some people know that they will
die some day no matter what they don't do. Some people have to pay
for food and rent and stuff.

Proof that lockdowns kill!

(seriously though... I am for separation)

<https://nypost.com/2020/04/30/woman-falls-to-death-while-shooting-
selfie-to-celebrate-end-of-lockdown/>

 

[mpm]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:50:54 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous outcry and people would be afraid to drive.

If the rate of our senators and house members increased to 15 a day, I might take more notice. ...And that tremendous outcry might not be one of grief.

But seriously, I think society at large just gets restless.
They'll only put up with something for so long, absent clear, direct and immediate justification. And even then, some percentage will just take the chance they won't be unaffected. (Among other just as consequential drivers of behavior - like the need to put food on the table.)

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:23:09 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:50:54 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous outcry and people would be afraid to drive.


If the rate of our senators and house members increased to 15 a day, I might take more notice. ...And that tremendous outcry might not be one of grief.

But seriously, I think society at large just gets restless.
They'll only put up with something for so long, absent clear, direct and immediate justification. And even then, some percentage will just take the chance they won't be unaffected. (Among other just as consequential drivers of behavior - like the need to put food on the table.)

Very few people are in the position of not being able to stay home other than going to the supermarket. Is that what you mean about putting food on the table? Yes, we need to do that. It would be interesting to see how many people get the disease at the supermarket.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 9:46:41 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

It's arguable how many light-skinned lives will be saved by shutting
down the world economy; it might even be zero or negative. But the
side effects of our shutdowns will probably kill millions in the
poorest countries.

How? Firstly, no one 'shuts down the world economy', I'm still shopping,
paying bills, taxes, etc. Shutdowns don't stop 'the poorest countries'
from having food (countries that don't have lots of currency wealth live
on homegrown foods), it doesn't destroy housing, and clothing can last a few
months, so it isn't food/clothing/shelter. How does death occur?

Shutdowns and quarantines can kill the disease locally, but those you
see in the US are just slowing it. If/when a vaccine happens (there's
at least three in human test phase now), the life expectation of all
will go up. Ask an insurance actuary if you want an estimate of
those lives saved; he/she won't say 'near zero'.

 

[mpm]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 7:02:19 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

Very few people are in the position of not being able to stay home other than going to the supermarket. Is that what you mean about putting food on the table? Yes, we need to do that. It would be interesting to see how many people get the disease at the supermarket.

I had posted a simulation a few weeks back that showed the rise in rate of infection when "attractors" (i.e., stores, churches, or other places where people will congregate) are added to the model. Not an ideal outcome, but it's probably impractical to home deliver meals to everyone. What other options are there (besides dieting)?

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 8:42:32 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 9:46:41 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

It's arguable how many light-skinned lives will be saved by shutting
down the world economy; it might even be zero or negative. But the
side effects of our shutdowns will probably kill millions in the
poorest countries.

How? Firstly, no one 'shuts down the world economy', I'm still shopping,
paying bills, taxes, etc.

Of course they shut down the economy. The proof is in the fact that Larkin's business isn't operating. That's the world, right?

Shutdowns don't stop 'the poorest countries'
from having food (countries that don't have lots of currency wealth live
on homegrown foods), it doesn't destroy housing, and clothing can last a few
months, so it isn't food/clothing/shelter. How does death occur?

In some ways the poorer countries have it better in that they are mostly independent of other countries to begin with... other than supplies of cell phones which don't seem to be cut off anyway.

They are short on medical facilities, so when the virus hits hard, they won't be in a position to treat it even though there is little treatment.

Shutdowns and quarantines can kill the disease locally, but those you
see in the US are just slowing it. If/when a vaccine happens (there's
at least three in human test phase now), the life expectation of all
will go up. Ask an insurance actuary if you want an estimate of
those lives saved; he/she won't say 'near zero'.

If we find reasonable studies done in six months or a year there may be some surprises. I don't think there will be a lot of deaths due to the stay at home orders. In no small part because so few people are really following them.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 9:42:56 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 7:02:19 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

Very few people are in the position of not being able to stay home other than going to the supermarket. Is that what you mean about putting food on the table? Yes, we need to do that. It would be interesting to see how many people get the disease at the supermarket.


I had posted a simulation a few weeks back that showed the rise in rate of infection when "attractors" (i.e., stores, churches, or other places where people will congregate) are added to the model. Not an ideal outcome, but it's probably impractical to home deliver meals to everyone. What other options are there (besides dieting)?

Yes, I looked at that simulation in detail and it was interesting. But it doesn't mean a huge number of people are getting infected at the supermarkets. The simulations made assumptions about the attractors which may or may not apply to the supermarkets.

I think the biggest risk in the stores is to the cashiers. The local supermarket has a piece of plexiglass up but to hear clearly requires moving my head to the side. These kids mumble so much! Get off my lawn!!!

I think the stores handle this differently. Larkin's supermarket paces the numbers in the stores and I think they marked 6 feet for the lines and even have one way isles with no passing or something. Here they let you free range but they aren't all that crowded, but then they never were. I find it interesting that any time I go to the store they have the same density as if it were just after work time always. Not packed, but lots of lines open and busy. I think the stores are doing very well.

I picked up carry out a couple of times last week. It was so much better tasting than the stuff I've been eating lately.

Not sure what I'm having for dinner tonight. Slim selection and I've had it two or three times in the last week or so, no matter what I pick. I'm going to try to wait until Monday to go to the store again. I don't know if the stores are still busy on the weekends or not? Don't want to find out.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Fri, 1 May 2020 17:42:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 9:46:41 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

It's arguable how many light-skinned lives will be saved by shutting
down the world economy; it might even be zero or negative. But the
side effects of our shutdowns will probably kill millions in the
poorest countries.

How? Firstly, no one 'shuts down the world economy', I'm still shopping,
paying bills, taxes, etc. Shutdowns don't stop 'the poorest countries'
from having food (countries that don't have lots of currency wealth live
on homegrown foods), it doesn't destroy housing, and clothing can last a few
months, so it isn't food/clothing/shelter. How does death occur?

Read the link that you snipped. And do a little research of your own.

It's wonderful that you are still shopping.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[RosemontCrest]

On 5/1/2020 7:28 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 1 May 2020 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:50:54 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
The Washington DC beltway claims a life every couple of weeks. We accept that. Why? Because it is a low enough death rate that we perceive no direct threat from it. We don't see it happening very often. There are a lot of people on the beltway and only 1 a week doesn't sound bad. We just don't think it's going to be us that dies.

COVID-19 is a lot like that. If you lived in New York City or Chicago you might take it a bit more seriously (oddly enough the new infection rate in Chicago is still rising). We just don't think we are going to be infected because we don't see it happening. It's only other groups of people who die. I feel fine. I'm taking my vitamin C. Whatever the rationale is, there are too many people who aren't doing what they need to do to avoid getting sick.

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous outcry and people would be afraid to drive. I remember when the DC sniper was taking out one person every few days. There was no shortage of concern for that. No one told people they were being silly to be concerned about having a bullet rip through their gut.

So why are so many people clearly not worried bout this disease? Why is a threat of a shooting that was less likely than dying in a car accident so much more troubling than a disease that is killing thousands of people a day in the US?

Have we become completely inured to this disease?

--

Rick C.

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

I think it's simple. From what I see, polls show 65 to 70% support the
measures taken and do believe that Covid is a serious threat.
I doubt you're going to get much higher agreement than
that. There are always going to be an assortment of deniers with various
motives, ignoramuses, people who believe in conspiracy theories, people
that want to try to make it a political issue, etc.



People drive, ski, bicycle, drink beer, have sex, have babies (in that
order)

Why is driving, skiing, bicycling, and drinking beer prerequisite to
having babies? Hell, today one need not engage in sexual activity to
bear a child. I hope that you are not home-schooling any of your family
members.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 12:29:05 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 1 May 2020 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:50:54 AM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:
The Washington DC beltway claims a life every couple of weeks. We accept that. Why? Because it is a low enough death rate that we perceive no direct threat from it. We don't see it happening very often. There are a lot of people on the beltway and only 1 a week doesn't sound bad. We just don't think it's going to be us that dies.

COVID-19 is a lot like that. If you lived in New York City or Chicago you might take it a bit more seriously (oddly enough the new infection rate in Chicago is still rising). We just don't think we are going to be infected because we don't see it happening. It's only other groups of people who die. I feel fine. I'm taking my vitamin C. Whatever the rationale is, there are too many people who aren't doing what they need to do to avoid getting sick.

But if the rate of people dying on the beltway increased to 15 a day, the current daily death count, there would be a tremendous outcry and people would be afraid to drive. I remember when the DC sniper was taking out one person every few days. There was no shortage of concern for that. No one told people they were being silly to be concerned about having a bullet rip through their gut.

So why are so many people clearly not worried bout this disease? Why is a threat of a shooting that was less likely than dying in a car accident so much more troubling than a disease that is killing thousands of people a day in the US?

Have we become completely inured to this disease?

--

Rick C.

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

I think it's simple. From what I see, polls show 65 to 70% support the
measures taken and do believe that Covid is a serious threat.
I doubt you're going to get much higher agreement than
that. There are always going to be an assortment of deniers with various
motives, ignoramuses, people who believe in conspiracy theories, people
that want to try to make it a political issue, etc.

People drive, ski, bicycle, drink beer, have sex, have babies (in that
order), skateboard, eat raw oysters, do all sorts of horribly risky
stuff, if they are not too terrified to leave their basements.

Some people are just more scared than others. Some people take
calculated risks to enjoy life. Some people know that they will die
some day no matter what they don't do. Some people have to pay for
food and rent and stuff.

And John Larkin thinks that he can calculate the risks, and imagines that anybody whose calculation don't come out the same way as his do is irrationally terrified.

In reality, he doesn't do rationality, and can't recognise it when he sees it.

--
Bill sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 2:46:41 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 1 May 2020 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 7:29:05 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

People drive, ski, bicycle, drink beer, have sex, have babies (in that
order), skateboard, eat raw oysters, do all sorts of horribly risky
stuff, if they are not too terrified to leave their basements.

Oh, but we have health agencies monitoring the waters where
oysters are harvested. Used to have a government agency, EPA,
doing it, too. It can be safe.

Some people are just more scared than others.

Larkin Syndrome: perceiving fear, hysteria, panic in every situation

Let's quantify that as a function, the x-axis being the albedo of a
person's skin, y axis the value that the world places on their life.
It varies over at least a 1000:1 range. In some cases, a million to
one.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/coronavirus-is-pulling-millions-back-into-poverty/article31475712.ece

It's arguable how many light-skinned lives will be saved by shutting
down the world economy; it might even be zero or negative.

The world economy isn't being shut down. Bits of it are being put on hold.
Where lock-down is done right, the lock down lasts for six weeks to two months.

> But the side effects of our shutdowns will probably kill millions in the poorest countries.

In John Larkin's ever-so-well-informed opinion. Covid-19 is likely to kill people in poorer countries too. The inhabitants don't travel as much, so the epidemic is taking longer to get to them.

With all the Nobel-prize-wearing economists pontificating in the New
York Times, why wasn't that calculated and considered?

The calculation would have been difficult, the information required to make the calculation isn't actually available, and the estimates generated not really reliable enough to justify investing the effort?

Statistically, every life saved by westerners hunkering down in fear
will probably kill many darker people who have no N99 masks, no hand
sanitizer, no beds to hide under.

John Larkin may like to think this, but he hasn't got a clue whether it might be true or not.

> I need to up our donations budget. So should you.

What John Larkin really needs to do is to learn a bit more about the subjects he pontificates about. For that to happen he'd need to acquire the ability to learn, which seems unlikely to happen.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 02/05/20 03:05, Ricky C wrote:

The local supermarket has a piece of plexiglass up but to hear clearly
requires moving my head to the side. These kids mumble so much! Get off my
lawn!!!

I hear a lot more clearly when I can see the lips move.

Masks, and to a lesser extent bushy beards, are an impediment

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 4:31:20 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 02/05/20 03:05, Ricky C wrote:
The local supermarket has a piece of plexiglass up but to hear clearly
requires moving my head to the side. These kids mumble so much! Get off my
lawn!!!

I hear a lot more clearly when I can see the lips move.

Masks, and to a lesser extent bushy beards, are an impediment

Well known. When I had to communicate with our lip-reading mechanicial engineer I'd trim my moustach back so the top edge of my upper lip was clearly visible.

There's a very powerful illusion based on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect

I even met Harry McGurk once.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky C]

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:24:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 4:31:20 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/05/20 03:05, Ricky C wrote:
The local supermarket has a piece of plexiglass up but to hear clearly
requires moving my head to the side. These kids mumble so much! Get off my
lawn!!!

I hear a lot more clearly when I can see the lips move.

Masks, and to a lesser extent bushy beards, are an impediment

Well known. When I had to communicate with our lip-reading mechanicial engineer I'd trim my moustach back so the top edge of my upper lip was clearly visible.

There's a very powerful illusion based on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect

I even met Harry McGurk once.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That sounds similar to what happens when the sound is only very slightly off from the video of someone speaking. I find the result to be very disturbing and it is surprising how often this happens in movies, mainly in videos on the Internet. The commercial providers like Netflix and Hulu are not excepted.

In VLC media player you can adjust the timing of the sound track. Online services haven't come to grips with this yet, they seem to be in denial that the problem even happens. Same with the subtitles only they can be very far out of sync, by a second or two.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 8:15:56 PM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:24:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 4:31:20 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 02/05/20 03:05, Ricky C wrote:
The local supermarket has a piece of plexiglass up but to hear clearly
requires moving my head to the side. These kids mumble so much! Get off my
lawn!!!

I hear a lot more clearly when I can see the lips move.

Masks, and to a lesser extent bushy beards, are an impediment

Well known. When I had to communicate with our lip-reading mechanicial engineer I'd trim my moustach back so the top edge of my upper lip was clearly visible.

There's a very powerful illusion based on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect

I even met Harry McGurk once.

That sounds similar to what happens when the sound is only very slightly off from the video of someone speaking.

That's not what the McGurk effect is about. You show a - very carefully timed - video of somebody articulating one phoneme while the sound track produces different phoneme. Shut you eyes and you will hear one phoneme, open them and you think you are hearing another, and a lip reader would perceive a third (if the sound was off).

You aren't conscious of what you are doing, which is why it great lecture fodder.

>I find the result to be very disturbing and it is surprising how often this happens in movies, mainly in videos on the Internet. The commercial providers like Netflix and Hulu are not excepted.

Sure. We do rely on lip movements to help us understand speech when we can see them - and seeing them happen a bit away from the right time is worrying, even if we can't work out quite why.

> In VLC media player you can adjust the timing of the sound track. Online services haven't come to grips with this yet, they seem to be in denial that the problem even happens. Same with the subtitles only they can be very far out of sync, by a second or two.

Subtitles are a bit more remote from real life.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney