China and countries outside of the Western block have handled Covid-19 very differently, without completely locking down their economies, or for long, although some of their methods are more authoritarian.
Pepe Escobar thinks there is another reason for the complete destruction of the Western economy, which is to bring in a new authoritarian world order, with a new banking system, with a paltry basic income, and with corporations in total control.
People will be so scared of virus, says Pepe Escobar, that they will eagerly accept all the changes the elites want, plus the chipped vaccines that will be able to track their every move.
Boris Johnson caught the virus, which could have killed him, and also, his government initially went for herd immunity to try to save the economy. In this way, the British government doesn't seem to have been part of this conspiracy.
I could handle the conspiracies about 9/11, the neoliberal banking scam, and war is a money making racket, but not this. Would the elites really destroy their economy for total control? What would they gain, and surely China would just zoom ahead?
Incompetence resulting in an unprecedented social experiment, followed by opportunistic power grabs.
ReplyDeleteNo conspiracy, just human behavior.
I'm beginning to think you're right, that nature unfolds in its own way. It can be beautiful and horrible.
DeleteEphesians 6:12
ReplyDeleteEvery time I come across the name Pepe I can't help but think of the Bugs Bunny/Looney Tunes character Pepé Le Pew. Sorry :)
ReplyDeleteThen there's the name Escobar... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepé_Le_Pew
I reckon this is a conspiracy theory. I know the CIA is run by many psychopaths, but ex CIA Ray Mcgovern and Philip Giraldi are good guys, and so is Bill Binney from the NSA. Everything is in shades of grey. I can't believe the the whole of the elite are Dr Nos, Goldfingers, or Dr Strangeloves.
DeleteMany conservatives have been confused with the changing medical prescription as the virus presents its own evolution and time line. Initially the medical community did not know if the USA was to be another Italy or a Taiwan. So we worried about and planned for the worst case. Now as the virus situation seems to be easing up, we are hearing a lot of 'I told you so's' and even 'hoax' coming from the right.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thestreet.com/mishtalk/economics/covid-19-deaths-in-context-and-the-absurdity-of-flu-comparisons-ClxUEHkoOkWfZPNO2X9Jow
It's doing my head in. Great summary, that. I've been battling with the Covid-19 conspiracy theorists all for days on twitter, now they might be right about infection rates. But really, their main interest is to create conspiracy theories.
Delete"Conspiracy theories make stupid people feel like geniuses"
hoo,
ReplyDeleteIf the death rate ends up = to regular influenza then right will for sure say "hoax" 100%....
I know. Win some, lose some.
DeleteHey AA lol YOU should read that one.... YOU f-ing read it...
ReplyDeleteYou are on here all the f-ing time suggesting that the specific way we use to regulate our Depository system somehow is profound or something...
Get a grip...
"I know the CIA is run by many psychopaths, but ex CIA Ray Mcgovern and Philip Giraldi are good guys, and so is Bill Binney from the NSA. Everything is in shades of grey. I can't believe the the whole of the elite are Dr Nos, Goldfingers, or Dr Strangeloves. "
ReplyDeleteYou can add John Kiriakou's name. And even all the inspector generals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou
"I've been battling with the Covid-19 conspiracy theorists all for days on twitter, now they might be right about infection rate."
ReplyDeleteThese dangerous buffoons have no idea what they are talking about, K.
They are just very vain children, full of their own self importance. They just love being different to everyone else because it makes them feel important and smug.
Delete"If the death rate ends up = to regular influenza then right will for sure say "hoax" 100%..."
ReplyDeleteHere you go, Matt:
Coronavirus Disease 2019 vs. the Flu
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu
Let me add that John Hopkins Medicine is not just America's jewel -- it is humanity's jewel!
Trivia: Before John Hopkins, American medical schools were medieval. Worse, admissions was solely based on applicant's ability to pay tuition fees. That's why Americans who really wanted to learn medicine would travel to Europe to study and train. Talking late 1800s, early 1900s.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/
" as the virus presents its own evolution and time line."
ReplyDeleteDid you talk to it too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete" as the virus presents its own evolution and time line."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I missed your point there...
Now deleted?
" 'as the virus presents its own evolution and time line.'
ReplyDeleteDid you talk to it too?"
Would be nice if the virus got around to communicating its political affiliation. You know, pro MAGA, anti MAGA... ;)
your statement is if the micro organism is operating with purpose which is a fallacy and also non-Darwinian ... so you cant use the word 'evolution' in the same sentence there too...
ReplyDeleteOne or the other...
iow you cant say "Darwin" and "purpose" at the same time...
Evolution of the virus scenario in our world, not meaning its RNA or its survival fitness.
ReplyDeleteThe virus's purpose is to exist and replicate, and that process will essentially dictate its timeline. Same as humans...
The virus has been anti-MAGA, but IMO the tide will soon turn...
ReplyDeletePatting each other on the back, while exclaiming "Bloody good show!"
ReplyDeleteUniversal code of politics.
"The virus's purpose is to exist and replicate"
ReplyDeleteNo this is still non Darwin... in Darwin, there are random chance mutations and those random chance events may or may not result in an outcome that is favorable to the virus...
So you cant say "the virus purpose is..."
Virus have no purpose... in Darwin..
Maybe you are not under Darwin... I just assume everybody here is ...
This thing has to somehow achieve gain of function or an increase in its system complexity only by a random chance mutation or series of random chance mutations...
I don’t doubt you’re right Matt but any comparisons between flu and Covid are plain ignorant. Flu kills 50-80000 a year , Covid has killed over 50k in just a little under 2 months, and this was with pretty significant mitigation strategies
ReplyDeleteI was talking to a guy today who was relating a conversation with another neighbor who asked him if he knew anyone personally who had contracted Covid, he said no, and the guy said “me neither, nor has anyone I know.......really makes me wonder”. He said he stared right at him for a while and it started to get a little uncomfortable because he wasn’t sure what to say. Right about then the guys wife came out the door and said “ I just got off phone with your mom, your aunt Sue is in hospital, she tested positive for covid “. He just looked at him and shrugged “sorry”
Greg all they are going to look at is the death rate ex post they will never understand your concern wrt the first derivative of number infected...
ReplyDeleteIts too complicated...
Serum antibody type tests are yielding death rates converging towards regular flu... they are all going to think "hoax"...
Not sure what the political fallout is going to be...
some chatter here on right already that "trump got rolled" by the Dems...
Death rate of flu and GOP base is going to think it was a complete hoax...
The virus's purpose is to exist and replicate"
ReplyDeleteNo this is still non Darwin... in Darwin, there are random chance mutations and those random chance events may or may not result in an outcome that is favorable to the virus...
First off, modern evolutionary theory is not tied to whatever Darwin did or did not think about purpose and secondly your use of random and favorable are loaded. Random does not mean anything is possible, there are always constraints in the universe, random simply means not predictable before the fact. Favorable can only be judged post hoc as well. In the case of the virus, mutates many different ways but only certain ones end up favorable, i.e. favorable means still pathogenic to humans and affecting the respiratory tracts type2 pnemocyte. The corona virus might mutate to a virus causing an entirely different constellation of symptoms or to a one non pathogenic to humans
—————————
So you cant say "the virus purpose is..."
There can be a purpose without a conscious effort. Purpose is another loaded term
———|———
This thing has to somehow achieve gain of function or an increase in its system complexity only by a random chance mutation or series of random chance mutations...
Sorry Matt, there only needs to be variation, which we know comes with each replication because almost all transcriptions of replicating proteins are imperfect. Some of the variation comes as a result of effects of back ground radiation (or human created radiation)
It does not have to get more “complexity” to be successful. The environment determines what is successful FOR that environment. It may be becoming less complex.... maybe losing some protein prevents the immune system from stopping it fast enough. To assume that only more complexity is advantageous in all environments is wrong.
"loaded" = figurative language...
ReplyDeleteI am not "loading" anything...
In Darwin the "favorable" result is as he said survival of the fittest...
This thing was in pangolins or bats or wtf what is the population of those things maybe a few 10k? now it can get in up to 7.5 Billion people...
It has a much greater chance of "survival" if it can get into a host population of billions instead of thousands...
So now you have to show how random chance mutations can result in this thing getting a change in that receptor area to make it more able to attach to human cells...
What is the random chance of that happening? what is involved in the genome? idk...
Is location in the genome related to the function? idk..
So does the original sequence have to be cut at a specific location then that segment that makes the "hook" or "spike" be inserted where that specific cut was? idk..
What are the chances of this happening by random chance mutation? idk...
A Darwin trained "biologist' so-called will assume ANYTHING is possible via random chance mutation.. ANYTHING.... they are completely biased towards random chance mutation doing EVERYTHING..
This is the problem... its the same with Economics... and Theology...
You have 3 f-ed up disciplines right now Biology, Economics and Theology... all dominated by Art Degree platonist methodology...
No sufficient science in any of them...
You have a torsion spring in both a mouse trap and a garage door operator...
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Darwin people those are both the same thing... and ofc theyre not..
Greg look up thread I am reporting on Treasury for first time in US history, increasing the General Account balance to in excess of $1T...
ReplyDeleteThe Darwin people are looking at that and thinking... imagine this is their inner monologue:
"hmmmm ... thats interesting, the TGA balance is over 1T....hmmmmm... well, what is obviously happening is that Treasury is going in every day and flipping a coin... heads they issue more than they redeem, and tails they redeem more than they issue... AND THEY HAVE BEEN GETTING MORE HEADS THAN TAILS LATELY..."
This is how these people actually think... AND THEY ARE PUT IN CHARGE OF STUFF!!!! SCARY!!!!!
Fittest can not be pre defined or pre determined. Fitness is always answered by “fitness to what”?
ReplyDeleteEvery creature alive today that successfully reproduces is fittest for their niche of the environment.
Your constant allusion to Darwin is stupid. Darwin did the hard data finding by making specific notes on various animals, noting exquisite details and drawing pictures and then simply asking “what accounts for all this variation?” And he came up with the mechanism, he even postulated DNA (not by name of course) but knew there had to be a way these variations were passed on. His basic theory and mechanism was spot on but it has certainly advanced
————-
So now you have to show how random chance mutations can result in this thing getting a change in that receptor area to make it more able to attach to human cells.
No, actually you have to show how it’s not possible. We know variations happen all the time. Every genome has natural variation and there are things like radiation and other chemicals that can affect our DNA. This virus didn’t have to change at all to go from Pangolin to human. It just needed a vector. You want to assume that because you can’t imagine how this random process can go this way then that makes it impossible. Sorry Matt, the world isnt limited by your imagination
Again, you’re not qualified to critique biology
You have a torsion spring in both a mouse trap and a garage door operator...
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Darwin people those are both the same thing... and ofc theyre not..
—————————————-
First off, biologists don’t talk about mouse traps and garage door operators, what they do talk about is the different systems for storing elastic energy in nature, of which there are many. What they might ask next is “ what are the oldest examples of such devices,that we can identify”
Ultimately to be a successful animal that stands up, runs, jumps etc etc you need a way to store elastic energy and all the systems that are found in current animals have early prototypes which have EVOLVED to current types. This is not even debatable
Greg look up thread I am reporting on Treasury for first time in US history, increasing the General Account balance to in excess of $1T...
The Darwin people are looking at that and thinking... imagine this is their inner monologue:
"hmmmm ... thats interesting, the TGA balance is over 1T....hmmmmm... well, what is obviously happening is that Treasury is going in every day and flipping a coin... heads they issue more than they redeem, and tails they redeem more than they issue... AND THEY HAVE BEEN GETTING MORE HEADS THAN TAILS LATELY..."
———————————
Sorry Matt but biologists have a much more advanced understanding of random thena coin flip. If you were to use a “coin” it would need about 10000000000000000 sides to it.............. and even that does not express the size of the sample space adequately.
Again, you have no idea of scope
It would take a mathematician to explain to Matt why mutations are not random, and at the end of that explanation, Matt would keep on using the word.
ReplyDeleteSeveral mechanisms that cause mutations are themselves products of evolution.
Example: 90% of cases of Huntington's Disease are inherited, 10% are the result of a recurring mutation.
Example: Selection pressure triggering a mutation that addresses the issue:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1834006/
Peter
ReplyDeleteI think it’s okay to call them random so long as random is understood as “not determined by something with an interest in outcome”. There are definitely things that cannot happen, there are constraints on the system.
Also, I think it’s okay to calll it non random so long as that doesn’t mean guided by something that cares.
Many act as if those are the only two options
ReplyDeleteSo people who get that disease live longer?
Get an eyeball in the back of their head to see if someone is sneaking up on them?
“Several mechanisms that cause mutations are themselves products of evolution.”
ReplyDeleteYou are STARTING with the Theory...
Nobody legitimate does that...
By your logic somebody sneezing droplets of virus into the air validated the Miasma theory of disease...
ReplyDeletelol who needs virology!
ReplyDeleteBy your logic somebody sneezing droplets of virus into the air validated the Miasma theory of disease...
lol who needs virology!
——————-
Well without another theory to compare it to and more data, droplets in the air could support the miasma theory.
The miasma theory was not ridiculous. It was actually more right than wrong. It was a huge step beyond demons or gods will. It supposed something in the air could transmit a disease. Which is absolutely true of some diseases. It was not a ridiculous idea at the time
It was waaaaay more correct than the modern notion of Intelligent design. It was also a scientific theory in that it could be tested. Intelligent Design simply sits back and tells evolutionary theorists “ not enough proof, show me in a lab how an eye can evolve out of random cells”
There are ZERO tests that can be done on Intelligent Design theory hence NO science
I'm starting with the PRODUCT. The theory is that there is a PROCESS or set of processes. Another theory is that evolution is operating at the molecular and macro scales. In other words, molecular genotypes and macro world phenotypes.
ReplyDeleteThe outcome of this process will be non-random. Nor will it be chaotic, which is the case with weather.
We don't say that weather is random, it is chaotic. In the short term, weather is predictable.
Evolution is not random, nor chaotic. In the short term, it is relatively static. At longer time scales (lifetime of an organism), epigenetics may play a role. During the lifetime of species, natural selection and contingency play a role. At the time scale of millions of years, evolution has resulted in another product: organic matter, also referred to as the biome. It is a tiny fraction of the mass of the planet.
The universe is described by physical laws, thus there is precious little that is random. Quantum mechanics appears to be the opposite, but we aren't discussing QM phenomena, are we?
Randomness is distinct from pseudo-randomness or attractors (chaos theory). Definitions of randomness are used in cryptanalysis and information theory.
To an earlier point: a virus that kills phenotypes who have already passed on their genes (old folks) is not an example of natural selection, or survival of the fittest.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with both comments
"First off, modern evolutionary theory is not tied to whatever Darwin did or did not think about purpose and secondly your use of random and favorable are loaded."
ReplyDeleteI'm just going to add that Darwin for his time -- the 19th century in case anyone was wondering when -- was brilliant. Today, 2 centuries later, even a high school biology student knows more than Darwin ever did. We've progressed a long way indeed :)
PS: TWiEVO 54: Rough drafts of SARS-CoV-2 science:
Nels and Vincent continue their discussion of SARS-CoV-2 from an evolutionary viewpoint, including function of the furin cleavage site, whether Vervet cells are an informative system, another bat isolate, and a nomenclature to assist genomic epidemiology.
https://www.microbe.tv/twievo/
For an intelligent (he has a Phd in Astrophysics, no less) Christian (as in he goes door-to-door to witness) view on evolution, I recommend Dr. Hugh Ross at www.reasons.org. Ross believes in both the Bible AND Science (which he calls the 67th book of the Bible).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, my point it that one does not have to throw one's brain away to believe the Bible ...