EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

Trump keeps predicting coronavirus death tolls the U.S. then

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Trump keeps predicting coronavirus death tolls the U.S. then

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

David Brown
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 12:45 pm   



On 06/05/2020 00:45, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Quote:
The biggest scandal, to me, is cigarettes. Government rakes in big
taxes on cancer sticks. They kill about 500K people in the USA every
year, and they are for sale, with government blessing, everywhere.
Where is the outrage?

The outrage against cigarettes is found in most of the world, especially
the more civilised ones - with high taxes on them, bans on advertising,
graphic warnings on packets, restrictions on where you can smoke, etc.
There is a continuous stepping up of laws and restrictions that make it
harder and more expensive to smoke, and that discourage young people
from starting the habit. Getting rid of tobacco is a slow process, but
making gradual progress.

In the USA, there is outrage that tobacco companies have to tell people
the truth - "Freedom of speech" apparently also covers "Freedom of
companies to lie as much as they want". And there is outrage against
tobacco sellers being restricted in their right to make a dishonest buck
from selling death sticks with additives to make them more addictive.
That seems fair enough - after all, your vice president has said that
smoking doesn't kill, so it must be fine.


Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 3:45 pm   



On Wed, 6 May 2020 13:04:41 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

Quote:
On 06/05/2020 00:45, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The biggest scandal, to me, is cigarettes. Government rakes in big
taxes on cancer sticks. They kill about 500K people in the USA every
year, and they are for sale, with government blessing, everywhere.
Where is the outrage?

The outrage against cigarettes is found in most of the world, especially
the more civilised ones - with high taxes on them, bans on advertising,
graphic warnings on packets, restrictions on where you can smoke, etc.
There is a continuous stepping up of laws and restrictions that make it
harder and more expensive to smoke, and that discourage young people
from starting the habit. Getting rid of tobacco is a slow process, but
making gradual progress.


Speed it up and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Shut
down the cigarette factories. Arrest people for smoking in public or
throwing butts everywhere. Allow lawsuits for lung cancer. Criminalize
the sales of a deadly product. It worked for asbestos, which was far
less deadly. That won't happen for tobacco because government wants
the tax revenue.

Government also wants this virus panic in many places. It's a good
crisis to not waste.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard


Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 3:45 pm   



On Wed, 6 May 2020 12:37:44 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

Quote:
On 05/05/2020 21:30, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
On 5/5/2020 11:28 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rE-v0nnbHk&list=LLkBcHzChtY1WzDgmGGnz-1g&index=3&t=0s



The scariest part is he's going to get Biden elected.


Americans can forgive evil, Americans don't forgive weakness.
Trump can't make America back to normal quickly no matter what he
does.

He can show that he knows how to be callous and shrug in the face
of statistics about fatalities - it at least shows he's not "a
pussy" which is what Americans in general would prefer in a
leader.

Just a few tens of thousands of dead sickly and old people that
only weak pussies would care about.

Your money or your life?

They decided to keep the money. Anyway, the Fed is backing out of
the blanket lock-down and let the states decide. I would go one
step further and let the counties decide. SF and LA might need
more lock-down, but not the rest of California.

What criteria do you use to decide if shutdowns are needed. What do
you include in "shutdown"?

I have seen very, very few counties outside of very remote areas (and
not universally there) that should be relaxing the restrictions.
People seem to think because we aren't seeing exponential growth that
means things are fine and we can go back to the way things were. The
reality is that in most areas the infection rates are either still
growing or at the peak. Loosening the restrictions is like taking
the cover off the fire before the coals are out.


You are not going to get the fire completely out here, because there are
so many other fires going on around you. You might put it out in one
place, or at least have it under control, and it /will/ spring up again
elsewhere.

Lockdown and restrictions are not an absolute binary choice - fully
closed or fully open.

So what is needed is graduated response, with different levels of
lockdown in different places (whether that be at a country level, state
level, county level, etc., is a complicated matter).

You need the tightest lockdowns in places that are worst hit in order to
minimise the biggest problem - overloading of the health system
(hospital beds, tired out health workers, limits on protection
equipment, etc.).


The health hazard here is from underloading of health care. Hospitals
were cleared out and panic mobilized for this virus and are
practically empty. Normal medical care isn't being done. Dentists and
doctors can't be seen.


Quote:
If you have low enough infection rates that you
have dealt with this aspect, your next concern is that the spreading
rates should be lower than 1 - preferably a lot lower. Then you need to
make sure your vulnerable people are as safe as practical.

And you need a /lot/ of testing to keep an eye on things, as well as
contact tracing up and running.

Once you have that (and many places are very far from this), you can
look at loosening restrictions, while being ready to put them in place
again at short notice if there is a significant outbreak.

The big challenge is that the feedback is slow - by the time you know
you have a problem again, you should have re-introduced the lockdown two
weeks ago.


Sounds like an unstable control system. Most politics-and-fear-driven
loops are unstable.

Quote:


What people in mostly Corona-free areas usually fail to understand is
that a major reason they don't have much Corona is that they are on
lockdown (to some extent at least).


No rush, they can just have their economy destroyed, stay home
unemployed for a few months, and catch the virus afterwards.


Quote:
People find it very difficult to
appreciate when preventative measures succeed in averting a crisis.
(Such as "Why do we need vaccines against measles? We don't have
measles here".)

But the risks of the disease spreading out of control varies from place
to place - there is no doubt that population density is a big factor.
And thus the balance between the social and economic costs of lockdowns
and risks of the health and life costs of the disease are different from
place to place.


Why choose between two costs when you can have both?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard


Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 3:45 pm   



On Wed, 6 May 2020 12:40:48 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

Quote:
On 06/05/2020 00:37, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2020 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:


They decided to keep the money. Anyway, the Fed is backing out of the blanket lock-down and let the states decide. I would go one step further and let the counties decide. SF and LA might need more lock-down, but not the rest of California.

What criteria do you use to decide if shutdowns are needed. What do you include in "shutdown"?

Population density. Outside of SF and LA and some cities, people are few and far apart.

Or democracy. Let every state and region decide for themselves.


Democracy is the worst idea. Most people - including most elected
politicians - are basically clueless about this sort of thing. To put
this in electronics terms (so you have a hope of understanding it), you
don't let end-users vote on where to put the resistors on your PCB's or
what values they should take. When dealing with health issues, you put
health experts in charge.


On what scale? City, county, country, world?

And which experts?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

Bill Sloman
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 4:45 pm   



On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:15:22 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 12:37:44 +0200, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 05/05/2020 21:30, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
On 5/5/2020 11:28 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:


<snip>

Quote:
You need the tightest lockdowns in places that are worst hit in order to
minimise the biggest problem - overloading of the health system
(hospital beds, tired out health workers, limits on protection
equipment, etc.).

The health hazard here is from underloading of health care. Hospitals
were cleared out and panic mobilized for this virus and are
practically empty. Normal medical care isn't being done. Dentists and
doctors can't be seen.


Not exactly true. A country of 310 million people with a life expectancy of 78.9 years would have an average daily death rate of 10,764. Covid-19 is currently killing about 2000 a day. It's not evenly spread over the whole country,and the areas where there's most Covid-19 have very busy hospitals.

Quote:
If you have low enough infection rates that you
have dealt with this aspect, your next concern is that the spreading
rates should be lower than 1 - preferably a lot lower. Then you need to
make sure your vulnerable people are as safe as practical.

And you need a /lot/ of testing to keep an eye on things, as well as
contact tracing up and running.

Once you have that (and many places are very far from this), you can
look at loosening restrictions, while being ready to put them in place
again at short notice if there is a significant outbreak.

The big challenge is that the feedback is slow - by the time you know
you have a problem again, you should have re-introduced the lockdown two
weeks ago.

Sounds like an unstable control system. Most politics-and-fear-driven
loops are unstable.


And like most control systems, if you put in the right sensors - here a lot more testing than you are currently doing - it's fairly easy to stabilise the loop.

The problem in the US is not that the control system is unstable - the problem is that it is being run open-loop by people who haven't bothered to get the feedback that they need.

Quote:
What people in mostly Corona-free areas usually fail to understand is
that a major reason they don't have much Corona is that they are on
lock down (to some extent at least).

No rush, they can just have their economy destroyed, stay home
unemployed for a few months, and catch the virus afterwards.


Or they can emigrate to one of those places that can do lock down - and contact tracing - properly and clear virus from the local population in six weeks and make sure that it doesn't get back in by monitoring for new outbreaks and stopping them from spreading by isolating everybody who might have got infected.

That won't destroy the economy, but it does seem to demand more expertise than the US government can get their hands on, or perhaps they just lack the attention span to pay any attention to those experts who are prepared to put up with being patronised and ignored.

Quote:
People find it very difficult to
appreciate when preventative measures succeed in averting a crisis.
(Such as "Why do we need vaccines against measles? We don't have
measles here".)

But the risks of the disease spreading out of control varies from place
to place - there is no doubt that population density is a big factor.
And thus the balance between the social and economic costs of lockdowns
and risks of the health and life costs of the disease are different from
place to place.

Why choose between two costs when you can have both?


It does save you from thinking about the choices you might be making, and the US does seem to have economised on that, big time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill Sloman
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 4:45 pm   



On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:24:30 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 13:04:41 +0200, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/05/2020 00:45, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The biggest scandal, to me, is cigarettes. Government rakes in big
taxes on cancer sticks. They kill about 500K people in the USA every
year, and they are for sale, with government blessing, everywhere.
Where is the outrage?

The outrage against cigarettes is found in most of the world, especially
the more civilised ones - with high taxes on them, bans on advertising,
graphic warnings on packets, restrictions on where you can smoke, etc.
There is a continuous stepping up of laws and restrictions that make it
harder and more expensive to smoke, and that discourage young people
from starting the habit. Getting rid of tobacco is a slow process, but
making gradual progress.

Speed it up and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Shut
down the cigarette factories. Arrest people for smoking in public or
throwing butts everywhere. Allow lawsuits for lung cancer. Criminalize
the sales of a deadly product. It worked for asbestos, which was far
less deadly.


It worked for asbestos because nobody is addicted to asbestos.

There are a variety of alternatives that work just as well in the various places asbestos was used.

> That won't happen for tobacco because government wants the tax revenue.

It won't happen for tobacco, for the same reason that it hasn't happened for cocaine and heroin, and didn't happen for ethanol. Prohibition doesn't work.

Quote:
Government also wants this virus panic in many places. It's a good
crisis to not waste.


Seems unlikely. Governments like crises they can manage, and the US administration isn't managing this one at all well - other people have done much better, and American exceptionalism isn't a particularly plausible excuse, no matter how much James Arthur likes it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

David Brown
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 5:45 pm   



On 06/05/2020 16:06, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 12:40:48 +0200, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/05/2020 00:37, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2020 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:


They decided to keep the money. Anyway, the Fed is backing out of the blanket lock-down and let the states decide. I would go one step further and let the counties decide. SF and LA might need more lock-down, but not the rest of California.

What criteria do you use to decide if shutdowns are needed. What do you include in "shutdown"?

Population density. Outside of SF and LA and some cities, people are few and far apart.

Or democracy. Let every state and region decide for themselves.


Democracy is the worst idea. Most people - including most elected
politicians - are basically clueless about this sort of thing. To put
this in electronics terms (so you have a hope of understanding it), you
don't let end-users vote on where to put the resistors on your PCB's or
what values they should take. When dealing with health issues, you put
health experts in charge.


On what scale? City, county, country, world?


At all scales - from individual people to world scale.

You can have democratically elected people helping choose tradeoffs -
deciding how to balance economic factors and health considerations. But
you leave the health decisions themselves to health experts (just as you
should leave economic decisions to economic experts, rather politicians).

Remember, the /single/ qualification you need to get elected is to be
able to convince people to vote for you. In general, politicians are
not particularly good at economics, health, education, or any of the
other areas they run. But that's okay, since that's not their job to
know - it's their job to make sure that people who /are/ experts are in
the position to make decisions, and have the resources needed to make
those decisions. They can guide general direction and priorities, but
that's all.

Quote:
And which experts?


Start with doctors. Then look for qualifications, experience and
reputation within specific relevant fields.

Or in the case of the USA, find a ten year old who pays attention at
school and listens to when his parents tell him/her not to touch the
plastic bottles under the sink. Then you've already found someone more
qualified to make health decisions than your president, and probably a
fair number of other politicians.

Clive Arthur
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 6:45 pm   



On 06/05/2020 17:47, George Herold wrote:

<snipped>

Quote:
Huh, John I thought you were more of a libertarian? But I'll play.
Tobacco is a drug, like coffee, alcohol, pot, etc.
It has some side effects that can be bad. But I (the libertarian
in me) think people should be able to choose. with full knowledge of
the side effects.


But it's not a fair game. The negative effects are downplayed by the
very powerful and skilful tobacco industry, and many - particularly
young people - don't stand a chance against that. They've been
programmed all their lives to be consumers. Then they become addicted,
and even with increasing knowledge it becomes harder to quit.

One could argue that anyone with access to the 'full facts' would only
start to smoke if they were insane.

I smoked from about 18 to about 25. It's fun to tell young people that
you could once smoke on 'planes and trains, and there was only one
non-smoking carriage on the tube train. Maybe in some generation's time
the same stories will be told about how people used to not wear masks.
Or even how they used to eat dead animals.

--
Cheers
Clive

George Herold
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 6:45 pm   



On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 10:24:30 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 13:04:41 +0200, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/05/2020 00:45, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The biggest scandal, to me, is cigarettes. Government rakes in big
taxes on cancer sticks. They kill about 500K people in the USA every
year, and they are for sale, with government blessing, everywhere.
Where is the outrage?

The outrage against cigarettes is found in most of the world, especially
the more civilised ones - with high taxes on them, bans on advertising,
graphic warnings on packets, restrictions on where you can smoke, etc.
There is a continuous stepping up of laws and restrictions that make it
harder and more expensive to smoke, and that discourage young people
from starting the habit. Getting rid of tobacco is a slow process, but
making gradual progress.

Speed it up and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Shut
down the cigarette factories. Arrest people for smoking in public or
throwing butts everywhere. Allow lawsuits for lung cancer. Criminalize
the sales of a deadly product. It worked for asbestos, which was far
less deadly. That won't happen for tobacco because government wants
the tax revenue.

Huh, John I thought you were more of a libertarian? But I'll play.
Tobacco is a drug, like coffee, alcohol, pot, etc.
It has some side effects that can be bad. But I (the libertarian
in me) think people should be able to choose. with full knowledge of
the side effects.

Did you ever smoke? I did for ~10 years, it's quite a rush
and I wonder if smoking makes one think any faster or better.
I heard an evolutionary biologist argue that he figures there must
be some benefit to smoking (he doesn't identify what it is.) because
there is clearly a downside to smoking and if there wasn't some benefit
the desire to smoke would have died out in our population.
(I think this argument has to be about the american indians who've
had the longest history with tobacco, and not europeans with a shorter
history.)

George H.
I realize this view, taken to it's conclusion means legalizing all drugs.
I'm not sure I like this.. but other choices seem like arbitrary government
involvement.

Quote:

Government also wants this virus panic in many places. It's a good
crisis to not waste.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard


John Larkin
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 6:45 pm   



On Wed, 6 May 2020 18:05:59 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

Quote:
On 06/05/2020 16:06, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 12:40:48 +0200, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/05/2020 00:37, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2020 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 12:30:26 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:


They decided to keep the money. Anyway, the Fed is backing out of the blanket lock-down and let the states decide. I would go one step further and let the counties decide. SF and LA might need more lock-down, but not the rest of California.

What criteria do you use to decide if shutdowns are needed. What do you include in "shutdown"?

Population density. Outside of SF and LA and some cities, people are few and far apart.

Or democracy. Let every state and region decide for themselves.


Democracy is the worst idea. Most people - including most elected
politicians - are basically clueless about this sort of thing. To put
this in electronics terms (so you have a hope of understanding it), you
don't let end-users vote on where to put the resistors on your PCB's or
what values they should take. When dealing with health issues, you put
health experts in charge.


On what scale? City, county, country, world?


At all scales - from individual people to world scale.

You can have democratically elected people helping choose tradeoffs -
deciding how to balance economic factors and health considerations. But
you leave the health decisions themselves to health experts (just as you
should leave economic decisions to economic experts, rather politicians).


Given wild difference in the opinions and simulations and predictions
of both economists and epidemic "experts", I guess we can just choose
the experts that confirm our preferences.

Unless the UN Army enforces their preferences and experts on the
entire world.

Quote:

Remember, the /single/ qualification you need to get elected is to be
able to convince people to vote for you. In general, politicians are
not particularly good at economics, health, education, or any of the
other areas they run. But that's okay, since that's not their job to
know - it's their job to make sure that people who /are/ experts are in
the position to make decisions, and have the resources needed to make
those decisions. They can guide general direction and priorities, but
that's all.

And which experts?


Start with doctors. Then look for qualifications, experience and
reputation within specific relevant fields.


This one seems to meet your requirements:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8289921/Scientist-advice-led-lockdown-QUITS-breaking-restrictions-meet-married-lover.html

https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/failed-past-predictions-from-a-covid-19-expert/


Quote:

Or in the case of the USA, find a ten year old who pays attention at
school and listens to when his parents tell him/her not to touch the
plastic bottles under the sink. Then you've already found someone more
qualified to make health decisions than your president, and probably a
fair number of other politicians.


You are emoting and snarking as usual and hence saying goofy stuff.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

John Larkin
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 7:45 pm   



On Wed, 6 May 2020 09:47:09 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<ggherold_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 10:24:30 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 13:04:41 +0200, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/05/2020 00:45, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The biggest scandal, to me, is cigarettes. Government rakes in big
taxes on cancer sticks. They kill about 500K people in the USA every
year, and they are for sale, with government blessing, everywhere.
Where is the outrage?

The outrage against cigarettes is found in most of the world, especially
the more civilised ones - with high taxes on them, bans on advertising,
graphic warnings on packets, restrictions on where you can smoke, etc.
There is a continuous stepping up of laws and restrictions that make it
harder and more expensive to smoke, and that discourage young people
from starting the habit. Getting rid of tobacco is a slow process, but
making gradual progress.

Speed it up and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Shut
down the cigarette factories. Arrest people for smoking in public or
throwing butts everywhere. Allow lawsuits for lung cancer. Criminalize
the sales of a deadly product. It worked for asbestos, which was far
less deadly. That won't happen for tobacco because government wants
the tax revenue.
Huh, John I thought you were more of a libertarian? But I'll play.


Killing people is past the limit of freedom.


Quote:
Tobacco is a drug, like coffee, alcohol, pot, etc.
It has some side effects that can be bad. But I (the libertarian
in me) think people should be able to choose. with full knowledge of
the side effects.


Let people choose, but shut down the murderers selling cigarettes. We
don't sell anthrax spores or pipe bombs on Amazon for sensible
reasons.

Quote:

Did you ever smoke?


Not once. I always thought it was disgusting. Cigs killed two of my
favorite people.


I did for ~10 years, it's quite a rush
Quote:
and I wonder if smoking makes one think any faster or better.
I heard an evolutionary biologist argue that he figures there must
be some benefit to smoking (he doesn't identify what it is.) because
there is clearly a downside to smoking and if there wasn't some benefit
the desire to smoke would have died out in our population.
(I think this argument has to be about the american indians who've
had the longest history with tobacco, and not europeans with a shorter
history.)


I think people used tobacco a lot less before cigarettes were invented
and optimized for addiction and promoted in movies and on TV. Cigs
probably give a bigger nicotine rush than pipes or cigars.

Quote:

George H.
I realize this view, taken to it's conclusion means legalizing all drugs.
I'm not sure I like this.. but other choices seem like arbitrary government
involvement.


It's reasonable for government to supress things that cause lung
cancer and other diseases. But government profits instead.

It might be sensible to not prosecute individuals for possessing small
amounts of illegal drugs, but brutally attack the supply chains.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

George Herold
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 7:45 pm   



On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 1:34:06 PM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:
Quote:
On 06/05/2020 17:47, George Herold wrote:

snipped

Huh, John I thought you were more of a libertarian? But I'll play.
Tobacco is a drug, like coffee, alcohol, pot, etc.
It has some side effects that can be bad. But I (the libertarian
in me) think people should be able to choose. with full knowledge of
the side effects.

But it's not a fair game. The negative effects are downplayed by the
very powerful and skilful tobacco industry, and many - particularly
young people - don't stand a chance against that. They've been
programmed all their lives to be consumers. Then they become addicted,
and even with increasing knowledge it becomes harder to quit.

OK I think that argument works in the past, when tobacco had a
big voice. (advertising) But I don't see that so much now...
In many areas of the US you are a pariah if you smoke these days.

Quote:

One could argue that anyone with access to the 'full facts' would only
start to smoke if they were insane.

OK I'm going to say again that there may be some evolutionary advantage
to smoking.. even if we don't know what that advantage is.
So maybe we don;t have the 'full facts'.
I'm not trying to be a shill for the tobacco industry,
Even though it might kill me late in life I can see many potential
advantages to tobacco.. or maybe just the nicotine.
(and of course late in life you've mostly already reproduced
if you were going to. So it doesn't have a great evolutionary cost.)
1.) it does 'jack you up' I'm not sure if your reflexes are
any faster, but I certainly would feel more aware. A cig while you
drive the car is very common... does it make you a better driver in anyway?
Other focused skills?
2.) Staying awake. Chewing a little leaf could keep you awake,
maybe to catch some critter for diner, or on guard duty.
3.)Taking my mind away... giving your body something to do.
I think this is the piece of smoking I miss the most.
I would sit down on a bench, beach or grassy knoll,
to think about something.
And smoking gave my body something to do for ~5 min.
A little like a shower in the morning.

So maybe the people who continue to smoke, are having a
'better' life than they would otherwise. I don't think it's
for me to choose for them.

Anyway, I mostly for not banning stuff*.

I'm also extremely happy I gave up smoking... nasty smelly habit.

George H.
*would asbestos and DDT have good uses if used properly..?
and next they'll be banning beer and cheese. :^)

Quote:

I smoked from about 18 to about 25. It's fun to tell young people that
you could once smoke on 'planes and trains, and there was only one
non-smoking carriage on the tube train. Maybe in some generation's time
the same stories will be told about how people used to not wear masks.
Or even how they used to eat dead animals.

--
Cheers
Clive


whit3rd
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 7:45 pm   



On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 7:15:22 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> The health hazard here is from underloading of health care.

So, health care style is a hazard? Nosocomial infection, when a
fast-spreading illness might be in your shared room, is the actual hazard.

Quote:
The big challenge is that the feedback is slow - by the time you know
you have a problem again, you should have re-introduced the lockdown two
weeks ago.

Sounds like an unstable control system. Most politics-and-fear-driven
loops are unstable.


You're not trying to regulate the disease, you're trying to (at least locally)
extinguish it. You want the nonlinear effects, NOT stability.
It isn't a curve-shaping exercise, it's a race to zero.

whit3rd
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 7:45 pm   



On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 9:55:15 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Quote:
Given wild difference in the opinions and simulations and predictions
of both economists and epidemic "experts", I guess we can just choose
the experts that confirm our preferences.


Bad strategy. That's a positive feedback loop, with important
stuff at risk. Better would be to look at proposals, not individuals
presenting them, for their content. Do so with some deep thinkers
present, and expect it to take time.

It'll take longer than reading a tweet, if you're doing it right.

George Herold
Guest

Wed May 06, 2020 10:45 pm   



On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 2:40:25 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 09:47:09 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold_at_gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 10:24:30 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2020 13:04:41 +0200, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/05/2020 00:45, jlarkin_at_highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The biggest scandal, to me, is cigarettes. Government rakes in big
taxes on cancer sticks. They kill about 500K people in the USA every
year, and they are for sale, with government blessing, everywhere.
Where is the outrage?

The outrage against cigarettes is found in most of the world, especially
the more civilised ones - with high taxes on them, bans on advertising,
graphic warnings on packets, restrictions on where you can smoke, etc.
There is a continuous stepping up of laws and restrictions that make it
harder and more expensive to smoke, and that discourage young people
from starting the habit. Getting rid of tobacco is a slow process, but
making gradual progress.

Speed it up and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Shut
down the cigarette factories. Arrest people for smoking in public or
throwing butts everywhere. Allow lawsuits for lung cancer. Criminalize
the sales of a deadly product. It worked for asbestos, which was far
less deadly. That won't happen for tobacco because government wants
the tax revenue.
Huh, John I thought you were more of a libertarian? But I'll play.

Killing people is past the limit of freedom.
No cars then. :^)


Tobacco is a drug, like coffee, alcohol, pot, etc.
It has some side effects that can be bad. But I (the libertarian
in me) think people should be able to choose. with full knowledge of
the side effects.

Let people choose, but shut down the murderers selling cigarettes. We
don't sell anthrax spores or pipe bombs on Amazon for sensible
reasons.


Did you ever smoke?

Not once. I always thought it was disgusting. Cigs killed two of my
favorite people.

Oh! Say no more. My dad smoked, my brother still does.
I didn't understand your tobacco hatred.
Quote:


I did for ~10 years, it's quite a rush
and I wonder if smoking makes one think any faster or better.
I heard an evolutionary biologist argue that he figures there must
be some benefit to smoking (he doesn't identify what it is.) because
there is clearly a downside to smoking and if there wasn't some benefit
the desire to smoke would have died out in our population.
(I think this argument has to be about the american indians who've
had the longest history with tobacco, and not europeans with a shorter
history.)

I think people used tobacco a lot less before cigarettes were invented
and optimized for addiction and promoted in movies and on TV. Cigs
probably give a bigger nicotine rush than pipes or cigars.

Yeah maybe. I smoked sigs mostly.
As soon as tobacco made it from the new world to Europe it was pretty
much a big hit! From what I read. It helped make Virginia, NC..
Quote:


George H.
I realize this view, taken to it's conclusion means legalizing all drugs.
I'm not sure I like this.. but other choices seem like arbitrary government
involvement.

It's reasonable for government to supress things that cause lung
cancer and other diseases. But government profits instead.

Would it work for you if all cig taxes went to smoker health care?
(If we start on stupid g'ment profit's we'll skip the rails...)

Quote:

It might be sensible to not prosecute individuals for possessing small
amounts of illegal drugs, but brutally attack the supply chains.

Tobacco use to be small scale. I bought 40 acres of ~farm land on
the wrong side of the river, near Nashville TN. (Joelton)
When signing the bill of sale, I agreed that the tobacco rights for the
front few acres (~5 say) had been sold off (to the g'ment) for ~$500
an acre.. or something like that.

George H.

Quote:

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology. as far as machine operation. Car drivers smoking cigs is
fine.. maybe good? smoking doobies.. bad... distracted com


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Trump keeps predicting coronavirus death tolls the U.S. then

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map