logicp_writings/covidism/1.log

Hey whatsup
Nothing really, how are you doing?
I just wanted to know how you're feeling
oh, you don't believe me? You don't think I'm being honest with regards to what I am expressing? That's a little bit presumptuous, if not a little bit arrogant
I try to be considerate and thoughtful.. it isn't the same as being a faggot, fuckface
I just think that the world is a better place if you try to apply your faculties of reason
GOod, then we're on the same page and we can try to make progress together
well, even if we don't always make progress together, at least we're aiming to make progress of some sort, and since there are lots of mutually beneficial outcomes, and those offer the greatest chance of universal preservation, then we'll at least align in some parts some of the time and have a form of mutual progress
So this is working out better... I think I can expand more thoughts and also improve my typing which will make me faster at getting my ideas out
This is a good experiment and I like that the log is parsed automatically, as that's really useful
especially since it appends.. that means I can go back and remove parts I don't need but I won't lose anything unless I delete it explicitly
exit
try this...
fart
foe and reynold team
ok so what
but i am
i am a faggot
haha see..?
exit
alright here we go
exactly talkign and speaking with you
no problem yet, b that is subject to change
fuck
you
hahahah that's my perogative
I can't not offend you
maybe
no
yes
ok
hahaha
exit
awesome
so I spent maybe too much time paying attention to the fights rather than recording
I probably should get better at acting, instead of waiting and preparing
execute.
Now i'm ready
going to get some shit down
but still do my best to start my day earlier tomorrow so I can fix my schedule and accomplish more
I'm going to need to get some extra shit done for work
Essentially, we need to get back to that conversation about what it is we're aiming for, with respect to the lockdown, and the thoughts about reopening
we talk of changes which must be implemented upon reopening our industries, businesses, etc... but what are these changes predicated on? Are these proposals supported by the same quality of data which was used to argue that we should have closed down in the first place?
We aim to start up businesses again in a way which doesn't incur death and anguish
but if allowing the markets to die is going to cause even more death and anguish, then our procedure and our aim are foolish
in fact, we're still imagining that we all might die, as though there's a similar risk to some of the earlier figures that were coming out of Wuhan, suty rate
this never happened.. we've been working with something maybe about twice as bad as the flu, and any expectation for a death rate that's higher than that is based on specious reasoning and outdated data, or data which was never legitimate to begin with
for example, if we talk about the process by which the data is generated, or even before getting to that point, but just identifying what data we're talking about
the most useless of these figures has to due with number of cases.. the cases occur all the time, but we can't rely on the testing procedures themselves, as it turns out that they're not testing people for this disease in a manner which is on par with testin gfor other diseases
this isn't necessarily something we should expect to be able to do, but nevertheless, it stands to reason that if we have never isolated the virus, and if we only rely on genetic sequencing which matches within a range of %, then we know that by definition it's not an exact science
if we could, for example, culture a biological structure which has some atomic reference, that is to say, that we believe it is one complete virion
then at least we can compare one virion to another
but we aren't comparing virions at all
all we're doing is comparing a match of a genetic sequence.. and we know that there are limitations to doing that
one of which being that there is more similarity in the genetic taxonomies than we'd like
for example, we're very similar to chimpanzees.. You would not say that we are chimpanzees.. there are stark differences.. important distinctions.. ones which we can't ignore as trivial
the same might be true when making comparisons between genetic material as a whole.. and that isn't to say it isn't a useful approach, but we must ask if there are approaches for identifying and verifying the presence of other biological constructs which are not based on simply sequencing genetic code
it must be that we are able to culture microorganisms and allow them to develop and duplicate themselves.. if this is the case, then it would stand to reason that this is a better course of action in terms of finding verification methods, as we can be certain that to be able to isolate something means that we can use that isolation as a reference for other investigation
otherwise we are referencing to something which is not hte thing we are examining for, in the absolute sense
but a rougher reference.. which isn't always useful
so, we can at least say that the verification method has some issues
on top of that, we need to talk about the fact that most do not exhibit symptoms, and that some are testing as what might be considered false positives
we need to find the potential for false positives an dfalse negatives and review these potentials to see if they're worth adding to the conversation about testing methods and our general ability to be able to reference other illnesses and historical data
not only that, but there's also the matter of how we verify deaths
we have more than enough evidence to reasonably assume that the manner in which a death is qualified as being a covid-19 death, is not following specifications that are normally used for evaluating cause of death in general
such as for cancer, or flu
a lot of cancer deaths occur everyday, and if any of these were to occur within the same general time frame (~1 year, for example), then it would mean that to cound these as a covid death is inaccurate
When my father died, he technically had a respiratory infection, and was having an increasingly difficult time taking in air
but his cause of death was ascertained as being from cancer
at the time, I was a bit annoyed, thinking that it wasn't technically accurate, but I hadn't considered the matter as I am now, in terms of its ability to have a similar and repeatable process of evaluation whose findings are useful in terms of judging the mortality of a given pathogen
if we aim to maximize the findings in one case, then it would stand to reason that we should be maximizing the chance of finding diseases in general
but this is impossible, as people don't always die with a singl ecause of mortality
in fact, as biology and the human body are ever complex, it also stands to reason that a given cause of death is a multiple of factors
exit