Florida’s new surgeon general skeptical of vaccines, opposes masks

Ladapo signed the Great Barrington Declaration and suggests embracing "the reality of viral spread."

Read the whole story

 

[Bloater51]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

“Mathematics” is singular despite the final “s”; it’s an example of a mass noun, like “rice” or “glass”.

Proof:
“Mathematics is my best subject.”

If “mathematics” or its abbreviation were plural, the verb agreement would mandate “mathematics are”.

And I never understood how Britons confused footwear with automotive parts.

I've never understood where you keep your spare tyres. Or where you get the elephants.

Besides, there are multiple Maths. Geometry, Calculus, Algebra, and the various combinations of the above to name just a few.

So, maths are hard?

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

So, maths are hard?

Let's go shopping!

 

[numerobis]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

“Mathematics” is singular despite the final “s”; it’s an example of a mass noun, like “rice” or “glass”.

Proof:
“Mathematics is my best subject.”

If “mathematics” or its abbreviation were plural, the verb agreement would mandate “mathematics are”.

And I never understood how Britons confused footwear with automotive parts.

J’adore les mathématiques!

 

[numerobis]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

“Mathematics” is singular despite the final “s”; it’s an example of a mass noun, like “rice” or “glass”.

Proof:
“Mathematics is my best subject.”

If “mathematics” or its abbreviation were plural, the verb agreement would mandate “mathematics are”.

And I never understood how Britons confused footwear with automotive parts.

I've never understood where you keep your spare tyres. Or where you get the elephants.

Besides, there are multiple Maths. Geometry, Calculus, Algebra, and the various combinations of the above to name just a few.

So, maths are hard?

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

 

[Haas Bioroid]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

“Mathematics” is singular despite the final “s”; it’s an example of a mass noun, like “rice” or “glass”.

Proof:
“Mathematics is my best subject.”

If “mathematics” or its abbreviation were plural, the verb agreement would mandate “mathematics are”.

And I never understood how Britons confused footwear with automotive parts.

J’adore les mathématiques!

Moi non plus !

 

[Bloater51]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

 

[numerobis]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

Is it “maths is fun” in the UK?

Anyway the question of plural/singular of collective nouns is nothing new. You can break everything down into attributes so when do you declare a collective to be a singular item versus still a collection is going to vary by dialect and language, and over time.

 

[Bloater51]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

Is it “maths is fun” in the UK?

Anyway the question of plural/singular of collective nouns is nothing new. You can break everything down into attributes so when do you declare a collective to be a singular item versus still a collection is going to vary by dialect and language, and over time.

Again, it is the (implied) subject or learning of maths that is fun. As you say, you can tie yourself into knots. There is no consensus in Britain on whether committee is singular or plural. I favour the singular because it is a body, but many prefer the plural because it is made up of several members.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

Is it “maths is fun” in the UK?

Anyway the question of plural/singular of collective nouns is nothing new. You can break everything down into attributes so when do you declare a collective to be a singular item versus still a collection is going to vary by dialect and language, and over time.

Again, it is the (implied) subject or learning of maths that is fun. As you say, you can tie yourself into knots. There is no consensus in Britain on whether committee is singular or plural. I favour the singular because it is a body, but many prefer the plural because it is made up of several members.

What I take away from this is that the British is fractious.

 

[KGFish]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

Oh, I didn't mean math vs maths. I just had no idea what first was, even after a quick googling. So maybe I thought it was the equivalent of mangling PhD as first, or something equally as asinine.

As for why maths isn't plural in America.... American English is the equivalent of the perpetually drunk cousin from the sticks. No one is sure where he picked up how to speak, but he's very confused why no one can understand him.

 

[KGFish]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

“Mathematics” is singular despite the final “s”; it’s an example of a mass noun, like “rice” or “glass”.

Proof:
“Mathematics is my best subject.”

If “mathematics” or its abbreviation were plural, the verb agreement would mandate “mathematics are”.

And I never understood how Britons confused footwear with automotive parts.

I've never understood where you keep your spare tyres. Or where you get the elephants.

Besides, there are multiple Maths. Geometry, Calculus, Algebra, and the various combinations of the above to name just a few.

This is exactly what I was hoping for! Lets drown out the covidiot trolling with arguments about comparative spelling and grammar! Woo! Sulphur! Colour! Manoeuvre!

Oh, language fight!

Y'all are just mangling what the cultured Normans tried to bring to the island barbarians. So there.

 

[Komarov]

zebm is that kid in algorithms class that says “actually everything is O(1) because the universe is finite”

(Although I don’t remember them ever moving on to “and mass death is cool”)

No, but I could have thought in my graph theory class that so what if travelling salesman is NP, just give me a small problem for my homework.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Just because the solution becomes computable because n is small doesn’t mean the solution isn’t still O(NP).

Are you really that thick?

"Educated beyond their intelligence." Thanks again, Mr. Heinlein.

 

[numerobis]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

“Mathematics” is singular despite the final “s”; it’s an example of a mass noun, like “rice” or “glass”.

Proof:
“Mathematics is my best subject.”

If “mathematics” or its abbreviation were plural, the verb agreement would mandate “mathematics are”.

And I never understood how Britons confused footwear with automotive parts.

I've never understood where you keep your spare tyres. Or where you get the elephants.

Besides, there are multiple Maths. Geometry, Calculus, Algebra, and the various combinations of the above to name just a few.

This is exactly what I was hoping for! Lets drown out the covidiot trolling with arguments about comparative spelling and grammar! Woo! Sulphur! Colour! Manoeuvre!

Oh, language fight!

Y'all are just mangling what the cultured Normans tried to bring to the island barbarians. So there.

To be fair the Normands were just a century from being Vikings, mixed with provincials. My ancestors didn’t send their best to colonize the island.

 

[numerobis]

zebm is that kid in algorithms class that says “actually everything is O(1) because the universe is finite”

(Although I don’t remember them ever moving on to “and mass death is cool”)

No, but I could have thought in my graph theory class that so what if travelling salesman is NP, just give me a small problem for my homework.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Just because the solution becomes computable because n is small doesn’t mean the solution isn’t still O(NP).

Are you really that thick?

“In NP” not “O(NP)”

NP isn’t a function, it’s a set.

 

[passivesmoking]

What I take away from this is that the British is fractious.

Don't you mean the Britain are fractious?

 

[Bloater51]

To be fair the Normands were just a century from being Vikings, mixed with provincials. My ancestors didn’t send their best to colonize the island.

True, but they learnt to speak the language eventually, which was largely Friesian. There is usually a reason behind any particular usage but consistency is rarely it.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

Probably some UK misspelling of whatever counts as advanced Math there.

No, it's you guys who misspell it

Is there only one mathematic in existence? Why isn't "math" a plural in America?

“Mathematics” is singular despite the final “s”; it’s an example of a mass noun, like “rice” or “glass”.

Proof:
“Mathematics is my best subject.”

If “mathematics” or its abbreviation were plural, the verb agreement would mandate “mathematics are”.

And I never understood how Britons confused footwear with automotive parts.

I've never understood where you keep your spare tyres. Or where you get the elephants.

Besides, there are multiple Maths. Geometry, Calculus, Algebra, and the various combinations of the above to name just a few.

So, maths are hard?

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

The verb agreement to a phrase “noun preposition noun” is always with the first noun, never the 2nd.

My study in maths is going well.
My studies in maths are going well.
The election of 2020 was not stolen.
The elections of 2020 were totally cromulent.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

The answer is little known and rarely taught “mass noun”.

Meat in the butcher case is the best example; individual packages are of course singular, but the collection of them is too.

Whether something on the border line, like above, is a mass noun is a mattter of historical accident maintained by custom and culture.

The prototypical mass noun is something not countable: fluids (water is wet, wine is good), powders and grains and piles (sand is on the beach, wheat is in the silo, rice is used in some American beers).

Meat and bread are mass nouns too.

The bread for dinner is in the oven; it is crescent rolls.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

To be fair the Normands were just a century from being Vikings, mixed with provincials. My ancestors didn’t send their best to colonize the island.

True, but they learnt to speak the language eventually, which was largely Friesian. There is usually a reason behind any particular usage but consistency is rarely it.

True.

Though English has been losing irregular tenses over historical time, become more regular - its gender system has also shed elements and become more systematic and uniform thereby (ignoring relatively recent issues that haven’t stabilized); there are iirc a couple of verbs that became irregular to be consistent with much more common very similar sounding irregulars.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

zebm is that kid in algorithms class that says “actually everything is O(1) because the universe is finite”

(Although I don’t remember them ever moving on to “and mass death is cool”)

No, but I could have thought in my graph theory class that so what if travelling salesman is NP, just give me a small problem for my homework.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Just because the solution becomes computable because n is small doesn’t mean the solution isn’t still O(NP).

Are you really that thick?

“In NP” not “O(NP)”

NP isn’t a function, it’s a set.

Facepalm.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

zebm is that kid in algorithms class that says “actually everything is O(1) because the universe is finite”

(Although I don’t remember them ever moving on to “and mass death is cool”)

No, but I could have thought in my graph theory class that so what if travelling salesman is NP, just give me a small problem for my homework.

None of that matters whatsoever. More US citizens have died from this thing than every war we've fought in now. That's what matters. We want to stop the death.

Everyone dies, the problem is the people who want to stop others choosing how. We're already seeing significant estimates of the number of deaths which are going to be directly attributable to lockdown.

The good thing about the US is the rough AB testing that has happened due to different policies in different states. Obviously the quality of the data may not be good enough to draw conclusions about which measures worked and which failed but here's hoping.

"Everybody dies" is a terrible attitude to have. What are you, a serial killer? Reducing death is a universal good that all of humanity naturally agrees with. That attitude will vanish the very instant your own life is in immediate danger, that I promise you. IT's better for people to live longer. This isn't even up for debate. It's an objective fact.

Your claim that "lockdowns" are costing lives is ridiculous, and you merely claim to have evidence of it without presenting it. Don't just put up a link. Quote the exact text right here in full if you're going to spew out such nonsense again.

But what do you care? You don't value human life by your own admission.

 

[Bloater51]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

The answer is little known and rarely taught “mass noun”.

Meat in the butcher case is the best example; individual packages are of course singular, but the collection of them is too.

Whether something on the border line, like above, is a mass noun is a mattter of historical accident maintained by custom and culture.

The prototypical mass noun is something not countable: fluids (water is wet, wine is good), powders and grains and piles (sand is on the beach, wheat is in the silo, rice is used in some American beers).

Meat and bread are mass nouns too.

The bread for dinner is in the oven; it is crescent rolls.

That is slightly circular, though. What defines a mass noun is the characteristic that you describe, a quantity expressed in the singular. But again English isn't consistent here. We have the 'people of Britain' which takes the plural contrasting with a tribe or family expressed as singular. Not to mention cases like sand and sands. English isn't irrational so much as having evolved from many different sources and there will be reasons why usage developed as it did. Meat for example described a class of objects, food, and later specifically flesh, and has nothing much to do with quantity at all. It may be that many of these things take the singular simply because we are not thinking of them as a plurality even though they have constituent parts. How we get there has more to do with the way we conceptualise them than with grammar, I suspect.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

The answer is little known and rarely taught “mass noun”.

Meat in the butcher case is the best example; individual packages are of course singular, but the collection of them is too.

Whether something on the border line, like above, is a mass noun is a mattter of historical accident maintained by custom and culture.

The prototypical mass noun is something not countable: fluids (water is wet, wine is good), powders and grains and piles (sand is on the beach, wheat is in the silo, rice is used in some American beers).

Meat and bread are mass nouns too.

The bread for dinner is in the oven; it is crescent rolls.

That is slightly circular, though. What defines a mass noun is the characteristic that you describe, a quantity expressed in the singular. But again English isn't consistent here. We have the 'people of Britain' which takes the plural contrasting with a tribe or family expressed as singular. Not to mention cases like sand and sands. English isn't irrational so much as having evolved from many different sources and there will be reasons why usage developed as it did. Meat for example described a class of objects, food, and later specifically flesh, and has nothing much to do with quantity at all. It may be that many of these things take the singular simply because we are not thinking of them as a plurality even though they have constituent parts. How we get there has more to do with the way we conceptualise them than with grammar, I suspect.

Yea, pretty close (I did undergraduate linguistics in addition to comp. sci.).

Thing is, what gets taught to the little savages as grammar in grammar school is a collection of old wives tales and ad hoc rules to help shepherd their language use to conformity with the standards of the elites.

It’s not stupid old wives tales, a lot of smart people worked hard for a long time on the pedagogy and it works pretty well and has logical consistency that makes it feel “real”.

Like Newtonian physics, it’s a good working approximation for the normal everyday case. But there are corner cases where things break down and hidden rules that we all use unconsciously but the vast majority of us can’t recognize as being there.

There are semantic aspects to what can and can’t be a mass noun. In particular, mass nouns don’t take plurals as such, a pluralized mass noun doesn’t imply “more”, but “multiple” in some other dimension, often inferred from context.

Rice is a staple.
There are several rices; 7 domesticated rices and 3 wild rices.
(Fictitious numbers in example.)

Meat is on the menu.
I don’t like some meats, particularly organ meats.
(Organ meets are a different thing, btw.)

Syntax is not cleanly separable from semantics.

 

[Lt_Storm]

It’s not stupid old wives tales, a lot of smart people worked hard for a long time on the pedagogy and it works pretty well and has logical consistency that makes it feel “real”.

I am not so sure about that, I mean, the idea that the grammar of some dead language (Latin) should define the grammar of English and therefore you can't split infinitives or put prepositions at the end of a sentence are pretty stupid old wives tales....

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

The study of maths is hard. When we speak of mathematics we are referring to the discipline of mathematics. We can say 'my studies in mathematics are progressing well', and the verb is there agreeing with the plural form.

There are cognate examples. The discipline of Physical Sciences is usually contracted to Physics for example. Even Americans don't usually contract that to Physic, presumably because that word has an alternative meaning in pharmaceuticals.

“My studies (in mathematics) are progressing well” has the plural from studies. It would be the same with “latin” or “biology” or anything.

The puzzle is why English has the verb taking the singular form when mathematics has the plural. As pointed out, French treats it differently. I think the answer is that in the academic context we are referring to the discipline or curricular topic, which is singular even though in each case, including those you mention, that discipline encompasses many different elements. The label is merely descriptive but we use it alone because the rest is implied.

The answer is little known and rarely taught “mass noun”.

Aka "set".

Plurals are a form of set naming in English, but not an exclusive one.

In fact, the puzzle is why English is taking the singular form when both the Brits and the Yanks claim an edition of it.

 

[zebm]

Because I am stupid enough to reply to the math part, from Wikipedia:

The initial stage of growth is approximately exponential (geometric); then, as saturation begins, the growth slows to linear (arithmetic), and at maturity, growth stops.

The Kermack-McKendrick has precisely the same behaviour, glad to see someone here finally agrees with me that it is not exponential growth.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

It’s not stupid old wives tales, a lot of smart people worked hard for a long time on the pedagogy and it works pretty well and has logical consistency that makes it feel “real”.

I am not so sure about that, I mean, the idea that the grammar of some dead language (Latin) should define the grammar of English and therefore you can't split infinitives or put prepositions at the end of a sentence are pretty stupid old wives tales....

"Our mission: to boldly split infinitives..."

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

It’s not stupid old wives tales, a lot of smart people worked hard for a long time on the pedagogy and it works pretty well and has logical consistency that makes it feel “real”.

I am not so sure about that, I mean, the idea that the grammar of some dead language (Latin) should define the grammar of English and therefore you can't split infinitives or put prepositions at the end of a sentence are pretty stupid old wives tales....

Yes.

Well, the “Latin is the model language” drivel that crept in and remains - see also “8 parts of speech” - is horribly wrong and petty to boot, but real people mostly ignore it. But it contributes a lot to the dislike of grammar rules.

And the history of those crappy bits is mostly lost now; I had the drill 4 different times from 4 teachers and it was always rote.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

It’s not stupid old wives tales, a lot of smart people worked hard for a long time on the pedagogy and it works pretty well and has logical consistency that makes it feel “real”.

I am not so sure about that, I mean, the idea that the grammar of some dead language (Latin) should define the grammar of English and therefore you can't split infinitives or put prepositions at the end of a sentence are pretty stupid old wives tales....

"Our mission: to boldly split infinitives..."

Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a German speaker…

 

[Faceless Man]

It’s not stupid old wives tales, a lot of smart people worked hard for a long time on the pedagogy and it works pretty well and has logical consistency that makes it feel “real”.

I am not so sure about that, I mean, the idea that the grammar of some dead language (Latin) should define the grammar of English and therefore you can't split infinitives or put prepositions at the end of a sentence are pretty stupid old wives tales....

"Our mission: to boldly split infinitives..."

Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a German speaker…

Appropriate use of "Dammit Jim...". 4 stars would read again.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Because I am stupid enough to reply to the math part, from Wikipedia:

The initial stage of growth is approximately exponential (geometric); then, as saturation begins, the growth slows to linear (arithmetic), and at maturity, growth stops.

The Kermack-McKendrick has precisely the same behaviour, glad to see someone here finally agrees with me that it is not exponential growth.

"the first stage of growth is approximately exponential", and his reply: glad to see people agree with me that it isn't exponential. :facepalm:

It's like talking to someone about gravity, and watching them claim that, because relativity is a thing, you can't calculate how long it takes a lead ball to fall 20 ft in Earth gravity using Newton's laws of motion and get a correct answer. To act like you know so much and still be so wrong :facepalm:

 

[CraigJ ✅]

Great news to hear that they've appointed a grown up, especially as it seems to have wound up many of the top comment posters. Given the scientific illiteracy of much of the scientific establishment it's no wonder the world is full of people who've failed Maths and believe that a natural phenomena can grow exponentially. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1lyggPhWOM

Holy shit.

" believe that a natural phenomena can grow exponentially. "

How. Just how? Are you that dumb?

No I have a first in Maths whereas you obviously failed the subject.

You should ask for a refund.

 

[dorkbert]

Great news to hear that they've appointed a grown up, especially as it seems to have wound up many of the top comment posters. Given the scientific illiteracy of much of the scientific establishment it's no wonder the world is full of people who've failed Maths and believe that a natural phenomena can grow exponentially. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1lyggPhWOM

Holy shit.

" believe that a natural phenomena can grow exponentially. "

How. Just how? Are you that dumb?

No I have a first in Maths whereas you obviously failed the subject.

You should ask for a refund.

... but good luck getting a refund from derp Trump University.

 

[andocom]

How does the CDC get accurate death counts for Florida when Florida had been...let's be generous and say "formatting"...the case and death counts they report publicly for the past year?

The state reports weekly counts, so the 7-day average won't be affected by reporting frequency. Nobody has presented any evidence, and no mainstream paper has reported, that these data are incorrect. If this happened, it'd be a front-page NYT story.

The US average is appalling by first world standards. So having a rate 20% higher than appalling isn’t something to applaud.

241 deaths per 100k ranks between Argentina and Slovakia.

I think that's where the general health of the population also comes in. The US has a much higher obesity rate than most other countries -- so this was going to be worse than in a lot of other countries, no matter what.

But it also reflects a tradeoff that the US made differently from many other countries. We never had a lockdown that prevented us from leaving our homes. In Australia, the police can do door-to-door checks to make sure nobody is having guests over. Yes, the latter is much more effective at reducing cases -- and it comes with a cost to quality of life. It's been going on not just for a few days, after all, and it may be ongoing for months to come.

I’m in Australia (NSW). I work from home for emergency services.

It isn’t everyone who gets checked, just those who are under health orders to stay at home. Those are typically COVID positive and self isolating at home or those who have been identified as exposed to COVID and yet to finish the quarantine period.

My lockdown in my local government area (LGA) means I can get takeaway but not sit in. I can go to the beach, Bush walks, cycling etc. if I’m exercising then no mask is required and this applies to walking the dog. I do wear a mask when purchasing food or going to the supermarket.

All this so we have 5 deaths per 100k. Where I come from originally it’s 0.5 deaths per 100k.

Edit: Spelling

Granted I'm from QLD Australia and we have somehow dodged multiple covid bullets and the worst of the lockdowns, but the way Australian lockdowns are covered by US press seems hilarious. Like Australia is currently some draconian hellscape with everyone locked in their houses with police kicking front doors in etc, whereas the reality in my state is, I just went to a football prelim final with 30K attendance then watched the annual fireworks show with a couple hundred thousand people, with the state recording zero covid cases.

I get the feeling a lot of the US see the reporting and think those poor Australians, and most of Australia look at the US and think what a colossal cluster fuck your response has been.

 

[PurpleChair]

In lighter news, two people in New Mexico have died after ODing on horse paste.

...

I'm ok with this.

...

I'm still ok with this.

No one else was hurt. No ICU bed was taken up. No ambulance drivers were diverted. No health care workers were exposed to more viruses. They won't expose anyone in the future to their terrible decisions. They made a choice to commit suicide, and they did it in a way that didn't disturb anyone else.

And that horse paste is in enough supply that the horses will be fine too.

Y'all have at it.

If they had made a choice to commit suicide, then I would have partly agreed with you, though to commit suicide that way seems terrible. Not that there are good ways, but I think that people should be helped if they are that ill, even if that illness is that they want to kill themselves.

But they did not make a choice to commit suicide. They were misinformed about the COVID-19 vaccines and they were misinformed about the use of ivermectin. And I don't think it's at all OK that such misinformation is allowed to be spread, because clearly it injures and even kills people.

I'm not advocating some baby-state, but I do think that we should try to curtail the "power at the cost of anything" philosophy that quite a few people already in power seem to have. Liberalism doesn't mean "I take my freedom at the cost of anything", it means "we all work towards more freedom for everyone". And that's not socialism, that's trying to be a nice person instead of a complete asshole. And I understand that complete assholes really don't care that they are complete assholes, as long as they have power, but all we can do is work hard and stay optimistic, because the alternative is more or less the Middle Ages.

Replace any of the above with driving drunk, or even reckless driving/ignoring traffic regulations, or replace it with basic restaurant kitchen hygiene and food storage, or any number of other behaviours in which personal choice uber alles, personal "judgment" uber alles, &/or compulsive opposition syndrome, and "to hell with what the expert community says I did my own research" leads to predictably disastrous results, and see how quickly this argument falls flat.

These people are making a choice, just as the guy who decides that drunk driving rules are an unreasonable imposition against personal responsibility (or just inconvenient), or the restaurateur who decides the food-keeping regulations are unrealistic (or just wasting money), are making choices for which they are responsible.

They may not be intending to commit suicide, and perhaps not intending to risk the lives and well-being of innocent bystanders through those choices, but they are choosing, and they are responsible for those choices and the likely, predictable, predicted consequences.

First of all: I completely understand where you are coming from. People are responsible for their own actions, and government cannot be responsible for every possible stupidity that people may come up with. I come from a different place, because (I assume) I was raised in a different country, on which many people would probably call a baby-state or a socialist state (it's the Netherlands).

Secondly: I agree that people should be allowed to make idiotic decisions, even if it costs them their lives. BUT: as long as their decisions don't hurt anyone else. Driving drunk and killing someone means someone made a very stupid decision that cost someone else their life.

And what happened here, is that certain people deliberately spread lethal disinformation regarding so-called COVID-19 cures, simply because they stood to gain politically from people believing that disinformation. These people didn't care that innocent, stupid people would get hurt. And I just think that any decent society should severely punish assholes who don't care that their actions kill people. I understand this may be considered leftist, socialist, nanny-state, or whatever, but I think it's just the right thing to do.

 

[tonylurker]

An SI model gives the logistic curve whereas people recover from Covid. Unfortunately the scientific establishment is full of people willing to stray outside their area of expertise when asked their opinion.

He says after defending both the Great Barrington Declaration, and the current Surgeon General of Florida. Both prime examples of people willing to stray far, far, far outside their area of expertise.

 

[dansus]

 

[dcp123]

How the fuck does someone like this earn a medical degree? It's like Boeing hiring a Chief Engineer that doesn't believe in the principles of aerodynamics....oh, wait, maybe that explains it all.

What do you call someone who graduated medical school at the bottom of their class?

Doctor.

Ideally, you don't call him a professor at a UC medical school.

C'mon, UCLA, you're dragging down the whole UC system hiring a guy like this. I shouldn't tease though. I have a vague memory of a Berkeley professor being about this far in denial. Maybe he was arguing that he'd invented a perpetual motion machine, or denying that global warming is a thing, I don't really remember, but every good school occasionally hires a loon.

Many schools hire someone with a bee in their bonnet, and after years of failing to prove it, that prof gets ornery and cantankerous and no one likes their class, and no grad student really wants to work with them, but by then they have tenure. There is always a company out there willing to pay offer grants to someone to do research that will be to the company's liking. A political party wishing to push an agenda over truth has a keen nose for such doctors.

Also for certain types of lawyers, but getting into that would be off topic.

Very belatedly, trust me, I know all about that type of lawyer hiring "experts" to say whatever nonsense suits their clients' cause. Most of the ones I deal with are too cheap or want opinions too ludicrous to find someone from a respectable university to raise their nonsense. I see people touting work as a lecturer at a respectable university and with Ph.D.s from respectable schools, but actual professors at a reputable school are rare and I can't recall any who weren't medical doctors. Those guys have no shame.

 

[dcp123]

How the fuck does someone like this earn a medical degree? It's like Boeing hiring a Chief Engineer that doesn't believe in the principles of aerodynamics....oh, wait, maybe that explains it all.

What do you call someone who graduated medical school at the bottom of their class?

Doctor.

Ideally, you don't call him a professor at a UC medical school.

C'mon, UCLA, you're dragging down the whole UC system hiring a guy like this. I shouldn't tease though. I have a vague memory of a Berkeley professor being about this far in denial. Maybe he was arguing that he'd invented a perpetual motion machine, or denying that global warming is a thing, I don't really remember, but every good school occasionally hires a loon.

Berkeley has the famous John Choon Yoo who wrote the torture memos for Bush. Wikipedia says he's the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Empathy isn't taught in law school.

Edit - possessives vs plural, again

Extremely belatedly, I actually went to that law school before Yoo wrote those memos and - I think - before he was a professor there. I am disgusted and angry that he gets to call himself a Berkeley law professor. I didn't have him in mind because I was thinking of science, not law. The torture memos are more morally repugnant, but his warrantless wiretap memo was more laughably frivolous and are why he should be disbarred and fired.

He said the power of the president as Commander in Chief trumped the Fourth Ammendment (no unreasonable searches and seizures and no warrants withoutprobable cause) on the subject of a type of search without warrant with no military action involved, albeit with an arguable intent to gather information that might conceivably be used to identify targets for the military, althoughprimarily for domestic law enforcement. That goes against all the rules of "statutory" interpretation and is laughably absurd on its face. The later-enacted and specifically applicable Fourth Ammendment governs governmental gathering information from residents and whether such "searches" are reasonable. The entirely inapplicable power of the president to command the nation's military forces does not.

He should be disbarred and with no license to practice law and a judicial determination of his dishonesty and moral turpitude, I'm pretty sure the law school would have cause to fire him despite his tenure.

 

[graylshaped]

Let's be frank here: nobody is going to be impressed with the numeracy of someone who says "it's not really an exponential curve, it's a logistic curve" but doesn't realize that the first part of the logistic function is approximately exponential, and therefore anyone who is describing that phase of growth as being "exponential growth" is neither wrong nor innumerate.

To put this clearly: when you look at the scientific establishment and say "I know more about math than they do", you aren't revealing your knowledge but, instead, your lack of knowledge. You are falling victim to Dunning Kruger.

Oh, and incidentally, every single human on earth catching the deadly plague isn't what one would sanely describe as a 'solution' to the problem of the deadly plague.

An SI model gives the logistic curve whereas people recover from Covid. Unfortunately the scientific establishment is full of people willing to stray outside their area of expertise when asked their opinion.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful". George Box. Exponential models go very wrong very quickly.

Covid is nothing compared to the plague.

Covid IS a plague.

COVID is a plague overwhelming modern health systems. Imagine what it would have done 150 years ago.