🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@namark

Sure. I would say some people tend to be more susceptible to the group-think/parroting than others. It also may vary for any one person from topic to topic.

I would say no one is completely above it, generally some will do it to some extent (be influenced by the groups ideology), but it is a spectrum. I know some people who almost completely blindly follow the majority in most situations, I know others who are the polar opposite and will disagree with the majority as a matter of course even if the majority may have a very obvious and valid point.

So no I dont feel it applies to everyone equally. I do think there is some natural tendency towards it, again, stronger in some than others. But even then many people make a conscious effort to be aware of and negate that while others seem oblivious to it.

So yea I dont think youll ever find someone immune to it entirely, but it is not a universal constant everyone demonstrates in exactly the same perprotion as anyone else either.

@bonifartius

@mur2501 hahahahaha :)

How do you like your pork?

@mur2501 Holy shit this one is god damn comedic gold!

@SteveTheDragon

Apparently. If thats how they react to a "fuck off" 50 messages later ... well the internet is going to destroy them within a month.

@trinsec

@trinsec I was being rather polite with someone in a thread over about maybe 50 back and forths but the person kept insisting about some nonsense .. asked them to go away politely a few times then finally said "I told you to fuck off"... and they are like "so now you resort to bullying me by cursing at me"... could you imagine being so obsessed with being the victim that you think someone is bullying you because they cursed in your direction.

@funny

The future is now

#funny #humour #humor #joke #jokes #meme

@funny

This has been my personal motto for most of my adult life.

#funny #humour #humor #joke #jokes #meme

@r2qo Can you give me an example, not sure what you mean (and I do a fair bit of AI stuff).

@mur2501 I keep hearing about the foreign nation of Alaska and always wondered where it was on a map. Thanks for clarifying :)

@mur2501 Too much Düssel and not enough dorf :)

Someone just told me cursing is a form of bullying... lololololol... fuck that shit.

@zzz Its been great having you and will be sad to see you go but wish you the best of luck once you do.

@zzz good luck to you. For what its worth we will likely have a pleroma instance up on QOTO in the near future (few weeks). though this masto instance will remain as well.

In the meantime I dont know of any STEM oriented poleforma instances in line with what QOTO is. Lots of great general instances out there though.

@trinsec

Its quite complex, and also depends on a few extrapolations we still arent 100% certain about, so we cant say for sure if that is the case, but it is one reasonable interpretation.

I worked on disease proliferation models for the government years back and it can be rather counter intuitive, so I'll try to explain, however that counter-intuitive nature is also what is doing us in as there is pressure ont he government to appeal to the uneducated publics "common sense" rather than what the science tells us (or at least suggests is a possible and valid interpretation).

So there are a few things that determine if a quarantine will be helpful or not. But as a general rule understand that once a virus is in the wild in the general case, as in, for most viruses, quarantining will only reduce the case count while its actively being practiced, and once the quantining lets up you will, typically, see a much higher follow up surge that reaches the same overall infection rate. In other words in the general case long term quarantines at best will result in the same number infected if the quarantining eventually stops.

With that said some disease profiles will cause **more** harm by quarantining than the baseline, rather than the same. There are too factors that COVID seems likely to have (again there is some debate) that would make quarantining cause more overall death than not. 1) The immunity seems to not be perpetual, the length of time you are immune depends on the severity of the infection 2) immunity is not a boolean condition, that is, you can have limited immunity that will cause you to get get the disease but less severely.

What all of this means is simple, during a quarantine exposure to the disease is very limited. Fewer people get the disease over a period of time, so anyone who had the disease, particularly those with light exposure wind up loosing that immunity. thus by quarantining and then later going out and exposing yourself you stand a much greater chance of getting sick and dying. However if the quarantine never happened while the initial cases would be significant (and we will get to how to handle that in a minute) after the initial wave you start to see partial immunities play out where the lethality is much smaller.

So what you get with quarantining every time there is a spike is an exaggerated cyclic death toll. Lots of people get sick, few people had any previous exposure protecting them, so tons of people die. Before immunity based attenuation becomes significant you quarantine, the protections people developed fade while in quarantine basically resetting the immunity condition and when its let up you have another severe spike and lots of deaths. With less aggressive quarantining you will significant case counts still, but now the mortality rate will shoot down to minimal levels as a much larger portion of people infected will be mild or asymptomatic. So while it wont improve the death count so much it will significantly improve mortality.

Now as to how we should correctly handle quarantining and ensure a minimal death count, well that's largely in line with what health officials were saying in the first month of the outbreak, which was the classic and correct tactic, it wasn't till later as public pressure mounted the tactic changed to the far more lethal repeating quarinties we are seeing now. the original advice, and the correct one, is that quarantine in the initial stages should be employed but in a limited fashion, just enough to flatten the curve as we put it (remember when they said that). That is quarantine should be used just enough to slow the infection rate down to levels where ICU will be near but not over capacity which would be a short term quarantine followed by no quarantine. After the initial surge case count will largely stabilized and will not go away but fatality will continually drop.

Of course that didnt happen. They changed the established guidelines due to public pressure and started enacted countermeasures every time case count tried to reach an equilibrium point and mostly ignored the trend in the mortality rate. In doing so the mortality rate was never able to stabilize in many countries and instead we see cycles of local or mass quarantine or other counter measures and a higher than ideal mortality rate that is unable to reach a minimum.

@pganssle

@Borgesius I didnt follow up, I think they eventually backed down since people appear to still be using the apps.