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

@casualwp Best of luck. I dont hear the best of things about their environment there, but I hope you have a much better experience! My buddy quit a few years back.

@falgn0n

These people are too stupid to care. Even their insults show their morons.

@mystik @xyfdi@gameliberty.club

@akeno

Hahahaha sure

@xyfdi@gameliberty.club @Science

@tbis I give them for free!

@tbis smart move

@realcaseyrollins

Weird I'm just seeing this part of your thread now and may have answered the wrong question.

Yes there is, but it varies depending on domain somewhat. The most common definition/metric used is called LD50, usually used for drugs and poisons. It stands for "Lethal Dosage 50%" and is the dosage or level of exposure whereby, on average, 50% of people die. See also LC50 which is the same concept but in terms of concentrations.

LD50 is also sometimes (though less commonly) applied to viruses. Its a bit misleading with viruses as it doesnt really give a complete picture, but it does tell you at what threshold a quantity of a virus is likely to overwhelm the immune system and have critical mass for replication that becomes lethal before immunity kicks in.

@arh@toots.alirezahayati.com

@realcaseyrollins

Nevermind now that someone else replied I am seeing the thread (oddly even when i went to your status on your own server I didnt see full thread).

Anyway WRT to "the more deadly it is the less chance it is to be a pandemic".. the answer is, sorta, it depends on what you mean by deadly.

These things are never as simple as a single sentance and the disease models can get rather complex, but in simple terms, it depends on what "more deadly" really means in context. For example let's say a virus has a 1% chance of killing you, but the death occurs after the infectious period (which is quite common, many viruses you stop being contagious **before** the symptoms are serious or deadly)... now lets say all of a sudden it mutates and everythign remains the same except now 100% of the people who get it die.

Obviously common sense will tell you, since the death occurs after the infectious period, that it will have no effect on how quickly the virus spreads. Aside from being more deadly it is just as infectious as it was before.

However it also means you can never reach herd immunity if everyone is dieing instead of building up an immunity, but that also means your population is decreasing quickly and lower population density means a slower progression of the virus, so the effect of all those people dieing is infact it becomes less of an epidemic in terms of pure numbers just because there are fewer people to infect at all (and the ones left presumably have higher natural immunities as they are the last to catch it)..

So in short... it depends, there are scenarios where it can be more deadly and be less of a pandemic too, for example lets say it used to be 1% deadly and the death always occured **before** the infectious period (allowing 99% of people to spread it once they get it), if the death rate were instead 100% then people would die before becoming infectious and thus the disease wouldn't spread.

So yea, basically, it depends and there are no sweeping statements one could make as simple as "more deadly means less virulent"

@josias@theres.life @arh@toots.alirezahayati.com

@akeno

Serious question, do all you schizofrenics learn to talk like that from the same manual or something, or does it just come naturally?

@xyfdi@gameliberty.club @Science

@realcaseyrollins

Is what? I can not see any post this is attached to, it appears as a top level post.

@josias@theres.life @arh@toots.alirezahayati.com

@funny

@saxnot

The human element is vital, it is how we formulate the ideas about why things happen the way they do, those feelings and emotions give us our hunches that lead to solutions. Science is what verifies those hunches and sifts out the emotional noise from what works, its how you test the hypothesis your emotions tell you should work.

Without emotions there would be no gut, with no gut there is no effective way to come up with theories, science would be left to test every possible combination in an infinite universe until it arrived at a solution, which of course would never work.

In the end lots of people use their emotions to create theories about what poicies work and what dont, its the science and the data that ultimately tells us when they are wrong or right.

So you have it backwards in a way, you dont use logic and then when you reach a point it cant extend you use the human element.. You start with the human element and then use science to keep it in check and keep it on course, to objectively measure if your solution is a success or a failure.

Take your example of human dignity and minimum wage, these are things that very much can (and have been) tested with science, and as I described it starts with the human element (to define what human dignity means) but it ends with science, to see if what we say human diginity means, whatever that is, is the measurable result of the solutions we employ.

One aspect of human dignity comes from minimum wage discussions, people would generally agree that a person living in decrepit and deplorable conditions is contrary to human dignity. We might all agree human dignity is honored if the most people live in conditions where they have warmth, a bed to sleep in, and a full stomach, at a minimum, thats the human element. Science however can measure these things, they can objectively test things like "If we have minimum wage, or increase the minimum wage, do we see more people living in better conditions, or do we see people who were barely surviving living in worse conditions".. science can test this, objectively tell us and ultimately indicate if minimum wage honors human dignity or destroys it.

In the end a truely worth politicial wont say "We need minimum wage", that is an agenda.. what they will say is "We need to reduce the number of people starving, and we will use science to test what policies do that, if i am wrong an minimum wage doesnt help the starving I wont support it, If i am and my idea of a higher minimum wage is verified by science to be effective, then I will support it, lets test it and see, and not be scared to admit we are wrong"

@hanswolters

Seeing this comment immediately made this woman more attractive to me...

Human reddit:

"Why do dogs like sticks so much"

answer: "Because it makes their human happy when they bring them a stick"

Dog Reddit:

"Why do humans get so happy when we bring them sticks?"