The longest night is nearly over and
Reader(s): and before the darkest dawn comes the dawn of dawn and
Blogista: we have KC Green to thank for this unconventional but eloquent doggie'n'zeitgeist combo. Thank you, KC.
A note in Laudator Temporis Acti on Ezra Pound's coinage "pejorocracy", rule by the worse
One thing that puzzles me about pejorocracy is this — why the comparative degree and why not the superlative (pessimocracy, from Latin pessimus = worst)?
There is also the delightful "kakistocracy", the Greek version of rule by the worst, with echoes of Musil's Kakania, of "catastrophe", of "caca".
Rule by the worse seems suitably lukewarm and half-baked, the pejorocracy not being capable of the superlative in any field.
I have the feeling that this year marks the end of the West as a going concern, its inmates abandoning the last of any functional understanding of "reality" or "civilisation", its pejorocrats fumbling their way to the rubbish heaps.
Sudden nostalgia for the 22nd May 2007 and a day when I was free, living in Brighton, rolling in money, drinking my head off when I felt like it...
...now life amid a vast miasma of torpor and ugliness, stupidity no longer impedance but become a galvanic industrial resource, of which "we" have limitless reserves.
Perhaps enlightenment is to be found in cliodynamics, and Peter Turchin's Ages of Discord for example, or somewhere in the pages of the great Valéry, with the Zürau Aphorisms always to hand. Perhaps I will just go down to the corner shop and buy a huge bag of sweets.
5 From a certain point on, there is no more turning back. That is the point that must be reached.
The goal, if there ever was one, is not the or any point. If I must reach the point of no turning back; then I am already at it: if it is a point I must reach, I cannot be at it. Per ardua ad ardua and so forth.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Five! Five! Five!'
'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'
'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'
and it's my belief that after you've witnessed months of a pathetic divideStirring stuff, and the whole is a gem. Gratitude to Ace of Spades HQ for this trouvaille.
where people care more about being right than the facts on hand
where conspiracy theories fester because they're met with pompous rebuttal
where everyone's an expert - but also a butthead
it is my belief that your generation will forge a new path
marked by truth and kindness and love
I wrote the code (thousands of lines of undocumented C) 13+ years ago to model flu pandemics...sez the proud Prof, oblivious to the pain even this causes, never mind a skiz at the actual crash site itself.
Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had "déjà vu" after reading the Imperial paper, saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak.Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.
Similarly, he was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.
In 2009, one of Ferguson's models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.
On March 16, around a month after the earlier interview, Ferguson delivered a bombshell 20-page paper to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.The message was clear: 510,000 people could die if the government didn't abandon its current strategy of allowing the disease to spread.The obvious riposte is that the predictions are so insanely off-scale because the Government reacted by, say, trying to kill every farm animal in Britain or demolish the UK economy as a prophylactic measure.
Professor Michael Levitt, who teaches structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, won the 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for "the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems."
And according to Levitt, coronavirus data show that sweeping lockdown measures were an overreaction that may actually backfire.
Levitt has been analysing the COVID-19 outbreak from a statistical perspective since January and has been remarkably accurate in his predications. The data show that the outbreak never actually grew exponentially, suggesting harsh lockdown measures, which have drastically impacted the world economy, were probably unnecessary.
His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes "sub-exponential".
This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The 'unmitigated' scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt's point is that that hasn't actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.
[...]"I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn't practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity,"Linkeroney: tip'o'th'tiplo hat to Blaze for this one, emphases mine own.
Governments everywhere say they are responding to the science. The policies in the UK are not the government’s fault. They are trying to act responsibly based on the scientific advice given. But governments must remember that rushed science is almost always bad science. We have decided on policies of extraordinary magnitude without concrete evidence of excess harm already occurring, and without proper scrutiny of the science used to justify them.South Korea and Sweden (are there others?*) do not seem to have sought refuge in lunacy. Maybe on the other side of this a reader will wonder, where? oh, where all the dead guys are, but I am waiting rather for the deluge of self-exculpatory bullshit from our own Authorities when the reckoning is presented.