Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
A Simple Comparison >

A Simple Comparison

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

A Simple Comparison

Old 03-25-2020, 05:44 AM
  #41  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,375
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
After further research I have found that the amount of quinine in commercial tonic water is very small these days. Consequently, one would have to drink 20 litres of tonic water to ingest one dose of quinine. Thus, 5 ounces of tonic water in a daily G&T isn't going to help much, even theoretically, in keeping either malaria or coronavirus at bay.
On those rare occasions where the need for more exceeds common sense.....I find that the next day brings on a pretty stiff hangover. Good booze doesn't do that so the culprit is normally what is mixed with it or bad ice cubes. Whatever amount of quinine is in Schweppes along with sweetener is most likely responsible.

Worst scenario is a hot day and someone brings them out by the pitcher. I'll add this I don't think the drink helps fight the Covid-19 medically but do feel that it helps mentally....

Last edited by Champlain Islander; 03-25-2020 at 05:52 AM.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 03-25-2020, 06:06 AM
  #42  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,952
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
Well, I was trying to articulate an idea in a way that would find traction in many different kinds of minds. I began with the clearest articulation, from engineering analysis. Optimizing a system in terms of one parameter alone is rarely sufficient. Usually you have to consider optimization of two or more parameters at the same time, often where some of the parameters are mutually contradictory. So how do you do that in engineering? You strike a balance, you define some criterion such as a maximizing the sum of squares of parameter values (to remove polarity) or minimizing the sum of squares of parameter values. That is probably the clearest and least ambiguous method of articulating this situation, in terms of a problem in multi-parameter or multi-variant optimization. The best solution -- the least sum of squares solution -- is not the solution that ONLY considers the mortality due to COVID-19.

But a lot of people are not trained engineers, are not very comfortable with math. That's where Scylla and Charybdis enter. You don't need to have an engineering degree to understand Scylla and Charybdis.
Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
Please speak English. LOL
Just so we are all clear. I was citing the research done by the engineers at MIT. It's not actually my own. I just had read a few papers and this was the one that I thought best explored our present situation. I would also like to point out that social distancing seems to be the key in all models. If we do our part and the government does it's. We'll come out on the other end of this as well as we can.

Sadly, I gave up liquor for lent. I think a Gin and Tonic would go really good about now...
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 03-25-2020, 07:08 AM
  #43  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,375
Default

I hear you and did somewhat the same except I gave up lent for liquor. Lol
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 03-25-2020, 08:19 AM
  #44  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,221
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn View Post
Just so we are all clear. I was citing the research done by the engineers at MIT. It's not actually my own. I just had read a few papers and this was the one that I thought best explored our present situation. I would also like to point out that social distancing seems to be the key in all models. If we do our part and the government does it's. We'll come out on the other end of this as well as we can.

Sadly, I gave up liquor for lent. I think a Gin and Tonic would go really good about now...
Not to beat a dead horse, but to put a finer point on it . . . my objection to the MIT article is that it solely optimizes for one parameter, it only takes into consideration minimizing fatalities from coronavirus. Where in that article does it talk about taking into consideration the parameter of the economy? A political leader -- unlike a doctor such as Dr Fauci -- cannot, I repeat, cannot optimize solely on one parameter: the fatality rate associated with coronavirus. That is my whole friggin point. When our leaders decide to change from total lockdown to increased freedom to operate will NOT be decided solely based on the one parameter of minimizing deaths from coronavirus. They CANNOT optimize only that single parameter.

I guess I would accept that it is not a failing of the MIT paper that it only discusses one parameter -- the parameter of minimizing deaths from coronavirus. I would instead question the wisdom of someone who extrapolates from that MIT paper to conclude we must set public policy -- choose lockdown versus freedom of association, freedom to operate -- to minimize deaths from coronavirus while ignoring other competing parameters. And it is precisely this kind of single parameter optimization that dominates the news media on this subject and for which they damn Trump so continuously. It is the most childlike and simplistic sort of thinking they are engaging in. And that adults actually sympathize with that kind of thinking is astonishing to me. In what part of adult life do we get to optimize solely on one parameter and ignore all other parameters? It is some sort of fantasy land those people are living in. I guess I don't want to blame an MIT paper or Mickey Finn. I will say as my mother did, "If the shoe fits, wear it!" If you are judging matters on the presumption that public policy can be set and carried out solely to minimize deaths from coronavirus, please, wake up, grow up, face reality. Public policy has to balance many, many competing and often countervailing "goods." That is reality.

Since the subject is how long do we stay in lockdown, at least to me that is a subject being discussed now in this thread, maybe I've hijacked the thread, I will add a couple other thoughts. A lockdown such as requested by Trump about 10 days ago has a variety of benefits. We don't necessarily know or think about all those benefits. Yes, one benefit is to stop the spread of the virus. Yes, it buys time to find drug therapies, to produce PPE, to build ventilators, to redistribute equipment and supplies from low need to high need areas. It also buys time to think through the problem and devise better longer term strategies. Where we are at now is almost that stage in a long family road trip, after kids have gotten fed up with being cooped up in the car, they are fighting with each other, and dad shouts out "OK! Nobody in this car is to touch anyone else in this car ever again!!!!" That kind of makes sense in that context at that specific point in time. Maybe it buys dad some peace and quiet for a few minutes so he and mom can collect themselves and find a better strategy. I think part of that thinking involves thinking about balancing among different competing parameters -- different competing priorities if you prefer 'priorities' as a term versus the engineering term 'parameter.' I think what will come is a more nuanced policy -- a policy that replaces a "one size fits all" policy by instead policies that apply to different circumstances. I don't know precisely how that will manifest itself, but an example could be at risk people remaining in quasi-lockdown while low risk people return to normal lives. Maybe some specific restrictions remain for all -- highly restricted air travel for example. Maybe travel restrictions out of regions of high infection concentrations are implemented? I don't know. But I think more nuanced, more varied strategies will be deployed. If -- I admit this is a big if -- a drug therapy is determined to be at least somewhat effective, that too can factor into the policy decisions. It is like a trapeze artist performing with a safety net or without a safety net. I assume the trapeze artist can let it all go and try for the triple in-air flip if they know a safety net is there in case they flub it whereas they will only attempt the double in-air flip without a safety net.

Last edited by Alsatian; 03-25-2020 at 08:43 AM.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 03-25-2020, 09:49 AM
  #45  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 805
Default

Man just about every time Alsatian posts I have to pull out Webster's, English lit guide books, mathematics explained books, and a host of other "how to" and "who dunnit" books.
hunters_life is offline  
Old 03-25-2020, 06:08 PM
  #46  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,791
Default

That's those gin and cucumber tonics speaking.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:31 PM
  #47  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,952
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
Not to beat a dead horse, but to put a finer point on it . . . my objection to the MIT article is that it solely optimizes for one parameter, it only takes into consideration minimizing fatalities from coronavirus. Where in that article does it talk about taking into consideration the parameter of the economy? A political leader -- unlike a doctor such as Dr Fauci -- cannot, I repeat, cannot optimize solely on one parameter: the fatality rate associated with coronavirus. That is my whole friggin point. When our leaders decide to change from total lockdown to increased freedom to operate will NOT be decided solely based on the one parameter of minimizing deaths from coronavirus. They CANNOT optimize only that single parameter.

I guess I would accept that it is not a failing of the MIT paper that it only discusses one parameter -- the parameter of minimizing deaths from coronavirus. I would instead question the wisdom of someone who extrapolates from that MIT paper to conclude we must set public policy -- choose lockdown versus freedom of association, freedom to operate -- to minimize deaths from coronavirus while ignoring other competing parameters. And it is precisely this kind of single parameter optimization that dominates the news media on this subject and for which they damn Trump so continuously. It is the most childlike and simplistic sort of thinking they are engaging in. And that adults actually sympathize with that kind of thinking is astonishing to me. In what part of adult life do we get to optimize solely on one parameter and ignore all other parameters? It is some sort of fantasy land those people are living in. I guess I don't want to blame an MIT paper or Mickey Finn. I will say as my mother did, "If the shoe fits, wear it!" If you are judging matters on the presumption that public policy can be set and carried out solely to minimize deaths from coronavirus, please, wake up, grow up, face reality. Public policy has to balance many, many competing and often countervailing "goods." That is reality.

Since the subject is how long do we stay in lockdown, at least to me that is a subject being discussed now in this thread, maybe I've hijacked the thread, I will add a couple other thoughts. A lockdown such as requested by Trump about 10 days ago has a variety of benefits. We don't necessarily know or think about all those benefits. Yes, one benefit is to stop the spread of the virus. Yes, it buys time to find drug therapies, to produce PPE, to build ventilators, to redistribute equipment and supplies from low need to high need areas. It also buys time to think through the problem and devise better longer term strategies. Where we are at now is almost that stage in a long family road trip, after kids have gotten fed up with being cooped up in the car, they are fighting with each other, and dad shouts out "OK! Nobody in this car is to touch anyone else in this car ever again!!!!" That kind of makes sense in that context at that specific point in time. Maybe it buys dad some peace and quiet for a few minutes so he and mom can collect themselves and find a better strategy. I think part of that thinking involves thinking about balancing among different competing parameters -- different competing priorities if you prefer 'priorities' as a term versus the engineering term 'parameter.' I think what will come is a more nuanced policy -- a policy that replaces a "one size fits all" policy by instead policies that apply to different circumstances. I don't know precisely how that will manifest itself, but an example could be at risk people remaining in quasi-lockdown while low risk people return to normal lives. Maybe some specific restrictions remain for all -- highly restricted air travel for example. Maybe travel restrictions out of regions of high infection concentrations are implemented? I don't know. But I think more nuanced, more varied strategies will be deployed. If -- I admit this is a big if -- a drug therapy is determined to be at least somewhat effective, that too can factor into the policy decisions. It is like a trapeze artist performing with a safety net or without a safety net. I assume the trapeze artist can let it all go and try for the triple in-air flip if they know a safety net is there in case they flub it whereas they will only attempt the double in-air flip without a safety net.
That's an awful lot of words for the afternoon I just had. My take on the whole thing is that their sole goal was the preservation of life. The economy is someone else's problem. This is the only way I see to handle this.

ATB
Mickey Finn is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.