Leaked Docs Show DHS Is Afraid That Masks Will Make Facial Recognition Useless
Nooooooo! Why god why?! Why do bad things happen to good programs?!
Originally posted by Surtur
Leaked Docs Show DHS Is Afraid That Masks Will Make Facial Recognition UselessNooooooo! Why god why?! Why do bad things happen to good programs?!
Weird given both China and Russia have facial recognition that work despite masks.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Weird given both China and Russia have facial recognition that work despite masks.
I believe Israel does to. Not sure if it's native tech or if they purchased from another county.
They're way ahead of the US in airport security too. I was there in 2008 and their airport scanners were far more advanced compared at he US airports I had flown out of. You could walk through with your belt on and other metal accessories like coins and the machine was "smart" enough to distinguish those items from a gun, explosive or knife.
Originally posted by dadudemon i'm not sure how to tell you to deal with him
Don't worry about that.
Originally posted by dadudemon point here about you're getting upset about uh me ignoring you twice well too bad i don't have as much time as you do i'm not sure where you have two to four hours a day just to respond to one stranger on the internet but i don't got that time i have pooping to do i have peeing to do sometimes my balls itch i gotta scratch those like to have to give attention to my sweetheart i've gotta eat food i've gotta work out i've got to work too i mean i think you forgot about that i got a lot of work to do uh sometimes i have to spend an hour looking in the mirror making faces and stupid voices i mean come on i've got too much things to do besides just responding to only you what you think you're special you want to be my girlfriend no too bad
It doesn't matter if it's about time for you. Text responses take me about 30-45 minutes (sometimes less), which is why I offered for us to stop if you couldn't engage in a text-to-text dialogue. If you cannot fathom this or understand how someone could do something differently than you, that's fine but I don't think it means you have to go "well too bad" or laugh in response. It's a really weird and pointlessly antagonistic means to respond to somebody.
Also, there isn't much out there that offends me but there's a baseline of mutual respect within conversations that I'm used with the individuals I typically decide to talk to so it was surprising, despite the fact that I accounted for things like this coming back to KMC (that would obviously be a factor in a community like this) to have a discussion.
Originally posted by dadudemon so all of this so you can see that lockdowns don't work because of our conversation about philippines and india great thanks for conceding that
I have not conceded a thing. India is not proof that lockdowns did not work. Since there's not a counterfactual, the assessment is utterly of no worth. The Philippines was brought up when in the context of masks, you said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
The Philippines has the best mask obedience of any nation, by far.
And I proceeded to explain why that doesn't tell us anything here:
Originally posted by Gehenna
This doesn't inform us of the counter-factual, which is what things would look like absent of masks. Also, having a mandate for mask-wearing doesn't tell us a thing about enforcement.Both India and the Philippines have relatively low state capacity in comparison to a country in America or, say, Europe so it's not simple and/or easy to implement such a broad-stroke policy as a mask mandate.
Also, self-reporting (as talked about between us) has a slew of problems. It's arduous to be certain how misrepresented (or "fudged"😉 the numbers are in these particular cases.
Not to be forgotten about, there's a moral hazard involved with masks, insomuch as people might engage in activities they otherwise wouldn't, for fear of the virus, which even masks cannot provide protection from. Masks aren't a license to participate in risky behaviors, it's designed to mitigate risks in daily tasks that are a necessity.
You then went head and claimed that the Filipino government was engaging in:
Originally posted by dadudemon
super high enforcement.
Originally posted by dadudemon this is wrong because only a high quality study with real world outcomes actually matters and that's because you're not going to replicate snot and spit getting everywhere inside of a lab environment
Originally posted by dadudemon you'd see an extreme peak if you implemented strict lockdowns. we did see that but compared to other coutries, you'd see an extreme drop in deaths and we did not see that. the reason why you ignored that is because it would undercut the entire point and the entire point of that entire study. that study is obviously biased and suspect because i clearly brought up the 4-5 day incubation period and they would've hit a peak 4-8 days later an infection.
The study's not biased but rather you have misunderstood it. They would not have hit a peak 4-8 days later. This makes no sense. I'm not sure if you just didn't read what I quote but I'll take it from the study once more. I didn't ignore a thing you wrote. So, once more:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30201-7/fulltext
Our results are also consistent with preliminary data from the US, also based on cellphone movements, that have identified a lag time of 11 days, with a range of 9 to 12 days, since the beginning of social distancing to the onset of COVID-19 case growth reduction
The lag observed between lockdown and epidemic peak should be interpreted in relation to what is known about the natural history of the disease and the incubation period. The median/mean incubation period until first symptoms appears to be slightly more than 5 days [32,33]. There was an additional lag, estimated in Italy to be 5–6 days [34], until test results led to a diagnosis. These intervals imply that the effect of the tight lockdown on transmission of virus was considerably shorter than our computed estimates of time to peak, because the peak of the infection curve would have occurred around 10 days earlier than the peak in official diagnoses.
You're thoroughly, and I mean thoroughly as in totally/completely/utterly/whatever, wrong about your 4-8 day estimate. This is explained within the study and there's no other way around it.
Originally posted by dadudemon so what is a better measure? it is the deaths.
This definitively corresponds to my argument. As I wrote in our last back-and-forth:
Originally posted by Gehenna
It would appear they fell off precipitously after the lockdowns and peaked in late March, which is precisely when the study says the lockdowns forced a peak.
So, regardless of the measure you utilize, the same pattern is imitated, demonstrating the efficacy of the Italy lockdown. This supports my position.
Originally posted by dadudemon if the lockdowns worked, compared to countries that did not lockdown, we would see a much sharper death decrease with extreme lockdown measures.
Have a cross-country regression handy that demonstrates this, DDM?
Because this is exactly what happened among the Scandivanian countries, which are actually quite comparable and suffer from fewer of the issues you'd run into with cross-country regressions normally: https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/CovidEconomics26.pdf#page=22
So this point of yours is also incorrect.
Originally posted by dadudemon sweden did not see a slower death decay, compared to italy.
This is not the claim I've made, DDM. As you can observe above, it clearly mattered relative to it's more comparable neighbors. I would never ignorantly compare death statistics across countries like this, not sans a significant caveat. The more comparable the countries and the more thorough/rigorous the analysis? The better.
Originally posted by dadudemon so, sweden halfed their daily deaths in seven weeks in comparison to italy's eight weeks. that is an outcome that directly contradicts their entire study. you like to talk about it being empirical. it's not empiricism. it is completely wrong and they're wrong from multiple angles and, compared to other countries which did not lock down, they're still wrong yet again.
Uh, what?
This doesn't contradict the study at all since the study makes zero comments about Italy's outbreak in comparison to Sweden's, only the effect of lockdowns inside of Italy. It is empirical so I'm not sure why you'd ever deny that. If we compare Sweden to more comparable countries? It becomes very clear that failure to lockdown costed them.
Originally posted by dadudemon it doesn't matter that you wish to inject the red herring that universal health care has anything at all to do with the fact that people die from economic ruin.
You're not getting it.
Healthcare coverage was THE primary mediating variable for the relationship between unemployment and increased cancer death. Due to this relationship, we know that "deaths from unemployment" are significantly less of a problem in countries with universal health care or countries that provided individuals with the resources necessary to cover out-of-pocket costs when they lost coverage.
Originally posted by dadudemon in a decade, we will probably see over 1 million-1.2 million people die because of the economic ruin that we saw from this and that's a low end estimate. that's simply based on the unemployment stats that we saw from 2008 and i compared them.
This comparison is invalid. The policy enivronment differs, the macroeconomic conditions differ, and the austerity presence differs. This standard of evidence is tremendously insufficient. You cannot apply the lancet paper to current conditions absent of greater rigor, DDM.
Originally posted by dadudemon based on current models and not the bad models from that bad british institute and that british health dude who said two million people would die in america.
So...
The Imperial College model provided that estimate for a thoroughly unmitigated disease-spread. This means nothing, no lockdowns, no masks, and not even protection of the vulnerable like you advocate for. It's crystal clear why they obtained that result: The problem was the uncritical magnification of this result by the media, who you ironically chastised for doing this earlier and went in hard on them (the media) for but have appeared to have directly fallen for yourself.
Concerning Ferguson himself? He's across-the-board unfairly maligned, which I've brought up already:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/#comment-1331901
Originally posted by dadudemon i also think we need to have a ubi. both of those things would curtail the deaths we see in america.
Well, then you cannot disagree that pandemic UI is instrumental in reductions of any deaths, whether they come from lack healthcare coverage or something else entirely.
Originally posted by dadudemon you literally cant debate this point and that is that people die from economic ruin.
DDM, no.
I'm contesting the specific piece of evidence you proffered which demonstrates healthcare coverage was the primary mediating variable, and then I'm contextualizing why. Due to this mediating variable, it is beyond nonsensical to generalize the lancet research to this current situation.
Originally posted by dadudemon do you mean substantiated claims?
No joke? You've substantiated almost nothing. It's really bad.
Originally posted by dadudemon tedros said it's not possible to contain the flu but it's possible for covid-19. he also said here, if it was a flu epidemic, we would expect to see widespread community transmission across the globe by now. [...] so, in other words, tedros was wrong here. coronavirus is actually more deadly and it had a higher R0 than standard seasonal flus and he was wrong here. it was not possible to ever contain covid 19, it was only possible to slow the spread with extreme lockdown measures because you cann stop it from spreading, you can only slow it.
While based upon a misguided assessment of the disease, his belief turned out to be correct. Empirically, the virus' spread can be curtailed with things like lockdowns or test and trace. We've seen overwhelmingly strong evidence of this across many different countries. It is abjectly wrong that it wasn't possible to curtail the spread and, in many places, that has been accomplished.
Originally posted by dadudemon as far as the other part concerning nordic countries, norways health chief said that the lockdowns were unnecessary because they already hit an R0 of 1.1 before they implemented their lockdown policy, which means they destroyed their economy temporarily for nothing!
No.
The lockdwosn didn't really do a whole lot to the economies of any country but rather it was apprehension concerning the virus. This is practically consensus, at this point. We can observe this between Denmark and Sweden seen here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.04630.pdf
It's a result that has been discovered in a variety of places. The paper I provided earlier discusses the similarity of projections for growth among Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in 2020 and 2021. Norway is not the only Scandinavian country and the difference-in-difference estimation I gave provides a causal inference that the lockdowns were life-saving.
Originally posted by dadudemon i compared sweden and norways population density maps and it looks like theres more population density centers in sweden compared to norway, which might explain what the differences are.
And in Denmark? Greater density still than in Sweden.
Originally posted by dadudemon so, in norway, they basically only had to fight it in two or three urban and suburban type setting and then, in sweden, it looks like there's 10 different urban and suburban areas, which means sweden was obviously going to experience more because what i think is that population density is a bigger measure of how many people are going to die and get infected and how quickly it's going to spread.
Now, you can make this kind of comparison but, clearly, the exact same thing applies to Italy and Sweden, further invalidating your above comparison, which, to be honest? Was already of no worth. You can certainly identify population density as a confounder, and I'd partially agree, but it doesn't explain the discrepancy between Denmark, which is much more dense, and Sweden.
It's also not likely to account for the entirety of the difference.
Originally posted by dadudemon india only slowed coronavirus with their extreme lockdown measures by beating the shit out of people in the streets if they left.
It seems to depend on the state. Kerala as much better at it than most and has police who have solid community relations.
Originally posted by dadudemon I think a lot of people will die in india and a lot of it has to do with their sanitization, their infrastructure
Yes, density and low levels of development tremendously exacerbate the virus' consequence.
Originally posted by dadudemon so, I think everyone needs to prepare themselves for the fact that we're going to see some terrible outcomes in india and a lot of people are gonna be dying. even if they're not testing, there's just gonna be a large body count. this is because a coronavirus kills old people.
Possibly, though India is a young country and I'm certain they are doing quite a bit of pooled testing. It'll be interesting to see how it fares between states. I think Kerala will be a success story.
As Tenet is delayed yet again, is it time to end cinema's 'America first' policy?
Interesting article, I agree with the author, let me watch Mulan. 👆
Originally posted by dadudemon
No. There's a 4-5 day delay. And at 11 days, 97.5% of people will show symptoms and almost all deaths happen within 21 days. You would see a policy impact within 2-3 days, a significant inmpact with in 4-8 days, and a massive drop around 11-21 days in deaths: massive massive drop.That's if lockdowns worked. We have never seen this in any data sets.
That would be a confirmation bias, not an actual fit to the data.
Dude what confirmation bias?
You think the cases magically went down on their own?
If you look at how rapidly the cases were multiplying in March and April it was insane.
We don't have anything close to herd immunity as only 6.5% of the population has caught it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why mandate masks now when almost all the people who were going to die, have died? You need masks (N95s in homes with infected people with extremely strict mask protocols) and absolute lockdowns in early feb if you wanted to use those policies. Implementing any of those policies, now, is like polishing a turd - too late, it's just shit.Watch the youtube vids I posted. I cover this content thoroughly.
Again we are not even close to herd immunity so I don't know where you are getting that from about deaths.
The masks will slow down a second spike.
I will watch your video, but whose it by? Both the British Medical Association and the CDC have stated masks are needed. So Who is your video by to disagree?
The science is quite clear. A mask massively reduces the chances of you passing on droplets to someone else. If the other person is also wearing a mask then it just decreases the chances even more of him catching your droplets.
And you only have to look at places like Japan and North Korea (both right next to China) to see how effective masks are.
Originally posted by Blakemore
I guess Surt can only be friends with people who agree with him.I hate people like that.
That's not what I said. If you're gonna go into every thread and complain I will call it out.
DDM has differing opinions to me and we're friends.
But don't gaslight me and act like this is a mere difference of opinion, this is bootlicking of the highest order: look at your response about copycats in the trump thread lol
As U.S.-China Relations Disintegrate, Top Democrat Nancy Pelosi Declares: It Is The ‘Trump Virus’
I can't say I care what she calls it, but the best part here is knowing someone is gonna try to defend this hypocrisy lol.