The notion of risk dwells within the theory of probability. It asserts that an event may take place based on objective data not subjective circumstances.
In 19th century how long a person would live was thought of on subjective basis. /1
In 19th century how long a person would live was thought of on subjective basis. /1
It means that I looked at you here and now and considered your circumstances and wellness or sickness, perhaps comparing you to people who live next door and imagined how long you have left. /2
In 21st century I decide how long you have left based on actuary tables. These tables pool the aggregate of all people somewhere sometime and come up with chance of you living till x, y, z. /3
I no longer look at you here and now. I take a number that applies to a bunch of people god know where and when in any kind of predicament... and apply it to you here and now. /4
Actuary tables for risk assessment or chance something will happen is considered objective.
In science and modern society subjective is unreliable (often a lie), objective is reliable (the truth). We artificially assigned these values to what you sense vs what I assess of you.
In science and modern society subjective is unreliable (often a lie), objective is reliable (the truth). We artificially assigned these values to what you sense vs what I assess of you.
To play the game of theoretical probability chances and risks you must accept that this death here and now was not due to individual circumstances but to laws that come from numbers of observed events some place some time. /6
These major changes in how you consider death by reassigning value to what is important, subjective/objective, is similar to castling in chess. You swap out a word here, and idea there... and you wind up on the next level of ... a computer game instead of a chessboard. /7
When we apply this to current virus circus, we are dealing with two distinct dragons: absolute number of deaths (all who died) and some form of statistical number be it risk of dying, infection to fatality ratio (how many die of those who get sick) or deaths per 100k people. /8
Total number of dead people has the most dramatic effect of you want to instill fear. Since nobody understands large numbers, it’s an easy day manipulation. Do you know how many die daily? From any particular cause a year? Unlikely off the top of your head. /9
Statistical expressions of death serve a different purpose in medicine. Nobody, even scientists, do not respond with any emotion to “IFR (infection fatality rate) 0.1%. Majority won’t be able to translate it into plain English. If they do, you won’t get it. /10
IFR 0.1% means that if 100 people get infected with the virus, one/tenth of a person will die. THERE! Are you impressed? Unlikely. It doesn’t make you feel relieved or scared. /11
To make this nonsense a little better I can say if 1000 people get sick, 1 will die. It starts making more sense but nobody knows 1k people thus can’t understand the meaning of this. 1 death also isn’t as impressive as 200 thousand./12
Even as a scientist, it’s hard to understand this one number without comparing it to another number. How many die of a similar disease that I do have knowledge of? Context of this number becomes important. How does it fit with what I already know? /13
Yet my goal focusing on these numbers in the box of medicinal probability thinking is to keep you under the spell of not knowing, not understanding, and not sensing. /14
When I magically covert the uncertainty of life and death into the certainty of numbers, sequences, and models, I project the mystery of expertise.
The goal of statistical probability and risk expression in numbers is to extinguish your anxiety over uncertainty of death. /15
The goal of statistical probability and risk expression in numbers is to extinguish your anxiety over uncertainty of death. /15
For this to work you must accept *that life and death can be measured and calculated
*that you cannot know something unless you measure it
* that an individual sick person is less telling than a large number of sick people /16
*that you cannot know something unless you measure it
* that an individual sick person is less telling than a large number of sick people /16
Public health and epidemiology use statistics based on the above mentioned axioms and deploy it as a technology of power in a modern state.
In case you wondered why and how you wound up shacked, muzzled in your knees. /17
In case you wondered why and how you wound up shacked, muzzled in your knees. /17
Statistics as technology of power in a modern state means that government and government approved agencies such as medicine use numbers as a tool to control what you do. /18
When I read the Coronageddon-scape, Neil Ferguson of Doomsday Predictions (TM) and @EthicalSkeptic with @youyanggu occupy the same ideology space. They spar within the same box of numbers and models. /18
Do you have to inhabit the world controlled by numbers? No. You don’t have to play the games you don’t want to play. There are other ways of knowing. /19
To live the traditional way is to know differently. You have to revert from theory to what you sense around and in front of you.
Do you see people dropping dead?
What are people dying of around you?
Does the death of this person here and now make sense? /20
Do you see people dropping dead?
What are people dying of around you?
Does the death of this person here and now make sense? /20
In your memory do you know anybody around you who died of a similar disease (cold, flu, pneumonia) here and now? Is it common?
What are the typical deaths you hear about?
How did people deal with similar diseases in the past? Can you do the same? /21
What are the typical deaths you hear about?
How did people deal with similar diseases in the past? Can you do the same? /21
Do you know that you are going to die?
How do you think you are going to die?
Does current virus present a threat to you based on what you see around? /22
How do you think you are going to die?
Does current virus present a threat to you based on what you see around? /22
Does a report of random 40 people dying in a land far away from you make sense to you? Do you care? /23
What are you willing to lose to live a very long life?
Will it matter to you if you live versus exist?
How much suffering are you willing to endure to exist?
What is your ideal death? /24
Will it matter to you if you live versus exist?
How much suffering are you willing to endure to exist?
What is your ideal death? /24
In a way Donald Trump became an example of traditional old mentality and attitude to disease. He refused to stop living while accepting the danger (important! not risk) inherent to living during disease outbreak. His first hospital speech details his reasoning. /25
Donald Trump denied to play the statistical game of public health while choosing the game offered by clinical medicine. It is not really uncommon to accept this and decline that. Trump’s age most likely contributed to his worldview in this matter. /26
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
