On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:27:37 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <8b38e242-c630-47dd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> > The key factor in
> >>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
> >>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
> >>> >> >> referenced explained.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
> >>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
> >>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
> >>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
> >>> >> >states, and some cities.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
> >>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
> >>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
> >>> >
> >>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
> >>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
> >>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
> >>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
> >>> >
> >>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
> >>> >
> >>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
> >>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
> >>> >
> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
> >>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
> >>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
> >>> major failure modes:
> >>>
> >>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
> >>>
> >>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
> >>> ass off in Canada.
> >>
> >>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
> >>and getting worse.
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
> >>
> >>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
> >>(note the excess males)
> >
> >Yeah, I expect a pivot to obtaining new Canadians from Africa, whose nations
> >still have positive TFRs.
> >
> >>> 1 Eg: Quebec's dilemma between maintaining their share of the national population
> >>> and maintaining that most central Quebec value, loathing non-pure wool people.
> >>>
> >>> 2: Could fail if Canada becomes a less attractive place to live in, either
> >>> absolutely or relatively or if the global demographic transition bites hard
> >>> enough counties stop letting people leave.
> >>
> >>Global warming may help you here.
> >
> >Except Canada is right next door to the US, vast swathes of which will
> >become much less habitable.
> _Will_ become or _might_ become?
>
> The notion that global warming will render parts of the US
> uninhabitable is speculation.
> >For reasons that escape me, our national
> >policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
> >the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
> >the planet.
> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?

There's a perfectly stfnal scenario where vast numbers of USAnians feel
pressured to migrate north, whether illegally, or with the US government
leaning on Canada to accept them.

pt

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:27:30 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>In article <8b38e242-c630-47dd-84d6-79bd75afe72en@googlegroups.com>,
>>pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > The key factor in
>>>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
>>>> >> >> referenced explained.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>>>> >
>>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>>>> >
>>>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>>>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>>>> >
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>>> major failure modes:
>>>>
>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>>
>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>>> ass off in Canada.
>>>
>>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>>and getting worse.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>>
>>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>>(note the excess males)
>>
>>Yeah, I expect a pivot to obtaining new Canadians from Africa, whose nations
>>still have positive TFRs.
>>
>>>> 1 Eg: Quebec's dilemma between maintaining their share of the national population
>>>> and maintaining that most central Quebec value, loathing non-pure wool people.
>>>>
>>>> 2: Could fail if Canada becomes a less attractive place to live in, either
>>>> absolutely or relatively or if the global demographic transition bites hard
>>>> enough counties stop letting people leave.
>>>
>>>Global warming may help you here.
>>
>>Except Canada is right next door to the US, vast swathes of which will
>>become much less habitable.
>
>_Will_ become or _might_ become?
>
>The notion that global warming will render parts of the US
>uninhabitable is speculation.

Depends on how hight the water level rises ... and how far up the
Mississippi valley it goes.

Cities like Miami might become unlivable if they are ever 10 feet
under water. Although I suppose air-tight buildings and submarine
tunnels might be possible ... or really high stilts.

>>For reasons that escape me, our national
>>policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>the planet.
>
>What, you expect the US to invade Canada?

Well, we /have/ made the attempt in the past. Not Canada as such,
perhaps, but the same territory.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > The key factor in
>>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
>>> >> >> referenced explained.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>> >> >
>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>>> >
>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>>> >
>>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
>>> >
>>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>>> >
>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>> major failure modes:
>>>
>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>
>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>> ass off in Canada.
>>
>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>and getting worse.
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>
>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>(note the excess males)
>
>Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.

Nonsense.

You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
your markets by expanding your Empire.

Might not work today, but it did in the past.
>>> 1 Eg: Quebec's dilemma between maintaining their share of the national population
>>> and maintaining that most central Quebec value, loathing non-pure wool people.
>>>
>>> 2: Could fail if Canada becomes a less attractive place to live in, either
>>> absolutely or relatively or if the global demographic transition bites hard
>>> enough counties stop letting people leave.
>>
>>Global warming may help you here.
>
>Yep. Although it would be a shame to see the Canadian forests cleared
>to produce farmland.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:44:43 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <t7l78o$io9$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> This news article
>>>>
>>>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>>
>>>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>
>>
>>"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>
>>Seriously?
>
>I find myself very interested in the implication of "usually" that
>there are people who don't die.

I'm not sure that works here, since it is clearly in reference to the
pandemic and lots of people didn't die during the last few years.

But I once saw an anti-drug poster trying to warn people that some
large percentage of drug users died. But not 100%. No time frame
specified.

Thus implying that some drug users never die.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> This news article
>>>
>>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>
>>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>
>
>"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>
>Seriously?

If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
gun rights.

So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
perfectly normal.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0617op81bump66robo@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>
> >>> This news article
> >>>
> >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
> >>>
> >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
> >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
> >>>
> >>> John Savard
> >>
> >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
> >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
> >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
> >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
> >
> >
> >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
> >
> >Seriously?
>
> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
> gun rights.
>
> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
> perfectly normal.

After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
African-American males being shot.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> > The key factor in
> >>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
> >>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
> >>> >> >> referenced explained.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
> >>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
> >>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
> >>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
> >>> >> >states, and some cities.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
> >>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
> >>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
> >>> >
> >>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
> >>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
> >>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
> >>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
> >>> >
> >>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
> >>> >
> >>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
> >>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
> >>> >
> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
> >>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
> >>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
> >>> major failure modes:
> >>>
> >>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
> >>>
> >>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
> >>> ass off in Canada.
> >>
> >>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
> >>and getting worse.
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
> >>
> >>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
> >>(note the excess males)
> >
> >Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
> >figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
> Nonsense.
>
> You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
> your markets by expanding your Empire.

Export to whom? The entire world is going through the demographic
transformation; some are further along than others. All are also industrializing.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >
>> >Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>> >figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>> your markets by expanding your Empire.
>
>Export to whom? The entire world is going through the demographic
>transformation; some are further along than others. All are also industrializing.

I believe Paul was speaking with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

I'll point out that our historical exponential growth rates, whether they
are population, energy or economic are fundamentally unsustainable.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 1:40:11 PM UTC+1, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 07:15:50 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> > wrote:
> > >On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> A short note that, no, I see no way to draw such information from the article.
> > >
> > >What the article noted was that the pandemic was a lot worse for *some* people
> > >than for others.
> > >
> > >From that, one can indeed draw the conclusion that those who were lucky
> > >enough to be able to work from home, and emerge largely unscathed, could
> > >get the idea that it wasn't as deadly, and the chances of falling prey to
> > >COVID-19 weren't as high... as they were for the working-class people who
> > >had to do jobs that brought them into contact with others, even before there
> > >was a vaccine, even before we had adequate supplies of masks for anyone
> > >except health workers.
> > >
> > >Of course, the chances for everyone, on average, _aren't_ as high as they
> > >are for the people facing the greatest risk.
> > >
> > >But if laws and public policy are decided by the elites at the least risk...
> > >(which pretty much is a given that can't be helped) and they're deciding
> > >them based on the perspective of their own situation... (which is what
> > >_can_ be avoided) instead of being decided on the basis of the situation
> > >of the people at the greatest risk... then they're being decided the wrong
> > >way. At least, in my opinion - but I think that's also a fact which should
> > >be the opinion of any decent human being with a conscience.
> > At this point just about everybody I know has had COVID and most found
> > it to be a minor annoyance. I am not sure whether I have--I had
> > _something_ shortly after exposure to a recent returnee from China but
> > it was before knowledge of COVID was widespread.
> >
> > Note that I'm a geezer, thus theoretically high-risk. My neighbor is
> > a decade older than I am, and when he had it the only treatment he
> > took was Tylenol.
> >
> > When you look at numbers as numbers they seem frighteningly large.
> > When you look at them as percentages though, the percentage who die
> > from it is not huge.
> But when terrorists kill just a few thousand people,
> what a fuss. Also, is there anyone you're not counting
> as "more than minorly annoyed" because they died,
> and so they cannot comment?

Reasonably well organised terrorists come under "if you want peace, prepare for war" - defense spending that appears overkill for the current threat is worth it to deter groups that would use terrorism if they thought that they would get away with it. Curiously, the really off the wall types, who will just pick the first excuse at hand to run amok, do not come under this, because nothing will deter them.

When our Prime Minister was in intensive care for covid and there was a suggestion that he might not pull through, this made an impression on me, because I am older than he is. More recently the line here has been that if you have been vaccinated you will probably just have a bad week or so if you get it, and people's experiences seem to back this up, so most people are a lot less worried about it.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 05:40:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 07:15:50 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> A short note that, no, I see no way to draw such information from the article.
>> >
>> >What the article noted was that the pandemic was a lot worse for *some* people
>> >than for others.
>> >
>> >From that, one can indeed draw the conclusion that those who were lucky
>> >enough to be able to work from home, and emerge largely unscathed, could
>> >get the idea that it wasn't as deadly, and the chances of falling prey to
>> >COVID-19 weren't as high... as they were for the working-class people who
>> >had to do jobs that brought them into contact with others, even before there
>> >was a vaccine, even before we had adequate supplies of masks for anyone
>> >except health workers.
>> >
>> >Of course, the chances for everyone, on average, _aren't_ as high as they
>> >are for the people facing the greatest risk.
>> >
>> >But if laws and public policy are decided by the elites at the least risk...
>> >(which pretty much is a given that can't be helped) and they're deciding
>> >them based on the perspective of their own situation... (which is what
>> >_can_ be avoided) instead of being decided on the basis of the situation
>> >of the people at the greatest risk... then they're being decided the wrong
>> >way. At least, in my opinion - but I think that's also a fact which should
>> >be the opinion of any decent human being with a conscience.
>> At this point just about everybody I know has had COVID and most found
>> it to be a minor annoyance. I am not sure whether I have--I had
>> _something_ shortly after exposure to a recent returnee from China but
>> it was before knowledge of COVID was widespread.
>>
>> Note that I'm a geezer, thus theoretically high-risk. My neighbor is
>> a decade older than I am, and when he had it the only treatment he
>> took was Tylenol.
>>
>> When you look at numbers as numbers they seem frighteningly large.
>> When you look at them as percentages though, the percentage who die
>> from it is not huge.
>
>But when terrorists kill just a few thousand people,
>what a fuss. Also, is there anyone you're not counting
>as "more than minorly annoyed" because they died,
>and so they cannot comment?

Nobody I know died from it including one aulde farte with cancer.
Hell, it didn't manage to do in Trump, but "only the good die young"
might apply there.

When terrorists kill a few thousand people we don't all run and hide
in bomb shelters, we go hunt the bastards down and kill them. Although
the government has made use of an opportunity to create a jobs program
for defense workers and massively expand its intrusion into our lives.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This news article
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
> > >>>
> > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
> > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
> > >>>
> > >>> John Savard
> > >>
> > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
> > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
> > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
> > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
> > >
> > >
> > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
> > >
> > >Seriously?
> >
> > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
> > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
> > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
> > gun rights.
> >
> > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
> > perfectly normal.
> After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
> African-American males being shot.
>
In the US:

Most white victims are shot by whites.
Most black victims are shot by blacks.

[quote]

Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.

In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders..

In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.

[/quote]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/

Blacks being shot out of proportion to the population
as a whole is, IMO, an artifact of the illicit drug trade,
including feuds between hangs fueled by competition
over who gets to sell drugs where.

Many of my fellow USAians are willing to put up with these
deaths because they want to maintain drug prohibition -
more fools they!

--
Kevin R

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:22:46 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:27:30 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8b38e242-c630-47dd-84d6-79bd75afe72en@googlegroups.com>,
>>>pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> > The key factor in
>>>>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
>>>>> >> >> referenced explained.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>>>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>>>>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>>>> major failure modes:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>>>
>>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>>>> ass off in Canada.
>>>>
>>>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>>>and getting worse.
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>>>
>>>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>>>(note the excess males)
>>>
>>>Yeah, I expect a pivot to obtaining new Canadians from Africa, whose nations
>>>still have positive TFRs.
>>>
>>>>> 1 Eg: Quebec's dilemma between maintaining their share of the national population
>>>>> and maintaining that most central Quebec value, loathing non-pure wool people.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2: Could fail if Canada becomes a less attractive place to live in, either
>>>>> absolutely or relatively or if the global demographic transition bites hard
>>>>> enough counties stop letting people leave.
>>>>
>>>>Global warming may help you here.
>>>
>>>Except Canada is right next door to the US, vast swathes of which will
>>>become much less habitable.
>>
>>_Will_ become or _might_ become?
>>
>>The notion that global warming will render parts of the US
>>uninhabitable is speculation.
>
>Depends on how hight the water level rises ... and how far up the
>Mississippi valley it goes.

So are we talking SF scenario, nutcake fearmongering, or what the IPCC
says is going to happen?

>Cities like Miami might become unlivable if they are ever 10 feet
>under water. Although I suppose air-tight buildings and submarine
>tunnels might be possible ... or really high stilts.

OK, nutcake fearmongering. IPCC does not say anything about "10 feet
under water".

>>>For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>the planet.
>>
>>What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>
>Well, we /have/ made the attempt in the past. Not Canada as such,
>perhaps, but the same territory.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:25:43 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > The key factor in
>>>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
>>>> >> >> referenced explained.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>>>> >
>>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>>>> >
>>>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>>>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>>>> >
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>>> major failure modes:
>>>>
>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>>
>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>>> ass off in Canada.
>>>
>>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>>and getting worse.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>>
>>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>>(note the excess males)
>>
>>Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>>figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>your markets by expanding your Empire.
>
>Might not work today, but it did in the past.

Expand to where?
>>>> 1 Eg: Quebec's dilemma between maintaining their share of the national population
>>>> and maintaining that most central Quebec value, loathing non-pure wool people.
>>>>
>>>> 2: Could fail if Canada becomes a less attractive place to live in, either
>>>> absolutely or relatively or if the global demographic transition bites hard
>>>> enough counties stop letting people leave.
>>>
>>>Global warming may help you here.
>>
>>Yep. Although it would be a shame to see the Canadian forests cleared
>>to produce farmland.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:29:13 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:44:43 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>In article <t7l78o$io9$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This news article
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>>>
>>>>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>>>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Savard
>>>>
>>>> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>>> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>>> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>>> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>
>>>
>>>"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>>
>>>Seriously?
>>
>>I find myself very interested in the implication of "usually" that
>>there are people who don't die.
>
>I'm not sure that works here, since it is clearly in reference to the
>pandemic and lots of people didn't die during the last few years.
>
>But I once saw an anti-drug poster trying to warn people that some
>large percentage of drug users died. But not 100%. No time frame
>specified.
>
>Thus implying that some drug users never die.

Which, like the Jaegerdraft, provides a powerful incentive to use
drugs.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:57:52 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 05:40:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 07:15:50 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> A short note that, no, I see no way to draw such information from the article.
> >> >
> >> >What the article noted was that the pandemic was a lot worse for *some* people
> >> >than for others.
> >> >
> >> >From that, one can indeed draw the conclusion that those who were lucky
> >> >enough to be able to work from home, and emerge largely unscathed, could
> >> >get the idea that it wasn't as deadly, and the chances of falling prey to
> >> >COVID-19 weren't as high... as they were for the working-class people who
> >> >had to do jobs that brought them into contact with others, even before there
> >> >was a vaccine, even before we had adequate supplies of masks for anyone
> >> >except health workers.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, the chances for everyone, on average, _aren't_ as high as they
> >> >are for the people facing the greatest risk.
> >> >
> >> >But if laws and public policy are decided by the elites at the least risk...
> >> >(which pretty much is a given that can't be helped) and they're deciding
> >> >them based on the perspective of their own situation... (which is what
> >> >_can_ be avoided) instead of being decided on the basis of the situation
> >> >of the people at the greatest risk... then they're being decided the wrong
> >> >way. At least, in my opinion - but I think that's also a fact which should
> >> >be the opinion of any decent human being with a conscience.
> >> At this point just about everybody I know has had COVID and most found
> >> it to be a minor annoyance. I am not sure whether I have--I had
> >> _something_ shortly after exposure to a recent returnee from China but
> >> it was before knowledge of COVID was widespread.
> >>
> >> Note that I'm a geezer, thus theoretically high-risk. My neighbor is
> >> a decade older than I am, and when he had it the only treatment he
> >> took was Tylenol.
> >>
> >> When you look at numbers as numbers they seem frighteningly large.
> >> When you look at them as percentages though, the percentage who die
> >> from it is not huge.
> >
> >But when terrorists kill just a few thousand people,
> >what a fuss. Also, is there anyone you're not counting
> >as "more than minorly annoyed" because they died,
> >and so they cannot comment?
> Nobody I know died from it including one aulde farte with cancer.

A cousin of mine in NYC died early on, pre-vaccine. He was around 70.

pt

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:49:14 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 1:24:10 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
>> >> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>> >> >figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>> >> Nonsense.
>> >>
>> >> You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>> >> your markets by expanding your Empire.
>> >
>> >Export to whom? The entire world is going through the demographic
>> >transformation; some are further along than others. All are also industrializing.
>> I believe Paul was speaking with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
>>
>> I'll point out that our historical exponential growth rates, whether they
>> are population, energy or economic are fundamentally unsustainable.
>>
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
>
>Population growth is already flat or declining in most places outside the
>third world. Japan and China are looking at a demographic trap which is
>leading to a rapid drop in the numbers of people of age for working, military
>service, and childbearing. Most Western countries are the same, but to a lesser
>degree.

The Japanese are working on powered exoskeletons to help the older
workforce stay productive. The potential military applications are
pretty obvious at this point. I think it will be a hoot if the
Chinese start to invade Japan and the Evas rise up out of their silos.

>Overpopulation is no longer a likely disaster scenario.
>
>pt

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 20:01:03 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:22:46 -0700, Paul S Person
> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:27:30 -0400, J. Clarke
> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >>Nicoll) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <8b38e242-c630-47dd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> > The key factor in
> >>>>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
> >>>>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
> >>>>> >> >>
> >>>>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
> >>>>> >> >> referenced explained.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
> >>>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
> >>>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
> >>>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
> >>>>> >> >states, and some cities.
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
> >>>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
> >>>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
> >>>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
> >>>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
> >>>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
> >>>>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
> >>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
> >>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
> >>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
> >>>>> major failure modes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
> >>>>> ass off in Canada.
> >>>>
> >>>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
> >>>>and getting worse.
> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
> >>>>
> >>>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
> >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
> >>>>(note the excess males)
> >>>
> >>>Yeah, I expect a pivot to obtaining new Canadians from Africa, whose nations
> >>>still have positive TFRs.
> >>>
> >>>>> 1 Eg: Quebec's dilemma between maintaining their share of the national population
> >>>>> and maintaining that most central Quebec value, loathing non-pure wool people.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2: Could fail if Canada becomes a less attractive place to live in, either
> >>>>> absolutely or relatively or if the global demographic transition bites hard
> >>>>> enough counties stop letting people leave.
> >>>>
> >>>>Global warming may help you here.
> >>>
> >>>Except Canada is right next door to the US, vast swathes of which will
> >>>become much less habitable.
> >>
> >>_Will_ become or _might_ become?
> >>
> >>The notion that global warming will render parts of the US
> >>uninhabitable is speculation.
> >
> >Depends on how hight the water level rises ... and how far up the
> >Mississippi valley it goes.
> So are we talking SF scenario, nutcake fearmongering, or what the IPCC
> says is going to happen?
> >Cities like Miami might become unlivable if they are ever 10 feet
> >under water. Although I suppose air-tight buildings and submarine
> >tunnels might be possible ... or really high stilts.
> OK, nutcake fearmongering. IPCC does not say anything about "10 feet
> under water".

<https://theconversation.com/ipcc-climate-report-profound-changes-are-underway-in-earths-oceans-and-ice-a-lead-author-explains-what-the-warnings-mean-165588>

"if the world limits warming to well below 2 C, it should take
many centuries for sea level rise to exceed 2 meters" (6.5 feet)

"Doing so requires getting global carbon dioxide emissions
on a downward course that reaches net zero around or
before 2050."

Oh.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise>

"In the next 2,000 years the sea level is predicted to rise
by 2–3 metres if the temperature rise will peak at 1.5
degrees, by 2–6 metres if it will peak at 2 degrees and by
19–22 metres if it will peak at 5 degrees."

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miami_skyscrapers.jpg>
is a chart with handy "if water rises this high" horizontal lines,
though they start at 50 metres which is evidently quite pessimistic.
But what if Miami also sinks?

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> This news article
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> John Savard
> > > >>
> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
> > > >
> > > >Seriously?
> > >
> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
> > > gun rights.
> > >
> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
> > > perfectly normal.
> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
> > African-American males being shot.
> >
> In the US:
>
> Most white victims are shot by whites.
> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>
> [quote]
>
> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>
> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>
> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>
> [/quote]
>
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/

But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
be homicides. *And the FBI.

> Blacks being shot out of proportion to the population
> as a whole is, IMO, an artifact of the illicit drug trade,
> including feuds between hangs fueled by competition
> over who gets to sell drugs where.
>
> Many of my fellow USAians are willing to put up with these
> deaths because they want to maintain drug prohibition -
> more fools they!

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> This news article
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> John Savard
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>> > > >
>> > > >Seriously?
>> > >
>> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>> > > gun rights.
>> > >
>> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>> > > perfectly normal.
>> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>> > African-American males being shot.
>> >
>> In the US:
>>
>> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>
>> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>
>> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>
>> [/quote]
>>
>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>
>But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>be homicides. *And the FBI.

What _are_ the considered to be then?

Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>
>> Blacks being shot out of proportion to the population
>> as a whole is, IMO, an artifact of the illicit drug trade,
>> including feuds between hangs fueled by competition
>> over who gets to sell drugs where.
>>
>> Many of my fellow USAians are willing to put up with these
>> deaths because they want to maintain drug prohibition -
>> more fools they!

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> >> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> This news article
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
> >> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> John Savard
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
> >> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
> >> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
> >> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Seriously?
> >> > >
> >> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
> >> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
> >> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
> >> > > gun rights.
> >> > >
> >> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
> >> > > perfectly normal.
> >> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
> >> > African-American males being shot.
> >> >
> >> In the US:
> >>
> >> Most white victims are shot by whites.
> >> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
> >>
> >> [quote]
> >>
> >> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
> >> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
> >>
> >> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
> >> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
> >>
> >> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
> >> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
> >>
> >> [/quote]
> >>
> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
> >
> >But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
> >be homicides. *And the FBI.
> What _are_ the considered to be then?
>
> Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".

Mostly "legitimate self defense".

Pt

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 10:16:57 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>> >>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>> >>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> > The key factor in
>> >>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>> >>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
>> >>> >> >> referenced explained.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>> >>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>> >>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>> >>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>> >>> >> >states, and some cities.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>> >>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>> >>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>> >>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>> >>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>> >>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>> >>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>> >>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>> >>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>> >>> major failure modes:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>> >>>
>> >>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>> >>> ass off in Canada.
>> >>
>> >>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>> >>and getting worse.
>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>> >>
>> >>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>> >>(note the excess males)
>> >
>> >Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>> >figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>> your markets by expanding your Empire.
>
>Export to whom? The entire world is going through the demographic
>transformation; some are further along than others. All are also industrializing.

Thank you for clarifying the line you omitted:

>Might not work today, but it did in the past.

by explaining why it might not work today.

But it /did/ work in the past (it is the very definition of
"colonialism"), and the claim was that it was something nobody had
ever figured out.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 15:03:26 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:25:43 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> > The key factor in
>>>>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
>>>>> >> >> referenced explained.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>>>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>>>>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>>>> major failure modes:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>>>
>>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>>>> ass off in Canada.
>>>>
>>>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>>>and getting worse.
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>>>
>>>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>>>(note the excess males)
>>>
>>>Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>>>figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>>You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>>your markets by expanding your Empire.
>>
>>Might not work today, but it did in the past.
>
>Expand to where?

Thank you for clarifying that last line by explaining why it might not
work today. And for having the integrity to quote it.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:41:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> >> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>> >> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>> This news article
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>> >> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> John Savard
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>> >> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>> >> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>> >> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Seriously?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>> >> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>> >> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>> >> > > gun rights.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>> >> > > perfectly normal.
>> >> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>> >> > African-American males being shot.
>> >> >
>> >> In the US:
>> >>
>> >> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>> >> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>> >>
>> >> [quote]
>> >>
>> >> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>> >> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>> >>
>> >> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>> >> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>> >>
>> >> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>> >> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>> >>
>> >> [/quote]
>> >>
>> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>> >
>> >But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>> >be homicides. *And the FBI.
>> What _are_ the considered to be then?
>>
>> Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>
>Mostly "legitimate self defense".

Because they were "in fear for their lives" for no good reason in far
too many cases.

Note: I have long held that anyone stupid enough to actual /fire a
gun/ at a policeman deserves whatever they get. Some self-defense
claims are legitimate.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 18:18:02 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>> This news article
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> John Savard
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>> > > >
>>> > > >Seriously?
>>> > >
>>> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>> > > gun rights.
>>> > >
>>> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>> > > perfectly normal.
>>> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>> > African-American males being shot.
>>> >
>>> In the US:
>>>
>>> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>>> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>>
>>> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>>> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>
>>> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>>> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>
>>> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>>> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>
>>But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>be homicides. *And the FBI.
>
>What _are_ the considered to be then?

Good clean fun? Great sport? Who can say how the truly twisted think?

>Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".

I suspect he was using the term linguistically, not legally. It isn't
"aggravated first-degree murder" either, after all, but those may well
have been included in the given rates.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0617op81bump66robo@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>

>> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>> gun rights.
>>
>> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>> perfectly normal.
>
>After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>African-American males being shot.

It occurred to me last night that the /same people/ who apparently
hold this belief appear to be the ones who talk most loudly about
"Traditional Family Values".

I would say that those with the indicated attifude have /no family
values at all/.

Which might lead to the Republican Party, the Party of Guns and
Family, coming apart at the seams.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."