Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[C0|dB|00ded]

Had my handyman guy ping me today. I called him. He got COVID. I think he's in his 50's. Latin and American Indian (Kickapoo). Spent a month and a half in the hospital and was intubated for a couple of weeks.

Like everyone else I know who has had a bad outcome (and survived to talk about it), he was telling me there's no way to be too careful. He thinks he got it at Home Depot.

I did go to our local outdoor mall on Saturday, but it was raining, so we had the place to ourselves. If it had not been raining, I would have stayed at home.

This insidious, alien virus prefers dark meat. 3x mortality rate over whites. If you're a brown person and get infected... start prayin'.

If Biden decides to target brown minorities first for the vaccine, would you be offended?

P.S. Death is not the only bad Covid outcome. (public service announcement)

[wufan]

Give it to teachers first.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Give it to teachers first.

Sure! Most may be "immunized" at this point though. :(

Frontline workers first.

[wufan]

Sure! Most may be "immunized" at this point though. :(

Frontline workers first.

Teachers are immune, but not front line workers. Seems reasonable.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Teachers are immune, but not front line workers. Seems reasonable.

Well the teachers don't get wrapped up like Thanksgiving leftovers.




Vs.



May as well be naked.

[ShockerFever]

Doesn’t that make teachers more susceptible then?

[C0|dB|00ded]

Doesn’t that make teachers more susceptible then?

That is correct. Which is why I say most are likely "immunized" at this point unfortunately. They should be receiving hazard pay during this period. They are heroes.

[1979Shocker]

BBC News - Covid Pfizer vaccine approved for use next week

[wufan]

Well the teachers don't get wrapped up like Thanksgiving leftovers.




Vs.



May as well be naked.

I thought masks and social distancing kept you safe. My wife is a front line worker, and she wears a mask, but can’t distance. None of the rubber man suits.

[SB Shock]

That is correct. Which is why I say most are likely "immunized" at this point unfortunately. They should be receiving hazard pay during this period. They are heroes.

Where u been? Schooling is remote through most of the U.S.

Teachers should be target group to get the vaccine so that we can get back with in-person schooling ASAP.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Where u been? Schooling is remote through most of the U.S.

Teachers should be target group to get the vaccine so that we can get back with in-person schooling ASAP.

Where have I been? On top of the facts like usual my dizzy friend.

I spoke with a local administrator months ago who complained at the time that the system was understaffed due to sick teachers. Here's a recent Eagle article supporting those statements:

https://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article247509695.html

The state’s largest school district can’t weather the current surge of COVID-19 cases and quarantines, and it’s sending everyone home.

Wichita district leaders voted 6-0 to move all classes online until further notice, citing rising numbers of positive cases and quarantines and a shortage of substitute teachers.

The district’s two-week positive test rate was more than 22% as of Nov. 21, officials reported. The red-zone threshold for closing schools is 15%.

The rate of new cases was about 1,138 per 100,000 people — nearly eight times the red-zone threshold.

Three Wichita elementaries and Levy Special Education Center have already moved to full-remote learning due to a high number of staff absences. Nearly 1,200 employees are under active quarantine. Twenty-two buildings have more than 20% of their staff absent due to COVID-19.

That’s not sustainable. And it’s no one’s fault but our own.

School and public health officials sounded clear warnings recently that too many people are ignoring calls to wear masks and limit gatherings, and that the only way to keep schools open is for everyone to work together.

That didn’t happen. And here we are.

I don't agree it's our fault. It's government's fault for not putting forth a cohesive plan (with teeth) in order to gain compliance during a national emergency. That fault goes all the way to the White House for setting the cognitive dissonant standard that this country continues to suffer from.

[JVShocker]

Don't know if this belongs in the humor thread, or here. Enjoy. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KABSYzPqTTg

[C0|dB|00ded]

I thought masks and social distancing kept you safe. My wife is a front line worker, and she wears a mask, but can’t distance. None of the rubber man suits.

The concept of masks and social distancing work together across a community to lower infection rates in a general sense. It's incorrect and disingenuous to argue efficacy on a case-by-case basis. Of course there is the opportunity for failure using either or both of those methods based on the time around an infected and/or the viral concentration in the air. If you walk around a Covid ward 10 hrs. a day with a soggy N95, chances are there will be a failure at some point for a million reasons. This is why they wrap themselves up tightly and have lengthy protocol they follow when doffing and donning. For the average person who may come in contact with the virus briefly while at the store or in an office, any form of barrier is going to have an effect. Ideally you match your protective measures to the level of threat you will face. In most non-intimate community situations, a good-fitting mask and a space of separation is going to have a measurable effect on overall communication rates.

But you already know this.

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

The concept of masks and social distancing work together across a community to lower infection rates in a general sense. It's incorrect and disingenuous to argue efficacy on a case-by-case basis. Of course there is the opportunity for failure using either or both of those methods based on the time around an infected and/or the viral concentration in the air. If you walk around a Covid ward 10 hrs. a day with a soggy N95, chances are there will be a failure at some point for a million reasons. This is why they wrap themselves up tightly and have lengthy protocol they follow when doffing and donning. For the average person who may come in contact with the virus briefly while at the store or in an office, any form of barrier is going to have an effect. Ideally you match your protective measures to the level of threat you will face. In most non-intimate community situations, a good-fitting mask and a space of separation is going to have a measurable effect on overall communication rates.

But you already know this.

For my favorite POC.....

The Fallacy of Composition involves taking attributes of part of an object or class and applying them to the entire object or class. It is similar to the Fallacy of Division but works in reverse.

The argument being made is that because every part has some characteristic, then the whole must necessarily also have that characteristic. This is a fallacy because not everything that is true about every part of an object is necessarily true of the whole, much less about the entire class that the object is part of.

This is the general form that the Fallacy of Composition takes:

1. All parts (or members) of X have the property P. Thus, X itself has the property P.

Explanation and Discussion of the Fallacy of Composition


Here are some obvious examples of the Fallacy of Composition:

2. Because the atoms of a penny are not visible to the naked eye, then the penny itself must also not be visible to the naked eye.
3. Because all of the components of this car are light and easy to carry, then the car itself must also be light and easy to carry.

It is not the case that what is true of the parts can't also be true of the whole. It is possible to make arguments similar to the above which are not fallacious and which have conclusions which follow validly from the premises. Here are some examples:

4. Because the atoms of a penny have mass, then the penny itself must have mass.
5. Because all of the components of this car are entirely white, then the car itself must also be entirely white.

So why do these arguments work - what is the difference between them and the previous two? Because the Fallacy of Composition is an informal fallacy, you have to look at the content rather than the structure of the argument. When you examine the content, you will find something special about the characteristics being applied.

A characteristic can be transferred from the parts to the whole when the existence of that characteristic in the parts is what will cause it to be true of the whole. In #4, the penny itself has mass because the constituent atoms have mass. In #5 the car itself is entirely white because the parts are entirely white.

This is an unstated premise in the argument and depends upon our prior knowledge about the world. We know, for example, that while car parts might be lightweight, getting a whole lot together will likely create something that weighs a lot - and weighs too much to carry easily. A car cannot be made light and easy to carry just by having parts which are, individually, themselves light and easy to carry. Similarly, a penny cannot be made invisible just because its atoms are not visible to us.

When someone offers an argument like the above, and you are skeptical that it is valid, you need to look very closely at the content of both the premises and the conclusion. You may need to ask that the person demonstrates the necessary connection between an attribute being true of the parts and it also being true of the whole.

Here are some examples that are a little less obvious than the first two above, but which are just as fallacious:

6. Because each member of this baseball team is the best in the league for their position, then the team itself must also be the best in the league.
7. Because cars create less pollution than buses, cars must be less of a pollution problem than buses.
8. With a laissez-faire capitalist economic system, each member of society must act in a way that will maximize his or her own economic interests. Thus, society as a whole will achieve the maximum economic advantages.

These examples help demonstrate the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. The error isn't recognizable simply by looking at the structure of the arguments being made. Instead, you have to look at the content of the claims. When you do that, you can see that the premises are insufficient to demonstrate the truth of the conclusions.

One important thing to note is that the Fallacy of Composition is similar to but distinct from the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. This latter fallacy involves assuming that something is true of an entire class due to an atypical or small sample size. This is different from making such an assumption based on an attribute which is indeed shared by all parts or members.
Religion and the Fallacy of Composition


Atheists debating science and religion will frequently encounter variations on this fallacy:

9. Because everything in the universe is caused, then the universe itself must also be caused.
10. "...it makes more sense that there is an eternal God who always existed than to suppose the universe itself has always existed, because nothing in the universe is eternal. Since no part of it lasts forever, then it is only reasonable that all its parts put together were not there forever either."

Even famous philosophers have committed the Fallacy of Composition. Here is an example from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics:

11. "Is he [man] born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these?"

Here it is argued that, just because the parts (organs) of a person have a "higher function," that, therefore, the whole (a person) also has some "higher function." But people and their organs are not analogous like that. For example, part of what defines an animal's organ is the function it serves - must the whole organism also be defined that way as well?

Even if we assume for a moment that it is true that humans do have some "higher function," it is not at all clear that functionality is the same as the functionality of their individual organs. Because of this, the term function would be used in multiple ways in the same argument, resulting in the Fallacy of Equivocation."

I had to include the last part about religion.....

[wufan]

For my favorite POC.....

The Fallacy of Composition involves taking attributes of part of an object or class and applying them to the entire object or class. It is similar to the Fallacy of Division but works in reverse.

The argument being made is that because every part has some characteristic, then the whole must necessarily also have that characteristic. This is a fallacy because not everything that is true about every part of an object is necessarily true of the whole, much less about the entire class that the object is part of.

This is the general form that the Fallacy of Composition takes:

1. All parts (or members) of X have the property P. Thus, X itself has the property P.

Explanation and Discussion of the Fallacy of Composition


Here are some obvious examples of the Fallacy of Composition:

2. Because the atoms of a penny are not visible to the naked eye, then the penny itself must also not be visible to the naked eye.
3. Because all of the components of this car are light and easy to carry, then the car itself must also be light and easy to carry.

It is not the case that what is true of the parts can't also be true of the whole. It is possible to make arguments similar to the above which are not fallacious and which have conclusions which follow validly from the premises. Here are some examples:

4. Because the atoms of a penny have mass, then the penny itself must have mass.
5. Because all of the components of this car are entirely white, then the car itself must also be entirely white.

So why do these arguments work - what is the difference between them and the previous two? Because the Fallacy of Composition is an informal fallacy, you have to look at the content rather than the structure of the argument. When you examine the content, you will find something special about the characteristics being applied.

A characteristic can be transferred from the parts to the whole when the existence of that characteristic in the parts is what will cause it to be true of the whole. In #4, the penny itself has mass because the constituent atoms have mass. In #5 the car itself is entirely white because the parts are entirely white.

This is an unstated premise in the argument and depends upon our prior knowledge about the world. We know, for example, that while car parts might be lightweight, getting a whole lot together will likely create something that weighs a lot - and weighs too much to carry easily. A car cannot be made light and easy to carry just by having parts which are, individually, themselves light and easy to carry. Similarly, a penny cannot be made invisible just because its atoms are not visible to us.

When someone offers an argument like the above, and you are skeptical that it is valid, you need to look very closely at the content of both the premises and the conclusion. You may need to ask that the person demonstrates the necessary connection between an attribute being true of the parts and it also being true of the whole.

Here are some examples that are a little less obvious than the first two above, but which are just as fallacious:

6. Because each member of this baseball team is the best in the league for their position, then the team itself must also be the best in the league.
7. Because cars create less pollution than buses, cars must be less of a pollution problem than buses.
8. With a laissez-faire capitalist economic system, each member of society must act in a way that will maximize his or her own economic interests. Thus, society as a whole will achieve the maximum economic advantages.

These examples help demonstrate the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. The error isn't recognizable simply by looking at the structure of the arguments being made. Instead, you have to look at the content of the claims. When you do that, you can see that the premises are insufficient to demonstrate the truth of the conclusions.

One important thing to note is that the Fallacy of Composition is similar to but distinct from the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. This latter fallacy involves assuming that something is true of an entire class due to an atypical or small sample size. This is different from making such an assumption based on an attribute which is indeed shared by all parts or members.
Religion and the Fallacy of Composition


Atheists debating science and religion will frequently encounter variations on this fallacy:

9. Because everything in the universe is caused, then the universe itself must also be caused.
10. "...it makes more sense that there is an eternal God who always existed than to suppose the universe itself has always existed, because nothing in the universe is eternal. Since no part of it lasts forever, then it is only reasonable that all its parts put together were not there forever either."

Even famous philosophers have committed the Fallacy of Composition. Here is an example from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics:

11. "Is he [man] born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these?"

Here it is argued that, just because the parts (organs) of a person have a "higher function," that, therefore, the whole (a person) also has some "higher function." But people and their organs are not analogous like that. For example, part of what defines an animal's organ is the function it serves - must the whole organism also be defined that way as well?

Even if we assume for a moment that it is true that humans do have some "higher function," it is not at all clear that functionality is the same as the functionality of their individual organs. Because of this, the term function would be used in multiple ways in the same argument, resulting in the Fallacy of Equivocation."

I had to include the last part about religion.....

Thank you for today’s lecture on logical fallacies. Is this a priori or does it relate to the thread?