Dealing With Uncertainties

There are now 2000 confirmed cases of the Wuhan coronavirus, so we are a little ahead of schedule. This means that the outbreak is in its exponential phase. At this rate, we can expect 4000 cases by mid Tuesday.

The mortality rate for this disease is said to be 3%. However, that number is in conflict with our calculations. The death toll is 3% of the current number of infected people. But to say that the mortality rate is 3% based on this is to understate the true number, which should be calculated based on the number of infected people 2 to 3 days back in time. Mortality is after all a trailing number. It takes about 2 to 3 days for a virus like this to go from identification to its peak severity. Mortality rates should therefore be calculated based on the total cases in the past, not the present number. Furthermore, numbers taken from an early sample of 41 patients yielded a mortality rate of 15%, more than our own estimate of 10%.

This illustrates that official figures are rarely accurate as to the true size and severity of an outbreak. However, by applying some simple math, we can still figure out the overall numbers. We may be off by a quite a lot, but the overall calculated trend and severity will be sufficiently accurate to take reasonable precautions. If officials understate the size of the outbreak by half, we're only off by 2 days in our projections. If officials understate the mortality rate, we can calculate our own numbers, or dig down to find more reliable numbers.

We don't have to know exactly how and when things happen, nor do we need to know the exact figures. It's still possible to figure out whether or not an outbreak is contained. We can also figure out roughly how dangerous it is. In this particular case, the numbers indicate that the outbreak is neither contained nor benign.

By I. Columbina, ad vivum delineavit. Paulus Fürst Excud〈i〉t. - 1. Johannes Ebert and others, Europas Sprung in die Neuzeit, Die große Chronik-Weltgeschichte, 10 (Gütersloh: Wissen Media, 2008), p. 197. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3DVH8dVGkX0C&pg=PA197 2. Superstock: Dr. Schnabel of Rome, a Plague Doctor in 1656 Paul Fuerst Copper engraving (Stock Photo 1443-1112), Public Domain, Link

Watching out for 2000, 4000, 8000, etc

As of last night, there were about 1000 confirmed cases of the coronavirus. That means that there should soon be 2000 cases. If the infection spreads exponentially, with a doubling every 2 days, we should reach 2000 by Sunday evening. If it spreads faster than this, we'll see 2000 before that. If slower, 2000 will appear later.

The next number to look for after 2000 is 4000. If 4000 is reached quicker than we reached 2000 from 1000, we're faced with an explosive situation. If the time interval is the same, we're still in a regular exponential phase. If slower, we may be looking at an early topping off, in which case there's still hope for containment.

After 4000, we look for 8000. Here again, we'll compare time intervals to judge where in the cycle we are. We can again determine if the disease is progressing explosively, exponentially, or topping off. For every doubling, we look for the next doubling. This way, we stay on top of the situation. We can estimate the rate at which the disease is spreading, and roughly when to hunker down for a day or two.

By Michiel Sweerts - Image: http://collections.lacma.org/sites/default/files/remote_images/piction/ma-31770455-O3.jpg Gallery: http://collections.lacma.org/node/183358 archive copy, Public Domain, Link

Calculations Related to Virus Infections

The latest headline numbers from China has 25 people dead and 830 patients infected by the current Coronavirus outbreak. Two days ago, the numbers were about half of this. The current rate of infection is in other words a doubling every 2 days. Left unchecked, there will be about 800,000 cases in 20 days, 25,000,000 cases in 30 days, 800,000,000 cases in 40 days, and the entire world population within 50 days. However, not everybody will be infected. The Spanish flu, which spread in this manner, infected a total of 500,000,000 people. At its peak, there could not have been more than 250,000,000 patients.

If the current virus outbreak in China progresses in a similar manner to the Spanish flu, we can expect a peak in about 40 days from now. A total of about 1,600,000,000 people may get the decease before it fades away. The overwhelming majority of cases will be concentrated around this peak, meaning that most of us have at least 30 days to take any precautions. There is no immediate hurry to stock up on tinned and dried foods. The supply required to weather the worst of the outbreak in isolation from other people does not have to be more than about 10 days.

From looking at the headline numbers, we can conclude that the current outbreak kills about one in ten people. A virus of this kind tends to cause maximum harm to an individual about 3 days after the illness has manifest itself. The 25 people dead are therefore belonging to the group of patients that existed 3 days ago. That was about 250 individuals. The death rate of the current virus outbreak is therefore comparable to the Spanish flu which also killed about one in ten of those affected. It is likely then that we might end up with about 160,000,000 dead people within the next two months, unless we see a sudden and steep decline in the number of cases relatively soon. However, regardless of how this outbreak proceeds, the vast majority of us will either not get infected at all, or survive to live another day.

By w:User:Graham Beards - w:User:Graham Beards created this work entirely by himself. Transfer from English Wikipedia, CC BY 3.0, Link

Why Liquidity Injections Always End Up in Gold

We are in the middle of a stock market melt-up, fueled by liquidity injected into the US economy by the FED. In an effort to keep interest rates low, the FED has produced a huge stock market bubble.

However, it's not only stocks that have been doing well lately. Gold has moved higher too, and there are good reasons to believe that gold will soon outperform stocks. The logic for this is simple.

Liquidity injections such as the one we are witnessing will always foster market distortions. This is because easy money go into unworkable and overly optimistic projects, while real incomes fall. The purchasing power of the average salaried person goes down, while available cash for investments go up. Cash becomes less valuable and the general public suffers. The real economy takes a hit.

This means that cash going into stocks do so for purely financial reasons. There is not sufficient health in the economy to warrant the investments. People are stampeding out of cash, and seeing that stocks go up as a consequence, there is a rush to buy stocks. However, those who sell into this rally are no less aware of what's going on. They too want to stay out of cash, and the logical alternative to cash is money, i.e. gold.

While gold will go up slower than stocks in the short term, this is unlikely to remain the case. More and more people will want to get out of stocks as the real economy continues to deteriorate. Liquidity injected by the FED will in ever-diminishing degree go into stocks. Rather, it will go into gold. To start with, this will happen indirectly through the stock market. However, at some point, any further liquidity injection will go directly into gold.

Should the FED stop its liquidity injection, the stock market will tank. But gold will remain elevated. It may even continue its upward trajectory because those invested in gold tend to have little debt. They have parked their wealth in gold in order to ride out the coming storm. They have withdrawn from the financial markets. With no incentive to go into stocks, which are everywhere crashing, people will continue to flock to gold with whatever cash savings they have. The ultimate end station of liquidity injections is therefore gold.

By Arnold Price, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Uff Da - How to Win the Liberty Argument

Anarchy is a political philosophy that requires no gathering of people or even a common geographical area in order to set roots. All it requires is for some people to state the obvious, that any type of coercion against peaceful people is a crime, and following orders is no excuse.

Inherent in this philosophy is the idea that everyone will get along if we simply mind our own business, which may lead some to conclude that it cannot possibly work. We are so used to the idea that political movements have to have rallies in the streets, with leaders shouting slogans and followers mindlessly marching to their drums, that the very idea of a political movement existing outside of this format seems foreign and impossible. However, ideas do not require more than dialogue to propagate through a population, and good ideas can move at tremendous speeds.

The trick is to present the idea of liberty in as plain and simple terms as possible, and making it appealing to people to promote. To do this, we need to capture the moral high ground. We have to make it clear that nosing around in other people's private affairs is despicable. To do it for others as a job is detestable. Party politics is a circus, taxation is theft, and war is murder. If we plant these ideas in people's heads, the resulting changes in society will be great, and no political rally, no protest march, no fighting in the streets will ever be required. We just have to be polite, likable and honest.

It is not important to "win" any particular argument. People are not swayed by technical details related to how an anarchist society may be organized. The idea of liberty is much better presented free of arguments. Just tell people that coercion against peaceful people is unacceptable. Utter the occasional "ouch" or "uff da" when people say stupid things like "I gladly pay my taxes". If people are genuinely interested in how an anarchist society might work, point them to all the literature that is available. Tell them also that anyone can live in anarchy if they want to. It requires no more than a personal commitment to leave others alone.

Most important of all: be a good and honest human being. Lead by example.

Jesus

By Carl Bloch - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVdd6dZPU3nrHUoYjTuN9VNudnSwm6_ckL4my_jNr9y0jQXOkTeF5lzEN7RsSyiIlatLoriO91OkOEHrVvJ3bToCcmcjVcgQ76Ios4s0OCGS2ivlOP2i3K8L1rG1Svqv2EdEDnGRpLzOC-/s1600/Sermon_on_the_Mount_Carl_Bloch.jpg and Carl Bloch, p. 313, ISBN 9788798746591, Public Domain, Link

The 5th Empire - Stating the Obvious

One of the best things about being a citizen of the empire is the sense of genuine love, enthusiasm and goodwill that comes with it. I really do wish the best for everybody, and this fills me with warm positive energy. Furthermore, I feel no shame in being honest, because nothing good ever comes from telling a lie or hiding the truth. I speak my mind freely. Not with anger or resentment, but with a genuine desire to clarify whatever misconceptions there may be inherent in the conversation. This saves me from a lot of energy draining soul-searching and agony.

When I'm out with people, I listen to what they have to say. I ask them what they do for a living, what interests they have and what they do to fill their lives with meaning. Some are materialists, eager to tell about their latest travels and purchases. Others seek meaning in help and care. I have no issue with either approach. I'm no materialist myself, but I see nothing wrong in seeking pride and joy through material wealth. Nor do I see anything wrong in dedicating a life to the service of a greater good. However, life decisions are sometimes misguided, and when I sense that this is the case, I'm clear about my views. I do not praise people for their decisions simply to make them stay comfortably in their delusion.

When someone say with pride that they work for the CPS, I respond with an "ouch", or "uff da", depending on what language the conversation is in. This response comes like a reflex. I can't really hide it, nor do I want to. I see no reason to praise someone for working in an organization that is known to use force against the innocent. However, I don't see any reason to elevate my dismay any further either. I'm always assuming that bad decisions boil down to a misconception. I don't assume ill will or anything evil about people. My response would be "ouch" even if I happened to talk to the pilot who dropped bombs on an orphanage in Libya back in the days.

A tax collector will also hear me say "ouch". So will a police officer, and any kind of bureaucrat. There's no point in hiding my dislike for these professions, and it's not like it's hard to defend my position. If someone asks me why I said "ouch", I'll tell them that the organization in question is known to use force against the innocent. This is a known fact, so no-one can really protest my moral dislike of the institution. All they can do is to defend the institution as somehow producing more good than evil. But I never escalate the conversation when this happens. I know that an escalation at that point is pointless and counterproductive. It would only serve to entrench the misconception already present in the other person's mind. Far better then to leave the topic for something else.

If pressed about my position, I say that things should be voluntary. Coercion against those who have harmed no-one is immoral. This too, I state without any kind of shame or hostility. I'm not trying to be better than anyone. I want others to be better than they are. I want them to let the idea of liberty grow in their minds. Those who want to help people should do so in a profession where coercion makes no part of the equation. Those who want to serve and protects should do so with a private security company. Those who want to make money should do so without insisting on state subsidies.

For those willing to listen, I point out the great personal benefits of being part of the empire. Genuine love and goodwill towards all is a great thing to feel, and quite the opposite of the hostile anger that comes with party politics and other activities where one group tries to subjugate another.

By Stilfehler - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Quantum Entanglement and Wormholes

The phenomenon of quantum entanglement is one of the weirdest predictions of classic quantum mechanics, and the fact that it holds true in practice is testimony to the enormous predictive power of this theory. Yet, there is something very unsatisfying with the explanation presented. It is entirely mathematical, with no physical model to explain what's going on. There is no explanation as to how two particles can remain entangled while physically separated in space.

Quantum entanglement happens whenever two particles come into such a close contact that they affect the state of each other. An example of this is when two photons brush past each other so closely that their spin get coordinated. When they subsequently go their separate ways, they retain a mysterious link to each other. It is possible to affect both photons by manipulating only one of them, even when they are separated by a great distance. If the spin of an entangled photon is altered, the other photon gets its spin correspondingly altered.

This phenomenon, proven true in laboratory experiments, has no explanation in classical mechanics, and only a mathematical explanation in classic quantum mechanics. However, it can be explained by the strict particle model proposed in my book, because this model incorporates the concept of a void.

A void, when combined with spherical particles with texture, allows for physical contact over great distances. This is because only particles possess distance. The void has no distance. If a void opens up between two particles at great distance from each other, it will act like a wormhole. There is no distance in the wormhole itself, no matter how many particles lines its walls. Textures that have previously been entangled with direct physical contact can therefore remain entangled through the multitude of wormholes that must exist as part of an aether filled void.

Aether particle in a void