Carl-Richard

You can't study systems theory without studying the actual systems. It's like trying to learn algebra before learning arithmetic.

I'm sorry. I'll reiterate: if you don't know how to represent statistics accurately and if you don't understand the reasoning behind minimizing risk, we can't have a discussion about COVID-19.

Let's say you want to help people and you study to become a psychologist. You need to learn about how the healthcare system is structured, which means you have to learn about how the government works, and the government is influenced by politics. Let's say you work as a truck driver. You need to know about various regulations pertaining to your vehicle, the road and traffic in general, and this is tied to government and politics. Let's say you want to buy a house. You need to learn something about how property taxes work etc., and this is politics. This is what your environment looks like: Everything impacts everything else. Learning about politics is not an exercise in futility.

To survive, you need to know your environment, especially if you're aspiring to do something productive.

"You" as in me? ?

I don't think I need an interpretation here.

I see. The thing about my dreams is that they seem to happen parallel to the real life events (no time lag). Kentucky issued tornado warnings between 8:30 pm and midnight. That would be between 2:30 am and 7:30 am in my time zone. I was asleep at that time.

I don't know. I do tend to have precognitions while awake, but they're often more local to my life. The tornado dream was not local at all.

@rnd https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination Here is an interactive graph where you can control for age groups (scroll down a bit and look for the button "change age group" in the top-left corner). Granted, it's not the same data set (it's from the US and doesn't deal with hospitalizations). Then again, the hospitalization factor only serves to obfuscate the numbers as I've pointed out. What we actually care about is the actual death rates. You can still see the effects from the age-related health discrepancy if you for instance compare 18-29 with 65-79.

If you're linking to an article that says "hospitalized vaccinated people are 144% more likely to die than hospitalized unvaccinated people", I do think it's suiting to elaborate on what those numbers really mean. Remember what I told you about representing statistics accurately? I also don't think I have to mention that vaccinated people generally outnumber the unvaccinated by a factor of ~5, which combined with the age-related health discrepancy, is the reason why more of them are hospitalized. I would say a 20 year old with no chronic illnesses is better off than an 70 year old with obesity, diabetes and heart disease, yes. If the only thing I have to do here is to deal with people's incompetence with numbers, I will close the thread. To say that this is a repeating trend is an understatement.

Did the report control for age? Most unvaccinated people are younger healthy people which might explain why the fatality rate is lower.

There is a difference between a prospective and a retrospective analysis. You have much more data available in the latter. This is getting stupider by the minute. What do you mean nothing would've happened? We know that unvaccinated people are more likely to get infected and get overwhelmingly more severe symptoms than vaccinated people, and these people put a strain on the hospitals. Even despite vaccinating so many people, the hospitals have still been struggling. There is individual responsibility and then there is collective responsibility.

How big was the light?

It's constant.

Did this actually happen? Not metaphorically.

? Oh you!

Yeah. Lock up all the anti-vaxxers

If we didn't vaccinate the population, you wouldn't have a hospital to go to and you would most likely know somebody who died from COVID-19. You're still not understanding the concept of minimizing risk. I swear it's the same thing in every thread: misunderstanding probabilistic measures and misrepresenting statistics.

We're making value judgements like "healthy" based on Tier 2 principles (SD is a Tier 2 framework). Therefore, Tier 1 stages, as self-consistent frameworks of exclusion and contraction, are by definition not healthy. They can still contain specific values that, when expressed in a certain way, would be considered healthy by Tier 2, but then these values would be incorporated into a larger context of inclusion and expansion.

It's true that the higher Tier 1 systems contain some aspects of the lower ones within them, but they also react heavily to them, which creates a skewed picture. I'll elaborate on the first example I gave: Orange may react to Blue's social-order dogmatist-collectivist meme by going full ape-shit anti-establishment rationalist-individualist meme (libertarians/an-caps/nihilists) and want to abolish all laws and regulations, because they think that deep down, everybody actually thinks like them. Truth is that criminals don't act rationally. They don't care about the sanctity of personal property. They need somebody to beat them up if they misbehave, and that is why we have a monopoly of force; the cops, the justice system. Orange isn't just Blue+. It's Orange. It often treads on a lot of "healthy" Blue. We do need some serious order in society to protect people from monsters, and we do need some transcendent purpose to keep people from going insane. Now, Green doesn't necessarily address this either in any comprehensive fashion just because it's a so-called collectivist stage. It can also go full ape-shit anti-establishment trans-rationalist-collectivist (hippies/libertarian socialists/post-modernists). It's not just anti-establishment, it's also anti-rationalist, anti-progress (technically speaking). I used extreme examples to illustrate the differences, but the same dynamics apply to more moderate versions. For Tier 1, as well as there is an integration aspect for every stage, there is a just as significant reactionary aspect. The reactionary aspect comes from a lack of perspective: a lack of ability to see the entire spiral.

Of course statements from 1 year ago don't apply now. We didn't know how well the vaccine would fare in a population with high viral load and so many new variants. Whether or not herd immunity is possible, what we're aiming for is to minimize the damage that the virus is causing to society, which is a complex equation (it's not just about death rate), and we know that vaccines help.

There are no healthy Tier 1 value systems. There are specific "healthy" examples where Tier 2 grabs inspiration, but as self-contained value systems, they're incomplete. Tier 1 is not self-aware: it excludes, judges, fears, otherizes etc. It does not understand its own values, how they relate to other values, or how to differentiate between healthy or toxic expressions of these values.

They flee in the hopes that somebody else will deal with it. What if you have nowhere to flee? What if your people is getting ethnically cleansed? Some types of violence are worse than others, and some violence can only be addressed with violence. Pacifism pushes the problem under the rug and outsources it to someone who is not holier than thou and actually honest about their survival drives.

You kinda caught a half-finished comment. If you care about survival, there are many cases where you will resort to physical violence and war. If you don't think so, you're just blinded by your own privilege. It's easy to be a pacifist while living in a Western democracy.

Pacifists still participate in all kinds of violence, i.e. buying unethical products, eating meat, eating plants, polluting the environment etc. Survival is a game of compromise. Absolutist ideologies don't hold up in a complex world.