My children (Quebec) were in class all of last year, except for a 10 day period in January - the tail end of a local lockdown at the height of the third wave.
Infection rates were certainly higher due to schools opening, but other decisions - and a population that was mostly tolerant of restrictions - mitigated that. We wore masks, we limited contact and we stayed home to the extent possible. As a result, schools were able to stay open.
But staying home surely wouldn't help if the virus came home with Little Billy? And I'm guessing nobody wore masks and limited contact with their own children in their own homes...
If a child or a teacher at a school caught covid, the entire class was fully quarantined for a minimum of 14 days and two negative covid tests were necessary for anyone in that class to return. Classes were kept fully isolated from one another, and children had to wear masks in class for a significant part of the year.
No teacher at our school (~600 children) caught covid, and only 3 classes were closed.
What I'm getting at is: it was fully possible to open up schools, provided you have a government and a population that is willing to accept restrictions in other areas. _It's a choice to close schools and demand that indoor restaurant dining stay open_.
We've decided to solve that problem by consuming very nearly the entire residential power consumption of Canada, a country of 38 million people.
We've done this with a network that can process 400k transactions per day (at $20/transaction in fees), as compared to visa, which does 150 million per day.
You don't know how hard it is, as a parent, to make the call to medicate your six year old child.
Here are some of the things that went through my own mind:
- Maybe he'll outgrow it (he's fairly severe ADHD, but we went through a long process of hoping that it was just a maturity-level thing)
- Paper after article after paper sent by well-meaning family members about how ADHD is over-diagnosed. Doubt.
- Side-effects (obviously, first thing every parent thinks about)? How severe will they be in my child?
- Ritalin + suicide [0].
- If we medicate him at six, _will he ever learn the tools to manage ADHD without meds_? He'll potentially spend his entire childhood on meds.
- If we don't medicate him, and he's consistently labelled a 'problem child' in his class, how will that affect his self-esteem as he grows up? How will it affect his feelings about school and work?
- If we don't medicate him, and he struggles and falls behind his classmates in his schoolwork (which, even in Grade 1, he was - significantly), are we holding him back? He's a super smart kid, he just can't focus.
- If we medicate him, and it doesn't work (we have to try multiple meds), how will it affect his self-esteem to be constantly visiting psychiatrists, pediatricians, etc. A thing I've noticed: doctors have zero problems talking overly-candidly in front of my kid about his failings, as though he's not there.
- We were literally told by a doctor that once you get on the medication train, 99% of parents don't get off until at least mid-high school. Am I comfortable with that?
After that long thought process (and so much more), we put him on medication. We're going very slowly in ramping up the dosage, but he's already caught up to his classmates in school, and he seems happier. I don't know if we've done the right thing, but I do know: it's not as clear-cut right/wrong as you make it out to be.
It's not about removing human agency. It's about nudging the aggregate views of a whole population, ever so slightly. Determine what works, reinforce that, repeat algorithmically.
He's making the point that Facebook has the ability to apply machine-learning-like reinforcement algorithms to whole populations.
You or I, individually, still have agency. Large populations have inertia - they're slow to move - but I'm not sure they have real defense against this kind of manipulation. I guess the real defense here is a diversity of sources (but we all know people who get all of their news from [fox | cnn | facebook | whatever]).
He goes on to defend his work at Google, arguing that they're similar on the surface, but Facebook is truly dangerous where Google is not.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Google is quite a bit more distributed across products and platforms, so Facebook has a simpler loop centered around the newsfeed. That said, Google can track a user's behaviour across nearly every website on the internet.
Facebook can run these "reinforcement learning on a global scale" experiments through its newsfeed. Google, it seems to me, can run them across the web as a whole.
Facebook seems more upfront about what they collect (everything) and why (because it's valuable).
Google persists in trying to justify its thirst for your data (we need it for maps traffic reports / google now suggestions / allo suggestions / to improve your maps experience / etc etc.)
The one point where Google wins out over Facebook (apparently) is that they're big enough to not need to expose your data to others. (Honestly I'd assumed Facebook was already at the point where they realised that the data they hold is worth more than a third party is likely to pay for it, which is the only reason the CA reveal was surprising to me...)
I think Facebook gave app developers all of that data to grow their ecosystem at all costs. They've rescinded a lot of that data in recent years as they've achieved ubiquity. Unfortunately both Facebook and Google have achieved a mass surveillance system with their OAuth logins across the web and apps.
I agree that Google have a lot more data points and like Amazon are doing everything they can to invade physical space as well. LinkedNYC kiosks, Google Home and Toronto Waterfront projects are examples of making sure you're data is being collected 24/7.
Often, yes, which is why it took so long for me to start balking at it. But these days, even though the data does also improve their products, it feels so much more like an excuse to grab the data. Try removing Google Play Services' access to location data, for instance - it will nag you about it in apps like gmail, and try to guilt you into turning it back on, even though gmail has no need whatsoever for your current location.
Google has like 3/4 of the phone market. I didn't know they tracked my location by default for a long time, and though I thought I turned it off I still get random notifications from google maps asking me to rate a restaurant I just ate at.
The cell service provider can also track you, and you have zero control over that. They may be sharing your location info with many parties, including google.
I don't think there's a technological fix for avoiding location tracking of connected devices. The network must know where you are in order to deliver the connection, and you cannot control the network. Any control given at the device level is therefore an illusion. The only comprehensive solution is a legislative one. Outlaw improper use of location tracking information (GDPR-style), and allow people to use the courts to force good behavior.
Also mentioned on replies to that tweet was that maybe google.com doesn't have newsfeed functionality like facebook. But youtube does. And the personalization of search results based on your profile can also have similar effects.
Considering most search queries are simple and apolitical, I feel the argument "tailoring search results is less dangerous than curating a news feed" has some merit.
That aside, if you use Google as your main news outlet, all that goes out the window.
The big difference is facebook could die over night - some hot new thing gets popular and facebook disappears into obscurity. (unlikely but a possibility)
Google on the other hand is not so easy to replace, it's not a popular trend, it's in the browser i'm typing on, my pocket, my map/navigation, email, chat. Google knows a disturbing amount of information about me I never intentionally gave. Facebook just knows what I tell it.
A malicious google could do a unthinkable amount of damage to society, there is little we could do if we even knew it was happening.
Personally, I found Google much easier to replace than Facebook. In the case of Google, I started using DuckDuckGo, and it's been fine. There are alternatives for maps and email too.
In the case of Facebook there's a lot of peer pressure which keeps people on the platform. To leave Facebook (for most people), your friends also need to leave with you. Unfortunately, while this is slowly happening now, people seem to be flocking to platforms also owned by Facebook -- Instagram and WhatsApp.
Tracking does not seem much to be a problem, Since we all know that we are being recorded by Google and FB. Its when they use the information to Change your beliefs, Behaviour, Ideologies and Thought process it becomes a problem like the author is talking about. Google is not there yet facebook newsfeed already is.
I would agree that Facebook is more dangerous as its interaction with the user is more engrossing and totalizing, but I definitely disagree that Google is not dangerous. Google can do the same things as Facebook but with different vectors.
Sure but how about Pixel. Or Google Analytics, Clicky, Alexa (analytics not the talking thing), Adroll , ... I mean the amount of trackers I can toss on a website is mind boggling and super easy, all hoovering as much data as possible. This is not exclusive to Facebook nor do I think they gather the most data.
After sorting through this guys first half dozen tweets I finally realized he's talking about AI and advertising. As an ecommerceguy here's my take. I'd love to be able to upload a product feed, have FB or whomever evaluate those products and push them to whomever the adbot/algorithm/ai/hall9k whatever we're calling it today; as long as it returns good ROI, happy customers and less work for me I'm happy.
This is already somewhat possible with Google Shopping Feed.
So again, besides this helped Trump, why the outrage? All I see is people freaking out at what has been public knowledge for years albeit obfuscated under a massive sheen of PRSpeak.
FWIW I have always actively stayed away from Facebook as much as possible to the point I tell my sister to take photos off her feed of me. But here I am tangentially defending them.
I wanted to add a link to this site, It connects to over 200 trackers.
https://segment.com/
I am not from US so I don't care about republicans or democrats, I am happy the people got outrage because of Trump connection because it has the side effect and pulling hidden things into light
Also the fact that you know how Facebook or Google makes money does not mean that the public knows, so my father does not understand why someone would put videos on youtube or would put fake articles about things, or click bait , most of the people do not know about trackers, about the fact that ads on pages make money for the website, that ads on the videos make money for publishers.
I hope this scandal will make some light on exactly what Facebook collect when I visit a webpage with FB buttons, I want us and the public to find out about the shadow profiles, about any experiments done on users, it would be good if we find if similar things happen in other countries elections and I am wondering how well this things work.
Also it would be good if we could get less crap on FB, I do not use it that much but I have people in my family that read articles posted in FB and most of them are fake news(not politics but other crap like medicine)
I hope we get some laws about tracking people outside your webpages and making shadow profiles illegal.
So even if you don't like Hillary or her party, I think you should desire the entire truth surfaces and we see all details, elections are done so it is nothing you can do now but maybe with more information the next ones will be better with less dirt and fake news in social media and more actual debates.
> However, don't forget that when a baby is left unsupervised and is submerged in a pool for 15 minutes, it's called neglect.
Whoa there, slow down.
Kids are quick. One moment, your three kids are happily watching Finding Dory on the tv, while you're making dinner. The next, only two are: the third has quietly wandered off.
Unless you know the particulars, be very careful about tossing around words like 'neglect'.
Like, one consistent behavior of properly functioning toddlers is that when they see something they don't know about, they try to put it in their mouth. Most of the world is unknown. You know, with 100% certainty, that as soon as possible, they will move in some random direction and put the random object in their mouth. So one component of competent parent is ensuring the toddler doesn't move to some dangerous location and try to put the dangerous thing in their mouth.
Analogously, maintaining a nuclear power plant is a very involved procedure, and if key individuals neglect to pay attention to certain monitors for what what in other contexts is a short period of time, failure occurs.
Yes, it requires constant attention. Not giving the task the attention it needs is to fail to care for it properly.
So first, the child managed to get through a baby gate, sounds like this wasn't completely unconsidered by the parents.
> And I would consider it my fault if they wandered into a freezing pool.
What about a warm pool? Are you telling me that you consider all environmental factors at all times and act accordingly to reduce the risk as far as possible? If so, you're pulling off a superhuman feat, IMHO.
We removed the youtube app from our iPad, because our 4 year old was starting to get too deep into these.
There's a lot of great stuff on Youtube for kids (genuinely, whole-heartedly, terrific stuff; I was amazed), but there's also a lot of very, very weird and sexualized and violent content. Targeted at young children. And unfortunately, the 'recommended' sidebar is a little bit too eager in sending kids down those paths.
I see some comments comparing it to 'video games ruining society' and 'violent cartoons'. No, it is not at all the same thing. I have no problem handing the ipad to my son and allowing him to select a show on Netflix. Youtube crossed my 'wtf creepy' threshold a few too many times.
It's disturbing to see our id reflected back at us in the behavior of our children, but I remember playing with action figures. There was the run of the mill blood, guts and violence, but when the girls toys came out all kinds of freaky stuff went down.
As we get older we compartmentalize, but kids won't hesitate to mix and match potty humour, violence, and sexuality in their role play. It's surprising these videos exist, but it's not surprising that they're popular.
The difference is between art which is seen as "too adult" being said to ruin society (like movies/games), which generally aren't that bad, and content which is specifically targeted at exploiting children's mental weaknesses for monetary gain. I don't think they're "ruining society", but it's definitely gross and something we should fight if at all possible
Car of the year, when you're talking about normal internal combustion cars, doesn't really matter that much. When you start talking about new (and, for $30000, scary) tech like electrics and hybrids 10-12 years ago, it makes a big impact on purchasing decisions.
I bought my 2005 Prius largely based on the car of the year recommendation on the 2004 Prius (among other research, sure). That recommendation helped validate that I wasn't buying an experiment - people who know cars thought this was a great buy.
However, the Volt is basically just a hybrid with a bigger battery. By 2011, hybrids were pretty common, so being nervous about the tech wasn't as much of an issue. That's the point I'm trying to make: for most people, $30k is a pretty big investment. New tech is a risk, and awards like COTY go a long way to overcoming consumer resistance to that risk.
It's possible, though, that Tesla has done enough to prove out electric cars. Tesla won COTY as well.
I'm so not surprised by the comments here, so far.
The core points here are good ones:
- In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy, not by beating people over the head with the same (very reasonable) arguments they've heard a hundred times.
- Vaccines are certainly effective, they are the correct choice, but there are also absolutely legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific arguments (as pointed out in the article, both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once). That's something that has to be addressed and overcome, and not just with numbers.
> legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific arguments (as pointed out in the article, both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once)
Viewing failures in isolation is not really helpful. You need to compare them to successes and the failure/success rate of the alternatives.
Things get even more complicated when you start distinguishing cure/ineffective/harmful.
"Of the 162 cases, eight cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case caused by wild poliovirus into the United States was reported in 1993. The remaining 154 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV)."
162 polio-related issues, 8 from actual virus, 154 from the vaccine.
No, the probability of getting a health issue due to the vaccine has now become much higher then the probability of getting polio. Your comment rather suggests you don't know much about polio: I suggest looking it up.
But that only applies to diseases which lack a natural harbor like polio does, where eradication is practical. Stop vaccinating for measles and oh surprise there is now an outbreak of measles. We haven't needed to seriously vaccinate for polio for over a decade.
But that itself is all sorts of iffy because there are two quite different polio vaccines of different effectiveness.
Imagine a member of general public not knowing much about polio. Imagine them reading the fact that medical establishment knowingly injected people with problematic substances, and then apologetically backed down from its position later on and reverted its recommendations. Scanning the health news seems to imply similar retractions in other areas of medical research (saturated fats were bad, and now they're not; coffee was dangerous, and now it's good for you). There's also the news that flu vaccines are basically useless as they fight last year's flu.
Now try to convince the aforementioned member of general public to treat the current corpus of medical research as a gospel.
I dont't defend those decisions, but I can see how a rational person might develop somewhat of a sceptical view.
It should be addressed with legislation making it a felony not to vaccinate your children by a reason early childhood age (e.g. 6 years or something), whether put in public school or not, and making proof of vaccination a requirement for federal aid for that person (e.g. student loans or assistance).
There are certain things that should be up for public debate and discourse, left to the courts, or up to personal preference. Vaccination is not one of them. "This shot will give my kids autism" is not reasonable and should not be treated as a reasonable concern any more than "Obama is Kenyan" or "We didn't land on the moon" should.
What would you think of a similar argument, but, instead of for forced vaccination, for forced compliance with following government nutritional recommendations when we feed children?
The health consequences of a childhood of poor eating are arguably as big a problem as many (but not all) of the diseases we vaccinate against were.
I've not been able to come up with a good argument to distinguish these, other than the health consequences of communicable diseases are more directly visible. Take measles, for instance. At the time a vaccine for it was developed and deployed, measles was infecting about half a million children in the US per year, and about 400 per year died. (40 years earlier, the number of cases per year was about the same, but deaths were about 20x higher).
If your kid gets measles, it is obvious that he's got a serious, dangerous health problem, especially if he is one of the ones who dies.
If you feed your kid in a way that ensures he's seriously obese and sets him on the road to almost certain diabetes by young adulthood, it's not immediately obvious to the naked eye that something is seriously wrong. Kids can have so much energy that even the fat kids can run around and ride bikes and skateboards and be active by adult standards. From an adult point of view, the main visible problem for the fat kid is likely to be social--the fat kid gets picked last for pick up sports games, things like that.
Also, what the parent could have done better to prevent the condition is more obvious with things like measles. Your kid gets measles, and I can confidently point my finger at you and say your mistake was not vaccinating.
Your kid is fat, and I can only speculate. Maybe you aren't making the kid exercise enough. Maybe you don't supervise his between meal eating and the kid has 6000 calories of candy and soda between each meal. Maybe you cook giant portions and make him clean his plate. Maybe the kid is a bully and steals the other kids' desserts at school.
So with measles since there is really only one thing parents can do wrong that can lead to the child getting it, it's easy to force people to not do that one thing. With childhood nutrition and fitness there are so many ways it can go wrong it is hard to force people to do it right. So maybe that's how forcing vaccination can be distinguished from forcing good nutrition?
Feeding children in a specific way: costly and complicated.
Vaccinating your kids: just take them to where you're told. Free and easy. Even a monkey can do it.
I wonder, do you also believe the rest of the world should impose crippling sanctions on the US because it knowingly causes potentially catastrophic damage to the environment and consumes absurd amounts of finite natural resources?
Should everyone actively undermine the US farming industry, which uses large amounts of antibiotics in ways that could reduce their effectiveness for treating humans?
There are a lot of government policies that, for better or worse, are not set entirely based on scientific merit. There is also, frankly, a lot of "science" that gets presented as evidence in these kinds of debates that isn't very scientific (though I am not suggesting the vaccination question specifically is an example). In any case, trying to shift attitudes towards more scientifically supported positions through threats is rarely successful.
With the vaccination issue, you also have to remember that we're mostly talking about parents trying to do what is right for their kids. Those parents may be ignorant, but again the best available solution to that is probably education and showing them convincing arguments that changing their position really is in the best interests of their child. If you can't make a solid case with real evidence, legislation is just forcing your personal beliefs on someone else down the barrel of a gun, and I think we should be extremely wary of governments interfering so aggressively in the way a loving parent wants to raise their child.
That legislation should be coupled with the removal of legal liability for children by parents. It cuts both ways, if parents are unable to make choices for their children (even if they are wrong choices) then they should be absolved of all legal responsibility for said children as they are no longer able to act as the guardian in a manner that they view as the best course of action by their children. I would go further and say all financial responsibility as well. Either we are a society that entrust parents to raise their children or we let the state raise them.
What you propose is legislating the greater body for the unsavory actions of a minority while it is becoming more common with more and more federalization of law it always conflicts with personal freedoms and leads to a less free society for all. Someone would find an action that you do at some point in your life, unsavory and illogical and quite possibly harmful to yourself or others, under what you propose we could just enact legislation for the greater good. This runs contrary to the spirit of the law of the land and ends up somewhere closer to fascism. Please note I am not implying that you are advocating fascism but taking away peoples choice to self determination even for their children certainly starts to lay the foundation for a very different society.
What you propose is a slippery slope on the path to the state raising children which in my opinion is a far scarier reality. Life involves risk, and sometimes it involves risk for children. I think it is fair to say if one has made a life choice that puts other kids at risk their kid cannot participate in activities that could place other kids at risk but it is a whole different level to mandate that we start making medical decisions for parents. If we do we should legally acknowledge that parents or at least the legal concept of guardianship as we know it no longer exist.
We got the "Vaccine Revolt" as result, people openly rebelled, and even tried to topple the government (the population formed a riotous mob and assaulted the government buildings, attempting to kill the rulers).
The government had to declare martial law, send troops to quell the rebellion, and internally exiled lots of people (the government sent the "exiles" to the state that was the most distant of the capital, and was also one of the least populous states).
I am very sure that in US, the people that would join such revolt, as the same ones that believe being armed to resist the government is good idea, you do the math.
Originally the anti-vaccine idiocy had its roots in the far left. It's found a home in the extremes of both ends of the spectrum. Pro-2A belief is not necessarily an extreme viewpoint in and of itself, but you'll certainly not find it in the extreme left. You will, however, find it in the moderate left and most of the right.
There's certainly some overlap but to imply that you're "very sure" they're the same group would make you very wrong.
Yeah, as I was reading the article I noticed a lot of parallels to gun control in the US.
The harder one part of society pulls against guns, the more convinced gun rights advocates become that this is all a bigger conspiracy to to disarm them and take away their agency.
I live in a rural part of the US and have many, many strong pro-gun friends and acquaintances. The vast majority (95%+ at least) do not think there is any conspiracy to disarm existing gun owners. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.
The problem is that a lot of times the restrictions don't make any sense. We'll ban 30-round magazines but not 20. We'll ban barrel shrouds that are entirely cosmetic. We'll ban pistol grips on shotguns that actually reduce the lethality of the weapon by making is less accurate. All the while these things are proposed by legislators who truly do not understand what they're talking about. It's worse than octogenarian Senators discussing the internet, it really is. There you have "it's a series of tubes," and here you have people referring to "the shoulder thing that goes up."
If you could have a well-spoken conservative Democrat who actually understood firearms and the culture surrounding them, who could propose real gun control solutions that aren't based on emotion or cosmetics, you'd probably get something passed.
In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy
Except you don't actually win. In conceding to their fears with an empathetic approach, you are enabling their delusions. That's the problem with placating unreasonable people - doing so inevitably emboldens them.
But do you want to live with this person? If I hold an opinion that's so sub optimal and I hold it because of emotional reasons I'd like someone to shake me out of it, not pet me on the head and smile.
>both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once
On the other hand, non-medicine (alternative medicine) and non-science (pseudoscience) have been spectacularly right more than once. That's the point. Agree with empathy angle and need for emotional arguments, though.
My guess is that this demographic would tend to categorize traditional Chinese medicine as being pseudoscience – if you agree, here's an example from within that system:
The 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to a Youyou Tu, a Chinese pharmacologist who identified powerful antimalarial compounds in a traditional Chinese medical formula that has been used for centuries to treat Malaria:
> Youyou Tu in China turned to traditional herbal medicine to tackle the challenge of developing novel Malaria therapies. From a large-scale screen of herbal remedies in Malaria-infected animals, an extract from the plant Artemisia annua emerged as an interesting candidate. However, the results were inconsistent, so Tu revisited the ancient literature and discovered clues that guided her in her quest to successfully extract the active component from Artemisia annua. Tu was the first to show that this component, later called Artemisinin, was highly effective against the Malaria parasite, both in infected animals and in humans (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/20...).
There are plenty of other examples if you are curious and inclined to do the research.
As an aside, I would argue that the type of empiricism within this system of medicine is indeed a type of science (cataloguing pharmacological agents for thousands of years and recording their effects in the treatment of myriad medical conditions), but it probably has little to no examples of the modern day notion of randomized clinical trials.
Medicine is usually right and only sometimes wrong, but alternative medicine is usually wrong and only sometimes right. The fact that medicine can be spectacularly or trivially wrong doesn't provide any inputs for change of personal healthcare strategy.
I wonder what factors into the differences. I'm sure things like number of guarded facilities, number of swimmers and amount of swim classes are important, it's the specific differences that would be interesting.
If you go year by year it looks like the rate goes up from 17-20, then after 21 starts to decrease. Somewhere else on the CDC's website they say that "alcohol use is involved in up to 70% of deaths associated with water recreation", which seems pretty consistent with that.
My children (Quebec) were in class all of last year, except for a 10 day period in January - the tail end of a local lockdown at the height of the third wave.
Infection rates were certainly higher due to schools opening, but other decisions - and a population that was mostly tolerant of restrictions - mitigated that. We wore masks, we limited contact and we stayed home to the extent possible. As a result, schools were able to stay open.