It's interesting that indigenous people don't seem to get as caught up in these memes. I would guess their connection and reverence for ancestors and what came before, along with connection to the earth, gives them a certain immunity. The more attached to technology and abstract ideology we become, the more susceptible we seem to be.
Some particular ethnicities have seen the BS and genocide for a couple of hundred years, already, and view the memes of the dominant groups with appropriate suspicion.
I don't really understand your model. The second equation (I') looks fine to me. The first one (S') not so much. In my opinion S should decrease with the cured people alone, so I don't see why S' has this S multiplying.
I played with another model as I think it should be (of course, I can be mistaken). Luckily the looks of the plot is almost exactly the same. My model is:
S’ = -k3 I
I’ = k2 (S - I) I – k3 I
R’ = k3 I
And what I plot as Susceptible is actually is (S - I). S includes the infected, and this is not what I want to plot. For the same reason, I'm putting (S - I) in the I' equation.
I assume all the cured become immune. I guess the model could be set so that only a fraction of the cured became immune. Or, for memes, that each cured could immunize more people other than himself.
Once plotted it looks almost exactly as yours. So much so, that I suspect I'm reformulating the problem in an equivalent way, still not understanding yours and why it should behave so exactly as mine.
It is the way the SIR model is usually presented. The idea is that the number of new infections is proportional to BOTH the number of infected people and the number of susceptible ones. That is, S'=kSI. Also the second equation you propose is different from the standard SIR model. But I am sure there are many ways to model the system.
The only way to quit the susceptible club is to get infected. So now I see the oficial SIR model makes sense. Only, shouldn't k1 be the same as k2?
I suspect even more that I just reformulated it redefining S, that in my case was susceptible and infected altogether (thus the modification in I' equation).
Please stop using the inadequate and, in the end, flawed Cochrane mask study as an argument for not wearing masks to prevent airborne virus infection. It has long since been disproven and even the Cochrane people put, in their initial inadequate study, warnings as to their "conclusions". A follow-up had this to say: "The Cochrane review mentioned many of its own limitations and weaknesses, particularly with regard to face masks and its limited number of robust studies; it, therefore, cautioned against drawing any strong conclusions. Given the strong opinions expressed about the study, Cochrane further clarified that their review should not be used as evidence against mask efficacy per se, noting that the data were not definitive and that masks might be effective at preventing respiratory virus infection." There are many studies, easily found, which have established that properly worn N95 type masks are very effective in preventing airborne virus infection. And I do hope the stupidity associated with the MAGA meme is truly a short lived disaster.
Well, Ugo -- I think you need a 3D interpretation of your network -- with grounding validity being added, in varying degrees, to independent nodes. This is the thing the intelligentsia cannot seem to grok -- that people's experience matters in how they filter reality. As you know, I've written an entire blog about this.
>>They note that it fails to deliver its promises or simply cease to believe in it.<<
Consider the belief that "If you're not 'born again', you're going to hell." This one is tougher to recover from because the promised effect is impossible to measure. But I do believe that more and more people are not susceptible to this idea.
Scientific research, climate change mitigation, sustainable economy, international law, social equity, health care for all, defending the poor, and many more. Some of these ideas strongly needed to be rethought and revised
Oh, you think they do? Which ones? As you point out they are already strongly being “rethought and revised” by some very malevolent people.
Thanks Ugo. I'm less interested in the meme, than I am in this LTG phase-transition phase we have entered, as we topped the roller-coaster at the very end of 2018, and we are about to feel the downward WHOOSH!
The last phase of postwar-normalcy was pushed past its normal limits after 2008, and now the supercooled water is about to do what you showed in the picture.
Trump is something of an accelerant, but most people are not good at moving inside of rapid change, and he seems to be. Minsky saw that, Soros seems to have that knack.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
Professor Bardi, please clarify what is covered by ‘meme’. Are all human thoughts memes, or just some of them? You refer to scientific research as an idea. Did you mean it is a meme? Is there no way then to test reality for specific outcomes, like for example, the level of satisfaction and health in a population with healthcare for all and one without?
Similarly, are there really no studies that measure the effects of what a person breathes in when they wear a N95 respirator? Thank you for your thoughts.
It's interesting that indigenous people don't seem to get as caught up in these memes. I would guess their connection and reverence for ancestors and what came before, along with connection to the earth, gives them a certain immunity. The more attached to technology and abstract ideology we become, the more susceptible we seem to be.
Depends on whether they have TV and a connection to the internet.
Some particular ethnicities have seen the BS and genocide for a couple of hundred years, already, and view the memes of the dominant groups with appropriate suspicion.
I don't really understand your model. The second equation (I') looks fine to me. The first one (S') not so much. In my opinion S should decrease with the cured people alone, so I don't see why S' has this S multiplying.
I played with another model as I think it should be (of course, I can be mistaken). Luckily the looks of the plot is almost exactly the same. My model is:
S’ = -k3 I
I’ = k2 (S - I) I – k3 I
R’ = k3 I
And what I plot as Susceptible is actually is (S - I). S includes the infected, and this is not what I want to plot. For the same reason, I'm putting (S - I) in the I' equation.
I assume all the cured become immune. I guess the model could be set so that only a fraction of the cured became immune. Or, for memes, that each cured could immunize more people other than himself.
Once plotted it looks almost exactly as yours. So much so, that I suspect I'm reformulating the problem in an equivalent way, still not understanding yours and why it should behave so exactly as mine.
It is the way the SIR model is usually presented. The idea is that the number of new infections is proportional to BOTH the number of infected people and the number of susceptible ones. That is, S'=kSI. Also the second equation you propose is different from the standard SIR model. But I am sure there are many ways to model the system.
Ok, I think I understand now.
The only way to quit the susceptible club is to get infected. So now I see the oficial SIR model makes sense. Only, shouldn't k1 be the same as k2?
I suspect even more that I just reformulated it redefining S, that in my case was susceptible and infected altogether (thus the modification in I' equation).
Please stop using the inadequate and, in the end, flawed Cochrane mask study as an argument for not wearing masks to prevent airborne virus infection. It has long since been disproven and even the Cochrane people put, in their initial inadequate study, warnings as to their "conclusions". A follow-up had this to say: "The Cochrane review mentioned many of its own limitations and weaknesses, particularly with regard to face masks and its limited number of robust studies; it, therefore, cautioned against drawing any strong conclusions. Given the strong opinions expressed about the study, Cochrane further clarified that their review should not be used as evidence against mask efficacy per se, noting that the data were not definitive and that masks might be effective at preventing respiratory virus infection." There are many studies, easily found, which have established that properly worn N95 type masks are very effective in preventing airborne virus infection. And I do hope the stupidity associated with the MAGA meme is truly a short lived disaster.
The fact that the Cochrane review was "disproved" is another meme that has little to do with the real world.
Well, Ugo -- I think you need a 3D interpretation of your network -- with grounding validity being added, in varying degrees, to independent nodes. This is the thing the intelligentsia cannot seem to grok -- that people's experience matters in how they filter reality. As you know, I've written an entire blog about this.
>>They note that it fails to deliver its promises or simply cease to believe in it.<<
Consider the belief that "If you're not 'born again', you're going to hell." This one is tougher to recover from because the promised effect is impossible to measure. But I do believe that more and more people are not susceptible to this idea.
Scientific research, climate change mitigation, sustainable economy, international law, social equity, health care for all, defending the poor, and many more. Some of these ideas strongly needed to be rethought and revised
Oh, you think they do? Which ones? As you point out they are already strongly being “rethought and revised” by some very malevolent people.
Thanks Ugo. I'm less interested in the meme, than I am in this LTG phase-transition phase we have entered, as we topped the roller-coaster at the very end of 2018, and we are about to feel the downward WHOOSH!
The last phase of postwar-normalcy was pushed past its normal limits after 2008, and now the supercooled water is about to do what you showed in the picture.
Trump is something of an accelerant, but most people are not good at moving inside of rapid change, and he seems to be. Minsky saw that, Soros seems to have that knack.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
Professor Bardi, please clarify what is covered by ‘meme’. Are all human thoughts memes, or just some of them? You refer to scientific research as an idea. Did you mean it is a meme? Is there no way then to test reality for specific outcomes, like for example, the level of satisfaction and health in a population with healthcare for all and one without?
Similarly, are there really no studies that measure the effects of what a person breathes in when they wear a N95 respirator? Thank you for your thoughts.