The Anti-Vax Bandwagon is STILL Going!?

 "Harvard Immunologist to Legislators: Unvaccinated Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone"

Errm, no. Yiiiikes.

That article is swimming in fallacies of rhetoric and context. There's a huge difference between longstanding herd-safety vaccinations and those specific edge-case vaccines which are (or were) on the forefront of vaccine research (i.e. very much works in progress) - yet this article only discusses the latter despite making sweeping assertions about the former.

I've read a lot of Obukhanych's research, and—her more infamous public appearances notwithstanding—the actual science underlying most of her "outreach" amounts to a couple of distinct points which are almost universally, if not always deliberately, misinterpreted and/or misrepresented. Most notably, none of them actually support or otherwise provide evidence for the anti-vax rhetoric stirred up by/in the (often for-profit) media in which she is often cited. Those points being:

— First, synthetic vaccination, in general, is an imperfect substitute for naturally-acquired immunity. This is factual common knowledge and generally uncontested in medical science.

— Second, because any given infectious disease evolves parallel to its hosts' immunity over time (but almost always evolves more efficiently than its hosts'), iterative, short-term vaccination is likely to lead to more severe long-term problems as disease evolution steadily outpaces the cutting edge of human disease science. This is also factual common knowledge.

Note, too, that with the exception of the now well-known flaws in the aP vaccine (which, despite that, is still better than nothing), the vaccines cited in this article are conspicuously absent their corresponding real-world data and context, such as: why a vaccine for a disease exists in the first place (referring to once-fatal and relatively commonplace diseases which, thanks to vaccines for them, now are not); why non-mandatory vaccines (particularly for cancer-comorbid viruses) might still be wise in populations demonstrating an above 50% rate of early-life infection; etc. There's a reason that those largely edge-case vaccines in particular are cited here, while the rest are not:

If one takes the aforementioned points completely out of context, it's easy to distort them into alleged or perceived "evidence" against vaccination - but that critical qualification obfuscates the real meat and potatoes of the issue (as is generally the intention). Here's the bulk of the important context, then, that's again-conspicuously absent from media employing that strategy to prop up that sort of rhetoric: when vaccinated individuals are exposed to a dangerous disease, they are demonstrably much, much, MUCH more likely to survive it, much more likely to avoid ever contracting it in the first place, and, if they do, their symptoms are almost always much less compromising to their short- and long-term health. Additionally, if infected, the body is able to fight off the disease much more quickly - which means everyone else in proximity is also much safer as a function of reduced exposure. Of course no solution is 100% consistent - but when the median rate of desirable outcomes within the expected range of possible outcomes is in the very high 90th percentile, that's clearly a success in big-picture terms.

Furthermore, when the alternative to even the most imperfect and inelegant solution is... a very high (or even simply non-negligible) risk of death... one can argue that there's not really much of a choice. Sure, human immunity as a whole might be better served in the long run if we were to simply allow ourselves to become infected with as many full-blown deadly diseases as possible - but in that case, "humanity as a whole" will only include the survivors, and the difference between that result and what we have now is far from negligible. Understandably and, in my opinion, justifiably, giving that up is not a price that most are willing to pay - and that pragmatism is the compromise that is vaccines.

Swedish "vaccine ban" social media BS

Oh man, just... no. First of all, this "news" was almost exclusively reported by fringe clickbait media outlets - such as redice. There's a reason for that: the actual news in Sweden is that the government simply decided not to enforce the compulsory vaccination of its citizens, on the grounds that it conflicted with pre-existing constitutional rights. There's no "ban." The mandate to vaccinate still exists in law, because it's still totally sensible; they just aren't enforcing it. It's very likely that the language will be rewritten in the coming years to implement sensible penalties for abstainers, because abstainers are ignorant, and because perpetuating ignorance about critical social healthcare tends to lead to a lot of people becoming unhealthy and/or dying for absolutely no good reason. Not nearly as sensational when you put it like that. There was no citing of health concerns, etc., only acknowledgement that side effects to vaccines exist and that that their citizens should have the option of over-reacting to them because of something false they saw on Facebook. (They're progressive like that). That particular blatant falsehood can be chocked up to "creative embellishment" by the apparently exclusively non-journalistic entities that came out of the woodwork to "report" it - along with other examples of comic anti-brilliance, such as citing "sodium chloride" (aka COMMON SALT) as a "toxic, unhealthy chemical" additive.

The entire theoretical purpose of any society is to mandate sensible minor compromises for the objectively greater benefit of the majority. That aforementioned free—useful—education to which Swedes have access is also an important contextual omission from the headlines and stories circulating. History, science, and common sense are actually taught in schools there. So, while they may now officially not be legally required to do so, I strongly suspect they're generally extremely likely to continue to vaccinate their children... ya know, so their children can continue to NOT die from/be-maimed-by/end-up-horribly-disfigured-by some truly fucking awful, completely preventable diseases. Here in the states, on the other hand, we're "free" to let measles and mumps outbreaks run rampant thanks in no small part to a not nearly small-enough minority of anti-vaxxers - who are still numerous enough to put a significant dent in herd immunity, putting not only their own kids at risk, but everyone else's, too.

There should be fewer/better additives developed to stabilize and preserve vaccines, sure - but even the oldest, most toxic vaccine to ever see widespread use would still do far less damage even in its outlying worse-cases than would a minute or two of inhaling secondhand cigarette smoke. This entire issue is sensationalist bullshit. Nobody is entitled to an unchallenged public opinion when said opinion contradicts fact, reason, and even common-fucking-sense!

There, I'm done. A tall glass of reason with a thick tmesis sandwich is a balm in this age of insanity.

Oh, just shoot me

VIDEO: Bulletproof / Stormproof safe rooms for schools  

The unfortunate reality is that security gimmicks won't keep children safe at school. It would simply accelerate the evolution of this society's school-massacre paradigm. Realistically, the net result would be to make more children less-safe, faster. Anyone can break through bulletproofing (especially, but not just glass) with $30 and a visit to a hardware store - or, with the same budget, cook up a nice IED, or enough poison gas to fill a school, etc etc.

A fundamental truth of security is that preparation supersedes the incidental. Anyone who resolves to kill a ton of people can find a way around incidental obstacles just by knowing they exist ahead of time. The bottom line is that there's no way to keep anyone safe as long as there are people willing to do whatever it takes to kill them, and that's regardless of how many easy options are or aren't available to do so. Guns, for instance, aren't even close to the most efficient way of killing a lot of people right now - they're just one of the most visible thanks to popular media, and thus the most immediate option given the general population's non-existent attention span. We are lucky that murderers are still using guns, frankly. When that changes—and it will, if social trends continue—so will the methodology, along with the scale of the body count.

No matter how much or how comprehensive physical and technological security is or becomes, the only way to truly prevent crime is to balance the social expression whose inevitable remainder is always crime. Crime is just a social waste product that a majority of people are either too dumb or too greedy to recycle properly before it gets out of hand.

... But that process is neither simple, nor profitable. So. *shrug*

When dumb women try to make dumber jokes about testicles:

Aw, that's cute. 

Who knew Manspreading would grow up to become the oblivious punchline to its own joke?! You're just gettin' soooo biggggg! I bet you don't even know how big and dumb you are, you big ol' dumb-dumb! Ohhhhhh goochy-goochy-goo! 

 Whooooo's mama's little Femrony!?
—*gasp!*— 

OH! It's YOU!

Hello, world

Close your eyes.

Imagine a world in which one supercomputer can perform trillions of operations, thousands of times per second. A few of these supercomputers could provide enough computational power to accurately simulate the simultaneous movements of every single molecule in a cubic centimeter of air, in real time.

Now, imagine that a billion of those supercomputers can fit in a space no bigger than the point of a ballpoint pen. Wow. With a processor core no bigger than a wristwatch, one could perfectly model every possible movement of every single molecule in a cubic kilometer of air, in ten times real time; now, knowing the configuration of air molecules in this volume of air at any single point of reference—a task achievable with a progressive scan using the same gadget over an initial period of prep time—all possible futures of that volume of air could then be known. Add a few more processors, maybe doubling or tripling the gadget in overall size, and there would be enough computational power for the simulation to account for a subset of the most common likely variables - such as local weather phenomenon, basic solar and planetary conditions, air traffic and other human influences.

Next, imagine a large industrial warehouse full of these supercomputers. Impressive, right? With a few such warehouses, the entire atmosphere of our planet could be realistically simulated in better than real time - molecule by molecule, and with every possible variable considered.... forever.

Finally, imagine a city the size of New York built entirely out of these supercomputers. 

Open your eyes. 

Guess what? Those imaginary "supercomputers" are simple, consumer-level computer processors right now; the current private sector equivalent is several thousand orders of magnitude more efficient and powerful. Private—non-public—interests own thousands of cubic miles of these processor-cities - mostly buried underground. Next year, their net computational power will triple or quadruple at a minimum. Every year beyond, that power curve will continue to grow exponentially. That world you imagined above isn't today; it was yesterday.

Now, with your eyes open, ask yourself: how much less complicated is the sum of your past, present and future behaviors... than all possible futures contained in the comparative chaos of a handful of air? Don't fail to consider the many, many insights freely given, gathered and stored by Facebook, Google, your iPhone - about you. In our time, if a thing is possible, it has already been done.

You know the thing to which I'm referring, and it's been far beyond possible for a long time.

Game of Drones

A man wonders: perhaps the most dangerous human threat vector encountered by other humans is the abysmal global standard of general education. One can lead a gun to law, but cannot make one think.

Valar dohaeris.

Oh, Snap! I See What I Did There

Social Media Wisdom

Who needs Netflix?

Inspired by Julia Landrith of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

...In related news: is our gene pool out of control? Tune in later!

Ragebowners for Ragebows: Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violent too.

What is this terrible fucking rainbow effect that people are putting up as their social media profile pictures? 

Is it the Christians attempting some kind of apocalyptic Noah reference? 

Is it the Sky People mocking Californians? 

Both of those would be funny on several dimensions as well as welcome changes of pace. I bet, though, that it's just the typically-oblivious anti-hippies hawking ideologically weaponized "love" like good little pseudointellectual hipster capitalist robots. (Err, or "pride," or whatever the PC rhetoric is for that nonsense nowadays; IDGAF, so it's hard to keep up with insanity's many and ever-changing malodorous perfumes). 

Worst of all, though... YOU ALL FORGOT THE "V" IN YOUR ROY G. BIV! Idiots!

Few will be asking these questions or making these observations, of course - because every rational person's instinctual response to rainbows appearing anywhere other than the sky is simply RAAAAAAAGE!!! 

So, with that said, all of these terrible affronts to coherent ideology will be hereby referred to by their proper designations of "ragebows," and perpetrators of such visual-and-likely-intellectual obscenity shall be dubbed "ragebowners." Why? Because both of those awful fucking terms—that a 2nd-grader could have come up with in half a second—are of far superior cleverness than rainbows as a statement about anything useful at all.

— please, ragebowners, once you're done violating everything that intelligence has fought for, (and once you're done violet-ing your ragebow overlay): go back in time and undo all of it.

:D