Here ranking⏫2⏬by age are:
▶️20 countries
▶️NY city
▶️The World
That I've 👀at so far.
50% marks the median age, e.g.
🇮🇹 47
🏴🏴41
🌍30
🇳🇬18
So expecting similar deaths overall is silly.
2/9
Most 🌍 comparisons for C19 go wrong as they don't considering demographics.
For countries I've managed to src detailed death data for, here's total d/1m numbers.
Sure,🏴🏴 look similar to 🇧🇷🇵🇪, but just look at the differences <60, 🇵🇪 4x larger.
So what does this mean?
1/9
Here ranking⏫2⏬by age are:
▶️20 countries
▶️NY city
▶️The World
That I've 👀at so far.
50% marks the median age, e.g.
🇮🇹 47
🏴🏴41
🌍30
🇳🇬18
So expecting similar deaths overall is silly.
2/9
Here are the props. by age to late Dec for places with detailed data.
Looks like NYC, 🇧🇷 & 🇵🇪 have seen far more in the young.
Now these all have younger pops. so is spread the same? Are diff just down to demographics?
3/9
🌍serology studies have sampled a similar risk in each 10yr band, with this going up 3 fold with each band.
Here is a plot of what🌍avgs are.
So what else do we need to worry about?
4/9
▶️healthcare: beds nos, better care, etc
▶️comorbidity rates: e.g. obesity, OECD 4x India, but only effects 15%
▶️lifestyle impacts: carehomes VS elderly@home
etc
But, many cancel out.
e.g. 1st🌍better healthcare, but fatter.
What about a lack of treatment?
5/9
But, 🇧🇷🇮🇳etc data is hosp data, they don't have near realtime all-cause like 1st🌍.
So🌍the IFRs of deaths per band likely far more similar.
We'll see for NYC vs 🇧🇷 likely, 🇵🇪 not so sure.
🤏of🧂
6/9
▶️Pop. IFR for equal spread (IFRp)
▶️The wgted IFR of deaths, where avail (IFRd)
Range is:
🇮🇹0.9%
🇳🇬0.09%
Just 1/10 the pop. capacity!
FYI, a⏫dIFR/pIFR means they've had relatively⏫older deaths.
e.g. 🇨🇭🇩🇰, caveat most have⏬deaths.
7/9
▶️% of possible deaths
▶️% of spread
100% susceptibility unlikely. Sure, IgA/Tcell resistance possible, but, regardless:
▶️implied spread varies hugely
▶️NYC's alone suggests 🇬🇧 more spread likely
▶️If 🇵🇪, not healthcare diffs, likely only one near true HIT.
8/9
More from World
I'll bite, Mr. Gray. We can even play by your rather finicky rules.
Let's begin with some of the things you have said about Xinjiang, notably absent from your more recent media appearances, but still present in your blog about your 2014 biking trip.
The following is taken from an ongoing list I keep of people who have been to Xinjiang and written/spoken about their experiences. It is separate from the testimony of detainees and their relatives I also keep. Jerry is on this
Jerry, your article for CGTN, as well as your various Medium pieces, belabor themselves to emphasize the smoothness of your time in Xinjiang. Why did you leave out so many details from your log of your 2014 trip? They seem relevant.
For example, would CGTN not let you speak about Shanshan, the town that evidently disturbed you so much?
Why, pray tell, after noting how kind and hospitable Xinjiang police were to you in 2019 for CGTN—and how you were never told where you could or could not go—would you omit these details?
Let's begin with some of the things you have said about Xinjiang, notably absent from your more recent media appearances, but still present in your blog about your 2014 biking trip.
Prove it...
— Jerry's China (@Jerry_grey2002) December 30, 2020
Without quoting Adrian Zenz who's never been there or exiles and criminals who seek asylum or cash for their stories or perhaps some satellite images of shopping centres and factories with fencelines.
You can't show any evidence that this is true https://t.co/wiozJIjusH
The following is taken from an ongoing list I keep of people who have been to Xinjiang and written/spoken about their experiences. It is separate from the testimony of detainees and their relatives I also keep. Jerry is on this
Jerry, your article for CGTN, as well as your various Medium pieces, belabor themselves to emphasize the smoothness of your time in Xinjiang. Why did you leave out so many details from your log of your 2014 trip? They seem relevant.
For example, would CGTN not let you speak about Shanshan, the town that evidently disturbed you so much?
Why, pray tell, after noting how kind and hospitable Xinjiang police were to you in 2019 for CGTN—and how you were never told where you could or could not go—would you omit these details?
These moρlahs, guided by the bigot Alι Mµsαlιαr did not fight against any oppression, Britishers or landlords. The moρlah rebellion is a vιolent vehιcle of jιhαδ. Its sole purpose: to mαssαcre Hindu-s, convert them to ιslαm and establish M sovereignty.
⋮
Tyrant Tιρµ was largely responsible for the forced conversions in Kerala. He surrounded homes of the H and forced them to convert to ιslαm, consume bεεf and be circµmcised.
Fleeing persecution from the rogue, many H fled to Tiruvanantapuram. There too, common M would now and then be enraged and wage jιhαδ on the helpless Hindu-s. The forcible conversions and desecration of our temples were the norm of the day.
⋮
T L Strange, a special commisioner of the Malabar region was appointed to enquire into the reasons for the outrages. He filed a report "Malabar Manual" in 1852 where he firmly says that the reason for the 'uprising' was M rεligιous fαnatιcism —
⋮
Moplah outrages on H was a regular occurrence in Kerala as we will show below. The most gruesome one in 1921 is what is famously referred to as such nowadays. In the aftermath of 1921, a special tribunal of 3 judges convened in Calicut.
⋮
⋮
Popular front day Rally in Chelari town mallappuram dist Kerala. \U0001f633 pic.twitter.com/VLrhPETzWO
— \u092e\u0939\u093e\u0935\u0940\u0930 \u091c\u0948\u0928, \u0cae\u0cb9\u0cbe\u0cb5\u0cc0\u0cb0\u0ccd \u0c9c\u0cc8\u0ca8, Mahaveer Jain (@MahaveerVJ) February 19, 2021
Tyrant Tιρµ was largely responsible for the forced conversions in Kerala. He surrounded homes of the H and forced them to convert to ιslαm, consume bεεf and be circµmcised.
Fleeing persecution from the rogue, many H fled to Tiruvanantapuram. There too, common M would now and then be enraged and wage jιhαδ on the helpless Hindu-s. The forcible conversions and desecration of our temples were the norm of the day.
⋮
T L Strange, a special commisioner of the Malabar region was appointed to enquire into the reasons for the outrages. He filed a report "Malabar Manual" in 1852 where he firmly says that the reason for the 'uprising' was M rεligιous fαnatιcism —
⋮
Moplah outrages on H was a regular occurrence in Kerala as we will show below. The most gruesome one in 1921 is what is famously referred to as such nowadays. In the aftermath of 1921, a special tribunal of 3 judges convened in Calicut.
⋮
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
First thread of the year because I have time during MCO. As requested, a thread on the gods and spirits of Malay folk religion. Some are indigenous, some are of Indian origin, some have Islamic
Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits
Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their
Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time
Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods
i wonder if you can make a thread bout witchcraft in malaysia.. or list of our own local gods/deites..
— r a y a \U0001f319 (@lcvelylilith) February 20, 2020
Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits
Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their
Animist ceremonies of a religious or magical nature were normally held for the purpose of divination or making a request. This would either be done at a keramat or at a shrine similar to the Thai spirit houses or Chinese roadside shrines pic.twitter.com/I1hliyi0x3
— \u2745\u1710\u170b\u1713\u170e (@uglyluhan) June 16, 2019
Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time
Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods