From the study if I understood correctly, all you need is a white box flickering on a dark background for 1.5s at your natural frequency before performing the task.

I wonder whether I should try to to feel it out before ordering the devices above. I could try different frequencies in the common range and perform some cognitive task to then feel how I'm performing.

Then after ordering the headset I could see if it matches

It should be in the range of 8hz - 12hz. I wonder if I can do it on my usual monitor and how accurate does it have to be in terms of timing?

Is your sarcasm implying that this could not possibly have a correlation?

Not necessarily. Brain not working well could cause concussions to happen due to different risk evaluation.

That's why the used the word "may". They wouldn't know for sure which way the causation is.

I guess what they have to do is put all people to sleep, for certain individuals trigger a concussion while they are sleeping and for others leave them be, but inject something to trigger headache and other symptoms as if there was a concussion. Then they wake up both groups and tell them that they are within the concussion group.

How can they tell it's not the poor mental performance that caused the concussion rather than vice versa?

I would expect statistically people with worse mental capabilities to put themselves at increased risk to get a concussion.

There could be correlation where people associated with traditionally higher mental capabilities choose safer activities and profession in general. Not saying all people do that, but just statistically. Choosing a high risk activity does not mean you are not intelligent by any means.

If I had to intuitively guess, I would agree, getting an unfair punishment could make you more likely to commit a crime in the future due to lack of opportunities and due to feeling of injustice, but I think the point about the study is valid.

How can you know whether it's prosecution and the case understanding the person's character and not the other way around?

So much easier to communicate without having to worry about smalltalk, being accidentally rude etc.

God could be all knowing, all powerful and loving in its own terms if you imagine it being some sort of programmer who created this software for simulating us. He (or whichever gender) could be all knowing in the sense that at any given moment he can check the state of the system and all powerful that he can tweak the state or save/load, and loving in the sense that he totally loves the system he built. It keeps him entertained for years. And he's not even a psychopath, because he thinks it's all just code, and he's otherwise a kind person irl.

> Was one of his miracles stopping Damar's heart?

I don't believe it was a miracle. I fully believe everything has a cause and effect and randomness is just something we don't have good tools to determine. I also have no reason to believe that any sort of lord would exist. It could exist, but there's no way to tell. And if it did exist it would be impossible to determine whether any of it was a miracle.

> His heart stopping on a routine play like that is much more unlikely. Maybe some divine intervention from some twisted diety who also likes to give children cancer and can make food appear out of nowhere (Exodus 16:1–36) but chooses to let people starve to death.

Yes, if there's a lord it seems that it really doesn't care and it might seem more likely that the World is being simulated by this lord for example entertainment or research purposes. But even then if a lord is simulating everything, and can intervene with certain actions that could be considered miracles, if the game was to score as many points as possible, the lord would be able to do that in the hospital. So maybe it's a video game, where you have to score as many points doing miracles.

Are you talking on behalf of all medical professionals?

You can ask and they will say no to appear humble and political. They would appear conceited if they said yes.

Because he's taking credit away from the actual work that is being done to help the person. It's very untrue and insulting.

But imagine working tirelessly, researching and constructing a way to help people, to only then some people claim that it was a miracle performed by some sort of made up entity taking away all the credit from yourself. How is this in any way remotely okay?

I agree with that, but I disagree with the fact that it's weird that all the miracles would happen in the hospital if this made up entity existed. I think that would be expected since this is where the most opportunities for miracles would be.

Yes, doctors are there as well, no question about it. But still as a lord looking to do miracles, hospital is exactly the place where I would go if I wanted to maximise the amount of miracles I've performed.

> if you don’t have anything nice to say , don’t say anything at all?

That's a disgusting "rule". I don't want to be in a society where people are dishonest and afraid to tell the truth.

If everyone only ever says nice things it becomes meaningless. You won't know what they really think.

All you are saying is that your ego is too fragile to handle criticism, and you need to be coddled, truth has to be hidden away from you.

That's where the sick are. If I was a lord assigned to the task, I would also go to the hospitals.

> You seem to be assuming that the disease will exhaust itself and run out of people to infect

For certain amount of time, hence the waves. There will be smaller amount of population still having the virus, until the virus mutates or immunity wanes enough after which it will start all over again.

After certain amount of time like a year or two years, the total cases amount would be similar in terms of magnitude. They won't be 10x based on 22% efficacy.

Because you were suggesting 7k vs 1 million which is different in magnitudes.

I'm suggesting that difference would probably be less than 2x after 2 years for example. And if I had to guess it would probably be something like 25% difference similarly, if we tried to make our model more comprehensive.

Yes, but there's also factors to the other side. As the OP above mentioned people will adapt their behaviour depending on how they perceive the risk for themselves. If people have vaccinated and perceive the risk as lower, they will be more likely to go out. If there's a huge wave currently ongoing, people will be less likely to go out. If there's little threat, people will go out more likely, making the likelihood of new wave to start higher. Risk behaviour will be another balancing factor that will make the wave smooth out whether you have the intervention or not. If people see death around them, they get scared and start to avoid, if people see no danger, they will increase their risk behaviour. Behaviour will influence the R0 so much. Imagine being in contact with 50% fewer people than you were previously. That would be halving the R.

So in the end with all those factors together, unless the efficacy is enough to create herd immunity it's going to be waves with not much differing total amount of cases. Efficacy has to be enough for herd immunity or very close to that, otherwise yeah, it would just be something like that.

Main effect will be for risk groups for whom the risk of the disease will be much lower in terms of hospitalisations and death thanks to their immune systems being prepared from the vaccine. And in addition less overload on hospitals due to flattening the curve, but in the end total amount of infections are not going to be magnitudes away due to inherent characteristics of this virus.

> In the abstract your point isn't wrong, but in the real world population sizes are much larger, resistance is imperfect to begin with, mutation occurs, and we're talking about a disease where previous infection doesn't confer a high degree of resistance that persists over the long-term - like COVID - so that isn't going to have nearly as large an impact as you're suggesting with your example.

Yes, all of this can be adapted to the model, but eventual result will still be a wave like graph, where difference of 22% would get lower the higher the R0 is and the end results in terms of magnitudes would be very similar to what I showed above.

Whether the population is 1,000,000 here or 1,000,000,000 doesn't make that much of a difference though. It's just few generations more.

We could create a model that incorporates waning immunity based on the studies we've seen. And also run a vaccine like intervention to see how results would differ. We could try to use 8 billion people and try to roll out vaccine to all of them within certain timeframe. I might do it during the weekend if I have time.

The results with 1 billion population here - you can see that it's just few more gens, magnitude wise, proportionally not that much difference:

R doesn't stay high like that throughout generations, it will proportionately go down the more recently infected/immune people there are.

The calculations must be more nuanced than that.

After each generation you should adapt the number of potential vulnerable candidates compared to what initial R had.

It would flatten the curve though and in total there would be around 24% fewer cases, based on that model. But this model is of course still to basic to exactly match real world. So here you can see for instance, that max cases amount to 187k per generation vs 86k per gen in terms of flattening the curve (good for hospitals).

Edit: as an example R2 vs R1.56 with 100 starting infected and a a population of 1,000,000 could be something like that:

With a slightly more accurate script and simulation I got the following:

> with the same outcome as a vaccine conspiracy

Depends on what you consider a vaccine conspiracy? Bad biological takes like you said above, yes, I would agree is unreasonable. But for example general fear of undetected adverse issues, either short or long term. Is that a conspiracy?

> I'd expect my career to be over if I gave a green light for the admission even if I could've known better.

There could be no clear single approver, since 90%+ of people are approving, everyone could be just going with the flow. It's a safe approval to take, because everyone agrees to approve it, it would be much riskier to go against the grain unless you are 100% confident that you are in the right to go against the grain. But also again I'm not trying to convince such a thing could be possible. I don't know if it is, I haven't worked as a scientist in medicine. I could only speculate.

But then, it's not about whether it really is feasible for this to be like that, but more about how a general person would be able to tell that this is not the case. So maybe you've done the whole process of developing the vaccine, led the trials from phase 1 to phase 3, dealt and audited all the subcontractors, then worked together with regulators and governments and you know that for sure there's no way something really bad could be missed.

How can a normal person know that this process is validated to such extent if in their own personal life they have seen bizarre things happening first hand especially under time and deadlines pressure, that a naive person would never expect to happen if they have full trust in systems?

I haven't personally worked in government agencies or anything government related so I wouldn't know how everything works there. I have worked only in corporate World. I imagine it's similar for many people. From corporate experience I have seen some bizarre incentives for instance where results based on amount of people make 0 sense whatsoever. As a naive person I would imagine that everyone tries their best, but really it's politics, coasting and fake achievements, right. It doesn't matter what you do, it matters what it seems like you do and to whom. So I know that in certain circumstances incentives can be lined up in such a way that there's no conspiracy, but the whole outcome is bizarre. But it's combination of very many things and explaining, figuring out or even trying to solve the issue is herculean task and if somebody could solve it, they would be a trillionaire.

It may seem like I just spoke whole nothing about nothing, and it shouldn't matter, but if anyone is in such an experience where people you would think are smart, make a lot of money, but the output is non-sensical, it might be hard to believe that something in the government or even on the science level works much better than that. Actually, the larger the corporation the more ridiculous things seem to be at times, because the easier it is to hide things if you are skilled and the less anyone cares.

It could be a situation where nobody has full access to anything to question something confidently. Or only very few people know everything and it would take again herculean effort to understand what exactly is happening. There's a bystander effect everywhere, where any specialist or expert thinks that surely somebody else has validated all of it, and I don't have to bother with it, because I don't have an incentive to do so. So for example it could be lack of incentives to validate everything when validation would take huge amount of resources. And if you notice a discrepancy somewhere somehow, the incentive is always to convince yourself that you are just missing something and ignore that, because surely some other smarter people somewhere have already dealt with this.

So all of it could bring a situation where something that could potentially cause harm is not detected, because people on collective level assume that somebody else validated everything when really there wasn't no one with access to collective data incentivised to do so. For instance a situation where Entity A creates a product B, where there's other Entities from C to D validating the product B, but everything is under a strong time pressure, and financial incentives are always aligned as such that you should give benefit of the doubt to product B, because if product B doesn't succeed, it's actually harmful for both A and the C-D validating it, because the C-D validating, if they have a track record of being too critical, they could miss future business opportunities etc. Then regulators E validating product B will already see data that is polished with benefit of the doubt, and they don't have time to fully question it, it could be that there's inherent bias to approve the product B because of good relationship and networking dynamics between the people etc.

So I'm not saying this is how it is, but this is one way I could see something that could cause harm being not detected by a whole mass of people without a huge conspiracy going on.

Many have experiences of going around different doctors, being misdiagnosed and never actually finding a solution for their health problem as well. You are being sent in a circles of doctors while your issue persists.

I think what also needs to be understood is that not all anti vaxxers believe in chips or population control. Most are concerned about the side effects and usual big pharma incentives for profit over human lives being at play. So if you talk about chips etc you are going over the heads of those people who are majority of the unvaccinated. They don't believe there is a conscious conspiracy, but just the way incentives are aligned makes the situation be like it is.