On the other hand, vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives in the past 100 years. Smallpox and Polio vaccines were among the most successful. From the 16th through 18th centuries diseases like smallpox, measles, diptheria, typhus, influenza and others decimated and even wiped out entire populations of Native Americans. The indigenous population in North America prior to the arrival of Europeans is estmated at least 40 million. But those people had no immunity to the diseases carried by the invaders. As a result, within two hundred years, disease and forced labor killed off 95% of the native population.

Although you personally might hate vaccines, hundreds of millions around the world owe their lives to them. While you were waiting for a cure to be developed, you might have been among the victims.

The difference between you and me is where you place the danger line. If you were told there was a disease that was going to wipe out 50 people worldwide, you wouldn't get the vaccine. Chances are you'd never catch it. What number would you place on predicted worldwide deaths before you get the vaccine? Covid is 1 in 1000. A 1 in 1000 chance of death is not enough to concern me.

Then there's the stats I've seen of more vaccinated folk having to go to hospital than unvaccinated. Are we sure it's helping and not hindering? I know someone who caught a weaker strain of covid after three jabs, and he got worse symptoms. I'm not impressed.

Then there's this thing called evolution and survival of the fittest. If we help the weak, we're making the next generation worse. Pretty soon we'll be dying of the common cold.

And how much has this cost the world? Yes, you can place a price on a life. If we all end up poorer, we're less likely to live a good healthy safe life.

The difference between you and me is where you place the danger line. If you were told there was a disease that was going to wipe out 50 people worldwide, you wouldn't get the vaccine. Chances are you'd never catch it. What number would you place on predicted worldwide deaths before you get the vaccine? Covid is 1 in 1000. A 1 in 1000 chance of death is not enough to concern me.

Your claimed mortality rate is the ratio of total deaths divided by total world population.

The correct way to calculate a mortality rate is to use the total number of resolved cases as the divisor; 6.8 million people died from Covid-19 out of 680 million cases worldwide, which is a mortality rate of 1% -- rather large, as far as flu-like diseases go.

The difference between you and me is where you place the danger line. If you were told there was a disease that was going to wipe out 50 people worldwide, you wouldn't get the vaccine. Chances are you'd never catch it. What number would you place on predicted worldwide deaths before you get the vaccine? Covid is 1 in 1000. A 1 in 1000 chance of death is not enough to concern me.

Your claimed mortality rate is the ratio of total deaths divided by total world population.

The correct way to calculate a mortality rate is to use the total number of resolved cases as the divisor; 6.8 million people died from Covid-19 out of 680 million cases worldwide, which is a mortality rate of 1% -- rather large, as far as flu-like diseases go.

No, that's the wrong way. My way includes the chances of catching it. All I need to know is the chances of me dying vs. the chances of me not dying. Not dying includes both recovering from it and not catching it in the first place. So 0.1%. Low enough I don't actually know anyone who's died of it. However I know about 50 who recovered, some of them twice, the twice ones all having had the vaccine and still getting it just as bad or worse! What are we up to now, 5 doses? It isn't working!

P.S. those who recovered are the healthier ones, so the next generation will be stronger.

The difference between you and me is where you place the danger line. If you were told there was a disease that was going to wipe out 50 people worldwide, you wouldn't get the vaccine. Chances are you'd never catch it. What number would you place on predicted worldwide deaths before you get the vaccine? Covid is 1 in 1000. A 1 in 1000 chance of death is not enough to concern me.

Your claimed mortality rate is the ratio of total deaths divided by total world population.

The correct way to calculate a mortality rate is to use the total number of resolved cases as the divisor; 6.8 million people died from Covid-19 out of 680 million cases worldwide, which is a mortality rate of 1% -- rather large, as far as flu-like diseases go.

No, that's the wrong way. My way includes the chances of catching it. All I need to know is the chances of me dying vs. the chances of me not dying. Not dying includes both recovering from it and not catching it in the first place. So 0.1%. Low enough I don't actually know anyone who's died of it. However I know about 50 who recovered, some of them twice, the twice ones all having had the vaccine and still getting it just as bad or worse! What are we up to now, 5 doses? It isn't working!

P.S. those who recovered are the healthier ones, so the next generation will be stronger.

Your way does not make any statement at all about the chances of becoming infected. There is a very real difference between the rate of infection and the mortality rate, and no statistical manipulation will ever show otherwise. In using the total population to calculate the mortality rate, you are assuming that 100% of the total population has been exposed to the virus.
As for why the vaccines "aren't working", you ignore the fact that there are many variants of SARS-COV-2 out there now, but the vaccines currently in use were designed to combat the initial strain. It is thus no surprise to anyone (or at least should not be) that the effectiveness of the vaccine has declined.
Finally, viruses do mutate significantly, and rapidly, so each new strain becomes something new as far as the immune system is concerned. The best the next generation of humans can hope for is that their immune systems might be slightly more capable of fighting off an infection from one of those new strains.

The difference between you and me is where you place the danger line. If you were told there was a disease that was going to wipe out 50 people worldwide, you wouldn't get the vaccine. Chances are you'd never catch it. What number would you place on predicted worldwide deaths before you get the vaccine? Covid is 1 in 1000. A 1 in 1000 chance of death is not enough to concern me.

Your claimed mortality rate is the ratio of total deaths divided by total world population.

The correct way to calculate a mortality rate is to use the total number of resolved cases as the divisor; 6.8 million people died from Covid-19 out of 680 million cases worldwide, which is a mortality rate of 1% -- rather large, as far as flu-like diseases go.

No, that's the wrong way. My way includes the chances of catching it. All I need to know is the chances of me dying vs. the chances of me not dying. Not dying includes both recovering from it and not catching it in the first place. So 0.1%. Low enough I don't actually know anyone who's died of it. However I know about 50 who recovered, some of them twice, the twice ones all having had the vaccine and still getting it just as bad or worse! What are we up to now, 5 doses? It isn't working!

P.S. those who recovered are the healthier ones, so the next generation will be stronger.

Your way does not make any statement at all about the chances of becoming infected. There is a very real difference between the rate of infection and the mortality rate, and no statistical manipulation will ever show otherwise.

It's you trying to look at complex stats. All you need is how many died and how many didn't. Obviously, those who died are those who managed to catch it, and are also susceptible to it. No calculation is required. All you need to know is the chances you will be one of the dead. That chance is 1 in 1000, a very small amount.

In using the total population to calculate the mortality rate, you are assuming that 100% of the total population has been exposed to the virus.

The exact opposite, I'm allowing for people to have not been exposed to it. You may well be one of those.

As for why the vaccines "aren't working", you ignore the fact that there are many variants of SARS-COV-2 out there now, but the vaccines currently in use were designed to combat the initial strain. It is thus no surprise to anyone (or at least should not be) that the effectiveness of the vaccine has declined.

Doesn't matter why they aren't working, the fact is they don't.

Finally, viruses do mutate significantly, and rapidly, so each new strain becomes something new as far as the immune system is concerned. The best the next generation of humans can hope for is that their immune systems might be slightly more capable of fighting off an infection from one of those new strains.

Exactly why we don't die of the common cold.

@Mr P Hucker
OK, I give up -- it is not worth my effort trying to get you to see that you are using pseudostats in an attempt to support your pseudoscience -- you will never think beyond the world of the Trumpophant.
The vaccines all had an effectiveness above 95% against the initial strain of the virus, and that is a demonstrable fact. There is now work going on to develop vaccines capable of providing protection against any coronavirus, and with mRNA technology, I have no doubt that will be successful -- maybe not in my lifetime, but hopefully in yours.
Hauling out the common cold is a definite non-starter -- every rhinovirus ("rhin" means "nose", not "rhinoceros"), even the most virulent of them, has a very low mortality rate, but that does not ensure one will not appear some day with very high mortality. The flu viruses, for example, for the most part are no more lethal than SARS-COV-2, but that did not stop the 1918 H1N1 variant from bursting onto the scene, infecting at least 1/3 of the world population, and killing at least 10% of those. There is simply no way to predict when a variant of any virus will appear with very high virulence AND very high mortality.
So, take your chances with believing that vaccines don't work, ignore the fact that smallpox has been eradicated, ignore the fact that polio and rubella are no longer the terrifying threats that they once were, and continue to live in your rose-coloured world.

You say you give up, then proceed to write a paragraph of text, could it be you're a silly little child who has to get the last word in?

There are no pseudostats, I shall reveal them.
Population of the world: 8 billion from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Total deaths from covid: 6.8 million from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
So that's less than a 1 in 1000 chance of any one person in the world dying of covid. Not enough to worry about.

Interesting you call me a Trumpophant. Firstly I'm not in the USA, so unfortunately I couldn't vote for him. Secondly, the right wing is far more sensible than the thieving left wing who think it's ok to steal money from your taxes without your permission and give it to the "needy". Needy folk can get your money from a charity IF you choose to donate. If people really wanted to help, and the government stopped doing so, all you lefties would immediately donate their cash through charities instead. Or perhaps..... you wouldn't? Maybe you just want everyone else to help?

There is no point in making a vaccine against something which is going to change. If the vaccine doesn't include what will be caught later on, there's no point in it whatsoever. By the time they make one which works, we'll all be immune anyway, and the weak will be out of the gene pool.

I guess you're not familiar with the common cold killing Eskimos when we first met them. It only has a low mortality rate because our immune systems have learned to fight it off.

And you continue living in your world where the governments ruin the whole world economy by closing places down, raising prices so everyone is too poor to eat, and nobody can afford electricity. Covid did very little harm, the governments killed off the world.

Does rosetta run faster with or without hyperthreading?

Does rosetta run faster with or without hyperthreading?

I find HT is always faster overall. Pretty much what it says on the tine, 50% speed increase by doubling the virtual cores.

TN-grid runs slower.

I always have HT on , but my 48 cpu/thread system seems to run smoother when run at "use 99% of cpu`s"
even when there are not two gpu`s also needing cpu time .

I always have HT on , but my 48 cpu/thread system seems to run smoother when run at "use 99% of cpu`s"
even when there are not two gpu`s also needing cpu time .

What do you mean by smoother? If you mean interact with it, that's because one core has been left for the interface.

But with most projects I can use 100% of cores and still use the machine fine. That's on a 24 core machine. With 4 cores it gets sluggish.

HT in itself isn't a problem, but some projects which do a lot of memory accesses alledgedly flood the CPU cache if you run too many at once, so it works out faster not to HT. I've never observed this, as I have AMD processors which tend to have bigger caches unlike the cheapskate Intels.

You say you give up, then proceed to write a paragraph of text, could it be you're a silly little child who has to get the last word in?

There are no pseudostats, I shall reveal them.
Population of the world: 8 billion from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Total deaths from covid: 6.8 million from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
So that's less than a 1 in 1000 chance of any one person in the world dying of covid. Not enough to worry about.

Interesting you call me a Trumpophant. Firstly I'm not in the USA, so unfortunately I couldn't vote for him. Secondly, the right wing is far more sensible than the thieving left wing who think it's ok to steal money from your taxes without your permission and give it to the "needy". Needy folk can get your money from a charity IF you choose to donate. If people really wanted to help, and the government stopped doing so, all you lefties would immediately donate their cash through charities instead. Or perhaps..... you wouldn't? Maybe you just want everyone else to help?

There is no point in making a vaccine against something which is going to change. If the vaccine doesn't include what will be caught later on, there's no point in it whatsoever. By the time they make one which works, we'll all be immune anyway, and the weak will be out of the gene pool.

I guess you're not familiar with the common cold killing Eskimos when we first met them. It only has a low mortality rate because our immune systems have learned to fight it off.

And you continue living in your world where the governments ruin the whole world economy by closing places down, raising prices so everyone is too poor to eat, and nobody can afford electricity. Covid did very little harm, the governments killed off the world.

Your method of deterining the chances of contracting COVID considers deaths among the global population, at random.

But the spread of COVID was not rabdom. It was concentrated among those who did not receive the vaccines, whether by choce of by circumstnnces. People in some countries had no access to any vaccines. These also tended to be areas wiith high population densities, where people are in close contact.

In the USA, cases, and deaths, were concentrated in major cities, in states like Florida with thousands of old people in nursing homes, and in areas where people believed Trump's lies and refused to get vaccinated. Hospitals were full beyond capacity. Emergency rooms were aover filled. Beds were in the hallways, filled with people dying, beyond hope, evry day because there were not enough respirators, personal protection gear and other necessities. Nurses and doctiors were frantic,working themselves to exhaustion trying in vain to save people. The highest numbers of cases and deaths were in conservative western and mid-western areas where large percentages of Trump supporters. Facebook, Twitter, ect. were filled with people who said they were proud to refuse vaccination, would be protected by God, those who attended Trump's rallies, weddings, parties at bars, unmasked, exercising their "'freedom."

I saw hundreds of these, people bravely refusing vaccination, saying the giovernment was taking away their freedom. A few days later, they would post that the contracted COVID, but would be healed by some magic potion that Trump and others promoted.-- bleach, detergent, Chloroquine, horse worm medication. Soon they begged for help because they couldn't breaathe. Then I'd read a post by a son, or daughter saying that their relative had sadly died. Hundreds of these. Trump actually said COVID was a fake pandemic, a plot started by the Liberal left and Democratic party to influence the ekection, He said it would be gone after he won the election. Right. If he had not spread misinformation, but had taken swift and medically-advised action, a million people, mostly Republicans, might not have died.

As for your claim that COVID "Did Little Harm," you must be joking. Hundreds of restaurants, stores, small buisinesses, manufacturing companies were forced out of business because of it. The entire supply chain for almost everything was disrupted. The global economy was in a slump. The effects are still being felt, but the world is slowly coming out of it.

You also had it wrong when you spoke of natural selection and the "survival of the fittest."

But more about that later.

S.Gaber

Your method of deterining the chances of contracting COVID considers deaths among the global population, at random.

It's the best method, no bias towards anyone in particular.

But the spread of COVID was not rabdom. It was concentrated among those who did not receive the vaccines,

I saw a stat showing most people in hospital with severe covid actually had been vaccinated, so it made no difference.

I saw hundreds of these, people bravely refusing vaccination, saying the giovernment was taking away their freedom. A few days later, they would post that the contracted COVID, but would be healed by some magic potion that Trump and others promoted.-- bleach, detergent, Chloroquine, horse worm medication.

It would work just as well, since the vaccine is completely ineffective. The guy who runs Universe@Home caught it twice, before and after a triple vaccination.

As for your claim that COVID "Did Little Harm," you must be joking. Hundreds of restaurants, stores, small buisinesses, manufacturing companies were forced out of business because of it. The entire supply chain for almost everything was disrupted. The global economy was in a slump. The effects are still being felt, but the world is slowly coming out of it.

Those businesses were closed by overly cautious girly governments. Businesses should have been left to run if they wanted to. Customers and owners could have decided how much precaution to take if any. It's called freedom of choice. I don't want to be a robot following orders from what's basically a bunch of ordinary people promoted to positions where they can make decisions for us. And the only people who want to be politicians are not right in the head. No sane person would go into that line of work.

You also had it wrong when you spoke of natural selection and the "survival of the fittest."

Evolution is a well established fact. Or are you going to spout religion now? Those who believe in god shouldn't be trusting a vaccine either, they should be praying.

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed.

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed.

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

Wrong.

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

Wrong.

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

Wrong.

It's the whole basis of the concept. If 50% of people die in contact with a certain virus, the next generation is made up of the offspring of the other 50%. I can't believe you're denying something this well known. What next, 2+2 is really 5?

What next, 2+2 is really 5?

I Try that one when working out my productivity/bonus payments ,
The accounts department just won`t have it , hmff
But with government mish maths its `just another day at the office`