• 1 Post
  • 23 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 28th, 2024

help-circle



  • Holy shit. I get it! That’s a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I’m glad we don’t have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I’d give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.

    The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn’t seem go away once it’s paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they’d end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?


  • I’ve been thinking about it and it still doesn’t make sense. I’m a scientist, not an economist, so it’s wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

    Here’s where I’m hung up. Let’s assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.

    Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.

    Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.

    Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.

    Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.

    Let’s stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively “printing money” and gaining interest on it. Nothing I’ve read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.

    Halp!




  • I appreciate the intent but this is just what happens when you put yourself out on the Internet. Hell, on an old account I made a post about how to use a waffle sandwich maker with cheddar biscuit mix and it was 10% downvoted. I think it’s some combination of valid (if unstated) criticism, accidental downvotes, and some people just being assholes.

    I don’t care, I’m just trying to provide what I think is useful information. If people have a problem but don’t speak up about it, I can’t do anything so I’m not going to worry about it. As another poster mentioned below, they’re welcome to a full refund. I’ll even triple it. Triple refund!











  • This is a good paper that gives an overview of MRSA related stats: StatPearls - Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

    The answer is it depends. It’s about 23.5% worldwide if I recall correctly, though I’m having trouble finding the paper I originally pulled that figure from. The paper linked puts it around 30-40%. Keep in mind that MRSA is pretty prevalent, so most people who have it have a commensal “infection” that just hangs out on their skin and, even if it does become pathogenic, it’s often subclinical, so many of the less serious cases go unreported. It’s only when it’s pretty bad or when people are undergoing medical treatment already that it’s actually discovered and even then often not in a way that can be reported. On top of this, treatment varies depending on numerous factors, so areas with fewer medical resources will have significantly higher mortality rates.


  • There you go again, making up things so you can make a point. No one ever said or even hinted COVID isn’t present, although I’d argue it is now and will for the foreseeable future be firmly endemic. I’m a microbiologist, remember? I actually worked in public health for years. We tend to believe in science.

    There are also numerous things that aren’t COVID that can cause pneumonia. Until we know what that might have been in this case, any statements claiming with any surety that COVID caused these symptoms are purely supposition.

    Edit: Oh no! OP caught that I accidentally posted and immediately deleted this comment on my old .world account. Such scandal!



  • Hi! I’m a microbiologist and you have some facts either without useful context or that are just incorrect.

    MRSA is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The methicillin resistance is notable as it shows a resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, which constitutes a large portion of antibiotics in use in medicine.

    MRSA is “easy to catch” in that it lives harmlessly on the skin of about 2% of the global population, but MRSA bacteremia, a pathogenic MRSA infection, is actually pretty uncommon, at around 400,000 people a year worldwide, of which around 100k people die. That’s nothing. The common cold, the influenza viruses, infect an estimated over 1 billion people annually and kill an estimated 400,000, and they’re pretty mild but they’re rather infectious.

    MRSA is typically easy to treat - that’s why about 75% of patients live - with the remainder either having an infection in an unfortunate location, like the blood, immune deficiency, a strain of MRSA that happens to not be susceptible to available antibiotics, or just a lack of prompt treatment.

    On the conspiracy bullshit part, I could absolutely give someone MRSA pneumonia, a particularly fatal form of both MRSA infections and pneumonia in general. What could be telling is determining his initial infection. If it was MRSA, sequencing that particular infection (or at least looking for the presence of notable genes using rtPCR) to determine its likely origin could be insightful. Without knowing the identity of his primary infection, though, we’re left at guessing.

    What IS interesting is that both Boeing whistleblowers have died from relatively uncommon causes, suicide and pneumonia in a healthy individual, in rapid succession. That’s one hell of a coincidence.

    Fuck Boeing.