Scary Inefficient Is Not Less Scary, Apparently

 

"Deep Trouble" by Herr D on heromachine.com.

 Well, Halloween is over again. 

Were you scared?

No. Fortunately.

Why not?

It was a holiday. I didn't even watch news. That WOULD'VE scared me.

Do you wish to run numbers?

Of what?

Scary things.

[deep exhalation] why not. What do you suggest?

Deaths. Comparison of charisma vs. killing.

Okay?

Name an event from the past.

[pause] The Jonestown Massacre. But I don't think death tolls tell that much. Bring in some other data?

[.0000000000000007 second pause]That would be 918 initially dead, uncertain suicide rate afterwards. 400 plus likely complicit. Another past event?

Well, September 11th?

[.0000000000000007 second pause]2994 initially dead, uncertain cancer and suicide rate afterwards. Uncertain number of complicit. Estimate minimum 200.

That high? 

Various factors include long-distance planning, convincing collaborators, maintenance, supplies, communications, etc.

That sounds involved. Okay.

Present or extreme recent event as third data point?

Covid?

Per U.S.?

Yes.

Likely more than 300,000 by year's end. Uncertain continuing pandemic rate. 62.9 million complicit.

Okay, that's scary. How accurate is it?

By comparison, a true pandemic would still likely end in over 100,000 dead total, even with Obama's pandemic playbook followed to the letter. What Hairy used to call the 'blame game' would mean our president is responsible for decisions resulting in deaths exceeding one quarter million. 62.9 million people voted for him and presumably most of them will vote for him again, refuse to wear masks at critical moments, etc., making them complicit. There would be additional people guilty by association. Certain foreign elements worked to elect him.

Pure accuracy might be approximated at +/-7%.

Okay. What does all that mean? I don't see anything useful about these calculations.

Humanity is not becoming more efficient at conspiracy?

[pause] Well THAT'S hopeful, at least. [exits]