you want to live off another people to some degree. single farmer can feed hundreds - there is no need for everyone to do everything. which of course raises societal fairness and trust issues
they do read my mind at least to some extent -> "The paper concludes that it is possible to detect changes in the thickness and the properties of the muscle solely by evaluating the reflection coefficient of an antenna structure." https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6711930
1/2500 .. What is the probability of being born blind?
1/100 .. What is the probability of having schizophrenia?
1/250000* .. What is the probability of both?
1/250000* .. What is the probability of both + having resources to have it diagnosed?
[*] Assuming genetic blindness (born this way) and schizophrenia (elevated genetic risk) are not somehow inversely linked.
So, in the US:
340MM people -> 1360 born-blind people who would develop schizophrenia
Reduce that by half or so, since schizophrenia tends to emerge in or after adolescence. And since it may be confusable at older ages with other brain health issues (is this true?).
So call it 700 people in the US alone. If it is in fact zero, that is significant!
I chose the US because 100% people will have adequate access to this level of medical care. A formal diagnosis is not the same thing as access, but a born-blind person either has parents/family, or has a state warden with access to care. This is also true in many many other countries, but certainly not all.
The US has 4.1% of the world population. Figure 50% of the world does not have this level of medical access. It's probably less than that, but maybe not.
This suggests about 10,000 people worldwide, living today, who would be affected, and in an environment where they would be diagnosed.
for (likely corrupt) down voters - one argument would be that it's basically a subscription to browser fingerprinting. vpn providers even openly state when such doings will begin
reply