Page 30 of 31

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 7:54 am
by Service Dog
Dave Smith sez he hates doing stand-up & getting a big _applause_ instead of a laugh.

The applause just means you said something the audience agrees-with. It wasn't funny.

Dave Chappelle got applause when he said "I am a feminist". It's a clap-line, not a laugh-line.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:06 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
The lunatics who run California just banned my tractor, atv, log splitter, paint sprayer, pressure washer, generator, and all my chainsaws. I don't own a lawn mower, weed whacker or leaf blower, but those are banned, too. All must now be replaced with electric versions.

In a state that can't keep the electricity on.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:07 am
by fafnir
Service Dog wrote: the comedians-as-unfunny-propagandists might not initially set-out to be stooges for The Man.
They are the court jesters of the modern day. They are paid to entertain the court, not to mock the court to the townsfolk.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:11 am
by Service Dog
fafnir wrote:
Service Dog wrote: the comedians-as-unfunny-propagandists might not initially set-out to be stooges for The Man.
They are the court jesters of the modern day. They are paid to entertain the court, not to mock the court to the townsfolk.
Good point. --the bans are to eliminate competition from the 'townsfolk' business model.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:17 am
by Service Dog
Holy shit-- this guy is a Dalek! & also the Monty Python Black Knight!




"Gimmie all your bracelets, wristwatches, & rings!"

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:28 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
Service Dog wrote: https://media.patriots.win/post/tMQoum6k.jpeg

The Right is funnier by default-- they can still use the classic naughty ingredients. AND it becomes a political victory to do so.
A man moved his elderly mother, who'd been having some health issues, into his family's guest room. One night shortly thereafter, he was awoken by loud moaning coming from his mother's room. Fearing for her life, he jumped out of bed, rushed across the hall, and threw open her door. He's shocked to find his 15 year-old son furiously humping the old woman. "This is outrageous!" the man shouts. "Can you imagine my horror, to be awoken in the middle of the night to find my son having sex with his own grandmother -- my own mother!" The son look up and says, "A lotta nerve you have complaining, when you keep me up every night with the sounds of you fucking my mom."

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:54 am
by Sulman
Someone at Netflix has some balls, unlike the teenage tantrum army trying to bully them.



This is not a progressive country. Corporate America will beat you every time you try and play on their turf. To not realise this is staggeringly naive and stupid.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:12 am
by fafnir
Sulman wrote: This is not a progressive country. Corporate America will beat you every time you try and play on their turf. To not realise this is staggeringly naive and stupid.
The Gods are progressive. That doesn't mean they are going to let the pieces of the game climb off the board and fuck with them while the other Gods look on.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:33 am
by ThreeFlangedJavis
fafnir wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:03 am
In the UK there has been 60 years of such people being written off as bigots by enlightened elites, as the bigots fears gradually materialised. For 60 years ordinary people who have expressed ordinary worries have been successfully dismissed as ghastly racists who should be denied the oxygen of publicising their repellant views. Their kids were taught they were racist. What is different now?
The internet? Political poalrisation? It's one thing to cow individuals or small groups who feel isolated but when enough people know that they have friends and the treatment meted out to them becomes sufficiently unjust and plain to see there is the possibility of change. The bigot charge has been so overplayed now that more extreme measures are necessary. like declaring people domestic terrorists and setting the FBI on them.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:49 am
by ThreeFlangedJavis
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:06 am
The lunatics who run California just banned my tractor, atv, log splitter, paint sprayer, pressure washer, generator, and all my chainsaws. I don't own a lawn mower, weed whacker or leaf blower, but those are banned, too. All must now be replaced with electric versions.

In a state that can't keep the electricity on.
Who is going to pay to replace all of that stuff? Pity the used equipment dealers, landscapers and hire plants. What about lumberjacks, are they expected to lug extension cables up trees? Are there power sockets spread around Californian forests? Not up on the details but Victor Davis Hanson frequently talks about water issues in Cali and how the environmental types push all of the burden onto the poor, leaving the coastal elite to enjoy their water while feeling virtuous about having done something about the environment. Wish I could say I don't envy you your lords and masters but I think we're worse off here.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:44 am
by Stankeye
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:06 am
The lunatics who run California just banned my tractor, atv, log splitter, paint sprayer, pressure washer, generator, and all my chainsaws. I don't own a lawn mower, weed whacker or leaf blower, but those are banned, too. All must now be replaced with electric versions.

In a state that can't keep the electricity on.
Who is going to pay to replace all of that stuff? Pity the used equipment dealers, landscapers and hire plants. What about lumberjacks, are they expected to lug extension cables up trees? Are there power sockets spread around Californian forests? Not up on the details but Victor Davis Hanson frequently talks about water issues in Cali and how the environmental types push all of the burden onto the poor, leaving the coastal elite to enjoy their water while feeling virtuous about having done something about the environment. Wish I could say I don't envy you your lords and masters but I think we're worse off here.
While I don't think this bill is the cats meow, it only bans 2-stroke engines. You can still power up a 4-stroke small engine or electric. CARB (California Air Resources Board) has been a bitch for awhile for industry in trying to keep equipment up to thier ever changing mandates. I think we are on Tier 4 for diesel engines.

You are correct in that all these updates adversely affect those who cannot afford to keep up, buisnesses and people.

Matt should be ok though, no one is coming out to his land and issuing citations any time that I can forsee. Heck my town banned gas powered lanscaping equipment awhile ago, but you still see neighbors with gas blowers. It comes down to us other neighbors to rat them out and I don't think that happens.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:36 am
by fafnir
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: The internet?
Maybe. I'm really not sure how much it changes. Only a tiny number of people are redpilled in a way that requires the vast information resources of the Internet. Is the median person more informed about illusion breaking knowledge than they were 50 years ago? The system is certainly more informed about who is a potential dissident, what they are thinking and who they a talking to than ever before. How far would 1776 have got if the medium in which their social interactions took place was in the hands of the British and they'd been able to monitor it and infiltrate it in real time?
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Political poalrisation?
Are we uniquely polarised? Maybe. I'm trying to think of an example of political polarisation within a country where one side controlled all the political and cultural institutions as well as the top brass of the army, and the other didn't and it was the weaker side that won without help from a foreign power.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: It's one thing to cow individuals or small groups who feel isolated but when enough people know that they have friends and the treatment meted out to them becomes sufficiently unjust and plain to see there is the possibility of change.
Maybe like with the enclosure act in Britain? Is there an example of the enitire establishment of a country being in favour of a policy and losing to the disgruntled peasantry? Even with the French revolution, it was originally disgruntled elites rebelling against the King.
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: The bigot charge has been so overplayed now that more extreme measures are necessary. like declaring people domestic terrorists and setting the FBI on them.
Maybe you are right, we will see. I just can't think of a historical example where our side comes out on top of this.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:31 pm
by Matt Cavanaugh
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Who is going to pay to replace all of that stuff? Pity the used equipment dealers, landscapers and hire plants. What about lumberjacks, are they expected to lug extension cables up trees? Are there power sockets spread around Californian forests?
The state has set aside $30 million to help professional landscapers and gardeners make the transition from gas-powered equipment to zero-emission equipment, but an industry representative said that’s woefully inadequate for the estimated 50,000 small businesses that will be affected by the law.

Andrew Bray, vice president of government relations for the National Assn. of Landscape Professionals, said the zero-emission commercial-grade equipment landscapers use is also prohibitively expensive and less efficient than the existing gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers and other small machinery. For example, a gas-powered commercial riding lawn mower costs $7,000 to $11,000, but its zero-emission equivalent costs more than twice that amount, he said.

Another major expense will be batteries. Bray said a three-person landscaping crew will need to carry 30 to 40 fully charged batteries to power its equipment during a full day’s work.

“These companies are going to have to completely retrofit their entire workshops to be able to handle this massive change in voltage so they’re going to be charged every day,” Bray said.
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... af-blowers


If they really cared about reducing emissions, they'd end the smog check exemptions for all those 1973 Ford pickups the wetback landscapers drive.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:55 pm
by Matt Cavanaugh
Stankeye wrote:
While I don't think this bill is the cats meow, it only bans 2-stroke engines. You can still power up a 4-stroke small engine or electric. CARB (California Air Resources Board) has been a bitch for awhile for industry in trying to keep equipment up to thier ever changing mandates. I think we are on Tier 4 for diesel engines.

You are correct in that all these updates adversely affect those who cannot afford to keep up, buisnesses and people.

Matt should be ok though, no one is coming out to his land and issuing citations any time that I can forsee. Heck my town banned gas powered lanscaping equipment awhile ago, but you still see neighbors with gas blowers. It comes down to us other neighbors to rat them out and I don't think that happens.
CARB are more detached from reality than Hitler was when Hitler was ordering counterattacks from his bunker in April of '45.

The law only bans the sale of new gas-powered equipment. So prices will soar just like with the ban on new handguns. Or, we'll just drive to Reno or Needles to buy them.

Everyone I know has a gas generator as a backup, which everyone I know needs cuz PG&E does blackouts all fire season cuz our governor didn't force PG&E to upgrade their faulty lines that start all the fires. Then there are the FlexTime blackouts, cuz we don't have enough electricity to go around in general.

I have a dual gas/propane generator, and my GF has one of those monster propane generators that automatically kicks in and can run the entire house. But lefty towns like Berkeley have already banned propane, so surely the entire mentally ill state will soon, too.

I need my generator for electricity when the sun isn't shining, and my chainsaws and splitter to cut wood to heat my house. If anyone ever came to confiscate them, I'd just shoot them.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:55 pm
by Stankeye
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Who is going to pay to replace all of that stuff? Pity the used equipment dealers, landscapers and hire plants. What about lumberjacks, are they expected to lug extension cables up trees? Are there power sockets spread around Californian forests?
The state has set aside $30 million to help professional landscapers and gardeners make the transition from gas-powered equipment to zero-emission equipment, but an industry representative said that’s woefully inadequate for the estimated 50,000 small businesses that will be affected by the law.

Andrew Bray, vice president of government relations for the National Assn. of Landscape Professionals, said the zero-emission commercial-grade equipment landscapers use is also prohibitively expensive and less efficient than the existing gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers and other small machinery. For example, a gas-powered commercial riding lawn mower costs $7,000 to $11,000, but its zero-emission equivalent costs more than twice that amount, he said.

Another major expense will be batteries. Bray said a three-person landscaping crew will need to carry 30 to 40 fully charged batteries to power its equipment during a full day’s work.

“These companies are going to have to completely retrofit their entire workshops to be able to handle this massive change in voltage so they’re going to be charged every day,” Bray said.
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... af-blowers


If they really cared about reducing emissions, they'd end the smog check exemptions for all those 1973 Ford pickups the wetback landscapers drive.
So you can't even buy a 4-stroke machine? I can't read the paywalled LATimes article. I thought it was just outlawing of 2-stroke machines.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:11 pm
by Stankeye
The Hill and the Bill itesslf both state small off-road engines. Reading CARB, they do not state that means 2-stroke, which I had assumed.

More spoons are required, until then....Rabble - Rabble - Rabble

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:51 pm
by Service Dog
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: If anyone ever came to confiscate them, I'd just shoot them.
Fortunately-- for the next step-- Harbor Freight sells an Electric Wood Chipper.

And it has all the features & functionality of a gasoline-powered wood chipper. I do mean ALL...


Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:11 pm
by Matt Cavanaugh
Stankeye wrote: So you can't even buy a 4-stroke machine? I can't read the paywalled LATimes article. I thought it was just outlawing of 2-stroke machines.
For some odd reason, the paywall fell for me. Maybe I'm Haitian.


California moves toward ban on gas lawn mowers and leaf blowers

California will outlaw the sale of new gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers and chain saws as early as 2024 under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
BY PHIL WILLONSTAFF WRITER
OCT. 9, 2021 6:32 PM PT
SACRAMENTO — California will outlaw the sale of new gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers and chain saws as early as 2024 under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday.
The law requires all newly sold small-motor equipment primarily used for landscaping to be zero-emission — essentially to be battery-operated or plug-in — by that target date or as soon as the California Air Resources Board determined it is feasible. New portable gas-powered generators also must be zero-emission by 2028, which also could be delayed at the discretion of the state agency.

Machinery with so-called small off-road engines also includes chain saws, weed trimmers and golf carts, all of which create as much smog-causing pollution in California as light-duty passenger cars, and reducing those emissions is pivotal to improving air quality and combating climate change, proponents of the law said.

“It’s amazing how people react when they learn how much this equipment pollutes, and how much smog-forming and climate-changing emissions that small off-road engine equipment creates,” said Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), author of the legislation. “This is a pretty modest approach to trying to limit the massive amounts of pollution that this equipment emits, not to mention the health impact on the workers who are using it constantly.”

Berman said the state has set aside $30 million to help professional landscapers and gardeners make the transition from gas-powered equipment to zero-emission equipment, but an industry representative said that’s woefully inadequate for the estimated 50,000 small businesses that will be affected by the law.

Andrew Bray, vice president of government relations for the National Assn. of Landscape Professionals, said the zero-emission commercial-grade equipment landscapers use is also prohibitively expensive and less efficient than the existing gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers and other small machinery. For example, a gas-powered commercial riding lawn mower costs $7,000 to $11,000, but its zero-emission equivalent costs more than twice that amount, he said.

Another major expense will be batteries. Bray said a three-person landscaping crew will need to carry 30 to 40 fully charged batteries to power its equipment during a full day’s work.

“These companies are going to have to completely retrofit their entire workshops to be able to handle this massive change in voltage so they’re going to be charged every day,” Bray said.

Berman said the move to zero-emission landscaping equipment already is underway, especially among the vast majority of property owners who can mow their lawns and trim hedges on a single battery charge. Cities and universities have also started to make the transition, he said. Berman also emphasized that gas-powered equipment purchased before the deadlines can still be used, by both property owners and professional landscapers.

The legislation was opposed by Republican lawmakers, as well as some Democrats, who expressed concern about residents in rural areas — especially when it comes to the state requirement that portable generators be zero-emission.

In recent years, California has had widespread blackouts in the peak of the wildfire season when high winds sweep through the state, mostly because utilities are trying to prevent a downed power line from starting a blaze. Because of that, Sen. Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) said banning gas-powered generators makes no sense.

“This Legislature hates fuel, which is very sustainable. It’s easy to access. And when the power is off, you can still use it. You can still run a generator to keep your freezer going, to keep your medical devices going. But when your battery’s dead and there’s no power on, you have nothing,” Dahle said.

Berman said those concerns are being taken into account, and the law specifically requires the California Air Resources Board to adjust the restrictions on generators based on their “expected availability” of that equipment on the commercial and retail market.

The new law applies to any engine that produces less than 25 gross horsepower, including lawn mowers, weed trimmers, chain saws, golf carts, specialty vehicles, generators and pumps. It does not apply to on-road motor vehicles, off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, boats, snowmobiles or model airplanes, cars or boats.

The California Air Resources Board has been drafting regulations mandating that small engines covered in the new law be zero-emission, and the board could enact those requirements before year’s end.

The agency began working on the regulations after Newsom issued an executive order in September 2020 that required the state to “transition to 100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible.”

In that same order, Newsom required all new cars sold to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035 and threw his support behind a ban on the controversial use of hydraulic fracturing by oil companies.
I have a 24 HP tractor -- don't know whether that's affected.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:51 pm
by Matt Cavanaugh
If you were wondering where all the flu deaths went last season ...

COVID-Deaths-May-2021.jpg
(102.71 KiB) Downloaded 117 times

https://justthenews.com/government/fede ... tatistical

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:30 am
by Brive1987
88% of the American population has some form of metabolic dysfunction. You are all co-morbid.

As, no doubt, are we.

Now here’s a study of more relevance …

COVID-19-associated hospitalizations among vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ≥18 years – COVID-NET, 13 states, January 1 – July 24, 2021

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262356v1

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:34 am
by Brive1987
Conclusion Population-based hospitalization rates show that unvaccinated adults aged ≥18 years are 17 times more likely to be hospitalized compared with vaccinated adults. Rates are far higher in unvaccinated persons in all adult age groups, including during a period when the Delta variant was the predominant strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Vaccines continue to play a critical role in preventing serious COVID-19 illness and remain highly effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

Got to be honest though. I’ve never seen such a ridiculous log of CoI statements 😲🤣😂

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:55 am
by fafnir
Brive1987 wrote: Conclusion Population-based hospitalization rates show that unvaccinated adults aged ≥18 years are 17 times more likely to be hospitalized compared with vaccinated adults. Rates are far higher in unvaccinated persons in all adult age groups, including during a period when the Delta variant was the predominant strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Vaccines continue to play a critical role in preventing serious COVID-19 illness and remain highly effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations.”
That argument only works on people who thinks that their risk of being significantly harmed by the virus are significant. Those people are generally already vaccinated.

Reading through the document...
From January 1 – June 30, 2021, fully vaccinated cases increased from 1 (0.01%) to 321 (16.1%) per month.
Well, yes... in January almost nobody was vaccinated. By July quite a lot of people were.
Among 4,732 sampled cases, fully vaccinated persons admitted with COVID-19 were older compared with unvaccinated persons (median age 73 years [Interquartile Range (IQR) 65-80] v. 59 years [IQR 48-70]; p<0.001), more likely to have 3 or more underlying medical conditions (201 (70.8%) v. 2,305 (56.1%), respectively; p<0.001) and be residents of long-term care facilities [37 (14.5%) v. 146 (5.5%), respectively; p<0.001].
Again, isn't this what one would expect based on who was getting vaccinated first?

I'm not sure how to interpret their conclusion about 17x more unvaxed people being hospitalised given that the unvaxed people skew towards the earlier period when most people were unvaccinated and we were looking at the pre-delta strains where as the vax skewed data will be delta strains. I think this is somewhat born out when they say that from June - July it was 10x more hospitalisations.

Beyond that, a lot of the interpretation comes down to how they are testing and coding the cases. I've certainly seen it claimed that there is routine testing of unvaxed people and a lack of testing in vaxed people in hospitals. Out of hospitals, do vaxed and unvaxed get tested at the same rate? I don't see how you can get a reliable numbers for comparison out of this.

Honestly, I'm not sure that this is how you would design a study to answer the question being asked.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:04 am
by fafnir
Brive1987 wrote: 88% of the American population has some form of metabolic dysfunction. You are all co-morbid.
That claim is that only 12% of American's are *optimally* healthy. Is lack of optimal health in some respect the same thing as a comorbidity? When people are saying obesity is a risk factor in covid, I don't think they mean that "he could have afforded to lose an inch off his waist" should be listed on a death certificate.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:32 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
fafnir wrote: ... a lot of the interpretation comes down to how they are testing and coding the cases. I've certainly seen it claimed that there is routine testing of unvaxed people and a lack of testing in vaxed people in hospitals. Out of hospitals, do vaxed and unvaxed get tested at the same rate? I don't see how you can get a reliable numbers for comparison out of this.

Honestly, I'm not sure that this is how you would design a study to answer the question being asked.
Several years back, I dated a gal who was studying to become a coder. I'd never heard of the position before, but it's quite influential on the business, insurance, compensation, and compliance end. All indications are, coders were strongly pressured -- dictated, even -- to code practically everything as covid. No surprise, when hospitals were receiving cash bonuses for each covid case.

The covid death toll is obviously grossly inflated. But even conceding that covid may have accelerated or contributed to many of the deaths that rightly should've been coded for something else, the departed were, and continue to be, overwhelmingly elderly. This fact is obstinately ignored in all the fear-mongering and demands for universal vaxxing of healthy young people.

As for testing, it also went unacknowledged that if you push for more testing, you will perforce end up with more positive tests (known in Covidian Newspeak as 'cases'.)

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:01 am
by fafnir
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: As for testing, it also went unacknowledged that if you push for more testing, you will perforce end up with more positive tests (known in Covidian Newspeak as 'cases'.)
Do you remember when Trump pointed that out and the reaction was "what a moron, he thinks you can make the pandemic go away by just not testing for it!!!!!"

What good reason is there for not normalizing the graphs, at least occasionally, by the number of tests?

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:01 pm
by Matt Cavanaugh
Co-author of Great Barrington Declaration slams back at dishonest attacks:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cov ... fic-debate

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:02 pm
by Lsuoma
So, do sceptics feel that this is fake news?

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... es-deaths/

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:41 pm
by Service Dog
Lsuoma wrote: So, do sceptics feel that this is fake news?

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... es-deaths/

Looks legit to me. Seems to match things I've posted-- such as the Oxford doctor who headed the AstraZeneca team-- saying the vax had failed & UK policy should shift to coping with Covid as a fait accompli.

It even matches the 'Doctor of Functional Medicine' who warned that 'animal reservoirs' of Covid would circumvent even the most-perfect effort to vaccinate humans. https://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... al#p504417

From Lsuoma's link:
"Health experts have long argued that if the state’s and/or the nation’s vaccination rate did not reach a high enough level, COVID-19 would become endemic, meaning it would be regularly found and not eradicated. On Tuesday, Dr. Steven Nemerson, chief clinical officer at Saint Alphonsus Health System, told reporters at a Health and Welfare briefing that the virus is here to stay.
“Today I’m here to tell you that we’ve lost the war,” Nemerson said. “The reason it is here to stay is because we cannot vaccinate enough of the public to fully eradicate the disease. And absent being able to do that … we now need to move into the phase of recognizing that COVID is going to be a disease to be managed for the long-term future.”

I'm curious what Lsuoma thinks this article says... what point it proves? Does Lsuoma think the article is true only-of low-vax-rate Idaho... and there's some vaccinated paradise somewhere-else... where a local population eradicated Covid via high-enough vax rate?

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:23 pm
by Matt Cavanaugh
We've been upgraded from conspiracy theorists to skeptics?
Health experts have long argued that if the state’s and/or the nation’s vaccination rate did not reach a high enough level, COVID-19 would become endemic….
No, it was only recently that vaccination became the only regime-approved path to herd immunity. Previously, naturally-acquired antibodies had always been part of the solution.

For three straight weeks, the state’s test positivity rate has declined slightly,
So covid is fading all on its own, despite those uncivilized Idahoans refusing the jab?

although it remains very high, at 14.6%, for the week of Sept. 26. Anything above 5% is problematic.
Why is that ‘problematic’? 100% positive would be awesome, as that’d mean everyone had antibodies and bye bye Wuhan Flu.

Fourteen of the deaths were individuals younger than 70.
So, like, 69? 68? Please, no, God, not some 47yo, 425 lb whippersnapper in the prime rib of his life who trusted in horse goo then succumbed to covid and clogged arteries and diabetes and Marlboro lights and chicken fried steak !

The state has recorded a total of 3,157 deaths and 270,600 cases since the pandemic began.
For a CFR of 0.01167. 0.17% of the population. The Gem State Holodomor.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:53 pm
by Keating
I don't think there's any driving WuFlu to elimination; I doubt that was ever an option. It's going to settle down and become similar to influenza or the common cold once enough people have been exposed to it (or been vaccinated). A background virus that takes people out occasionally for a week or two, and then goes away, but not something you ever really avoid or prevent reinfection of. The sooner we accept that the better. Part of the reason that all the measures we've been taking are likely to be doing more harm than good.

We also have no idea of the background systems we're fucking with. The massive spikes of RSV out of season all over the world, for example, is a concern in what it could imply about other background diseases as we start winding down the measures and opening borders again.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 pm
by Brive1987
fafnir wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: 88% of the American population has some form of metabolic dysfunction. You are all co-morbid.
That claim is that only 12% of American's are *optimally* healthy. Is lack of optimal health in some respect the same thing as a comorbidity? When people are saying obesity is a risk factor in covid, I don't think they mean that "he could have afforded to lose an inch off his waist" should be listed on a death certificate.
The paper’s actual conclusion was:
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
This predates COVID.

But I’m sure some on this Board have a far more informed opinion on this study than it’s authors do.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/met.2018.0105

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:09 pm
by Brive1987

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:10 pm
by Service Dog
Today GF & I packed 42 gift boxes in a New Jersey warehouse, promoting a Credit Card company. Chocolate bars, cookbook, charcuterie board, bookbag, packing peanuts. Not rocket science. Arrived at a leisurely 9:20 am (the 1 hour/$100-each-way Uber commute is re-imbursed/ but not paid time. so fuck it.) Was done by noon... except the client didn't give 'final approval' on their own list of recipient names... until 4:30pm. And the just-outta-college manager girl onsite didn't have the sense to cut me & gf loose early... then wait-to slap the shipping stickers on by herself. Before her 2 hour drive home to mommy & daddy's house in Connecticut. Fortunately, she-and-the-bosses also don't have the sense to hire the 5 Mexican woman across-the-warehouse... doing similar work for some other client/ efficiently/ for a fraction of my rate.

--

Tomorrow-- different employer. Hired by the fatlady I wrote about recently. Also promoting a different credit card company. It's one of those feminist-empowerment business motivational event thingies... with lots of pink and sparkly logos... and breaks for rose-ay wine... and zero useful content for profiting in business. "Run a business you can advertise by being you"

I've got a bad vibes feeling about tomorrow. I'm trying to psyche myself up to get thru it. I agreed to work 12 hours for $450/ before overtime... but they weasel-worded the email to imply I was committed for 13&1/2 hours with no overtime.

I recently heard a podcaster say, "The government and international health organizations have shown they're incapable of communicating or acting in a non-coercive manner." Not to mention-- demoralizing. And that popped into my head today as I read the fatlady's when&where email. It was written like I was being scolded. I think she & they really-can't imagine -why- it would be a better idea to speak to us like someone you want-something-from... who has the option of saying-no.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:54 am
by zou3gou3
There was a link on www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ to www.reddit.com/r/nursing/comments/q10v4 ... peace_out/
I found the thread well worth reading.
Ok we just had to lavage a Covid ecmo patient for maggots in their nose & mouth. I think this means we can all officially peace out. I wish these anti-vax folks would come see this shit and realize yeah we can keep you alive a long time but you are literally rotting to death. Excuse my while I go hurl.
Today:
This is a PSA to all non medical lurkers. We can’t. We just fucking CANT anymore. When you beg me to kill you if I wake & wean sedation it crushes me. Sucking maggots out of your living body? No. Consoling your 15 year old who is left orphaned? No. Turning and cleaning and positioning you every 2 hours even though it hurts you so I don’t cause bedsores is killing me. Shoving rectal tubes in you because your literal ass is falling off from Covid poop is too much. Everything we do to you is so gross and so pointless all for a damn shot.

Just get fucking vaccinated. Please. Real talk. I’m begging on my hands and knees. We just CANT anymore. I’m just a nurse, standing in front of people, trying her hardest. I HATE to make it about me cause I’m not the one rotting to death but fuck. I booked my Airbnb and I’m literally just gonna hand people my credit card and say “charge it” so I can take pics of my sunburned feet to send home so hubs knows I’m still alive. I literally can’t do anything anymore but stand like an open mouthed guppy while people pour food and drink down my throat. 2 goddamn years of this utter shit show is ENOUGH.
Who'd be a nurse? Not me.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:47 am
by Keating
Isn’t that what you’d expect when the vast majority of patients are in their 70s, 80s and 90s?

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:20 am
by fafnir
Brive1987 wrote: The paper’s actual conclusion was:
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
It's talking about people not being optimal, and low risk groups. If you look at the whole population, I'm sure adding another inch to the average waist size would have consequences for health outcomes. That said if you start saying that being in a "low risk group" means you have "comorbidities" then you have changed the definition of either "low risk group" or "comorbidities". I do not accept that 88% of the US population have comorbidities in any useful sense.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:22 am
by fafnir
Damn stinking quote fail!!!
fafnir wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: The paper’s actual conclusion was:
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
It's talking about people not being optimal, and low risk groups. If you look at the whole population, I'm sure adding another inch to the average waist size would have consequences for health outcomes. That said if you start saying that being in a "low risk group" means you have "comorbidities" then you have changed the definition of either "low risk group" or "comorbidities". I do not accept that 88% of the US population have comorbidities in any useful sense.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:24 am
by fafnir
zou3gou3 wrote: There was a link on www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ to www.reddit.com/r/nursing/comments/q10v4 ... peace_out/
I found the thread well worth reading.
Ok we just had to lavage a Covid ecmo patient for maggots in their nose & mouth. I think this means we can all officially peace out. I wish these anti-vax folks would come see this shit and realize yeah we can keep you alive a long time but you are literally rotting to death. Excuse my while I go hurl.
Today:
This is a PSA to all non medical lurkers. We can’t. We just fucking CANT anymore. When you beg me to kill you if I wake & wean sedation it crushes me. Sucking maggots out of your living body? No. Consoling your 15 year old who is left orphaned? No. Turning and cleaning and positioning you every 2 hours even though it hurts you so I don’t cause bedsores is killing me. Shoving rectal tubes in you because your literal ass is falling off from Covid poop is too much. Everything we do to you is so gross and so pointless all for a damn shot.

Just get fucking vaccinated. Please. Real talk. I’m begging on my hands and knees. We just CANT anymore. I’m just a nurse, standing in front of people, trying her hardest. I HATE to make it about me cause I’m not the one rotting to death but fuck. I booked my Airbnb and I’m literally just gonna hand people my credit card and say “charge it” so I can take pics of my sunburned feet to send home so hubs knows I’m still alive. I literally can’t do anything anymore but stand like an open mouthed guppy while people pour food and drink down my throat. 2 goddamn years of this utter shit show is ENOUGH.
Who'd be a nurse? Not me.
They should give Elyse's husband a call. This reads like a good day for him, back when I used to follow along. If anybody has long since dealt with any feelings of shame and disgust that come with shoving a tube up somebody's ass, it's him.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:12 am
by Brive1987


These people are not the enemy.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:17 am
by fafnir
Brive1987 wrote:

These people are not the enemy.
The one in the middle is kind of butch looking.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:22 am
by Brive1987
fafnir wrote: Damn stinking quote fail!!!
fafnir wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: The paper’s actual conclusion was:
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
It's talking about people not being optimal, and low risk groups. If you look at the whole population, I'm sure adding another inch to the average waist size would have consequences for health outcomes. That said if you start saying that being in a "low risk group" means you have "comorbidities" then you have changed the definition of either "low risk group" or "comorbidities". I do not accept that 88% of the US population have comorbidities in any useful sense.
Well 72% are overweight with 42% obese.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/obesity/90142

Add in some skinny T2D, some non overlapping hypertension and some skinny-fat crossing of the fat-threshold into heart stopping visceral country and we’d be pretty close to a SAD story.

If pushed p, we could test for underlying insulin resistance and fatty liver.

Of course, as with medically “acceptable” - AKA median - target ranges, “comorbidity” is increasingly post-modern in nature.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:04 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
fafnir wrote: Damn stinking quote fail!!!
fafnir wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: The paper’s actual conclusion was:
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
It's talking about people not being optimal, and low risk groups. If you look at the whole population, I'm sure adding another inch to the average waist size would have consequences for health outcomes. That said if you start saying that being in a "low risk group" means you have "comorbidities" then you have changed the definition of either "low risk group" or "comorbidities". I do not accept that 88% of the US population have comorbidities in any useful sense.
The paper:
Methods: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2016 were analyzed (n = 8721). Using the most recent guidelines, metabolic health was defined as having optimal levels of waist circumference (WC <102/88 cm for men/women), glucose (fasting glucose <100 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c <5.7%), blood pressure (systolic <120 and diastolic <80 mmHg), triglycerides (<150 mg/dL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≥40/50 mg/dL for men/women), and not taking any related medication.
I'm a tad below the waist size; a bit over the BP and have been my entire life. I don't know what the other things are, much less how to calculate them. Yippee! I'm in mortal peril.

(Won't even get into how stupid a universal waist metric is, for a nation filled with everyone from Hmong to Polynesians and in between. Or how divorced from reality all-or-nothing thresholds are.)


I found a few definitions for morbid obesity: either a BMI of >35 plus >100% ideal body weight, or 80 to 100 lbs above ideal body weight.

My BMI hovers around 30. An online calculator gave my ideal weight as 165 lbs - 178 lbs depending on "popular formulas". Which is a joke, as I'm swole, and couldn't do chores that scrawny. Although for sedentary gimps like Becky's cuck, BMI >35 and an extra six stone would be bad.

Anyway, setting aside the triglyceride-shaming of a couple of out-of-touch academics, we may conclude: given how not 88%, but rather a tiny fraction of a percent, of Americans under age 65 have fallen seriously ill or died from covid, only the veritable, wheezing blimps can be said to have a significant, risk-enhancing comorbidity.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:08 am
by fafnir
Given how few 20 year olds are dropping dead from covid, given the prevalence of non-optimal weight..... on it's own, being "overweight" is clearly not a significant comorbidity. Looking like Bruce Vilanch on the other hand.....

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:13 am
by MarcusAu
fafnir wrote: Given how few 20 year olds are dropping dead from covid, given the prevalence of non-optimal weight..... on it's own, being "overweight" is clearly not a significant comorbidity. Looking like Bruce Vilanch on the other hand.....
Muppet.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:15 am
by Brive1987
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
fafnir wrote: Damn stinking quote fail!!!
fafnir wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: The paper’s actual conclusion was:
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
It's talking about people not being optimal, and low risk groups. If you look at the whole population, I'm sure adding another inch to the average waist size would have consequences for health outcomes. That said if you start saying that being in a "low risk group" means you have "comorbidities" then you have changed the definition of either "low risk group" or "comorbidities". I do not accept that 88% of the US population have comorbidities in any useful sense.
The paper:
Methods: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2016 were analyzed (n = 8721). Using the most recent guidelines, metabolic health was defined as having optimal levels of waist circumference (WC <102/88 cm for men/women), glucose (fasting glucose <100 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c <5.7%), blood pressure (systolic <120 and diastolic <80 mmHg), triglycerides (<150 mg/dL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≥40/50 mg/dL for men/women), and not taking any related medication.
I'm a tad below the waist size; a bit over the BP and have been my entire life. I don't know what the other things are, much less how to calculate them. Yippee! I'm in mortal peril.

(Won't even get into how stupid a universal waist metric is, for a nation filled with everyone from Hmong to Polynesians and in between. Or how divorced from reality all-or-nothing thresholds are.)


I found a few definitions for morbid obesity: either a BMI of >35 plus >100% ideal body weight, or 80 to 100 lbs above ideal body weight.

My BMI hovers around 30. An online calculator gave my ideal weight as 165 lbs - 178 lbs depending on "popular formulas". Which is a joke, as I'm swole, and couldn't do chores that scrawny. Although for sedentary gimps like Becky's cuck, BMI >35 and an extra six stone would be bad.

Anyway, setting aside the triglyceride-shaming of a couple of out-of-touch academics, we may conclude: given how not 88%, but rather a tiny fraction of a percent, of Americans under age 65 have fallen seriously ill or died from covid, only the veritable, wheezing blimps can be said to have a significant, risk-enhancing comorbidity.
Off the farm and away from the Shane-tree stumps … there’s very little evidence that America is anything but a chronically sick nation.

https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/what-ca ... ic-disease

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:17 am
by MarcusAu
Brive1987 wrote: <no Vid!>
Usually the evangelical approach is found wanting...

...literally...or perhaps not.

In any case you might appreciate the following to repeat back to you want you are already saying anyway


Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:20 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
Keating wrote: Isn’t that what you’d expect when the vast majority of patients are in their 70s, 80s and 90s?
Ages ago, I worked in the office of the Visiting Nurses. They'd invite me to join them for lunch. Which I rarely could finish because of their shop talk. There's one anecdote in particular about an elderly woman's catheter I'll never purge from my psyche.


What's turning my stomach right now is all this whining and bitching from healthcare workers. Obviously these diatribes are being collected and disseminated as agitprop, but they do reflect a preexisting sentiment of a certain percentage in the field. Supercilious nannies, who attend to the inferior masses not out of a desire to do good, but to demonstrate their superiority -- and, I suspect, as some cosmic moral quid pro quo.

Given that something like two-thirds of nurses are ... morbidly obese, they probably should shut the fuck up and get back to doing their job.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:31 am
by fafnir
Brive1987 wrote: Off the farm and away from the Shane-tree stumps … there’s very little evidence that America is anything but a chronically sick nation.

https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/what-ca ... ic-disease
Only if you talk about having non-optimal weight as a chronic disease. We are talking about comorbidities in death from covid. This is the same trick where in a debate on rape somebody uses stats based on a definition of sexual violence that includes use of gendered language.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:53 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
Brive1987 wrote: Off the farm and away from the Shane-tree stumps … there’s very little evidence that America is anything but a chronically sick nation.

https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/what-ca ... ic-disease
There's no denying that, by any measure, America is growing steadily less healthy overall. But your insinuation, that this general, chronic unhealthiness is a significant contributing factor to covid hospitalizations and deaths, is belied by the data.

Now, I have one big problem with that nobb's essay: he looks at everything in aggregate. He seems bemused how more than half of Americans exercise regularly, and six in ten eat 'healthy', yet six in ten still have chronic diseases. He seems to falsely assume that those chronic diseases are spread evenly throughout the population.

He should've broken it out by demographics.
- Age: for most of the chronic illnesses he mentions, cancer especially, onset tends to be later in life;

- Geo region: The Midwest and Delta South have the most obesity, both due to traditional diets. The Midwest, farmer's fare uff da still consumed by clerks and call center agents. The deep South, poverty food;

- Race: Put simply, a lot of black folks are really really fat. They either eat that horrible southern cuisine, or now junk food. Hispanics eat a lot of peasant food, and also are disproportionately overweight.

Until he accounts for these and other demographic factors, his conclusion, that 'healthy eating' must be redefined, cannot be accepted.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:53 am
by zou3gou3
Keating wrote: Isn’t that what you’d expect when the vast majority of patients are in their 70s, 80s and 90s?
In the USA, a third are in the 18 to 49 age bracket.
Covid1.png
(642.71 KiB) Downloaded 30 times

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:05 am
by MarcusAu
So is there anyone currently posting here that identifies as not Right of, not Centrist, but actually Left of Centre?

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:05 am
by Lsuoma
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Keating wrote: Isn’t that what you’d expect when the vast majority of patients are in their 70s, 80s and 90s?
Ages ago, I worked in the office of the Visiting Nurses. They'd invite me to join them for lunch. Which I rarely could finish because of their shop talk. There's one anecdote in particular about an elderly woman's catheter I'll never purge from my psyche.


What's turning my stomach right now is all this whining and bitching from healthcare workers. Obviously these diatribes are being collected and disseminated as agitprop, but they do reflect a preexisting sentiment of a certain percentage in the field. Supercilious nannies, who attend to the inferior masses not out of a desire to do good, but to demonstrate their superiority -- and, I suspect, as some cosmic moral quid pro quo.

Given that something like two-thirds of nurses are ... morbidly obese, they probably should shut the fuck up and get back to doing their job.
This post officially makes you a cunt. Cunt.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:28 am
by fafnir
MarcusAu wrote: So is there anyone currently posting here that identifies as not Right of, not Centrist, but actually Left of Centre?
What do you mean by Left and Right?

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:48 am
by fafnir
zou3gou3 wrote:
Keating wrote: Isn’t that what you’d expect when the vast majority of patients are in their 70s, 80s and 90s?
In the USA, a third are in the 18 to 49 age bracket.
Covid1.png
One objection to that graph is that it is based on raw numbers and you do not have the same number of people in each of those categories. It creates the false impression that the risk of hospitalisations are greater in the 18-49 bracket than the 65+ bracket. It's not as up to date, but I think this graph gives a different angle on the same data.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/112 ... te-by-age/

Having said that, I'm not sure what these graphs show. Are they graphs of people whose covid is so bad they were hospitalised, or people who were hospitalised and tested positive for covid?

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:10 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
MarcusAu wrote: So is there anyone currently posting here that identifies as not Right of, not Centrist, but actually Left of Centre?
I still place in the lower-left quadrant of the Political Compass.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:20 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
Lsuoma wrote: This post officially makes you a cunt. Cunt.
LMAO. For calling out nurses and doctors who hate their patients? They can all go fuck themselves. Or find another job if they don't like it -- the advice given to their unvaxxed colleagues. Or try to punch me in the nose, like another certain medical professional full of hate for his social inferiors. I seriously don't give a flying fuck about these assholes' feelies.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:42 am
by fafnir
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
MarcusAu wrote: So is there anyone currently posting here that identifies as not Right of, not Centrist, but actually Left of Centre?
I still place in the lower-left quadrant of the Political Compass.
The political compass test is weird. I mean questions like this:
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
Do some people disagree with this, or is it looking for people who are just answer the question based on who the good guy is? For me, my answer to most question is this is a dumb question, I disagree with the premise and I don't give a crap. I keep getting asked which of two positions I don't agree with am I willing to put my tick next to. That's not a test of your actual beliefs, that's a test of where you are least unwilling to be placed in their political model.

Take this one: "Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers." sure, they can have careers, I really don't know that I would say they have a duty.... having said that, I think the changes pushed by Feminism to move women away from that role has fucked society and made everybody unhappy. What answer to I pick. It's like it's written by normies who think Ben Shapiro is edgy.

"You cannot be moral without being religious." - how am I supposed to answer a question like that. It would take an essay. It's like they are trying to find out if I am an evangelical from the 90s.

For what little it's worth, I'm skewed a hair (-0.13) to the left and a couple of clicks (-1.74) towards libertarian. It's meaningless though, because I don't hold the framework for understanding the world that the test is based on.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:47 am
by zou3gou3
fafnir:
Having said that, I'm not sure what these graphs show. Are they graphs of people whose covid is so bad they were hospitalised, or people who were hospitalised and tested positive for covid?
In hospital (not necessarily ICU) for covid. Your chart is from Sept 2020 - pre-vaccine.
The risk of from covid definitely goes up with age, see www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid ... y-age.html
That's why I'm careful; >70 + COPD. Next holiday in Portugal where 98% are vaxxed.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:51 am
by fafnir
zou3gou3 wrote: That's why I'm careful; >70 + COPD. Next holiday in Portugal where 98% are vaxxed.
Sounds reasonable.

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:02 am
by John D
Just in case anyone has forgotten how the media works.