Overmod charlie hebdo ...the speech style is more akin to an updated Wolf. I think only peripherally. Hitler put great care into his arguments and delivery, and was a master at evoking the kinds of emotion that would further his messages. Trump has repeatedly disparaged any idea of using rhetoric to actually further anything he wants -- if anything, he starts almost wheedling when that comes into play. He's also made, or at least tried to make, attempts by "the media" look like concerted attacks (and, technically, they usually are, which doesn't help the situation) -- that is not the priority that successful fascism generally puts on information control. Now, to people who just see an orator spitting and yelling and getting red in the face while trying to dominate a situation, then yes, Trump and Hitler would seem similar. If Trump actually adopts a manner of 'speechifying' that excites troglodytic tendencies in a racist proportion of his followers, again yes, you could rank him with some of the great demagogues. But personally I don't give him the credit for exploiting rhetoric knowingly, or as part of a managed agenda to assume more and more absolute power.
charlie hebdo ...the speech style is more akin to an updated Wolf.
I think only peripherally.
Hitler put great care into his arguments and delivery, and was a master at evoking the kinds of emotion that would further his messages. Trump has repeatedly disparaged any idea of using rhetoric to actually further anything he wants -- if anything, he starts almost wheedling when that comes into play. He's also made, or at least tried to make, attempts by "the media" look like concerted attacks (and, technically, they usually are, which doesn't help the situation) -- that is not the priority that successful fascism generally puts on information control.
Now, to people who just see an orator spitting and yelling and getting red in the face while trying to dominate a situation, then yes, Trump and Hitler would seem similar. If Trump actually adopts a manner of 'speechifying' that excites troglodytic tendencies in a racist proportion of his followers, again yes, you could rank him with some of the great demagogues. But personally I don't give him the credit for exploiting rhetoric knowingly, or as part of a managed agenda to assume more and more absolute power.
It's more covert than your view. Look at what Jung has to say about reaching people with communication (much more than the surface meanings of words; emotional tone and register are major factors). He attempts, although he is about as good at this as he is as a business leader- multiple bankruptcies). But the clock is ticking down to his end.
EuclidI think the reason he is not doing that is because it is not his intention.
charlie hebdoIt's more covert than your view. Look at what Jung has to say about reaching people with communication (much more than the surface meanings of words; emotional tone and register are major factors).
I'd more or less tacitly assumed that his behavior was much more an 'evolution' of the combination of bombast and influence that characterized his earlier careers. I had not thought he was receiving special training (as Bill Clinton notably did) in the various techniques of effective rhetorical manipulation -- in fact I'd expect him to think 'He' was above needing that Bene Gesserit stuff to prevail in this world of liars and sin.
And surely advice on riling up the perceived base would go hand in hand without advice on eschewing chronic sequential retrocranial inversion? Something Trump never seems to want to learn...
Frank Herbert was never on my bucket list nor are silly, trendy expressions.
charlie hebdo But the clock is ticking down to his end.
The 'clock' cannot tick fasr enough.
charlie hebdoFrank Herbert was never on my bucket list nor are silly, trendy expressions.
It's not a Frank Herbert fiction reference, it's an Apple Computer reference. And very 'on point' in this context. Were you as knowledgeable in the history of technology as you are opinionated about science fiction, you might have enjoyed the connotations.
(For what it's worth, I agree with you about much of Herbert's writing, and at least some of his 'popular' expressions.)
Touché!
Excerpted from The Times of Israel and www.jpost.com:
same saources:
daveklepper“It should be emphasized that this scientific achievement has the potential to progress towards a treatment for corona patients, and that it is not a vaccine for wide use.” .
It would help to know precisely the binding site on the virus for which the monoclonal antibody is specific, and more particularly how the complex precludes selective attachment of the virus to ACE2.
What this will do is permit the same thing as 'serum from recovered patients' would have done a century ago: allow B-cell incompetent patients the benefits of formed antibodies for subsequent viral binding and inactivation. The single great application here will be in early diagnosed infection of patients at risk of proceeding to ARDS; particularly if it blocks the selective affinity (and possibly triggered signaling) to form the enzyme/viral spike protein complex that facilitates the 40x greater infectiousness. This would probably be administered in a continuous drip style of IV, with appropriate monitoring for potential sensitivities. But it will be very important to start before symptoms of impending ARDS, such as fever, are manifest, or the patient has presented to health care in an already-debilitated state.
Now, if it is what it says it is -- it should be safe for 'prophylactic' administration, meaning that people at risk, but not actually testing positive for viral infection serologically, could have it administered to lower the chance of infection (the effect being the same, in a cellular sense, that would have been induced by a vaccine. The difference is that once the monoclonal antibodies have been flushed from circulation, the body will not 'make' more of them, or 'learn' to make them; there is in principle the risk that some part of the immune system will 'prime' on the antibody itself if administered in too high a concentration, or with the wrong constituents, or in the presence of certain immune-system activation or stimulation, and selectively become sensitized toward it. In these respects it might be desirable to co-administer a specific antiviral (such as 3CLpro or polymerase inhibitor) to ensure multiple arrest of the infection at a number of points.
May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people. I wonder if that's the same monoclonal antibody tested by the Dutch.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people. I wonder if that's the same monoclonal antibody tested by the Dutch.
It is coming down to an often realized saying. "The more we learn the less we realize we know." Here we are going into a stronger distancing until the health semi experts get a handle on covid-19. Certain that our politicians know less than nothing.
If this mutation actually is true then the spread of it will be disastorous to the location that it has originated.
What we as citizens need to do is work to get the USA back to operating as a coherent nation and not split over petty differences.
Overemod, more details are available on a continiuing basis on the WWw.jpost.com and Israel Times website.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people.
May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people.
I've seen more articles downplaying this story than supporting it. It's more common for viruses to mutate into milder forms as there are more chances for the virus to spread if it has a mild effect on the host.
In my opinion, this whole pandemic saga is about 10% news and 90% spin for a very sinister ulterior motive, which includes making the lockdown last until it destroys the economy under the pretext of saving lives. Any news about the virus mutating into something worse or coming back in a second wave is likely to be propaganda for the agenda. I am not convinced that any of the lockdown or distancing measures have saved one life or prevented any transmission.
I think your tinfoil hat is a little loose.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
EuclidAny news about the virus mutating into something worse or coming back in a second wave is likely to be propaganda for the agenda.
You need to separate those two very carefully.
At least some of the recent "reports" of virus mutation are definitely in the sinister-agenda 'spider eggs' sort of spin category. A credible report will involve (1) a proper and traceable sequence of the viral genome(s) involved; (2) a precise subsequence, or protein-folding discussion, that indicates where the supposed mutation has occurred and what effect it has on protein(s) produced, and (3) some molecular-docking analysis that shows where its supposed 'virulent' effect may be induced.
We no longer live in an age of mystery and 'get the serum to Nome' medicine. This work was done within the equivalent of two weeks' time by the Chinese and the CDC in the initial design of testing, and it could be done again in similar or shorter timeframe now.
I also think it is highly unlikely that mutation in SARS-CoV-2 necessarily makes it more virulent. This is not a situation as in bacteria where acquired resistance is a factor of selection in a rapidly-breeding population where features of life, like conjugation, are active. The present virulence is the consequence of likely no more than one or two of the eight point mutations observed in SARS-CoV-2; the 'difficulty' is more in that the virus collapses fully to a bad cold once the characteristics that spur progression to ARDS are absent ... and this is very likely in the mutation that selects for preferential binding and conformance to ACE2. The likelihood of this being 'affected' through subsequent point mutation is almost vanishingly slight, and further reduced by the necessity of said point mutation making the binding more 'effective' (in terms of whatever is triggering futile immune-system priming or chronic futile activation).
The second-wave issues are related to immune response, not viral characteristics. Again, this is not influenza, let alone something like AIDS, so while 'more data is required' on how infected-and-recovered populations express characteristics of historically-observed humoral immunity, we can expect the normal kinds of resistance to a coronaviral 'common cold' to apply here -- the difference being basically this: if the human immune response is to the spike protein that binds to ACE2, there will be no second wave; if it is to a different viral protein that subsequently shifts, you can expect a second wave of some sort in some populations. This is not rocket science to understand or learn.
I am not convinced that any of the lockdown or distancing measures have saved one life or prevented any transmission.
If you knew a shred of epidemiology you would have seen a demonstration right before your eyes, over the last couple of months. In fact, I expect there to be more object lessons for you, here and there, in the next few months as some of the more effective expedients come to be relaxed or ignored.
With the almost incredibly slipshod response most of the world put up to this infection, COVID-19 should have gone through the world population dramatically by now. (And the results would likely have followed the early predictions of the 'boomer remover'; there would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of elderly dead, terrible scenes of horror and pain in the death camps that are 'field hospitals', the anticipated debacle regarding ventilator shortages and home-brewed disaster replacements for them... after which the world would do more or less as it did in 1920, mourn the dead appropriately or not, pick up in a couple of years, and move on. Few segments of the economy would really miss large numbers of the retired for long; the effect on Social Security going upside-down might actually be pushed out some years past 2028. The worst of the nursing homes where the lion's share of the scourges would be observed would have to close ... after which, presumably, a new crop of cheap-profit exploitive operators would buy up the assets and start the same old business at the same old stands up again.
There are plenty of places to look for, and probably find, expedient combinations of conspiracy without dismissing SIP/SD entirely. It is even easier to find where aspects of 'feel-good' or political expediency factored into 'wrong' parts of the response -- of course, in my opinion 'tis better to fix them objectively than throw the various babies out with all the dirty water. The 'catch' is in distinguishing a child from a floating mass of turds, so to speak, which can be difficult for policymakers who have difficulty in seeing during retrocranial inversion.
Oh I don't doubt that second waves and mutations are possible. I am just referring how they may be used to extend the economic shutdown for a political agenda.
EuclidOh I don't doubt that second waves and mutations are possible. I am just referring how they may be used to extend the economic shutdown for a political agenda.
You're just proposing self-fulfilling procphecies?
If the measures taken were not neccesary, then you'll say so. If the measures taken have "flattened the curve", then you'll say they were unneccesary.
But let me ask you this: to what political agenda is shutting down the economy? If anything I think the big political agenda is to get the economy under some pretense of "pretend normal" in time for the elections coming up.
I hear that the President will soon release a report on how the virus escaped the P4 lab in Wuhan. There is a lot of confusion in the news about this lab origin theory. It is often framed as a dispute over whether the virus came from animal-to-human transmission at the wet market; versus whether it was created in the lab. This is being applied to the President by implying that he believes it was created in the lab. Actually, he has never claimed that. The issue is only whether the virus was accidentally released from the lab.
What the news seems to be misundstanding is that the virus did not need to be created in the lab to be in the lab. There has been plenty of news about the lab people goint out into caves to capture bats and bringing them back to the lab for coronavirus research. So an inadvertent spread from the lab may have been by the same animal-to-human transmission as would have occurred with a wet market origin.
The only evidence I have heard implicating the lab origin is from reports from people touring the lab in 2018, and reporting lax safety measures that were insufficient for the P4 rating.
zugmannBut let me ask you this: to what political agenda is shutting down the economy? If anything I think the big political agenda is to get the economy under some pretense of "pretend normal" in time for the elections coming up.
The agenda behind shutting down the economy is aimed at defeating the President in the coming election. And it is opposed to the counter agenda to getting the economy back to normal, as you say. This would be that so-called "roaring ecnonmy-- best economy the country has ever had."
I was never been convinced of that slogan. In my opinion, our economy has not roared in a long time. Actually, it has been limp since the housing bubble recession began. An economy with only 1-2% GDP growth is not roaring.
Then we put tariffs on China with the delusion that this pours money into the U.S. Treasury, when actually, it is pulling our economy down. Now comes the intentional shutdown of the economy. I suspet few people are aware of what it sure to come as the chickens come home to roost. A severe recession is inevitable. That means shortages like we have never imagined possible, a total lack of jobs, and very low pay for active jobs. With the incredible intertia of this trend, the low point may not arrive until next year.
The suffocation of the lockdowns will be replaced by oppression of the depression. People will need hobbies.
EuclidThe agenda behind shutting down the economy is aimed at defeating the President in the coming election.
If you really think it's that simple, I would feel sorry for you.
But since I think you are incapable of that level of incompetence, I will just write it off as you trying to start another long back and forth you are ,oh, so famous for.
zugmannBut let me ask you this: to what political agenda is shutting down the economy?
The $2 trillion in stimulus payments are a significant transfer of wealth, by any measure. I'm not saying that the virus was an intentional pretext. But it might have made a dandy diversion.
The $1,200 checks sent to joe lunchpail more or less as hushmoney, while more significant "assistance" is doled out with as little supervision as possible.
Just a theory.
zugmann Euclid The agenda behind shutting down the economy is aimed at defeating the President in the coming election. If you really think it's that simple, I would feel sorry for you. But since I think you are incapable of that level of incompetence, I will just write it off as you trying to start another long back and forth you are ,oh, so famous for.
Euclid The agenda behind shutting down the economy is aimed at defeating the President in the coming election.
Honestly, I think it's more of a social experiment to see how far we can take telecommuting, and whether businesses will need as large of a physical footprint as prior.
The $1200 checks will pail to the trillions we will be giving to the large business, but I'm sure you know that. But it's a handy diversion, as you said.
Here is something that is not simple. Cuomo says it's shocking:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html
Hey, who put up all these odd looking boxes with the antennas on them while we were in quarantine?
zugmannHonestly, I think it's more of a social experiment to see how far we can take telecommuting, and whether businesses will need as large of a physical footprint as prior.
This will be intersting to follow. I expect it will put the last nail in the coffin of "working from home." The news will pour in about how the work from home productivity is about 10% of what it would be if working at the workplace.
However, it may usher in a new idea of everybody working from home as independent contractors paid per task.
But regular employees are just too pampered with empowerment to turn loose to work at home.
I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management.
EuclidThis will be intersting to follow. I expect it will put the last nail in the coffin of "working from home." The news will pour in about how the work from home productivity is about 10% of what it would be if working at the workplace.
I think it will be the complete opposite. Stuff is getting done without 6 hours of meetings about meetings.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.