[quote user="Overmod"]
charlie hebdo Certain political figures appear to want to minimize the expert opinions for their own personal benefit. SAFETY FIRST!
That is very true, and I add the emphasis for agreement.
My problem is that there are many more figures, political and otherwise, who appear to want to maximize, or indeed overexaggerate or outright fake, actual 'expert opinions' for their own benefit ... be that personal, corporate, or otherwise.
(I would also mention that I have had considerable, firsthand experience with 'politically' related academic research in the biomedical sciences, and the variety of issues and problems produced thereby even by people with spotless technical credentials. I consequently remain firmly in the 'trust, but verify' group when it comes to science as reported in media or without hard documentation -- without requiring that anyone else share my opinions or even be persuaded by them.)
Some more evidence of those superior credentials:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/how-many-americans-have-been-tested-coronavirus/607597/
Of course some people will claim this is all Trump meddling, or something like that.
[/quote]
Just spent 4 days over in S.E. Kansas with my wife, her sister, and our annual 'Family Duty' exercise. Memorial Day, and placing flowers on our deceased family graves..... This year of course, it was a vastly different experience than normal; face masks, social distancing, and the like. Over there, not so much-face masks, but head nods to the other protocols. All exhibit a large amount of social frustration!
After reading some of the posts on this Thread, a lot of that 'social' frustration seems to rear its ugly head here. But I find one thing that I have to admit...For one time I am in agreement with not on Charlie Hebdo and Zugmann on both their noted positions...
I think that the major problem we are facing with this whole problematic situation, is not necessarily the science, but one of personal positions---AGENDAS!
Primarily, positions that have been politically weaponized... a form of social poisoning; to frame those individual agendas.
GrampThe Spanish Flu had three waves, the second being the deadliest. Primarily because of military troop movements. And how it got its name.
Actually, the Spanish Flu got it's name because the first newspapers to report about it were Spanish. Since World War One was in progress at the time papers in the warring countries were censored so news of the flu was surpressed, until it got too big to put a lid on. Spain, on the other hand, was a neutral so there wasn't any press censorship. The downside was Spain got stuck with the name, the disease hadn't originated in Spain at all.
For a very thorough review of vaccine progress and challenges, I recomend:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/26/1002191/how-show-a-coronavirus-vaccine-prevents-covid-19/?truid=95bb63d1e5ef40a3324ade71e31f9428&ut
BaltACD Remember medicine is a century more advanced now than it was for the flu of 1918-1920.
Remember medicine is a century more advanced now than it was for the flu of 1918-1920.
Heck, medicine is also a lot more advanced that say 1980 when the AIDS/HIV epidemic hit, took more than a decade to get past where an HIV positive diagnosis was effectively a death sentence. With SARS-CoV-2, the genome was sequenced shortly after the infection rate started getting serious in China, though it didn't help that China was lying about human to human transmission and the WHO was repeating those lies.
The Spanish Flu had three waves, the second being the deadliest. Primarily because of military troop movements. And how it got its name.
I hope the Israeli mathematician is correct in determining that Covid19 loses its punch after 8 weeks whether precautions have been taken or not.
Electroliner 1935 Erik_Mag tloc52 The flu does not kill more. Per the CDC for flu season 10/2019 to 3/2020 there were 64000 deaths. That's for a typical flu season, the 1918-1920 flu killed over 500,000 in the US alone. The Covid-19 is not done yet. We are only 3 or 4 months in depending on when you start.
Erik_Mag tloc52 The flu does not kill more. Per the CDC for flu season 10/2019 to 3/2020 there were 64000 deaths. That's for a typical flu season, the 1918-1920 flu killed over 500,000 in the US alone.
The Covid-19 is not done yet. We are only 3 or 4 months in depending on when you start.
100K dead in less than 4 months - some hoax.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Erik_Magtloc52 The flu does not kill more. Per the CDC for flu season 10/2019 to 3/2020 there were 64000 deaths. That's for a typical flu season, the 1918-1920 flu killed over 500,000 in the US alone.
Meet the new boss...
Convicted OneThat's me....the "Bleeding Edge" of contemporary culture.
We're proud of ya.
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
That's me....the "Bleeding Edge" of contemporary culture.
So sharp. I cut myself on the edge.
zugmannSo much edge.
Hey, anybody can be a cheerleader and root for the home team.
I've only got time to point out the things that need fixing.
So much edge.
I would argue that by not taking sides, I'm not subject to the pifalls of partisan politics, and therefore maintain objectivity and balance. Giving my observations a less tainted character than someone determined to draw lines in the sand, and play favorites.
**Deleted**
Not voting is illegal in Australia. I like that idea. If you don't vote, don't female dog about the outcome or how the country is run. You've taken yourself out of the process.
tloc52 The flu does not kill more. Per the CDC for flu season 10/2019 to 3/2020 there were 64000 deaths.
The flu does not kill more. Per the CDC for flu season 10/2019 to 3/2020 there were 64000 deaths.
That's for a typical flu season, the 1918-1920 flu killed over 500,000 in the US alone.
Voting is important on the state and local level as well.
The flu does not kill more. Per the CDC for flu season 10/2019 to 3/2020 there were 64000 deaths. Yes a terrible number. For Covid19, deaths from 2/2020 to today, just short of 100,000 most likely undercounted deaths and still growing.
As I tell my son-in-law who has never voted, you have no voice or opinion worth listening to if you cannot get out to vote. Voting is a right that 100,000 of folks have died to preserve. But, being a free choice country, it is your right not to. It's just a shame you don't.
TomO
charlie hebdo So although you are too lazy to actually vote, your belief in a fool who has presided over the deaths of 100,000 shows your true colors.
So although you are too lazy to actually vote, your belief in a fool who has presided over the deaths of 100,000 shows your true colors.
Considering that there is a factor of 100 in per capita death rates between the least affected and most affected states, it would be foolish to put the blame solely on the Oval Office.
It is VERY disheartening to see governors that have done a good job of managing the situation in their state getting raked over the coals while a governors who have done much poorer jobs get lionized. I'm also disgusted with news reports about beach opening that are illustrated with telephoto shots that make well spaced out crowds look tightly packed.
Flintlock76Like it was yesterday.
#fakenews
If people are immune-compromised they should just stay home and not in the nuclear blast! The flu kills more each year!
Convicted OneDo you remember seeing this one?
Like it was yesterday.
I knew right away what that link was for and I was right. Didn't Barry say that he'd end the war by doing this: "Declare victory and get the hell out of there!"
Flintlock76The friends were right. Mom and Dad voted for Goldwater, and we wound up with a war
LOL, fittingly true.
Do you remember seeing this one?
Convicted One.that no matter who I voted for there were always so many people telling me what a fool I was for voting for the wrong person.
I understand completely. My parents supported Barry Goldwater in 1964. Their friends told them "Vote for Barry Goldwater and we'll wind up with a war!"
The friends were right. Mom and Dad voted for Goldwater, and we wound up with a war.
Glad I'm not the only one to notice.
Convicted One Looking back on it all, I think the main reason that I quit voting was....that no matter who I voted for there were always so many people telling me what a fool I was for voting for the wrong person. So, after careful review I selected the only "one size fits all" remedy to shelter myself from all the predatory and mean spirited criticism.
Looking back on it all, I think the main reason that I quit voting was....that no matter who I voted for there were always so many people telling me what a fool I was for voting for the wrong person.
So, after careful review I selected the only "one size fits all" remedy to shelter myself from all the predatory and mean spirited criticism.
Ever the victim.
The Canadian system is much like Britain's. An election is called generally 3 weeks ahead, there are limits on spending and there are no PACs that I'm aware of. The day after the election, those lawn signs MUST disappear. Plus like Britain it's not a 2-party system as there are two major parties and two smaller parties that while small, still get candidates elected to parliament. Also, one thing I really like about the parlimentary system is the "vote of no confidence" something that the U.S. system does not have.
The Citizens United v FEC SCOTUS decision in 2010 had the effect of changing campaign finance rules from the level of funding of a garden hose to the level of funding of a 72 inch sewer line.
Convicted OneI believe that is because elections are more of a popularity contest than they are a measure of administrative prowess. In that sense, the people truly do get the government they deserve.
I completely agree. Yet consider this: It takes money to run for office and no matter how small one starts out, the cost to print yard signs, run ads, etc. is daunting. If it costs a bunch of money to run for school board or city council, what's the cost for higher offices, especially federal? The result is that candidates need insane amounts of cash...and where will they get that? Often it's from special interests. We know why.
I can't help but admire our British cousins in that in many elections and I think especially for Parliament, each candidate is given the same limit as to how much he or she can spend on getting elected. The campaigns are sharply limited to a certain period of time. Start early or spend a pound too much and a candidate is disqualified. Doesn't that sound appealing to Americans who are driven to distraction and no good purpose by constant electioneering and ever obscene amounts of money flooding the TV & radio stations and of course in social media?
One result is that to a large extent elections in Britain are often over ideas, not over who had so much cash they could bury their opponent. A second result is that lobbyists in Britain have much less power over candidates.
Whenever it comes to campaign and election reform, to limiting money and its influence in public life, and to increasing citizen participation in elections, guess which party is always stringently opposed?
One last thought: A number of my former students are serving the public as judges, board members, city councilpersons, etc. It bothers me to see some people smear all politicians as being corrupt or stupid, etc. They are not. Most are just ordinary folks doing a job society needs to have done.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.