Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kepler
    replied
    I can understand what Handy is saying but I'm the opposite. I would happily work 100% remote again if I could. I am sheltering in place except when at work. I can very happily live here online with friends and then in person with my wife.

    I'm actually much happier than when I was expected to circulate.

    But (1) I don't expect everyone to live like this, (2) I was never big on other humans, and (3) I am old enough to have everything I need. I don't have to go out of the house to find love or company. If I was alone I would risk going out.
    Last edited by Kepler; 01-10-2022, 02:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by ericredaxe View Post
    "VAD, VAC or somewhere in between?":

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...shomon/621199/

    What the writer does not mention in this article is that sympathy for the unvaccinated is waning.
    I would say I am halfway between. I will live my life, but with precautions. I travelled to Mexico and wore a mask and took tests before I left and before I came home. I literally had to wear a mask for 8 straight hours when I came home between checking out of the hotel, ride to the airport, waiting for the flight, the flight and the Uber ride home. Didn't have an issue with it once. I will make those type of sacrifices to keep others safe and live a normal life.

    But I am 100% against what some seem to think is necessary. I don't want to shelter in place again. I don't want to not associate with others. (well not any less than normal ;^) ) I don't want the economy to shut down again and all manner of business that aren't deemed essential to be forced to close. The whole point of pushing for the vaccine was to not have to do that again. I totally get why someone might choose to do that or say in the case of someone whose family is it at risk advocates those closest to them do it but as long as the population at large has the ability to keep others safe and we can take precautions then we should not have to take two steps back. I know that sounds selfish, part of me hates saying that, but in truth because I know how easy it is to do things the right way and be safe now as opposed to 2 years ago I just dont feel the urge to go hermit on the bit again. I would choose to though if someone was at risk I just think that should be my choice to make.

    Swansong,

    If a variant hit that spread like Omicron and killed like Delta...I mean that would be something out of the game Pandemic. It would be a disaster on a level I don't think people even realize. It would be like a bad movie...

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by rufus View Post
    Better would be "that is its life's purpose"
    That's not even true, though. It's like saying "the purpose of this river is to run downhill."

    Nothing natural is "for" anything. Things merely are. Only artifacts designed by man have purpose, because purpose is only between our ears.
    Last edited by Kepler; 01-10-2022, 02:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ericredaxe
    replied
    "VAD, VAC or somewhere in between?":

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...shomon/621199/

    What the writer does not mention in this article is that sympathy for the unvaccinated is waning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drew S.
    replied
    Not good: https://insidemedicine.bulletin.com/...eem-to-differ/

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    Better would be "that is its life's purpose"

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Pet peeve: there is NO purpose for a virus (nor a human, but that’s better left for the philosophy thread). Those that replicate well are prevalent; those that don’t, aren’t. Is or is not, not wants or wants not.

    I get the seductiveness of the terminology, but I think it does more harm than good when it comes to informing the ignorant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Swansong View Post
    As you mention, the sole purpose of a virus is to make more of itself (hey... that kind of sounds like...)
    I believe the Wachowski sisters made the same point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    I would think every virus would be aiming for highest transmissibility, lowest lethality. All it wants is to reproduce, and that gives it its maximum spread. Like the common cold, it just can go on forever -- the perfect adaptation. It even becomes symbiotic because it gets us out of work.
    The best reading of this I've found is to think of viral mutations as a car, filled with people. In this car, the infectiousness is the driver. Period. Anything else is a passenger. Now, passengers can affect the driver. Crazy high severity/lethality will negatively impact spread (a dead person will infect fewer others than a live person). But pure Darwinism says that all other factors come for the ride, have a bit of a say in the destination, but the infectiousness is, in the end, the driver. As you mention, the sole purpose of a virus is to make more of itself (hey... that kind of sounds like...)

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    I found it on Kos. Web search says it from the NY Dept. of Health and Mental Welfare.

    Also shows that the number of vaccinated people hospitalized has remained relatively constant, while the unvaccinated is experiencing explosive growth. And I will wager that those vaccinated who have been hospitalized are ones with the highest risk factors for Covid, the elderly, cancer patients, or other pre-existing comorbidities that leave them especially vulnerable.
    Last edited by rufus; 01-10-2022, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    The wisdom of the free market.
    I think Amazon and Walmart did the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    I would think every virus would be aiming for highest transmissibility, lowest lethality. All it wants is to reproduce, and that gives it its maximum spread. Like the common cold, it just can go on forever -- the perfect adaptation. It even becomes symbiotic because it gets us out of work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

    Could it be just be a person with both viruses?
    "Both" = the same virus.

    I don't know, phisiologically, if you can be infected with two strains/variants of the same virus at the same time. Perhaps one of our clinical folks might know?


    It could be a lab error, as no one else is reporting it and several are pointing out methodological flaws. It could be a person who was infected with both at the same time and they mutated together, but usually mutations come from a single virus and follow a single lineage.


    A new variant with the infectiousness of omicron but the severity of Delta/previous would be... bad...

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Could it be just be a person with both viruses?

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post

    What’s the point of it than?
    To actually convey some useful information rather than obfuscate by looking at percentage of hospitalized people who are vaccinated. Since you really seem to be this dense:

    Imagine that there was only 1 unvaccinated person in all of the US, and he is not hospitalized due to COVID. Then 100% of the people in the hospital due to COVID are vaccinated. Does that tell you ANYTHING about the effectiveness of the vaccine? No, it does not. Maybe there's only 1 of out of the 320M vaccinated people in the hospital - if so, then that's a pretty darn effective vaccine. But if there are millions, then maybe the vaccine isn't so good. Either way, it's still true that 100% of hospitalized are vaccinated.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X