Yes great. But I still insist there’s two separate problems. Firstly yes you’re raping/scamming the very people who pay your salary. Or as I’d put it, stripping their civil rights (in many territories the measures which were taken are actually illegal/unconstitutional).

But the second thing is that it is counterproductive. For example in France the government first banned wearing masks, then enforced it. They first enforced all children goin to school, then enforced all children stopping school.

If they had not done that, many people would have started wearing masks and stopped going to school much earlier. Many lives would have been saved. The best government action would have been to do nothing and allow people to decide for themselves. By relying on the collective intelligence of society, you get a better outcome than relying on your own intelligence. To think otherwise is just the arrogance of the stupid.

But don’t get me started on that can of worms, the credibility/competence of governance in Frenace.

Thanks.

When the article said “squashing, crushing, crackdown” I thought it meant killing the companies.

But really they are not being shut down, just forced to stop misbehaving. That doesn’t sound like a “serious concern” at all.

In terms of “disease” you would say you have a cold, or you have the flu. Disease as in a set of symptoms with common cause.

Or you talk in terms of “pathogen” you could say you have H1N1 or covid-19.

In terms of “symptoms” you could say you have a cough or a fever.

There is no context where you’d say you have spanish flu, or wuhan flu.

So those terms are neither correct nor common usage. Not in english anyway.

But TBH this is just a linguistic thing. I made much more interesting commentary in my other reply to you. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that one.

have a look at the Wikipedia article. it was all explained quite clearly near the top. people get Spanish flu all the time, there are global epidemics every few years, but they call it influenza A H1N1, because that’s the proper name.

So yes?

You make it sound obvious, but in general the USA follows the opposite policy. Make medicine expensive and let people neglect their health, so in the long run the medical industry earns more from them. So it’s not that obvious at all.

I think this is the conventional wisdom, but has become controversial recently. In recent years, money-printing has increased, but the money just gets hoarded by banks. It never reaches the real economy. People used to think it increased monetary supply, but in fact monetary supply fluctuates based on decisions made by banks, with mysterious causes/motivations, independently of the amount of government bonds created.

It’s all very confusing. I’m confused, but so is everybody else. Except somewhere deep in the banking system are some people who understand it and are manipulating it.

I’d like to hear more about this internet crackdown.

1. I agree, but would go even further. Coersion in general can be dangerous in an epidemic. If everyone is forced to do the same thing (like take a vaccine or work from home or wear a mask or anything) and then it turns out there’s a problem with doing that, 100% of people have that problem and your society is in big trouble. For example if working from home causes obesity in 5% of people, then you have a medical emergency coming up. And the problem could be anything, you can’t predict these things. Every action has unknown unintended consequences. If there is no coercion and people all react in slightly different but mostly sensible ways, you get the same important behavioural change but without the making your society fragile.

Then, you’re leaving the responsibility to individuals, not taking it on yourself. If as president you force everyone to take a vaccine and that vaccine causes 1% of people to die, you are personally responsible for those deaths. If you make it optional, and most people take it, and some of them die, they are individually responsible.

But politicians think they are smarter than most people, which they are not. Most unusually stupid people think they are unusually intelligent. That leads to politicians having this arrogance that they can, and should, make personal decisions for other people.

2 and 3. The people who say that are just ignorant. The details of vaccine risks are online. You can understand them better than the average politician. They cause heart attacks, and other stuff I forget, in some tiny fraction of people. But in the case of covid, getting vaccinated is much safer than not.

4. page 12 does get the summary of the math right Okay.

5. That’s the kind of question with no real answer. You can say, evil money and power and corruption, or because of dire emergency, or because vaccines are the best most effective remedy, or because of foolish short-sighted politicians and group think. All these answers are correct. You can argue which one is more correct, you can argue than forever and never convince anyone. Some people do!

Is being contrarian a good or a bad thing? Sounds like you think it’s a bad thing.

I used to think it’s neither. Some people naturally go with the crowd, some go against it. Going against it doesn’t make you a free thinker, it’s just a different tendency.

But now I think that being a contrarian starts off that way, as just a neutral natural tendency. But it forces you to frequently think deeply about things, because you keep getting in arguments. If you agree with most people you never have to think deeply about anything.

So now I think contrarians are crucial to society, and we should all try to be contradict our natures by engaging seriously (not condescendingly) with them. It foces us to also think deeply about things.

Acho que na maioridade de casos não há necessidade. É útil por muito alto densidade de telemóveis, por vídeos muito alto qualidade, por encalço mais preciso dos telemóveis. Mas é muito caro por pouco benefício. Portugal não tem dinheiro a mais por gastar nisso.

yes i agree with most of that. i think most people who are interested in this stuff, and are scientifically literate, will be familiar with those problems, and are still pro vaccine. just a couple of things.

• what’s a better interpretation than page 12? it sounded fine to me.

• this is real world data, not a randomised trial. there are lots of confounding factors. this kind of record is no substitute for a rigorous research study.

ser atingido por um urso é 100% natural, ou seja é bom para a sua saúde.

It works fine. old.reddit.com works better. Not sure if you can make an account that way or if you get robot-walled.

The stuff of nightmares. That was like watching someone try to open a jar with two spoons. I’m sure they’ll improve rapidly.

Sure, I understand that. But this is a very high quality study with very promising results. Why no stampede of follow-up research and rush to get the combination approved?

You’re right there’s something wrong with the link. Here is the correct one

https://lemmy.ml/post/82974/comment/82192

That was interesting, thanks. So table 2 has to looked at together with table 3 and 4. But the same information shown much more clearly in figure 2 on pages 17 and 18.

And page 12 is a fairly good summary, there’s not much I could add to that. Do you agree with page 12 or is there another way of looking at it?

Spanish flu is conventionally called Influenza A.

I guess all this stuff is debatable. In historical discussions, you might use the more geographical names, but never in medicine. No-one ever gets diagnosed with Spanish flu these days.

?

use Yewtube.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=-XegX_K6w-o&t=284s

which respects?

probably because they know the hash and the salt so now they can brute force your password, especially if it’s an easy one.

if you use something like lesspass.com then just increment the counter. no stress.