Leaderboard

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic there have been key findings that have altered our understanding or required responses to this disease. For example, the realization that pre- or asymptomatic persons might be infectious has required a different approach to masking and social distancing. While we have several threads discussing the pandemic, I feel that recent developments justify a new topic, especially as it could be used to clarify potential misunderstandings. With the delta variant (B.1.617.2) gaining dominance we are seeing yet another change that requires us to re-think the trajectory of the pandemic. First of all, the transmission rate of this variant is much higher than estimates for the original strain. The CDC has compared it to chicken pox, which has a basic reproduction number (R0) of >10. What does it mean? First of all, this might indicate that vaccine-based herd immunity is entirely out of the picture. With a R0 of 10 you would need to have a total protection of >92% of the population. Since the effectiveness of the best vaccines against the delta variant are a bit lower than 90%, it means that even with no vaccine hesitation and even if we could vaccinate children with it, we won't hit the required target for herd immunity. This has been assumed to happen for a while now, and might be the least surprising bit of news. However, there are a few recent findings that have prompted changes in messaging, for example with regard to masking. The key issue here are the finding that folks with breakthrough infections have similar viral loads as unvaccinated folks. What does it mean? Fundamentally there some vaccinated folks that get infected with SARS-CoV-2. That in itself is not surprising. Historically, breakthrough infections happen for most vaccinations at low frequencies. Most of the time the focus is on illness, i.e. symptomatic manifestations of infections. However, as mentioned, the possibility of asymptomatic spread has changed that. The fact that vaccinated folks still have high titers means that folks with breakthrough infections could infect others and especially unvaccinated folks are at risk of becoming seriously ill. Vaccinated folks, for the most part do not seem to develop serious symptoms anymore, but it means that vaccinated folks could unwittingly infect and endanger un-or undervaccinated folks. This has prompted a reversal in the masking recommendation. Moreover, it has made many infectious disease experts nervous as in many countries mask mandates are being lifted. Unknowns: There are still many open questions. For example, in the US, the delta variant is causing more illness in younger folks, including children. It is not clear whether this is really a property of the virus, or just because younger folks tend not to be vaccinated. It is not certain whether the vaccine effectively protect from long-haul COVID symptoms. The rate of breakthrough infections is unclear, we know the lower end of the estimate based on detected cases, but since folks without symptoms typically do not get tested, we do not know exact numbers. Even in a highly vaccinated community it is possible that there is a large enough reservoir to allow new variants to develop. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1 Discussion points: As a whole it means that we are heading into new territory during fall and winter. The big question is whether the current vaccination rates are good enough to prevent mass hospitalization or will easing of restrictions make folks forget that the disease is still there and cause a new surge. Vaccine hesitancy will add fuel to this potential fire. The communication in many countries/states/provinces have been confusing to say the least and quite a few folks I have talked to seem under the impression that there is little danger left, despite the fact that even in highly vaccinated countries, especially younger folks are barely hitting 50% of full vaccinations. Moreover, most folks in the world are still unvaccinated, meaning that we will need to prepare for more variants. Everyone is being sick and tired of the situation, yet undoubtedly the world has changed yet again (and will continue to do so). A big decision at some point is to establish how many deaths we are comfortable with. With regard to flue, for example, the number is surprisingly high across countries and by any estimate, COVID-19 is going to eclipse it, unless very high vaccination rates are maintained, which is notoriously difficult. Edit Aug, 19, 2021: A new preprint has come out indicating that with the Delta variant Pfizer might only be 42% effective at preventing infections (not disease!) and Moderna was about 76%. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 This seem to highlight that behavioral prevention is still going to be important.

Art. 27 c. 3 of Italian Constitution says: Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted. I can't agree more with our constitution. We shouldn't even discuss torture as a punishment in a civil world. Edit: Spelling error

Right, that could cause diffusion and desaturation of the viewed scene. If it's a phone, you could try shading the lens with your hand or something to cut off incoming side light, which gets scattered in the lens, softening the image. A neater solution would be a lens hood. They seem quite widely available. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Original-ULHmobile-Ultimate-Mobile-Phones/dp/B082VKFDDD

I really hope we can get a fairly objective, and agreed upon, definition of torture before we start calling conscientious parents torturers! LoL! I fear that equating hand slaps, or maybe large servings of Brussels Sprouts, with torture, might somewhat erode the actual meaning of the word in the context of criminal law and penology.

Transgender seems to be something that can be honored, not disparaged, as something unusual and having unique attributes. Trans-women and cis-women are not the same. They do share something, in terms of a culturally-mediated femaleness, but I see no reason they couldn't recognize and respect each other's differences while still having solidarity on some matters. It's odd to live in a society that spends so much time declaring the virtues of diversity, yet at the same time wants to stuff everyone into two simplistic categories. Of course, few people really want true diversity. They want a world where everyone is conservative or liberal, Dem or Repub, gay or straight, elite or common, etc. Saves time and brain-strain. Humans have a positive fetish for dichotomies and saying faux-pearls of wisdom that start with "there are two kinds of people in the world." I suspect that is why some people go for the SA surgery, because they know being a chick with a dick will be too weird for their peer group. If we were really open to diverse forms of sexuality, then being a chick with dick would be cool and identity wouldn't have to be so firmly attached to particular anatomy. Gender dysphoria can be addressed, but it shouldn't be addressed with physical alterations until the person is grown. Before you all jump on that: 1. Just my opinion. I'm not declaring any final or scientific insight here. What I do know is that decisions made during the turbulence of adolescence are not always great decisions. 2. Also the opinion of mental health professionals I've known and respected in my work, and I will add quite progressive in their views on other matters. So, no, being opposed to 14 year olds getting a sex change is in no way being opposed to sex change or thinking it's ungodly. Disclaimer: this is, for me, a very rough and off-the-cuff post, so take this as coming from someone still trying out all the concepts and having reached no solid answers on the sports league/division questions. (I doubt there are enough trans people at most high schools to form a separate league, though...)

I see rampant inequality in all three of INow's examples. Those three brats are watching the game for free; all those suckers in the stands had to pay ... One of the problems with analogies/memes 😄 .

Outstanding acting. Plus Patrick Stewart was Ahab himself too: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120756/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_93

Clearly my own personal camera and editing capability doesn't match what I originally posted above, but supplementing this with a photo of my own:

Like the Moby Dick/Melville references, Joigus. Here's one of my favorites ... There's also the quote from Star Trek: the Wrath of Khan ... “…To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart, I stab at thee; for hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.” - Moby-Dick, quoted by Khan Noonien Singh Seems Star Trek writers liked H Melville.

LMAO!

You can't know beforehand who is re-educatable vs who is not, so everyone should be given the opportunity to re-education. For people who keeps reiterating crimes the problem is different and surely complicated. But anyway I am still against torture even in those cases because I doubt it works on a practical level. There is a concept, typically propagandized by italian right-parties, that if you want to keep people from committing crimes you should raise the punishment. I think it's a blind way to see things because it doesn't take into account why people do certain things and the entire context of people lives. It's not a simple positive vs negative benefits of committing crime that cross criminals' mind. I agree. Many treatments may be considered torture, in fact the concept is somewhat ambiguous. But the OP was talking about physical torture and I was still (implicity) talking about that. I think there aren't many doubt about what physical torture is.

You can't tell who is "going to be" anything, because nobody's future is cast in concrete at birth. But you certainly can see tendencies and proclivities in early childhood; you can see a temperament forming and you can definitely see most of the risk factors in their environment. What is a criminal, anyway? Someone who has broken a law? Or someone who habitually breaks a particular law? Or someone who breaks many laws? Is there any reason to suppose that all laws are good and should be respected, or that it's even possible for all people to obey all laws? What are the other available options for each criminal before he or she breaks the law for the first time? Many criminals are brave, even foolhardy. Most are not bullies, but thieves. No action is without a long chain causation behind it: nobody wakes up one morning and decides to start bullying people. Children don't raise themselves - and their parents don't raise them, either, though the parents contribute most to the child's development - the whole society immerses its children in its economy, legal structure, hierarchy, customs and culture, education and pastimes, beliefs and values. Children are surrounded by examples of adult behaviour to imitate; they generally keep imitating the behaviours that see rewarded in some way. There are also many kinds of mental illness, some even caused by a genetic error. A very small percent of those result in antisocial behaviour, and a very small percent of that small percent is untreatable if diagnosed early. Most mental illness is a result of environmental factors that are overlooked, or discounted, or accepted as "just how things are", all the while twisting people's minds. Not a question; a suggestion.

http://www.fitzroyisland.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Great-Barrier-Reef-Port-Douglas.jpg Fitzroy Island: Great Barrier Reef. It's a marine playground and one of the most impressive natural scenarios our planet has to offer. Welcome to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Earth's largest living structure.

You convicted the wrong guy! The executioner enjoys his work so much, he takes it home. The warden likes to keep strict order in his fiefdom. Etc. It's a bad idea for the same reason that official encouragement of any destructive human trait is a bad idea: it produces a destructive culture populated by destructive people and makes a short-lived, evil society.

"Seriously, Would You Share Some?" © Krisztina Scheeff/Comedy Wildlife Photo Awards 2020 Scheeff took the photo in Scotland. A leopard seal got into a lagoon just before low tide," Nachoum wrote. "The seal was hiding, waiting to ambush young penguins as they got closer. When a penguin got close enough, the seal moved extremely fast and caught the penguin by its feet, dragging it to the open water. I was following parallel to the action. The seal released the penguin twice and the terrified penguin succeeded in escaping, but the seal continued chasing after it, and on the third attempt, drowned the penguin and devoured it." The many colours of Uluru....