J.C.MacSwell

If she hadn't pounded identity politics she would have won, IMO. She had an awful lot going for her without pressing (pounding is more accurate) the fact that she deserved it as she was a woman. Ironically of course, those that were impressed by that line of thought would have no doubt leaned that way anyway (also note how she struggled, and Bernie thrived, after her attack on Sanders on that front, though of course at that point she was desperate) She also moved further left early in an attempt cut off Sanders, despite the fact that her politics have historically served her better closer to the center. Another factor was her temporary refusal to accept big donor donations (even though she had already used a war chest, based significantly though in part on them, for her campaign). I don't buy the low electability from the start. She misread her strengths and where to emphasize them. And not so much due to principle IMO, but by misplaced strategy. All that said...I'm sure that was stated tongue in cheek. (Trumps' election notwithstanding)

Here is the Province of New Brunswick's, which has one of the most successful responses so far to the pandemic, response plan for reopening in stages. They are about to go to the middle phase (second "opening" phase) after just 2 new cases this week. A week ago they made their first step on re-opening after 2 weeks with no new cases. It's colour coded and can move either way as circumstances change. Also interesting article on how, in part, they managed to avoid the worst of it (so far, and knock on wood) including multi-party cooperation: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heroes-of-the-pandemic-new-brunswick-politician-who-crushed-the-covid-19-curve-is-a-virus-whisperer

The argument seems to be that he was targeted unfairly in an attempt to get him to inculpate Trump. Comey seems to have admitted to some aspects of this, basically not following normal protocols. (ironically, Trump may not have been elected without Comey: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/) Apparently Flynn plead guilty to protect his son. What was the concern for his son?

Agree with the first bold. It may be expensive, but so is not being able to use a building except with significantly reduced capacity. However, for every velocity of upward airflow there exists a droplet size that has a terminal velocity that matches it. Droplets around that size will be hanging around for a while, supported by that airflow. Also any sufficiently large building that turns the air over ever few seconds would make for a pretty good (or even excessive) wind tunnel air velocity.

Sorry Stringy. Missed the context. WW1/Spanish flu? (WW2 was more global than WW1)

With all due respect to the many who have perished prematurely, for the vast majority this doesn't define their lives. Thinking about how they all arrived home and waited in congested lines to be tested (evaluated) and cleared, at least it could have been done better.

I'm pretty sure adult IQs drop with age (not necessarily wisdom and good judgement...sans dementia), so as average age increases in a successful (or for that matter, less successful, if the average adult age rises) population one would expect a decline in average IQ. I do believe conditions of early childhood, and nutrition, have an effect. But apparently Newton was a sickly kid...so who the Hell knows...more pertinently there are people with higher IQs from every race/creed/religion than anyone here (and there are plenty of gifted posters here in that department)...so who the Hell cares? I know a ton of more talented people than I am that would score lower on an IQ test (I know...low bar...) We'll be fine in this department. Seriously we will be fine. We have far far greater challenges than this.

Generally speaking for any species a mutation would most likely be less successful. I just don't know if the same would apply to a virus.

I think I just checked to see if you were from Papua New Guinea...

Statistically speaking, are mutations expected to be less contagious and/or less lethal? I would expect that would be the case as a general rule, but can anyone confirm or refute that? Assuming that's true...by how much? Or are more benign ones more likely to get worse and more lethal ones less lethal?

Is there any potential for a lozenge, spray or mist that could coat the throat and upper airway in such a way as to reduce the spreading of the virus by an infected patient? Particularly asymptomatic ones...the thought being that without the coughing/wheezing etc they should be low transmitters but are said to be otherwise, for some reason that has yet to become clear (I've heard they have a higher viral count, if that is the correct term) Is there anything that could act as a barrier to any degree, that would not be detrimental to the user? Or even something that could act to reduce the viral count in the surfaces of the upper airway (which presumably could reduce the amount of virus exhaled)

People are happier when they manage to see improvements, especially when they have worked to obtain them and contributed in a way that is appreciated by others and respected. I think that is generally instinctive. The trick is making yourself believe that's the case, while pursuing healthy goals for yourself and others.

Hidden Figures? Excellent movie. I saw it in the theater. It's based on a true story. The Wiki covers the level of historical accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures

In Trumps defence...the current pandemic isn't completely about him... Where was Bush when it really mattered?

Welcome to 2011!

Far right? Do you consider all 3 Conservatives far right? Nature (read evolution) tends to favour a surplus. Not many fear a situation where immigration can't make up any difference caused by birth control, female education etc.

Picking any easy one: (I doubt I'll be here in 40 years to be rebutted) I think the populations will be greater and more ethnically diverse, barring some catastrophe, with immigration making up for the lower birth rates in developed countries.

Lennon's missing verse: "Imagine there's no slackers...

For how it will affect the election, Trump and GOP political ads, Bidens choice of running mate etc, I think those other political aspects will be secondary with regard to how the Democrats handled Kavanaugh. Any use of those political aspects by Democrats to justify the attacks on Kavanaugh will just make the hypocrisy more obvious, which is why I expect it should affect Biden's choice of VP candidate. It wasn't sufficient for your remark. (Unless you believe "moral" is limited to regarding sexual assaults). If someone claimed they had overheard Warren planning her attack on Sanders with regard to whether he believed a women could be POTUS, that would have become a moral issue. To some degree it was without any such allegation. The point being that no one is immune to a dishonest attack.(in that case Sanders' supporters claimed Bernie was attacked dishonestly...but who knows?) It's certainly gone down a toxic road, and unfortunately that plays into Trump's hands. He was elected with a toxic albatross draping from his neck, so for him that's already factored in... ...as are most of his sexual transgressions; one might have thought this is an area Trump wouldn't want focused on...but clearly it's gone so far that he's almost immune. (one could argue he's been vaccinated for a lot...)

It's not from cell phone towers?

Is this taking place prior to occupancy?

The worst air has virus droplets and aerosols, effectively slightly and very slightly heavier than air respectively. Drawing air downward will work with that to more efficiently remove the virus rather than keep it suspended, and stronger flows or turbulence in the worst air will be kept closer to your feet than your face, while fresh intake air can enter from higher levels, closer to your face than your feet.

That would have been their argument. The reality was that they didn't want him appointed and nothing was substantiated, yet with many ranting like they knew it as truth. The primary motivation was political. Some other accusations claimed to be credible at the time were essentially proven false. A statistical argument was also used, based on the unlikelihood of an accuser coming forward (while failing to note any possible political motivation unique to the SCOTUS appointment process, or the effect of the MeToo movement on the interpretation of the data) Fortunately Biden hasn't gotten the same treatment, at least so far. It's not a fair standard to hold someone to. You can be entirely innocent yet have no defence. What will be fair is questioning the responses to Reade's accusation, especially by potential VP candidates, compared to their stances of the accusation against Kavanaugh. Biden's response will be interesting also, but this time it's different as he knows the truth in this case. (barring some bizarre memory deficit)

There were a number of Democrat Senators making the argument that his nomination should be withdrawn due to the doubt about Kavanaugh from the accusation (if not outright claiming he was lying without being able to prove it) Your words from the Kavanaugh and Me Too thread: "That this is not a trial is an important point, and one that some folks don't appreciate — this is a job interview. The threshold for saying "Next candidate" is much lower here. Nobody is entitled to a seat on SCOTUS." Not that I entirely disagree with what you stated, but Hirono, Booker, Harris et al were making some pretty bold statements as to why Kavanaugh should be excluded.

Sorry. I wrote nominated. I meant appointed.