StringJunky

Autocrats don't like being ignored, they get lonely. Putin's done it, KJU's doing it, all we need is Xi to feel left out, although he's got the Olympics.

Do you think reciprocal cyber disruption will play a significant part in this? I read the US have quite a potent malware that severely disputed one of the Chinese telecoms iirc.

The ITER milestone is not about 'how hot' but 'how long'.

Which is not surprising, the spectre of WW2 still haunts them, and their subsequent national MO towards military conflict in the 21st century. They are treading carefully. Also, they are comprised of a coalition government, which will make them appear more collectively hesitant due to inter-party disagreements.... it's another layer to deal with.

Here's some latest numbers on hesitancy distribution, within the NHS, in the BMJ:

The history of the formation of religions and associated contemporary beliefs can be viewed dispassionately. The political control of the archaeology would be part of a discussion on issues impeding archaeological/historical enquiries. Scientists/researchers in other fields also have political obstacles to overcome.

I take that as a compliment. There should be no grinding and swinging of axes in an anthropologically-based question like this.

Thanks. I think Peterkin is approaching the subject with the correct approach for which the Religion forum was intended. Some people seem to have religious PTSD from their own experiences, and seem unable to separate a purely historical investigation from the mess of their own internal conflicts with it.

Why are you talking about the scientific evidence for the veracity of peoples beliefs in the past? What Peterkin is driving at is the evidence for what people believed in the past.... like a historian. You are barking up the wrong tree here. You need to step outside of your own bias and judgementalism in order to understand how religious ideas emerged in the past. You are judging the past through an emotive modern lens... you need to put yourself in the shoes of the people of the day. Your language is inappropriate for a rational, dispassionate discussion in the historical foundations of religion.

The first one is very on point about a lot of the objections: freedom and personal liberty over public health.

Substitute time for number of injections administered in assessing track record. The former means bugger all. You could give 1m injections over a month or ten years, the statistical result should be the same. In this pandemic, people are just not appreciating how dense the data is for the efficacy and risks of the vaccines. They don't need many actual years to know. @iNow LOL!

Yes, it's a schematic model description of something.

True, didn't consider that.

If we get tied up with Russia, I won't be surprised to see China pull some sort of stunt to gain more territory or other advantage.

A scientific model, to me, is an abstract construction, usually mathematical, that describes relationships between phenomena and objects. Models don't attempt to describe the total phenomenology, but some specific aspect of them.

I would imagine the others are refreshed/renewed regularly to target new mutations as well as they arise.

The ethical argument demands frontline healthworkers be appropriately vaccinated for their work, otherwise they are knowingly putting their charges at risk. It's the antithesis of good medical practice.

Is it possible that if there was more a fly's eye view of people actually suffering (with necessary consents, of course), the effect on vaccine-sceptics would penetrate better? Is the news, as presented, perhaps too sterilized/censored for viewers not affected to really get a sense of the reality of the pandemic's effects at the individual level; instilling more empathy towards those affected. The precedence for this possible approach is the graphic clinical images on smoking products packages in Europe.

It would have been a circus if he'd played.

Yes, it does mention opportunism, of which that could be an opportunity. That might suggest they are not particularly virulent or pathogenic when immune defences are good.

My take on that article is that knowledge of Archaea has still much to be learned, and your conclusion is somewhat premature.

The awareness of Archaea as a distinct group appears to be quite young.... 45 years. From the link:

Begone, heathen! It's not Tolkein's fault, it's the readers. I found the books mentally and emotionally expansive as a youngster. His experience and execution with the English language, and the idea of language is probably peerless.

Here's a compact discussion: https://microbiologysociety.org/blog/why-dont-archaea-cause-disease.html