CharonY

Implying that he was on the rails at some point? Must have missed that period.

Fundamentally, meaning is derived from context. Word usage can be different depending on group of folks and the meaning depends highly on what is being talked about. Philosophers have taken great pains in order to define or elaborate what they mean, in many cases coming up with new word creations in order better communicate them. But since they explore so many different concepts, there are also very different fields with different lingo. There is not universal science lingo, either. In any area of specialization (be it philosophy, workshop, hobbyist group, kitchen, military etc.) often a sub-lingo is developed to convey meaning efficiently, but it can be impenetrable for folks who have not learned it.

Yes, that is precisely how a democratic leader behaves. https://nyti.ms/3dcFZS0

! Moderator Note A number of off-topic posts were hidden. Please try to stay on topic.

Absolutely, and there is of course a discrepancy in the perception as a minority of the population is on the receiving end. Considering that this also happens on the highest echelon of power is very telling for the rest of society.

More than that even. Michelle Obama mentioned how they had to be almost perfect in all regards. In a way that did echo (on a whole different level of course) quite a bit with my experiences.

I would not be surprised if she was coached not to do that. Generally women of colour poll badly when perceived as impolite (I think the Obamas talked about it in an interview).

What does make me angry is that he is now using his infection to further downplay the situation and it is almost certain that more folks will get sick as a result. Of course folks do not realize that they do not have access to the level of care Trump has been getting.

Well also the justification is a bit odd to use something praiseworthy about Trump for which he actually is not really responsible for. After all House Democrats have passed larger stimulus bills, which have been shot down by the Republican senate. I mean, as a something he is responsible for, you could say that folks are ungrateful despite the fact that he was separating children from their parents in order to intimidate refugees not to ask for asylum. Or overtaxing law enforcement to the point that they could not do their job only so that they could persecute non-criminal undocumented immigrants. It does not have quite the same ring to it, but at least it would be honest.

Also on the political side, the President does not pass bills, that is the job of congress and senate i.e. in the current configuration it would be a bipartisan measure. The President now has decided not to have any more talks on the stimulus package and his party is following suit. So I am not really certain what the post is about. Trump is not the only one infected, but he is the single biggest reason that so many Americans are. In fact a study identified Trump as one of the biggest sources of COVID-19 misinformation.

BPB does not serve any essential function for IEF other than visualize the run. With a very high amount you might have a slightly higher current then you would otherwise have but I am honestly unsure whether the specified amount would effect results. Depending on what you are doing as a whole, you should balance the cost of the overall experiments with the ampholytes that have been potentially wasted.

I think it would be a good time to get back to topic. Apparently the White House has declined assistance from CDC for contact tracing and despite them knowing before that Hicks was positive. They did not warn other folks, so public endangerment seems to be the standard policy at this point.

Why would you think that there is no gravity in oceans?

If politics intrudes into science and devastates public health, scientists need to speak up. Silence also has consequences. Of course this more a broader comment and not specific to this forum as obviously it is a somewhat limited platform. But we have seen how misinformation caused thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Not sure about that, as he receives briefings. Willfully uninformed (or plain lazy) is probably more appropriate.

Let's put it like that. How would you characterize someone who is willing to sacrifice over 215,000 people rather than simply admit being wrong?

So Trump says that he is leaving the hospital (much to the surprise to health experts). Even worse, instead of taking that as a teachable moment he tweeted: That almost immediately puts folks at risk who are silly enough to believe him. I am aghast. Not surprised, though, which is a very weird mental state to be in.

Indeed. There are plenty of examples where folks used bad science to justify their actions and policies. In either case unquestioning adherence can become a bit issue. Of course, most would say that science is about questioning things, which in principle is true. However, the reality is that many do not put in the time and effort, especially if what is being said conforms with their preconceived notions.

That is not the issue nor the definition of plagiarism. And no, I do not think anyone managed to figure out what you tried to say by sharing the content. Also, since you are able to copy and paste text, I am wondering why you cannot apply the same method to a link. There is also a handy "quote" button that you are using and which you can use to copy and paste text from elsewhere. This does not make any sense whatsoever. You mean your goal is to die of tetanus before RNA viruses get you?

Parts of Canada is its second wave and in some provinces masks are still not mandatory. I do not have hard data for Canada, but I think while contact tracers were hired, it was still not as full as it should have been. Especially at the beginning (i.e. the most important phase) self-quarantine was kind not sufficiently followed-up. There were reports of snow birds arriving from the US and going straight to the next Walmart. I think in the end what really hurt us is the kind of arrogance we have treating infectious diseases primarily as an exotic or third-world problem and denying the danger of it for far too long before taking measures (and even then often not enough). If the government does not take it seriously, the population surely won't. And even if the government does (as in Canada) folks might still not comply (maybe the US is contagious in more than one regard...). It is also the reason why I find the focus on things like wet-markets worrying as they frame the dangers of disease outbreaks (at least from a Western view, wet markets are the norm before their place are taking over by supermarkets) as something foreign. And then it is easy to forget to make ones own disease response compatible with the new reality. Do not get me wrong, I know health care professionals working impossible hours through this pandemic and there has been a massive learning experience for everyone involved. But we do not realize that what is happening right now is not the exception. It will happen again and if we do not prepare accordingly and keep being prepared the outcome will not improve. I think the data has sufficiently shown that it is not a third world problem. It is a (health) policy problem.

Privacy concerns and compliance may be part of the equation. For example surveys indicated that perhaps 20% of Brits with symptoms did not stay at home. However, we are not necessarily talking about tech or even good sense. Even in confirmed cases folks in France, UK and Germany only provided limited lists of contacts to authorities and on average only three persons per infection were traced. In countries such as South Korea and Taiwan (as well as other Asian and African countries,) the traced folks are double digits. Also note that many authoritarian countries are doing poorly, mostly in those were the government did not take the risk seriously. So failure to recognize a public health risk and to comply to recommendation (with varying degrees) but also lack of governmental willingness to set up a better contact tracing system are some of the key reasons why the pandemic was not contained or failed to burn out. Ultimately, we have seen a case were reaction was slow and pondering with the primary aim to prevent the worse rather than trying to aim for the best outcome. If more had been invested and done in the beginning, the net economic loss would likely be a fraction of what we are going to face. Not to mention the worrying reports of permanent damages due to the disease, which may have long-lasting health costs, even once the pandemic subsides. I do not think it is a matter of authoritarianism. It is matter of whether folks decided to a) listen to health experts and b) willing to take measures that were more than "just enough". I should add: many of the countries doing the right steps such as enhanced contact tracing, were also those that have built expertise due to outbreaks such as SARS or ebola. I can only hope that this time the memory persists, and does not suddenly vanish (also in the Western world) such as after the swine flu pandemic.

I am with iNow. Other countries did a better job and built capabilities up pretty fast. In much of the Western world there was disappointingly little progress in that regard.

The whole thing is also a reminder how abysmal contact tracing have been in much of the world. Based on recent reports only a handful of folks were informed and thereby needlessly risking health of others. If that happens there, how bad is it in the broader populace?

Well, they and folks around them are likely getting tested early and frequently. They are also less likely to be exposed to the broader public via transportation or grocery shopping, for example. As a consequence, they are likely only getting infected with folks who are asymptomatic and potentially have a lower viral load. Together with extremely high level and individualized care they have a much better chance of better outcomes. In fact a recent publication on epidemiological studies in India found a surprising drop of mortality after the age of 65. The hypothesis is that folks reaching that age are likely to be able to afford better health care, so that we see a strong socioeconomic effect there.

! Moderator Note Please do not post unsubstantiated claims of such nature. While high dosages of Vitamin C are not necessarily harmful (due to high water solubility), such high dosages are associated with a number of potential side effects, such as nausea.