A Concerned Scientist @BE@qoto.org
Moved full time to my other account @BE soon as this instance is still having issues.
Joined Nov 2022
That is extremely well said and meshes quite well with what I see. I've tried to say something similar many times over the last couple of years, but that's much better than I achieved.
I'm not saying mine is really all that different. I know of people who have clearly had health issues and acknowledge why and are trying to deal with it.
But definitely more who just can't figure it out....my best friend has brand new autoimmune issues, as does my wife's boss, a few who just keep getting sick over and over, etc. They're all out there getting COVID repeatedly.
We keep a small social network, always have, but I can't really confidently point to many people who don't fit one of those two categories. My wife's best friend and her husband seem fine, but they've only had it once.
Anytime you're doing this type of analysis you have to have an internal standard to compare to. Basically, you tell whatever equipment you're using "here's a standard amount to compare to" if that makes sense. I'm trying to oversimplify a bit, but hopefully it helps.
A little quick research on this tells me that PPMoV(Pepper mild mottle virus) turns out to be the most abundant RNA virus in human feces and is found in roughly the same concentrations year round. So that means they can basically tell their equipment "here's a standard to normalize the data with."
That's exactly what I was looking for, so thank you.
In that bunch I'd say a mix of scientific illiteracy and only seeing what you want to believe in the media.
In my experiences anyone outside of my scientific acquaintances network who I send a journal article to goes "I don't know what that means." They might, deep down, believe that there's a real problem with COVID, they've almost certainly been told that by someone at some point, but everyone else is out without a mask, and Wen/Gandhi/Balloux/etc said on NPR or in the WaPo that everything's fine, so it probably is.
Out of people I know first hand or tangentially through other people who have admitted that they got COVID and have had issues ever since, every one of them for 2 years now said they knew there were risks but it was easier to ignore the possibility and reassure themselves with minimizer articles than to reconfigure their lives. Complete and total COVID ignorance still exists, but it's way less common than we'd like to believe.
I don't mean this to be snarky at all, but I think you have to define "the left" to get this answered appropriately. There's lots of people who could encompass "the left" depending on who's defining it, who might have very different reasons.
You know your team better than I do, but, I'm of the opinion that if there's not a virtual option, then it's not inclusive. I get it...it's a team "retreat" for a reason.
So, that said, you mirror the Davos World Economic Forum as best you can.
@Larhanya @IPEdmonton @DiverDoc
We do the "heirloom salad greens" whenever it's too hot to have outdoor salad greens. The rest of the year our aero garden sits empty.
A mass disabling event that almost everyone in society is willingly taking part in and fighting everyone who suggests otherwise.
I'm proud of myself for not caving into the urge to troll all of the people panicking over the eyedrops story who have never mentioned COVID.
Given that hundreds of thousands of papers have been published in the scientific literature over the last three years about COVID, I highly recommend you stop and think about why one that you may hear about on the news, or covered in CNN, may have gotten there.
It would be a good idea to actually read the paper, before sharing, if you're willing and able.
I see a lot of probably well meaning sharing of information just because a certain paper may gotten on CNN or NBC and they're not always conveying the best information(some papers are better than others) or sometimes what the paper itself was even trying to say in the first place.
Yes, I'm referring to a certain one that's all over today, but, what I wrote will never be wrong.
Yeah, I think we've already proven that anything shown to help will end up too expensive for the average person.
As soon as I started reading it I remembered it from sometime before. If anyone else has that feeling the pre-print(or a similar paper that they ended up changing up a bit) was submitted in late 2021.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.28.474326v1.full
I can't really speak too deeply to this latest COVID research as it's out of my wheelhouse. Yes, it's "cultured microglial cells" but it turns out they're pretty important to your brain.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1158460/abstract
Here's a pretty decent look at what this might impact.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.654850/full
We cancelled Spectrum for TV service probably 8 years ago now. Sounds like it's about the same as it was then. They also lied about how much standalone internet would cost. At the time there was, literally, no other internet provider, so they told us internet by itself would cost $200 a month, so we might as well just keep the TV service as it was barely more than that if we just kept it as a bundle.
After probably an hour arguing with them and demanding to have the cable service cancelled, being transferred a dozen times, finally insisting that, yes, go ahead and cancel everything, even the internet, they finally did it.
Put us on hold for a while, and then went "Oh! Look at that! We just found out we can give you standalone internet service for $50, not $200. Wow, who knew?"
It was all a bluff to get you to back down and give up at each step. I've never forgotten just how nasty they made it. The minute another internet provider was available we switched. We've gotten "deal offers" from them in the mail, that they won't stop sending, on average twice a week for the last 8 years now. Couldn't pay me to deal with them again at this point.
I can't imagine the scenario in which "constant high level of illness" isn't the near-term future, at least.
Still hopeful for the medium to long-term as more ill effects become blatantly obvious, but I was wildly wrong on what people's tolerance for illness would be up to this point...
Phew....the memories. I had that boss once. "I can't give you a perfect review" every damn year. Funny thing, when I quit he CRIED when I handed him my letter of resignation and told me he was under so much pressure from his bosses and he'd never be able to replace me with someone as good at the job. Oh well. I did not cry.
As a psychologist he should probably spend less time talking about things he clearly has no clue about and more time analyzing himself as to why he feels the need.
All true, but largely D and F. In February of 2020 you pretty much had to be on death's bed to be tested, and today, where I live, the hospital across the street doesn't even stock COVID testing supplies. Magic.
That data hasn't been great to begin with, and we're entering a near total data blackout. Get ready for these people to start making even more wild claims than they already have been.
I think two things are important here, and the disbanding of *this* COVID team isn't really a big deal.
The lack of monitoring capabilities will "confirm" the idea that it's over to the average person. That's, obviously, the goal. Because of that, there's not anything a COVID team could do anymore. No data.
Jha was a net negative to the cause and it bugs me endlessly that he's probably off to go collect millions from those he sold out to now.
Bonus stat - 2022 ended with over 5250 excess deaths per week in the US. The Biden administration had a goal of getting that to ~1400 per week and bailed.
Moved full time to my other account @BE soon as this instance is still having issues.
Joined Nov 2022
