I really hope they do widespread an
You must be in a good mood today.it pegged so hard I feel like I got pegged
You must be in a good mood today.it pegged so hard I feel like I got pegged
The primary reason for no hijackings is that cockpit doors are now secure. In the event of a truly threatening passenger pilots would put the plane into a sudden dive that would devastate any unseatbelted passenger. The reality is that due to these sorts of measures (probably much more so than due to airport screening measures) commercial airliners are no longer a good target for terrorists.
This will be interesting. However, as I’ve said before, if there’s no explosion of cases, here are the arguments that will be raised, in my order of how much they’ll be promulgated:
1a. Give it more time.
1b. The people protesting are among the most disenfranchised in society, have the least amount of access to healthcare, and are disproportionately among those without ability to be tested.
2. Videos are everywhere. For such big protests, most people were very responsible and most all worse masks and practiced social distancing.
3. The infrastructure of these communities was hit the hardest, and the testing results were getting now are more reflective of the communities that didn’t get hit with protests and riots, so we’re undercounting because these communities didn’t just “magically” not have COVID.
4. The protestors were only a small fraction of the population, and they congregated in cities but then dispersed back to their home communities, so it’s impossible to measure the spread among those individuals because the actual rates will get distributed across different communities and be difficult to track.
In any case, a term nobody has heard for a while is exponential growth. The belief was that it was going to continue indefinitely. Shutting everything down is credited with stopping exponential growth. No better test than what we’re about to experience as to whether or not shutting things down was the true independent variable in stopping exponential growth. But if it doesn’t grow, then we’ve got built in reasons for why it isn’t (in part some of the arguments as per above).
The best analogy I can make is with regard to 9/11. Airport security totally changed. They implemented a shot-gun approach to safety and banned things like plastic ware that you can go get behind the gates. But it made everyone feel more safe. I haven’t followed specifically airliner hijackings since, but I know I sure as hell haven’t heard of any. And I don’t believe that’s simply because of increased security. It’s because you have a plane full of people who lived through 9/11 and would all risk their lives in the process of defending a plane knowing the potential of what could happen if they don’t. But as I google this, it looks like there’s been no US hijackings since 9/11, and they attribute it to greater security measures. I feel like that will be the case with a lot of COVID issues — we will attribute it mostly to rationalizing continued economic shutdown, and not acknowledge changing human behavior and awareness (though some may argue they’re inextricably linked).
Good thoughts. Thanks. I’d also be curious, absent any of that, would a plane full of passengers allow it to be hijacked? Obviously things have changed where you have a good proportion of the population who either wasn’t alive or wasn’t cognizant during 9/11, but for anyone living through that, I’d have a hard time seeing a plane full of people not being willing to die in the process of stopping a hijacker.The primary reason for no hijackings is that ****pit doors are now secure. In the event of a truly threatening passenger pilots would put the plane into a sudden dive that would devastate any unseatbelted passenger. The reality is that due to these sorts of measures (probably much more so than due to airport screening measures) commercial airliners are no longer a good target for terrorists.
My irony sensor just pegged
This will be interesting. However, as I’ve said before, if there’s no explosion of cases, here are the arguments that will be raised, in my order of how much they’ll be promulgated:
1a. Give it more time.
1b. The people protesting are among the most disenfranchised in society, have the least amount of access to healthcare, and are disproportionately among those without ability to be tested.
2. Videos are everywhere. For such big protests, most people were very responsible and most all worse masks and practiced social distancing.
3. The infrastructure of these communities was hit the hardest, and the testing results were getting now are more reflective of the communities that didn’t get hit with protests and riots, so we’re undercounting because these communities didn’t just “magically” not have COVID.
4. The protestors were only a small fraction of the population, and they congregated in cities but then dispersed back to their home communities, so it’s impossible to measure the spread among those individuals because the actual rates will get distributed across different communities and be difficult to track.
In any case, a term nobody has heard for a while is exponential growth. The belief was that it was going to continue indefinitely. Shutting everything down is credited with stopping exponential growth. No better test than what we’re about to experience as to whether or not shutting things down was the true independent variable in stopping exponential growth. But if it doesn’t grow, then we’ve got built in reasons for why it isn’t (in part some of the arguments as per above).
Not necessarily, but also not entirely. What I'm doing is identifying the arguments before people are in search of them. Right now those arguments aren't being made. Having those arguments arise post hoc diminishes their value. In research, your primary outcome measure is really the best thing you're looking at, and really the only thing that the P value is all that relevant to (without interpretive correction). If you include a multitude of secondary outcome measures, then you have to interpret those P values accordingly and offer a correction, because the larger sample of variables means increased probability of chance. This is somewhat similar here. If the arguments that are being made now don't come to fruition, then alternative arguments will be sought for that remain consistent with the original hypothesis. They could be valid, obviously, but not as valid as if they were integrated within the original hypothesis. I think the argument that we can't open things up because of how dangerous it is takes a gigantic blow if there isn't a spike in cases. In the event there isn't, it should cause us to reflect on why there isn't, rather than continue to presume the hypothesis is correct and seek hypothesis-confirming explanations. But I think, ultimately, it will fall back on those arguments because they allow people to feel they were right all along, and will prevent us from questioning what we know or believe. Considering a possibility that perhaps we don't have all the answers would not factor in to the equation because a lot of what we've shut everything down for has come with feigned certainty. My personal view is that the rates will stay flat or continue to drop. If they increase, I have nowhere to go other than reevaluating my assessments, and I'm willing to do so because there's still a lot we don't know. But if the increase is 10%? Or 15%? It warrants some serious discussion on diminishing returns by continuing to double down. Very few people have been able to reevaluate their assessments along the way. People took a side and dug in, and with how invasive this issue has been in people's lives (well, until this weekend), people felt very emotionally connected to whichever original position they took, and to let go of that, or simply reassess it, represents something much, much deeper than simply needing to recalibrate. It means having to completely question the essence of the way they see the world and their identity because so many personal and political entanglements got tied in to one issue.Do you feel any of the arguments are distortions of the reality, rather than presentations of reality?
Everything doesn't have to be a lie. It is likely that the president was taking hydroxychloroquine despite your lawyer-speak analysis of the documents. I have taken that drug before. Lots of people have. The people who have convinced you that it is so dangerous are only doing so because they want to gin up yet another controversy. The desire to turn everything single thing this president says or does into a controversy is asinine.He can't tell. Literally incapable of questioning whether the leader's arguments are in good faith.
This will be interesting. However, as I’ve said before, if there’s no explosion of cases, here are the arguments that will be raised, in my order of how much they’ll be promulgated:
1a. Give it more time.
1b. The people protesting are among the most disenfranchised in society, have the least amount of access to healthcare, and are disproportionately among those without ability to be tested.
2. Videos are everywhere. For such big protests, most people were very responsible and most all worse masks and practiced social distancing.
3. The infrastructure of these communities was hit the hardest, and the testing results were getting now are more reflective of the communities that didn’t get hit with protests and riots, so we’re undercounting because these communities didn’t just “magically” not have COVID.
4. The protestors were only a small fraction of the population, and they congregated in cities but then dispersed back to their home communities, so it’s impossible to measure the spread among those individuals because the actual rates will get distributed across different communities and be difficult to track.
In any case, a term nobody has heard for a while is exponential growth. The belief was that it was going to continue indefinitely. Shutting everything down is credited with stopping exponential growth. No better test than what we’re about to experience as to whether or not shutting things down was the true independent variable in stopping exponential growth. But if it doesn’t grow, then we’ve got built in reasons for why it isn’t (in part some of the arguments as per above).
The best analogy I can make is with regard to 9/11. Airport security totally changed. They implemented a shot-gun approach to safety and banned things like plastic ware that you can go get behind the gates. But it made everyone feel more safe. I haven’t followed specifically airliner hijackings since, but I know I sure as hell haven’t heard of any. And I don’t believe that’s simply because of increased security. It’s because you have a plane full of people who lived through 9/11 and would all risk their lives in the process of defending a plane knowing the potential of what could happen if they don’t. But as I google this, it looks like there’s been no US hijackings since 9/11, and they attribute it to greater security measures. I feel like that will be the case with a lot of COVID issues — we will attribute it mostly to rationalizing continued economic shutdown, and not acknowledge changing human behavior and awareness (though some may argue they’re inextricably linked).
I think it’s misguided. There are plenty of holes in the system. I can think of at least one really easy way to get a lot of stuff through security. It’s very obviously but I’ve never shared it publicly. In any case, someone plotting some legit terrorism isn’t going to be foiled by these changing color days “****! They raised the alert and we have to take off our shoes!”I haven't looked it up but I remember reading that the new 911 security has yet to stop a single incident either. I think it's been largely ineffective. People trying to get things past security have been able to. Although maybe it's more to scare people away to begin with. Kind of like a fake cameras around your house.
I don't like traveling through airports in China due to the extra attention from security I receive. But I'm very grateful that I don't have to take off my damn shoes here, lol. And maybe I like the extra full body pat downs they give me from all the all female security staff...I think it’s misguided. There are plenty of holes in the system. I can think of at least one really easy way to get a lot of stuff through security. It’s very obviously but I’ve never shared it publicly. In any case, someone plotting some legit terrorism isn’t going to be foiled by these changing color days “****! They raised the alert and we have to take off our shoes!”
It will be interesting to see what comes of it. My biggest questions regarding this have been the differences in mortality and the reported reduced mortality with ACE-inhibitors, the latter going completely contrary to everything that's been said previously. I know that there was question regarding the sizes claimed as of the dates listed, that there were discrepancies based on how many people were actually hospitalized as of certain dates. In any case, I do have questions about how they're mining some of the data (such as VTach that runs >6 seconds.... how is that showing up in a chart that they can mine those things?). Anyway, not saying there aren't answers. Will just have to wait. But if there are issues here that drastically compromise what their findings were, I think it's overall good for society come to grips with this. There's been a large deification of science without properly understanding what that means (if people were surveyed on what that term even meant, there would be no consistencies because it's a catchall for so many different things). In any case, for a long period of time you had religious institutions exerting a large amount of influence throughout communities and the world on what people thought. There were very simplistic views on things and there was a sense of literalism with which people would interpret scripture as well as inerrant views on religious leadership. As these views have started to significantly change over time, and as we've got more liberal in our interpretations of religious experience, we've felt an undying, yet largely unconscious, need to seek for authority and absolutism that eases our anxieties about the complexities of the world and our existence. Right now as a society, our approach to science is currently at the phase of acceptance by authority, and understandings and readings of the literature being done in the same way that more fundamentalist religious practitioners may view and implement their scripture, without a very nuanced understanding of knowing how all those beliefs and writings came to be.@infection
A mysterious company's coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling
Well, we do have an asinine presidentEverything doesn't have to be a lie. It is likely that the president was taking hydroxychloroquine despite your lawyer-speak analysis of the documents. I have taken that drug before. Lots of people have. The people who have convinced you that it is so dangerous are only doing so because they want to gin up yet another controversy. The desire to turn everything single thing this president says or does into a controversy is asinine.