I found it, but will let Athos follow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What about the new grandchild?
|
I found it, but will let Athos follow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What about the new grandchild?
She is doing well. A little premature at 5.5 pounds, but healthy and greatly loved. Our daughter had a section so she is pretty sore.
I'm rather skeptical of that, but we'll see.Quote:
I found it. but will let Athos follow up.
Change your search terms or keywords because there are a ton of links to Athos's assertions going back years.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Strange how the two of you are assuring me that there are "tons of links", but neither one of you can come up with one. Like I said...skeptical.
Congrats on the birth of Gchild#1
For whatever reason your data input capacity is severely limited, I suspect that only you can fix it.
Here's how it's supposed to be done. Look and learn. Notice that no one had to ask me for documentation or links.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...86#post3859586
Thanks for the congrats. It's a special day, as I know you are more aware of than I am. Six?
I have 7. Gson 1,2,3 are grown. 4 will be next year and Gdaughter 1 just turned 16, while 2, and 3 are 6 and 3! You think you're a nut, just wait...it gets nuttier.
Oh Lord!
Prayers may help but get used to peanut butter sandwiches! Gma's tend to ignore mates while Gbabies are around.
I actually rather like PB sandwiches. 8D
Plagiarizing .Biden says Trump has no plan. Then when asked what he would do he describes exactly what the Trump administration has already done.
So not his plan then, typical government, more of the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
worth reading .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epidemi...rd-11603477330
https://gbdeclaration.org/Quote:
Most pertinently, the two men are the authors—with Sunetra Gupta, a professor of epidemiology at Oxford—of the Great Barrington Declaration. Published on Oct. 4, the declaration is a cri de coeur against lockdowns and other economic restrictions that have hobbled swaths of the world. It asked instead for “focused protection”—a policy of allowing “those at minimal risk of death” to resume their lives while societies concentrate on “better protecting those who are at highest risk.”
I'm not at all sure about herd immunity, like how many would die while we get there is my question, but if we had a rapid response protocol to identify and deal with spikes and outbreaks then we could be more selective in our shutdowns/quarantines/isolations in ways that wouldn't send a bunch of sick people to the local hospital all at once. As to who gets sick and who dies? Sure we can read the trends and data we have collected but that's no guarantee, nor can we predict the exceptions to the rules. A bit presumptive and assumptive at best given the early stages of learning about this virus and the longer term effects after recovery after infection and the time it takes for that recovery which we know can vary greatly.
I don't know where that balance is or sweet spot for response but doubt seriously if we are even there yet. Heck Tom, many don't even believe the virus exists or can be dangerous to some so here we are speculating about what works and what doesn't.
I do know though, there is a lot out here going on and I'll just keep looking out for me and mine and let everybody else do what they got to do. It's a crisis alright believe it or not, and no quick fixes, or great plans. Just trying not to be a statistic, and have regrets.
Stay safe everybody.
I read this and there are glaring deficiencies in the plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The primary one is they omit any form of centralized control and planning. That's precisely the main problem today in the USA.
Other deficiencies include the reliance on "herd immunity" - a strategy that has been denounced by every credible epidemiologist in the country.
Also, they minimize youth getting the virus because, they say, it is not as deadly as the older people being infected. This is simply not as true as it was once thought to be, and they completely ignore the FACT that youth can still transmit the disease to others.
Best to stick with Faucci and company to weather the storm.
I'm not so sure of that. Not many places with more centralized control and planning than Europe, and nearly every nation there, including Italy, France, and Germany, are having record setting spikes.Quote:
The primary one is they omit any form of centralized control and planning. That's precisely the main problem today in the USA.
”https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/multip...ovid-19-cases/Quote:
New coronavirus infections hit record highs in at least nine European countries Thursday — as some nations announced tougher restrictions to stop the disease from spreading, according to reports.
The nine hard-hit nations — including Italy, France and Germany — saw the highest daily increase in cases since the pandemic began, according to CNN and other outlets.
“The general situation has become very serious,” Lothar Wieler, the president of Germany’s RKI public health institute said at a press conference in Berlin. “We have to expect that the virus will continue to spread rapidly."
And that's not to mention New York state which is practically the model of centralized control and planning, and their cases are spiking as well.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Coronavirus%20trend%20in%20New%20York&qs= ds&form=QBRE
I can't get that aggravating link to simply point to NY, but you can select that state and see their stats.
There is no centralized control in the United States. There are 50 states all competing with one another (and sometimes with the federal government!) for PPE causing shortages where needed and driving up prices. There is no clear centralized direction on the simple matter of wearing a mask - known to be a major factor in reducing infection.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Trump himself has caused mass confusion leading astray millions of people with his luke-warm, and often contradictory, "guidance" as he constantly undermines his own scientific government agencies and refuses to provide a central planning function.
Trump fires or ignores qualified epidemiologists and replaces them with quacks like Scott Atlas who is a radiologist not an epidemiologist and hasn't practiced medicine in ten years but he kowtows to Trump and disastrously preaches herd immunity so he's the authority.
Spikes elsewhere do not obviate the need for centralization here. In fact, that should support the idea.
So we need to have some of that centralized control and planning that's working so well in Europe and New York? New York and California both have mandated masks and both are experiencing spikes. The same is true in many states including the one I live in. I don't think it's nearly as simple as you suggest. When centralized control/planning and wearing masks are plainly not working so well, then it's hard to get excited about it. At some point it becomes apparent that this is really all about bashing Trump.Quote:
There is no centralized control in the United States. There are 50 states all competing with one another (and sometimes with the federal government!) for PPE causing shortages where needed and driving up prices. There is no clear centralized direction on the simple matter of wearing a mask - known to be a major factor in reducing infection.
So spikes where they have been employing centralization supports the idea of centralization? Well..OK, I guess.Quote:
Spikes elsewhere do not obviate the need for centralization here. In fact, that should support the idea.
NY needs are not the same as the states in the Midwest etc. The only logical response is regional ones . Everyone keeps denying the reality of herd immunity . It can come 2 ways .Enough people get infected through exposure ;or a vaccine . These are not fringe epidemiologists . Listen to the scientists !!! .Quote:
The primary one is they omit any form of centralized control and planning. That's precisely the main problem today in the USA.
Exactly. The response, centrally directed to move support where and as needed, can be as direct as county level. When we know that some hospitals nationwide are still experiencing shortages, the central distribution point is the most effective. Daily reports can be submitted to the central planning point and the necessary support can be immediately moved to where it's needed. At present, the needed support goes unresolved for days and weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Just as importantly, a central response can once and for all provide a UNITED message to the country. At present, the messages are all over the place. There are still people who believe the virus is a hoax!
Tom, no one is denying the reality of herd immunity. What is being denied is its effectiveness. Do you understand that letting the virus to spread on its own to achieve herd immunity will cost 70% of Americans to be infected with a death rate in the millions. Do the math. Even a vaccine will take time to achieve herd immunity. There is enough evidence to know that preventive measures are effective. Masks, hygiene, social distancing, etc. The data is available.Quote:
Everyone keeps denying the reality of herd immunity
They ARE fringe epidemiologists!!! The scientists are saying the opposite of herd immunity as you describe. By all means, LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.Quote:
These are not fringe epidemiologists . Listen to the scientists !!! .
Now why would you listen to scientists? they are not considered creditable on climate change, why should they be considered creditable on the pandemic? In any case there are as many opinions as there are scientists. It should be remembered despite the many deaths that this thing has actually infected a small percentage of the population both in the US and in the world at large. Distancing measures have proved effective in control but eradication is a long way off and maybe we should stop the scientific induced panic, which is really led by doctors who are overwhelmed because medical facilities are inadequate and take reasonable precautions and get on with our lives. The human race has survived many pandemics but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid mediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The world death rate is no worse than it was before the pandemic
YEAR DEATH RATE GROWTH RATE 2020 7.612 0.440% 2019 7.579 0.440% 2018 7.546 -0.320% 2017 7.570 -0.320%
Pretty good question.Quote:
The human race has survived many pandemics but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid media
Most people and most scientists consider science very credible on climate change. You're in a tiny minority if you think otherwise. As to COVID-19, they should be considered credible because they are epidemiologists and this is precisely their field of study and expertise.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Not true! There is near unanimous agreement on both climate change and COVID-19.Quote:
In any case there are as many opinions as there are scientists.
By that reasoning, medical science should do nothing about ANY disease or medical problem or, say, drunk driving or rape.Quote:
It should be remembered despite the many deaths that this thing has actually infected a small percentage of the population both in the US and in the world at large.
Do you consider millions of deaths scientifically induced panic?Quote:
Distancing measures have proved effective in control but eradication is a long way off and maybe we should stop the scientific induced panic
Should we just let people die in the street where they lie?Quote:
which is really led by doctors who are overwhelmed because medical facilities are inadequate
That's what we're doing and trying our best to cope with the disaster.Quote:
take reasonable precautions and get on with our lives.
The only psychosis I see is coming from the White House deniers and from people who claim it's all a hoax. The media has mainly told the truth about the pandemic. It's impossible not to tell the truth AND cover the news.Quote:
but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid media
The world death rate may be naturally declining as medicine and health in general improve. The pandemic has not yet hit full stride. The precautions against COVID may be responsible for a declining death rate. For example, lockdowns have drastically reduced the number of accidental deaths - the third leading cause of death. Auto deaths are down due to the virus. In other words, your stand-alone statistics could use a major interpretation.Quote:
The world death rate is no worse than it was before the pandemic
In any case, is a declining death rate a reason to NOT react to a pandemic?
Athos, you think you have refuted my arguments but my opinions are based on fact not hypothesis, the so called science on climate change is a hypothesis, a modern day religion, where the "priests" of this religion condemn non-believers but there are many reasons for heating of the planet and humans are not in charge of anything but observation. We once considered the idea of a spherical Earth nonsense yet this fact was known from ancient times, the flat earth is a hypothesis not born out by facts and I consider the climate change priests flat earthers and the panic merchants of the pandemic no different. Did I say we should not react, no we should take sensible precautions, personal isolation, social distancing, but shutdown, it is an over reaction. We are not in the times of the great plague though the media would have us believe we are. A certain percentage will be infected no matter what we do. As to the interpretation of statistics, I leave that to politicians who exploit them for their own ends and just say look at the bigger picture, humans are not in change of anything outside of their personal space.
I did not say the death rate was declining, only that it really is not significantly worse, which might be expected. Yes other reasons for death have taken a holiday, less auto accidents, less gun deaths, less crime all this reinforces my thoughts that you are going to die when you are going to die, death is never cheated for long
This is a borderline hysterical rant. There is no point in responding to it, but thanks for giving it to us. We have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That is true. It's not exactly news, but it is true.Quote:
you are going to die when you are going to die, death is never cheated for long
nothing hysterical about it and you only consider it a rant because it contravenes those "truths" you hold "self evident". I glad you know where I'm coming from but you don't know where I've beenQuote:
This is a borderline hysterical rant. There is no point in responding to it, but thanks for giving it to us. We have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now.
classic quote "what is truth?" The truth is we all die, the only questions; how and when? the truth; no man knows the hourQuote:
That is true. It's not exactly news, but it is true.
I don't know of very many people who argue that global temps have not risen marginally over the past fifty or sixty years, or that atmospheric CO2 levels have not risen substantially over the past century. The question is what, if anything, to do about it. People like AOC are going around shrieking that civilization will be over by 2030 if we don't adopt her Green New Deal. If anything has the potential to wipe out civilization by 2030, it's the GND with its impossible emissions standards and catastrophic budget requirements. And then JB wants to stop fracking which gave us the natural gas revolution with its resulting drop in CO2 over the past decade. So if the global warming alarmists want to be taken seriously, then they have to come up with a more serious and workable solution than the GND, abandoning natural gas, or the Paris Accords.
The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effective. is it only me or have others ignored that we are passing through an extremely hot belt of nebula gas and although the particles are far apart any that earth comes in contact with must have an effect eventually? Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitableQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The thinking amongst some is that going to renewables would cut CO2 emissions and reverse the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that would be prohibitively expensive, would have to be enforced globally, would wreak havoc on the economies of third world nations, and would result in, at best, an unstable and unreliable power grid. I'd say your question is a really, really good one.Quote:
The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effective
I don't know that I would say all of those are inevitable, but they are certainly all constant. We can manage some of them, but not eliminate them all, so your statement is worth considering for sure.Quote:
Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable.
I agree Clete but man CAN control what he does to contribute to climate change and he should even if its just a little. It can be built on.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
All good points JL, and you point to many obstacles but they can be mitigated and overcome in TIME. We don't have a perfect plan YET, but we can and should be developing one. Some are doing just that. Seems we have discussed that before.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
See response to Clete above.Quote:
I don't know that I would say all of those are inevitable, but they are certainly all constant. We can manage some of them, but not eliminate them all, so your statement is worth considering for sure.
It is not established that man contributes much to climate change, it is all the mystique of computer models and facts only measure outcomes not cause. Something triggered the big thaw 12,000 years ago and the climate has been warming ever since. There were not sufficient humans to trigger thatQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Fine with me. Let us know when it's done, but I'm not going to pretend that the GND is it. It's a foolish disaster.Quote:
but we can and should be developing one.
It's only you. Hot nebula gas, tho', is catchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.Quote:
Life as we know it is always under threat.................... from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable
Greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide - create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere. Instead of biodegrading, they bio-accumulate by forming tight bonds. These resulting compound molecules do not break down in the atmosphere. Instead, they build up in the air, The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air stems from several activities, including deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. In addition to creating warmer temperatures, excess carbon dioxide lets stronger sun rays penetrate the atmosphere, which also causes rising temperatures.
but it is a fact, but not one that can be modelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
That is the theory, but it is only a theoryQuote:
Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.
Temperatures are not rising as significantly as predicted, there are many factors that are not included in the models such as the positioning of heat sinks near instruments. The problem is humans think that we are in control, that we can control our environment. If we were serious we would limit population and stop destruction of forests to grow crops such as soya, palm and corn. Forests are needed to sequestrate carbon. The oceans playa huge role in climate and sequestrating carbonQuote:
Greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide - create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere. Instead of biodegrading, they bio-accumulate by forming tight bonds. These resulting compound molecules do not break down in the atmosphere. Instead, they build up in the air, The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air stems from several activities, including deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. In addition to creating warmer temperatures, excess carbon dioxide lets stronger sun rays penetrate the atmosphere, which also causes rising temperatures.
That's somewhat like saying that inventing a giant CO2 eating machine would be a huge step in the right direction. Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be nice for sure, but it is completely unworkable both now and in the foreseeable future. Every renewable is too unreliable to be a primary source of electricity other than hydro and, in a few cases, geothermal, but they are largely maxed out and aren't available for expansion.Quote:
Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.
Not sure what you mean there. You say that our problem is that we think we are in control of our environment, which seems to imply that we are not, but then you make all kinds of suggestions of how we can, indeed, control our environment. You are certainly correct, however, that the models have not proven to be accurate. Having loonies around like AOC and Thunberg making crazy suggestions doesn't help at all.Quote:
The problem is humans think that we are in control, that we can control our environment. If we were serious we would limit population and stop destruction of forests to grow crops such as soya, palm and corn. Forests are needed to sequestrate carbon. The oceans playa huge role in climate and sequestrating carbon
Number one greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html
Water vapour on the atmosphere is a natural occurring aspect of the way our atmosphere operates, CO2 is not pollution, methane is pollution so shut down the oil industry and let's get back to the dark ages. Rising Population is the the biggest contributor to man man emissions and is the reason why all these reliance on renewables is so much pissing in the wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You can disagree with your politicians as much as you like but unless you are prepared to live in the dark ages forget transiting to a non carbon future. Electric cars are not an answer either, the battery producing industries are highly polluting.
In order to offer an real solutions to our supposed problems we have to radically change the way our societies operate. Unnecessary travel needs to be curtailed, population controlled, food production radically controlled, overconsumption curtailed
Bingo.Quote:
unless you are prepared to live in the dark ages forget transiting to a non carbon future.
Gasoline cars quite possibly will be on the way out in twenty more years.Quote:
Electric cars are not an answer either, the battery producing industries are highly polluting.
Food production is presently not a major problem. Not sure how to control population.Quote:
In order to offer an real solutions to our supposed problems we have to radically change the way our societies operate. Unnecessary travel needs to be curtailed, population controlled, food production radically controlled, overconsumption curtailed
The article was from 2008 and hasn't been updated. More data has been collected at Nasa.gov though and...
https://www.greenandgrowing.org/is-w...reenhouse-gas/
If the Earth warms and man helps it that can't be good for humans or other life. If you're saying do NOTHING and keep polluting I think you're asking for trouble sooner rather than late.
Did you read that from your article? In what possible way does that negate the absolute fact that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas?Quote:
Therefore, they confirmed that the role of the gas is a critical component of climate change. Moreover, the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is so dangerous that it may double the warming events determined by high CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Not suggesting we do nothing. We are already decreasing CO2 emissions and have been for several years thanks to natural gas production enabled by the very fracking that JB wants to stop. The GND is idiotic so we need some people with some brains to come up with some real world solutions.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:26 PM. |