Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

Both. But UGA specifically.

Now please STFU. Please. Or I will have to kill you.

[THE_WIZARD_]

...

[THE_WIZARD_]

..

[Jeff Buchanan]

COVID Update ....... took 2w off reading anything about it. Has anything really changed?

Actually, no:

Despite 2y of the pandemic, scientists still can't explain much of anything to do with it, frequently being quoted as saying, " we just don't know, need more data." There's somewhat of of an explanation for that and it involves the behavior of SARS2 in different populations and regions. e.g., the typical western European or North American human's immune system reacts differently to assault by a contagious virus. That makes generalized, sweeping hypothesis inapplicable in many instances.

Complicating factors are: human behavior in the face of the virus, mechanisms of virus mutation - there are currently two known, ATPG substitutions in the spike protein's genome and folding that make it easier for SARS2 to latch on to the ACE receptor in respiratory tissue, variable ways of data collection and reporting by country, state and province or county.

I've concluded the pandemic is not coming to predictable end. If it were, I'd be seeing the zenith and nadir of the predictable surges followed by sharp declines lessen at each occurrence. Not happening. What does this mean?

Well, humans on a global basis need to learn to live with it without crushing economies and social interaction. That approach is going to vary by region. Africa has a differnt circumstance than North America or Europe, for example.

IMO, I don't think it is debatable that high rates of vaccination with available vaccines curtail the virus' spread and the disease impact by region. The numbers and the facts on the ground don't lie. What is debatable in the general populations is mandating them. While that's not true in the private sector mostly under EEOC laws when it comes to sectors not so regulated and constitutionally protected where freedom of choice is part of those constitutional protections.

So, the dilemma is this: Case numbers will continue to be incorrectly judged as good measures to rely upon by governmental health authorities to curb mobility and social interaction. IOW, the COVID risks are outsized using this metric and result in PH measures where the costs outweigh the benefits - the "do something" problem. I'm mor worried about over-reaction to faulty data by governments than I am about the actual COVID risks. Logical conclusion: do what is necessary to force new case numbers lower and the way to do that is by wide spread vaccination to an identifiable objective of say 70% of a region's all ages population.

My view is that those who choose to not get vaccinated when they are eligible and vaccines are available should be incentivised to get vaccinated. There are many legal ways to do that without compromising constitutionally protected liberties. I'm seeing that and generally, there is dislike among those who have thought out their decisions to not get vaxed. Too bad.

There should be consequences for every decision one makes - good and bad ones and in this case there would be: Don't travel in conveyances available to the public and under regulatory authority of federal governments, pay more for your health insurance, be denied medical care when the need to care for the vaccinated approaches capacity, be denied access to venues and events that legally mandate vaccination to enter.

I won't quibble about one's free choice to not get vaxed. I'm comfortable with making the consequences of that choice uncomfortable for those who chose the no-vaccine for me route.

[AlabamAlum]

Talent,

I think you are the only other person on this forum that this will mean much to: Michael K. Williams (“Wire’s Omar) has died. Apparent drug overdose.

[iam416]

Yeah, very sad. Man’s gotta have a code.

[AlabamAlum]

Yeah, very sad. Man’s gotta have a code.

Indeed.

[iam416]

You won't find many better pieces on the current state of the Media than this: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-t...rolling-stone/

Kevin Williamson uses the obviously false Rolling Stone story on invermectin to make what I think is a fairly obvious point, but one that is still well worth making at every turn and one that Williamson makes very well.

[Mike]

Agreed. I read that earlier this morning. It's no wonder that narratives like "white supremacy" creep into the national conscience.

[iam416]

It's completely amazing that we are talking about the US as a white supremacist state and about how 19 early days of voting is not only Jim Crow, but Jim Crow ON STEROIDS.

They have no shame. None.

[Tom W]

That Rolling Stone is still in business, much less relevant as a news source after the UVA fabrication, is astonishing.

[iam416]

It's ok if you tell the right lies, i.e., the lies the Media knows are basically true -- so what if UVa was a total lie, we all know rich, white frat boys gang rape girls all the time, so it's ok.

[lineygoblue]

Why would anyone got to Rolling Stone as a news source?

That's like going to The WIzard for advice on siring male children.

[Jeff Buchanan]

There's a decent Economist (paywalled) piece called the threat of Illiberalism. It's central point is that IT IS A REAL THREAT not just some fringe ideology.

First, the Brits have a somewhat different definition of a liberal than we, amongst us here, might have. "Classical Liberals" believe in free markets, that people should be able to flourish whatever their sexuality or race. They share a suspicion of authority and entrenched interests. They believe in the desirability of change. I'd wager those values are shared by most of us here, well, except the radical leftist, DSL. Anyway, I'm a right leaning classical liberal.

There are left leaning liberals and right leaning liberals. There are progressives (not sure how that fits in), populists (seen as Trumpists) and then the radical (illliberal) left - that would be AOC.

Classical liberals and illiberal progressives could hardly disagree more over how to bring these things I mention in the first paragraph about. For classical liberals, the precise direction of progress is unknowable. It must be spontaneous and from the bottom up—and it depends on the separation of powers, so that nobody nor any group is able to exert lasting control. By contrast the illiberal left put their own power at the center of things, they structure it, because they are sure real progress is possible only after they have first seen to it that racial, sexual and other hierarchies are dismantled. Classical liberals use debate to hash out priorities and trade-offs in a pluralist society and then use elections to settle on a course. The illiberal left believe that the marketplace of ideas is rigged just like all the others. What masquerades as evidence and argument, they say, is really yet another assertion of raw power by the elite.

There's a large difference in method between classical liberals, progressives and illliberals that has profound implications. Classical liberals believe in setting fair initial conditions and letting events unfold through competition—by, say, eliminating corporate monopolies, opening up guilds, radically reforming taxation and making education accessible with vouchers. Progressives see laissez-faire as a pretence which powerful vested interests use to preserve the status quo. Instead, they believe in imposing “equity”—the outcomes that they deem just.

OTH, illiberal progressives think that equity requires the field to be tilted against those who are privileged and reactionary. That means restricting their freedom of speech, using a caste system of victimhood in which those on top must defer to those with a greater claim to restorative justice. It also involves making an example of supposed reactionaries, by punishing them when they say something that is taken to make someone who is less privileged feel unsafe. The results are calling-out, cancellation and no-platforming.

I thought this a good description of the American political milieu. The author concludes that circumstances are allowing the voice of the illiberal left to dominate the political debate and, hence, legislation, unchallenged by classical liberals. It is being challenged but instead by Trumpists - the radical right of the former Tea Party (e.g., voting laws, antiabortion legislation). It's polarizing with the predictable outcomes - nothing gets done.

[Jeff Buchanan]

In discussing this article with others, it was pointed out to me that the author sees this as a battle of ideas that has little relevance to practical matters that actually define how things get done at the federal, state and local level. I thought that encouraging in that old fashioned horse trading is still how most bills show up at a signers desk to be signed into law. I learned that the problem, somewhat extending from the battle of ideas, is that neither side is giving the cumbs it needs to give to move compromise legislation through the process of becoming law. An example is the Infrastructure Bill ...... who cares if a few wind turbines or solar panels the radical left wants funding for are added to the bill if the larger bill that will produce construction jobs to be filled by unemployed coal workers in WV is passed.

State and local level legislative action is burdened by the same party interests. I'm sure you can think of many in your own states and localities.