-
[QUOTE=Villainy;2621355]So yes, I'm a democratic douche because I think you don't understand anything about statistics or analysis. You mouth off whatever you think at some isolated moment in time and it bears no resemblance to reality.[/QUOTE]You are a Democratic douche because you are bringing the same shit over here after boring the crap out of everyone on the American Politics board. You are a Democratic douche because you are attacking me and not the position everyone agrees with.
The WHO said the only reason for lockdowns was the temporary spread in the delay of cases. Got that douche? Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of Covid. Bill Maher spoke out against lockdowns, and the entire world save for a few places are coming out of it.
The reason cases in Colombia are lower is the vaccine? Uh, no, douche, the vaccine does not prevent the spread of Covid. That is a fact, deal with it.
Stanford analyzed all the interventions and showed that doing a little intervention like Sweden had the same results as extreme lockdowns. That is science, douche, not picking out a few countries and getting the results you want. You can pick 4 points on a graph and argue anything. Correlation does not equal causation.
JJBee is smarter than me? The guy who spread Covid across 2 continents and was so stupid that he did not know what he had? He got it, and I did not after being exposed hundreds of times, and he is smarter than me? Uh, okay.
Let me ask you something douche. As for my prediction being wrong, did YOU predict a 100 million Americans would get sick with Covid despite everything that was done? After all the debt we went into and businesses and supply lines destroyed, given that 1 in 3 Americans got Covid anyway, did we accomplish anything? Thing that I did predict is that the "scientists" would say no bad how things got that they would not admit to fucking up. They would say, "Can you imagine if we did nothing?
Yeah, I can and I do not think it would not have been a helluva lot different with Covid if we had done "nothing: and left the economy alone. I think would be in a helluva lot better shape. Again, do not harm. Only destroy the economy if you are sure it will save lives.
As for Democrats being so stupid that 75% of them think that there is a 25+% chance of being hospitalized with Covid, that sounds about right. The Democratic news channels scared the shit out of everyone and accused Trump of not caring about Covid. That worked great until Biden came in and nothing changed. Hell, you douches are blaming the vaccine's lack of effectiveness on Trump. LOL.
You have not seen the last of this. $30 billion in goods off the California coast that cannot be unloaded, oil and gas prices through the roof. The whole notion that you can just print money, inflate the stock market, and not deal with inflation? Ha! Paying people to not work? Firing needed workers who refuse to get a shitty vaccine that does not prevent transmission? Fucking Brilliant!
The supply chains are fucked for years. Johnny may not get the toy he wants for Christmas, and the country I grew up that was shell shocked in the 70's with gas lines is running out of everything. AGAIN! Airlines are cancelling thousands of flight every week likely screwing things up for the holidays. Outside of gasoline, I do not recall seeing a shortage in my fucking life.
Jobs return but lives never do? Actually, what what happened is the economy has been decimated and a 100 million people got Covid anyway. Woo hoo!
Get your popcorn ready douches because the stupid path we took and that you are defending has not come to an end. Oh no, the bill has just come due for this 18 month holiday, and you douches are going to see that you reap what you sow. Enjoy the decline and just remember this is what you wanted, economic destruction.
-
[QUOTE=MrEnternational;2621495]As I have said the chance of even being asked to unlock your electronics (the reason for this drawnout discusssion in the first place) is slim same as you say buying your way out of it would be. Again, anything COULD happen, but what are the chances of it actually happening. That is what the lightning example was about, probability, not a direct comparison to what happens inside of an airport as you are falsely making it out to have been.
Why does there have to be an argument? Even the original person that said he would not unlock his electronics said nothing about not being polite to people when everyone that responded assumed he would be responding in an impolite, boisterous, and conceited manner. Getting clarification does not mean there is an argument.
How do you know he is following orders? Moreover, if he was following orders, how do you know the orders he was given were legal? He could be acting on his own thinking he is doing something good and beneficial, or he could even have misunderstood orders. Have you ever done something in a different way than you were taught or were supposed to be doing it? I certainly have. .[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2020/04/border-searches/[/URL]
As requested, nipped in the bus. This is about searches at the US border, which are allowed if the officer has reasonable suspicion.
Regarding Colombia in particular, I've already given you the answer to that. You can use the sequence of events which led to the 4th and 9th Circuit Court rulings. I'll even help you.
1. The government began searching devices at the border after DHS lawyers decided they had the right.
2. A legal challenge to the government right to search electronic devices at the border was filed.
3. The courts ruled determining when such searches are allowed.
Pretty fucking simple. If Colombia is at step 1 the search is legal. If Colombia is at Step 2 the search is legal, although at a later date it may be ruled to have been illegal. If Colombia is past Step 3, depending on the outcome of Step 2 the search is almost certainly legal. If it is illegal it is up to you to prove to the court it was illegal.
Now to deal with the rest of your delusions. Others have reported having their devices searched, so it obviously can happen. How likely it is to happen depends on a lot of variables. If you've been searching for certain things or visiting certain websites, the chance increases. If some official has decided to start a crusade the chance increases. If you're connected with a person being investigated the chance increases. The chance of someone pulling up beside me and shooting at me is tint. However it happened to a coworker.
Here's the important part. Try to pay attention. When something happens, the likelihood of it happening doesn't matter. At all. Not the teeniest, tiniest little bit. What matters is how you respond. If I've got a lottery ticket that matches all the numbers for a $400 million jackpot, should I throw it away because it's unlikely?
I'f someone starts shooting at me, I know what to do. If I get run of the road, I know what to do. And in the unlikely event I'm asked to unlock my phone, I know what to do. Arguing about the likelihood won't get me on the plane. Waiting in some little room for some official government response to my questions about the legality of the request doesn't get me on the plane. Sitting in jail with my phone in the evidence locker waiting for a court date doesn't get me on the plane. Know what does get me on the plane? Unlocking the phone.
How do I know the guy asking me to unlock the phone is following orders? Because he's in an area where he's almost certainly being observed. Because he's asking something which some people will object to. Because a certain amount of expertise is needed to do a thorough search. Because he almost certainly doesn't get paid enough to take initiative that could cost him his job. Need any more reasons?
And finally, how does asking one person at the airport a question about the legality of a search provide a definitive answer? I can spend the next 3 weeks giving examples showing how completely useless that is. That's almost as definitive as asking someone driving a car what's the proper valve lash on a Gen 1 413 hemi with solid rockers.
-
Touche'
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621080]What exactly is "my advice" on Covid? Last I checked, I was saying how little could be done about it. I advocated for the vaccine, have been vaccinated, but think it should should only be given by choice. It is time to admit how little the government has done worked.
You being the Democratic douche think if everyone is vaccinated Covid will miraculously go away and want to vaccinate everyone by force even 5 year olds. I guess you are in favor of banning unvaccinated people from restaurants and other public facilities even though the vaccine does not prevent transmission. Did I miss something?
The latest data from the UK shows that the vaccine once again does not prevent transmission and in households where Covid abounds the rate of getting Covid drops from 38 to 25% if you are vaccinated. I called the vaccine shitty and to me, this is more data showing how shitty the vaccine really is, and IMO it will continue to fade over time.
As for those who vote Democratic and can see when government is wrong (unlike you government dick sucking Democratic douches), we actually find common ground.
I did not find anything wrong with this Maher video: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3gy_CLXho[/URL].
Or this one on Covid origins: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8[/URL].
And now Maher and this Atlantic reporter are saying we need to say the pandemic is over: [URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/just-get-back-living-bill-maher-declares-pandemic-over-says-you-shouldnt-have-wear-masks[/URL]..[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/madonna-cancel-culture-artists-free-speech/2021/11/02/id/1042966/[/URL]
-
[QUOTE=MrEnternational;2621400]The type of rationale during this thing has been inconceivable to me. If you are vaxed then it is okay for you to come in and spead the disease around. If you are unvaxed, don't you dare come in here and spread the disease that you don't have around. So it is better for a vaxed person that is infected to come in than an unvaxed person that is not infected? If you are vaxed with the disease then we are happy to continue being your employer. If you are unvaxed without the disease then turn in your ID. What logically should matter is if the person is infected, regardless of their vaccination status.
The world has gone crazy. Nobody ever came and made sure I was wearing a condom so I would not get AIDS, never came to make sure I was wrapped up so I did not catch pneumonia, never came to make sure my seat belt was on so I did not die in an accident, never made sure my shoes were tied so I did not trip and fall. But now everyone is dead set on making sure I am vaxed so I don't get Covid to the point that I can not work or enter certain establishments without being so. This type of thinking must be well beyond my paygrade or from another world.[/QUOTE]Let's start with the beginning. I can't speak for your employer, but I can relate the rules established by my employer April 2020. These rules have not changed since the availability of the vaccines.
If you are experiencing any symptoms of Covid you are not allowed to come to work. You are required to either get a negative Covid test or remain away from work for 14 days before returning to work. If you choose to not get tested and take the 14 day quarantine option, you can use available PTO days and you will not be terminated for your absence. If you get tested and test positive the company will pay you for your 14 day quarantine.
If you report to work with symptoms, you will be sent home without pay and require a Covid test. Failure to get tested will result in termination of employment.
Vaccinated or unvaccinated doesn't matter here. What matters is knowingly exposing others. We are a critical, core industry. If we have an outbreak and have to shut down, almost every industry will have to shut down.
Now for the rest of it. I don't know about your job, but I'm not allowed to fuck, with or without a condom, while I'm working. Since I'm not allowed to fuck at work, if I contract AIDS, I won't be spreading it to everyone at work. I don't recall any specific mention about performing anal sex without a condom at work, but I'm sure HR has a rule.
Some forms of pneumonia are contagious, some aren't. If you work where there is an inhalant risk which could cause pneumonia or other damage to the lungs someone is coming around to be certain you are using the proper PPE. There's even training so you know what's required and how to use it.
Every US state has seatbelt laws. The US requires every car to have 3 point seatbelts. Every new car is required to be equipped with airbags. Depending on which state you are in you can be stopped and ticketed for failure to wear your seatbelt. I'm guessing you weren't aware of this, but failure to wear a seatbelt is not a contagious disease, neither is failure to tie your shoes. If you're walking around with your shoes untied, it's not going to cause everyone else's shoes to suddenly become untied. If tying your shoes is too difficult, have you considered loafers?
About 2 years ago not far from where I live there was an outbreak of Hepatitis A. The restaurant was closed and only reopened after all employees had been vaccinated for Hepatitis A. This type of thing happens quite often. Why have I never seen you posting about restaurant workers being required to get the Hep A vaccine? Why have you never complained about not being able to eat at a restaurant where some employees have Hep A? When was the last time you posted complaining about all the vaccines nurses are required to get?
And if it's just that your employer is requiring Covid vaccination, why bring your complaints here? Do you want me to send a letter to HR explaining how you're special and shouldn't be required to get vaccinated?
-
[QUOTE=Villainy;2621502]I see your a proud graduate of the Elvis school of illogic.
I'm sorry I guess I'm tilting at windmills trying to demonstrate simple statistical correlations to a graduate of the Elvis school of logical nonsense.[/QUOTE]Yawn. Funny how the WHO came over to my position. [URL]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688[/URL].
The latest discussion about strict lockdowns started after the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19 said they should not be used as the primary method of control.
Dr Nabarro made the statements in an interview with The Spectator.
"The only time we believe a lockdown in justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources; protect your health workers who are exhausted," Dr Nabarro said.
"But by and large, we'd rather not do it."
Between this, the Stanford study, and mountains of data, the debate on lockdowns is over, but the douches still want to argue about their being right.
You do not destroy economies because you think a measure, lockdowns, might work to save lives. Again, do no harm.
Peru locked down harder than anywhere and had the highest death rate in the world. With Villany's comment about genetic makeup, I guess the reason was when the virus had a chance to infect a Swede or Peruvian, it went for the Peruvian. Clearly, the Covid virus is racist and I think we need to intentionally infect more white people with Covid to offset this.
Villany, why are you attacking me instead of the WHO? Oh right, because you are a douche!
-
[QUOTE=JjBee62;2621476]You seem to be using that word wrong. There are still people arguing that the earth is flat, so a recently released study doesn't mean something is indisputable. In this case, if I'm seeing the same study there seem to be a few salient points you glossed over.
1. The study covers the risk of infected people infecting others with the Delta variant within their own households. That's hardly earthshaking news. Within your own household you're around those people throughout your total infectious period, so if you're infected, vaccinated or not, shouldn't make much difference in your own household.
2.
3.
Studies also indicate that significant loss of brain tissue is a common occurrence for people who have had COVID. Since unvaccinated people are more likely to contract the disease and are more likely to have serious symptoms. Well perhaps you should reconsider your remarks.
[/QUOTE]Hi JB, which "that word" do you refer to?
They are not "salient points". They are irrelevanat points to the point that I was making. There is a study that demonstrates vaxd are just as tansmissable as unvaxxed. Your first reaction is to dispute its veracity. Ok, then show a study that refutes this conclusion.
You seem to think that the population of the study (households) is in some way not representative of the wide rpopulation. Yet most people live in households. And if it was obvious that everyone on the household would get COVID regardless. Then both sample sizes would show 100% - which they were far from!
Your points 2 and 3 I think are irrelevant to my comment. I said vaxd and unvaxd are equally transmissable. I didn't comment on how long they were infectious of how likely they were to become infected.
As for "loss of brain tissue" - I have not read anything on that at all. Do you have any studies on that? But regardless, that w / be a danger to someone that contractfs COVID. So if the nonvaxd are more at danger to that, then that is a danger yo oneself, as I mentioned in my final comment - "the unvaxd are only an increased danger to themselves" - surely that's their decision. Like drinking alcohol, smoking, taking drugs, crossing the road.
-
Touche'
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]JJBee is smarter than me? The guy who spread Covid across 2 continents and was so stupid that he did not know what he had? He got it, and I did not after being exposed hundreds of times, and he is smarter than me? Uh, okay..[/QUOTE]Except for this part, that turd knew very well what they had (as did everyone else hopefully including the authorities) because the hospital told her after they tested her after the ambulance brought her there.
But they wanted to go visit some 3rd world putas and knew they wouldn't need proof of a neg test upon arrival.
-
Statistics?
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621671]Peru locked down harder than anywhere and had the highest death rate in the world. With Villany's comment about genetic makeup, I guess the reason was when the virus had a chance to infect a Swede or Peruvian, it went for the Peruvian. Clearly, the Covid virus is racist and I think we need to intentionally infect more white people with Covid to offset this.
Villany, why are you attacking me instead of the WHO? Oh right, because you are a douche![/QUOTE]How many times can it be said. Statistics are far more persuasive than random speculation out of the Elvis school of random hunches. [URL]https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/[/URL].
Sweden 11.5% CoVid cases as a percent of the population.
Peru. 6. 6%. CoVid cases as a percent of the population.
The fact that Peru has more deaths as a percentage of population than Sweden despite having a much lower rate of infection can be attributed to Sweden having a better health care system.
-
[QUOTE=JustTK;2621368] So the vaxd and the unvaxd are equally as likely to pass the virus on to any vulnerable / imuno-compromised person.[/QUOTE]No, the study did not look at or compare the rates of transmission by vaxxed vs unvaxxed. If you really think it did, then pull out a quote from it. I read the whole thing. But then, I'm [B]unbiased[/B].
-
1 photos
[QUOTE=JjBee62;2621570][URL]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2020/04/border-searches/[/URL]
As requested, nipped in the bus. This is about searches at the US border, which are allowed if the officer[/QUOTE]Brother J, sometimes you write the longest unnecessary stuff. Me and my girl went to Exito yesterday where I bought a set of 2 9-cube silicone ice trays to keep in my luggage so I can make ice when I am staying in these airbnbs from now on. The price was 20,000 pesos, but when I checked out at the register it said 10,000 pesos and on the receipt it said 50% discount for "bolita verde."
Walking out of the store me and my girl started to debate what bolita verde was. Then I said fuck that. Let's just go back in here and do the simple thing: ASK!
Went to the customer service desk and there sat your cousin. I handed him the receipt and asked what bolita verde was. Well he wanted to see the item so I took it out of my gymsac and handed it to him. He went to punching all kind of stuff into the computer and giving us the history of Exito, how many employees were at that particular store, about how the security guard's cousin is in the army and so forth. Then, literally after 5 minutes, he finally told me the simple answer to what I had asked. It was a marked down item, but he had no idea why the tag did not specify that.
Once again I remind you that this discussion originally had NOTHING to do with the United States. This started because PolloNegro said that WHEN LEAVING MEDELLIN there is "a big increase in the airlines waiting until you enter into the tunnels headed to the plane and then snatching you aside for a strip search, computer search and a phone search, looking for inappropriate photos."
To which VasyaPetya responded asking "What if you refuse to unlock your phone for them or your laptop? They can't get into either of mine because mine are encrypted so good luck to them. "
So this was NOT about searches in the US. You hijacked it and made it that way, and went all around the world in 1 week in the process.
[QUOTE=JjBee62;2621570]And finally, how does asking one person at the airport a question about the legality of a search provide a definitive answer? I can spend the next 3 weeks giving examples showing how completely useless that is. That's almost as definitive as asking someone driving a car what's the proper valve lash on a Gen 1 413 hemi with solid rockers.[/QUOTE]Do you honestly believe that I was an officer in the United States Navy and worked to obtain a masters degree and would not obtain information from a reputable source? You act like I am just going to waltz into the airport and ask the first swinging richard that I pass about searches in the airport. I have enough sense to go directly ask people that would be charged with such searches or to the office that they come from. I have heard of a dumb question P. O. , but you must have been the first dumb response P. O.
-
[QUOTE=JustTK;2621731]Hi JB, which "that word" do you refer to?
They are not "salient points". They are irrelevanat points to the point that I was making. There is a study that demonstrates vaxd are just as tansmissable as unvaxxed. Your first reaction is to dispute its veracity. Ok, then show a study that refutes this conclusion.
You seem to think that the population of the study (households) is in some way not representative of the wide rpopulation. Yet most people live in households. And if it was obvious that everyone on the household would get COVID regardless. Then both sample sizes would show 100% - which they were far from!
Your points 2 and 3 I think are irrelevant to my comment. I said vaxd and unvaxd are equally transmissable. I didn't comment on how long they were infectious of how likely they were to become infected.
As for "loss of brain tissue" - I have not read anything on that at all. Do you have any studies on that? But regardless, that w / be a danger to someone that contractfs COVID. So if the nonvaxd are more at danger to that, then that is a danger yo oneself, as I mentioned in my final comment - "the unvaxd are only an increased danger to themselves" - surely that's their decision. Like drinking alcohol, smoking, taking drugs, crossing the road.[/QUOTE]The word you used incorrectly was "indisputable. " A study, particularly one which you misrepresented does not make anything "indisputable. " It might lead to a consensus within the appropriate scientific community, but there will still be those who dispute it. I'm somewhat embarrassed for you that I need to point that out again, since my first paragraph made it abundantly clear.
More embarrassment for you is coming. I didn't dispute the study which you mentioned. In fact I quite clearly agreed with the study in my first point. I suppose redundancy is the order of the day, but you failed to understand something which I wrote in simple and clear terms.
I'll go over point 1 again. The study you referred to showed that [B]persons infected with Covid [/B], regardless of vaccination status were equally likely to infect others [B]within their own household.[/B] "Within their own household is a critical part of the study, and twice now you've omitted it. I must conclude this was not by accident and your intention is to misrepresent the study.
That is not irrelevant, it's clearly a salient point. Let's try this it like this: If I point out a study which shows following a vegan diet greatly reduces life expectancy, but leave out "if they try to forcibly change the diet of carnivorous animals", I've misrepresented the study, by claiming something the study did not show.
The study you feel compelled to misrepresent does not show vaccinated and unvaccinated people transmit the disease equally and the study clearly states that is not the case.
Yes, I think, actually "know" is the correct word, that within the household is not representative to within the entire population. Perhaps your household and your behavior outside of the household is unique.
If you live with a domestic partner, within your household you probably spend several hours every day sleeping next to them. I'm guess that you don't spend several hours sleeping next to 25% of the people who you see outside of your household. Am I wrong? If I meet you for lunch will we need to go lay down together for 8 hours? That's got to be awkward. "Hi Doc. Here for my annual checkup. Do you want to sleep with me before or after you check my prostate?
If you live with children, depending on their age you probably come within close physical contact with them frequently. You share meals together, sit and watch TV together, work on homework or play games together. How often, while at the grocery store, do you sit down on a couch with the cashier and watch a movie together? I guess that would explain why the cashiers are so slow.
Within the household is not an acceptable analogy for the general population. If you had read beyond the headline you would have seen the study recognized that fact.
No. The transmission rate within all households would not be expected to be 100%. First, not all households are the same. A household with a single parent and 2 late teen children would likely have a lower household transmission rate than a household with 2 parents and 4 children under the age of 5. A household of 3 living in. 6,000 square foot home would likely have a lower household transmission rate than a family of 10 living in an 800 square foot home.
My points 2 and 3 are only irrelevant if you insist that everyone spends 8 hours daily in a bed with a significant number of the people they interact with. I guess I'm going to need a much bigger bed, because according to your belief, I'm supposed to be sleeping for about 8 hours daily with about 10-12 people.
If instead, you had read the study, and can count to 20 without removing your shoes and socks, then point 2 and 3 are also salient. Might as well get those shoes off because we're going to do some basic math.
Assuming person 1 and 2 become contagious on the same day, person 1 is vaccinated, 2 isn't. The contagious period for each is 8 and 10 days respectively. Next, infection depends upon 2 main factors, time and distance. The closer an infected person is to an uninfected person, the greater the chance of infection. The longer time spent in close proximity, the greater the chance of infection. There's an upper limit for each. Once you're close enough and have spent enough time within that distance, the risk of transmission reaches a maximum. For the sake of discussion we'll say 6 inches and 15 minutes is optimum for transmission. Optimum transmission can be reached quicker at less distance, or can require longer exposure at a greater distance. Beyond a certain distance or less than a certain time and transmission rate approaches zero. Did you follow that?
Within your household, if you're infected, you will likely reach optimum transmission rate with some member of your household for every day of your infectious period. Whether that period is 8 or 10 days makes little difference because of the frequency of reaching optimum transmission rate. This is why the study shows, within the household, transmission rate is equal, regardless of vaccination status. Put an infected person in a household, they'll likely infect someone else in the household.
However, not everyone lives in a household and not every household has an infected person. That's where points 2 and 3 come into play.
If I'm vaccinated, the risk of becoming infected is less. That means, if everyone in the household is vaccinated, the risk of anyone in the household is lower than if everyone is unvaccinated. If nobody within the household becomes infected, then the transmission rate within the household remains at 0.
Until someone in the household becomes infected, the study shows nothing. If you have 20 households, 10 vaccinated, 10 not and 3 unvaccinated households end up with someone infected, while only 2 vaccinated households have someone infected we can separate the households into 5 groups.
1. The group of all houses, where unvaccinated households have a greater risk of infection.
2. Vaccinated households, where members have a lower risk of infection, than group 3.
3. Unvaccinated households, where members have a higher risk of infection than group 2.
4. Infected households, where vaccinated and unvaccinated have an equal chance of infection.
5. Uninfected households.
Only when you limit yourself to infected households does vaccine status not matter for infection risk.
It took me less than 30 seconds to find the studies on loss of brain mass. If you're interested in the findings, invest 30 seconds. If instead you are choosing the head in the sand approach, there's no benefit in me leading you to something you're planning to ignore.
Your final statement is clearly false. The examples you gave demonstrate the statement is false. You might as well say "hair is not flammable, just like wood and kerosene are not flammable.
Unvaccinated people are not only a risk to themselves, same with drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking and crossing the road.
1. Drinking alcohol. It's still in the headlines, NFL wide receiver Henry Riggs III was arrested and charged with DWI after he crashed into another car and killed a woman. It's reported he was driving at speeds up to 156 MPH before the accident.
2. Taking drugs. I'm running out of time, but all it takes is reading the news to find examples of drug users committing violent crimes.
3. Smoking. Just search for "cigarette caused fatal Derby house fire. ".
4. Crossing the road. Have you ever seen what happens when someone steps out into the road in front of a 1987 Camaro traveling at a high rate of speed? The driver of the car didn't survive. Every year about 200 people are killed by deer crossing the road.
And finally, unvaccinated people are only a danger to themselves. That would be laughable if it wasn't so macabre.
At the beginning of June an unvaccinated person came into my home. I was vaccinated. He had symptoms, but didn't think it was Covid and he had already stated he wasn't going to get tested. As a result I was infected, even though I was vaccinated. Forget about what I experienced with COVID. My uncovered medical expenses were almost $5,000. The 2 weeks of work I missed, cost me another $4,000.
In addition, there were 3 other people he was in contact with who were hospitalized for Covid symptoms. 1 was vaccinated, 1 wasn't and the third was unknown status. The definitely unvaccinated person died. The others survived.
I'm going out on a limb and assume none of that is going to register with you. Most people either understand it right away, or they figure it out at the funeral.
-
[QUOTE=MrEnternational;2621783]Brother J, sometimes you write the longest unnecessary stuff. Me and my girl went to Exito yesterday where I bought a set of 2 9-cube silicone ice trays to keep in my luggage so I can make ice when I am staying in these airbnbs from now on. The price was 20,000 pesos, but when I checked out at the register it said 10,000 pesos and on the receipt it said 50% discount for "bolita verde."
Walking out of the store me and my girl started to debate what bolita verde was. Then I said fuck that. Let's just go back in here and do the simple thing: ASK!
Went to the customer service desk and there sat your cousin. I handed him the receipt and asked what bolita verde was. Well he wanted to see the item so I took it out of my gymsac and handed it to him. He went to punching all kind of stuff into the computer and giving us the history of Exito, how many employees were at that particular store, about how the security guard's cousin is in the army and so forth. Then, literally after 5 minutes, he finally told me the simple answer to what I had asked. It was a marked down item, but he had no idea why the tag did not specify that.
Once again I remind you that this discussion originally had NOTHING to do with the United States. This started because PolloNegro said that WHEN LEAVING MEDELLIN there is "a big increase in the airlines waiting until you enter into the tunnels headed to the plane and then snatching you aside for a strip search, computer search and a phone search, looking for inappropriate photos.".[/QUOTE]I really should write down the responses I expect from people and timestamp them, to show I'm either a prophet or you're completely predictable.
My discussion of what's legal in the US was to illustrate the exact path taken in the exact situation being discussed. I even simplified it for you. This was after, days ago stating that the legality of a search would be something determined by the Colombian courts.
It's like I handed you a dog turd, told you not to eat it, and you munched it down. Then I showed you a dog dropping a deuce explained what dog shit was and next thing you're whipping out a napkin and chowing down.
Should I be using smaller words? I'm trying to figure out why you can't understand something which is so incredibly basic.
If some legal authority in Colombia, or any other country in the world requests you to unlock your phone it's legal at that moment. It remains legal until the action is challenged in that country's courts and a ruling is handed down. Unless the ruling disallows any such searches for any reason, it remains legal, however there may be restrictions. I'm fairly certain that the Colombian courts are not set up at the airports, where they can issue an immediate ruling if someone objects to the search.
That's the way things work. Everywhere. Unless there's something in the Colombian Constitution prohibiting searching cell phones (take a wild guess why that's unlikely, it's related to why the US Constitution fails to mention the internet), any type of search not previously declared illegal by the courts is legal. Any type of search not previously declared illegal by the courts is legal. Any type of search not previously declared illegal by the courts is legal. Do I need to copy and paste 30 more times?
You want to accuse me of hijacking the topic after you lead off with getting stopped by the cops in the DR after picking up a hooker in front of them? Seriously? Let's not forget the mustard packets, pencils and hot sauce. That's, I think the word is, "hypocrisy. ".
I clearly stated that my link of the legality of such searches in the US was to illustrate how the process works. I've restated the process again. Apparently you're on of those officers who would have caused me to scream "How the fuck did someone so fucking clueless ever get commissioned?" That only happened once, although I'm guessing if you'd been in my chain of command it would have been a regular occurrence.
What does having a Master's Degree have to do with it? I spent too much time working with people with PhD's and MS' to think that a piece of sheepskin has any relationship to ability.
Using your Naval Officer experience (Ensign Senior Grade was it?) and your Master's Degree, tell me where in the airport will you find the person responsible for establishing policy for every international airport in Colombia? I'll make it even easier. Where, in which airport in the US will you find the office of the head of DHS? I'll make it even easier. On which US Navy ship will you find the office of the CNO?
I would think a former Naval Officer would have an inherent grasp of this, but apparently you were a slow learner. Rules come from the top down and they seldom come with explanations. So unless you're talking with the person who originated a rule, the chance of getting an explanation is slim to none. When you issued orders did you explain to everyone involved why they were chosen for the task and how everyone else was chosen for the task?
"Helmsman 5° left rudder. Come around to bearing 275. "
"Why are you giving me that order?
"Because you're the Helmsman."
"But why do you want me to turn the rudder 5° to the left?
"Because there is a ship in front of us that we're about to hit."
"But why can't I use 5° right rudder?
"Because. Can someone find out why the starboard lookout is screaming?
Entiendes? If they are searching phones at the Barranquilla airport, you might find someone who will tell you they are searching phones. He might even tell you why. It's unlikely he's going to fall his boss and route you all the way to the top so that the ultimate authority can explain to you the legal justification.
However, if they are not searching phones at the Barranquilla airport, you're just going to find people who can tell you they aren't searching phones. In either case you've learned absolutely nothing definitive.
However, since you erroneously claimed to want to nip it in the bud, go right ahead. I will need the name of the person and their title, including their location. I will also expect a transcript of the entire conversation. While you're at it, names and titles of the people you went through to get to the top. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're just making shit up. Again.
-
[QUOTE=Villainy;2621502]I see your a proud graduate of the Elvis school of illogic. I said that Sweden has strong genetic similarities with its neighbors Norway, Finland and Denmark.
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/[/URL]
If you are capable of reading a map you will see that Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are among the most genetically homogenous. In addition they have very similar climatic characteristics and with the exception of Denmark very strong population density similarities as well. This makes them a perfect group to compare and contrast.
Obviously you think that is cherrypicking. I question whether you have ever seen the inside of a math or statistics textbook..[/QUOTE]This is laughable, around 30% of the population in Sweden are immigrants or children of immigrants while in Finland it's closer to 5%. Good luck finding any Swede to agree with you that Sweden is "genetically homogenous".
The unemployment rate in Sweden is about 10% while it's 3% in Norway.
Sweden is the rape and gang shooting capital of Europe, while Norway and Finland isn't close to stealing that title.
You thinking that all the Nordic countries are more or less the same is simply a result of your ignorance. I apologize for giving you some insight to what's really going in in the Nordics.
I can't help to notice that of the eight "successful" countries that you mentioned six of them are Asian countries and the other two are islands isolated from the rest of the World. Your argument only strengthen my argument that a lockdown isn't a guarantee for anything.
But wtf do I know, maybe France, Italy, Belgium, Spain and Portugal didn't have any lockdowns.
-
[QUOTE=Villainy;2621759]How many times can it be said. Statistics are far more persuasive than random speculation out of the Elvis school of random hunches. [URL]https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/[/URL].
Sweden 11.5% CoVid cases as a percent of the population.
Peru. 6. 6%. CoVid cases as a percent of the population.
The fact that Peru has more deaths as a percentage of population than Sweden despite having a much lower rate of infection can be attributed to Sweden having a better health care system.[/QUOTE]Or maybe it's because Sweden have tested more than twice as many per capita than Peru. Who the fuck knows? LMFAO!
-
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]The WHO said the only reason for lockdowns was the temporary spread in the delay of cases. Got that douche? Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of Covid. Dr Nabarro made the statements in an interview with The Spectator.
"The only time we believe a lockdown in justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources; protect your health workers who are exhausted," Dr Nabarro said.
"But by and large, we'd rather not do it."[/QUOTE][URL]https://khn.org/news/fact-check-world-health-organization-did-not-change-its-lockdown-stance-or-admit-president-trump-was-right/[/URL]
We checked with Nabarro to find out if the clip accurately reflected the points he raised during a nearly 20-minute interview. He responded, by email: "My comments were taken totally out of context. The WHO position is consistent."
To test this premise, we looked at statements by WHO leaders over the course of the pandemic. In the multiple media briefings we reviewed from February onward, the WHO appeared consistent in its messaging about what lockdowns should be deployed for: to give governments time to respond to a high number of COVID-19 cases and get a reprieve for health care workers. Although WHO leaders in February supported the shutting down of the city of Wuhan, China, the presumed source of the COVID-19 outbreak, they have also acknowledged that lockdowns can have serious economic effects, and that robust testing, contact tracing and physical distancing are usually preferable to completely locking down.
So, I guess you forgot to tell the WHO that they changed their position to yours. They never did. They advocate for extensive testing, contact tracing, strong health care options and lockdowns to contain out of control outbreaks.
(Which is why the several countries in SE Asia have done so much better. (I. E. Singapore, Vietnam, Laos, South Korea, Indonesia and a few others Australia, New Zealand and Japan) They have all used lockdowns, heavy testing, contact tracing etc.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]Bill Maher spoke out against lockdowns, and the entire world save for a few places are coming out of it.[/QUOTE]Seriously? The guy is a comedian. I guess that is from the School of Elvis. I'll listen to a comedian in a time of crises if I like what he says but scientists? Screw them. Great Elvis logic.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]The reason cases in Colombia are lower is the vaccine? Uh, no, douche, the vaccine does not prevent the spread of Covid. That is a fact, deal with it.[/QUOTE]From WHO website:
What are the benefits of getting vaccinated?
The COVID-19 vaccines produce protection against the disease, as a result of developing an immune response to the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Developing immunity through vaccination means there is a reduced risk of developing the illness and its consequences. This immunity helps you fight the virus if exposed. Getting vaccinated may also protect people around you, because if you are protected from getting infected and from disease, you are less likely to infect someone else. This is particularly important to protect people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19, such as healthcare providers, older or elderly adults, and people with other medical conditions.
So you see. Elvis, your analytical lapses continue. Yes if you have the disease, the vaccine doesn't prevent your spreading it to others. The point is: if you have been vaccinated [B] you are less likely to get it in the first place and therefore less likely to spread it[/B].
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]Stanford analyzed all the interventions and showed that doing a little intervention like Sweden had the same results as extreme lockdowns.[/QUOTE]And they also said that their study was very early (March 2020) and that there was much to learn as events unfolded and their conclusions were subject to revision. A fact you kind of like to gloss over.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]That is science, douche, not picking out a few countries and getting the results you want. You can pick 4 points on a graph and argue anything. Correlation does not equal causation.[/QUOTE]You shouldn't use big words like: Science, Correlation and Causation. You simply have no idea what they mean or how to apply them.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]JJBee is smarter than me? .....[/QUOTE]Feeling insecure?
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2621513]Let me ask you something douche. As for my prediction being wrong, did YOU predict a 100 million Americans would get sick with Covid despite everything that was done? ........given that 1 in 3 Americans got Covid anyway, did we accomplish anything? Thing that I did predict is that the "scientists" would say no bad how things got that they would not admit to fucking up. They would say, "Can you imagine if we did nothing?[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/[/URL]
How many times can I say this: You should do your homework before you post your random machinations. If you check Worldometers you will see that the US has only had 47 million cases not the 100 million you came up with. That isn't 1 in 3 that is more like 1 in 7.
I would respond to more of your nonsense but it gets tiring correcting the paper of a student who clearly should be moved back a few grades.