Stupid shit in Medellin

[JustTK]

It's not even my birthday and first you and then MrE come along and bestow such lavish gifts on me. I'm damn near speechless. Allow me to elaborate on your unintended generosity.

Wah, wah, wah, Sry JB I cant hear u. I am not going to waste my time chatting w someone who cannot maintain a reasonable and friendly tone.

[JjBee62]

I am like JK. I am not about to read all of that off-base shit! Whoever said anything about finding the person responsible for the policy? Why do you always tend to make the simplest things so complicated?

Any fool can go up to any policeman and ask if there is a code for someone not stopping at a stop sign and they should be able to tell you which code it is. The same as one could walk up to an immigration officer, security personnel, military personnel, or their office in the airport and ask the question about unlocking electronics.

It is not the brain surgery that you make things out to be. No need to hunt down the president of the country and ensure he has his nuclear codes with him in order to pose a mundane 2-second question. Why do you continually insist on taking the long way to a short cut?

If you're not going to read it, why and how did you respond to it?

You can read my response to JustTK to understand how you failed the integrity test.

Let's go straight to your newest line of bullshit.

Just about any police man can tell you the codes for offenses he regularly write tickets for. That's a long way from any policeman knowing everything within the vehicular code. Test it if you like. Ask 3 different police man what the code is for violating the bridge law and for an explanation of the bridge law.

Or try this. You fly through a lot of airports and probably know the code for the ones you frequently visit. If I give you the name of any airport in the world, can you tell me the airport code from memory?

I actually had an experience with what you claim every police officer will know. Two experiences, but I'll only go with one.

30 years ago I worked at a truck dealership in San Diego. We sold medium duty trucks. There are 2 main classes of trucks; 26,000# and under and over 26,000#. There are different rules for each including, in some states different speed limits. Over 26 k is considered a Truck, under isn't.

One customer had a 26 k truck but he added a trailer, which made his combined gross vehicle weight rating over 26 k. He called wanting an answer. I called the California Highway Patrol and they didn't know I called CalTrans, the California Department of transportation and they didn't know. So I opened up the California Vehicle code and found the particular code. However, it was ambiguous.

Once again I called the CHP and CalTrans. They read the code and give me 2 different answers.

Let me know if you ever want to try having integrity.

[JjBee62]

Sry JB, I got 3 paras in and gave up. I don't have the time or enthusiasm to read long dialogues of snarky sarcasm and misrepresentation. So I am afraid the "embarrassment" will pass me by. I can say from just the opening 3 paras that you are very wrong. I DID quite clearly note that the study was about households. I even wrote 'You seem to think that the population of the study (households) is in some way not representative of the wide rpopulation. ' So how you can claim I ignored it, is beyond me. Clearly you just read in to things whatever you want. I have been down that path with you before and it is not an event I am keen to repeat.

Contracting the virus from a fellow household member. I see nothing wrong in a study based on that. The environment is the same for both groups of people. Both groups of people were equally ikely to spread the virus. I will just ask one question..

It's not even my birthday and first you and then MrE come along and bestow such lavish gifts on me. I'm damn near speechless. Allow me to elaborate on your unintended generosity.

You got 3 paragraphs in and then gave up? Yet you then responded to my post beginning with the 5th paragraph. We'll get to that part in a moment. But first:

I DID quite clearly note that the study was about households.

However, your original post states:

I saw a few days ago reports of a study published in Bloomberg, Fortune, BBC, Guardian (look them up on search "vaccinated just as likely to spread virus as unvaccinated" that verify that the vaxd are just as transmissable WRT the virus as the unvaxd. So the vaxd and the unvaxd are equally as likely to pass the virus on to any vulnerable / imuno-compromised person.

So now it is really indisputable that the unvaxd are only an increased danger to themselves. So there is no more excuse for the persecution of the unvaxd to continue.

Notice how you failed to mention the limits of the study? It was not until I pointed out that you misrepresented the study, and specified it was limited to within the household and the Delta variant, that you applied the false equivalence of outside the household and inside the household.

There is a reason why the study limits its findings to within the household, and specifies that vaccination overall reduces the risk of infection and that vaccination reduces the infectious period. That reason is called "peer review. ".

For any study to be accepted by the scientific community it must undergo peer review. For those who don't understand it involves other qualified persons examining the data, the methodology and the conclusions to look for errors, inconsistencies or outright fraud. Andrew Wakefield comes to mind.

If the study claimed the data from within households directly correlates to the entire population, it would have been immediately and universally rejected. That's like looking at 5 puppies, noting that 2 are black and declaring 40% of all dogs are black. The study has no data to support that their findings can be applied universally. In fact, they state clearly within the study that the findings are not applicable universally.

However, you have continued to assert that the findings, which the study says aren't true outside of the household, are true outside the household. And I've already explained twice why your claim is incorrect.

Now let's get back to where you decided to respond to something which you claimed you didn't read. I've seen this many times, even before MrE thought you had figured out how to squeeze your way between Scylla and Charybdis. Here's an alternative version of what happened, because your response, to the contents of my 5th paragraph and beyond, which you claimed to not have read, quite clearly demonstrates your version is false.

In my 6th paragraph I gave a simple example which clearly demonstrates the difference between within the household and outside the household; the person you share a bed with inside the household. I'm guessing your visits to restaurants and grocery stores don't also include spending 8 hours (more or less) in bed with an employee or fellow customer. Am I incorrect?

I'm certain I am correct. I've spent a lot of time in stores and restaurants. I spent a few years delivering food to stores and restaurants. Although I did once get a blowjob inside the cooler from the manager of a convenience store, I didn't spend 8 hours in bed with her, or any other employee in the 50 places I serviced each week.

My alternative version? You realized you were unable to come up with a rebuttal. It's quite obvious spending 8 hours in bed with someone every day, maximizes the possibility of infection, while a few minutes 3-5 feet away from someone separated from you by plexiglass minimizes the risk of infection.

When you were faced with admitting your error, you decided to go the ostrich route: stick your head in the sand and pretend you saw nothing. But you made a common mistake. You felt the need to contest what I wrote, even though you claimed to have not read it.

There's no need to go on. You've demonstrated you are inherently dishonest and lack integrity.

However, I will give MrE his own response, because I have integrity.

[JjBee62]

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.

Almost certainly. If you remember I offered you a wager quite some time ago. We both take the same battery of tests, administered by the same psychologist at the same time and then we publish the results here. Highest score wins the wager. You will also recall that you failed to acknowledge my offer, the same as you refused to acknowledge the wager I proposed when you declared you would take the under on the US death toll reaching 80000.

Since it seems unlikely you will ever put your money where your mouth is on which of us is more intelligent, let's examine some anecdotal evidence.

You claim I spread COVID across 2 continents. It appears one of us doesn't know the difference between continent and country. It also appears one of us is lying. There were no cases in north America which connected to me. Unless you wish to claim someone on my one flight while I was contagious, was infected by me. If that's the claim you wish to make provide 3 pieces of information: Flight Number, my seat number and the seat number of the person you claim I infected. If you wish to claim it was someone I was in close proximity with, just provide the date, city and state.

I do claim responsibility for infecting one person in Colombia, however, none of her contacts became infected during her infectious period. That hardly qualifies as spreading COVID across 2 continents. Again, if you wish to claim she or I infected others, provide names and dates along with test results.

Since you are also claiming you were exposed "hundreds of times" provide some names, dates and locations of those hundreds of exposures, including proximity of each infected perso, duration of exposure and test results for each infected person you were exposed to.

While we're at it, either you are unable to express yourself clearly or you are claiming that whether or not a person becomes infected with COVID correlates with intelligence. Provide the study which confirms this.

Of course there is a clincher. During the same time period when you claimed I was spreading COVID across Colombia, you also claim the end of lockdowns caused COVID cases in Colombia to drop. Do you see the discrepancy? The end of the lockdowns, according to you, caused COVID transmission to drop, but I, again according to you, caused COVID transmission to increase. Care to explain how a rate can drop and increase at the same time?

There's really no need for you to continue to prove which of us is more intelligent. However, if you wish to quantify the difference, I'll place $5,000 on the table. Ready to prove your claim?

[LoveItHere69]

I have been in Colombia most of the last two years. The only people I know that had COVID were my co-worker, her family, and family friend.

Overweight mom 35 non-smoker had a few bad days of it but fine. Four female kids age 6 to 14 got over it quickly. Thin dad 35 had the most trouble in the family. He had trouble breathing but as soon as his lungs felt better he would go outside and smoke and the breathing issues returned. Surprise surprise. The family friend was a guy 40, slightly overweight, smoked a little, was gay, and had prior health issues (health issues and severity unknown) and he died. The results matched my thoughts on it. Plus, the endless 3 weeks together nearly ended in divorce.

Studies are stupid like statistics. You can get any result that you want out of them. Every 10 years there is a new study such as coffee is good for you, then bad for you going on for the last 40 years. Same with wine, beer, chocolate, and even aspirin.

Fake news states that 5 million people have died. Out of 8 billion people that means the death rate is a huge whopping. 000625% For this we have destroyed entire economies and peoples ways of life. Supply chain issues and lack of personal and government money to hand out will cause many of the starving people worldwide to receive even less food supplies this year and easily the next year. Their death rate could surpass the COVID death rate.

November 3 2021 CDC Covid ratings 1 low, 2 moderate, 3 high, 4 very high.

USA 4 very high.

Colombia 2 moderate.

China 1 low.

You have to be an idiot if you trust the CDC.

No I do not care if you get it because no matter what it will find you. I would rather get Covid and what ever happens happens than live a life of fear and control by governments. Even if the death rate increases ten times to 50 million that would still only be a. 00625% chance of dying.

[Elvis 2008]

Contracting the virus from a fellow household member. I see nothing wrong in a study based on that. The environment is the same for both groups of people. Both groups of people were equally ikely to spread the virus. I will just ask one question. Why would that result be any different in any other environment? If they are at home they both spread it to 25%Vof vaxd household members and 38% of unvaxd household members. In other environments no doubt the spread rates will be different to those 2 rates, but there is no reason to think that vaxd and unvaxd would diverge from being equally infectious. We certainly don't have any evidence to support that idea. So whatever you put forward would be speculative.

You are dead on JustTK. I actually think the vaccine worked to prevent spread early on and then Delta hit and changed everything. Birdbrain is off the reservation again and wanting to believe the vaccine prevents infection (even after he got vaccinated and spread Covid himself LOL).

Thing is early on I did not see any cases of asymptomatic transmission but Delta is different. Now Covid patients routinely have no idea where they got it and asymptomatic spread is very real IMO. The notion that you can transmit the virus and be asymptomatic is IMO very real now.

But you do not even have to trust the CDC when it says the vaccine does not prevent transmission. If you look at the data, you see the UK, USA, and Israel have a huge amount of cases and they are among the most vaccinated in the world. There is not one speck of data supporting that the vaccine prevents transmission now but these Democratic douches keep insisting that it does based on "logic."

The funny part is the people who vote Democratic (like Bill Maher and the Atlantic writer) have been like enough is enough. They are saying, "Screw the masks. Screw lockdowns. Screw the notion that drug company immunity is better than natural immunity", but the hard core douches do not get it. They are constantly comparing this shitty vaccine with vaccines that really work.

I have to wonder if they are largely living off government payouts. I actually hope it is that. I would rather believe that they be paid off than be this dumb.

[Elvis 2008]

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 you are less likely to get it in the first place and therefore less likely to spread it.

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..

You [Deleted by Admin] really like to argue about things that have been settled. WHO is denying that it ever said lockdowns were its primary method of containing the virus. I personally think they lied about that to cover their ass but it does not matter, it is settled science that lockdowns do not work to control the spread of the virus, so I do not know what the fuck you are arguing about.

As for the vaccine preventing transmission, that is not only obvious from the data, the CDC has come out and said the vaccine does not prevent transmission, so again I do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

The number of USA cases recorded is 47 million. CDC estimates put it at around 100 million. Again, you are attributing their number to me.

Usually when you douches are so badly beaten, and this is about a dumb a post as it gets, you do not admit you are wrong and will get into defining what words like transmission, estimates, and lockdown are (Like Clinton: that depends on what you definition of is is). I do not mind debates where I learn something with a seasoned opponent but you are engaged in a moronic pissing match where you are lying your ass off, and that means you go on ignore.

[JustTK]

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".
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.

They are laughable with their ignorant certainty. Its really a quite distasteful characteristic in a few folk here. You are quite right to point out that confirmed cases are a ridiculous measure to use for anything. In fact, confirmed death rates are also quite useless. This is bcos different countries test at different concentration levels, and also have different rules for declaring deaths and measures for analysing cause of death. A far better measure is "excess deaths". You might find this website useful: https://covid19.healthdata.org/unite...aths&tab=trend.

It shows excess deaths in each country since covid. Stats which are far harder to argue with.

Sweden has had 18.400 excees deaths out of a population of 10.2 million, whiich is 1. 800 deaths per million.

Indonesia has had 475.500 excees deaths out of a population of 277 million, whiich is 1. 700 deaths per million.

Indoneisia has had cruel lockdowns which destroyed the economy. Sweden did not. I am struggling to see how Indo is a success and Sweden is a failure.

South Korea also avoided lockdown. It has had 2. 700 excees deaths out of a population of 51 million, whiich is 53 deaths per million.

I think there is a clear winner here, folks.

Lockdowns were never necessary. When we go through the next viral crisis, I am sure many countries will not use the technique.

[Mr Enternational]

tell me where in the airport will you find the person responsible for establishing policy for every international airport in Colombia?

I am like JK. I am not about to read all of that off-base shit! Whoever said anything about finding the person responsible for the policy? Why do you always tend to make the simplest things so complicated?

Any fool can go up to any policeman and ask if there is a code for someone not stopping at a stop sign and they should be able to tell you which code it is. The same as one could walk up to an immigration officer, security personnel, military personnel, or their office in the airport and ask the question about unlocking electronics.

It is not the brain surgery that you make things out to be. No need to hunt down the president of the country and ensure he has his nuclear codes with him in order to pose a mundane 2-second question. Why do you continually insist on taking the long way to a short cut?

[JustTK]

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 persons infected with Covid , regardless of vaccination status were equally likely to infect others within their own household. "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..

Sry JB, I got 3 paras in and gave up. I don't have the time or enthusiasm to read long dialogues of snarky sarcasm and misrepresentation. So I am afraid the "embarrassment" will pass me by. I can say from just the opening 3 paras that you are very wrong. I DID quite clearly note that the study was about households. I even wrote 'You seem to think that the population of the study (households) is in some way not representative of the wide rpopulation. ' So how you can claim I ignored it, is beyond me. Clearly you just read in to things whatever you want. I have been down that path with you before and it is not an event I am keen to repeat.

Contracting the virus from a fellow household member. I see nothing wrong in a study based on that. The environment is the same for both groups of people. Both groups of people were equally ikely to spread the virus. I will just ask one question. Why would that result be any different in any other environment? If they are at home they both spread it to 25%Vof vaxd household members and 38% of unvaxd household members. In other environments no doubt the spread rates will be different to those 2 rates, but there is no reason to think that vaxd and unvaxd would diverge from being equally infectious. We certainly don't have any evidence to support that idea. So whatever you put forward would be speculative.

[Villainy]

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."

https://khn.org/news/fact-check-worl...ump-was-right/

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.

Bill Maher spoke out against lockdowns, and the entire world save for a few places are coming out of it.

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.

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.

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 you are less likely to get it in the first place and therefore less likely to spread it.

Stanford analyzed all the interventions and showed that doing a little intervention like Sweden had the same results as extreme lockdowns.

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.

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.

You shouldn't use big words like: Science, Correlation and Causation. You simply have no idea what they mean or how to apply them.

JJBee is smarter than me? .....

Feeling insecure?

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?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

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.

[ShooBree]

How many times can it be said. Statistics are far more persuasive than random speculation out of the Elvis school of random hunches. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/.

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.

Or maybe it's because Sweden have tested more than twice as many per capita than Peru. Who the fuck knows? LMFAO!

[ShooBree]

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rse-countries/

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..

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.

[JjBee62]

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.".

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.

[JjBee62]

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.

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 persons infected with Covid , regardless of vaccination status were equally likely to infect others within their own household. "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.