[Decider] Call it Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe we’re all just changing a lot in 2020, but I am starting to find The Great British Baking Show host Noel Fielding’s antics in the tent to be utterly charming. In the past, I have bemoaned the fact that he enjoys mugging for the camera so much that he puts himself in the bakers’ way, but in "Chocolate Week," Fielding was the tent’s stealth MVP. After a disastrous Signature Challenge where all the bakers failed to make decent brownies, Fielding became everyone’s cheerleader. Between his self-deprecating comments, impromptu "babka ballads," and knack for getting everyone to smile, Fielding has finally figured out how to harness his comic talents for good in The Great British Baking Show tent. (At least for now.)
The Great British Baking Show experienced a seismic shakeup four years ago when the show migrated from its original broadcasting home, the BBC, to Channel 4. Only one of the show’s original cast, Paul Hollywood, followed the program. That meant that producers had the lofty task of filling the void left by former judge Mary Berry and original hosting duo Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc. While Prue Leith easily slid into Berry’s role, the show has struggled to replicate the sunny, easy chemistry of Mel & Sue, real life BFFs. Sandi Toksvig has already left the show to spend time on other project and newbie Matt Lucas is still finding his footing. That means that zany goth comic Noel Fielding has found himself taking on a new role in the tent: spiritual older brother.
[Politico] Bill Gates called out the federal government on Tuesday for inadequacies in coronavirus testing and sending out what he called "bad messages" on best practices, such as wearing masks.
The billionaire philanthropist, whose foundation is the largest private underwriter of public health initiatives, said the U.S. still has time to do "far, far better" in its Covid-19 testing implementation, criticizing the government — without calling out the Trump administration explicitly — for long test-result wait times and poor contact tracing efforts.
"If you’re willing to admit that you’re not doing a perfect job, you could improve this thing very, very quickly," Gates said in a POLITICO Playbook interview. "Right now, testing, contact tracing, we’re doing among the worst of any country."
Gates went on to say that "now we’re engaged in something where we’re attacking the government’s top scientists" and "undermining the credibility of the person who’s the most knowledgeable," referring to Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert.
contact tracing Won't work - too many recent government overreach scandals.
wearing masks Make efforts to disprove faux-libertarians (or simply psychopaths) counra-factual anti-mask propaganda. Masks work and prevent lockdowns.
Anthony Fauci is an ignorant a$$hole - probably didn't even bother to review (or have some gofer do it for him) the available literature on coronaviruses. In fact, the entire CDC is a joke.
Most important, inform the public (in appropriate terms - there must be somebody who can explain in layman terms how immune memory works) that "natural herd immunity" doesn't exist in this particular case.
(2) Somebody also should write a series of articles on Sweden focusing on.
(a) Sweden had (and still has) a lockdown - they just don't call it "lockdown".
(b) Sweden, where 40% of households are a single person households, has a natural level of distancing that's unattainable in USA.
(3) USA public is, ridiculously, uninformed about covid 19 epidemic outside USA. A few articles analyzing other countries successes/failures could do a lot to educate American public (when it comes to different states in USA, party affiliation is principal determinant for Americans: "their governors can't do anything right", "ours can do anything wrong"; "Trump is H*tler" vs. "Trump is demigod".)
70,078 New Cases for the week so far.
1,001 New Deaths for the week so far.
A 70,078 out of 342,000,000 = 0.020490643274853802 of 1% chance of being Infected.
Then IF infected a 1 in 70 chance of dying.
In the USA, to die from the Virus this week
so far, you would have to be part of the 0.020490643274853802 of 1% that got in Infected. Then also part of the 0.00029269005847953216 of 1% of the 342M in the USA.
That works out to about 1.4% IF infected die.
I am still just not buying the claimed numbers, as I have 3 family in the medical field (LPNs and RN's) ages 25 to 68 and 1 in Law Enforcement age 26.3, and 1 in Fire Rescue/ EMS.
Between the 5, they have had 2 False Positives that allowed them to sit at home for days. ZERO SYMPTOMS or ISSUES.
That's a 40% false Positive rate for our family.
Of the 3 that got it and all were better in 2-3 days each claiming a good cold or very mild flu. Of these 2 are Older ages and are type 2 diabetics.
NOTE: All with no Family cross/related infections occurring by just following basic Flu Season precautions.
Why just call people who disagree with you psychopaths? Wouldn't Nazis be easier to say quickly?
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/18/2020 8:15 Comments ||
Panicky elected officials overreacted - and then tried to cover their asses. Had they protected the vulnerable and taken sensible precautions without locking down and tanking our economy, we'd have had fewer deaths overall. Cuomo actually killed thousands of people, directly, through his stupidity and incompetence.
Now they are well on their way to destroying the lives of tens of millions of school-age children who were never at risk to begin with.
Posted by: Zenobia Lover of the Boskonians1259 ||
10/18/2020 9:36 Comments ||
#6 I call anti-maskers psychopaths because they are.
Here are the "psychopaths" at the New England Journal of Medicine on masks' effectiveness earlier this year:
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).
"The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."
Re. masks, most of what I have read indicates 'good' masks, worn properly (few seem to) do reduce the risk of the wearer becoming infected, but only by a modest amount. They are more effective at reducing the spread from an infected masked person, especially when combined with good social distancing and hand washing. One interesting study said that even when masks did not prevent infection they did significantly reduce the severity of infection.
My personal experience travelling and observing in parts of the US is that mask use and infection rate are only loosely coupled; also that until this third wave hit rural areas were largely unaffected. So far the third wave has been negligible in places that had a severe first wave (eg. NY, NJ, MA, CT.)
^Again mask effects (and everything else) are population level, not individual, effects.
Example Haredi vs. Arab population in Israel. Israeli Arabs wear masks, avoid large indoor gatherings etc... and have the same infection rates as general Israeli population. Haredim don't, and have infection rates 3 - 4 times of the general population.
The screening recommendations were included in a series of new documents posted Thursday that reiterate the Trump administration's position on the importance of in-person instruction, provide more clear recommendations about wearing masks in schools, outline additional guidance for administrators about preparing to reopen buildings, and provide checklists for parents and guardians to help decide if they should send their children back to school.
And I just saw the figures from there for VIetnam and Laos.
You Israelis need to burn all those masks y'all bought from the psychopaths and maybe buy some from Laos instead, or maybe look at what they're doing besides masks that protects them so much better than y'all.
(Stage whisper: helpful hint: they're both malarial zones!)
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/18/2020 16:33 Comments ||
I'm NOT a no-masker. I AM a skeptic of any and all things, especially when I'm called a psychopath, a denier, anti-science, and worse by some asshole who believes provably false test numbers and Covid cases and would (if he could) deny my right to even speak skepticism. Fascism has many faces. Sometimes with mandatory masks
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/18/2020 16:37 Comments ||
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/18/2020 17:44 Comments ||
I think Michael Crichton put it best:
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
[LI] The recent move by the World Health Organization (WHO) to recommend that nations end lockdowns as the chief means of controlling the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus was intriguing.
However, in a recent piece that is nothing less than shocking, a new report from The New York Times says that experts are confident that the coronavirus pandemic will end "far sooner" than originally expected.
Like me, New York Times science reporter Donald McNeil Jr., has been following the pandemic closely since its start. He assesses its current status optimistically:
Since January, when I began covering the pandemic, I have been a consistently gloomy Cassandra, reporting on the catastrophe that experts saw coming: that the virus would go pandemic, that Americans were likely to die in large numbers, the national lockdown would last well beyond Easter and even past summer. No miracle cure was on the horizon; the record for developing a vaccine was four years.
Events have moved faster than I thought possible. I have become cautiously optimistic. Experts are saying, with genuine confidence, that the pandemic in the United States will be over far sooner than they expected, possibly by the middle of next year.
One aspect of the pandemic to watch for is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) saying that the number of deaths falls below the "epidemic threshold."
"The ’epidemic threshold’ refers to the point at which the observed proportion of deaths is significantly higher than would be expected at that time of the year in the absence of substantial influenza, and now COVID-related mortality," Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokeswoman, told USA TODAY.
The last few weeks have shown a steady decline in deaths per week attributed to COVID19.
The high in April was over 17,000 deaths per week.
[TheTruthAboutGuns] The Second Amendment bars local, state and federal governments from passing any law that seeks to control the keeping or bearing of guns. It bars Rhode Island’s "blue card" provision, which forces citizens to take a written test and pay a fee to purchase a handgun. It bars Texas’ Concealed Handgun License which mandates an approved course, a test and a fee for residents who want to carry a gun. It bars New York’s SAFE Act, which makes it a crime for citizens to load their handgun with more than seven rounds (unless they’re shooting at an approved shooting range). It bars New Jersey’s gun registration laws, which require all citizens to register all guns with the state government. Does supporting the Second Amendment, which bars gun control, make me an insurrectionist? Well one thing is for sure . . .
If I was, I’d be an armed insurrectionist. Just like the idea of a felon being able to legally purchase a gun, the idea of a citizen having a gun to overthrow the government makes a lot of people very, very nervous. Including, of course, the government. As well it should.
In my first gun control debate with Juan Pacheco I steered the "discussion" into three basic areas: the natural and civil right of self-defense, the deterrent effect of firearms on criminals, and private gun ownership as a check on government tyranny. For the first two topics, Juan trotted-out the peace, love, there’s got to be a better way argument. Which isn’t really an argument so much as an emotional appeal. Thanks to Juan’s passion and street cred, his words hit home.
When it came to government tyranny, Juan was lost. The "Former Gang Banger and Youth Violence Prevention Specialist" is from El Salvador, where rival drug gangs and a brutal government impose terror and tyranny on the people through force of arms. Juan couldn’t tell the audience that "Americans don’t need guns to defend themselves against government tyranny, and even if they had them they wouldn’t be able to do anything against government controlled military might." Because he knew it wasn’t true.
Which put him in a bit of a rhetorical blind, especially as Juan’s not blind to the current trend of government over-reach, including police militarization. "We need to do the little things now to stop the tyranny from happening," he asserted. I agreed with him on that point, but also pointed out that by the time most citizens would realize there’s a government tyranny that needs fighting it’s too late to tool-up. Their right to keep and bear arms is, effectively, gone.
A friend of a friend works at a university in Rhode Island. She’s got a stalker: a former student who failed to graduate. The stalker’s showed up at graduation every year for the last ten years. This year the stalker student confronted the teacher and threatened her. "You’ll be sorry," she promised. She left phone messages describing guns. The teacher went to the police. The paperwork has been filed. Now the teacher wants a gun.
To acquire a handgun in the Ocean State, the teacher must first obtain an official firearms educational booklet, study it and take a test. If she passes, three working days later or so, the State will send her a card that gives her the legal right to buy a handgun. After paying for the gun, she has to wait seven days before she can take possession. She can keep it at home and work—well she could if the university didn’t ban guns on campus—but she can’t carry the gun without a concealed handgun license.
If she applies for a carry permit from the Providence police, she must complete approved instruction, pass a shooting test, submit her fingerprints, pass a criminal background check, provide three notarized personal references (who have to be personally interviewed), write-up an explanation of her need and pay $250. It took me five months to get my license from a city that is "shall issue" (the City must prove why I shouldn’t have a license).
If the stalked teacher applies to the Rhode Island Attorney General for a concealed weapons permit, she must go through all of the above. It’s a faster process (approximately one month) and costs less ($40). But the State-issued carry permit/concealed handgun license process is "may issue." The odds of denial are higher at the state level—depending on the Attorney General’s political perspective.
It would take the teacher a minimum of 43 days to exercise her natural, civil and Constitutionally protected (both State and federal) right to keep and bear arms. It could take as many as 120 days. Or more. Not to mention the time and money spent pursuing the goal. Or the fact that she may not succeed. (If she lived in New Jersey it simply wouldn’t happen.) By that time, she may well be dead.
What’s true on the local level is also true on the national level. By the time it dawned on El Salvador’s population that they needed a gun to protect themselves against murderous drug thugs and government troops, it was too late. They couldn’t get one. Oh sure, they can get a gun on the black market, just like the teacher above. Good luck with that. And the aftermath should they use it.
Like every other gun guy who believes the Second Amendment prohibits ANY gun control laws, I’ve got nothing against laws that punish gun owners for criminal acts. If a person uses a firearm to intimidate or murder someone they should face appropriate penalties. If they poach on posted private land they should face the legal consequences. I’m OK with laws against discharging a firearm in built-up areas.
Actions have consequences. Nothing wrong with that. All the pre-crime laws? The purchasing prohibitions and shooting tests and licensing fees and city, state and federal permissions and paperwork? It all has to go. These laws are all ineffective and unconstitutional. They are a cancer on our freedom. Our right to keep and bear arms.
What are the odds of rolling back government regulations on gun purchase and ownership? Not as bad as you might think. Several states have reverted to Constitutional carry (no permit required) in the last decade. The federal assault weapons ban expired. Illinois, the last holdout against legal concealed carry (in theory), is creating a system to "allow" residents to bear arms.
A return to Constitutional principles is possible. Here’s another interesting sign from Tyler Cowan’s article More Freedom on the Airplane, if Nowhere Else:
We don’t really know the total regulatory burden in our economy today, in part because there are too many rules and side effects to add up all the costs. Nonetheless, we are continually increasing the obstacles to doing business. America has lost the robust productivity growth of much of the postwar era, and the share of start-ups in the economy has been falling each decade since the 1980s. Although overregulation is hardly the only culprit, it is very likely contributing to the problem.
The point isn’t that we should eliminate all regulation or give up on clean air and water. In fact, we may need tougher guidelines — albeit simpler ones — to govern what is permissible for activities like financial risk-taking or burning coal. Still, a paring back of regulation in many areas, based on clearer priorities, seems in order.
This from The New York Times. While the pro-gun control newspaper would never make the connection between a regulation roll-back and the removal of gun control laws, I do. Anything that shrinks to size and power of government in our lives is a good thing for The People of the Gun.
Meanwhile, I declare that I am not an armed insurrectionist. I do not want to violently overthrow the United States government. But I believe that our right to keep and bear arms keeps Americans from having to do so and gives us the means should it become necessary. Which it isn’t. Yet. And hopefully never will be.
..yeah it will work, till that one day, when the No Knocks go out and don't come back except like the British column from Concord. There won't be any notes left on the cars outside their abodes. They just won't show up for roll call the next morning. There is a reason why 'police' are ineffective in major civil unrest around the world. The cops really want to live to see the next day, week or month. You know its coming when they establish centralized and fortified housing for now uniformed Antifa thugs.
You also notice that while the municipal police are hunkering down doing the disturbances and 'just obeying orders', the local sheriffs are the one's talking about 2d Amendment Free Zones in their areas.
[ArmstrongEconomics] IMF’s New Bretton Woods Moment.
Note that until the Democrats get control of the Senate and the Whitehouse in addition to the House, everything they do that is not pre-agreed to with the Republican-controlled Senate is just kabuki for the rubes.
Oct. 16 (UPI) -- Diets high in sugar may increase a person's risk for developing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder and aggressive behaviors, according to a report published Friday by the journal Evolution and Human Behavior.
Researchers from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus suggest that fructose, a component of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, and uric acid, a fructose metabolite, may work to bring about the onset of these disorders in those genetically predisposed to them.
By lowering energy in cells, fructose "triggers a foraging response similar to what occurs in starvation," which effectively stimulates behaviors such as risk taking, impulsivity, rapid decision making and aggressiveness, the researchers said.
This foraging response shares similarities with behavioral disorders such as ADHD, as well as bipolar disorder and aggressive behavior, they said.
Growing up, hearing how eating too much candy & sugar would "rot our teeth out" seemed to be the least of our parents' worries. But this high-fructose corn syrup...that garbage is what bothers/worries me.
Perhaps one treatment against aggressive behaviors would be for affected individuals to sit and watch Bill Barr going after the Swamp. The soothing, if not boring, effects should reduce anxiety and be somniferous.
Studies on rats have shown fructose intake to instigate all markers of metabolic syndrome - increased waistline, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, lipid abnormalities, dementia, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. These studies have also shown high fructose intake to stimulate free radicals, weaken the arteries, create a fatty liver, and cause kidney damage. Gout Cure dot com
But not global climate change. Not yet. Need more studies!
I just read the list of things that have to much fructose in them. There's nothing left that's fun to eat. I'm going to go go jump in a volcano per the suggestion of many people I have met. They must have been referring to this article it seems, and wanted to warn me.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.