briefcomment

I would assume any sort of attack, if it's not able to outright kill the virus, would accelerate mutation. The experts have conceded for a while now that the vaccine has been proven to reduce symptoms, but not necessarily reduce spread, so probably the right environment for mutation.

I'm not saying anything about experts. I'm saying that the concept that you should get the vaccines for others looks like it's moot. That means the only consideration you should have about getting the vaccine is if you want the extra protection for yourself.

N=1, I spend all my media time on Youtube. Haven't watched a show in years. Watched some of the NBA playoffs though. Also watched Tenet in a huge empty theater.

If vaccines don't stop transmission, then the only reason to get a vaccine is to protect yourself from severe symptoms. That contradicts what I've often been hearing that you should get the vaccine for the benefit of others. When the only effect the vaccine will have is on yourself, it becomes a personal question rather than a societal one.

This is the CDC

Why do people expect geriatric bullies to make good laws?

Taking the handouts is the most rational thing to do. Why would you expect people to do otherwise? Relying on unspoken normative rules is maybe possible in a society with well defined and perpetuated values, but in our current society, utility far outweighs values in decision making.

Are you talking about Flynn? Imo, being apolitical, that looked like an inconsequential offense, and the FBI response to it looked like a dumb waste of time. And the longer they dragged it out, the dumber it looked.

If 100% of people think IAs are villainous, IAs will have a hard time recruiting capable people, so they will shrink and be less efficient. It will be easier to litigate against them too, since they have less of an ability to subvert the legal process with fewer people working for them, and fewer people being on their side. Congress will be more able to act and more incentivized to act against them if the rest of the country is united in disliking IAs.

If sentiment against IA becomes really negative, they'll have a hard time doing particularly egregious stuff. Right now, plenty of people are totally fine with IAs.

Sure, but the more often we elect interlopers, the less often they can use that tactic without being obvious about what they are doing.

It's probably naive to think parts of the government and government contractors aren't deeply connected.

> first attempts will probably fail

First hundreds of attempts? In your experience, is that a reasonable number?

Right, like a parent sees the value of an extra income, and subconsciously recognizes the benefit to their sanity to not recognize that they live with an abuser, so they let things slide.

If we kept interlopers in power long enough, it could start to work. Four years or less is probably not enough time for this to work.

Ok, but intelligence has a history of doing things like this, and have undeniable unimaginable power. Quite a bit more capable than your rock.

> There was no deep state/intelligence community/media conspiracy against him

I mean, if it was successful, you wouldn't even know.

> What can an American citizen do at that point?

They can elect someone that can give the agencies a hard time. I guess every time that happens though, we get a one term or less president.

It's almost like when a parent is in denial about their spouse abusing others. They turn a blind eye to it.

You think AI is so primitive that we can't make any headway into the biggest problem we currently have? That seems like a fairly fringe view. Especially on a problem that has well defined data like medical imaging.

I wonder if there are people who don't view intelligence agencies negatively nowadays.

Don't forget bats.

Right, so is phlogiston to fire as our current understanding of what's happening is to reality?

You think a 100% failure rate on the hottest topic in the world right now is likely?

I'm curious what people find is more likely given this evidence:

- 100s of models were done incorrectly, and none even remotely correctly

- there is no phenomenon to correctly model

Both seem extremely unlikely. Not sure what the alternatives are.

You're not compelled to put something in your body.

What does this even mean? They made various demographic buckets, and this particular one had the highest count?

Having to put something in your body is different than most requirements. Only thing that's close is childhood vaccination I guess.

And since we all know cholesterol and saturated fats are killers, we should ban butter and institute that everyone should have at least a tablespoon each of canola and sunflower oil a day. Except the science has now reversed to the point that polyunsaturated fats are being implicated as likely causes of obesity and metabolic disease.

You statement sounds far more confident than what the science would currently permit.

From your cdc link, it looks like less than 10k people have died in the under 40 age bracket. Am I looking at the right data?

Also, are you aware you can be exposed to the virus and not be infected?