theoryofdoom在2022-01-31~2022-02-06的言论

2022-02-06 作者: theoryofdoom

原文 #Reddit 的其它文章

64: Unofficial Daily Update for 2022-02-01. 8665 New Cases., submitted on 2022-02-02 02:05:05+08:00.
65: White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’, submitted on 2022-02-02 05:35:14+08:00.
66: Unofficial Daily Update for 2022-02-02. 9463 New Cases., submitted on 2022-02-03 02:05:05+08:00.
67: New Mexico asks National Guard to work as substitute teachers to keep classrooms open., submitted on 2022-02-03 04:36:01+08:00.
68: Chicago Mask, Vaccine Card Mandates Could Be Gone ‘Quite Soon’ As Omicron Cases Drop, Top Doc Says, submitted on 2022-02-04 01:29:25+08:00.
69: Why isn’t Iran economically as powerful as Saudi Arabia?, submitted on 2022-02-04 07:17:33+08:00.
70: Judge denies class certification in mask, vaccine mandate cases, submitted on 2022-02-05 04:57:54+08:00.
71: Frozen sewage slows down coronavirus surveillance, submitted on 2022-02-05 06:56:27+08:00.
72: TRO was approved against Pritzker and IDPH. We don’t know if local boards can still make their own decision… class certification denied. So now what? Some kids go maskless while majority can’t? What kind of ruling is this?, submitted on 2022-02-05 08:39:22+08:00.
73: What parenting ‘trend’ do you strongly disagree with?, submitted on 2022-02-05 20:02:15+08:00.
74: Camp Out - a safeguarding nightmare. A camp for LGBTIQ children aged 13-17. All faciities mixed sex, from showers to bunks. Crew must be over 21 and “have a passion for queer youth”, submitted on 2022-02-05 22:37:52+08:00.
75: ‘We should remove masks as soon as we can’: Pritzker considering easing COVID-19 restrictions as cases drop, submitted on 2022-02-06 06:53:06+08:00.

64: Unofficial Daily Update for 2022-02-01. 8665 New Cases., submitted on 2022-02-02 02:05:05+08:00.

—– 64.1 —–2022-02-02 08:29:32+08:00:

Removed. You have significantly misunderstood what you linked.

—– 64.2 —–2022-02-02 08:46:14+08:00:

Cool, tell me exactly what I misunderstood?

My willingness to spend time trying to correct the deficits in your understanding of the subject matters raised in your comment, among other things. This is the bottom line: you made a whole bunch of claims that do not now and have never had any basis in science whatsoever. Then you linked a bunch of random articles you clearly failed to read/understand, while holding them out as constituting “peer reviewed science” in support of your “opinions,” while making absurd claims about how stupid everyone else is (e.g., “I provide peer reviewed science for my opinions, while none these mask haters have none.”). If you had even tried to find evidence to support what you wrote, I might try because I like to see people engaging with the science of this stuff. But you’re not even serious about it.

Realize further that if you do this again, you will be temp-banned for an appropriate length of time. This is the first and only warning you’ll get. Others may be more willing to put up with this nonsense. I am not.

—– 64.3 —–2022-02-02 12:22:31+08:00:

The sole issue is whether this can be a platform for users to deliberately or recklessly misrepresent facts under circumstances where others may be harmed by such actions. Further, it turns out that repeating a bunch of unsupported declarative statements does not constitute “evidence” in support of anything. It’s just rehash of the same nonsense, which is a waste of everyone’s time.

The personal or political opinions of others — whether or not grounded in facts and/or science of any kind — just do not concern me. Accusations of bias, attacks and censorship from users who repeatedly and deliberately violate our rules don’t concern me either. It amazes me how invested people think moderators are in users’ personal views, presumably because if banned users were in a position to silence others who disagree with them they would do so.

Everybody can have their own opinions. But as you were previously warned, this subreddit will not become a platform for pandemic-related misinformation.

—– 64.4 —–2022-02-02 12:28:48+08:00:

If Pritzker casts a shadow the entire state experiences a solar eclipes.

Let’s not descend into schoolyard-bully type jokes.

—– 64.5 —–2022-02-02 12:31:12+08:00:

I don’t know - if he can’t see his feet, can he see his shadow?

Same goes for you. Let’s not descend into schoolyard-bully type jokes.

Within the universe of subject matters on which Pritzker may deserve criticism, let’s keep it focused to matters relevant to this subreddit in this setting.

65: White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’, submitted on 2022-02-02 05:35:14+08:00.

—– 65.1 —–2022-02-02 13:06:38+08:00:

This has to be one of the most pathetic regimes in history.

Yep. At least now there isn’t even any pretense that they give a shit about working class people or middle America in general. They care about this idiocy.

66: Unofficial Daily Update for 2022-02-02. 9463 New Cases., submitted on 2022-02-03 02:05:05+08:00.

—– 66.1 —–2022-02-03 13:04:54+08:00:

Nobody has EVER argued that we shouldn’t ever talk about removing restrictions EVER.

I understand you’re not literally claiming that, literally, “nobody has EVER argued that we shouldn’t ever talk about removing restrictions EVER,” because to do so would be absurd. Those discussions have taken place across the country and the world at large. For example, as you may not be aware, Oregon’s health officials are moving forward with a proposal to make the state’s indoor mask mandate permanent. What you’re actually doing, or trying to do, is reply with a counter-generalization to what /u/jbchi said based on what you think the tone is. There are better and worse ways to do that, but demonstrably false declarative statements isn’t optimal.

—– 66.2 —–2022-02-03 13:24:42+08:00:

The reason that more people are looking the future (including me) is that is where the tide is turning, even among leading public health officials, otherwise, there wouldn’t be the high level discussions that are currently happening, and should happen.

That’s a weird statement to make, because there was never any singular tide to turn among anyone in the field of medicine or public health. There was a politically charged, media-driven effort to make it seem like there might have been based on some fringe pseudoscience out of Imperial College.

What there was, rather than any singular tide to turn, was a chaotic series of undercurrents raging beneath a surface that simply appeared to move in the direction of the winds above. People were afraid to speak because if they did, they were afraid they’d get the same treatment that Stanford Professor John Ionidis did, for example, when so called “Twitter Fact Checkers” delineated truth from falsehood based whatever CNN said the NIH or CDC said.

The problem is that unless you were following these discussions in real time — in places like actual letters to the editor, various preprints and the occasional op-ed that would show up in the Wall Street Journal or the Telegraph — you just would not see the degree of contention these “measures” created in the field.

you assume those who are looking to the phase after the pandemic are doing so for reasons of it being some sort of “farce” or that the “dominoes are falling” on some sort of false narrative

What type of evidence would be necessary for something related to COVID to be revealed as some sort of “farce” — as you say? And just exactly which “dominoes” are you even talking about?

—– 66.3 —–2022-02-03 13:28:53+08:00:

She isn’t actively antagonizing her entire constituency on every single issue like Lori somehow manages.

That’s because Kamila isn’t in California anymore. Ironically, her political career was built doing — with impunity — tremendous harm to black communities in her role in law enforcement. But then she got woke when it became politically convenient to do so, just like Biden. Even though Biden called the 94 crime bill the “Biden crime bill” and Kamila engaged in every conceivable species of prosecutorial misconduct to lock up black kids and destroy black families so as to make a name for herself as being “tough on crime” when that’s what the people of California wanted.

—– 66.4 —–2022-02-03 13:32:00+08:00:

It’s incredible how the meaning of words has deteriorated over the course of the pandemic. And not just in relation to things the government is up to. But for everything.

—– 66.5 —–2022-02-03 14:02:04+08:00:

I realise you are a moderator of this subreddit with a strong opinion

My opinions don’t matter. What matters is what the evidence says or does not say, and what constitutes evidence in the first instance. So if I say something you think is wrong and you have evidence to prove it, go for it. But a CNN article talking about something Sanjay Gupta heard from someone else isn’t evidence. Nor are tweets or other declarative statements that misrepresent data sets. Nor are statements by bureaucrats in positions of power that are backed by nothing.

That’s all just about as worthless as some random Redditor making claims about widely available pharmaceutical products and their applications in veterinary medicine.

on how to approach the mitigation of the pandemic that that differs from mine, so I will tread carefully as I do not want to be banned from this subreddit.

You don’t have to tread carefully. Just follow the rules, which provide a pretty wide latitude for people to do all kinds of things. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m just not all that invested in what you think about any of this, on a personal level. I know some mods on some subs are, but I just don’t care. As long as you’re not going totally off the reservation, we allow it even if some claims people make — including in this thread — are hopelessly misguided. Not implying you or any other person may fall into that category, however. It’s just how these things go.

It also really takes a lot to be banned. Like you have to do something egregious, repeatedly and continuously despite prior moderator warnings. There are exceptions we might handle on a case by case basis, but if you make any effort whatsoever to deal in good faith with facts you’re almost certainly not going to be banned by anyone here.

I read the Newsweek article you posted and I feel like it doesn’t entirely mean that they are proposing that everyone wear masks indoors forever,

The rule is forever. The particularities of its application may change over time. So it’s giving some bureaucrat in government the right to exercise control for an indefinite period of time, varying according to that person’s subjective judgment of what the need is. This is a bad idea. Imagine letting the DMV regulate the conditions under which you could access your fridge.

but it was more of a discussion of how emergency orders work how they should be managed in a longer term situation

There are three levels to this sort of thing. Oregon’s proposals fail all three. The first level is whether the things they’re proposing to do actually and demonstrably work. Oregon has none of that. The second level is whether, even if they work, it’s a good idea to do. Success at the first level doesn’t require anything for the second level, but failure at the first level is fatal to the second. Because only a fool would continue to do something that empirically fails to do what you set out to do, in the first instance. The third level is whether there’s any ongoing need giving rise to the proposal in the first place. Oregon has no way to predict that either, but they’re off creating rules and regulations anyway.

—– 66.6 —–2022-02-03 21:53:16+08:00:

The issue is here is that you appear to believe that no steps beyond vaccination will help end the pandemic.

I’d be curious why you think that, because I have never made that claim nor would I argue in support of it. I have seen no evidence whatsoever tending to indicate that any non-pharmaceutical intervention is effective. But since the pandemic began, I have been dumbfounded by the NIH’s unidimensional focus on vaccines (read: not therapeutics) and their concurrent nearly complete disregard for therapeutics, treatment protocols, their development and the like. There’s more to say on these and other subjects, but that’s just a preview.

The goes against all prevailing public health thought on the matter.

We just established above that you don’t, in fact, know what I think ending the pandemic. But I presume you had at least some reason to believe what you thought I thought went against “all prevailing public health thought.”

So, what do you think constitutes “prevailing public health thought”? And why?

—– 66.7 —–2022-02-04 10:31:32+08:00:

Let’s keep our eyes on the ball for now. Why do you think I thought this:

The issue is here is that you appear to believe that no steps beyond vaccination will help end the pandemic.

You didn’t answer that question above.

—– 66.8 —–2022-02-04 13:10:52+08:00:

Because of your repeated criticisms of mitigation efforts and your dismissal of those locally who have implemented them (most recently dismissing Arwady as crazy or some variation thereof).

I did not say, and have never said Allison Arwady was crazy. I said she was incompetent, meaning that she is lacking the qualities needed for effective action in her current capacity; she is inadequate and unsuitable for her role. Arwady is the captain who not only failed to avoid the iceberg. She hit it, and then kept sailing into more while claiming to know what was happening as the bow was going under.

For example, competent public health officials make decisions based on evidence. In an emergency situation, maybe winging it with your best judgment is all that can be expected. But many months into that situation you have had time to structure data collection efforts to make sure you can understand both what is happening in the moment and how it has changed over time in response to prior efforts. What you don’t do is use shitty methods that fail to capture what is happening, or evaluate how the situation is changing over time. Moreover, you don’t fail to consult with others to understand what you’re even looking at and you actively try to validate your working theories at as many levels as you can so you know you’re doing something right.

As a further example, competent public health officials don’t make decisions in a vacuum or just assume that someone else who said something got it right, because it was said. You put your thinking cap on and try to apply that skillset you theoretically learned in graduate school to ascertain, at the very least, the foreseeable implications of your recommendations, policies or mitigations to all stakeholders. This kind of thing involves consulting with others, collaborating outside of your own discipline when you recognize a deficiency in your own skill set (e.g., infectious diseases, general practice medicine, fluid dynamics, statistical modeling and the like) and having the ability to recognize when your own competencies end and those of others begin. What you don’t do is just assume you can implement some hackneyed top-down set of “recommendations” without anything vaguely resembling evidence and assume things are going to improve.

There are two analogies I like to draw. Enron and the Challenger explosion. Both are manifestations of normalized deviance. In each case, very clear early warning signs that were either misinterpreted, ignored or missed completely.

At the beginning of 2001, the Enron Corporation, the world’s dominant energy trader, appeared unstoppable. On the surface Enron looked like a safe and bet with much lucrative potential, even if no one really understood what the hell was going on under the surface. Until, of course, it all came crashing down. Numerous entities, law firms and one very large accounting firm were culpable in one of the most spectacular instances of fraud that ever was.

The Challenger explosion was a preventable disaster in the United States, which resulted from flawed decision-making processes that led to unforced errors. The Challenger was a space shuttle that was obliterated a mere 73 seconds into its flight, killing all seven crew members aboard. It was the first fatal accident involving an American spacecraft in flight. Numerous individuals, entities and decision makers were culpable in creating conditions in which predictably catastrophic disaster.

I assume you’re instinctively going to disagree with that because you think she did a good job. The problem is that you’re not in a position to know how much less terrible things might have been if someone who knew what they were doing was at the helm. She is no such person. But that’s how things go sometimes. Most people would have bet on Enron before it imploded, too.

—– 66.9 —–2022-02-05 08:23:28+08:00:

Which question? I think I’ve ignored several actually.

—– 66.10 —–2022-02-05 12:22:30+08:00:

I asked, which therapeutics have the NIH disregarded or ignored?

There’s a place your mind had to go in order for you to think of that question. And right off the bat I’m going to slam the door shut on it. Because the well on that front is poisoned beyond the point where any productive — or even coherent — conversation can be had. It’s also beyond the focus of what I said.

I said I have been dumbfounded by the NIH’s unidimensional focus on vaccines (read: not therapeutics) and their concurrent nearly complete disregard for therapeutics, treatment protocols, their development and the like. So the issue is why the NIH has only focused on some things and not others. Why vaccines and not therapeutics, development of therapeutic protocols, etc.?

The NIH has ignored anything out of patent or non-patentable. The NIH has mysteriously disregarded and/or ignored — and in some cases even had the audacity to actively thwart – inquiry or investigation of anything to treat COVID that can’t be patented. For example, one burden of proof was proposed for out of patent or non-patentable therapeutics (large-scale phase 3 clinical trials). Another was implemented for treatments that could be patented (nothing at all, other than failed trials in unrelated research).

If large-scale phase 3 clinical trials were needed to establish the safety and efficacy of compounds with known risk profiles based on four decades or more of commercialization around the world, why were novel and non-commercialized compounds approved for both compassionate and emergency use? Keeping in mind that NIAID approves the grants to fund the research needed to meet that hurdle, why didn’t approve anything of the sort? Why would they eventually approve only small clinical trials for those compounds with treatment protocols well outside the scope of prior demonstrated safety? And based on a hypothesized mechanism of action that was nonsensical? Which predictably resulted in failure and tremendous harm to the non-placebo cohorts?

Here’s a metaphor that might make this more concrete. You’ve got two kids, an older and a younger one. They both want to go mountain biking down a steep hill in an area you’re not familiar with. Your older kid has been riding his bike for the last 6 years of his life, wears his helmet and has never really done anything reckless. The younger kid just got the training wheels off yesterday. Who is more likely to get safely down the mountain? Who is more likely to hurt himself and others in the process of doing so?

But maybe the past record isn’t good enough for you. Suppose you determine some proof of concept is needed. To accomplish this, you decide you want to strap a jetpack to your older kid’s back and make him peddle down an interstate with that apparatus on his back, at full power. Predictably, the older kid gets hurt. You conclude he is incapable of bike riding in any environment, accordingly. Based on this evidence, you proceed to allow your younger kid to proceed down the dangerous hill without any further demonstration of ability. Meanwhile, you made a bet with your spouse that the younger kid would make it down the dangerous hill before the older kid. Are you a sane parent making wise or reasonable parental decisions? Obviously not.

—– 66.11 —–2022-02-05 13:17:43+08:00:

You wrote a lot of words, but you have still not answered my question because apparently you have dismissed as not worth answering?

Re-read the above:

The NIH has ignored anything out of patent or non-patentable. The NIH has mysteriously disregarded and/or ignored — and in some cases even had the audacity to actively thwart – inquiry or investigation of anything to treat COVID that can’t be patented. For example, one burden of proof was proposed for out of patent or non-patentable therapeutics (large-scale phase 3 clinical trials). Another was implemented for treatments that could be patented (nothing at all, other than failed trials in unrelated research).

I’m not inclined to elaborate further in this context, for the same reasons I previously indicated.

—– 66.12 —–2022-02-05 23:19:28+08:00:

That is still not an answer to my question

Maybe you somehow missed the category of therapeutics the NIH disregarded or ignored? Hint: anything out of patent or non-patentable, as I have said three times now. Do you not understand this?

—– 66.13 —–2022-02-05 23:59:33+08:00:

Otherwise this is something you have asserted without evidence.

You’re confusing necessity and sufficiency. The fact that I didn’t link something above doesn’t mean there is no evidence to support what I said. However, based on your subsequent response your mind probably didn’t go where I thought it might have. Instead, I think I may have inadvertently talked over your head.

But let’s be clear about this: it’s one thing to go out and find something you think contradicts something I said (which you have not done) and another thing to say “yeah well I just assume everything you say is false until proven otherwise!” If your approach to conversations about really complicated topics is the latter, it signals to me your intention is not to engage in good faith — meaning you’re not worth my time.

I said something complicated you didn’t understand. What I said was that there’s a category of therapeutics the NIH has ignored. You said you wanted “a specific list,” which was the wrong question to ask. The reason it was the wrong question to ask is because “a specific list” would imply, for example, the existence of a list of drugs already carrying an indication from the FDA to treat COVID. Basically, your question is bad because it puts the cart before the horse. And maybe that wasn’t clear before — perhaps it still isn’t — but I will try to give you at least some foundation to understand the point. Which I see you’re not getting, because you keep asking really bad questions.

The point I made was about NIH’s decisions that resulted in preventing out of patent drugs from gaining that indication in the first place. Drug approval is complicated. One complication is that for a drug to be approved, the label requires, among other things, specific line-item support for treatment indications (i.e., phase 3 clinical trials, usually). Phase 3 clinical trials are very, very expensive and almost always funded in whole or in part by NIH grants. NIAID is the branch of the NIH that decides how grants are awarded. Anthony Fauci makes those calls, in his capacity at the NIAID, if you were curious.

Intellectual property law requires novelty (read: something new) for new patent rights. So, you can’t get a patent over something that’s already out there. This is a problem, because individuals at the NIAID and NIH can personally gain a financial stake in the outcome as “inventors” of drugs whose research they had involvement with. Here’s an article from Axios that explains, at a very high level, the conflict of interest which exists with respect to the NIH (whose studies are funded by the NIAID) and certain pharmaceutical products it holds patent rights over. So, if you’re sitting at the NIH and/or NIAID, you are concurrently wearing two hats. Hat one lets you decide who gets the money needed to get their drug to market. Hat two lets you benefit from the drugs that get to market. If you approve funding to support research that may lead to a changed indication for an out of patent drug, you’re undercutting the market for a new drug over which you hold some intellectual property rights (i.e., acting against your own self interest).

I’ve explained this in the simplest way possible. If you can’t understand any part of it, ask questions. But if you only want to come back with “give me a list of specific drugs that were ignored,” that’s going to tell me you have no interest in even trying to understand the point I made.

—– 66.14 —–2022-02-06 00:29:41+08:00:

Thank you for your delightfully patronizing response. … Honestly, this whole exchange really left me cold and quite frankly, I don’t know what your end goal is here, to alienate everyone who doesn’t see immediately what your point is?

Be real for a minute now. You asked a question that implies you can’t understand the answer I gave, while claiming I didn’t answer the question at all. You’ve waded into territory well beyond the scope of what you understand (or what I would expect anyone to understand without some kind of experience in this area) but have this attitude of “you’re talking out of your ass because you haven’t linked an article from [some source like Buzzfeed].”

Seriously. What did you expect? For me to list off a whole bunch of drugs that do not carry an indication for COVID, when the point was about the NIH actively preventing the kinds of things needed for any drug to carry that indication in the first place? That’s absurd.

then proceeded write long condescending posts accusing me of being stupid

I didn’t accuse you of being anything, other than lacking the foundational knowledge required in order to understand the nature of the conflict of interest between the NIH (and NIAID) and pharmaceuticals its decisions it affects. Not having that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it means you’re not familiar with this area. I assumed you were, which was a mistake on my part. The reason I incorrectly assumed that was because of your interest in what I said — which I should not have assumed.

67: New Mexico asks National Guard to work as substitute teachers to keep classrooms open., submitted on 2022-02-03 04:36:01+08:00.

—– 67.1 —–2022-02-03 12:27:54+08:00:

I don’t see how this is relevant.

68: Chicago Mask, Vaccine Card Mandates Could Be Gone ‘Quite Soon’ As Omicron Cases Drop, Top Doc Says, submitted on 2022-02-04 01:29:25+08:00.

—– 68.1 —–2022-02-04 10:37:39+08:00:

But Biden is doubling down on it.

Biden’s opinions change with the blowing wind. And the wind is blowing in one clear direction. I expect new thinking on all of this before the end of Q1.

—– 68.2 —–2022-02-04 10:54:02+08:00:

The CDC still hasn’t revised the metrics Chicago is using since before delta, omicron, or even vaccines.

Metrics have nothing to do with these decisions, as Fauci’s shortening the quarantine period after Delta’s CEO went after him proves.

—– 68.3 —–2022-02-04 11:00:01+08:00:

I assume you saw the Kaiser Family Foundation’s meta-analysis relating to the efficacy of lockdowns, right?

—– 68.4 —–2022-02-04 13:17:35+08:00:

Even so, under the current leadership the CDC will never change its mask guidance

The CDC has changed its position on masks no less than four times that I can count:

No masks at all, because they initially and correctly acknowledged COVID was airborne and they made no difference at all;
Actually wear masks, because we think maybe COVID is also spread by respiratory droplets too and that might be the primary mode of transmission;
Only wear masks if you’re not vaccinated, because if you’re vaccinated you can’t transmit the virus; and
All must wear masks, regardless of whether you’re vaccinated because you can still transmit.

Except COVID never stopped being airborne and primarily transmitted through inhalation of aerosolized viral material.

—– 68.5 —–2022-02-04 13:18:11+08:00:

Yep, that’s the one.

—– 68.6 —–2022-02-04 13:28:43+08:00:

This really is a time for choosing. Centralized, top-down rule or decision making fails without exception. It inevitably results in rule by incompetent technocrats and is sustained by propagandists and tyranny.

Decentralization, scaled/flat decision making and maximizing autonomy are the only ways to move forward. For some strange reason, people understand this when we’re talking about blockchains, cryptocurrency, fintech and etc.

Many may be shocked to learn however, that it turns out that a set of folks figured out how to apply this radical idea of decentralization to government. They even did it a few hundred years ago. What foresight. They even had the good sense to memorialize it, in some antiquated document people seem to have forgotten about in the wake of the current emergency. Just like they seemed to have forgotten about it all the other emergencies. But hey, never let a crisis go to waste.

—– 68.7 —–2022-02-04 13:33:04+08:00:

The masks aren’t going away until Pritzker goes away, period.

People think Pritzker is some kind of tyrant. He is not. He is responding to what he thinks is in his current political best interest, which is why he did not go so far as Cuomo or Newsome, but went further than the Southern states. In state politics, I am informed this is called the fine art of baby splitting.

69: Why isn’t Iran economically as powerful as Saudi Arabia?, submitted on 2022-02-04 07:17:33+08:00.

—– 69.1 —–2022-02-06 06:46:46+08:00:

The Iranian Revolution and other catastrophes occurred in 1979. As a result, Iran’s standing in the world suffered irreparable harm. No such occurrence transpired in Saudi Arabia. There’s more to be said of course. But that’s why.

70: Judge denies class certification in mask, vaccine mandate cases, submitted on 2022-02-05 04:57:54+08:00.

—– 70.1 —–2022-02-06 03:37:53+08:00:

And by the way, doctors didn’t actually wear masks in the hospital until about two years ago.

Yes they did, when the context required it (e.g., performing surgery). But mandatory masking, which I think you’re referring to, was never a thing before COVID under almost all circumstances in healthcare contexts.

—– 70.2 —–2022-02-06 03:43:27+08:00:

Update: god damn anti-science assholes.

Feel good to blow off that steam?

—– 70.3 —–2022-02-06 03:44:17+08:00:

rolleyes.gif

Low effort.

—– 70.4 —–2022-02-06 03:50:52+08:00:

Denial of class means [legal verbiage]

There are a lot of people trying to interpret things. I don’t see a lot of productive discussion here. So this comment is going to be removed.

—– 70.5 —–2022-02-06 03:53:34+08:00:

Let’s stop pretending to be internet lawyers.

—– 70.6 —–2022-02-06 03:54:56+08:00:

He has a very punchable face, doesn’t he?

Enough of this.

—– 70.7 —–2022-02-06 07:02:53+08:00:

Yep, I think that’s accurate.

71: Frozen sewage slows down coronavirus surveillance, submitted on 2022-02-05 06:56:27+08:00.

—– 71.1 —–2022-02-06 06:32:01+08:00:

I know it’s kind of gross to think about, but sewage is one of the most important sources of information with respect to the state of COVID. It’s not perfect but people should be paying more attention to this. Excellent link, u/faceerase.

72: TRO was approved against Pritzker and IDPH. We don’t know if local boards can still make their own decision… class certification denied. So now what? Some kids go maskless while majority can’t? What kind of ruling is this?, submitted on 2022-02-05 08:39:22+08:00.

—– 72.1 —–2022-02-05 23:23:50+08:00:

A reminder that this is not the place to give legal advice.

73: What parenting ‘trend’ do you strongly disagree with?, submitted on 2022-02-05 20:02:15+08:00.

—– 73.1 —–2022-02-06 06:20:42+08:00:

Nonstop supervision.

People may upvote this. And good for them that they do. But then they’re going to still engage in the very behaviour that they’re criticizing. Because that’s just where we are.