Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, March 8. 2022

HOW RESPIRATORY VIRUSES EVOLVE TO BECOME MILDER

UN Climate Doom Report Claims Humanity Near Adaption Limits Or Something

Kamala Harris: “We Have the Ability to See What Can be, Unburdened by What Has Been, and Then to Make the Possible Actually Happen”

‘Hell Yeah!’ Republican Senator Doubles Down on Pledge to Raise Taxes on Most Americans, Says People ‘Want Free Government Stuff’

God doesn't want you to cancel me: The skin-crawling return of Andrew Cuomo

The Flipside of Low Unemployment: 4.7 Million More Jobs Than Job-Seekers

Canada Says Its Oil Could Replace US Imports Of Russian Crude, All It Would Take Is Approval Of The Keystone XL Pipeline

Ukraine and the Great Energy Reset. If there were ever a time for energy realism, it is now.

Ukraine news – live: Russia preparing assault on capital, Kyiv warns as ceasefire talks end without progress

What Russian Officials Think of the Invasion of Ukraine

Call me a skeptic

Lights, Camera, War! Hollywood Hard at Work in Ukraine

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 08:00 | Comments (64) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

‘Hell Yeah!’ Republican Senator Doubles Down on Pledge to Raise Taxes on Most Americans, Says People ‘Want Free Government Stuff’

Worth clicking the link just to see that Rick Scott wants everyone, including billionaires and moochers, to kick something into the kitty. Being a Hero of the Free Shxt Army is NOT a badge of distinction.

#1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2022-03-08 08:39 (Reply)

Right. People that make under $30k need to pay something into the system. At least 10%, seems fair to me. That being said, at some point, taxation just become legalized theft. Socialism never works. It works until you run out of other peoples money (or something) - Margaret Thatcher

#1.1 B. Hammer on 2022-03-08 08:58 (Reply)

"Last month, he unveiled a plan that stipulating that, “All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax.”

Why not? The problem is not that billionaires pay too little it is that 50% of the citizens pay nothing.

#1.2 JustMe on 2022-03-08 09:42 (Reply)

Mike Anderson: Worth clicking the link just to see that Rick Scott wants everyone, including billionaires and moochers, to kick something into the kitty.

Except his plan doesn't increase taxes on billionaires, just on low-income Americans. Most billionaires pay little to no income taxes: Buy, borrow, die.

B. Hammer: People that make under $30k need to pay something into the system. At least 10%, seems fair to me.

The vast majority of working people already pay 15.3% in payroll taxes.

#1.3 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 09:54 (Reply)

"The vast majority of working people already pay 15.3% in payroll taxes."

But in theory at least that is their money not the governments. In fact your point shows the reason that SS funds should be separated into individual funds that are totally owned by the individual contributors who should retain control over those funds even to include giving it to their heirs after their death. Seems like Reagan suggested something like that.

#1.3.1 JustMe on 2022-03-08 10:37 (Reply)

JustMe: But in theory at least that is their money not the governments.

The revenue is spent to pay current benefits. Social Security is a generational transfer of income from young to old.

JustMe: In fact your point shows the reason that SS funds should be separated into individual funds that are totally owned by the individual contributors who should retain control over those funds even to include giving it to their heirs after their death.

That's doesn't work because current revenues are spent to pay current beneficiaries. To set the revenues aside would leave current beneficiaries (Granny) without an income.

#1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 11:28 (Reply)

"The revenue is spent to pay current benefits. Social Security is a generational transfer of income from young to old."

Oh! You mean like Bernie Madoff did.

You are partly correct. The money was kinda borrowed/stolen and now there isn't a specific fund of money so it is paid out from the monthly input. But the federal government actually borrowed it with documentation and an IOU, about $4 trillion including the interest.

They could easily clean it up; remove anyone from the system who has never paid anything in. Reset all monthly payments to reflect the individual's actual contributions and once it was cleaned up and the $4 trillion put back create a separate account for each member and improve their access to their money. Who could possibly be opposed to that? Only a Marxist would object to people being in control of their own money, right?

#1.3.1.1.1 JustMe on 2022-03-08 15:01 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Oh! You mean like Bernie Madoff did.

Well, no. People gave Madoff large lump sums of cash, and Madoff falsely promised that the principal was invested. With Social Security there is no principal. It's a generational transfer from old to young. Current revenues pay for current benefits.

indyjonesouthere: remove anyone from the system who has never paid anything in.

"Social Security benefits are typically computed using 'average indexed monthly earnings.'" In other words, your contributions determine how much you will receive.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/Benefits.html

{snip what follows from faulty premise}

#1.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 15:16 (Reply)

You may want to rephrase your response to whoever it applies to.

#1.3.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 15:50 (Reply)

The comments should have been attributed to JustMe.

#1.3.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 15:55 (Reply)

"Social Security benefits are typically computed using 'average indexed monthly earnings.'"

I will assume that you know how benefits are computed and thus you know that they are weighted to favor the workers who have contributed less than average. That means the people who contribute the least to SS get a greater return from their "investment" than those who contribute more. Almost like a Marxist president created the system huh! I am suggesting that the return be only and simply based on the total contribution that the worker made to the SS system. It shouldn't be welfare it should be a retirement system with the return on investment following standard accounting principles.

As I remember when Carter was our president and Fidel Castro sent us 150,000 of Cuba's prisoners we settled them here and those who were over age 65 were 'given' SS. I believe that still happens, i.e., that immigrants who are over 65 are simply placed into the SS retirement system as though they worked 45 years and contributed to it. There are people in the SS retirement getting monthly checks who have never paid a dime into it. I am simply saying that should not have been allowed. You responded with gobbledygook in an effort to not answer the question.

#1.3.1.1.1.1.3 JustMe on 2022-03-08 20:44 (Reply)

JustMe: I will assume that you know how benefits are computed and thus you know that they are weighted to favor the workers who have contributed less than average.

Sure, but that's not what you claimed. (Also, lower income people have generally lower life expectancy.)

JustMe: It shouldn't be welfare it should be a retirement system with the return on investment following standard accounting principles.

There is no investment. You're paying for your granny's check.

#1.3.1.1.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-09 08:38 (Reply)

Unresponsive You answered things I never asked. I assume you lack the knowledge to address what I stated.

As for your statement that there is no investment. Well, there is. The federal government has about $4 trillion that they took from the SS fund and replaced it with interest bearing bonds. THAT is an investment.

#1.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.1 JustMe on 2022-03-09 14:46 (Reply)

JustMe: Unresponsive You answered things I never asked.

We did respond. Benefits are weighted for great benefit to lower income workers, but lower income workers have a generally lower life expectancy.

JustMe: As for your statement that there is no investment.

As noted way above, Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go system, but the baby-boomers paid additionally to account for the demographic bulge for when they retired. Social Security spends about $1 trillion per year, and the Trust Fund is at less than $3 trillion. There is no investment of your payments set aside for your retirement. What you pay goes to your parents or grandparents.

If the U.S. decided to take all current Social Security revenues and put them into personal accounts, then there wouldn't be sufficient funds to continue payments to current retirees.

#1.3.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-09 15:10 (Reply)

Actually, the employee pays about 7.5% to Medicare and FICA. I know, because I have done payroll. The employer pays the other half of FICA. Now if you are self-employed, you pay the entire sum, plus a self-employed tax.

Also, the general premise was that SS was to be a separate fund; those dollars are not supposed to be part of the general fund that pays for all the goodies that Big Government hands out. Remember Albert Gore’s Lock Box? History tells me that SS was billed as a voluntary program. How quickly that changed. In principle, you will collect all that money back when you retire. So you can’t really claim that poor people pay their fair share of Big Government. Don’t forget about all the many tax credits that can be claimed, if your gross income is under a certain amount.

#1.3.2 B. Hammer on 2022-03-08 11:29 (Reply)

B. Hammer: Actually, the employee pays about 7.5% to Medicare and FICA.

Economists correctly count the employer portion as part of employee compensation.

B. Hammer: Also, the general premise was that SS was to be a separate fund

Social Security is primarily a pay-as-you-go system. Current revenues pay for current benefits. Some money was set aside during the Baby Boomers earning years to account for the expected bulge in retirees.

B. Hammer: Remember Albert Gore’s Lock Box?

Yes. The U.S. (through some quirk of the Electoral College) chose spending the money then, rather than saving it for retirement. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

B. Hammer: In principle, you will collect all that money back when you retire.

That depends. If you die young, then your widow or children may collect your benefits. Circumstances vary considerably.

B. Hammer: So you can’t really claim that poor people pay their fair share of Big Government.

So you can't really claim that the working poor don't pay federal taxes. Regardless, many billionaires pay little or no income tax.

#1.3.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 11:46 (Reply)

“We Have the Ability to See What Can be, Unburdened by What Has Been, and Then to Make the Possible Actually Happen”

That sounds a lot like this:
"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

#2 BobJustBob on 2022-03-08 08:43 (Reply)

Well, the previous generation did what Kamala mangled. JFK said let's go to the moon, and we did. Today, I doubt it possible, unless some enterprising, energetic freedom loving person takes it on.

#2.1 Becky on 2022-03-08 09:05 (Reply)

I thought she was considering converting to the Tranny lifestyle.

#2.2 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 10:10 (Reply)

Re "Republican Senator Doubles Down": Your paraphrase is not actually what he said, you know.

#3 Hairless Joe on 2022-03-08 08:55 (Reply)

Why is it that Joe is running to all the worlds worst players, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Venezuela, for more oil, but refuses to look at his own country? Or even Canada! Hasn’t Canada proven to be dictatorial enough, Joe? It’s almost like there is a purposeful plan to destroy America. At least there are no mean tweets.

#4 B. Hammer on 2022-03-08 09:13 (Reply)

B. Hammer: Why is it that Joe is running to all the worlds worst players, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Venezuela, for more oil, but refuses to look at his own country?

It's important to distinguish between the short-term crisis and the long-term problem. As prices rise, wells in the U.S. will respond to market incentives and pump more oil. However, oil production in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are controlled by political forces and have the capacity to immediately pump more oil. New pipelines and new oil fields can't be developed fast enough to ameliorate the immediate crisis.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 09:59 (Reply)

Especially if the green authoritarians keep shutting pipelines down and banning drilling in new fields. That way there will be nothing to address any future crisis as well.

#4.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 10:38 (Reply)

The short term crisis is a Joe Biden creation. The very first thing he did was throttle back US production. You lefties have been spotting the same nonsense for decades: You can’t drill your way to energy independence. Well we did.

#4.1.2 B. Hammer on 2022-03-08 11:16 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Especially if the green authoritarians {sic} keep shutting pipelines down and banning drilling in new fields.

Sure, that argument can be made, but that leaves the problem of global warming unaddressed. The simplest answer is to pretend the problem doesn't exist, leaving the next generation to deal with an exacerbated problem.

Nonetheless, the question concerned why the U.S. is looking towards Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. And the answer is that they can fill the immediate need, while new pipelines and permits can take years to come to fruition.

B. Hammer: The short term crisis is a Joe Biden creation.

The rise over the last several months is due to the rapid increase in economic activity leading to widespread supply chain problems. The current spike is due to war in eastern Europe.

#4.1.3 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 11:36 (Reply)

Global warming is great, it is global cooling that creates food problems.

#4.1.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 11:53 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Global warming is great, it is global cooling that creates food problems.

Climate stability is preferable. Human civilization has been built during a period of relative climate stability. People have built vast infrastructures around rivers and seas. Agriculture depends on the regularity of weather patterns.

People can and will adapt, but widespread changes in climate will cause increases in human migration and the resultant political and social tensions that migration entails. (Consider how much tension is created in the U.S. due to immigration, even though it has a long history of immigration.) The sooner humanity addresses the problem, the lower the economic cost, and the less the permanent ecological damage.

#4.1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 12:07 (Reply)

Agriculture moves with the weather or adapts seeds to the cold and or precipitation. It is only the statist democrats like Gore or Obama that live on the ocean beaches that need better property insurance, that the rest of us are not subsidizing, to protect their investment. Nothing is gained by pretending to control climate except for the money all the climate grifters are hoping to rake into their bank accounts.

#4.1.3.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 12:27 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Agriculture moves with the weather

Which can result in disruption of agriculture and mass migration.

indyjonesouthere: or adapts seeds to the cold and or precipitation.

Yes, people can adapt their crops.

In any case, as noted, the simplest answer is to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 12:37 (Reply)

You are wishing for a static climate when earth history shows that no such thing exists. Democrats and socialists are statists, they don't or can't deal with change.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 12:52 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You are wishing for a static climate when earth history shows that no such thing exists.

While climate certainly does change, the current anthropogenic rate and degree of change is much faster than what would happen naturally, and the rate and degree of change is expected to accelerate as long as humans continue to emit vast quantities of greenhouse gases (and even after for some time).

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/models-observed-human-natural.png

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 13:00 (Reply)

The rate of change is constant as reported by the scientists and blogs I follow. It is accelerating only according to the administrative state and the climate grifters, all of whom hope to gain more power, control, and money with their efforts to screw the rest of us.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 13:06 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The rate of change is constant as reported by the scientists and blogs I follow.

Well, that decides it then. The ones you agree with agree with you.

Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021: "the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years."

NOAA: Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2,000 years

Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
For average annual Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the period 1983–2012 was very likely
the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last
1,400 years.
Warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere since the mid
20th century than in any previous time.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 15:07 (Reply)

NOAA has been caught fudging climate numbers for years and they are just another overpaid portion of the admin state. Not only that but the smith-mundt modernization act of 2012 which was included in the NDA act allowed the US to use propaganda again US citizens. Anything coming out of the admin state is likely to be "tainted" information. And which political party got this through so very quietly? Previous to the modernization act any propaganda exported to other countries could not be broadcast in the US.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 15:24 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: NOAA has been caught fudging climate numbers for years and they are just another overpaid portion of the admin state.

Multiple scientific studies have been made of the raw data, and they confirm the warming trend. See, for instance, Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average
Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinformatics & Geostatistic 2012.

The warming trend has been confirmed by scientists working in different fields using different methods and in different political systems.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 15:29 (Reply)

Per the modernized Smith-Munct act you are simply aggregating administrative state and government funded bullshit. We now, official, have a government mandated authorization to fund chaos, crisis, and all-around perversion to sell bullshit to the public on a scale unheard of in our history. I rather suspect, that in all likelihood, universities have received grants to develop bullshit factories in their administration in order to clip, strip, inundate, and prostrate any data or information they develop and send to the outside world for publication. You would make Marcuse and Gramsci proud.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 15:47 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Per the modernized Smith-Munct act . . .

None of that addresses the actual evidence.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 15:53 (Reply)

Yes, it does. Your evidence was produced in the bullshit factory. All funded by government, of the government and for the government.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 16:05 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Your evidence was produced in the bullshit factory.

The historical data comes from all around the world. But sure. It's all one giant conspiracy.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 16:06 (Reply)

Finally, you're catching on. The money flows to the corruptocrats regardless of location, and to include the UN clowns.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 16:08 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The money flows to the corruptocrats regardless of location, and to include the UN clowns.

What you are saying is that there is no possible argument that could cause you to change your position. If evidence is provided, you will disregard it as corrupt no matter that the evidence may included a consensus from many different disciplines with independent lines of observations—unless it confirms your preconceptions.

Notably, you haven’t provided any evidence to support your claims, just vague intimations of a vast conspiracy.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 20:22 (Reply)

And you only provide "evidence" manufactured by the bullshit factory. I am more than happy to live with the results of the evidence I have found and am not inclined to join the panicked neo-Malthusian tribe that lives by the authoritarian sword.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-09 11:00 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: And you only provide "evidence" manufactured by the bullshit factory.

You failed to respond to our comment. What evidence could cause you to reconsider your position?

indyjonesouthere: I am more than happy to live with the results of the evidence I have found . . .

But repeatedly failed to share.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-09 11:08 (Reply)

Global warming is a religion. It started with Silent Spring and was injected into the public school system as earth day where it was worshiped by authoritarians as much as the 1619 project is worshiped by authoritarians today. It became highly profitable to the BS factory and continues as an authoritarian religious cult. I am not interested in your religion nor the missionaries that have taken your religion across the world for their profitable grifting.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-09 11:26 (Reply)

You ignored the question. What evidence could cause you to reconsider your position? Let us know if you ever decide to address the evidence.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-09 11:30 (Reply)

I didn't ignore your question as I have commented that it is merely a religion that, like Islam, has immersed its grifting tenacles into a productive economy and has a statist view of the world while making every attempt to stone the non-believers into adjusting to the cult worship of the earthers while they hit the biz jet circuit. Al Gore is calling you...please pick up.

#4.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-09 11:45 (Reply)

It's important to notice what a hypocrite you are as you work to defend leftist leaders.

#4.1.4 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-03-08 12:39 (Reply)

Biden to announce ban on US imports of Russian oil: source

#4.2 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 10:00 (Reply)

The modern problems with our energy policy have existed at least as long as the creation of the Department of Energy in 1977, and that's no coincidence. What problems has the DoE solved in its 45 years?

The City Journal essay isn't awful, but the problem with these articles is that the author is frequently only slightly less ignorant about hydrocarbons than the reader. Hydrocarbon energy is the basis of modern civilization. It quite literally is the thread that runs through everything. Get rid of them overnight? Say goodbye to fertilizer, plastics, electric lights, transportation, and so on. Will solar panels and windmills ever grow crops? Will nuclear power? No.

But: Some of the answers have been clear since the 1960s. Hydrocarbons will be with us for more than another lifetime. A wise energy policy would be to begin picking the low-hanging fruit in earnest by advancing nuclear-powered electricity generation.

Why not eliminate the use of coal, gas, and oil for generating power? This would put all of the electrical grid and almost all of heavy industry into a much lower hydrocarbon consumption bracket. This could have been comfortably managed to 100% completion a decade ago. All that is missing is the political courage and willpower. And yet, not a single politician is advocating for this, coherently. All we get is stumping for one crony scheme after another.

#5 Aggie on 2022-03-08 10:17 (Reply)

Amen and amen. I had an environmentalist friend in 1980 tell me that he reluctantly had to admit that nuclear power was going to be the best way out - and he was thinking more of pollution than CO2 at the time.

#5.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2022-03-08 11:08 (Reply)

Very much agree. Makes a lot of sense.

And specifics can improve this notion further. When fracking got big my thought was to put a nuclear power plant in the northern plains. It would be safe from tsunamis, and generally safe from hostile attack. Share the responsibility (and the power produced) with Canada if they were so inclined

But it also means that Williston, ND et. al. can have cheap electricity to aid in their extraction of oil. So those hard workers thrive, and it further helps keep oil prices low.

A real Dept of Energy would be on this. We'd see progress in multiple areas, not just a half a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it except for some basic science and a cheaper way to produce Titanium that the Saudi's now own.

#5.2 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-03-08 12:47 (Reply)

Some of the old Soviet petroleum development projects were powered by electricity from the grid. In one giant field that I worked in the FSU (90's), there were high-tension lines all over the place - once in a while one would fall and start a fire, or even worse, electrocute cattle. You never knew which lines were still connected to the grid.

In fact, all modern drilling rigs, since the 1990's or so, are completely electric - powered onsite by huge diesel-fired generators. DC traction motors can develop tremendous torque upon startup, which is why they are useful in drilling - also why they are used on railroad locomotives.

Oil and gas fields are often located far from existing infrastructure, and electrical infrastructure is almost always under-built to accommodate the kind of loads that drilling and completions activities require. A frac job might require around 40 - 50,000 horsepower at its disposal to conduct the job successfully. But if a hydrocarbon discovery of size were to be developed to its best potential, then yes: It would make eminent sense to connect it to a grid properly designed to handle it.

#5.2.1 Aggie on 2022-03-08 13:35 (Reply)

Hollywood needs a new "Cuba" it can coddle and fuss over. Never let a socialist thugocracy go to waste.

#6 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 10:46 (Reply)

(1) Take the shackles off the O&G industry.

(2) Take the shackles off the nuclear power industry.

#7 Texan99 on 2022-03-08 10:53 (Reply)

Abidin' plans to ban Russian oil.

You think gas prices are high now? Whoa, Nellie.

#8 Maniac on 2022-03-08 10:55 (Reply)

Joebamma can't wait to import oil from Iran and Venezuela.

#8.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 11:08 (Reply)

Yes, viruses often become milder over time. It's not good to kill your hosts, when you can get just as much lebensraum just weakening them. But they don't always. We just had a more deadly variant of covid mutate last year, remember? (Or are we still pretending it it was all just "covid" because that's more convenient in claiming restrictions were fascist impositions?)

The bubonic plague was an evolved variant of an earlier, milder plague. You can't count on milder to always happen. History is what it is.

#9 Assistant Village Idiot on 2022-03-08 11:15 (Reply)

Still waiting for ALL the data.

#9.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-08 11:24 (Reply)

On the bubonic plague? Really? The principle is sound, and it has already applied at least partially to our current situation. That much is already in the barn. We have some idea what will follow, because we have the track of the last two years over millions of people. That's exceptionally good test data.

#9.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2022-03-08 17:37 (Reply)

Covid

#9.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-03-09 11:02 (Reply)

QUOTE:

HOW RESPIRATORY VIRUSES EVOLVE TO BECOME MILDER

The theory is that respiratory viruses tend to evolve to become milder because people self-isolate when very sick and mingle more when only mildly sick. Instead, during COVID, people stayed home when mildly sick and went to hospital when very sick.

His prescription is to, apparently, mingle when mildly sick, and if very sick to stay at home and die. Of course, the death rate might have been twice as high, but another advantage is to encourage evolution in humans by letting the most susceptible die off. Frankly, if you treat people with diabetes with insulin, you just breed more diabetics. If you give eye glasses to people with myopia, you just breed more myopia. If you take care of people with broken legs, you just breed more clumsy people. And, if you feed the starving Irish, you just end up with more Irish (Swift, 1729).

#9.2 Zachriel on 2022-03-08 12:00 (Reply)

And your demonstrated expertise in science is?

#9.2.1 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-03-08 12:41 (Reply)

In that comment he was demonstrating his reading competence of the article, not offering any new scientific information. He did that quite well. Your objection is rather silly. I have to conclude that it bothers you that you have no logical responses, so you lash out.

#9.2.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2022-03-08 17:43 (Reply)

There is a theory that the great plagues of history were only possible once the population and/or civilization reached a certain level. That is any plague level disease would quickly die out if there were only a dozen humans sitting around a fire or huddled in a cave. But with cities and large populations and travel and exposure a deadly plague level disease could infect a long string of people killing indiscriminately until almost everyone had been exposed. This was written up in Scientific American back in the mid 60's (back when they reported science not politics) and the author predicted more great plagues to happen as the population, travel and intermingling increased. Voila!

#10 Anon on 2022-03-08 15:11 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, March 8. 2022

Tuesday morning links