nafod wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:43 pm
The destruction of labor unions has been a key stepping stone to where we are now, with a wealth inequality that is now at robber baron levels. Republicans led that charge.
No. The Republicans have massive blood on their hands for a lot of things, but wealth inequality really skyrocketed during the Clinton years, as people became "digitally rich". The death of labor unions lies squarely on their own shoulders for the endless, shameless corruption and cronyism they bred.
Google on “Koch Brothers” and “Right To Work”. The assault on labor unions has been a long term conservative project, decades of dollars and effort, with mission accomplished in 2018 with the Janus decision.
As for corruption, I’m pretty sure it’d be impossible to beat Trump.
Want to see Hillary in jail? Convince Trump to hire her.
"Assault on labor unions" is interesting. There's no doubt that "right to work" is more prevalent in the red states that are prospering and that blue staters are moving to in droves.
But, I've wondered how many union manufacturing jobs were outsourced to China via: bipartisan globalists, excessive regulations, and union greed. My bet is that it's most of them, so it may be partially a Republican issue but Dems are heavily involved.
And which are the most powerful and valuable companies in the world? Tech sector? How Republican are they? How unionized are they? How many American tech workers do they replace with cheap imported labor? How much of their political donations go to Republicans? <1% +/-.
Also, when unions are discussed, people of a Dem bent neglect to mention public sector unions which are far and away the most politically powerful unions in the country. They're a massive politically active piggy bank for the Dem party and they demand a share of the booty. Dem politicians give it to them but they don't fund it, and states go to shit. See Illinois for a prime example.
I’m not reflexively a fan of unions, but I also know they were a key part of making it so a guy with a high school degree could lead a good middle class life, or in my family’s case, maybe my dad wouldn’t have had to live in a company house, shop in a company store, and watch his dad fade away from black lung disease.
I’m with you on globalism killing unions too, and I’m with Roosevelt himself on public unions in general (no).
The tech sector isn’t US labor intensive. Bunch of Chinamen doing the hard work.
The pendulum has definitely swung back toward capital and management, as the wealth disparity directly indicates. What are the R’s doing about it? Now that they are done busting unions, treating corporations as people, being fine with too big to fail, and are working to make it harder to get health care.
See, that was good and interesting and showed independent thought.
But wtf? Why would you see this as a D vs R phenomenon?
It isn't. It's impossible to look at history and think that the drive to depress wages was one sided. It was a bilateral orchestrated attack by the politicians in both parties.
Clinton and NAFTA? Barry and "those jobs aren't coming back"? Feinstein and China? Etc etc etc etc wtf do you think HR is? They admit that the sexually damaged and racially diverse workforce was intended to minimize the ability for labor to organize.
The US political class has been intentionally strip mining the middle class of this country AND working to prevent them from gaining it back.
"SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell epitopes enabled detection of post-infectious T-cell immunity, even in seronegative convalescents. Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed preexisting T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity[9] in SARS-CoV-2 infection[10,11]. "
Big news from a german pre-print. If true, means approx 20% completely susceptible and explains herd resistance lvls of that number.
GM to GM UAW employees:
We need this plant to hit "X" in production and we need to drop total salary and overtime spending to "Y" to keep it here in Flint, instead of moving it to Mexico.
GM Employees and UAW Members:
Hit "X x 1.5" in production. Manage total salary and overtime spending to below "Y", in an honest effort to keep production and jobs in Flint for people.
Shafpocalypse Now wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:23 pm
GM to GM UAW employees:
We need this plant to hit "X" in production and we need to drop total salary and overtime spending to "Y" to keep it here in Flint, instead of moving it to Mexico.
GM Employees and UAW Members:
Hit "X x 1.5" in production. Manage total salary and overtime spending to below "Y", in an honest effort to keep production and jobs in Flint for people.
GM:
Moves the plant anyway.
Precisely.
And add in the past Gov support for overseas competitors like Japan and South Korea.
It was kinda weird how Ross "giant sucking sound" Perot dropped out after he started alleging US Intel was going after his family.
Oregon policy. Yeah it is indecipherable. But it's something like 60 days after discharge from a hospital all deaths are covid if you had covid at some point. I can't figure out how it all works together and how positive tests and hospital stay work but wtf nothing matters anymore apparently.
Oh yeah, they are doing it this way to make sure the data is good and we can track the spread!
"We consider COVID-19 deaths to be:
Deaths in which a patient hospitalized for any reason within 14 days of a positive COVID-19 test result dies in the hospital or within the 60 days following discharge.
Deaths in which COVID-19 is listed as a primary or contributing cause of death on a death certificate."
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:23 pm
Oregon policy. Yeah it is indecipherable. But it's something like 60 days after discharge from a hospital all deaths are covid if you had covid at some point. I can't figure out how it all works together and how positive tests and hospital stay work but wtf nothing matters anymore apparently.
Oh yeah, they are doing it this way to make sure the data is good and we can track the spread!
"We consider COVID-19 deaths to be:
Deaths in which a patient hospitalized for any reason within 14 days of a positive COVID-19 test result dies in the hospital or within the 60 days following discharge.
Deaths in which COVID-19 is listed as a primary or contributing cause of death on a death certificate."
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:23 pm
Oregon policy. Yeah it is indecipherable. But it's something like 60 days after discharge from a hospital all deaths are covid if you had covid at some point. I can't figure out how it all works together and how positive tests and hospital stay work but wtf nothing matters anymore apparently.
Oh yeah, they are doing it this way to make sure the data is good and we can track the spread!
"We consider COVID-19 deaths to be:
Deaths in which a patient hospitalized for any reason within 14 days of a positive COVID-19 test result dies in the hospital or within the 60 days following discharge.
Deaths in which COVID-19 is listed as a primary or contributing cause of death on a death certificate."
I've looked at the CARES Act and there is no provision to pay for deaths.
Moreover these are death certs made by the gov and not the hospital.
Even in the Death Cert Matching process where govs look back on death certs and retroactively certify them as Covid the hospitals aren't involved.
I suppose that it is possible the hospitals co-ordinate with the gov to retroactively categorize a prior stay not originally coded as covid into a covid stay on the basis of a later death cert. But I haven't seen any evidence of it. I suppose it could be happening though. I'd like to see evidence of it.
Redfield did kinda sorta imply it was theoretically possible in testimony. But I don't see how the mechanism would work.
The deaths "from covid" are clearly being conflated with deaths "with covid" and deaths "from the lockdown" and deaths "of ppl with one or two symptoms of covid" but I don't see the financial incentive for hospitals.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:19 pm
Big news from a german pre-print. If true, means approx 20% completely susceptible and explains herd resistance lvls of that number.
If true, I wonder how much of a mutation the virus would have to undergo to tap into that 80% pool.
The 1918 flu mutated significantly between Spring and Fall waves. But flus tend to mutate a lot.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:26 am
I've looked at the CARES Act and there is no provision to pay for deaths.
Moreover these are death certs made by the gov and not the hospital.
Even in the Death Cert Matching process where govs look back on death certs and retroactively certify them as Covid the hospitals aren't involved.
I suppose that it is possible the hospitals co-ordinate with the gov to retroactively categorize a prior stay not originally coded as covid into a covid stay on the basis of a later death cert. But I haven't seen any evidence of it. I suppose it could be happening though. I'd like to see evidence of it.
Redfield did kinda sorta imply it was theoretically possible in testimony. But I don't see how the mechanism would work.
The deaths "from covid" are clearly being conflated with deaths "with covid" and deaths "from the lockdown" and deaths "of ppl with one or two symptoms of covid" but I don't see the financial incentive for hospitals.
This isn't just a medical issue, it's a financial one. If a person's treatment is covered under the Cares Act, that funding is federal. If it's treatment that's covered by the OHA, that probably means it's at least partially Medicaid-- which has joint state and federal funding. If a treatment provider has a patient covered under Medicaid, they need to follow Medicaid treatment coding rules or they won't get reimbursement-- something every hospital CFOs understands.
And treatment covered under the Cares Act likely reimburses hospitals at a higher rate than Medicaid does in Oregon.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
I've said before that hospitals have a perverse incentive to code patients as COVID because of Cares. And yeah, they get even more for uninsured.
But this is about the process by which govs certify deaths as COVID.
If the financial incentive were there, the Hosps would take advantage of it to recoup losses from the lockdown.
But, I just don't see how it would work mechanically.
The states all have different regimes, but they all lean toward certifying deaths as covid rather than not. Most are MUCH MUCH more inclusive than the std practice with the flu.
And it matters because we have seen with Sweden and Europe the certifying effects Case Fatality and IFR as well as total deaths.
I just don't know why they are doing it so differently with this virus.
And maybe most importantly, why they are now and have been diverting resources toward figuring out what happened months ago when they're not even up to speed on the present.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:19 pm
Big news from a german pre-print. If true, means approx 20% completely susceptible and explains herd resistance lvls of that number.
If true, I wonder how much of a mutation the virus would have to undergo to tap into that 80% pool.
The 1918 flu mutated significantly between Spring and Fall waves. But flus tend to mutate a lot.
As a rule, Viruses "evolve" via mutation toward the common cold. They become less deadly but more virulent.
That's why this thing will become "endemic" and not "pandemic".
But it isn't clear we're dealing with a sig mutated virus. Sero-prevalence in NY was not different. The deaths were, but that could easily be explained (and almost certainly is) via public policy. In that, the devastated states in the NE entered into a heralded coalition to co-ordinate response. And their deaths were all of the same type and amt per population.
Prof Francois Balloux
@BallouxFrancois
·
1h
You can create straw men, pontificate about platitudes, inject the random term that you feel makes you look clever, all day long. This may impress some, but anyone with some expertise just sees you for what you are, a sad, shallow, insecure and intellectually limited man.
Prof Francois Balloux
@BallouxFrancois
·
3h
Prologue of you embarrassing yourself publicly ... This has already been awkward enough. I suggest that you calm down if you want to preserve a shred of dignity and reputation.
Prof Francois Balloux
@BallouxFrancois
You misconstrued my tweet in a remarkable example of non-pragmatic and ideological thinking. I'm aware of the importance of higher moments of distributions, and samples with unequal variance can be compared. Epidemiology is about minimising deaths, not just #COVID19 deaths. Bye.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:18 pm
I've said before that hospitals have a perverse incentive to code patients as COVID because of Cares. And yeah, they get even more for uninsured.
They are probably only netting about 5-15% over cost for the uninsured as a result of Cares. That's not excessive and keep in mind that they have been government mandated to shut down the more profitable parts of their businesses and likely spent significant amounts reengineering their hospital layouts to limit contamination. Without the ability to do this, rural and safety net hospitals would probably be downgrading services they offer or going broke at faster rates than they have been-- neither of those trends are good and any acceleration is worse.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:18 pmBut this is about the process by which govs certify deaths as COVID.
If the financial incentive were there, the Hosps would take advantage of it to recoup losses from the lockdown.
But, I just don't see how it would work mechanically.
The states all have different regimes, but they all lean toward certifying deaths as covid rather than not. Most are MUCH MUCH more inclusive than the std practice with the flu.
It's more about dynamics of Medicaid finance where states and the federal government try to shift a portion of costs to each other, and state, local, and hospital officials are constantly worried about federal clawbacks from audits that probably won't take place for 5-10 years.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:18 pm
I've said before that hospitals have a perverse incentive to code patients as COVID because of Cares. And yeah, they get even more for uninsured.
They are probably only netting about 5-15% over cost for the uninsured as a result of Cares. That's not excessive and keep in mind that they have been government mandated to shut down the more profitable parts of their businesses and likely spent significant amounts reengineering their hospital layouts to limit contamination. Without the ability to do this, rural and safety net hospitals would probably be downgrading services they offer or going broke at faster rates than they have been-- neither of those trends are good and any acceleration is worse.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 3:18 pmBut this is about the process by which govs certify deaths as COVID.
If the financial incentive were there, the Hosps would take advantage of it to recoup losses from the lockdown.
But, I just don't see how it would work mechanically.
The states all have different regimes, but they all lean toward certifying deaths as covid rather than not. Most are MUCH MUCH more inclusive than the std practice with the flu.
It's more about dynamics of Medicaid finance where states and the federal government try to shift a portion of costs to each other, and state, local, and hospital officials are constantly worried about federal clawbacks from audits that probably won't take place for 5-10 years.
Shove it up your ass dude.
This is all either basic or blah blah blah.
I've said repeatedly that hospitals have taken a hit for the rest of us and are just following a perverse incentive set up by Congress in order to recoup some foregone income.
Hosps should have been made whole directly based on some simple calculation of their own or the industry's avg profits.
But nothing you've said shows any financial connection between govs certifying deaths and the CARES Act.
The govs are liberally certifying deaths as Covid for some reason but the reason is unclear.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:39 pm
Fwiw Francois Balloux and TALEB are going at it on twatter. Lot's of refreshing personal attacks and hilarity.
Getting into an argument with Taleb is the proverbial don’t wrestle with a pig if you don’t want to get muddy. Each has their fans, who then get into side battles.
Good times
It does seem like C19 hasn’t really mutated. Good.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:19 pm
Big news from a german pre-print. If true, means approx 20% completely susceptible and explains herd resistance lvls of that number.
If true, I wonder how much of a mutation the virus would have to undergo to tap into that 80% pool.
The 1918 flu mutated significantly between Spring and Fall waves. But flus tend to mutate a lot.
As a rule, Viruses "evolve" via mutation toward the common cold. They become less deadly but more virulent.
That's why this thing will become "endemic" and not "pandemic".
If they fiddled with a common cold to make it like cowpox to C19’s smallpox.
But of course we’d screw it up and accidentally create a planet of zombies.
Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:19 pm
Big news from a german pre-print. If true, means approx 20% completely susceptible and explains herd resistance lvls of that number.
If true, I wonder how much of a mutation the virus would have to undergo to tap into that 80% pool.
The 1918 flu mutated significantly between Spring and Fall waves. But flus tend to mutate a lot.
As a rule, Viruses "evolve" via mutation toward the common cold. They become less deadly but more virulent.
That's why this thing will become "endemic" and not "pandemic".
If they fiddled with a common cold to make it like cowpox to C19’s smallpox.
But of course we’d screw it up and accidentally create a planet of zombies.
Well Baric and UNC were working with Wuhan and Baric has made at least one Capt Trips so I was pretty sure we were all dead in April.
But we lucked out. If we hadn't vented so many early on and not locked down and classified deaths as per usual with resp viruses we'd have had a moderately heavy flu season re excess deaths with a weird prevalence for olds and kids spared.
This jap woman is brilliant and an effective communicator. Here she discusses the new and first demonstrated case of re-infection. NOTE: the ching chongs found it and I don't believe them ever. But the analysis is still great and hugely informative about the subject.
syaigh wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:13 am
Baby killing happens much less when people have access to sex education and contraception. Also when women aren't slut shamed for being single mothers or have financial support. Regardless, full grown humans should have autonomy over their own bodies. If child can survive birth, they should be given a chance. But there are many reasons why a third trimester baby may have not developed in a way that makes life outside the womb possible.
When the party of proliving ignores all of that, it really comes down to a hollow politics-only stance.
I have absolutely no objections to, and actively encourage, sex education and contraception.
However.
Re: slut shaming, my view is that both men and women enjoy sex, for pleasure, bonding, and procreation. No harm. However, if a woman cannot be responsible enough to competently navigate sexual behavior, there is no reason to assume she is responsible enough to decide about the life of her child. Abortion is absolutely and unequivocally a moral issue. Sexuality is decidedly NOT an issue of autonomy, it's quite the opposite, its the foundation of social behavior and as such, can't be intelligently discussed in terms of autonomy. It involves relationships by its very nature, and therefore requires a moral foundation.
"I have longed for shipwrecks, for havoc and violent death.” - Havoc, T. Kristensen
syaigh wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:13 am
Baby killing happens much less when people have access to sex education and contraception. Also when women aren't slut shamed for being single mothers or have financial support. Regardless, full grown humans should have autonomy over their own bodies. If child can survive birth, they should be given a chance. But there are many reasons why a third trimester baby may have not developed in a way that makes life outside the womb possible.
When the party of proliving ignores all of that, it really comes down to a hollow politics-only stance.
I have absolutely no objections to, and actively encourage, sex education and contraception.
However.
Re: slut shaming, my view is that both men and women enjoy sex, for pleasure, bonding, and procreation. No harm. However, if a woman cannot be responsible enough to competently navigate sexual behavior, there is no reason to assume she is responsible enough to decide about the life of her child. Abortion is absolutely and unequivocally a moral issue. Sexuality is decidedly NOT an issue of autonomy, it's quite the opposite, its the foundation of social behavior and as such, can't be intelligently discussed in terms of autonomy. It involves relationships by its very nature, and therefore requires a moral foundation.
It is hard to be responsible when you aren't given sexual education and access to birth control, or if you are being sexually exploited or abused or raped. The morality of it depends on when you think life begins. And since that is rather subjective, I would rather keep that a private medical decision and not in the judicial courts or courts of public opinion. Unfortunately, those who are most vocal about outlawing abortion also tend to want abstinence only education, no access to contraception, and purity ceremonies. That doesnt allow for conversations or education about human sexuality which seem to make it very difficult to act responsibly. Using birth control is responsible. Lets advocate more for that.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.
