Basic plan to defend NZ from getting torn apart by EndTheMandates was by replacing the effective leadership in the country with the leading epidemiologist most sympathetic to the cause of the unvaccinated. Protip.
For those wondering why I did this, I believe I saw an unambiguous example of left wing ideology being used to cover up a powerful display of oppression, so I felt morally obliged to destroy it.
Whether the rest of the story holds water is for the rest of society to figure out. This is the part we on the left can help with. We can demonstrate the distance we're willing to go to figure out the truth here.
I shied away from the police violence videos, and snuck them in quietly later, because mainly I wanted to establish the _innocence_ of the protest, which is key for showing the _inaccuracy_ of it's mainstream media representation, and the _absurdity_ of the parliamentary response. The police are not the enemies here, and I didn't want to inflame things too much. I'm trying to get this done in an orderly fashion.
And just so we're clear, I'm not posting anything on NZ reddit atm. That is someone else who has heard me and understands _exactly_ the game we're in here. I expect that we may not agree on politics, but we agree on democracy, so kudos to their effort on that platform.
This interesting article was posted earlier by another user and quickly received 28 upvotes but was flagged, presumably for editorializing the title. Reposted without the editorializing. A reply to this comment with a link to the unpaywalled pdf would obviously be helpful for many readers.
This is not a reviewed scientific paper; this is a short letter citing a couple studies that didn't see much of a difference in infection rates between unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Conversely, we have a bunch of data showing the opposite.
The link provides the full text. It's just a commentary essay, not a paper. The Lancet provides covid-related content for free. For example, I clicked the first link and got the full text of that particular reference at https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099...
He could have used the TED platform to talk about anything, and he chose to raise the alarm bell about pandemic preparedness. A fairly niche and unpopular topic at the time.
The way you phrased this it sounds like they're being intentionally misleading, but it's directly addressed in the article: there just aren't good, complete studies on this for Omicron yet. For example:
> A rapid analysis from the SIREN study showed lower protection from both vaccination and previous infection to Omicron compared to Delta, but indicated higher protection among those who had received booster vaccination.
and
> Comprehensive analysis is ongoing into exactly how much additional protection the vaccines provide against Omicron infections, but a rapid unadjusted analysis from the SIREN study indicated an increasing benefit of each vaccine dose in those with prior infection.
I think that if those studies showed large reductions in transmission and infection of omicron with vaccination then they wouldn't provide the disclaimer that these studies are not good and complete. Why are the studies that show substantial omicron hospital reductions and death reductions from vaccines good and complete? By what metric do these articles differ from those which show vaccines barely budge infection and transmission rates? Often both claims (substantial hosp/death reduction, minimal infec/trans reduction) are found in the same damn paper.
Also everyone knows many people scan articles, and it feels like the format of this article is intentionally constructed to deceive those people. I would estimate 60% of readers come away with the impression those transmission and infection reductions are for omicron. The only reason I didn't make that mistake was because I knew those numbers for omicron were super far off from what is currently understood, and so I read the article more closely that I ordinarily would an article in this format.
This may be the case in computer science but is definitely not the case in science/philosophy. Not doing graduate school means effectively not doing science/philosophy. We sort of scoffed at everyone who dropped out at undergrad and thought they were obviously never serious about the field. I'm not saying the scoffing was correct, just that it was mystifying to us when someone actually good didn't go on to grad school.
Even in philosophy, it depends heavily on program and concentration. Universities are not consistent about which programs fall under the Philosophy Dept, and even if we look at "proper" philosophy at a highly-ranked university, there are some areas that are considerably less rigorous than others. I think you'll find more "Plan B" students there.
I could say a lot more on this and about the decline of academic philosophy, but you get my point.
I wanted to chime in that the same is often true of mental health fields. Most upper level jobs in the mental health field necessitate earning a graduate degree.
This person is a high-functioning aspie [1] who is well-groomed and relatively attractive.
One interpretation of this post is that a good dating site aimed specifically at people on the spectrum may be able to charge its users substantial amounts of money compared to what you can charge neurotypicals because perhaps people on the spectrum recognize more accurately in dollar terms how valuable it is to solve the partnership problem and have less mystical thinking around it.
I have had a lot of trouble in my teens getting dates. I was weird as fuck. Still am lol.
But it very much turned into a plus in my adult hood. As you said, I’m not physically unattractive. Especially when I eat right, work out, put in some time into my appearance.
More importantly, I’m quite smart, can be very passionate, exciting, adventurous, and super loving.
I had major body issues in early adulthood, thinking I couldn’t find love because I was short or didn’t have a six pack, or whatever. Over the years, I learned that doesn’t matter all that much. I mean being 6’ looking like Matt Bomer does not hurt your chances hahahaha. But my looks are not so much a limiting a factor as other things.
In my last relationship, I was more or less dating the girl of my dreams in all respects. She was hot. She was passionate. She was exciting. Smart. Creative. Sex life was beyond anything I imagined. I lost my front tooth in our relationship. It didn’t change our sex life one bit (well it did actually but that’s a longer article haha).
So I very much proved to myself that past a certain point, if someone likes you and is physically attracted to you, it doesn’t matter all that much how many “packs” your abs have. It helps…but it’s not a pre-requisite. There are lots and lots of other things you can optimize for that are more bang for the buck.
As for a dating site for aspies - absolutely. Would love that. One of the biggest challenges is explaining to someone why I am the way I am. If ppl already know…that saves a bunch of time and heartache.
