virusrex comments

The government has unveiled measures such as removing the income limit for parents to receive child allowances and increasing the benefits for families with multiple children.

Measures used because they have shown to be effective... nowhere?

The government consider the shrinking population a problem but is unwilling to promote the deep (and unpopular) social changes necessary to alleviate it, instead it just pretend that throwing some money at it will do the thing.

It seems that being a cab driver is full of advantages, It may not be surprising if the entertainer-driver thing becomes the main work for them.

AI taking over jobs in the healthcare industry too.

There is a huge difference between appearing in a scene and conducting a mammography, you have not yet explained how AI could do the later but still claimed they are replacing radiologists.

That bright globe in the daytime sky is likely suspect.

The evidence indicates the contrary, climate change have happened in direct correlation with the production of CO2 and other gases thanks to human activity while solar activity shows no such correlation.

Almost 20 paragraphs about female migraines and 2 for men. No wonder men live 5 years more or less than women.

The article is not about migraines in general but about women suffering from them more frequently. It is natural for it to focus on this difference, explain it and why it is important for treatment.

But as with many other sites like Amazon, can you believe in the reviews left by imaginary customers.

They came late to the party, other news have described how "authors" have used AI to write terribly bad guides (specially about travel destinations) that also get AI and bot supported reviews pushing them to the spotlight fooling countless people into buying them.

 I guess a lot of people overestimate the significance of us human beings rather too much. Even our biggest and worst global impact ever, the two atomic bombs, is soon almost forgotten and the places again nice and filled with people.

The scientific community of the world disagrees and can show the data to support that conclusion, they work professionally on the field and have demonstrated the models and predictions are accurate (if unfortunately too conservative at times).

What arguments or evidence can make you think you are more likely to be right when contradicting them?

The most impeached and indicted president in history. His PAC is out of cash.

Unfortunately for many of his followers this is something desirable, they do not follow him because of his positive qualities as a person.

On one side there is no justification to force stunt workers to cooperate in developing the tools that will take their jobs, but on the other side reducing the number of risky stunts necessary is not intrinsically wrong, people are now taking risks because scenes can't be filmed without those stunts, but that is a very faint justification.

It is more likely that a new balance will be reached eventually, with only the most necessary stunts still being done while the rest are skipped because of the new tools.

Sad that the criminals were able to get away with many robberies before they were caught, but at least in this case there appears to be no fatal victims, these kind of crimes are something that the police could be prioritizing more.

Let's see the idiots try to explain this one

Explain what exactly? what I already explained? not being in consensus about a new development that is not yet fully characterized is nothing out of the ordinary, data is still being collected and different approaches trying to compensate for that missing data will give different conclusions.

That of course do not mean that the things where science already is in consensus magically changed, climate change is still real, human activity is still the main contributor for much, What is still being discussed is how much Hunga will affect the situation, nothing really difficult to understand.

There's the reason for the disparity, then.

How do you know is not a consequence of the disparity as the study indicates?

Where the hell did that come from?

It is natural to think positively about dealing with a problem that preferentially affects women and how this can help reducing disparities.

Some students are choosing overseas study programs, I seriously doubt those who come from families struggling economically have that freedom. If anything the higher costs would ensure only those with a lot of resources are able to do it.

The good news is that migraines generally tend to lessen in severity and frequency throughout pregnancy. For some women, they disappear, especially as the pregnancy progresses. But then, for those who experienced them during pregnancy, migraines tend to increase after delivery.

A doctor I know has this as a favorite anecdote about a woman that gave this explanation for her having 8 children, apparently the 2 years free of migraines (from pregnancy and lactation) was more than enough benefit to offset having so many kids.

Scientists agree that by far the biggest cause of the recent extreme warming is climate change from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas that has triggered a long upward trend in temperatures. 

Hard to be more clear about this, still people will come and say the article is wrong because they believe differently and it is impossible for them to be mistaken.

Just because different computer simulations conflict with each other "that doesn’t mean science is wrong,” University of Colorado's Clyne said. “It just means that we haven’t reached a consensus yet. We’re still just figuring it out.”

This quote of course is about the net effect the Hunga volcano will have, not about climate change in general, there are always people that immediately try to misrepresent lack of consensus in new developments as if it was about the whole explanation that is already well stablished.

How about solar activity and the increase in sunspots in 2023 predicted to increase in 2024?

In comparison with human activity it is a tiny fraction of the elements driving climate change,

https://www.preventionweb.net/news/4-factors-driving-2023s-extreme-heat-and-climate-disasters

But the way the Hawaiians are reacting and their choice of words is very innapropriate

No, it is not, asking people to stop making fun trips to the site of the disaster is not inappropriate, to make those trips on the first place is what is inappropriate. Is like taking tours to the ruins of the WTC while people were still working to take out bodies.

Being against this completely inappropriate behavior is not the same as being hateful, is just recognizing that some people are deeply egotistical and unable to understand how bad is their behavior.

Anger at tourists swimming or surfing in the ocean .

No it is not, nobody is complaining about tourists going and swimming in the Ocean anywhere else, just in the site of the disaster, while bodies are still being recovered around them.

Personal belief.

The moment you can't even argue against the multiple criticisms of your position it becomes clear you don't have any argument so your only exit is to pretend the valid arguments that disproved your point are opinions when in reality everything can be easily corroborated.

Open your mind, and read a little:

Your reference is completley misrepresented, it does NOT blames global warming on the eruption, it only says it increases the chances of the predicted outcome to happen.

Or quoted from the article

increasing the chance of at least one of the next 5 years exceeding 1.5 °C by 7%

Why present the reference when it only makes it obvious how you tried to misrepresent it?

I could go on and on with a lot more links.

Please do, it is not very common for someone to disprove their own claims so strongly with a reference, you are doing a great job proving the opposite of what you said.

Now go back to the link I posted and do the other 40 or so wildly WRONG environmental-doomsday predictions.

Still invalid since you have not even tried to argue how it is supposed to be valid to include people that contradicted the current scientific consensus, or failures that happened precisely because people listened to the warnings and corrected the predicted course.

Again, what makes you think you understand the situation better than the scientists of the world if you have not even been able to present any rational argument why this prediction is wrong. No argument yet.

Under any other circumstances these vaccines would never have been approved

The clinical trials were on the same chronological scale as vaccines previously approved, and the data from billions of vaccination do not contradict in any way the findings of the trials.

This means that yes, the trials were enough for vaccine approval since it was already done before the pandemic.

Banning it would save lives, right?

How are the examples you bring elevating the risk for others? that is the justification given for the still valid example. The same as why it is no longer allowed to smoke everywhere or for people working in food preparation to have bad hygiene.

Open your mind.

Go to this link.

Is your link to a primary scientific source? with well controlled variables, a method described in detail and a process that can be checked for flaws?

No?

That means your evidence do not pass the minimum requirements to be considered. Anybody can say whatever they want, the difficult part is to prove it objectively with evidence and being able to surpass criticism from specialists whose job is to examine evidence.

Your link gives false references, includes "failures" caused by changes of human activity produced by the warnings of scientist or "predictions" made by people without any actual authority and that ran contrary to what the actual consensus was at the time.

In short it only helps proving that actual evidence do not support your claim so this is the best you could bring.

A bad propaganda sample for proving the phrase 'human-caused'. Geographically, the next human populations or significant economic and industrial activities are thousands of miles away

Are you under the impression the industrial activity have only a local effect? that makes absolutely no sense. Climate change is a global phenomenon caused by the whole of the human activity, with variate effects around the whole planet, it is irrelevant how close or far from human populations the problems appear, as long as they are in our planet it they can be related to human activity derived climate change.

Just weeks ago, he was advocating for vaccination of the elderly and those with severe comorbidities

Welcome to the purpose of vaccines, getting the population immunized so the risk is reduced to background levels, something that applies differently for every population. This is still the opposite of what you claimed in your comment.

Polio vaccine has a 99% to 100% efficacy with and extremely low Breakthrough rate of not even 1% while the latest data shows a breakthrough rate over 19% amongst the fully vaccinated.

But not for preventing even high fevers just poliomyelitis and death, that efficacy is comparable with the effect of the covid vaccines, and of course still completely defeats your misrepresentation of what immunity means.

Now we are finding out about massive corners cut and safety measures waved, we are finding out the death data had been overly exaggerate in the USA, Canada, UK etc...

Without a time machine there were only two options, undercount or overcount, with the first option being the hugely more disastrous one. You are not talking about a re-emergence of something already well described but something that happened globally for the first time. Pretending all was perfectly understood at the moment to any excess is unjustified is not rational. To make your point you need to prove two things, one is that it was realisticially possible to accurately measure the costs of the disease under the different options for control available, the second that this meant the cost of the measures surpassed those evaluations.

Without those two conditions your argument is only that a new disease not well understood required also not well characterized measures to prevent the worst possible scenario.

In the same way the number of deaths is now being reviewed in most countries because of false attributing deaths to covid that were not.

Covid can still be an important factor in a death even if not the only one, that means that deaths produced by previous diseases can still be importantly attributed to covid when the patient was expected to live with his condition for decades. That is very different from saying the deaths were not related to covid.

Funny coincidence, right?

Your N=2 anecdotal uncontrolled study is not enough to refute the data from literally billions of doses that demonstrate the risk for the health and life is much more important for unvaccinated people than for vaccinated ones. The same as the person that say both of his grandparents smoked until 100 years old so tobacco must not be that bad.

2021 called. They want their embarrassingly outdated "information" back.

You still have not provided any reference where any institution say this information is outdated, it remains perfectly valid.

Those institutions of medicine or science have lost a tremendous amount of respect lately.

So all of them, in every country of the world, are all wrong because you want to believe differently? that is not a rational position to take.

Yes, and the polio vaccine isn't something that needs to be taken every few months.

Welcome to the realities of different pathogens requiring different schedules to reach immunity, with both vaccines achieve without problems.

There is the problem - whether to take the risk or not, is (should be) up to individual people living their own lives, independently.

This argument makes no sense when the risk also affect others. According to this flawed arguments people should be left to drink and drive freely, right?

The measures in place to control a pandemic are used to reduce the risk in general to the population, the same applies to all the examples you used. Driving in general is allowed because it saves more lives than what it takes, but people are required to be licensed, wear seat belts, etc. Smoking the same with restrictions put in place so smokers do not increase the risk for others with their personal decision.

My daughter was fully vaccinated and got Covid not once but twice now!

People vaccinated against polio do (did) get the infection, even the fever (same with many other vaccine preventable diseases), what is greatly reduced thanks to the immunity are the worst complications of the disease, reducing the risk to levels comparable with the rest of the common infections for which vaccines are not so necessary.

The reality is, the New Zealand government, and others, who were aggressively pro-Covid vaccination and extreme regulations - without any scientific evidence of efficacy and, more importantly, safety - are on the wrong side of history.

According to what respected institution of medicine or science?

If your claim were true it would be easy to find out international public health authorities, universities, epidemiological institutes, etc. etc. around the world echoing this claim, right?

It turns out that this year's unusually hot weather can be attributed to last year's eruption of an undersea volcano, 

Yet no expert shares this personal belief, not that it does anything to explain the trend that have been well characterized from many years before this one.

What makes you think the scientists of the world are all wrong and you can understand the situation better?

What concerns me is with this agressive anger towards tourists could generate more fires in retaliation

This is not aggressive anger toward tourist but about keeping a disaster zone clear and respecting the feelings of those that lost all their possessions and family members there.

This is just common sense, if a tragedy happened elsewhere people going to the site to take smiling pictures and enjoy themselves time would not be well received by the survivors. Unfortunately there will be always people inconsiderate enough to do precisely that because of complete lack of empathy, but for most it would be completely natural to cancel a recreation trip to a disaster zone.

Very fortunate that the people aboard were safe, all three now had a terrifying experience and hopefully the reasons why will be found out in the investigation so they can be prevented in the future.

Not an unusual temperature.

The point of the example is not that 30 degrees is an extreme degree of heat, but that this level is enough to facilitate mobile batteries and other electronics to become a hazard. With climate change making the temperatures rise this means these kind of accidents are bound to be more frequent unless people take care of preventing them.

The comment actor Jason Momoa made on national news about peoples presence not being requested aka stay away i found to be truly disgusting and prejudice.

Why disgusting? the tragedy is still ongoing and people can get in the way even if they have the best intentions, consuming resources that would be much more productive when used by professionals that would be a much bigger help at the time.

Being in the zone of a disaster do not automatically means being helpful, there are many other ways to actually support the victims that is much more efficient, and if there is a point where being there becomes something positive only then it is justified to visit the place.