Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

And now that I think of it, that article is retarded. Now, with vaccines and no lockdowns we have nearly 20x the number of cases and the nearly 2x the of deaths as we did with lockdowns and no vaccines.

For example, 4/8/20 30k cases, 2k deaths. 1/26/22 678k cases and 3500 deaths.


https://usafacts.org/visualizations/...-19-spread-map

But we are number 1

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Denmark is smarter - https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europ...ntl/index.html

I'm in favor of copying Denmark on many things, but we aren't anywhere near their vaccination rates, unfortunately.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

It’s also that dumb fuck boomers only know how to collaborate by walking around the office scratching their nuts. They don’t care about collaborating. Only keeping tabs on the people with ideas.

You do realize I'm not talking about lawyers?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

And now that I think of it, that article is retarded. Now, with vaccines and no lockdowns we have nearly 20x the number of cases and the nearly 2x the of deaths as we did with lockdowns and no vaccines.

For example, 4/8/20 30k cases, 2k deaths. 1/26/22 678k cases and 3500 deaths.


https://usafacts.org/visualizations/...-19-spread-map

Less's article is a Johns Hopkins study. You do know current dogma is ignoring science is dumb? Maybe you didn't get the memo?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You do realize I'm not talking about lawyers?

But I am talking about lawyers.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

But I am talking about lawyers.

Lawyers aren't supposed to collaborate: it interferes with the churning.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Less's article is a Johns Hopkins study. You do know current dogma is ignoring science is dumb? Maybe you didn't get the memo?

Les's article is the Washington Times (what, Breitbart wasn't available?) citing a bunch of Johns Hopkins economists who say "The economy!!!"

There isn't a single MD anywhere in the article. Maybe you didn't get the memo that PhDs aren't medical doctors.

I have spent the last two years dinging defendants' experts. That report gets dinged in a one sentence affidavit.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Lawyers aren't supposed to collaborate: it interferes with the churning.

That's my fucking point, or if you are in the plaintiff's world, it interferes with digging up fossils to make people Billions. I don't need someone in my office coughing his lungs out, spitting all over the place to do my job.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thanks for your sympathy.

Most of us aren't asking for policy to revolve around us. What we're asking for is some basic consideration. I will be socially distant, I will wear a mask, I will go to restaurants and other places that don't just do the minimum but follow common sense policies, and I'd like to not have any fucking idiots making a point of invading my space, abusing me for the care taken, or openly violating the rules of the places I have chosen to go.

During the next 6 months, while I undergo chemo, I'm going to take a lot of care, but I'm also going to be weakened. I'll work with whatever rules there are, but my biggest worry is assholes who flout the rules.

When I did this 8 years ago, without a pandemic, but for a 2 1/2 year stint, I was able to avoid even getting a common cold during the period because I was careful and people were considerate. But the environment is different now, and the arrogant (hi Les!), ignorant (hi again Les) people who make up for their limp dicks by swaggering around trying to dumpsplain the CDC, Fauci, and the poor waitress who is just trying to follow the rules are the worry.

Again, thanks for the concern. But really, a little common sense, a bit of deference to the rules, and a bit less fake testosterone are what I'd ask for.

First off, I am sorry you have to go through that. And I don't say this lightly, as I've got a six month checkup soon to make sure something isn't problematic myself. "Let's watch it" kind of thing.

I'm happy to wear masks anywhere people want me to do so. But from what I'm seeing, the policy is no longer defensible except as to the minority of people who are uniquely susceptible to Covid. (I won't address the people who refuse to get vaccinated as they deserve no deference.) So what is now occurring is what Hank described: Performative behaviors that don't help the vulnerable.

I was just in a state where almost all of the doors had prominent signs on them requiring masks, but when one walked inside, the staff weren't even seriously wearing masks, and most of the patrons weren't. (Not in the South. Not an impoverished state. Quite the opposite.)

The same thing is occurring around me. There's confusion, and a feeling that omicron is a nothing burger (which, if you're not vulnerable, and vaccinated, it is).

This confused muddle, where people are eating w/o masks but told to wear masks when walking about restaurants, is basically an admission that masks needn't be worn by 95% of people. And people being eager to shed Covid restrictions, they're increasingly going to stop wearing masks.

There appear to be two ways to respond to this:

1. Remind people that there are still a lot of vulnerable around us, and we should try to distance and reasonably mask in crowded areas until omicron has cycled through and become endemic. This is a decent and reasonable proposition everyone should follow.

2. Stick to the strictest mask mandates we can, reasoning that something close to a zero tolerance policy will result in enough mask wearing to protect the vulnerable.

The first treats people like adults, the second like children. And while I sympathize with the notion that many Americans need to be treated like children, I also recognize that almost all Americans can spot when they're being treated like children, and they resent it and will therefore defy or ignore such directives.

A lot of the dysfunction in this country comes from troglodytes who think a cabal of "elites" are telling them how to live. But the other half comes from the fact that many of the policymakers and rigid policy followers/enforcers who fit the category of "elites" (or would like to think they do) aren't elites at all. They're not as dumb as the troglodytes, but they're equally as deluded in assuming they know what's best and have a right to compel others to strictly follow it.

The "adults in the room" who fall into neither category, and will and do compromise to try to protect the rights of all groups - the vulnerable and the non-vulnerable - would follow the first option of the two I listed above.

If we can't do nuance anymore, turn out the lights and a close the fucking republic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

It’s also that dumb fuck boomers only know how to collaborate by walking around the office scratching their nuts. They don’t care about collaborating. Only keeping tabs on the people with ideas.

2!

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/stan...home-soon.html

"Most larger companies are led by older, white men – the group that least values working from home and has been the most vocal about the need to return to office, according to Bloom’s research.

A June 2021 report from Deloitte shows that white men make up about 62% of the boards of Fortune 500 companies. Other research — including a May 2021 report from Future Forum, Slack’s research consortium — has shown that white men are the most enthusiastic group to return to the office.

“If you look at who the decision makers at the big firms are, they are usually older, non-minority men who have no young kids in the house,” Bloom explains. “If you’re a 55-year-old man that’s a CEO, it might be hard for you to understand how many of your employees really need hybrid/remote work.”

People of color and employees with young children tend to value flexible work arrangements at much higher rates, according to Bloom’s research. There’s several factors driving the gap between executive and employee perceptions on in-person work."

Let's unpack this, cause it's a rich fucking vein...

A lot of old white men are feeling their virility ebb. But they're silverbacks in the office. So a big part of the reason people have to commute is because fragile male egos desire to have their serfs around them. (And they hate their wives, and their wives and kids hate them.)

So... We're wrecking the environment, hampering productivity (WFH is 5% more productive), and torturing workers with needless commutes to satisfy boomers who can't deal with the fact that they can't turn a young woman's eye anymore and need Viagra to get a hard-on stiffer than a bratwurst?

I hate identity politics. But I'm going to make an exception. And I think it's an exception on which almost all people, from all political views, can agree:

Fuck Male Egos.

If you look at every unforced error, political, economic, international relations, through history, you will find one common malignant thread: The Fragile Male Ego.

From the walking sexual harassment suit down the hall who's still wearing monogrammed shirts, to the bankers in 2008, to the testosterone depleted neocons and their foray into Iraq, if you find a Giant Fuck-Up - I mean a seriously unnecessary, foolish, gratuitous, and monumentally damaging disaster - you will find... drum roll... White Male Boomers.

Fuck them. Their season is up, they've had a run they never deserved (on the backs of the Greatest Generation that gave them a great situation, which they've in turn made a shit show), and they need to go. If WFH takes their precious little fiefdom, where they can feel important, away from them, pushing them into retirement, well then the rest of the country needs to band together and in one voice demand:

No More Office! No More Appearances Just for Appearance's Sake! WFH For Good!

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2!

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/stan...home-soon.html[INDENT]
"Most larger companies are led by older, white men – the group that least values working from home and has been the most vocal about the need to return to office, according to Bloom’s research.

A June 2021 report from Deloitte shows that white men make up about 62% of the boards of Fortune 500 companies. Other research — including a May 2021 report from Future Forum, Slack’s research consortium — has shown that white men are the most enthusiastic group to return to the office.

. . .

OR as my buddy Avon said,

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

And now that I think of it, that article is retarded. Now, with vaccines and no lockdowns we have nearly 20x the number of cases and the nearly 2x the of deaths as we did with lockdowns and no vaccines.

For example, 4/8/20 30k cases, 2k deaths. 1/26/22 678k cases and 3500 deaths.


https://usafacts.org/visualizations/...-19-spread-map

I think a rephrasing might bring some clarity.

Now, with vaccines and no lockdowns, we have 20X the number of cases and nearly 2x the number of deaths (90% of which are among people refusing to get vaccines).

If we had no lockdowns now and everybody getting vaccinated, we'd still have much wider spread, but of a weak strain, and far fewer deaths.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Since today is 2-2-22, it seems like a particularly good day to remember Desmond Tutu.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This confused muddle, where people are eating w/o masks but told to wear masks when walking about restaurants, is basically an admission that masks needn't be worn by 95% of people.

WTF? Many people are selfish and self-centered, including restauranteurs, and don't wish to be inconvenienced for the benefit of other people. But the reason to wear a mask is to protect other people from the person wearing the mask.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think a rephrasing might bring some clarity.

Now, with vaccines and no lockdowns, we have 20X the number of cases and nearly 2x the number of deaths (90% of which are among people refusing to get vaccines).

If we had no lockdowns now and everybody getting vaccinated, we'd still have much wider spread, but of a weak strain, and far fewer deaths.

100% of the deaths in 2020 were of the unvaccinated. So 2x the deaths of the unvaxed now versus unvaxed then demonstrates the lockdowns were effective in reducing deaths.