> 98.9-percent of new COVID-19 cases since Jan. 1, 2021, were people not vaccinated
> 98.6-percent of COVID-19 hospitalizations since Jan. 1, 2021, were people not vaccinated
> 98.7-percent of COVID-19 deaths since Jan. 1, 2021, were people not vaccinated
These kinds of numbers games naturally lead one to suspect an agenda.
On January 12, 2021, a grand total of 0.24 percent of the Idaho population was fully vaccinated.
> Since May 15, there have been 10-times as many COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated people compared to vaccinated people
> Since May 15, there have been 13-times as many COVID-19 hospitalizations among unvaccinated people compared to vaccinated people
> Since May 15, there have been 8-times as many COVID-19 deaths among unvaccinated people compared to vaccinated people.
As of May 15, 31% of Idhoans were fully vaccinated[2].
> Over 197 million Americans have received the vaccine safely.
According to the CDC[3],
C> As of August 30, 2021, more than 173 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Why does the governor feel the need to overstate the number of fully vaccinated people by almost 14% in a press release dated Thursday August 12, 2021?
If somebody has only had 1 shot, it is fair to say that they "have received the vaccine safely", but they are not yet "fully vaccinated". Hence the discrepancy between the 197m and 173m.
If that's the interpretation you want to go with, then the rule has to be followed consistently by reporting deaths from Covid19 among all people who "received the vaccine safely" instead of restricting such reporting to the "fully vaccinated".
Just a few lines above, he is counting as "unvaccinated" all people who are not "fully vaccinated".
Again, trust in people doing this song & dance would be higher if they did not constantly resort to tricks like this.
Addressing somebody whose concern is "the vaccine might not be safe", it makes sense to point to the large number of people who have been given a dose and been fine. I don't think a lot of people are in the halfway point where they think 1 shot is safe but 2 shots are unsafe.
Addressing somebody whose concern is "the vaccine might not be effective", it makes sense to look at the effectiveness of the recommended 2-shot course.
Anybody promoting anything will point to their most favorable numbers and try to keep it simple. Press release + nuance is a rare combination. This is not a research paper, it's a conclusion derived from research, and the governor is trying to get that bottom line conclusion out to the public: that it is safer to get vaccinated than not. As somebody who is smart enough to have questions about the details, you're also able to look up the answers to those questions. Does what you've found lead you to a different conclusion?
> I don't think a lot of people are in the halfway point where they think 1 shot is safe but 2 shots are unsafe.
In fact, there seems to be grounds to believe that people are extra susceptible to infection and illness during the period between the first shot and the two weeks following the second. Lumping people in that group are together with others who have never received a shot has the effect of keeping the number of hospitalizations and deaths from Covid19 among the vaccinated low.
As of 8/30, the rate of known deaths from Covid19 among those fully vaccinated has risen to 11/100,000 roughly 0.01 percent. It takes time to get exposed, infected, hospitalized, and die. We are a long way from that rate stabilizing. In the meantime, if things go as planned, there won't be anyone to compare with (but, of course, the definition of "fully vaccinated" will keep changing as needed).
> In fact, there seems to be grounds to believe that people are extra susceptible to infection and illness during the period between the first shot and the two weeks following the second.
Can you link some data on that? That would certainly change things if you are at higher risk of illness than an unvaccinated person between getting the shot and immunity kicking in. The data I had seen like from the Pfizer trial[0] indicated that your immunity keeps pace with an unvaccinated person until about 2 weeks from the first shot, then surpasses that.
> Is it? Even if one has had Covid19?
For somebody who has had a confirmed positive case of COVID I don't think there's enough data to say confidently. As far as I know natural immunity is at least as good as vaccine immunity. The risk associated with getting vaccinated seems to be low enough that it's pretty harmless though. And anecdotally there are a lot of people who are "pretty sure that cold they had last year was COVID" but never got tested. I wouldn't want those people to conclude they shouldn't get vaccinated just because they think they might have natural immunity. Again, I don't assume malice just because a politician tries to keep their message simple.
Both have theater aspects and let me propose something: that's good.
When you approach airport security (theater) you wonder what their capabilities are _today_. Are they sniffing the air at large with their GCMS? Is there going to be a dog today? Its intimidating to think of it as a theoretical attacker because of its large and multifaceted apparatus, which is part of its deterrent power.
Masks are somewhat similar, they have a vanishingly small chance of actually intercepting a virus particle/droplet that was going to infect you on a case by case basis BUT they make people approach you differently. They say "stand back".
No actually required :-). I didn't say masks were not effective, I said part of their effectiveness is the making-conscious of transmission vectors. E.g. when you wear a mask and see others do it you are more likely to wash your hands or stand back.
When you wear a mask (as I do) in addition to blocking some particles you signal to others "lets play the not kill eachother game by limiting virus vectors!"
When you approaching airport or train station security theater, you slowing down due to limited throughput. And then bang! - a terrorist blows up in the crowd right in front of security gate.
Right. Shotspotter or the generic equiv should be purchased by the city, not the police. The data (raw and interpreted) should be managed in the public, as its a public interest to know about firearms (including the police's) being discharged.
> Shotspotter or the generic equiv should be purchased by the city, not the police.
Generally, the police are part of the city, and the sole and deliberately centralized city agency with a mandate that makes something like ShotSpotter relevant.
So, of course, if it is bought “by the city”, it is through and under control of the police department.
I'm arguing though that due to the conflict of interest, it should be at least one level up IRT purchasing, access to interpretive/raw data, and decision making on which of that data they want to share etc. Remove funding and responsibility from the police to run this system/vendor, and move it into the "office of public data accountability" e.g. which can serve its data equally to the public, watchdog groups and the police.
This isn't a tutorial, nor a training, nor a course though, this is a cave exploration. Its going down the wrong paths, multiple times on purpose. So pack your bag, get your tools in order, we may not return. I really like this style, the wrong paths/side tracks have so much to teach us (more than the right paths).
Agree, I think the smart move for SpaceX is to stay ahead of it by offering/working out/subsidizing assembly line style space telescope production and launch w/ benefits to impacted astronomy programs.
I mean imagine if you just enabled a high quality ~cell phone camera in each direction on the existing starlink array etc. Or what if starlink specified a parasite satellite slot that they sold e.g. you can put up x mini sats embedded and facing space with network and power port. It lasts as long as the node lasts, put up a lot and don't complain.
Ok so putting this all together, if you run a hidden network at home that means your phone HAS to use a directed probe request to find that network which it will keep trying to do when you are out and about. Am I reading that right?
If so the best way to have a phone that doesn't leak is to have a home network that does... maybe?
> if you run a hidden network at home that means your phone HAS to use a directed probe request to find that network which it will keep trying to do when you are out and about
That certainly isn't a theoretical requirement; the alternative is "if you run a hidden network, your devices will not connect to it automatically". You'd have to tell them to connect.
I've found density laws wildly accepted, its a building boom in Newberg as people add ADU's and more housing. I don't know where you get your information, but if you own a home in a growth boundary in a small town in Oregon, its "Lets build an ADU" time like never before.
Does anyone know if the glib answer works? Does the steering column selector stalk go through the ui (and therefore is interceptable by the supposedly compromised interface) or is it directly connected to the 'backend' below?
Calling the critical ui interface the 'infotainment' system for a tesla is slightly misleading.
>Does the steering column selector stalk go through the ui (and therefore is interceptable by the supposedly compromised interface) or is it directly connected to the 'backend' below?
It is directly connected to the 'backend' below and doesn't go through the infotainment system/UI.
You can manually kick off a reboot of the infotainment system on a Tesla while you are waiting at a traffic light, and still drive like usual just fine if the light goes green a second after. The only non-functional stuff will be the visuals on the screen and anything infotainment related (like playing music). All driving aspects are preserved even with the infotainment system being broken/in the middle of a reboot.
If you have a knee jerk reaction because you think math/science is pure, remember that it is always interpreted in a teaching context.
Example from my life: We mentor a black girl in high school physics. The Physics teacher misinterpreted her age assuming she was a 3rd or 4th year (which is a common culturual/racial gap, not intentional but structural!) when she is a freshman. The teacher in consequence also misintepreted where she 'should' be at in her ability to manage school life, homework, comprehension etc.
After he learned his mistake he reframed his perception of the students efforts at learning, and was able to teach her. She successfully passed that class trying again after narrowly failing the first time.
