On 6/9/22 21:38, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Covid is fairly serious if you died from it or got Long Covid.  For me,
> it was a three day cold that I got in Feb 2020 before all the testing
> and vaccines.  My 83 year old Dad got it in Feb of this year and ran a
> fever and a cold for a week.

As I said in another post, COVID-19 killed my mother in March. Just one
of over 1,000,000 who have died from it.

I know several people who had it and now have long term consequences.
"Just a flu". NOT.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

On 6/9/2022 11:50 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 11:12:43 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:21:32 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Japanese are working on powered exoskeletons to help the older
>>> workforce stay productive. The potential military applications are
>>> pretty obvious at this point. I think it will be a hoot if the
>>> Chinese start to invade Japan and the Evas rise up out of their silos.
>
>> Piloted by 13-year-olds, no doubt.
>
> First, the Japanese will have to invent Super Alloy Z in real life...
>
> John Savard

And you know they haven't?

On 6/9/2022 11:38 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/5/2022 5:09 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> This news article
>>
>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>
>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was
>> possible for some people not to perceive this fact.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Covid is fairly serious if you died from it or got Long Covid.  For me,
> it was a three day cold that I got in Feb 2020 before all the testing
> and vaccines.  My 83 year old Dad got it in Feb of this year and ran a
> fever and a cold for a week.
>
> Lynn
>

I believe my wife had it very early on. She thought it was another bout
of bronchitis but Doctor said it was a viral infection not
bronchitis[1]. She's had all the shots and boosters since.

We've had several family and friends with it, same symptoms as you
describe but two have died, both in their 60s, and both ignored it until
it was extremely severe and required hospitalization.

[1]Not frequent but every year or two she gets hit with it.

In article <364a2e98-3f15-4365-b015-6bb4fd7e9b39n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:12:27 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
> > When I was a teenager (e.g. before the advent of cable TV) it was said
> > that Edmonton and Ottawa were the ONLY major Canadian cities that were
> > not without TV broadcast range of the US border.
>
> That's only true if you don't count Saskatoon as a major city.

Is Calgary within TV broadcast range of the US border? Looks a bit iffy
to me (not that there is a US TV broadcaster tower close to the
US-Canada border).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 6/10/2022 2:31 AM, BCFD36 wrote:
> On 6/9/22 21:38, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Covid is fairly serious if you died from it or got Long Covid.  For
>> me, it was a three day cold that I got in Feb 2020 before all the
>> testing and vaccines.  My 83 year old Dad got it in Feb of this year
>> and ran a fever and a cold for a week.
>
> As I said in another post, COVID-19 killed my mother in March. Just one
> of over 1,000,000 who have died from it.
>
> I know several people who had it and now have long term consequences.
> "Just a flu". NOT.

Sorry to hear that your mother passed away. That sucks.

It almost seems to me that there is genetic component to Covid-19. Most
people can fight it off but some cannot shake it. The ones who cannot
fight it off either pass away or get Long Covid.

Lynn

In article <t7vu13$tio$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/10/2022 2:31 AM, BCFD36 wrote:
>> On 6/9/22 21:38, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> Covid is fairly serious if you died from it or got Long Covid.  For
>>> me, it was a three day cold that I got in Feb 2020 before all the
>>> testing and vaccines.  My 83 year old Dad got it in Feb of this year
>>> and ran a fever and a cold for a week.
>>
>> As I said in another post, COVID-19 killed my mother in March. Just one
>> of over 1,000,000 who have died from it.
>>
>> I know several people who had it and now have long term consequences.
>> "Just a flu". NOT.
>
>Sorry to hear that your mother passed away. That sucks.
>
>It almost seems to me that there is genetic component to Covid-19. Most
>people can fight it off but some cannot shake it. The ones who cannot
>fight it off either pass away or get Long Covid.

Often it's polite to space out "sorry your mom died" and "have you considered
that maybe she was genetically unfit?" a bit more than that.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:06:47 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>> >> gun rights.
>> >>
>> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>> >> perfectly normal.
>> >
>> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>> >African-American males being shot.
>>
>> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>
>
>I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
>being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
>and with less publicity than school shootings.

No doubt you're right on 'less publicity' but then the majority of
black male deaths I would assume are one at a time whereas school
shootings never are.

Obviously that doesn't justify the deaths but no question there's a
problem and realistically that's not a problem that's going to be
resolved from the top down but rather needs to be from within the
various communities. Starting from the ready availability of weapons.

When I was a kid fights weren't all THAT uncommon but they were
settled with fists not weapons. Fights are probably inevitable -
fights with lethal weapons almost certainly are NOT inevitable.

I don't pretend to have the answers but no question black on black
quarrels with lethal weapons mostly involving the 15-25 age group are
a societal problem and whatever the rest of us can do is worth doing
even if that's only moral support. (I'm in Canada where blacks are
roughly 1.5% of the population and the analogous problems are with
aboriginals who are about 4 - 5% of the population with most of them
getting on just fine with the ones that aren't concentrated in major
urban cities)

On 9 Jun 2022 21:44:19 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>I agree that outliers don't represent the entire group. Please give
>cites that give the position of the entire group (I would claim that's
>impossible). I would say the general position agrees with me more
>than you.
>
Thanks for some interesting links.

Fact is that "outliers don't represent the entire group" would cover
most anything of a criminal nature.

DUIs are outliers within the community of those who drink alcohol. It
may not have always been the case but the message HAS gotten out that
drunk driving is a very bad thing.

I could give many other similar cases.

But definitely thanks for the links - they're not clickable in my news
reader but anything looking vaguely worthwhile gets copied and pasted
into my browser which I always keep open in another window anyhow.

On 10 Jun 2022 01:19:54 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>My apologies. I remembered you as the citer of a video showing Ukraine
>attacking Russian territory, but that appears to be incorrect.
>So now I have no memory of you recently having supported any of your arguments
>here with cites.

I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.

"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?

At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
has been done to Kharkiv.

On 2022-06-10, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:06:47 -0700, Robert Woodward
><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>> >> gun rights.
>>> >>
>>> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>> >> perfectly normal.
>>> >
>>> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>> >African-American males being shot.
>>>
>>> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>>> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>>
>>
>>I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
>>being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
>>and with less publicity than school shootings.
>
> No doubt you're right on 'less publicity' but then the majority of
> black male deaths I would assume are one at a time whereas school
> shootings never are.

I think you'd be surprised at one on one school shootings.
School mass shootings are never one-at-a-time, by definition,
but there's lots of local violence and deaths that never get reported
nationally. I see a death reported every couple of years around me.

National statistics are hard to come by. Federal funders like CDC and
NIH are forbidden to spend money on most things related to gun
violence.

> Obviously that doesn't justify the deaths but no question there's a
> problem and realistically that's not a problem that's going to be
> resolved from the top down but rather needs to be from within the
> various communities. Starting from the ready availability of weapons.
>
> When I was a kid fights weren't all THAT uncommon but they were
> settled with fists not weapons. Fights are probably inevitable -
> fights with lethal weapons almost certainly are NOT inevitable.

Again, I think you would be surprised. The Dodd report (1970ish?)
surveyed 110 school districts nationally (US, 0.1% of the school
districts, but presumably the larger ones) and in just those school
districts, the number of school homicides per year increased from 15
in 1964 to 26 in 1968. That shouldn't be too far from your time as a
kid!

The "good old days" had their problems that were not widely pubilcized
back then. (Even further back, 1927, school massacre in Bath, Michigan
killed 44 (dynamiting school because of high school taxes)).

--
Chris

On 6/10/2022 12:38 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <t7vu13$tio$2@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/10/2022 2:31 AM, BCFD36 wrote:
>>> On 6/9/22 21:38, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> Covid is fairly serious if you died from it or got Long Covid.  For
>>>> me, it was a three day cold that I got in Feb 2020 before all the
>>>> testing and vaccines.  My 83 year old Dad got it in Feb of this year
>>>> and ran a fever and a cold for a week.
>>>
>>> As I said in another post, COVID-19 killed my mother in March. Just one
>>> of over 1,000,000 who have died from it.
>>>
>>> I know several people who had it and now have long term consequences.
>>> "Just a flu". NOT.
>>
>> Sorry to hear that your mother passed away. That sucks.
>>
>> It almost seems to me that there is genetic component to Covid-19. Most
>> people can fight it off but some cannot shake it. The ones who cannot
>> fight it off either pass away or get Long Covid.
>
> Often it's polite to space out "sorry your mom died" and "have you considered
> that maybe she was genetically unfit?" a bit more than that.

Where did I say she was genetically unfit ? I said that people are
genetically different.

Each one of us are genetically different. God made us this way. I was
born without a right coronary artery. It has caused me several problems
over the last twenty years: two heart attacks and two heart surgeries.
In fact, I am amazed that I am still alive and made it into my 60s.

Lynn

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 17:48:37 -0700, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On 6/7/22 11:57, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 05:40:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 07:15:50 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A short note that, no, I see no way to draw such information from the article.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the article noted was that the pandemic was a lot worse for *some* people
>>>>> than for others.
>>>>>
>>>> >From that, one can indeed draw the conclusion that those who were lucky
>>>>> enough to be able to work from home, and emerge largely unscathed, could
>>>>> get the idea that it wasn't as deadly, and the chances of falling prey to
>>>>> COVID-19 weren't as high... as they were for the working-class people who
>>>>> had to do jobs that brought them into contact with others, even before there
>>>>> was a vaccine, even before we had adequate supplies of masks for anyone
>>>>> except health workers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the chances for everyone, on average, _aren't_ as high as they
>>>>> are for the people facing the greatest risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if laws and public policy are decided by the elites at the least risk...
>>>>> (which pretty much is a given that can't be helped) and they're deciding
>>>>> them based on the perspective of their own situation... (which is what
>>>>> _can_ be avoided) instead of being decided on the basis of the situation
>>>>> of the people at the greatest risk... then they're being decided the wrong
>>>>> way. At least, in my opinion - but I think that's also a fact which should
>>>>> be the opinion of any decent human being with a conscience.
>>>> At this point just about everybody I know has had COVID and most found
>>>> it to be a minor annoyance. I am not sure whether I have--I had
>>>> _something_ shortly after exposure to a recent returnee from China but
>>>> it was before knowledge of COVID was widespread.
>>>>
>>>> Note that I'm a geezer, thus theoretically high-risk. My neighbor is
>>>> a decade older than I am, and when he had it the only treatment he
>>>> took was Tylenol.
>>>>
>>>> When you look at numbers as numbers they seem frighteningly large.
>>>> When you look at them as percentages though, the percentage who die
>>>> from it is not huge.
>>>
>>> But when terrorists kill just a few thousand people,
>>> what a fuss. Also, is there anyone you're not counting
>>> as "more than minorly annoyed" because they died,
>>> and so they cannot comment?
>>
>> Nobody I know died from it including one aulde farte with cancer.
>> Hell, it didn't manage to do in Trump, but "only the good die young"
>> might apply there.
>>
>> When terrorists kill a few thousand people we don't all run and hide
>> in bomb shelters, we go hunt the bastards down and kill them. Although
>> the government has made use of an opportunity to create a jobs program
>> for defense workers and massively expand its intrusion into our lives.
>
>My mother died from it on March 10. She got it in an assisted living
>facility, fully vaxed, boosted. Everyone in the facility fully vaxed and
>boosted.
>
>After 9/11, the country locked down.

Funny, I don't recall any requirement to stay in my house for extended
periods of time, and nobody told my employer to close up shop.

>National Guard at the GG Bridge,
>Bay Bridge, etc. Automatic weapons at the airports.

That is not "locked down", that is "security theater".

>Nothing flying for
>quite some time.

If you call three days "quite some time".

>And the Patriot Act where we were encouraged to inform
>on each other. I guess these are minor annoyances too.

The Patriot Act doesn't require that everyone hide in a bunker.

>Many, many, many tens of thousands have long term effects from COVID.
>Some "annoying" like loss of taste and smell for long term and maybe
>forever. Memory/concentration/sleep problems, respiratory problems,
>cardiac problems, stomach and intestine, kidneys. Just annoying as long
>as other people have them.
>
>Over 1 million deaths since Feb of 2020. And you are ok with that.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:12:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:27:30 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>>>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>>>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>>>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>>>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>>>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>>>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>
>Interesting chart but there's no question COVID deaths ARE overcounted
>- and I know of one case VERY close to home (OK my wife who passed in
>early March this year) where because she died outside a medical
>facility was required to undergo a coroner's inquest where they
>automatically (i.e. without asking my consent) did a most mortem COVID
>test and found her positive and thus marked her a COVID death.
>
>Despite the fact that I discussed the symptoms with my family doctor
>who was quite insistent that NONE of the symptoms I reported to him
>indicated COVID but rather cardiac issues and that both her parents
>had had issues in this area (her father died in 2010, her mother was
>in hospital for tests in 2016 when she had an aneurysm but was saved
>and is still going strong at 86)
>
>>>>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>>>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>>>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>>>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>
>Thanks I think :) (for the record milady and I had 3 - two daughters
>and a son though one of them no longer lives in North America)
>
>>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>>>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>>>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>>>> major failure modes:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>>>>
>>>>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>>>> ass off in Canada.
>
>Haven't seen much evidence of #2 and the left is strong enough in
>Canada to limit #1
>
>>>>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>>>and getting worse.
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>>>
>>>>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>>>(note the excess males)
>>>
>>>Yeah, I expect a pivot to obtaining new Canadians from Africa, whose nations
>>>still have positive TFRs.
>
>The bottom line is that both China and India are countries where
>families expect to have at least one son and both have ready access
>both to pre-natal gender testing and abortions which have created a
>surplus of males in both countries.
>
>>>Except Canada is right next door to the US, vast swathes of which will
>>>become much less habitable.
>>
>>_Will_ become or _might_ become?
>
>Canada has ALWAYS had the majority of its people within 150 miles of
>the US border.

Which has exactly _what_ to do with the habitability of the US?

>This goes back to colonial times where Queen Victoria
>vetoed the colonial capital of Kingston, ON for the Dominion capital
>since Kingston is close enough to the US border it could easily be
>taken on the first day of any war.
>
>When I was a teenager (e.g. before the advent of cable TV) it was said
>that Edmonton and Ottawa were the ONLY major Canadian cities that were
>not without TV broadcast range of the US border.
>
>>The notion that global warming will render parts of the US
>>uninhabitable is speculation.
>
>And even if true why would one think Canada would be less affected
>that the United States?

Because it's further north and has a cooler climate.

>>>For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>the planet.
>>
>>What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>
>You folks did 200 years ago - you incinerated the small town that is
>now Toronto - and our response was to raid Washington and burn the
>White House.

And then get the shit shot out of you on the road to Baltimore. You
always forget that part.

>In the 21st century we don't advertise the fact much but
>you know "the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" from your
>anthem ..... we're great friends now and would NEVER EVER wish to
>remind you whose rockets and bombs were attacking Fort McHenry that
>night
>
>But no question Canada-US relations have improved since then and one
>little known factoid was that the air force general in command of
>NORAD on Sept 11, 2001 was a Canadian and he was the one who quickly
>gave the order to shut down US (and Canadian) airspace following the
>attacks and was later congratulated by President Bush for his
>super-fast response.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> >For reasons that escape me, our national
>> >policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>> >the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>> >the planet.
>
>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>
>Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>
>At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>
>However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.

What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:16:52 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 10:16:57 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:33:15 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 02:22:56 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>> ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> >>> In article <1c653275-1bac-46e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> >>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 9:31:49 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> >>> >> In article <58078641-eca8-4e78...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> >>> >> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> >>> >> >> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:05:02 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> > The key factor in
>>> >>> >> >> > perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>> >>> >> >> Yes. That is a way that people tend to think.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> It is a faulty way to think that leads to error, as the article I
>>> >>> >> >> referenced explained.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >I present, again, this chart:
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >It's the total number of deaths in the US, each week, from *all* causes.
>>> >>> >> >Its immediately apparent that things went badly off the rails from early
>>> >>> >> >April 2019, and there have been several waves of excess deaths.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >Ignore the red and orange lines - they don't tell you much. Also note
>>> >>> >> >there's a 'Select jurisdiction' pulldown at the top that lets you select
>>> >>> >> >states, and some cities.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >The nice thing about this chart is that its hard to argue with it - counting
>>> >>> >> >the total number of dead people in a week is not subject to the sort of biases
>>> >>> >> >that let denialists claim Covid deaths are overcounted.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> But if you adjust for the fact middle and lower class lifespans in excess of
>>> >>> >> 45 years do American oligarches no particular good, the numbers don't look
>>> >>> >> that bad. By 45 a peon can produce a healthy litter of kids and put enough
>>> >>> >> money into the pension fund to be worth stealing. Who needs them after that?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >It's not like you to don the tinfoil hat. :-)
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Both the US and Canada have problems with the 'healthy litter of kids' thing,
>>> >>> >but Canada seems to be worse.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
>>> >>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>>> >>> Canada has outsourced the production of new Canadians to nations like
>>> >>> India and China, which works fine at the moment but has at least two
>>> >>> major failure modes:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1: Xenophobic Canadians getting enough power to reduce or stop immigration
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2: A decline in the supply people who particularly want to freeze their
>>> >>> ass off in Canada.
>>> >>
>>> >>Don't count on China. They're in deep doodoo, demographically speaking:
>>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png
>>> >>and getting worse.
>>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_projected_for_2030.png
>>> >>
>>> >>India's better, but the young population is no longer increasing.
>>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>>> >>(note the excess males)
>>> >
>>> >Climatologically speaking, this is a good thing. But nobody has
>>> >figured out how to sustain an economy with declining markets.
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> You just import raw materials and export finished goods. You expand
>>> your markets by expanding your Empire.
>>
>>Export to whom? The entire world is going through the demographic
>>transformation; some are further along than others. All are also industrializing.
>
>Thank you for clarifying the line you omitted:
>
>>Might not work today, but it did in the past.
>
>by explaining why it might not work today.
>
>But it /did/ work in the past (it is the very definition of
>"colonialism"), and the claim was that it was something nobody had
>ever figured out.

And nobody has figured it out. Colonialism isn't making an economy
work with declining markets, it's expanding the markets.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:21:18 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:41:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>>> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> >> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>> >> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>> This news article
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>> >> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> John Savard
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>> >> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>> >> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>> >> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >Seriously?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>> >> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>> >> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>> >> > > gun rights.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>> >> > > perfectly normal.
>>> >> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>> >> > African-American males being shot.
>>> >> >
>>> >> In the US:
>>> >>
>>> >> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>>> >> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>> >>
>>> >> [quote]
>>> >>
>>> >> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>>> >> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>> >>
>>> >> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>>> >> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>> >>
>>> >> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>>> >> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>> >>
>>> >> [/quote]
>>> >>
>>> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>> >
>>> >But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>> >be homicides. *And the FBI.
>>> What _are_ the considered to be then?
>>>
>>> Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>>
>>Mostly "legitimate self defense".
>
>Because they were "in fear for their lives" for no good reason in far
>too many cases.
>
>Note: I have long held that anyone stupid enough to actual /fire a
>gun/ at a policeman deserves whatever they get. Some self-defense
>claims are legitimate.

OTOH, there have been cases where it would have done my heart good to
have the police find that their victim was barricaded with a Vulcan.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:24:02 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 18:18:02 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>>> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > > >>> This news article
>>>> > > >>>
>>>> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>> > > >>>
>>>> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>>> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>> > > >>>
>>>> > > >>> John Savard
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>>> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>>> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>>> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >Seriously?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>> > > gun rights.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>> > > perfectly normal.
>>>> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>> > African-American males being shot.
>>>> >
>>>> In the US:
>>>>
>>>> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>>>> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>>>
>>>> [quote]
>>>>
>>>> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>>>> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>
>>>> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>>>> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>
>>>> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>>>> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>
>>>> [/quote]
>>>>
>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>>
>>>But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>>be homicides. *And the FBI.
>>
>>What _are_ the considered to be then?
>
>Good clean fun? Great sport? Who can say how the truly twisted think?
>
>>Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>
>I suspect he was using the term linguistically, not legally. It isn't
>"aggravated first-degree murder" either, after all, but those may well
>have been included in the given rates.

Both "linguistically" and "legally", "homicide" is killing a human
being.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:26:55 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0617op81bump66robo@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
><snippo>
>
>>> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>> gun rights.
>>>
>>> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>> perfectly normal.
>>
>>After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>African-American males being shot.
>
>It occurred to me last night that the /same people/ who apparently
>hold this belief appear to be the ones who talk most loudly about
>"Traditional Family Values".
>
>I would say that those with the indicated attifude have /no family
>values at all/.
>
>Which might lead to the Republican Party, the Party of Guns and
>Family, coming apart at the seams.

If it makes you feel better, cling to that fantasy.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:22:15 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>>> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>> gun rights.
>>>
>>> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>> perfectly normal.
>>
>>After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>African-American males being shot.
>
>You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>
>But then one is too many right?

Doesn't matter who is shooting them, the rate at which they are dying
is much higher than for white people.

On 9 Jun 2022 21:44:19 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>On 2022-06-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>On 2022-06-09, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The contradiction in the twin gun mantras of progressives for the past 20
>>>>>years is causing problems. They want to
>>>>>1. Increase the difficulty to buy a gun legally (which I agree with)
>>>>>2. Reduce the penalty for possessing or criminally using an illegal gun
>>>>
>>>> Please provide citations to any progressive that wants to reduce the
>>>> penalty for possessing or criminally using a gun, legal or illegal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Surely you must have encountered articles about how harsh mandatory
>>>gun sentences are racially unfair and have created a prison culture
>>>for Blacks.
>>
>> You seem to fall into the bucket "what one progressive thinks is
>> what all progressive thinks". All groups have outliers, don't assume
>> they represent the group as a whole.
>
>You challenged me to find *any* progressive. I immediately found 3.
>Talk about moving the goal posts!
>
>I agree that outliers don't represent the entire group. Please give
>cites that give the position of the entire group (I would claim that's
>impossible). I would say the general position agrees with me more
>than you.
>
>Examples would be the language of efsgv.org (educational fund to stop
>gun violence) which I would regard as representing a progressive view.
>From https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/EFSGV_REIA_Framework.pdf
> Though racial disparities in the criminal legal system stem from
> many sources, overly punitive gun violence prevention policies can
> play a role in perpetuating the larger issue
> ...
> Laws intended to reduce gun violence can cause racialized
> collateral harm. For example, harsh mandatory minimum prison sentences
> for illegal gun possession can exacerbate racial disparities in
> arrests and incarceration while doing nothing to reduce the burden of
> gun violence in BIPOC communities.
> ...
> The impact of gun violence on the lives of BIPOC communities is
> devastating, but so too is the overreliance on a heavily
> punitive criminal legal system to address violence.
>
>Another example might be
>https://www.chicagoappleseed.org/2021/08/25/loyola-report-reveals-undue-punitive-effect-of-gun-possession-convictions/
> Chicago cannot afford to continue to criminalize such a high
> proportion of its young and Black population for simply being in the
> vicinity of a gun.
> (lots of other quotes, read them)
>
>Please give your cites to similar caliber progressive studies that
>state we must maintain or increase the penalties for illegal gun possession
>and use.
>
>I would note that the House just passed along party lines its massive
>set of bills/provisions (7, I think) to reduce gun violence. Not a
>single one was directed at the use of illegal guns, despite the fact
>that illegal guns probably (only small studies are legal) commit most
>of the gun crime and homicides in the country.

No, _people_ commit _all_ of the "gun crime and homicides" in the
country. A gun is an inanimate object without volition. It cannot
commit a crime any more than rain can commit a crime.

>>>If you want cites (I'm not sure why, you don't supply them in your
>>>arguments),
>>
>> If you go back and look, I routinely provide citations to data
>> that support my arguments.
>
>The only recent cite I seem to remember from you was a cite to a faked
>YouTube video. In our last disagreement (about your belief in the
>conspiracy theory that Bush and the GOP lied about WMDS and that's why
>we went to war), I supplied something like 10 cites and you supplied,
>hmmm let me count them up ... 0 cites?

On 10 Jun 2022 20:13:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-10, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:06:47 -0700, Robert Woodward
>><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>> >> gun rights.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>> >> perfectly normal.
>>>> >
>>>> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>> >African-American males being shot.
>>>>
>>>> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>>>> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
>>>being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
>>>and with less publicity than school shootings.
>>
>> No doubt you're right on 'less publicity' but then the majority of
>> black male deaths I would assume are one at a time whereas school
>> shootings never are.
>
>I think you'd be surprised at one on one school shootings.
>School mass shootings are never one-at-a-time, by definition,
>but there's lots of local violence and deaths that never get reported
>nationally. I see a death reported every couple of years around me.
>
>National statistics are hard to come by. Federal funders like CDC and
>NIH are forbidden to spend money on most things related to gun
>violence.

The FBI isn't. Google "Uniform Crime Reports".

>> Obviously that doesn't justify the deaths but no question there's a
>> problem and realistically that's not a problem that's going to be
>> resolved from the top down but rather needs to be from within the
>> various communities. Starting from the ready availability of weapons.
>>
>> When I was a kid fights weren't all THAT uncommon but they were
>> settled with fists not weapons. Fights are probably inevitable -
>> fights with lethal weapons almost certainly are NOT inevitable.
>
>Again, I think you would be surprised. The Dodd report (1970ish?)
>surveyed 110 school districts nationally (US, 0.1% of the school
>districts, but presumably the larger ones) and in just those school
>districts, the number of school homicides per year increased from 15
>in 1964 to 26 in 1968. That shouldn't be too far from your time as a
>kid!
>
>The "good old days" had their problems that were not widely pubilcized
>back then. (Even further back, 1927, school massacre in Bath, Michigan
>killed 44 (dynamiting school because of high school taxes)).

On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>> the planet.
>>
>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>
>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>
>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>
>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>
> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?

The Alberta oil patch.

Lynn

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <364a2e98-3f15-4365...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:12:27 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> > > When I was a teenager (e.g. before the advent of cable TV) it was said
> > > that Edmonton and Ottawa were the ONLY major Canadian cities that were
> > > not without TV broadcast range of the US border.

> > That's only true if you don't count Saskatoon as a major city.

> Is Calgary within TV broadcast range of the US border? Looks a bit iffy
> to me (not that there is a US TV broadcaster tower close to the
> US-Canada border).

You're quite right, it isn't either. Lethbridge is the largest city in Alberta
that is within range of U.S. television.

John Savard

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
> atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
> monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>
> "I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>
> At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
> has been done to Kharkiv.

Oh, it wouldn't bother me in a _moral_ sense. After committing aggression,
Russia should be made to surrender unconditionally, and if that means it
has to be as devastated as Germany after World War II, that in itself is no
problem.

However, what Hitler didn't have that Putin does have is *nukes*.

Which means that if a Ukrainian attack hits Russia *while we are giving
aid to Ukraine* bad things could happen to US. So Ukraine needs to
only defend itself within its own territory to keep us giving aid to it; if
they attacked Russian territory, we would have to disconnect from
Ukraine - and doing so immediately might not be enough.

There is a vast difference between "this is wicked" and "this is not
wise in a practical sense"; it's not fair to assume that other people
have those things confused when you criticize them for recommending
against certain actions.

If you can figure out how to take Putin's dangerous toys away, I'll
be fine with Russia being devastated.

John Savard

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:44:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?

Well, we have the capacity to grow a significant amount
of food. Also, we have a lot of nickel, which is a strategically
useful metal.

But I think that's really the wrong question. Canada has
people in it, and Putin won't be happy until he has enslaved
every last human being on Earth. Although he may have
to settle for enslaving those that Xi Jinping hasn't taken.

John Savard