@atomicdevils's banner p

atomicdevils


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 31 18:51:19 UTC

				

User ID: 1770

atomicdevils


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 31 18:51:19 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1770

It was a very deadly pandemic for very old people. It is sad they died, and especially that many died alone due to horrible/cruel hospital policies. But this was not a particularly deadly pandemic for younger adults.

Look at this age stratification https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-total-covid-deaths-by-age-group/

I actually wish that I had done a bit more to try to prevent spread of the disease.

The only thing your increased caution may have accomplished is slightly delaying the date you became infected with covid. You couldn't have prevented covid from spreading.

There was never any chance that this thing would be controlled with quarantines or even far more effective vaccines if we had them - since covid infects non-human animals and now has undoubtably many natural reservoirs, we could never eradicate it like we did with smallpox (only infects humans). It's also insanely contagious - we'd all have needed new, fit-tested n95s for every time we went out and goggles to boot (your eyes are connected to your nose and throat - aerosols that land on them/in them can travel downwards and voila, covid infection).

For adults 18-45 covid was more like a bad influenza strain, if you look at deaths by age group it becomes very apparent that it was really a disease of the old with some obese younger adults thrown in. Look at this age stratification https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-total-covid-deaths-by-age-group/

2% (85+) of the US population made up 27% of the deaths!

instead of blaming it on social contagion and the media, perhaps you should first see if they have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, polycystic ovarian syndrome, or abnormal testosterone levels; there’s a high chance that’s the case.

What's the likelihood that these conditions arise in a friend-group of middle school girls all at once?

Social contagion among adolescent females is a huge, huge thing. The Salem Witch Trials? Social contagion among adolescent females.

I work on campus, I just ignore it. Even when people introduce themselves with pronouns and ask mine I give my name and don't answer the pronoun question. I leave them wondering if I didn't hear them or if I'm purposefully ignoring the question, and I don't care.

If men were not as vulnerable to memes as women, the US military would not spend any money on advertising to teenage males.

The vast and insurmountable difference in physical strength between human males and females is the driving force behind concerns about trans identified males in female prisons, and other female-only spaces where females are vulnerable. Male humans account for the vast majority of perpetrators of violent crime and sexual assault.

Males and females are different, humans have sexual dimorphism and only magical thinking erases that. I'd go so far as to say that some parts of modern gender ideology are implicitly creationist.

Lower IQ isn't associated with less cognitive ability?

I would put money on social contagion accounting for the vast majority of adolescent female trans identification. With adolescent males I think it's more complicated - very effeminate gay males may face discrimination to the point that transition is easier, males may be motivated by AGP etc. Suffice it to say that I think there are more reasons that a male of any age may choose transition, and fewer that a female may.

If you wish people to understand current events they must understand the events that preceded them. It's really that simple. How can one understand what's happening in Ukraine without at least a little knowledge of WWI and WWII and Soviet Russia?

I put forth that understanding current events, at least a little bit, is important in democracies (but not dictatorships) because citizens must decide on representatives who will vote on many things having to do with current events - if they understand nothing of the context, they can't understand the issue, they can't make an informed vote, and democracy becomes more superficial.

Vaccines have to be more good than bad. Almost all of them are. The covid vaccines get a wee bit murky in that regard when you get to younger age cohorts - especially younger male cohorts. There's a lot of good evidence that for young males in particular the virus carries fewer side effects than the mRNA vaccines, especially the 2nd dose of said vaccines. For older age groups I think you'd have to show pretty awful side effects for vaccination not to be worth it - so, for instance with over 65s you'd have to really have some bad frequency of side effects since they're so vulnerable to covid.

The other issue at hand here is efficacy, however. If the bivalent booster has risks but doesn't ultimately protect anyone any better than the 2x shots they already had (or 3x with the original booster) then there's really no good argument for them. The FDA lost two of its most experienced vaccine regulators over the Biden admin's "boosters for all" push, which wasn't based on any data whatsoever - we don't have any data showing that a 30 year old vaccinated woman will have further reduced mortality and morbidity with a booster shot or a bivalent booster. Most other countries, where their medical systems are more tuned towards cost and efficacy, have only authorized boosters for elderly people and those with severe immunocompromise (cancer patients). The US chose to push a one-size-fits-all policy with boosters, with zero evidence, and so...when a safety signal like this bubbles up it looks even worse than it would have if they'd pursued more evidence based recommendations.

For young males, the risk of myocarditis after the 2nd dose of mRNA vaccine is higher than with covid infection. This should be taken into account in all vaccine recommendations, unfortunately in the USA we've chosen a "one size fits all" approach that groups 80 year old women with 19 year old men.

A few weeks ago I got sick and stayed home for a few days. So many of my friends asked me if my covid test was positive - just assuming I'd been testing. They were appalled when I said I hadn't bothered, and that in fact I have never tested myself for covid. If the diagnostic result does not change/inform treatment, then what use is it? If I were sick enough to need hospitalization, they'd test me for various things at that point and treat accordingly. If I'm not sick enough to be hospitalized, what good does knowing exactly what bug I have do? We know Paxlovid has only ever been tested in unvaccinated individuals and appears to have no value in vaccinated people (and perhaps a downside of helping covid evolve to escape it when over-used in those who do not need it). So I did what we all did pre-covid, I stayed home and rested until I felt better. Maybe I had covid. Maybe I didn't. I don't really care.

I think you're right that people have begun to view the test as some kind of treatment, or at least somehow a responsibility as if the knowledge of which bug is making them slightly ill is of grave importance to society.

I disagree with what I think the thrust of your post is, namely that social pressures are artificially "restricting" or "repressing" female sexuality. I think it's pretty much entirely biological.

I would hazard to guess that in an imaginary society where female sexuality was completely unfettered and unstigmatized...that female humans would still want sex less than male humans, and would still be choosier in their partners than males. In every mammalian species this dynamic exists, especially for placental mammals - because the investment necessary during pregnancy is so high. Female humans have particularly invasive placentas, very risky pregnancy and birth because of head size, and particularly helpless young that demand an extreme amount of care relative to other mammalian young (even other great apes). It is not surprising, therefore, that female humans have been selected to be discerning rather than horny.

I would have thought that Apple giving the appearance of sticking it to Musk would have resulted in more cheerleading from those who'd like Musk to fail (or think he already is). I wonder if the relative lack of praise, from my perspective anyway, has to do with the rather nasty bit of news concerning Apple restricting air drop functionality for their Chinese consumers (one would think, at the behest of the CCP).