pm_me_ur_fullz

"How dare people have dignity and transportation and communication."

Most people do not have the money to purchase a car outright, even the cheap several thousand dollar ones.

Therefore they rent or lease, and hope this specific scenario never happens.

and get this: they clean them too.

I specifically wrote "/conditions" to predict that specific rebuttal.

The virus could be the same, the opportunistic additional virus/bacteria could be different.

just like HIV causes no symptoms, until your immune system is down and a different infection (caused by bacteria or virus) kills you. Maybe even a normal "gut" bacteria, or something in your body usually present, is what kills you.

There is research pointing to Sars-Cov-2 attacking T cells directly. Instant AIDS.

In the fall and early winter, there could have been different variables that made it less debilitating and deadly than the spring variables. And in that case the fall and early winter deaths and pneumonia would have blended in to normal distribution.

Shareholder litigation isn't regulatory issue, it is totally separate, has different statutes of limitations and has no bearing on what Elon settled with the feds.

> We would have seen a higher death rate if the virus was here earlier.

> What if this is already the "second wave". Something with lower symptoms wouldn't have warranted checking for a new strain, complications and deaths would fit into the normal distribution of last fall's flu season with no outlier spikes.

I think you are misunderstanding what wave means here. It means an earlier not as deadly strain/conditions had already occurred, just like in the Spanish Flu in the spring versus the fall deadly resurgance, but at lower orders of magnitude. The strain itself doesn't have to be different if the co-morbidities were different - such as different opportunistic viruses or bacterias being present.

Which is something people have been discussing for weeks here in San Francisco, including RNs that have been thinking back to early January.

So how do we move this from a collection of anecdotes and immediate dismissal to prioritizing some antibody tests to the bay area. Possibly reopening it faster and keeping it open.

Just acknowledging the possibility can influence public policy, and the research that some other people want to see before they can acknowledge it.

People don't advance a hypothesis without enough anecdotes to say "look over there"

People like you can help fill gaps of savants saying "this isn't a constructive methodology but it isn't inherently without merit" versus "I don't want to believe that because thats not consensus right now" versus "hm thats interesting maybe worth a look sometime before the 2022 congressional committee to fund the epidemiologists?"

Why is that the most preposterous hypothesis that doesn't warrant any review?

We have no reliable antibody tests, and then won't give the unreliable ones people because they are so rare. So where does the confidence come from that we can rule out this possibility?

What if this is already the "second wave". Something with lower symptoms wouldn't have warranted checking for a new strain, complications and deaths would fit into the normal distribution of last fall's flu season with no outlier spikes. We would then be deep into the second wave and can't even test most for people currently exposed to it, much less having already been exposed. This is enough not to dismiss the hypothesis.

"It's listening to me!"

and your spouse's typed in search queries

and your playstation

and your smart coffee machine

and alexa actually is

thats all without getting me started on the analytics networks in other apps sharing with the same data brokers between apps

I really don't understand why people immediately want to discredit the idea that US patient zero was not the first in US. Or that this virus was around earlier and that there are limitations in contact tracing capabilities.

This seems to have the toughest aspect of gaining consensus.

Need antibody tests now, and ones that work reliably.

Governors need to know their state and people so if most everyone is staying home and doing some recreational activities then an official health order may not be necessary. But typically what you see is that businesses full of contractors and/or near bankruptcy do not have the leadership to close down - the consequences and blowback is too high for them and they need a third party to force it. So barber shops, dental offices etc are doing silly things. Churches like tithes and the incentives are misaligned for them not to play on people's angst.

You can come into the state and you can leave the state, what state-level circumstance is preventing you?

I'm grasping at straws but maybe you are estranged and your family is on the street but they won't let you into the hobo-hotel?

Every other circumstance I can think of is a Federal issue closing borders for people that aren't Americans.

Mohammad bin Salman, Yasir bin Othman Al-Rumayyan, Masayoshi Son

debut

Bonesaws-N-Harmony

Responsible Disclosure does not mean waiting for arbitrary and unilateral decisions from a company just to be undervalued.

If your argument for responsible disclosure equally applies to this post, a $100 payout and to a $100,000 payout - as long as its from the company that needs to patch the exploit, then re-evaluate your argument.

For some reason, this is how I imagined Decentraland

> I asked him about his experience, which was very much like mine. This was a different kind of encouragement than my friends and family could provide who did not share my experience.

A little more useful than "it'll be fine"? eh?

I honestly hate the empty empathy from people with no say in the matter. Its cultural and I think it develops into a mental issue of denial. Saying "you'll die if you don't breathe, I don't want that" is good enough, for me. People of some cultures would say that. Are we really worried about the patient losing the will to live without other people's hopium? Is that really a co-morbidity?

Sorry if I sound salty, I just finished doing a bunch of interviews where other people told me it'll be fine and it wasn't and I already knew how random it is. These are binary events.

does anybody else feel like they skip straight to acceptance in circumstances over people have to ride the 5 stages of grief rollercoaster?

I can accept the randomness of not being rewarded for doing the "right thing"

How did you know what your blood oxygen level was? What did you use for that and where did you get it and why did you have it earlier?

Is this something that people with rescue inhalers also typically have?

The point is to slow it down, not actually know which ritual failed.

We aren't worried about how you or I really get it, it doesn't matter if it actually was carried by a supernatural deity following certain people around or if someone has a death note that uses 5g radio waves to target individuals in the phone book. We only know that crowds and ignoring hygeine carry it faster and we just need time to treat it.

If you are personally in an at-risk group and are avoiding it like the plague that it is, none of the policies have real answers you. We are operating on probabilities, not absolutes.

The point of what the rest of us are doing is to slow the spread, not be surprised that it does spread in ironic ways.

I hope no more energy is put on irrelevant investigative journalism like this. Proactive mayors and governors slowed it down in their areas, letting hospitals deal with their current bandwidth and give time to increase their bandwidth, so the rest of us can be bussed through.

I understand, it just won't be dismissed for "not having standing" on the plaintiff's side.

Progress!

A few years ago Silicon Valley Bank wouldn't open an account for an entity with blockchain in the name, no matter what it actually did.

I can use this ruling, doesn't matter how skittish their compliance officer is nor the lack of clarity from their federal regulators. Should be a good time and accelerant!