"A 1% rise in inflation rate was associated with significant deteriorations (p<0.05) in 4 population health outcomes, with the largest deterioration in male adult mortality rate (0.0033 rise per 1000 deaths)."
I'm not going to make the argument that more people in the US will die b/c of inflation than the war in Ukraine: that is really insensitive.
I'm just highlighting the fallacy of "oh some people have it worse, you can't complain!"
When you include the reduced life expectancy of people in Ukraine due to war it will be a lot higher :(
Without even extrapolating to higher inflation rates, I think this works out to an additional 10k deaths due to inflation?
I would not call this a "small bump" and I am the opposite of the "sky is falling due to inflation!" crowd - just trying to be grounded. It is a fairly big bump.
If I just make Nazi websites for black people, and refuse to make a Nazi website for some people, it isn't the Nazi website - it is the person that I disagree with.
Yeah I don't understand how people don't understand this. If I were to go outside your house and lay on my horn for a few days I'd expect to get arrested.
You missed my point completely. It is only conservatives that pretend they do not cancel people. They constantly cancel people. Maybe even more than liberals.
I looked into the case with Maddie, and it seems like there is NO published information on this case substantiating the claims made by her and her mother. Why is that?
--
Kids have gotten sick from the vaccine - but a lot more kids have gotten sick due to Covid.
You obviously feel very strongly about this, but no I don't see any evidence anywhere here that there was any intentional wrongdoing.
> Is it a problem, yes or no, that the adverse events that could be reported by participants in at least the Pfizer mRNA clinical trial for 12-15 year olds limited what could be reported by highly specifically creating a relatively short list of relatively minor potential adverse events? Yes or no?
It is hard to parse some of what you're saying, but what I think you're saying is is it bad that the app only permitted selection of certain things.
First, I don't know this is true. I haven't:
1) Seen the app
2) Seen multiple people talking about the app
3) Seen other apps used for similar trials
From what I know of end-users of software, and also what I know about parents and people who are politically motivated, I have a lot of skepticism about the claims in the video. Note I said skepticism, not that they are lying. I am skeptical.
I don't know if this claim is true.
But, let's assume it is true. There is another list of things I don't know:
1) Were there other ways to report these effects?
2) Is there a clinical reason why the app would be designed this way?
3) What else don't I know that should stop me from jumping to a really big conclusion? (that the entire world is in on some vaccine conspiracy).
Even if the answer is definitively "the app was designed to limit selection of adverse effects of the vaccine during the trial" there is a set of other things that I just don't know:
1) Was the app designed this way intentionally, or was it a consequence of poor planning? Or a bad software team? Again, being familiar with software, I'm skeptical that if we get this far (see all my previous points...) it was intentional
2) What else don't we know that we can't get from a ten minute video?
Your claims are remarkable - they need to be remarkably substantiated, and you're not doing that.
You're being a classic conspiracy theorist, just like I said in my first comment.
Do you expect perfection? This is classic conspiracy stuff. Latch onto some small weird things that are truly odd but probably explainable though maybe with a good deal effort. Or in some cases they are truly just incompetence or whatever. It doesn't imply some crazy vaccine conspiracy that spans the entire world. It just means there is a really complex problem and neither public health policies or vaccine producers are perfect. But how many lives did both of those things save? Probably a lot more than were saved by JR and others casting doubt on these policies and on vaccines.
You miss the point. No one is saying capitalism will literally cause breadlines. They are saying capitalism has made breadlines needed in some circumstances. These are different things but related.
annualized return is annualized return, his strategy gave him < 9% annualized return and that is being generous, saying he's invested for 4 years not 5.
if you look at SPX returns over the last four years, 2018 was a negative year but each year after was between 16% and 28%. also 2017 was over 19%.
I'm not upper management. Most upper management gets paid way too much for the value they bring.
But, when you have the opportunity to work under an excellent CEO or CTO you will learn that they do bring 10x or even 100x the value you bring to the team.