velcii
I cannot see how this is correct. Because it should be the mutations created in the vaccinated that will help the virus to survive in similar vaccinated hosts..because first of all, the mutated virus need to survive in the vaccinated host, and become the dominant one in that host and thus giving it a better chance to jump to another host...
So this mutations must be happening in Vaccinated hosts. In unvaccinated as you said, any mutations that gives the virus immune escape capability does not give it an advantage over the other mutations in the same host, simply because there is no vaccine generated antibodies to kill the other mutations, for it to gain dominance.
You are mistaken. Social media and things like youtube, just like elections, provide the appearance of power and choice, but just safely let people to let out pent up emotions. Then they safely contain it without it being spilled to the real world to a certain extent, at the same time give the people who participate in them a certain feeling of "doing something", a fallacy that even I am committing right now while I write this comment down..
As Noam Chomsky said "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum".
We already know that youtube and other media like reddit even HN "strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion", and as you said, they also allow very lively debate withing the rest of the spectrum..
I really don't think that would give many data points, because all of the instances would be when a human fell asleep or wasn't paying attention.
Sadly if you do retractions, you are not qualified for the name "fact checker". Because "facts" are not retractable.
And fact-checkers are just the tip of the iceberg, and if you care to look, there are many things that are peddled as being "fact" when there is not enough credible evidence to say so..
For example the statement "Vaccines don't cause autism". Any one with two brain cells will know that this NOT a fact, simply because it does not say "Which vaccines".
But that does not prevent people from saying that as a FACT.
So it is not only them. It is you as well.
About VAERS this might be interesting...
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccin...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd...
Most people are concerned about having any sort of serious AEFI, and not just blood-clots.
So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion.
This is based on voluntary reporting, which is known to have under reporting where even 10% events are not reported.
Even then the risk is a serious AEFI is 1 in 5095.
I only meant that "some forum that we both are reading"
>The good engineers would all have left and taken a lower paid remote contracting job working from home..
Not many comparable remote positions were available, and not may even probably didn't consider the possibility, because it was so taboo.
This is how bad stuff that existed so long in a society eventually change. 9-5 work in an office is an evil that should not have existed where it could be avoided.
> vast majority of them do not want full remote work.
Great, good for them. But that is not stopping a lot of others from doing so.
Very curious that you have loaded it with the assumption that "remote" implies being a "code monkey".
>they have not blown FAANG companies "right tout of the water".
Sure no one is saying it ll happen overnight. Curious reasoning again, by the way.
>a very small percentage of people put remote work as their number 1
Very curious again, because even in HN there were a lot of stories where people are willing to even resign, to keep the freedom that they discovered with not having to work in strict constraints.
All this romantic "oh I have to look you in the eyes" sentiment will disappear when push comes to shove, that it when you see your best people leave for competitors that allow remote work...
The part where they talk about trials like these..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM&t=958s
Viewing full testimony is recommended.
I find this statement so out of reality. Because often what happens is that this "best employee" gets side tracked by someone who is not actually productive, but just good at playing politics.
So our hypothetical "best employee" will have to play politics in addition to be productive to have a fighting chance. Or they can just downgrade themselves to be less productive and be more political..
Either way, the company losses the actual productivity of the said employee...
>It seems like you are under this very strong impression of people who derive value for in-person work only do so because they are sub-par employees.
I don't think I said that. I said "in-person" work will be essential for the job security of people who survive soley on politics. I don't think the converse, that anyone who wants to work with people is sub-par, is true.
Your point is not very clear, sorry.
It seems that you have an emotional reaction to this topic, which seems to muddle your argument. May be take sometime to reflect and get back with more clarity?
Not really, if you are not interested in communicating emotions or not interested in playing politics as part of the said communication..
In fact, in technical discussion, not conveying too much emotion is a great advantage..
Yes, That is powerful. And I utterly fail to understand how some people appear to NOT see this.
OP for one appear to argue that people are expected to talk about work when they are having lunch ffs! I mean, it is OK if you want to talk about work, but you cannot realistically expect others to share your enthusiasm as well, or may be they do share your enthusiasm, but might want to talk about other things when they eat...
I was under the impression that comps have the practice of giving work to people that might produce good results with that kind of work, and trust me, people who might produce good results will want the freedom WFH makes possible.
But on the other hand, people who have to depend on politics and ass kissing to keep their job and get promoted, will absolutely want to be around and near managers as much as possible, so that they can maximise their ass kissing, so your A-team, will soon end up exclusively with that kind..
Sort of happens when you categories heart attacks and a lot of other mortality causes, as COVID deaths.