Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17863
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Of course. I think it’s fine if you want to eat bugs. The part that I don’t like is who’s promoting it. This isn’t some small opinion outlet. It makes me think there will be a coordinated push to manipulate the food consumption of large amounts of people. 

    Promoting what? The reduction of a regulation? You're just bitching to bitch. Go on with your bad self and own some libs while investing in bitcoin. Your hypocrisy and idiocy are mildly amusing. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2.  

    Quote

     

    China’s carbon pollution now surpasses all developed countries combined

    Carbon pollution from China's bustling, coal-intensive economy last year outstripped the carbon pollution of the US, the EU, and other developed nations combined, making up a whopping 27 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

    As China’s economy has grown in the last 30 years, so too have its emissions. While pollution from developed countries has largely been flat since 1990, it has more than tripled in China. The country’s soaring emissions and stable population mean that its per capita emissions have grown quickly, too. At 10.1 tons per person, emissions are just below the 10.5 ton average of the 37-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD.

    The US still leads the world in per capita emissions, at 17.6 tons per person, according to Rhodium Group's numbers, though President Joe Biden has pledged that the US will halve emissions by 2030. The other developed countries in the report include all 27 current EU member states: the UK, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey.

    China’s draconian lockdowns early in the COVID-19 pandemic allowed the country's economy to bounce back relatively quickly, and as a result, Rhodium expects that China's emissions per capita in 2020 will surpass the average of the OECD nations.

     

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/chinas-carbon-pollution-now-surpasses-all-developed-countries-combined/

    China is such an enigma. It has invested more in renewables than anyone else. Within the last 4 years it has announced that environmental concerns/targets are now of the same importance as economic concerns/targets. The government actually shutdown a ton of manufacturing in 2017 and 2018 over river pollution. And yet we also have its huge reliance on coal and massively expanding CO2 profile. 

  3. 17 hours ago, GRHorn said:

    Coming soon to Joe Biden’s America?
     

    How many posters here looking forward to eating mealworms for protein? You need to walk the walk. To save the climate. 🙄 

     

    You understand that this is not a requirement that people replace meat with insect-based food, right? This just allows places to include mealworms in food. I would think a libertarian or small government conservative would appreciate a change that allows people the freedom to choose what they want to eat. Frankly, I'm surprised that mealworms weren't allowed previously. For instance, salted and/or chocolate covered crickets are actually quite tasty. I first had them as a kid at the Pecan Street festival.   

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 11 hours ago, bolverk said:

    Alright, so I misread that but why did they stop in December when we have much more recent data. Also, it's not measuring "unemployment changes," it's measuring "employment changes." Those are very different things. But, of course, there are two major data sets used for "employment" and they don't specify which one they use.

    One is derived from the Local Unemployment Area Statistics (LAUS) program which is a monthly household survey asking people if they are employed. The other is a measure of employment based on the actual job count from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program. This one counts jobs instead of people (some people hold more than one).

    That said, why don't they extend their analysis to use more current figures and just stop in December? Why do they attribute November 2020 patterns to orders given by governors that affected restrictions? Why don't they look at the actual types of jobs that were affected?

    Shit, just look at Midland and Odessa and compare then to Austin. I can guarantee you that folks out in the Permian Basin, by and large, didn't take this shit seriously? In Austin, we sure did. From March 2020 to March 2021, those two cities lost a little more than 16% of their job base. Austin only lost 1.3%. Houston lost 5.5%. What do you think had to do with those discrepancies? Could it have been, I don't know, the actual structure of their local economies?

    My initial misreading of the timeframe takes very little away from my critique of this really shallow and shitty "analysis" and does nothing to dissuade me from viewing it as something intended to reinforce preexisting notions of easily triggered Republicans.

    I'm not sure their numbers are entirely wrong, but I can't figure out how to match them. And what they have for states like Idaho is plainly incorrect. I've been using the numbers from https://www.bls.gov/regions/home.htm. I've compared changes in total employment, unemployment, and unemployment rate (both on a relative and absolute measure). They don't indicate where the data comes from (it just says federal data) or how they arrived at their numbers. 

     

     

  5. 10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    I think that we fundamentally agree.  We both think that this is masturbatory with no real world impact.  We just disagree about the benefits of watching in the mirror as the masturbation play out. 

    Yup, but I think in your analogy we disagree on the value of masturbation itself. I've always thought it was pretty valuable.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  6. 1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

    Posts #34781, #34782, and #34785 for starters. 

    And if they shit the bed, they further undermine confidence in vaccines, with particularly focused impact on the third world perception where variant emergence is the greatest risk.  For a strategy that appears to be based on nothing more than optics, you are taking a narrow view of the potential impact wrt vaccine confidence. It's not clear to me what the motivation is here.  At least it is not clear what anchor it has in terms of real world outcomes.  

    I really doubt anyone gets far enough to shit the bed for the reasons you've mentioned previously. I just don't think it is a big enough deal for fight over. The optics are good in providing the waiver. I think the positive message associated with providing the waiver is worth the very small likelihood of any harm arising. Moderna apparently agrees with me. 

    But, as I said, I absolutely agree that it isn't worth a ton of energy and our effort should be spent elsewhere. 

  7. 27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    The downside risks have been explained. 

    Other than feel good nonsense with no real world upside, why are we even having this discussion then. 

    Where? Are you talking about the possibility someone screws up? That is a pretty indirect risk that could arise even if the original patent holder was building an additional facility. It's also a risk that I feel the host country is entitled to take. If they screw up on implementing a vaccine, even if loosely based on other patents, then that is on them. Besides, the primary reason to allow free licensing of patents isn't to give another party the know how, it is to allow them to produce the vaccine without risking any liability for infringing someone else's patent (as happens all the time, even when a company isn't intentionally relying on prior patents).

    But, I agree it isn't worth much of a fight. I'm just saying it isn't worth enough to fight against either. So, I'll ask you, why are we having this conversation? The patent holders aren't going to lose out on anything.

    In short, someone wants it and thinks it will help. They are probably wrong. Just do it and move on. And hey, if they are right and it helps get vaccines to people in need faster, well then that is just a bonus. 

  8. 2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    No, I am using the right definition of the term. You beg the question. There is no real evidence that IP waivers will yield an increase in production. Moderna signaled that they would waive patent protections in October 2020. Since then, nobody has stepped up to produce. So nobody has really articulated a path towards clear and tangible benefit, or even near term potential benefit, of waiving IP protection. However, we have some very clear down side risks, with actual real world examples of what can go wrong with manufacturing (even in highly regulated facilities producing the less complex vaccines). This whole discussion is ungrounded feel good messaging with no impact on the real world issues at stake, which is the excellent realm of politicians I realize.  Problem is that the downside risks are greater than the upside.  We don't need to FAFO on this one, either in the short term or the longer term with precedent setting. 

    My conclusion wasn't based on there being a benefit. In fact, I expressly stated that it probably wouldn't change much. What I said is that it wouldn't hurt, and I haven't yet seen anyone explain how it could. So, no, I wasn't begging the question. My reasoning wasn't based on there being any benefit at all. 

  9. 35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I guess if you so say, it does not.  But you're a fucking idiot.  So it probably does.

    The discussion was about whether deaths that would have occurred in 2020 even in abscence of Covid-19 should count in the statistics. Sawbonz made the point that a life shortened even by a few months is still a loss. Your discussion on whether it was worth it to risk getting exposed to covid in order to be with your family isn't a bad one, it just isn't relevant to that conversation. 

  10. 6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    This begs the question. 

    No it doesn't. It is a conclusion. If, as you and others in the industry have said, that waiving IP isn't going to solve the road blocks or allow others to quickly manufacture vaccines, then what is the financial harm in providing a temporary waiver? Or maybe you are using the less formal usage of "begs the question" to mean it leads to another question. If so, what is that question? Something to do with the scope of waiver? 

  11. 24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Consider the appearances when a facility without high level quality controls, using technology they are not intimately familiar with in the manufacture process, botches production of a batch of vaccine. What about the appearances when you have negative outcomes, either reduced effectiveness or even worse some safety issues. Consider the impact that might have wrt vax uptake, not only domestically but also internationally.

    PFE/BNT on track to make 3B doses this year. MRNA 1B, ramping to 3B in 2022. IMO, work to extend their ability to scale and shore up supply chain. The energy being put into this IP discussion would be better spent on developing the distribution and administration infrastructure. That lack of infrastructure is the more likely choke point in vaccinating the third world.  

     

     

    I agree with this. But I also believe a temporary waiver is the right thing to do. If someone is proposing permanent waivers on patents, I'm totally against that. But I have a hard time seeing the problem with a humanitarian waiver for the limited purpose of getting Covid-19 vaccinations out the door. I agree we shouldn't spend a ton of energy on it, but that also means I don't think there should be a ton of energy spent opposing it. Let's do the waiver while also moving on the big stuff. Either the waiver helps to some small degree or worse case its a kind gesture that unfortunately can't be taken advantage of. Why fight about it at all? 

  12. 3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    If you're 80 plus and get Covid you have about a 9 percent chance of dying.  I know plenty of people in that age group who would prefer taking the risk of getting Covid and then dying from it if given the choice between that or a year of being locked down alone and not being able to physically see or hug their kids or grandkids.  

    My grandmother is 87.  She is healthy for her age but honestly if it was not for her wealth she would not be able to live alone right now due to some memory issues (she has 24 hour nursing care and staff that helps her out).  Even then, at the beginning of the pandemic she was cooped up in her high rise seeing no one but her nurses and staff.  That lasted about a week before she wanted family to start visiting.  So I would go over twice a week and so would others in my family.  Her point was she has lived a long and great life.  She does not have that much time left and chose she would not spend one of her final good years alone.  She also is a faithful believer who believes she has a lot more loved ones on the other side than she does here now, including my granddad, her sister, a daughter, and a grandson.

    It is not necessarily an indefensible choice. To her, the loss of one of her few remaining good years to avoid a disease that, even if she caught it, she had a 91% chance of surviving (likely higher given she is not obese and can afford the best treatment).    

    And none of that has anything at all to do with what they were talking about. But thanks for playing. 

  13. 25 minutes ago, midtown said:

    Agreed with this.  Then why do it other than to establish a precedent and or give the false perception that you're making a difference? 

    Because it might help slightly down the line and help free up some capital to speed things along.  We already have precedent and procedures for waiving patents in health emergencies, so I'm not buying the slippery slope argument that this will inevitably lead to patents being permanently invalidated. I don't see a temporary waiver for this pandemic hurting at all, and I think it could help in some small part. So, why not do it? Why fight about it? Let's just do it and move on to bigger fish. 

  14. 23 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    sack from the top rope with an unattributed and unsourced chart comparing relative numbers! 

     

    11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I actually looked to try and understand exactly where they got their data and what they were actually comparing. It isn't very clear to me. 

    Here is data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Texas (and other states in the link): 

    https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx.htm

    You can click on the back data button to get information from farther back. If someone can tell what two numbers they are comparing to get -4.1% for Texas, I'd love to know. It isn't based on employment rate, which went from  3.7 in February 2020 to 6.9 in December 2020. And it isn't total number of employed despite what the chart says, from 13,662,942 to 13,162,510 over the same period.  So, I really don't understand what value is being shown in the chart.  Further, the value for states like Idaho in the chart makes no sense. There was definitely significant job loss there. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 15 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


    Should I have worded that differently? Yes I believe a decent chunk of covid deaths would be dead today without covid. And unfortunately there’s a decent chunk that would still be alive. I’m asking if tuckers angle is a guy that’s on his way out that was vaccinated in February is being a vaccinated death. Jesus the disruption of that post was insane with some of you.

    Yes, next time don't premise your question on a fallacious statement. But, I also think you know exactly what you were doing, which was implying that deaths were intentionally inflated and comparing that to Tucker's action as a false equivalence. So, spare me the indignation on how poorly you've been treated. It wasn't a sincere question and it didn't deserve a sincere response. 

    11 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


    Thanks for answering my question.

    Did you seriously need him to tell you that? 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 13 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


    I’m asking if that’s Tuckers angle here, jfc. Every post of yours is smeared with anger. What’s your blood pressure like

    No, you're implying that we just attributed "stage 4 cancer guy" deaths to covid. You're continuing the same nonsense that covid deaths are inflated because we attributed every death with a potential covid diagnosis to covid. That simply isn't the case. My blood pressure is fine last I checked, ~116/70. I occasionally emphasize my posts because certain people are thickskulled and cannot grasp basic concepts unless you smash them over the head, not because I'm angry.   

  17. 4 minutes ago, midtown said:

    Hey pharma companies we need a new drug therapy or vaccine for a new disease and if you spend billions to develop it we might take away your patents.   Are you up for that?

    They aren't proposing to take the patents away though. It is a short term waiver for this particular purpose. I doubt this does much to get additional vaccine doses available, but I also doubt it really does anything to hurt the pharma companies financially. 

  18. 3 minutes ago, Viper said:

    you've agreed to let me sleep on your couch for a week to help me out, what's wrong with me taking the title to your house now and moving in?

    That's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason why the waiver cannot be temporary and limited. And that's what I've seen discussed. Do you refuse to allow friends to crash the night with you for fear they may try and take your house? 

  19. 4 minutes ago, Viper said:

    From an finance and economics professor at GMU discusses why patents are not the problem, what is the problem, and how to fix it.

     

    So if private companies have said they will not enforce their patents in the short term (e.g., Moderna licensing for free), and they aren't going to lose money since the primary problem is manufacturing processes not subject to IP protection anyway, what exactly is the harm in including a clear IP waiver as part of a larger assistance strategy? Y'all can call it virtue signaling if you want I suppose, but I'm just not seeing any harm in doing it. While IP may not be among the primary or even secondary things preventing vaccine manufacturing from starting in other countries, I'm sure it has been identified by countries and the companies within them as a potential down the line problem and may delay needed investment to get things moving. I'd get the opposition if we were talking about long term invalidation of broad array of patents, but my understanding is that proposed waivers would be more limited. 

    That said, I agree it makes sense to spend the vast majority of our energy on other issues preventing vaccine rollout. But I'm not sure we aren't doing that. 

  20. 18 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

    Do people actually think that this vaccine is safe for... say, a 20 year old but unsafe for a 12 or 13 year old?

    I think it is reasonable to be cautious given the lack of any real danger from Covid-19 to that cohort. And it may not be unsafe in the sense that the vaccine isn't associated with any substantial risk, but unsafe in the sense that its very minor risks may actually outweigh its benefits for that age group. I hope and think we will get more data that confirms its beneficial for all age groups. But until then caution isn't unreasonable. 

    I'll add for everyone else that while I believe there should eventually be some government effort to require people get vaccinated (the scope and conditions of that effort undetermined), I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea that any such government requirements should wait until there is more long term data on the vaccine. Until that time, softer efforts to encourage voluntary vaccination may be more appropriate. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  21. I can't believe I missed this one live. Oh well, I guess I got to see the previous fireworks as they happened. Amazing things are happening. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  22. 18 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    I don't know if they have a safety key, but we had a treadmill for several years (for an ultimately failed project involving a scale R/C model airplane), and it had a safety key that had to be inserted (tied to a strap that theoretically you had on your wrist) that would shut it down.  Also, the clearance at the back was just a couple of inches.

    Those Pelotons have a helluva lot of clearance. 

    They do. But, like most of those keys, they are also usually left in or with the device. 

×
×
  • Create New...