Twitter researchers analyzed millions of 2020 tweets by elected officials in seven countries " Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and United States " as well as posts that linked to political content from news outlets. Researchers relied on outside experts to determine what was right- or left-leaning rather than deciding for themselves.

"Our results reveal a remarkably consistent trend: In 6 out of 7 countries studied, the mainstream political right enjoys higher algorithmic amplification than the mainstream political left," researchers said in a 27-page report.

I guess when you have no platform, no issues, and a complete devotion to the cult of a sociopathic personality, reality is whatever you say that it is - ie. post policy meets social media domination.

Rolovich was the highest-paid state employee with an annual salary of more than $3 million in a contract that runs through 2025. He has been asked repeatedly for weeks to expand upon the reasoning for his refusal to get vaccinated but has declined to provide clarity.

"While much has been made of the relatively small number of university employees who are not complying with the Governor's mandate, we are immensely gratified that nearly 90 percent of WSU employees and 97 percent of our students are now vaccinated," said Washington State president Kirk Schulz. "WSU students, faculty, and staff understand the importance of getting vaccinated and wearing masks so that we can safely return to in-person learning and activities. I am proud of all those members of our community who have set the example and taken the steps to protect not just themselves, but their fellow Cougs."

I just don't see any intelligence in a decision that your conscious is more important than a $3.5 million job during a global pandemic which has killed almost 3/4 million Americans over the last year and a half.

Too soon. Complicated legacy for a loyal US servant and military leader, forever tied to a catastrophic indefensible decision still reverberating almost 20 years later.

Rest in peace Colin.

FYI, let's look at the U-6 [you know - the real number]:

Yeah, let's look at it - for this entire year, 2021:

Jan 21 - 12% (Trump's last month)

Mar 21 - 10.9%

Jun 21 - 10.1%

Jul 21 - 9.6%

Aug 21 - 8.9%

Sep 21 - 8.1%

The investigators noted several trends among survivors, such as:

*General well-being: More than half of all patients reported weight loss, fatigue, fever, or pain.

*Mobility: Roughly one in five survivors experienced a decrease in mobility.

*Neurologic concerns: Nearly one in four survivors experienced difficulty concentrating.

*Mental health disorders: Nearly one in three patients were diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorders.

*Lung abnormalities: Six in 10 survivors had chest imaging abnormality and more than a quarter of patients had difficulty breathing.

*Cardiovascular issues: Chest pain and palpitations were among the commonly reported conditions.

*Skin conditions: Nearly one in five patients experienced hair loss or rashes.

*Digestive issues: Stomach pain, lack of appetite, diarrhea, and vomiting were among the commonly reported conditions.

"These findings confirm what many health care workers and COVID-19 survivors have been claiming, namely, that adverse health effects from COVID-19 can linger," says co-lead investigator Vernon Chinchilli, chair of the public health sciences department at Penn State University.

"Although previous studies have examined the prevalence of long COVID symptoms among patients, this study examined a larger population, including people in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, and examined many more symptoms. Therefore, we believe our findings are quite robust given the available data."

Just another reason to stay COVID-free - if possible death and painful debilitating hospitalization weren't already reason enough.

#2

Yep, but the actual historical truths of slavery - and its still ongoing legacy and impact - hurts modern white people's fee-fees, so we must not allow such conversations to happen in public because their tender psyches are so delicately fragile.

The estimate by researchers backed by the Peterson Center on Healthcare and the Kaiser Family Foundation focused on deaths of U.S. adults from June 2021 -- when the report says coronavirus vaccines became widely available to the general public -- through September.

But around half of those preventable deaths occurred in September, due to the spread of the more contagious delta variant, easing social distancing rules, and the lower vaccination rate among younger adults, according to the study.

In September, covid-19 was the leading cause of death for adults between ages 35 and 54, while it was the second most common reason for mortality among the larger population, even when including data for children under 15 years old, the study showed.

Most notably, by the time it was really known what we were dealing with such mitigation efforts would have been too late.

Not at all. You still don't get it. The virus only spreads if it can find new hosts to infect. Take away hosts, kill the virus. The 6-8 week timeframe allows for those already or newly infected that aren't destined to die to recover, and if the virus is unable to find any new hosts, it will die out from circulation.

Of course, coordinated world-wide mitigation is impossible. That's where vaccines come in. They are the only practical way to remove billions of potential hosts from spreading the infection. Vaccines don't have to work forever, they only need to be effective long enough for the virus to reach an R0 of 1 or less. And if annual shots are necessary to keep said spread at or below R0, that's a small price to pay in comparison to the last 18 months.

... happen locally and over longer stretches of time.

Silver lining, I guess.

Maybe, but I call it evolution. I wrote about this in Feb./March of last year. It's not because I'm prescient, it's because I pay attention to history and apply logic and common sense.

Global pandemics are seismic events. They are one of the few conditions outside of World Wars and catastrophic natural disasters that can affect most everyone at the same time even though lingering effects happenly locally and over longer stretches of time.

Long story short, our economy had no alternative but to change for the new reality. Some businesses had to die and others were created for the first time. It's economic Darwinism and many businesses are struggling to adapt to the reality of workers having more leverage than they do for the first time in decades.

But another reality has always been this: If everyone on the planet would have effectively worn a mask when in public for around 6-8 weeks, we could have killed the spread of the virus long ago. If you take away new hosts, viruses die. This is why "lockdowns" were tried in the first place. But those refusing to effectively mitigate made sure that such efforts would fail.

Serious question Bellringer: Did you catch the flu or have a bad cold last winter?

If you didn't, did that make you happy?

Reality is not as draconian as you make it out to be. I've been mask-free when around friends that I know are vaccinated and especially when around only a person or two. But I still find myself keeping a little distance between us, though we do hug and touch but keeping our faces away from each other.

I'm hyper-aware of airspace and airflow. I'll converse unmasked with a small group of strangers in a well aerated room, but not among a large group of strangers like those found in stores. But COVID or no, I already decided that I'll continue to wear masks in stores and in groups of people during the winter flu seasons moving forward.

Good lord, I never understood why so many urban-dwelling Asians always wear masks in public settings. Now I get it, and yes, as a society they are far more logically aware than we've been in this regards.

#80

When R0 equals or is less than 1.

Cloth masks have very little effectiveness.

Properly used, they are far better than no mask at all.

I haven't used a cloth mask since this pandemic started. Early on, I had an N95-lined sports mask - not one that would be used by healthcare personnel. Since earlier this year, I've been wearing nothing but N95 masks - of the non-surgical variety.

The delta variant is not effectively stopped by cloth masks only - but again ANY mask is better at mitigating viral spread than none at all. But N95's are easily obtained and I don't leave home without a supply of them to share with my friends who aren't aware that better protecting masks are now ubiquitous.

#68 | Posted by BellRinger
#69 | Posted by Skeptical

Has the CDC/NIH or any state health organization EVER publicly called for non-vaccinated people to go unmasked in public indoor settings? Was there EVER a recommendation for the non-vaccinated to ignore mitigation protocols when in public settings?

Outdoors, during the summer season, unless people are closely packed together, of course you see most not wearing masks any longer. But as Billy_Boy notes, summer is over and winter is around the corner. And those who refuse to wear masks in indoor public settings will likely fuel a twindemic of both a rise in flu and covid infections.

I live in a deep red state but many of my Republican friends understand that viruses aren't political, they're infectious pathogens with the ability to sicken and kill. Even though I'm fully vaccinated and days away from being fully-boosterized (my booster shot was around 9 days ago) I've continued to wear a mask when indoors among any people I do not know and when I see others wearing their masks (about 30-40% of those I encounter) I see people who care as much as I do about stopping the spread of the virus - especially as delta washed across this nation.

I don't say a word to non masked wearers nor act differently towards them. But I don't want them around me nor in my airspace. I demand the freedom not to breathe what unmasked non-vaccinated persons spew out.

1619 got blasted by historians on all sides of the aisle.

This specifically talked about denying healthcare (to the extent it's publicly funded) to the unvaxxed.

To an extent. Again, the question is what responsibility comes with any individual expressing their personal "freedom" when it comes times for the rest of society to be affected by their decisions?

But my point is not to "deny" anything to anyone. You use the same false comparisons over and over. If a person claims the right NOT to take a publicly-provided preventative medication - which costs $20/dose - that protects both them and the rest of us from a virus, then why should the rest of us - as taxpayers - be responsible for paying for a $2000/dose therapeutic drug when the contract the virus? Isn't it their SOLE responsibility to bear the costs of their decision?

Where is MY freedom not to pay for the poor decisions of others who refused available preventatives and then caught a disease? Since when does their "freedom" include any responsibility to the rest of us to subsidize it?

Again, since when did freedom not come with the attendant "personal responsibility" for dealing with the results of exercising said freedom?

And this is especially germane because the vast bulk of these people claiming their "freedom" are the very ones who view many public policies as encroaching "socialism" when they involve helping people they don't like or philosophically agree with. Talk about a hypocritical viewpoint.

Does that apply to people who are obese? What about people who contract HIV as a result of promiscuous and unprotected sex? Where do we draw the line?

Talk about non sequiturs, smh. Do any of those mentioned above pose a threat to the general public by simply breathing and expelling a potentially lethal pathogen which can silently enter the bodies of others, infecting them without their knowledge?

Again, the issue is a worldwide pandemic and its spread through airborne particulates that others breath in, not STDs nor eating disorders.

You define "selfishness" as opposing what certain people demand you do to your own body.

No I do not and I never have. Thanks for confirming that you indeed are a stunod.

People have every right to do whatever is within the law - in the confines of their own homes where their decisions affect no one but themselves. People do not have the right to enter public spaces and potentially infect others with a widely preventable disease when the government will pay for preventative medicine that almost insures the disease will not be spread further - particularly to those who cannot take the preventative medicine due to their own health conditions.

Our government was formed to protect and promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is what regulating public health is completely about - life and health.

In your parlance, actively trying to stop suicide would qualify as an authoritarian overreach by government.

And let's be straight for the last time: People have every right to control whatever they put into their bodies. People DO NOT have the right to enter into public spaces and endanger the health and welfare of others who are taking reasonable precautions to protect themselves from getting sick or dying from a novelcoronavirus that has killed 700,000+ Americans over the last 18 months. You have the freedom to stay at home. If you want to enter public spaces then government has the right to protect vulnerable citizens from the recklessness and selfishness of those who'd willingly continue to publicly spread a virus by refusing to voluntarily protect themselves and others.

Again, settled law, not authoritarianism, it's government's responsibility. It's incredible that those like you continue to talk about rights without ever speaking to responsibilities. What responsibility does any individual have to the rest of us in society? None?

If those unwilling to mitigate (notice, non-vaxxed can wear masks and take non-medical precautions to also stop the spread of disease, but most don't) want to talk about their freedom, then they should take sole responsibility for their fates should them become infected - eschewing all medical/pharmaceutical help and/or paying for all of their care themselves since they refused the recommended preventative care offered to them for free.

What price should those exercising their freedom be forced to pay because I'm sick and tired of paying for it with my own inability to safely and freely traverse public spaces due the health decisions they make for themselves which might negatively impact me?

#23

Please keep your advice to yourself. The day I take advice from you will never come.

As for my use of "freedumb" I explained it quite nicely. If you weren't a self-absorbed stunod, you might have noticed that my use of the term was not partisan-exclusive. My point is that personal public displays of selfishness has become far more obtrusive and regular than it was before the pandemic, and you yourself have admitted that stresses from this crisis has negatively changed the behavior of many.

The public good as it regards public health induced governmental regulations has been settled law since 1905. It has yet to be overturned. Everyone claiming that anything being done today is somehow against the law doesn't know the law.

So as it regards the public good and state and local government's power to dictate health initiatives during times of pandemic, it is you who needs a primer on the truth. No one is "grabbing power" when government tries to maintain the health of its constituents. Life and health are the only things governments are trying to promote and they gain no permanent extra powers by doing so. They are protecting the public from others who will spread disease through their own obstinance and refusal to voluntarily contribute to the public good - which is the foundation of everyone's freedom.

This issue is more nuanced than it appears. The author mentioned important facts that better illuminate the current situation. Since the pandemic hit, many people with the means have either stopped going out to retail establishments or will only visit places where they feel safer - ie. businesses that put public health at the forefront of their practices. I and millions of other Americans have now become accustomed to having almost everything delivered to our homes due to the very reason we see how the "freedumb" crowd has now claimed it their "right" to inhabit most public spaces sans mitigation, places I refuse to be around.

So yes, a great deal of the open hostility shown to workers dealing with in person customers is an offshoot of the same "freedumb" movement underpinning anti-vax sentiments, claiming public spaces as their god-given own regardless of their effect on other people - whose rights they no longer care about nor consider when doing so conflicts with their own desires.

The emphasis on the individual - amplified during this crisis which affects everyone to varying degrees - has seeped into normal aspects of public life in general, and it's driven by the same selfish ethos - what "I" want or desire supersedes the concerns of others that might be affected by my actions and decisions. Comity, community, and even common decency have become optional depending upon how any individual feels in any given moment.

And yes, in many ways our law enforcement authorities have not only shown no interest in upholding laws and regulations, they themselves exhibit the same behaviors and ethos found in those acting aggressively in public often without suffering any immediate consequences whatsoever.

Such is how societies break down into social decay leading to eventual widespread unrest.

Aggressive and violent clashes between customers and service workers over COVID safety protocols over the past nearly two years have led to prison sentences, fines and deaths.

Businesses have shut down in support of their employees. Some industries have provided self-defense classes and banded together on public awareness campaigns.

Workers in restaurants, bars, hotels (6.8%) and retail (4.7%) businesses quit at a higher rate in August than the record national rate (2.9%), new data from the Labor Department on Tuesday showed.

What they're saying: "I was extremely lucky to work in a place where the employer treated the employees well and everyone made excellent money. ... [Customers] did make me quit," former bartender who goes by Ash in West Virginia, tells Axios Today.

"What really hurts is that the same people whining about people on unemployment were the same people who would come in and treat the people actually working like [crap]," she continued, saying that she also moved to Michigan.

"[As] an essential business - [we] continued to work tirelessly through the entire pandemic ... All we ask for in return is empathy, courtesy and understanding," says Casey Carville, who runs a group of nonprofit veterinary clinics in Texas.

If consumer behavior doesn't improve, more workers may leave, putting the workers who stay at more risk of abuse and placing even greater challenges on businesses to operate.

Workers' fears would likely abate if more Americans get vaccinated and the risk of getting infected on the job declines. That would also allow businesses and local governments to ease up on mask mandates that workers are often tasked with enforcing.

Until their elder son started kindergarten this fall, Jessica and Matt Lolley paid almost $2,000 a month for their two boys' care - roughly a third of their income and far more than their payments on their three-bedroom house. But one of the teachers who watched the boys earns so little - $10 an hour - that she spends half her time working at Starbucks, where the pay is 50 percent higher and includes health insurance.

Democrats describe the problem as a fundamental market failure " it simply costs more to provide care than many families can afford " and are pushing an unusually ambitious plan to bridge the gap with federal subsidies.

The huge social policy bill being pushed by President Biden would cap families' child care expenses at 7 percent of their income, offer large subsidies to child care centers, and require the centers to raise wages in hopes of improving teacher quality. A version before the House would cost $250 billion over a decade and raise annual spending fivefold or more within a few years. An additional $200 billion would provide universal prekindergarten.

"This would be the biggest investment in the history of child care," said Stephanie Schmit, a child care expert at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a research group that supports the measure. "For too long, parents have had to struggle with the high cost of care, while child care providers have been incredibly undervalued and underpaid. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do right for everyone."

As Democrats describe it, child care is an issue not just of family finance but of macroeconomics (parents need it to join the work force); brain development (much of which happens before children start school); and racial equity (the low-paid work force is disproportionately composed of minorities).

Until you make restitution, you should not get any rights restored.

Did you read the details at all? First, the people's amendment - which affirminately received 2/3rds of the vote - contained no such stipulation. The legislature inserted their own will to blunt what the voters actually passed because they deemed the new law would hurt the Republican Party at the ballot box. This is not a valid reason for passing laws. The law does not serve the Florida people, it only serves the GOP's political objective to limit ballot access to who they perceive as likely voters for other parties.

Second, Florida never had a comprehensive database or systems that kept track of these debts, making it impossible for many former convicts to even find out how much and to whom they owe money. If there are no or incomplete records, what is a person supposed to do?

Third, many of these debts have been turned over to debt collection companies which have tacked on exorbitant fees and interest onto some tabs pushing them into 10s of thousands of dollars. Not to mention that each additional court appearance adds further fees to their totals when ex-convicts try to adjudicate their new legislature-dictated situations.

Fourth, having your freedom taken away IS paying for your crime. If lawmakers are actually interested in restitution then they should create work opportunities for convicts still incarcerated to pay off their debts during their confinement, not actually add the additional sentence of being an indentured servant even after completing prison stints.