Compared to the flu at 1.3, that's bad. I'll just have to hope it's on the low end of those estimates, only one order of magnitude worse than a bad flu at spreading, but it's looking worse already.

If a predicted up to (+-)114000000 dead worldwide (3% mortality if only 50% are infected) is the bright side, that's pretty horrific.

If you're right about hospitals being unprepared, and I think you are, the mortality rate will climb. The military should be building temporary medical/quarantine facilities now....and maybe cremation facilities. That was an issue in China.

Today the WHO upgraded Coronavirus to "pandemic". (Only about a month after it matched the definition)
New numbers show it's actual mortality rate is likely around 3.4% , average flu mortality is as low as .05%. (Way more testing is needed to verify that 3.4% number)

What we don't know is the rate of transmission, but it appears to be exceptionally high.
What we also don't know is that infection leads to permanent immunity. There are numerous reported cases of people being released after treatment, testing negative, then getting infected again. It's rare, and may be due to poor testing, but just assuming you can only get it once is rolling the dice with life or death stakes. I had chicken pox twice...the common misconception is that's impossible.

Interesting info, but whoever produced the video made some really questionable editorial decisions. Commas separated values over 1000, except for periods used in #1. What's with the "big stuff" in the background? How do the heights of various buildings compared to things like mountains and the size of Halley's comet relate to these mortality figures?

Just... weird. Good video though, in spite of that

You have never said anything as brain numbingly stupid as this idiotic comment.
Trump and the truth are mortal enemies. No American politician has ever been 1/4 as dishonest as Trump. Well over 16000 verified lies, falsehoods, misrepresentations, and misleading statements since taking office, and the count continues to not only rise, but accelerate.
Once again, your tenuous grasp on reality causes you to insist black is white, wrong is right, and lies are truth. Get help. You are seriously delusional.

Btw, well over 1/2 of Americans want him removed from office, so those cultist Americans who are still on his side are becoming fewer and farther between daily as actual information becomes public.

A good, even *quality idea....for 40+ years ago.

It took 100+ years to mortally wound the ocean by 1000 cuts. A bandaid on one wound is not going to turn it around, and we almost certainly aren't going to do it anyway. Countries that don't buy into the plan will simply harvest most of the fish left by those who do. This only works in small scale preserves that are guarded against poaching, often by a military.

Fish stocks are disappearing at an alarming rate, many going extinct. For those species, it's too late, and they are numerous, and they are largely the fish humans prefer. Many others are in such decline fishing for them is already off limits or severely curtailed, like commercial salmon, abalone, and crab fishing in California. Even those actions have failed to revive their populations year after year.

Diatoms, phytoplankton, and other similar biotas are at the limit of acidity and temperature they can tolerate, and they are the base of the ocean food web, feeding most fish when they are fry or larvae. The gasses in the atmosphere today will push diatoms over that precipice with a massive ocean extinction following soon afterwards, and we continue to add more greenhouse gases than we added yesterday every day.

Then there's habitat loss, coral reefs and kelp forests are both being decimated by temperature rise and acidification. Together they are food and habitat for 25%-50% of all ocean fish and shellfish.

Less over harvesting of the ocean is a good idea, but pretending it alone can save the oceans is pure fantasy. The ocean has absorbed as much as 90+% of the excess heat from global warming, causing oceanic heat waves that destroy habitats both directly and indirectly. There is NO plan that solves that problem, it's well beyond our capabilities under the best conditions with worldwide maximum efforts.

Just sayin'.

Yes, they have lower rates. But the point isn't that the rates are the same (they're not), the point is that the rates are low enough to not have an immediate fear of them. An immediate fear would be unwarranted and irrational.

E.g. you probably don't fear dying every time you hop into a vehicle because it has a relatively low risk of killing you (even though the risk is much higher than that of being killed in a homicide by firearm). Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

You probably don't fear dying in a general accident (i.e. including all work place and public accidents together). Even though it represents about 170,000 deaths a year (an number so large it makes the topic of firearms deaths look like a joke), it is still a relatively low risk. Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

This is not to suggest that these things are not to be respected. We must try and reduce all mortality and morbidity. But you need to be effective at it. This is public health. You choose the method that will have the largest effect.

For example, you will have a bigger effect restricting sugar intake to reduce diabetes deaths, which outnumber homicide by firearm deaths by about an order of magnitude.

The majority of the 40k firearm deaths consist of suicides. There is an important distinction between homicide (the topic) and suicide. Don't mix them up if the topic is homicide by firearm.

Go look at what is actually killing people:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

If you dress up your car like a zebra, you should expect to be rolled by a rhino. Mortal enemies, don't ya know. You've never seen a Chevy Impala in the lion pen have you?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

Since she says her flyers are from God, I thought it fitting to leave this here...

In the Summa Theologiae, Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas said Greed: "it is a sin directly against one's neighbor, since one man cannot over-abound in external riches, without another man lacking them... it is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, inasmuch as man contemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things."

"The world would be a better place without religion..."

Maybe. Probably not. We just can't will it into non-existence regardless. My hypothetical concern is, say we do get rid of all religion (by what? Burn all the books? Put them all in an Island? Killing them all once and for all? I'd LOVE to know your methods... but hey, off topic), then what? Human by nature will believe and follow in something/someone... Chinese followed their religion-banning dear leader MZD to their deaths by the millions. Germans got played into Nazis by a charismatic madman that resulted in WWII... my point is, we can't let any harmful idealism fall into the hands of charismatic leaders that cause real harm and be silent. Star Wars (and its mortal religious rival Trekkies) is a registered, legit religion to some but mostly for fun and harmless. Trumpism is arguably a religion itself in America now, and alt-right ideals are spreading all over the world from its aftermath that's 100% harmful IMO.

Religion as a practice can do immense good & evil in equal measure. We should all do our part in not letting people in power weaponize religion.

"Its the biggest sham in human history. " IMO, it's people in (religious/political) power that twists religion into a sham. And continues to. I blame these people, not the religion. Don't let these douchebags have their way!

A lot of people (majority even) fails to put the words of these religious books into historical context. Civilizations and cultures
evolve. Societal practices and knowledge of the physical world too. Look into the intent and context, then it'll do good. Twist religion into self-serving gavel of judgement (to others, NEVER to oneself!) then nothing good will come of it.

"Just goes to show how stupid the sheeple are."

Thing is, people get into (and out of ) religion for all kinds of reasons. Calling them all sheeple and stupid isn't doing anyone good service, merely shows your narrow view of religion (and stereotyping people of faith) more than anything, no? It's as wrong as a priest calling atheists must be lacking of a moral compass.

I'm with you in your disdain for mindlessness.

Are there sheeple? OF COURSE. Are blind followers stupid? Yes to a degree. But IMO these sheeple are stupid not because they're into a faith, but follow the words and commands blindly of their faith leaders without thinking of the intentions and lacking a firm grasp of reality and consequences.

We need to eliminate sheeple mentality, religious absolutism and self-righteousness that disrespect others, that thinks one is better than others because of following a religion.

I'm fine calling out the ridiculous among them, I do so in my church. Just don't call and treat everyone a sheeple. Besides, sheeple is not exclusive to religion, there are Apple sheeple, celebrity sheeple, political sheeple. Do we treat all of these people as sheeple with disdain?

But man... it's extremely disheartening to see the state of religion in the USA. I can see why some people are so against it there. I seriously can't feel defensive about it if I'm a US citizen, because watching videos like these do make sensible people wanting to punch that guy. But how can people NOT see through the idiocy and out right ban/disown that shit? That's the most concerning to me of American Christianity.

Hmm, happiest and most productive countries in the world are "socialist states" in comparison to the US. Scandinavian countries, Canada, most of Europe.

Meanwhile, the US with its ultra-right government has some of the poorest health outcomes, educational outcomes, life expectancy, infant mortality, crime rates, murder rates, social unrest, happiness indicators, etc. etc. etc. of all developed nations.

Nobody believes you @bobknight33 you are full of crap.

Meanwhile, Hawaii, New York, California, Maryland continue to do very well for themselves while Kansas goes right down the tubes.

Sucks when theory and reality don't match, eh Bob? I guess you'll just go and throw out reality again (obviously it's flawed).

Funny, but the robbers had axes. The owners had a defensible position and swords. Since this is known now, the robbers can bring bows and...soon you end back up with guns.

The only alternative to this is to disarm everyone, knowing the criminals will not obey, and hope that the 'safer' weapons the criminals do use will at least allow for a less wounded victim. This method also relies on the victim to capitulate completely in mortal fear.

Many might prefer the second method, I do not. Sadly, most nutjobs and criminals know that good targets can be found in any state, some much more than others but realistically any state is vulnerable.

Why? Because even in gun friendly states, 'gun free' zones exist. Nine times out of ten, that 'gun free' zone is going to be the target. You will hear stories that say "Oh, a person was shot at a gun range/show" or "Chris Kyle was killed with a friend at a gune range." What those stories leave out are the details, because the headline is what matters when you are pushing an agenda.

The gun range Chris Kyle was shot at is an outdoor one, the three men were alone and isolated. The mental one shot two men and fled. You will hardly read that, usually the image they want to present is that multiple other gun owners were standing around and did nothing.

You will see stories about people shot at other ranges or at gun shows. What they generally won't mention is that almost all of them are due to either a self wound (suicide) or an accidental shooting from poor handling.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/magazine/black-mothers-babies-death-maternal-mortality.html

Bob, you are a bigot. So is this person.

Your video, MORTAL ENGINES Trailer 2 (2018), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 12 Badge!

It is very different and poppy compared to previous stuff for sure. I like it in the context of the song, even though overall I prefer Tool's prog/metal melding.

I'm not a Maynard whisperer / expert, but my guess is that there are 2 motivations for the sound of this song/album compared to other stuff.

1) Although Maynard is the vocalist for Tool, APC, and Puscifer (which I haven't listened to much), he kinda wants to keep all those projects distinct. Tool is more dark and heavy, APC is a bit more rock, and Puscifer trending towards some electronic stuff. But that kinda oversells this, because mostly he is putting vocals down onto musical tracks that the members of those bands have already recorded without much or any input from him...

2) From my interpretation of the song itself, he's being (mildly) critical about getting caught up in triviality of celebrity gossip and nightly news instead of paying attention to stuff closer to home. While simultaneously accepting that we all do that, and that sometimes it takes the death of a far-off idol from our adolescence that we'll never meet in person to get us to consider our own mortality.


So the poppy sound with that dark edge right around the corner really fits -- at least to me.