J.C.MacSwell

They're a pretty good, and very knowledgeable, group here. Hang in there. Not even remotely, given the evidence he's actually presented. Even his wildest claims seem to fall short, considering the gap. Adam Schiff level of credibility. Fortunately this won't take four years... Unfortunately now until January 20 may be the most critical phase of the pandemic.

No doubt

You do and +1. I'm not sure where you're heading with this but nothing you've said so far should be considered controversial. Maybe I'm just naive and iNow knows better.

Assuming you mean the latest Orwellian definition: He could possibly believe that...as suggested by my second question, but probably even for him only if the election was truly close, and there was potentially enough election fraud to make it questionable. So far there is no sign of that as a plausibility, despite his claims. If in fact he does have significant evidence he's done an excellent job of holding it back. Nor is there any sign that the Supreme Court would do any more than interpret the Laws and Constitution, and certainly nothing to the degree he would require, The most obvious reason for him to nominate the candidates he did was to keep the Court from becoming more "balanced" by Judges willing to change the actual meaning of the Laws and Constitution on grounds the Democrats consider moral, rather than have them changed by Congress. But that might be more the GOP than Trump himself, other than his being able to point to it as something he got done...

Most seem to acknowledge that Biden is the likely winner and many seem to admit that Biden should be allowed to prepare for office for the sake of America. Few acknowledge that Trump owes anything to the Democrats, even though they most certainly won the Presidential election. You might not agree that they're saving face but politically they are all tenable positions. Let's not pretend both sides don't play politics, even if often to the detriment of their constituents. Poor time to do it though, given the pandemic and how Trump is handling it. Do you seriously believe that? Or simply believe that to be Trump's hope or strategy?

Thanks again!

So generally speaking, you can't directly compare a 90% claim to a 95% one, you have to look further and the 90% claim could be the better one? (without even considering statistical variance but just method) Thinking about the numbers: If I'm interpreting it correctly, since it is unlikely that 5% of even the placebo group would get the virus with only a normal exposure distribution....would that mean that the unvaccinated group is simply 20 times more likely to get it given overall similar circumstances and makeup of each group? (or something close to that?) Not asking specifically about the latest claims...just generally what 95% would mean, or perhaps should mean for such claims.

Thanks CY!

What exactly does the 95% effective mean? Only one in 20 gets the virus? To what degree and with what degree of exposure? One in 20 never gets sick? Never gets symptoms? Never tests positive? Never able to spread the virus? Get it but not as badly as they would have? (how would they compare this?) I'm assuming never tests positive but what exposure level is tested? How would the numbers look with no vaccine and same test?

Trump 2024 "Make America Grate Again!"

There might come a time when Mitsubishi robots would strongly disagree...at which point we might be in trouble.

Once one starts, the rest might feel the need to follow suit even if their results are preliminary, just to make sure they don't "miss out".

Vaccine questions It seems the Phizer vaccine may not be the only option upcoming. Any harm, generally speaking, in taking more than one vaccine targeting the same thing? I'm not talking about follow up shots of the same vaccine. I would expect one would not take 2 at once, but spread them out sufficiently to allow time for an immune response. Would taking an early one exclude or delay taking a possibly better future one?

Ugh...I thought mine was gross!😅

Salute to 2020 Ice Cream Flavour:

Or at least they were....43 years ago!!!

+1 iNow https://www.cbsnews.com/news/million-maga-march-washington-dc-trumps-motorcade-passes-supporters/

But we...we seem so domesticate-able...

I guess if they're going to take us for nice walks and pick up our poop...then signal away!

The rich ones get tired of that artificial crap. They await fresh signals from emerging but naive intelligence...

The closest, Hipparcos 43587, is about 41 light years away, so we still have a number of years before the aliens come and eat us.

This seems to be the recommendation when ceiling fans are used. examples: "Rooms where ceiling fans are used should have an upward airflow rotation". http://www.algomapublichealth.com/disease-and-illness/infectious-diseases/novel-coronavirus/covid-19-advice-religious-services-rites-and-ceremonies/ or  "When using ceiling or portable fans, use upward airflow rotation": .https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/8d59-Fact-Sheet_Novel-Coronavirus.pdf but no explanation whatsoever as to why... They must have gotten it from somewhere. I would suggest, without knowing their reasoning, that ceiling fans on their own aren't great in either direction without knowing more about the air flow patterns that they facilitate. Upward flow where people tend to accumulate may be better than downward turbulence directed at them (and then heading toward others), but why should the air not be drawn downward as laminarly as feasible and removed or filtered?

Actually his refraining from rolling in the Trump mud and at least seeming to focus on working toward governing for everyone is what has impressed me. Pretty uncrowded territory for the last 4 years...hopefully he can maintain it.

Bumped into this on youtube: Not sure why it came up watching and listening to Helen Reddy (recently deceased), but thought it might be of interest here.