swansont

Developing COVID and developing symptoms are different things. The website is quite clear that the numbers are infections, and that infection and "developing COVID" are the same thing. You keep insinuating that this is deceptive, and yet have provided no evidence to the contrary. Your graph doesn't distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, so for this discussion it's irrelevant, and I've already linked to a rigorous study where everybody was tested. This is also true of the original clinical trials (such as https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577). Do you have anything pertinent to offer?

We have a vaccine mandate, so the letter of the law needs to be spelled out. The annoying thing is I got my first two shots at Walter Reed, so these records are already somewhere in the system, and yet my colleagues and I still have to fill out paperwork to confirm the information the system already has.

In the form I recently had to fill out, it was quite clearly defined as two weeks after the second shot if it's a two-shot vaccine, and two weeks after the shot of it's a one-shot vaccine. Which is a reason to pay attention to results from clinical trials and controlled tests, which do this rigorously, and show that the vaccines are effective in reducing infection.

These statements are incompatible, because the equations of relativity show that length and time are quite clearly relative

Not strictly true. We did neutrino spectrometry measurements via momentum reconstruction when I was a postdoc at TRIUMF (in the TRINAT group) back in the 90s and they've continued the work. The neutrinos weren't generated directly in the cyclotron collisions, but we were most definitely at the site.

Seriously? How do you develop COVID other than by infection? The COVID fairy? You also might note that just above that passage, where they present the numbers, they say "rate of infection per 100,000" so clearly the two descriptions mean the same thing, and I didn't misrepresent anything. What straws are you clutching at here? Here's the whole shebang

Here’s more data from Virginia, US https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/see-the-numbers/covid-19-in-virginia/covid-19-cases-by-vaccination-status/ Unvaccinated got infected at 4.6 times the rate as fully vaccinated, data from Jan 17 2021 through Nov 20. Except your graph doesn’t show the relevant information. “reliability” is moot

Symptoms ≠ deaths These charts don’t have proper labels, so I don’t know what they’re showing. There’s nothing there that distinguishes between symptomatic and asymptomatic cases, and whether the people were vaccinated meanwhile https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/cdc-unvaccinated-5-times-more-likely-get-covid-19 new data from Los Angeles County collected from May to July, which show unvaccinated peoplewere 5 times more likely to get COVID-19 than vaccinated peers

The claim was about infection, not asymptomatic infection. If it reduces symptomatic infection, it reduces infection. (Unless you have evidence that it increases asymptomatic transmission to offset this) And? This anecdote is in no way contradictory to the studies that show reduced transmission. But… Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm No evidence has been presented that this 90% is actually zero.

Citation needed, for this suggestion that the vaccines are not effective at preventing infection. This flies in the face of reports of their effectiveness that show this very thing.

iNow has not, so far as I can tell, taken ownership of a binary system. Asking how you assign people to a category is a reasonable request. Yet you resist answering, as most others have resisted my request to define what they mean by sex. Because these definitions have proven inadequate in resulting in a binary system. At which point people stall, toss in red herrings and or get angry and lash out. That’s a false dichotomy You can use a binary classification as a first-order approximation and also acknowledge that it will fail to work when you delve deeper into the issue. IOW, you can use a binary system for situations where you’ve narrowed the scope of inquiry. Here, you’ve limited the application to reproduction, but not all humans are capable of reproduction.

Yes it’s the gradient, and to rephrase what studiot pointed out, the gradient of what? It’s not the gradient of r, it operates on the wave function. As to your question, what does the wave function of a variable-mass system look like?

The time is a factor; there’s a difference between a chronic and an acute dose. When the exposure is spread out, the body has a chance to heal; this is generally more important for higher doses than what you get in an x-ray.

I agree with the latter, but I don’t know what place opinion has in the discussion. It’s about science, and evidence. Or at least, it’s supposed to be.

No. Pu-244 has a half-life of 81 million years

What premise is that? I asked for a definition of sex, and asked what makes on male or female. How is that wrong, or absurd? AFAICT the only premise I introduced was that definitions are important. They’re a rebuttal to the notion that you must be capable of giving birth to be female. If you can’t follow the discussion, perhaps refrain from posting. It’s OT, but there’s no way for you to know this.

The question was about sex, not gender. No, they aren’t the same. This was acknowledged in the OP

What if you have both XX and XY? It’s not my thread. Part of this is an exercise in “you need to define your terms in order to have a proper discussion”

No, I looked at the definition you offered. Your sex is the sex chromosome. There are more than 2 possibilities. As I said, you need to revise your definition. There you go. New definition. What if an individual produces both? (chimera) What about “males” suffering from azoospermia (they do not produce sperm)? I am also far from an expert. But… finding flaws in the simplistic definitions offered up to show two sexes hasn’t proven to be difficult thus far. I know from my experience that physics is far more complicated and subtle than what you learn in high school, so it’s not difficult to imagine that the same holds for biology.

But you gave a definition: “The sex chromosomes you have, surely? You can be XY or XX. Or, in rare cases of genetic malfunction, you can be XXY or XYY.” That’s four, not two (and there are even more). There’s no wiggle room here - you can’t have it both ways. Either there’s more than two, or you need a different definition. Yes, exactly.

Having people wait 15 minutes before leaving. That suggests that adverse reactions like anaphylaxis are expected to be pretty much immediate. Those are side effects, which AFAIK are not anaphylactic-like reactions.

But two is two, and you acknowledge there are more than two. “merely defects” is weaseling out of it. It’s just ignoring contrary evidence that doesn’t fit with your definition.

So menopause is where a female becomes male? Puberty is the opposite? A hysterectomy or tubal ligation is a sex change? Which means the answer to the OP is “yes” according to this. —— Interesting we have already been offered two very different definitions

Define what you mean by “sex” What makes you male, or female?

! Moderator Note Why is this in religion? You seem to be making science claims here. Are you prepared to support them?