Coronavirus

[Mikado463]

Do you think AOC would wonder whether or not injecting oneself with household disinfectants might be a cure for Covid-19?

Not likely, she already tried that back in her bartending days .........

 

[highfigh]

From what I've seen of AOC (a Social Democrat in Europe terms) in committee hearings I think she would make a much better President than Trump, and have assembled a far better Cabinet.

Go ahead and think that she would be a good candidate.

 

[Swerd]

Swerd, can you help an Audioholics brother understand this?

In the process of trying to understand the T cell issues raised in the first article, I found another article entitled "Presence of SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells in COVID-19 patients and healthy donors."

If I'm reading it correctly, this one is perhaps good news because T cells from those who have not been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus may nevertheless have some activity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, possibly due to prior infections with corona viruses that cause the common cold?

The comment by the person from Mount Sinai is interesting (to the extent I understand it).

I've read the following several times, but I'm not sure I understand the significance of it.

This is a quote of the summary (abstract) for the Braun et al paper, right?

I’m not sure where you need help. Abstracts can be very hard to read, because they are highly condensed versions of the whole paper. They must include all the important data and conclusions, but they must be as short as possible. They rely on jargon and abbreviations. Reading and understanding them is especially difficult for anyone not familiar with the scientific jargon and widely understood but complex subject of T cell immune function.

I could break down the passage you quoted sentence by sentence, defining & explaining all the jargon in each sentence. But that would take a long time, and I’m not sure it would answer your question.

Instead, I suggest you download the PDF version of the paper, skip the Summary (the abstract) and read the Main section on page 3, and the Discussion on page 5. If the terms and concepts in the Main section lose you, then we can try to tackle them.

FWIW, I also liked the Mt. Sinai comments. They seem like good explanations of the paper, a summary of it's conclusions, both good & bad, as well as a brief discussion of questions raised by this paper.

A good introductory text on T cells can be found in Wikipedia. Pay attention to this section that describes the various types of T cells.

 

[highfigh]

It would be a molecular version of Kilroy Was Here graffiti.

View attachment 35700

I have a little plastic Kilroy bookmark that clips onto the pages- my dad got it when he was stationed in England during WWII.

 

[KEW]

We don't need ultra Progressives in those positions any more than we need ultra Conservatives.

That is why Biden was the best candidate among Bernie, Warren, and himself. He is the closest thing to a "return to center" that appears to be running in the next election.
It is a failing of the primary process that no other Democratic centrists made it into the final three.

Just as dangerous as someone who's out to lunch taking advantage of their advisors is advisors who take advantage of someone who's out to lunch. I don't want a 'President by committee' and it's time that the members of Congress start working for the benefit of the country, rather than their party.

I'd disagree that it is "just as dangerous"! Reason being that the president (with Trump as example) can eliminate experience and expertise around him and has done an incredible job of cowing Republicans into submission.
However, anyone in an advisory capacity is much more subject to being challenged if they start "manipulating" the president. Whistle-blowers do serve a very important function!
While this is specific to Biden, he has the decades of experience in DC to know who to put in his cabinet and in charge of committees that understand his objectives and he can trust to act in the best interest of the USA (at least as he sees it). I believe anyone with his long history will have several people who he can trust to give him good advice and apart from some sort of major delusional dementia, will always rely on them (be it chief of staff or personal assistant).
Part of my reasoning is also how in the case of the current pandemic, any conceivable president is going to be in a state of confusion (except Trump who just doesn't realize it), but the system is set up so he relies on the conclusion of experts for the decisions. That is the system Biden is steeped in, so he is comfortable with it as natural process to obtain consensus.
In contrast Trump is used to being able to use his money to manipulate those around him (and has successfully adapted to using his political influence where money no longer works) and is absolutely not used to ever being held to account (that is why he so aggressively wants to destroy anyone who speaks out against him as best he can)!

 

[JerryLove]

Remember years ago (maybe people where you lived didn't say it), when someone would make a comment that was very stupid- another person might tap their finger on their head and say "Kidneys".

Wasn't a thing I ever heard said.

I do know that a gathering of Covidiots is a Covfefe.

Just as dangerous as someone who's out to lunch taking advantage of their advisors is advisors who take advantage of someone who's out to lunch.

Not really, no. And let me tell you why.
1) No single person who is not the president (except perhaps the leaders of the house and senate) wield as much power as the president does. So even if you managed to have "Secretary of the interior Trump", one cabinet member is unable to inflict the same sort of broad harm.

2) There isn't a single person involved. Much like with congress or even the judiciary, it takes several people to truly screw things up. When the one person is the president, he gets to chose those other people. When it's not, they don't.

3) The bar is far lower for checks and balances.

And in the end, it depends on who those people are. Would you rather the country right now was run by the cabinet from the Obama administration or the current cabinet? I know my answer.

We don't need ultra Progressives in those positions any more than we need ultra Conservatives.

Good news for you. There are no ultra progressives in play.

What the DNC has put up goes from moderate conservatives (like Biden) to moderate/middle liberals (like Sanders)

 

[JerryLove]

I voted for Sanders, and then in November I voted for Jill Stein.

So you are a "democrat" who didn't cast a useful vote in the general election thus helping Trump.

There are a lot of you; and, like you, they attempt to get other democrats to not vote for the nominee, thus helping Trump.

There is no way I will vote for Biden nor Trump, and do not give me the BS that not voting for Biden means I voted for Trump either.

OK. I'll give you the true fact that not voting for Biden helps Trump win.

Attempting to convince others that they too shouldn't vote for Biden helps Trump win even more.

I vote for the best Candidate and that is how I will always vote. The BS of voting for the lesser of 2 evils is BS.

So there's an election.

Hitler and Biden are neck and neck.

Hitler is ahead by one vote.

You and your friend are the last two people to vote.

You vote for Jill Stein, Hitler wins, and you are down at concentration camps saying "well, the liberals should have put up a better candidate".

You can keep calling facts "BS", but "proof by repeated assertion" is a fallacy.

Good luck with Trump. I am out of here...you can argue with yourself on this.

My problem is that its you, and people like you, that put Trump in power. You are repeating *exactly* the narrative of the Russian troll farms.

 

[JerryLove]

WRT O'Rourke- your reasons?

I don't exactly have a deep dive here; so it's possible that my position could shift as my information on his platform or history was expanded.

That said: I saw him in several interviews. I saw him (on TV) in town-halls. I saw both what he was putting forward and how he was responding to often difficult questions and I was impressed with both the content and manner of his responses.

That he managed a high popularity as a democrat in TX also makes him look like a good (potentially successful) candidate on the national stage.

POTUS isn't an aldermanic seat where some kid can come out of nowhere and get their first leg up in politics- what person who's 35 year or younger has the qualifications for this office?

We've elected many a president with little or no political experience. Our results have been mixed; but that's true as well with extremely experienced politicians.

We have about 325 million people in this country- someone HAS to be the right candidate. We can't jerk back and forth- it's not working.

You'll need to change election laws.

Your best results would be eliminating state soverigenty, moving from winner-take-all to representative percentages.

If we can't manage that, at least a system of ordering candidates like Australia does.

 

[JerryLove]

agreed, the mere thought of AOC(at this stage) is a joke, no different than the one we have in there right now.

Yea. That's what I was thinking. That a young, intelligent, articulate, well-organized progressive with an interest in outcomes for her constituency was exactly like a narcissistic, demented, sociopathic septuagenarian who requires loyalty tests and thinks injecting bleach is a good way to cure a virus [/s]

 

[Mikado463]

Yea. That's what I was thinking.

of course you were .........

That a young, intelligent, articulate, well-organized progressive with an interest in outcomes for her constituency was exactly like a narcissistic, demented, sociopathic septuagenarian who requires loyalty tests and thinks injecting bleach is a good way to cure a virus [/s]

give her time, she's young.........

 

[highfigh]

I don't exactly have a deep dive here; so it's possible that my position could shift as my information on his platform or history was expanded.

That said: I saw him in several interviews. I saw him (on TV) in town-halls. I saw both what he was putting forward and how he was responding to often difficult questions and I was impressed with both the content and manner of his responses.

That he managed a high popularity as a democrat in TX also makes him look like a good (potentially successful) candidate on the national stage.


We've elected many a president with little or no political experience. Our results have been mixed; but that's true as well with extremely experienced politicians.

You'll need to change election laws.

Your best results would be eliminating state soverigenty, moving from winner-take-all to representative percentages.

If we can't manage that, at least a system of ordering candidates like Australia does.

I liked what Obama said, for a while. Until I didn't. It's what politicians do.

I think we need state's rights because we have 50 of them. It it was a smaller country with 10-12 with much smaller geographic footprint, it might be doable but we still have pockets that are similar to tropical rainforests- nobody from modern civilization has been there for decades.

 

[highfigh]

That is why Biden was the best candidate among Bernie, Warren, and himself. He is the closest thing to a "return to center" that appears to be running in the next election.
It is a failing of the primary process that no other Democratic centrists made it into the final three.

I'd disagree that it is "just as dangerous"! Reason being that the president (with Trump as example) can eliminate experience and expertise around him and has done an incredible job of cowing Republicans into submission. Anyone in an advisory capacity is much more subject to being challenged. Whistle-blowers do serve a very important function!
While this is specific to Biden, he has the decades of experience in DC to know who to put in his cabinet and in charge of committees that understand his objectives and he can trust to act in the best interest of the USA (at least as he sees it). I believe anyone with his long history will have several people who he can trust to give him good advice and apart from some sort of major delusional dementia, will always rely on them (be it chief of staff or personal assistant).
Part of my reasoning is also how in the case of the current pandemic, any conceivable president is going to be in a state of confusion (except Trump who just doesn't realize it), but the system is set up so he relies on the conclusion of experts for the decisions. That is the system Biden is steeped in, so he is comfortable with it as natural process to obtain consensus.
In contrast Trump is used to being able to use his money to manipulate those around him (and has successfully adapted to using his political influence where money no longer works) and is absolutely not used to ever being held to account (that is why he so aggressively like to destroy anyone who speaks out against him as best he can)!

We need to redefine 'center'.

 

[highfigh]

Wasn't a thing I ever heard said.

I do know that a gathering of Covidiots is a Covfefe.

Not really, no. And let me tell you why.
1) No single person who is not the president (except perhaps the leaders of the house and senate) wield as much power as the president does. So even if you managed to have "Secretary of the interior Trump", one cabinet member is unable to inflict the same sort of broad harm.

2) There isn't a single person involved. Much like with congress or even the judiciary, it takes several people to truly screw things up. When the one person is the president, he gets to chose those other people. When it's not, they don't.

3) The bar is far lower for checks and balances.

And in the end, it depends on who those people are. Would you rather the country right now was run by the cabinet from the Obama administration or the current cabinet? I know my answer.


Good news for you. There are no ultra progressives in play.

What the DNC has put up goes from moderate conservatives (like Biden) to moderate/middle liberals (like Sanders)

Must be a regional thing- we were told that we shouldn't ask "What are you, stupid????".

I don't want it to be run by anyone's cabinet. I think that many from the current cabinet (all of its members, to date) are too afraid to say what T doesn't like and we all know what happened to those who did. I think POTUS should have the right to shuffle people in and out if someone proves to be less than useful to the goals of the admin but when each idea is like a June bug, they wander off in different directions and can't be herded. Much like his thoughts.

 

[KEW]

We need to redefine 'center'.

I was careful in my wording.
I only used the word "center" in one place:

That is why Biden was the best candidate among Bernie, Warren, and himself. He is the closest thing to a "return to center" that appears to be running in the next election.

Given that I am talking about the presidential election, how can you dispute this?

 

[Ponzio]

The Cornuto Infectious Pick of The Day
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuzzS1BGAuKti75I8IAmrVO91oJMSg?e=vJ3Kv2

 

[Ponzio]

Making sense of the past week.

I find getting my news from comedians nowadays is just as informative, if not more so, than the news shows. A sad commentary on our times.

 

[JerryLove]

I liked what Obama said, for a while. Until I didn't. It's what politicians do.

Obama's policies generally followed his rhetoric. There are examples of his positions shifting over time and to political necessity; but I don't see any real indication of disingenuous pandering.

I want to go back to that time a congressperson heckled Obama shouting out "liar" on a truthful statement. I'd like to note that no one has done so to Trump, who can be measured in "lies per sentence", though Trump did exactly that to Clinton in debates.

Both parties are not the same.

I think we need state's rights because we have 50 of them. It it was a smaller country with 10-12 with much smaller geographic footprint, it might be doable but we still have pockets that are similar to tropical rainforests- nobody from modern civilization has been there for decades.

What's the number?

What is the actual number of people, or number of square miles, at which point it's too big to be sovereign. Support your answer.

Texas is bigger than the colonies were. Does it need to be broken down?

I don't want it to be run by anyone's cabinet.

Whom do you want to be run by? You are expressing the negative without a reasonable alternative.

I think that many from the current cabinet (all of its members, to date) are too afraid to say what T doesn't like and we all know what happened to those who did. I think POTUS should have the right to shuffle people in and out if someone proves to be less than useful to the goals of the admin but when each idea is like a June bug, they wander off in different directions and can't be herded. Much like his thoughts.

Then who is the check on the president's power?

But yes: this has worked for centuries up until this president: because every president (until this one) had respect for the office of the presidency.

 

[mtrycrafts]

You mean like a bootlegger/stock car racer in charge of DOT?

Yes, why not? Might as well have a full house.

 

[mtrycrafts]

One question maybe someone could help me with

Isn't there a stronger candidate they could have found then Biden for the democrats?

...

Who? No one volunteered. The ones who did, they lost popular primaries.
I think usually people just run, volunteer. Lots of minor candidates I bet in different states that just cannot get support to be a national candidate.
It is not cheap to even have name on ballot.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I still say we take the plane to Finland.

Will they let you in?