highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
I guess I don't see those who voted for Trump in order to keep Hillary out as Trump supporters, per se - which is why I said "GOP supporters of POTUS". I suppose the distinction wasn't clear and I apologize for that.

That said, I really don't understand how someone could dislike her enough to vote for Trump. Was she the ideal candidate - probably not. But seriously, how was she worse than Trump?
I have seen comments that she was the only candidate who could beat Trump and he was the only candidate who could beat Hillary.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
Some months ago I remember people asking what clinical trial result would lead to an approve-able vaccine for SARS-CoV-2? At the time, I didn't know.

Yesterday, the Commissioner of the FDA, Stephen Hahn, said the FDA will approve SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that are 50% effective at preventing COVID-19 or reducing it's severity among vaccinated people. I thought 50% sounds low, but I wasn't familiar enough with vaccine clinical trials to have an idea what would be accepted.

Here are some comparisons to other vaccines against viral diseases:

Influenza
The yearly flu vaccines vary from 40 to 60% effective. It's important to point out that influenza, unlike other viral diseases, varies widely from year to year. The vaccine developed for each year has to be made about 1½ years in advance, based on best guesses about what strain or strains will be around.

Polio
One dose of the oral polio vaccine (Sabin vaccine) produces immunity to all 3 poliovirus serotypes in 50% of recipients. Three doses are more than 95% effective.

Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
The MMR vaccine is 97% effective when two doses are given.

Obviously, a 50% effective Covid-19 vaccine would be better than nothing. It should be put into use as soon as possible. It should also be thought of as only the first step. As more effective vaccines get developed, they can replace it.

So let's keep our fingers crossed for at least 50% efficacy for at least one of the vaccines now being developed.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
"I have a hard time believing that her dishonesty and greed could possibly be in the same league as Trump's."? Really? Have you looked into the Clinton Foundation?

Did you see her comments about their financial situation when they left the White House? She said ""You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said. "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it's been amazing to me. He's worked very hard.".

Republicans called the claim laughable and the next day Clinton clarified, again on ABC, that she and Bill had done very well over the past 14 years. "We have a life experience that is clearly different in very dramatic ways from many Americans," Clinton said. "But we also have gone through some of the same challenges many people have.". Their main expense was from the massive legal bills to defend and pay off the suits against Bill- she stood by him after several affairs and that says she's an extremely loyal wife or she knew they would rake in a buttload of money later and that's what she wanted.

Eight years in the White House, at over $200K/year plus expenses- close to $2 Million in total. A legal defense fund was created for him and as of the time they left the WH, his fees had been mostly paid; they were expected to be paid off late that year, even though he has said they were $16M in debt. They went in with no net worth to speak of after he served as governor of Arkansas (1979–1981 and 1983–1992) and as attorney general of Arkansas (1977–1979). If he's such s smart guy, why were they broke? She didn't just serve as his wife- she's a lawyer and worked in that field.

Their tax returns show that they have made about $240 Million since leaving the WH, as of the date of the article in 2017-


Trump, OTOH, hasn't taken any of his Presidential salary and hasn't written any books (kids section?).
As I already stated, she was a flawed candidate. But, not in the same league as Trump.

Ignoring any financial jiggery-pokery by either of them, it was made clear during the election campaign that he was completely and utterly unqualified for the job. His performance in office has borne that out in spades. The Chinese and Russian governments are laughing.

 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Some months ago I remember people asking what clinical trial result would lead to an approve-able vaccine for SARS-CoV-2? At the time, I didn't know.

Yesterday, the Commissioner of the FDA, Stephen Hahn, said the FDA will approve SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that are 50% effective at preventing COVID-19 or reducing it's severity among vaccinated people. I thought 50% sounds low, but I wasn't familiar enough with vaccine clinical trials to have an idea what would be accepted.

Here are some comparisons to other vaccines against viral diseases:

Influenza
The yearly flu vaccines vary from 40 to 60% effective. It's important to point out that influenza, unlike other viral diseases, varies widely from year to year. The vaccine developed for each year has to be made about 1½ years in advance, based on best guesses about what strain or strains will be around.

Polio
One dose of the oral polio vaccine (Sabin vaccine) produces immunity to all 3 poliovirus serotypes in 50% of recipients. Three doses are more than 95% effective.

Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
The MMR vaccine is 97% effective when two doses are given.

Obviously, a 50% effective Covid-19 vaccine would be better than nothing. It should be put into use as soon as possible. It should also be thought of as only the first step. As more effective vaccines get developed, they can replace it.

So let's keep our fingers crossed for at least 50% efficacy for at least one of the vaccines now being developed.
I just hope approval of a 50% effective vaccine would not preclude continued development of more effective ones.
Obviously 50% is better than nothing, but I'm not sure that would really stop the pandemic and I assume everyone will still have to live with the uncertainty of whether they were immune or not.
Or would there be a reasonable way to test for immunity after taking the vaccine?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
As I already stated, she was a flawed candidate. But, not in the same league as Trump.

Ignoring any financial jiggery-pokery by either of them, it was made clear during the election campaign that he was completely and utterly unqualified for the job. His performance in office has borne that out in spades. The Chinese and Russian governments are laughing.

They may be laughing, but if you remember how honest they have been over the last 50 years, you know that what they tell us isn't necessarily accurate.

I hate what has happened in this country and honestly, I don't know how long it can last, considering the way small groups are allowed to change the whole country when the rest don't want or need what comes after the changes. We have problems, but tearing down/renaming buildings, neighborhoods, cities, state capitals, taking over sections of cities to impose autonomous zones (and CHAZ is turning out to be a colossal failure) etc isn't the way to enact the changes we need. The reasons for the protests are valid but the methods are bullshyte. The fish rots from the head down and Washington DC has been rotting fro a long time. Did you see that the House voted in favor of making DC the 51st state? I have huge problems with that.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
As I already stated, she was a flawed candidate. But, not in the same league as Trump.

Ignoring any financial jiggery-pokery by either of them, it was made clear during the election campaign that he was completely and utterly unqualified for the job. His performance in office has borne that out in spades. The Chinese and Russian governments are laughing.

Did you see the sources of the comments about what he said? No names, all were from someone who remained anonymous, heard from someone else, etc- this is part of the problem with how reports are stated as fact. Is it likely that he said these things or something similar? Absolutely. Does this constitute proof? Nope.

I don't like the guy, but I don't like anyone else who has been trotted out, either. This media BS has to change and it needs to change soon.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic General
Don't use blanket statements [my bold] and don't forget, there are many who voted for Trump just to keep Hillary out and they'll have a hard time seeing Biden as a good candidate- it sucks when people have to decide which candidate isn't as bad as the other.

It's damned hard to stomach these elections, as someone who's not far Right or Left. Nobody represents us.
How is that cognitive dissonance working out for you, as you must experience it just about every post in the SteamVent, but with no learning effect as you apparently forgets you've made the same admonition several times?
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
I just hope approval of a 50% effective vaccine would not preclude continued development of more effective ones.
From what I have read, there are several vaccine candidates already in clinical trials, and several more soon to begin. Those more or less simultaneous trials wouldn't have been planned if the FDA didn't expect them to finish. As soon as one vaccine gets approval, it sets the efficacy bar height for all the others to meet or beat. More than one vaccine may well be approved.
Obviously 50% is better than nothing, but I'm not sure that would really stop the pandemic and I assume everyone will still have to live with the uncertainty of whether they were immune or not.
Or would there be a reasonable way to test for immunity after taking the vaccine?
Yes, even with an effective vaccine, there will be Covid-19 cases until enough people get vaccinated.

And yes, there are ways to test blood from vaccinated people for signs of immunity. The easy way is to look for antibodies, proteins in the plasma, that bind to virus particles. More difficult and expensive, but doable, is to look for T cells, immune lymphocytes (white blood cells), that can either directly kill SARS-CoV-2 infected cells in the lab, or respond to them by dividing rapidly and secreting signalling proteins, cytokines. In the science of immunology, it is still debated whether antibody or T cell based immunity is better. There are good examples of effective vaccines with either type of immunity. Obviously, having both at the same time would be best.
 
Last edited:
Trell

Trell

Audioholic General
I have a hard time believing that her dishonesty and greed could possibly be in the same league as Trump's. And, she has been unfairly saddled with Bill's failings. Maybe it's her shear presence in the public eye for decades that made people not like her. All those years of having poo flung at her is going to leave a lot of it sticking. Whereas, although Trump has also been in the public eye for decades, I don't think he's faced the same degree of scrutiny...well, not before he was elected, at least.
Whatever his far right agenda he is not that dumb that he believes his own tripe, but if she works at it she will have more success than @shadyJ poor attempt at the most dumb post, ever.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
They may be laughing, but if you remember how honest they have been over the last 50 years, you know that what they tell us isn't necessarily accurate.

I hate what has happened in this country and honestly, I don't know how long it can last, considering the way small groups are allowed to change the whole country when the rest don't want or need what comes after the changes. We have problems, but tearing down/renaming buildings, neighborhoods, cities, state capitals, taking over sections of cities to impose autonomous zones (and CHAZ is turning out to be a colossal failure) etc isn't the way to enact the changes we need. The reasons for the protests are valid but the methods are bullshyte. The fish rots from the head down and Washington DC has been rotting fro a long time. Did you see that the House voted in favor of making DC the 51st state? I have huge problems with that.
Yes, Russia and China weren't playing on the up-and-up before the current administration, but they are playing the current one like a fiddle.

I understand your frustration and I really have no idea where we're all headed, not just the US.

I did see the vote on statehood for DC. Why do you have problems with it? Serious question. The reasoning I heard was the complaint about taxation without representation.

Yes, the protests are valid and it's to bad they have been hijacked by ne'er-do-wells.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
How is that cognitive dissonance working out for you, as you must experience it just about every post in the SteamVent, but with no learning effect as you apparently forgets you've made the same admonition several times?
Everyone knows that all generalizations are false!
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Yes, of course. The question is whether or not the statement is true?
You do realize that you are presenting a logic loop?
If all generalizations are false (your statement), then this generalization must also be false.

If you set me up like that, I will take the bait.
Additionally, I do not believe that every generalization is false!
However, I do regret causing the distraction from your actual point.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
You do realize that you are presenting a logic loop?
If all generalizations are false (your statement), then this generalization must also be false.

If you set me up like that, I will take the bait.
Additionally, I do not believe that every generalization is false!
However, I do regret causing the distraction from your actual point.
It's a true fluke when a generalization is concluded as being true.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
It's a true fluke when a generalization is concluded as being true.
Isn't it a generalization if I say "Most people know how to put on a hat"?
Isn't that true?

Now if I make an absolute generalization like "Every person knows how to put on a hat", I would agree that we are getting into fluke territory, but that is speaking in absolutes, and we all know "Never say never" (because "never" is an absolute term)!
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
Isn't it a generalization if I say "most people know how to put on a hat"?
Isn't that true?

Now if I make an absolute generalization like "every person knows how to put on a hat", I would agree that we are getting into fluke territory, but that is speaking in absolutes, and we all know "never say never" (because "never" is an absolute term)!
If you use "most", it's some sort of generalization, but it's not absolute like the word "all".
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
If you use "most", it's some sort of generalization, but it's not absolute like the word "all".
Exactly, and if the post had said "Most (or many) generalizations are false", I would never have responded!
Or had he said "Every absolute generalization is false" I could live with that (though I doubt it is true).

It was probably the triple absolute combination of "Everyone knows all generalizations are false" that set off my OCD!
 
Last edited:

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top