w4read

As I said, everybody will eventually get it. So it desn't matter what you do, a new variant could always emerge. In a best case scenario you will be able to flatten the curve. But because hospitals are doing mostly fine, there's really no point. In fact, because vaccines becomes less effective with time you would actually in some sense want more people to get the virus now rather than later.

Almost everybody will get it either way, so measures won't really reduce that risk to any significant degree. The whole point was to reduce the risk of health care collapse, now that threat is gone in many countries, particularly in the UK which is way past their peak with daily cases going down for over a week now.

I guess that's what happens when you don't agree with the consequences.

I would certainly agree with you that with the earlier variants, it has made sense the way governments around the world generally have handled the situation. And then we can always discuss details of course, but overall measures have been justified to a large degree I believe. But now, with the omicron variant taking fully over most places, the situation has changed drastically imo. Apparently, everybody is going to get the virus because it's so transmissible, so the risk of mutation will probably be there whether we have lock downs or not. In fact, lock down like they have in China now for instance will only delay the problem. The main argument for lock downs has always been the risk of the health care system collapsing. And the focus here has mainly been on ICU because that's where the hospitals are most vulnerable when it comes to resources. Now, with omicron cases exploding and also peaking some places like in the UK, the number of patients has goes down as a result of delta cases checking out from the hospital, while at the same time not that many new cases with omicron cases come in. In addition, people with omicron are staying in hospital for a shorter period of time which has also contributed to this reduction. So now the new argument is that people are getting covid everywhere so that absence from work will be a threatening factor in the health care as well as in other important sectors. But this becomes a problem partly because of the measures that was taken against covid such as quarantine and staying home when you have a positive test, even though your'e not ill. So at this point, it seems to me like we are digging ourselves a hole and not facing the reality that essentially everyone is going to get the virus. Imo the focus should be on how to make this process as smooth as possible for all parties, with an emphasis on reducing all the hassle that comes with different measures as much as possible. We also don't now if the measures we take right now helps at all. In Scotland they have a higher and steaper curve than the rest of the UK, with relatively more cases than the other countries compared to earlier waves, despite having more restrictions. So that's something to consider as well. When it comes to masks they seem like low hanging fruits not necessarily because they help that much, but the costs are minor as you say. Vaccines undoubtedly positive also.

@Leo Gura I'm curious to know more specifically how you evaluate whether or not political measures are good or bad. Personally I tend to have a very pragmatic cost benefit approach when dealing with these large scale society issues. Frankly, because that's all I really know. But it seems like this way of thinking doesn't suit the covid case for some reason. Maybe it's to complex and I'm not able to consider all factors, I don't know. So taking the example with lock down measures, how would you go forward if you were going to decide whether or not to prolong a lockdown with one week?

Here's an interesting math experience for you: Let's say the government is unsure if they want to prolong a lockdown. And let's say that they do it for a week only in order to reduce the damage and open up as soon as they consider it beneficial. So let's use the US as an example: With a population of 330.000.000 you are essentially taking 330.000.000/52= 6.346.153, which is 6,3 million years of quality life from people. So assuming the average person has 40 years left to live or so, this would be 158.653 lives. But hey, it's not like their taking away our lives, their just reducing our quality of life a bit. Let's say that the avarage persons life quality is cut in half, by 50%. So then it would be 158.653*50%= 79.326 lives. That is the collective damage just in quality of life not even talking about all the economic and social ramifications outside of that. A simple, but illustrating example which also underlines why individual freedom is important, and how we can end up undervaluing it. I mean what does one week matter for each and one of us individually? I mean, you would be selfish if you couldn't handle ONE more week?

It's already entering the endemic phase certain places. South Africa is basically back to normal, and UK seems to have past the peak in number of cases. This will be over pretty soon I believe.

I also wish we could discuss omicron, so tired of this vaccine stuff. Fortunately, we haven't seen the things you fear, at least not when it comes to deaths. Some countries such as South Africa, UK, Denmark and Norway have had omicron for 6-7 weeks now and the cases has increased exponentially. This is not the case with hospitalizations though which has increased linearly in Denmark, but even gone down in Norway. New confirmed deaths have also gone down quite a bit the last weeks for most countries. This may be because of omicron replacing delta still some places, but nothing so far is supporting your suspicions. I guess it's pretty safe to say at this point that omicron is significantly less severe than delta, and the risk of needing oxygen and dying is far less. Anyway, it will be interesting to see in the next couple of weeks when the cases potentially skyrocket certain places.

@BlackPhil I can agree with you that after the rising of omicron, which by all means seems to be a significantly less lethal variant ( between 90-50% less severe than the delta if Im not mistaken) and where there is questionable whether the vaccine have any effect when it comes to actually getting the disease, it is harder to say whether taking the vaccine at this point is nesscessary or not. In my country, they are no longer "recommending" young people to take the vaccine, or more specifically the booster dose. The argument that you should take the vaccine to protect the elderly no longer counts with the new variant, which seemingly infects anyone, vaccinated or not. So it is more a question of personal risk at this point. Although, if you protect yourself you also protect society in a sense by reducing the risk of the health care system collapsing. Tbf I'm not actually sure why they push out booster doses in a lot of countries when still huge parts of africa haven't even gotten their first dose. In Israel they are even proposing the 4th dose which makes me shake my head a bit. Bare in mind that this is what can bite us in the ass ( and already did with omicron in south africa). Countries with less vaccination coverage where the virus can mutate freely without any limits. WHO has been pushing for a more evenly distribution of vaccine for a long time now, which is one of the key factors in mitigating covid risk.

It probably is a good estimate. But the point is not the number itself. The point is to be inspired by it. 10.000 is more inspirational than 9.000 or 8.000. So it has more impactf, basically.

Not sure how many courses of treatment we would need in order to have a global impact, but if we have 180.000 by new years as the article suggest that would be three times as many as there are people hospitalized in the us at the moment, which is a good start I guess.

Seems like an important factor determining the risk of the heart disease myocarditis is whether or not they use "aspiration", which is a technique meant to ensure that the vaccine doesn't go to the blood. Denmark has been following this procedure during the whole pandemic and has a significantly lower occurence of myocarditis ( 129 cases or 0,003% of the amount vaccinated) compared to for instance Norway ( 274 cases or 0,0073% of the vaccinated) who hasn't had this as a part of their routine.

You visit a doctor.

Well that's the whole issue. People view this totally different. Some people view this as a serious crisis where the entire health care system is going to collapse within weeks. For these people it obviously makes sense to enforce lock downs and reduce contact as much as possible. Others however, look at the situation from South Africa and translate that into what is gonna happen in other parts of the world. And they are of the impression that this will be a regular innocent flue that passes within a month or two.

Vaccines are just becoming an outdated subject at this point. They obviously have a significantly positive effect and should be taken by anyone who cares to reduce the harm of this pandemic. I wish we could discuss other aspects of the pandemic such as the new omicron variant and how serious this seems to be. I saw that Leo made a thread about it, but that it was locked due to the thread just derailing into a large vaccine discussion. Now, new data is coming out and we aquire more and more knowledge as time goes by.

Well, I guess there's nothing wrong with doing that. At least during the covid pandemic I've been pretty thankful for all the good news that have come, when fear of something much worse was present. But then I'm not a fortune teller like those anti vax people you are talking about, so I guess it does't count lol.

As far as i understand, we can praise ourselves extremely lucky that omicron is, most likely, significantly less lethal than any other variant we've had. It could might as well be the other way around, which with the same transmissibility would be a totally new proportion of crisis. And vaccines seem to help, as with the other variants, with relatively less vaccinated people being hospitalized with omicron so far.

Does anyone here have experience in finding a job and getting a working visa in the united states? What would be the best strategy to be able to move, while at the same time finding a job that aligns with my purpose?

@Matt23 It sounds like counselling is at least within some roam of what you want to do, so probably not a terrible choice in and of itself. It is a pretty wide field too, which can lead you in many different directions when your'e uncertain about your purpose. If you want to pursue and pay for a whole masters degree in it is a different question. I think I at least would become clearer about my purpose before i did that. If it turns out to be a stepping stone to your actual purpose, then go for it.

@Preety_India I think your title is misleading. "Shit tests" are not the same as "screening methods" which is what I think you mean. Shit tests can mean to actively put guys in weird spots to see how they react. I think it would be reasonable to say that shit tests in general can be somewhat manipulative, even though most women do it unconsciously. Screening methods however, I would say is not only reasonable but also prefreable. You should absolutely screen guys for certain traits.

Interesting discussion to follow. I would say that it makes sense that being succesfull as a woman could sometimes back fire in the sense that you reduce your options in a way. It's not like you become less desirable or anything, but as the guy in the video says you end up in a situation where your options are less so to speak. So if you go into a career thinking that it will enhance your sexual value or relationship opportunities, I think you would be mistaken. However, thats not the same as saying that you shouldn't do it. And honestly, if you did go into a career with the intention of following your dreams, growing as a person etc you wouldn't really care about how it affects your sexual value, would you? I think women most definitely should focus on their career, but they should do it for themselves, not anyone else.

Does it have to have some functional purpose? -No Does it have a functional purpose? -Yes It can exist for its own sake though, such as nice paintings, music and so on, but personal beauty is a too big part of our survival at this point. Maybe in a 1000 years.

Do you have a job and are looking for a side income? Could you get a/another job that you are either qualified for or that is unskilled? The difference between your thread and the examples you refer to here is that they ask about how to earn money which opens the discussion about life purpose, while you ask about how to make quick money which only opens the discussion for get money quick schemes. Your situation may be unique but that doesn't change the fact that this has nothing to do with your life purpose and only to do with you getting easy, quick money.

Greetings guys I'm finishing university this year and I've been thinking a lot about what I would have done differently if I could go back in time and do it all over. I've noticed that there are a lot of youngsters here at this forum who's probably going through the early stage of university/college or are planning to go there soon or in the future, so I thought I might share one important thing that came to mind this other day. So what I would've done is make an online course of all the subjects I had. That's it. Learn the lessons, prepare to make a video, make it, and share it if you feel for it. Why should you do it? 1. You learn your subjects better! Making videos forces you to be able to explain the concepts you are learning. Can't explain it? Well, then you haven't learned it. I don't know how many times I've been reading stuff and felt like "wow, I'm really understanding it now!" for then to just show up on a test and not be able to solve the questions. That's the illusion of learning and it created so much suffering for me before I learned the lesson. The lesson actually didn't land for real before I took a course on Coursera called "learning how to learn", which is a course I highly recommend. 2. You learn communication skills! Speaking in front of a camera requires communication skills, at least if you want to make good videos. You are forcing yourself to explain the content in a good and understandable way and engage the audience. 3. You learn video editing! (which can be cool). 4. It is something tangible! If you end up searching for jobs at some corporations you will probably compete with people who have nothing but maybe some good grades and a side job at best. You, on the other hand, have good grades AND one or more online courses that you have created from just learning what you were supposed to learn anyway. But this is something tangible. And if the videos are well made they clearly shows your skills and knowledge, not just within the subjects, but in ways of communication and explanation which is extremely important skills in the workforce. 5. You can help others learn! If you are on this forum you probably have some sort of interest in creation and the sharing of knowledge so this would probably be a good motivation as well. If you don't like the idea of standing in front of a camera and exposing yourself that way there are lots of ways to make videos that don't require you to show your face. Khan Academy uses a great teqnique with few associated costs related to equipment and softwares. Just do a quick google search and you'll find it. And lastly, if you prefer writing more than speaking to a camera you can do the same thing just making a website and release articles. Or, you can get LinkedIn premium and share it in the different groups there so that other professionals can read them. And out of that you may get in contact with someone who likes your content which can open the door for potential job opportunities. Well, this is my 5 cents. Hope it inspires some of you! If you don't do this make sure that you do something or engage in an activity outside of school. Personally I joined a music festival and worked there as a volunteer. This gave me working experience and access to a social circle I wouldn't have otherwise. But if I was going to choose again, I would rather have made an online course or something tangible where I was forced to improve and show my skills in the area of study.