It's woke nonsense. These tests are obviously color blind.
And I bet Asians (a minority) , as usual, do better on them on average than the white candidates. Not because the tests are designed for Asians, but because of culture of studying hard.
So their argument is "Asians are diverse, with a wide range of earnings, therefore it's myth". Sorry, but it makes zero sense. You should stop reading obvious illogical propaganda from race activists.
Also Asians isn't the only minority group that outperforms whites.
HN won't let me reply to the parent, but I thought your model minority myth was potentially interesting.
In this case, it just doesn't stand up to facts. Yes, Asians have greater income disparity, because the top 1% of Asians are way at the top 1%. According to the U.S. Census (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...) in every single year, Asians have out-incomed White and all-race averages in the 20th, 40th, 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles.
That's a pretty compelling picture of "Asians make more money than whites," full stop.
It really bums me out when people reach for this kind of "how are you not getting this" slight. You could have just explained the reasoning without implying that the asker is an idiot. You're just making yourself harder to hear.
If you want to seriously discuss you should put which data points your comparing so others can also compare. When I look at that sheet and look at the rates comparing unvaccinated vs fully faccinated the death rate is lower for every age group when vaccinated.
You are not. Slightly more vaccinated people died than unvaccinated. However, not from COVID-19. The elderly are more likely to be vaccinated and also more likely to die of heart disease or cancer. You'll note in Table 8 that 34k unvaccinated died of COVID, compared to 14k vaccinated. Also, 83% of people are vaccinated, meaning the unvaccinated would have had to have died at even greater rates, at over 900% the rate of vaccinated. However, to further account for the elderly being at greater risk of COVID, you'll further note that Table 8 has an "age-standardised mortality rate", showing that on an individual basis, choosing to remain unvaccinated made someone 3230% more likely to die of COVID.
The other relevant factor is that if you lead with "Ok, I'm going to get flamed, downvoted or whatever for this", people will downvote/flag the post almost regardless of what it says, because (a) it's against the site guidelines, (b) it's a tedious internet trope, and (c) it's reliably a marker of bad comments. Best to edit that kind of thing out in the future.
Look all the way over at "Second dose", the age-standardized mortality rate is 1.1 per 100,000 vs 5.4 per 100,000 for the unvaccinated. 5x protection against death.
Table 1, in the linked XLS file for data through 24 September. You can see that it was originally closer to 0.1 (50x protection against death) but it's gone up to 1.1 over the last few months, I'm guessing as immunity has started to wear off.
Something else to consider is that while a person may die while having COVID-19, it does not mean that is all that they died from.
People in general may have several health problems, which is especially likely for an 80+ year old person.
Some healthcare activities have also been postponed since the outbreak, by the patients and also the hospitals, which may have led to less healthy people.
This is indeed what Table 8 shows. The vaccinated skew elderly, and while slight more vaccinated died, they were at a much lesser risk of dying for COVID. According to that data, over 32 times less likely for their age.
But it's something like 20 or 25, so really trivial to hit for any genuine user. (Although it's possible there is some weighting going on, so maybe new accounts get less flagging power or something like that)
They don’t like this devolving into politics, which they really need to get over because the historical fact (when this is all said and done) is that Covid was heavily politicized by both sides in a variety of countries.
I think it's more about unsubstantiated conclusions, hysterically presented.
If the original post had outlined the data points that led them to the (IMO erroneous) impression they reached, then the point could have been rebutted.
Probably I took a look at the data linked and I have absolutely not idea how he came to that conclusion.
Like if you pick a age and week and then compare the age group+week specific death rate of fully vaccinated to the death rate of the same age group+week for unvaccinated people and it at least nearly always (I haven't check all data points) very clear that the death rate for unvaccinated people is worse.
I can't help but think that with the way modern languages/programming are going, we're making a rod for our own backs!
Don't get me wrong, I've read about Rust and it's capabilities vs things like C++ and yes, I can see benefits. That's not what I mean.
It's in 10 years when we clone a repo on Github and it pulls down 2000 dependencies: will they all still work?
Everything nowadays seems to require massive dependencies!
I know we've long used libraries for different bits of functionality rather than reinventing the wheel but it just seems like we're giving up masses of control/agility for convenience that may kick the shit out of us later!
> The point is vaccinating everyone, just like we did with Smallpox. Which is essentially dead because of vaccination.
It has been shown time and again that the covid jag does not prevent infection/re-infection/transmission so your talk of eradication smacks of propaganda, not science.
Other countries with Zero COVID policies have been successful at suppressing the virus to extremely low levels. Their citizens laugh at us on social media.
At extremely low levels, we can begin to contemplate elimination/eradication.
> Vaccines should not be a personal freedom choice.
I don't do personal attacks but in your case I'll make an exception: you are a fucking psychopath if you think it's ok to tell people to get a jag for something that is killing literally no one right now!
We're at around 100 deaths per day right now in the UK [0] and those stats don't actually tell you if they died FROM covid or merely had covid 28 days earlier when they died (massive difference!)... completely hides the real data.
In addition, there are on average 450 deaths per day from cancer [1] so where is the big gov. push to eradicate that?
Here are the overall death stats in the UK [2]. COVID is a tiny fraction of it.
Wouldn't this imply that the vaccine is physically harmful to you? There is literally no argument against it if you don't imply that. Do you think it is? I am really interested to discuss this with somebody who isn't a conspiracy theorist, so I'd be happy if you can answer.
> Wouldn't this imply that the vaccine is physically harmful to you?
I have no evidence to say that the vaccine is physically harmful to me, personally, but there are plenty of stories on the web where people in the prime of their health, have been struck down with something after taking it.
However, there is plenty of evidence to say that covid itself is not harmful at all... look at the stats - literally no one is dying!
These jags are also brand new: they're a few years old so there is ZERO data on long-term risks. None! For all we know, in a few years people may start dropping dead with heart conditions.
Now, if covid was as life-threatening to the majority of people as it is being marketed as, then I can potentially see a case where people should get it but the figures do not lie: almost no one is dying from covid.
Remember, this covid jag is a treatment for something that it's unlikely you will succumb to. So, should you get every vaccine going just in case?
Additionally, the gov wants you to keep taking it, over and over again! That will increase your long-term risk (again, zero data on the long-term effects!).
Plus, by giving in and taking it each time you're told, what kind of world are you leaving your children? They're going to have to get a medical procedure to go to the pub ffs!
So, in answer to your question about whether it's harmful... we don't know and the thing is do you really want to risk your health and that of your children for something that has almost zero chance of affecting you?
Edit: Forgot to say, the point of these jags (despite them incorrectly being called vaccines) is only to make you feel better when you catch it. Make no mistake, they DO NOT prevent infection, DO NOT prevent re-infection, DO NOT prevent spreading... so what the hell are they for? I believe that the newest strain that was discovered in South Africa was in someone with the covid jag...
I've long felt that WWIII will not be fought (initially, anyway) with tanks and bombs and such, but with computers.
What could be more effective for your enemy than taking out all your power stations and plunging your country into total darkness and chaos? Everything would run out in short order and people would turn on each other.
Saves having to mess the place up with bombs and you have plausible deniability within the international community.
It's funny you should talk about sleep deprivation messing with your mind... I once remember trying to program a for-loop in C# about 8 or 9 years ago (I've been programming since the 90s) when my son was a baby. He'd been up and down for a couple of days as he was unwell and my sleep-addled brain wouldn't let me create a for-loop.
No matter what I tried I could not get the code to compile.
I still laugh about it now but it definitely highlights the importance of sleep.
I haven't read the whole doc but does it take into account stress or factors that lead to stress?
For example, money problems, dangerous job, working in toxic environments etc.
I reckon we don't put enough "science" into working out the life-extending properties of a non-toxic job and a health bank balance.
FWIW I was diagnosed in September as having stable angina. I eat really healthy, don't smoke or drink, no family history of heart issues, and all my blood work was great. However, I have been under immense stress for the last two years to the point of sleepless nights etc (won't go into the details).
Screen-zombie pedestrians annoy me as well. So do uneven pavements, trash, rocks and any other obstacles that appear on my way. If I'm on an electric scooter or a bike though it's my responsibility to ensure that I'm not riding a silent, heavy and fast vehicle into someone. Especially if they can't see me because I'm approaching from behind. And to emphasise - there is an entire range of pedestrians that might have a disability (mobility issues, seeing, hearing etc.) which makes them much more vulnerable to accidents.
Absolutely. But spending time on your mobile phone has no place in traffic and that has nothing to do with being disabled. It's just being grossly disrespectful towards others and endangering them and yourself.
Sure it does if you’re in a cross walk. As a driver of a vehicle, you should be yielding to those as per their right of way and paying attention to anyone who might or might not take their right of way.
In practice: cyclist head down looking at their mobile phone swerving all over the road, two hands holding the phone to be able to text using whatsapp or whatever other IM they are using entirely lost situational awareness. I've seen enough accidents from this by now to become an advocate for substantially increased fines for cell phone use in traffic.
I read that to mean that the tests are geared towards white candidates! Is that really what you mean? Coz I can't wrap my head around that!