Depletion of aquifers, depletion of fisheries and plastic pollution of oceans and destruction of soils by "Big Agra" are also existential threats. — Janus

Potentially. Some of this is overlapping with global warming as well. Our destruction of the environment and exhausting of resources is leading to massive destruction on several fronts. No doubt.

I don’t see plastics in the ocean as existential, as awful as it is — but I’m open to hearing that argument.

Basically the only solution to the problem would seem to be a drastic reduction of human population, — Janus

I don’t think so. It’s not the vast majority destroying the environment, it’s a handful of countries and a handful of people within those countries.

Better decisions can and should be made. There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population.

Then that means the Petoleum Hydrcarbons Industry's lack of accountability is a fundamental issue.
Why isn't it held accountable? Maybe because governments aren't being held accountable? So government lack of accountability is a fundamental issue of our time.
Why isn't government being held accountable? Could it be because "we the people" don't stand up to them? Why don't we stand up to them? Could be because most of the world is preoccupied with basic survival? Then that is also a fundamental issue.
And the less poor are divided, distracted, and unclear about the issue at foot, no? So lack of solidarity if a fundamental issue.
Solidarity leads to power. Power leads to ability to hold people accountable. Accountability leads to Petroleum Hydrocarbons Industry ceasing to cause Climate Change.
This is probably super ultra overly simple... — Yohan

No, I think this is exactly the right line of questioning.

To clarify: when I say climate change should be considered the issue of our time, I don’t mean in a vacuum. Along with it comes everything you mention. It’s daunting and discouraging to most people because it feels so immense. That’s part of the problem.

But really what it comes down to is the things you mentioned: education, organization, solidarity, conversation, holding those in power accountable (and making sure those who ARE in power don’t deny global warming),

But the issue of climate change, like other issues, should still be much higher on our priorities. We cannot act on it unless we acknowledge and prioritize it— however we then go on to contribute to solving it. We should be educating more people, organizing with others, making climate change an essential voting issue, and demanding appropriate funding to transition to renewables and help fortify the country from effects that are already locked in. All this is achievable, if people pay attention and lose their hopelessness.

Do the majority of scientists agree that climate change is the "the issue of our time"? — Yohan

I would suspect it’s up there, yes. Perhaps nuclear weapons as well. I think among climate scientists it’s especially likely, given what they know.

I hear about climate change now and again. I'm surprised I don't hear about it all the time in the news. Who is to blame that this issue is not given more attention? — Yohan

I think media is improving in its coverage because it’s getting worse, but there’s much room for improvement. They’re not nearly covering it enough.

I think there’s several reasons. Mostly about money, as usual. It’s depressing, so it doesn’t sell.

Why has Bill Gates been more concerned about viruses? — Yohan

Some billionaires are deniers, or want to delay anything being done because their wealth depends on it. In Gates’ case— he considers this the most important issue, in fact. He wrote an entire book about it a few months ago.

I don't think its necessarily easy, especially for us laymen to determine what is the most important issue of our time. — Yohan

Climate change is an existential threat. Like nuclear weapons. That should make it pretty high on our priority list.

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:



That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

This is surprisingly good.

What’s in the $3.5 trillion bill:

• Putting the U.S. on track to run on 80% clean electricity and to cut economy-wide carbon emissions in HALF by 2030
  
• A Civilian Climate Corps that will put hundreds of thousands of young people to work combatting climate change
  
• $400 billion for clean energy that will employ workers across the country
  
• Green, affordable public housing
  
• Native American infrastructure investments
  
• Billions for coastal resilience and wildfire prevention
  
• A pathway to citizenship for TPS holders, Dreamers, farmworkers, and other essential workers
  
• Expanding Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing
  
• Making community college tuition-free for 2 years
  
• Funding paid family and medical leave, and more.

I think that’s a good start.

Greed seems to stick out like a sore thumb but then that's how mother nature - evolution - made us over millions of years with good results (we're what evolutionary biologists might call a successful species). Doesn't the whole issue look like mother nature's plan backfired? Climate change then is not man-made, life/mother nature is to blame. Why make us greedy? — TheMadFool

Did not Mother Nature endow us with care and concern for others as well? Why is greed given primacy? Especially when you see generosity all around. So why make us generous and loving?

It’s not Mother Nature, and it’s not human nature. It’s not genes. It’s about a society that elevates some aspects of human behavior and suppresses others. The dominant system today is called capitalism.

Idaho morgues are running out of space for bodies as covid-19 deaths mount

https://apple.news/AZ9o4n8diRbO3WmWoxqjMdQ

Nothing to see here.

And it's a Israeli study, but the B.S that comes out of the U.S. I feel sorry for all those who listen to Fauci, but that's the pharmaceutical business. A real, true to life, Pied Piper. But so is the whole thriving medical industry. — MondoR

Yeah yeah yeah -- Fauci and the medical establishment aren't worth listening to, because you know more than they do. Why? Because you found an Israeli study. THOSE guys have it right! Why? Because we like those results! That's how you know they're telling the truth: if they agree with us (since we have the truth).

https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine

For those who are genuinely curious about natural immunity and vaccines: the jury is out. There's some evidence to suggest natural immunity works better than the vaccines:

Here

This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

And some that say the opposite:

Here

"Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection"

COVID-19 vaccines remain safe and effective. They prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Additionally, even among the uncommon cases of COVID-19 among the fully or partially vaccinated vaccines make people more likely to have a milder and shorter illness compared to those who are unvaccinated. CDC continues to recommend everyone 12 and older get vaccinated against COVID-19.

It's an interesting question. My guess is that natural immunity has similar benefits, but also of course wanes. It probably does better with mucosal infection, and so nasal administration should be explored further to make up for this. Vaccinating a few months after infection, as Fauci mentioned (and the previous citation mentioned), is also probably wise (as booster shots will be as well).

"We don't know what sort of protection an individual may have, who experienced a natural infection with SARS-CoV-2. So that's why we strongly recommend that you still pursue vaccination," Ross said.

Scrase says the question isn't vaccine versus natural immunity; it's now how natural immunity is affected by a vaccine or booster shot.

Here

Stop being hysterical and read the research.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-vaccine-natural-immunity-infection-israel-study-cdc-11632151556 — MondoR

"Read the research" and then cites the Wall Street Journal opinion page -- one of the most conservative in the country. How predictable.

I actually laughed out loud.

Apparently you didn't even read it:

He disagrees with this policy, relying in large part on the evidence from a retrospective, observational Israeli study showing that “natural immunity was 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections.” He doesn’t add that the same study also found: “Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

Natural immunity is 27 times more effective. — MondoR

You don't know what you're talking about.

“Anyone who tells you that they know exactly what’s going on shouldn’t be trusted, because we don’t,” said Sumit Chanda, an infectious disease expert with Scripps Research who studies how pathogens infect cells and the immune system responds.

But the Israel study notes that it has several limitations that could have influenced the findings, including the fact that testing was voluntary and may underestimate people with asymptomatic infections, who may not get tested, or those who may have previously had COVID-19 and believe they are immune.

For researchers like Chanda, whose work helped discover how HIV suppresses the immune response, sweeping declarations about COVID-19 immunity when the science on that topic is still unfolding raises a red flag.

“You can’t unequivocally say that,” he said. “This is the issue with what these guys say. There’s a modicum of truth to what they’re saying but it’s not a generalize-able, actionable type of statement.”

Chanda pointed out that the studies from Israel and the Cleveland Clinic cited by DeSantis are both so-called pre-prints that have not been peer reviewed, which means they have not been evaluated and should not be used to guide the clinical practice of medicine.

“What they need to do is come in with a breadth of literature. That’s what scientific consensus is, you reach a critical mass of data,” he said. “Until then we’re just amassing data. That’s like saying at halftime the score is this so we know what the final score will be. … You have to play all four quarters before we declare a winner and a loser.”

Dr. Maria Alcaide, an infectious disease specialist with the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said the answer to whether natural immunity confers stronger protection than vaccination alone will depend on many moving parts, including the severity of the disease, the quality of the immune response, and the prevalence of mutations that can evade protection.

The current recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is that those who’ve recovered from the disease should still get the shots.

In a separate interview with CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, Fauci addressed the limitations of the Israel study, saying “the one thing the paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection, what’s the durability compared to the durability of the vaccine.”

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article254437818.html

Hmm...DeSantis or Fauci? Such a hard choice (for some).

You're not seeing fear from those of my persuasion. You're seeing push-back against the inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish BS of those of your persuasion. — James Riley

Frustration and exhaustion of patience, for me.

I’m a POS because you perceive me as doing something you’re afraid of, i.e. spreading my “nasty, filthy germs”. — AJJ

Reading comprehension is not your strength.

I am afraid of the vaccine. — AJJ

No kidding.

You’ve either been mislead or were an anti-vaxxer already. I’ll go with the latter.

blood clots, heart inflammation, blindness, cognitive difficulty and so on; these things scare me far more than the virus does. — AJJ

(1) None of that is remotely common, if it exists at all. So far there’s very little evidence to support such nonsense. You’re more likely to get stuck by lightning. So your fear is completely ridiculous.

(2) it’s not just about YOU, as will be repeated. I don’t give a damn about the virus— I probably had it already in February of 2020. This is largely about our COMMUNITY. Now I know that is also a scary thing for libertarian/republican fanatics, but it’s true.

Natural immunity has been shown to be substantially better. Maybe permanent. — MondoR

No, this is a complete lie. Which is why you can’t back it up with any evidence whatsoever. But keep trying. It’s worth a laugh.

If you've had COVID-19 before, does your natural immunity work better than a vaccine?
The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.
More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination
The takeaway: Get vaccinated, even if you've had COVID-19. Vaccine immunity is stronger than natural immunity.
"Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting."

So it's really a question of how much notoriety will satisfy him. — Gary M Washburn

It may well be (I'm hopeful) that he's posturing, dragging this out as long as possible so the papers make it clear he's fighting the good fight, and then last minute he'll compromise and declare victory. But it seems he's much more in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and cares much more about Republican voters than Democrat ones -- which is idiotic.

No one cares what this deranged imbecile has to say anymore. He was finished the moment they booted him from Twitter. If he runs again he'll lose again. He's already reduced to a has-been after 7 months -- imagine in 3 years?

Let his followers continue to worship him as they always have. It matters not. They made their strongest effort in 2020, with plenty of structural advantage and intense enthusiasm, and they lost anyway -- to a weak a candidate as Joe Biden, who barely mustered any enthusiasm.

Unlike you, my choices are nuanced, which allows me to think without boxing myself into absurdities like you do all the time. — James Riley

NOS is well known as the forum idiot. Don't expect much consistency.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials. The vaccines met the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality needed to support approval or authorization of a vaccine. CDC

That's good enough for me. — Wheatley

And good for almost everyone in any other area of life, including vaccination. But because this is a "big deal," in the age of polarization and social media, it's not enough for a good portion of society. Suddenly they become the experts -- overnight. They scan desperately for anything that justifies their stupid, stupid choices.

They will never be satisfied. They openly admit they will never change their minds.

I think that things will (hopefully) change once the Sept 27th vote happens since moderates seem to be thinking that the bipartisan bill will pass in spite of the progressives promises to block it, either with republican support, or progressives caving. If it passes somehow anyways, then we could be looking at a $1.5 trillion reconciliation bill (the topline number Manchin said he'd be willing to support allegedly). If it fails, then we could see the bill be $2.5 trillion (a basic compromise between the $1.5 and $3.5 trillion). I don't think that the $3.5 trillion has any chance of passing. The bill will be watered down, but by how much is the question. — Mr Bee

My prediction is it'll be pared back to 1.7 or so. The minority party (Republicans) wins again, even when they're not in power. Although there's a possibility I'm being too optimistic.

Settling for crumbs yet again, all because a couple "moderate" assholes don't want to nix the filibuster and pass some real legislation. It's infuriating.

Golda Meir may have been attractive in her younger years...

Who knew that Thatcher was so cute back then.

I guess as I get older, the range of women deemed attractive expands greatly. Why is that?

There are tens of millions of other imbeciles who don't want that "crap" injected into their bloodstreams but the crazies have seized control. — MondoR

We know.

That cartoon is fantastic.

Hey, I'm healthy, doing great, and looking forward to a long and happy life being a medical ignoramus. — MondoR

Truer words were never spoken.

Mondo reminds me of a kid playing a video game and thinking he’s winning — when the game isn’t plugged in.

:rofl:

It writes itself.

Why would any person listen to am hysterical person for advice or guidance? — MondoR

In think that’s exactly why no one takes your hysterical rantings seriously.

Besides your buffoonery, of course.

“Is that a vaccine?!”

“No mom, it’s heroin- I swear!”

The Covid virus will never be eradicated. We'll all have it inside of us forever. You can thank Dr. Fauci for funding gain of function research. — MondoR

Oh no!!

All I see is there same diseases with different names — MondoR

Yes! What was that new name for polio again? Dysentery?

Politics and Pinterest.

How do we know polio is eradicated…hmm. You got me. It’s a hoax!!

Same with the polio vaccine
— Xtrix

Right, and long term effects were never studied. — MondoR

Given that it’s been 70 years or so, we do know the long term effects: eradication of polio.

Oh to go back to the good ol’ days of natural immunity and no artificial nonsense like vaccines— or antibiotics, or sterilization of equipment, or…

Oh to be able to die from smallpox once again!

You should leave the thinking for your intellectual superiors, like me and other vaxers. — James Riley

:rofl:

It is easy to feel smart next to these guys, isn’t it? But then I feel like the bully picking on the weakest kids. Remorse sets in. I really don’t hold them in contempt— I just think they’re delusionally wrong.

Vaccinations are just another unnatural manipulation of the natural immune system, with totally unknown effects. — MondoR

Same with the polio vaccine. Totally unknown effects. Just wait. They’re a disaster waiting to happen.

9 months, 6 billion doses, over a billion people vaccinated— study after study showing safety and effectiveness. That’s quite a conspiracy. But you “NEVER KNOW.”

We don’t know the effects of your “natural modalities”…better watch out! Few months from now you could be in REAL trouble! I mean years…decades maybe. Just you wait. Prove that I’m wrong!

As for all those who are full of vaccinations .. I don't know what the fallout will be. — MondoR

Yes, those 182 million Americans (out of 6 billion shots administered worldwide) are in for a real hell! What could happen! Could be anything! In a few months…a year maybe…maybe a few years, just wait…could take a decade or two…ugh, I died from pneumonia: thanks, Covid vaccines!

It has been studied. They’re not experimental.

Besides misreading studies and data, there are several results that would completely falsify my claims. For example:

Breakthrough cases shown to be very common.
As many (or close to) hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated as unvaccinated.
Studies (any studies) that conclude that the vaccines are ineffective.
Studies (any studies) that conclude vaccines are not safe.
Studies that show vaccinated people can transmit the virus as much as the unvaccinated.


I won't hold my breath, but they COULD be out there. They happen to NOT be. Yet vague, unsupported claims keep being made.

Anecdotes about sterilization, heart attacks, magnetization, chip implantation and death after taking a vaccine abound to this day. Claims about how there's no point in getting vaccinated if you have to wear a mask anyway, or that you spread the virus just as readily as someone without a vaccine -- all continue unabated, supported by nothing.

Of the little that's given in support, it's obvious to anyone without a reading comprehension disorder that the studies say the exact opposite of what's implied by these "skeptics." It's the exact same tactics used by Creationists. They too will cite Nature and Science articles, published studies, world renowned authorities and organizations, etc. (While simultaneously dismissing them all as corrupt establishment groupthink).

let's remember the original claim: vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated people
— Xtrix

I never made that claim. — Isaac

So you don't agree with that statement? Wonderful.

So, here I am arguing that alternative viewpoints to the government narrative are often perfectly valid, even if they're unpopular, so long as they meet the threshold of expert approval and peer review. — Isaac

How nice it must be to feel as though you're a crusader for the truth. Very self-serving. The reality is that these "alternative viewpoints" are actually quite popular indeed. They're held by a significant portion of the population of otherwise ignorant people who have, for political reasons, decided to cast impregnable skepticism on this one topic.

Yes, it's distrust of government -- especially when a Democrat is in office -- and riding a wave of anti-intellectualism and general distrust of science (especially when it conflicts with our religious beliefs).

You're just one common example of it. I've now had the misfortune of interacting with many of you. A dime a dozen.

Anyway -- the "as long as they meet the threshold of expert approval and peer review" part is interesting, because that's exactly where you've been shown to misread almost everything you cite. You cite the CDC and the WHO, then claim they don't know what they're talking about -- that they contract themselves, etc. You cite outdated studies, and then claim newer studies are flawed.

I wonder: is your position evidence-driven, or did it exist prior to any evidence (and is, in fact, immune to evidence -- completely unfalsifiable)?

(I don't really wonder.)

most have contrary studies opposing — Isaac

Oh? What are the contrary studies opposing the several ones I've mentioned? Please enlighten us to such studies that contradict them. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus by lowering both infection (internal and mucosal) -- whether one contracts the virus at all -- and severity of symptoms in breakthrough cases (hence far less hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated who contract the virus). Breakthrough cases remain very rare indeed, as per the CDC -- and for those without reading comprehension issues.
— Xtrix

Is all the opinion of some scientists based on a handful of low powered studies suffering from the same limitations as most biosciences (which is why they can barely even manage a 50% replicability rate). — Isaac

And there it is. "Some scientists" and a "handful of studies." Annals of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, the AMA, the Lancet, the CDC, the WHO -- all just opinions. We should go with an anti-vax internet troll with reading comprehension problems instead.

:lol:

My 'claim' is limited to showing that matters you present as certain, settled facts believed by virtually all experts are nothing of the sort. — Isaac

Which is what flat-earthers, climate deniers, Creationists, and holocaust deniers all say as well.

I never said it was all "certain, settled fact." This is a fluid situation, and things may change.

But what we know, to the best our our knowledge, right now, is that vaccines are safe (that is indeed supported by overwhelming evidence), effective (likewise), and help stop the spread (likewise). You have shown no evidence to the contrary.

You deny the evidence of this, and distrust the sources given (yet are happy to cite them when you think it helps what you want to believe). Yes, we all knew that already. I mentioned at the beginning that there would be no amount of evidence that will convince you. You will go on believing what you believe years from now, after hundreds of studies have been done -- let's at least be honest about that.

The vaccines reduce the virus in the blood, the virus that you transmit is in the nasal mucosa. — Isaac

For those following along: notice the strategy. Now it's a shift to differentiating internal and mucosal immunity. Those without a leg to stand on often engage in diversion like this, but let's remember the original claim: vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated people. It's worth repeating that no matter how you slice it, this is incorrect.

We can now move on to the vaccines' effectiveness on mucosal immunity, if we want to. But the data so far suggest a much, much better efficacy rate for nasal infection as well, compared to the unvaccinated, even though with the Delta variant and the waning of immunity these numbers have dropped from in the 90% range to the 40%-80% range. This is still superior to being unvaccinated, which is why every major medical organization in the world is encouraging vaccinations.

So this diversion still doesn't support the original claim.

[...] both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines strongly protect against infection and severe disease

Mayo Clinic

They do urge, however, "further evaluation of mechanisms underlying differences in their effectiveness such as dosing regimens and vaccine composition are warranted." Which is understandable.

So in summary of this odd interchange, we're left where we were, despite lies, ignorance, denial, and misreading, distraction, and delusion: the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus by lowering both infection (internal and mucosal) -- whether one contracts the virus at all -- and severity of symptoms in breakthrough cases (hence far less hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated who contract the virus).

Lastly, breakthrough cases remain rare indeed, as per the CDC -- and for those without reading comprehension issues.