Vort

...and who kill their babies who dare to give life a try. But of course, the abortion situation is messy and infinitely complicated, and it's unforgivably judgmental of people to say that aborting your babies is killing them. Unlike laughing that, oh, I don't know, let's say, all the conservative Covid deniers are going to die off from catching a disease because of their own repugnant stupidity. This is an obvious and very clever truth worthy of belly laughs and sage nods from those smart enough to perceive conservative idiocy. It's always okay to mock stupid, self-destructive conservatives. But let's never hear a word against those poor, brave, enlightened souls on the left who suffer so bitterly for their sanity in a mad, Republican-ruled world. Please, just shut up and mask up. If you're not smart enough to do it for yourself, then do it for the protection of your betters.

Me.

As someone who has worked with doctors in grad school, I can say that the very best doctors are wonderfully intelligent and highly trained. But even they don't know everything, are well aware of their deficiencies, and do not pretend to knowledge and specialization they don't have. Medical doctors get approximately the same level of training in virology as biology graduate students who take a graduate-level virology course with lab. That is to say, they get a good, thorough introduction to the field and are generally familiar with the principles involved, but they would not dream to then call themselves experts in virology. That is a specialty unto itself. Then how do medical doctors make their recommendations in such things? Simple. They read up to see what the standard medical practices are, and they follow those. This is the blunt fact about how modern American medicine works. A doctor cannot possibly be expert in all things, and a family doctor (what used to be called a "general practitioner") usually cannot be expert in pretty much anything—possibly pediatrics or some such thing. Such doctors are generalists, almost by definition. They simply follow the standard practice, not because they're expert, but because they trust that the experts have done the thinking for them. Not sure the world can work in a different way when people are hyperspecialized. But it certainly makes the idea that "any doctor who says so is perfectly believable" (or, in dprh's words, "as long as it's someone that has an education in medicine and successful in their practice at it, you're good") simply untrue. COVID has a death rate of under 1.5% for those who get infected. Looking at a chart of death rate vs. age—an alarmist chart, to be sure, one that seeks to maximize the perception of danger* (blue bar is lower bound, black bar is upper bound)—we see that children and young adults are virtually immune from fatal effects of COVID. Those in middle age experience a death rate greater than that of an average flu, but not worthy of the worldwide panic that has gripped those who have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by a sensationalist media. According to the chart below—a biased chart, remember—it is only those over 75 years of age that stand a really alarming chance of dying from COVID. *This chart is obviously biased. Those over the age of 65 comprise less than 10% of the world population, meaning those under 65 are 90% of the population. The very oldest, whose death rate bars are the scariest, constitute no more than about 1% of the world population. Yet the "Total" death rate given is substantially higher even than that of the oldest group under 65. Assuming reasonable numbers for the various age groups, how is this high "Total" death rate statistically possible? It is possible only if we assume that young people simply don't get COVID at much of a rate, and that only old people get it. Even if you believe such nonsense, you can't claim that's what the media scare tells you on a daily basis. It's not only the death of very old people that the media pass around. The bottom line is that the media feed us misinformation on a daily basis. The only question is whether they (1) are doing it intentionally as part of a dark, evil conspiracy, or (2) are simply too stupid to understand what's involved, or (3) are blinded by their own sociopolitical opinions and trying to play the hero by selectively portraying the numbers that they themselves believe (or that they think are necessary to get the population to act as they should), or (4) are themselves at the mercy of information providers, and are not (and cannot reasonably be expected to be) expert enough or intelligent enough to see how they are being manipulated. I'm sure it will be some combination of those four. What is absolutely beyond dispute is that, whatever you choose to believe, only a fool will take the media's coverage and analysis at face value. (For the record, I assume about 40% #3, 30% #2, 20% #4, and 10% #1.)

I suggest this is a mischaracterization of what occurred. Brothers Williams and Gause were not in competition with each other. Rather, Williams picked up the burden that Gause lost due to faithlessness. I find it interesting and maybe a little bit funny that Brother Williams went through the original paper copy of the revelation, literally striking out Gause's name and replacing it with his own. That's taking the admonition to apply scripture unto oneself very seriously. The same is true with the parable of the talents. The trustees were not in competition with each other, but the slothful servant's assignment was taken from him and given to one who had demonstrated his ability. To me, this sounds like living the law of consecration under a sort of united order, which is the polar opposite of competition. As for Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Ephraim, and Manassah, those events are not presented in a positive light, but as subterfuge. Lessons of eternal truths may have been drawn from the occurrences, but the happenings themselves seem to me more like ancient middle eastern family intrigues. I gather that such things were not uncommon.

But this does not happen. Those who fear getting the dread Covid virus have but to "mask up" to gain the near-magical protection offered thereby.

The Lord saw that at some point Simon would be converted, and thus admonished him that, when that time came, he was to strengthen his brethren.

It also means that Peter, the Lord's senior apostle who was already commissioned by him and who had great authority in his Church and greater authority to come, was nevertheless not yet converted. I find this amazing.

That is not the only, or even the primary, meaning of "secret combination".

My daughter loves frozen grapes. I didn't even realize it was a thing until I found a baggie of grapes in the freezer. Sounds tasty, actually.

Nonconformists UNITE! Or don't. That's okay, too.

You spelled HIPAA correctly. What's wrong with you?

A few areas of discussion with JAG's post. I don't think there is anything "particularly unpleasant" about dying of COVID, as opposed to dying of any other respiratory infection. Calling the number of deaths "large" is purely a value judgment. We have not lost 10% of the population to COVID. This statement is what the media reports, but it is meaningless. For one thing, life expectancy is calculated from data tabulations extending back for long periods. COVID is still largely a blip on the radar; its statistical effects on life expectancy will be noted in the years to come, not today. For another, "life expectancy" typically is applied to newborns: How long can this newly born child expect to live? What we have been seeing with COVID deaths for the last 20 or so months is mostly old people dying somewhat earlier than expected. To extend this to the 40-and-under crowd as a general "US life expectancy has declined!" is an unjustified scare tactic worthy of Comrade Stalin, Dear Leader Kim, and the 21st-century US news media. I would like to hear @MarginOfError's take on this. I trust his understanding of and judgment about statistics more than I trust my own. I gather that the immunoresponse models have worked pretty accurately. The modeling of spread and infection, not so much. I think the vaccine scare plays into the hands of the duplicitous media. I dearly wish that the many on "my side" that we hear loudly decrying the vaccine as a threat to America's health would just stop it. But in the larger view, their ignorance is certainly no worse in quality than the ignorance of the "other side", which is much greater in scope and much more directly targeted at curtailing liberty. The anti-vax ignorance displayed by many on "my side" will result in a higher death toll, primarily among the very old. The ignorance displayed by the "other side" will result in a permanent loss of liberty and a ceding of fundamental rights to government whim. I know which of the two I consider to be a far greater threat to my children and my children's children. A Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) is a physician, just like a Medical Doctor (MD). DOs historically claim to be more "naturalistic" and "holistic" in their medical approach—which no one can reasonably say is a bad thing—while MDs follow "traditional medicine". Both types of physician receive essentially identical training. Both are licensed to practice medicine. AFAIK, neither the law nor the medical community distinguish between MDs and DOs on a functional level. DOs are allowed to go into any specialization open to an MD. You will find DO radiologists, oncologists, psychiatrists, and neurosurgeons. Now, the fact is that the most respected medical schools overwhelmingly offer MD programs, while many newer medical schools offer DO programs. So there is a perception that DOs are the physicians whose MCAT test scores or grades out of college weren't high enough to get them into a better program. There may be some truth to this broad assertion, but it is indeed a broad assertion and cannot reliably be applied to individual cases. The fact that it was a DO who wrote the note instead of an MD is utterly meaningless. You could as easily find an MD to write such a note as you could find an MD to write you an excuse for a beard card at BYU. MDs are every bit as politically biased, stubborn, and ignorant as their DO counterparts. I certainly agree about the BYU-H aministrators being morally justified in requiring a vaccination, whether or not I may happen to agree with them on the particular issue. I trust that your legal analysis is valid; sounds good to me. I think this is a losing issue all around for anti-government-encroaching conservatives. I would like to see fewer people getting up in arms over situations like this. If you don't like the policies at BYU-H (or Harvard, or Evergreen College, or Joe's Auto Body Repair and School of Life Sciences), then go somewhere else. Now if you're talking about a public school, I would be more sympathetic to such objections.

The point is that *everyone* doesn't have to be vaccinated to get those results. You could get basically the same result by vaccinating maybe half or less of the population, oldest first.

I would laugh, except it's true rather than funny.

I don't know about the "most evil people in the Church" part, but it may well be true. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with the above. I dearly hope you are mistaken. I hope she's nothing more than a naive young lady who thinks she's being a heroine. Heaven forbid another precious daughter of God follow Kate Kelley's path.