In Canada, we had a longer gap between doses, which may be a factor in extending efficacy. There is also a robust booster strategy, though it does not get much attention here. Not sure how it compares, though.
That is actually the definition of bad, inneffective advertising. Good advertising comes from a deep understanding of what people want to do, and then presents them with an opportunity to do just that. This is literally why Google is so valuable. Their ad business is largely based on understanding “intent.” As any decent advertiser knows, you can’t create intent, but you can harness it.
This adds so much clarity, in terms of where the most effective actions on climate change can happen right away, and where we still need more research.
The only hope is massive political pressure on our leaders. If enough people force our leaders to force change on all of us, then we stand a half a chance. I wish this was a hopeful situation. It is not. If this were a war, we would be badly losing. We are effectively sending our children into the deadly hands of our enemies.
If you're losing a war badly, one of the first things to look at is changing tactics. Climate change activists don't seem capable of this. If they want to win this war, come up with a different strategy and new tactics. This one isn't working.
This response is infuriating. Pretend it's not that bad? No one feels the need to do anything. Be realistic about how bad it is? The people who believe you get too depressed to do anything while the others call you alarmist. What "strategy" would you propose?
Currently the message could be summarized thus: "Everything bad you see in the news is due to climate change, if you don't stop driving and using straws, we're all gonna die!!"
People don't believe that and if they do, they're like, well, were done. What can I do, I'm only one.
Instead they should be aiming at the number one culprits, industrial processes and population growth... but they don't do pop growth because it's touchy because it would affect some countries more than others, they don't touch industry because... I don't know, but we know the consumer end of this is not the low hanging fruit or the most impactful target, yet this is where they spend their time and money.
They also like attacking big oil from the 70s because they influenced bad policies (granted) but speak nothing of activists who killed Nuclear (I guess few would own up to their own mistakes) --which would have dampened fossil fuel use.
Well the solutions that are screamed at me involve me giving up my car, my gas range, most of the electronics I find enjoyable, any and all non-essential activities, traveling, etc. In addition to moving into a city with overcrowding public transit (you think it's bad now?) with rapidly increasing crime, more expensive _everything_ is just not something that really gets me in the mood to just say "YEAH, LET'S DO IT! Wait, why am I the only one doing it and suffering?"
I don't think forcing people into suffering (because it is) is a very appealing argument.
Well, I often post about the macroeconomic benefits of fiscal stimulus and CO2 taxes.
The idea that fighting climate change is bad for the economy must die.
Overly simplified: The working economy runs out of money as money concentrates in corporations and the wealthy. Salaries can't be paid at the small business end. Unemployment is pretty much guaranteed. The government pours more money into the economy to alleviate the shortage of money.
What should you pour it on? Schools? Roads? Bridges? Research? Out of ideas? Put the rest into fighting climate change.
The funny part is that it doesn't even require you to believe in climate change. Renewables are cheaper. Electric cars will last longer. Although grid storage is not essential, it would be amazing to have energy storage in the electric grid to prevent blackouts. It would also encourage goal directed research which is much easier than blindly guessing the next big thing.
Now, if it turns out all that climate change noise is true and you end up saving the planet, then think about the profits you would make compared to the business as usual scenario which would obviously have the risk of massive loss of GDP.
In Alberta we had this guy named Weibo Ludwig. He was a pastor who, with his congregation went to homestead in northern Alberta, on a property near some natural gas wellheads.
His sheep started having miscarriages, and then later members of his congregation started having them as well. Efforts to address the matter through legal channels went nowhere so they blew up some wellheads.
As hated as he is in Alberta, he did more to prompt real environmental reform than, well, anybody.
In the past three weeks, US citizens sent over 40,000 messages to their senators to ask them to support a carbon price. Citizens Climate Lobby is now doing the same thing with the House of Representatives: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/house/
This is one of the best chances we've had in a long time to pass some serious climate legislation. A majority of Americans of both major parties are in favor.
It's too late tonight, but I'm personally setting an alarm to call and email tomorrow!
There is massive political pressure on our leaders. Unfortunately It's not from the electorate, its from the people who live in the lobby (of 6 star hotels).
How many times in the past 24 hours did you unconsciously check your email, browse Facebook, visit a website, or check some other app?
Do you ever find yourself looking at your phone, and not remember consciously deciding to look at it?
If you're like 90% of smart phone users, this happens to you all the time.
Sure, you can be like the 10% that doesn't fall victim to the "slot machine" psychology of the modern internet. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the other 90% aren't going to impact your life.
I feel the quality of conversations has vastly decreased, on average, because of the intense level of smart-phone addiction that is so common now. Even if nobody is looking at their phone. ("Attention residue" is a real thing.)
>I feel the quality of conversations has vastly decreased, on average, because of the intense level of smart-phone addiction that is so common now. Even if nobody is looking at their phone. ("Attention residue" is a real thing.)
It's a continuum. I used to write letters once. I loved email when it was new ("new" where I lived and amongst my friends). Within a few years, people who once wrote me a few pages of letters would rarely write more than 2-3 lines in email. It's gone downhill from there.
I don't get it. There have been fully-automatic, vending machine style espresso machines around for a long time. This seems to use technology suited for a different purpose; it's certainly a big robot, but it doesn't exactly seem good at making coffee.
Say there are ten "events" that have had recessions follow them (or not). Each of these events happened 10 times.
For the first type of a event, a recession happened just once afterwards.
For the second type of event, a recession happened twice.
For the third type of event, a recession happened three times
The third, a recession happened three times.
The fourth, a recession happened four out of ten times.
The fifth, a recession happened five times.
Etc...
This has very little to do with flipping a coin, and much more to do with deciding the right time to pay attention.
Half a chance of getting hit by a car is not the same as "flipping a coin."
Generally, throughout the past hundred years or so, there has been much less than a 50% chance to enter a recession. I don't know the numbers, but for any given year, it could be 10%. If there is now a 50% chance, isn't that a 5 fold increase in risk?
Yes, because the potential damage is much more severe. If someone pirates a movie, the damage is about the price of a movie ticket. If someone's private data gets stolen, it can ruin their entire life.
It's not irony. It's you being willfully blind to the difference between "this has copyright" and "this is personal data". Those two aren't even similar!
