billeisele

In South Carolina taxes are determined the same way. The State passed legislation providing a Homestead Exemption, and School Tax Credit for a primary residence. The HE applies when one hits 65. It provides a $50K credit that is applied to the property value. The School TC is huge, that item hammers an owner of a vacation or second home. Just received by 2021 tax bill. It's divided into 3 categories: Schools, County and Agency. The School portion of the millage is 77%, County 19%, and Agency is 4%. The Tax Credit applies to the School portion, it reduces the millage 92%. The total millage as a primary residence is 147. If it were a secondary home it would be 515. The higher taxes for a non-primary residence are huge. The School TC does not apply to vehicles, boats, planes, RVs, etc.

Are these the studies you referred to? Ivermectin in COVID meta analysis - Andrew Hill (1).pdf Ivermectin in COVID meta analysis - Bryant and Lawrie (1).pdf

Ahhh, makes sense. Have seen enough people blow through red lights with a phone stuck in their face to be super cautious when the light turns green.

I'm trying to picture the scenario where one turning left has the right of way over one turning to the right. Makes sense if her light was red but..... Car vs bike is a bad scenario for the bike rider.

Thanks for thoughtful reply. I completely agree with your immune response statement. The immune system remains a mystery. It's has, and continues to do a fantastic job at keeping us alive. When kids eat dirt, or when you have a cut, it jumps in and saves the day, and so on. Most cancer researchers believe that everyone has cancer cells, and that they are below detectable levels by current technology. The immune system successfully fights them off until the day that something goes wrong that allows the cancer to grow beyond the capability of the immune system. At that point it becomes detectable. There is a long list of things that can go wrong including injury, and simply getting older. It makes sense to have the healthiest immune system possible. There are many ways to do that and much of it goes back to the stuff we've all heard about like eating right, get enough rest, exercise, etc. There is a ton of literature on sugar and how it's bad. I guess that falls under eating right. You can decide for yourself. The question then becomes, is it possible to boost the immune system, and the answer is yes. Some would say that just means that the immune system has a range and you're better off at the top of the range. Makes sense. Having a super strong immune system enables it to be - I don't know - faster, more effective, better at fighting bad stuff. Vit D3 is a fundamental building block of the immune system. MDs used to think that 20-30 was good, now it's 50-80. For most people it's not possible to have a level that high without taking daily supplements. D3 is the sunshine vitamin. We're told to wear long sleeves, hats and sunscreen. A good idea but it inhibits the uptake of D3. Yes, it's in food but for most it's impossible to get enough. So, get your level tested to see where you are and take supplements. The stuff is super cheap and almost impossible to misuse. Then there is a multi-vitamin and plenty of Vit C. One can continue down this path with all kinds of stuff. Folks can decide for themselves what they want to do. Couple cases that are both anecdotal. I know a 91-year old that has the body and cognitive ability of a ~75 year old. She takes all kinds of supplements, and eats right and presumably has a strong immune system. She swims 2,000 yards 3x a week, and walks or rides an exercise bike daily. So is it the dietary intake, the exercise, the rest, good genes or the combination that makes her so young? Probably/maybe all of it. She's not willing to stop one and see what happens. She started swimming at 65 and holds numerous state records and a few top 10 national records. Anyone want to race her in the 400 IM? She's slow as Christmas but finishes, some of us would drown first. She got COVID and on day 9 had monoclonal antibody treatment. That is against protocol but they did it anyway. If she had not had viral pneumonia she would have been fine. Took a few days to deal with the pneumonia, now she is fine. Next is me. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis. My D3 was 17 and regularly had typical colds, etc. Fifteen cancer treatments later and I've been cancer free and clear for 4.5 years. Been taking daily D3 supplements ever since, my level is in the 60 - 70's range. How much, typically 10,000 IU a day, sometimes add in some more. My lifestyle hasn't changed and I rarely if ever have a cold or other typical things. I can't prove anything but.....it seems to work. One should wonder why during this mess, the talking heads haven't mentioned the immune system.

Good morning. I've been whacked for saying that anecdotal info has value. I don't agree with that opinion but none the less, it has been repeatedly stated. One guy, that I respect, even said he would throw it in the trash, boom, crushed. I don't want to start a whole other convo about the definition of "vaccine" or their effectiveness. We all know that the definition was changed by the CDC. Yes, the current shots are doing a great job at preventing severe disease. Good stuff. About the head start thing. There are other options to making oneself less prone to severe problems.

Joe - good morning. Don't know if you still hunt but we're having a great deer season here. Fundamentally we agree. It would be interesting to read more current data. The article is from June and much has been learned since then. Had this same convo with some med personnel recently. Their conclusion was that, "we really don't know, too many variables." A couple things they said were: Many/most vaccinated peeps have little to no symptoms so they could be spreaders and no one knows it. Many/most unvaccinated peeps have symptoms, they seek treatment and isolate, and, thus, are a lesser risk. Interesting points but no one really knows. Going one step further. If the shot, in fact, is effective at reducing the chance of getting Covid then that's good, and it does appear to do that. On a normalized basis one would conclude that fewer vaxed peeps will get COVID thus they are a lower risk for spreading. If there was one of those gosh darn gold standard RCT's done and it showed that result then one could make that claim. Otherwise all we have is anecdotal info that, according to some, is worthless.

The data in the chart can't be refuted (using the presumption that the CDC data is correct). It's quite clear. Someone earlier went off the track, most likely due to poor reading comprehension skills, and tried, but failed miserably, to refute what was clearly stated. In the 7-day moving average chart, below, the CA spike in the middle was high. The most recent FL spike was their highest but lower than CA. The point being that since the data is not normalized for population it's not apples to apples. But one could still state - Hey look, FL is great and CA sux, and not be incorrect, based on the limitations of the data. When one takes that same data and normalizes it, the spikes appear differently, as shown in the second chart below. What the earlier poster, and now you, stated is far off from the point in my post. In my post I said, "One could use this (data) to argue their point or use the data to realize that what's occurring is complicated and there is no one specific solution" and, "There are others ways to look at the same data." The approach CA is using is different than the approach FL is using. It will be interesting to watch this data and see what occurs. Who knows what is best. If/when another variant comes along things may swing widely. In the two charts mentioned in the original post the purpose was to show that one can find a data set to make a point. Arguing a position based on one data set is silly. I was not searching for data that "I liked" as you stated. I was showing that there is data that one could use to argue a point. At the end I stated, "US COVID cases have occurred in 14% of the population. COVID cases that resulted in death, 1.6%. Overall COVID deaths are 0.23% of the population." "Fighting amongst each other is worthless." Yet here we are, discussing things that weren't said.

Interesting statement. What is the cite to show that?

3 hours ago, nwt said: Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth. Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here. ******************************************************************************** No clue where you are going except deeper into a hole that you dug for yourself. I did see the comment and it made no sense because the data I pointed out was normalized. You then chose to post the exact graph I spoke about, and surprise, it's normalized! This is exactly what was said, "Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182." "Then look at Daily, Raw totals that shows the 7-day averages one sees that CA is worse at 61, with FL at 1." The first is normalized and the second isn't. My point was that one can find data to make their point, These type arguments are just silly. As of today, FL is doing better than CA in rolling weekly average death count. That data is not normalized.

Don't know why you posted this. I used that exact graph as an example of how data can be used to drive a point. My exact words were, "Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182." So, NO, I did not say that FL is winning.

Good morning. I'm struggling to understand why a guy with your intelligence would even post this. I've always thought you were a, hmmmm, that's interesting, kinda guy. You know, like someone that would figure out how to use solar to economically power a house. I'm wondering when we can buy an SMR at Dollar Tree and plug it into the main panel. To humor you, my answer is... If it was used in a massive uncontrolled study like we're seeing in India, and it had the same incredible results, then yes I would add it to my protocol.

No, not aware of his background. Yes, I'm aware of the RCT gold standard. Please read the article and links about India and let us know your thoughts. Note that it was published in June and you've probably never seen it before. That should make one wonder. The basic question is: At what point does a massive uncontrolled study become credible info? The people involved are well known and highly credible.

Great question. We'll see what happens. If there is a conflict that will require significant head scratching. An ongoing concern is the overwhelming influence that big pharma has on medical issues. They strongly influence how doctors are trained. There is a definite "medicate to cure" mentality. Some doctors recognize that bias and treat differently. Question for you - Will you look at the anecdotal info and at least be open to the idea that it can work? Interesting article https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html India is divided into states with governance much like the US. The states can decide what they will or won't do. Some promoted Ivermectin and some didn't. Same people, same genetics, same living conditions, the results are notable. IMO, an "uncontrolled" study this large rises above the anecdotal level. This is one paragraph from the article, "The choice is clear. Ivermectin is the safe, repurposed Nobel Prize-Winning drug that effectively reduces death up to 91% from COVID-19. It does not produce blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes. It does not cause violent immune reactions. And it reduced the COVID-19 cases in Delhi, India, by an astonishing 97% in five weeks. It costs pennies."

I didn't use that chart, it shows COVID cases. I was looking at the death info. The chart is below. But regardless, you are kinda making my point. One can make an argument "proving" their point by using data that shows what they want. There are many ways to look at the data. And all of it is constantly changing. There is no sense in arguing about all this stuff.

There is a ton of info out there but you won't find it in the main stream media. That fact should make one wonder. The results in India are not "controlled" studies but when millions are involved and they are having great success, that is good enough for me. Then there are MDs that are using it. Some are brave enough to report their results. Yep, another "uncontrolled" study but the patients are not dying. One MD reported approximately 4,000 patients, 5 hospitalized and 100% survival. I know a few people that have used it. Another "super uncontrolled" study. None of them had any problems. The EU has recognized it as an option. Ivermectin has been using for over 40 years, has little side effects and is cheap. There is a controlled study underway being done by Duke University looking at Ivermectin and two other common drugs. They have a few partner medical facilities involved in the study. One is the Medical Univ of SC and that's how I heard about the study. It's been underway for a couple months. https://www.cbs17.com/news/south/dukes-ivermectin-clinical-trials-now-open-to-sc-residents-heres-how-to-sign-up/ The people that are using animal grade Ivermectin and self dosing are a problem, not good.

This web site enables one to look at the data in various ways. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#compare-trends Pick the state(s) you want to look at. One could use this to argue their point or use the data to realize that what's occurring is complicated and there is no one specific solution. One example: the CA vs. FL argument. Dem vs. Rep. Mask, isolation and control vs. not. Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182. Then look at Daily, Raw totals that shows the 7-day averages one sees that CA is worse at 61, with FL at 1. Many states have experienced 3 spikes, some worse than others. The recent FL spike was worse that the prior two but lower than the spike CA experienced. There are others ways to look at the same data. Bottom line is there have been too many deaths, 755,201. One should wonder how many deaths were really COVID, and how many people would have lived if there was no political posturing and influence from big pharma. What have we learned: The shot doesn't prevent COVID but it does reduce symptoms, there are potential negative side effects of the shot, natural immunity is real but not the same in each person that had COVID, monoclonal antibody treatment works, Ivermectin works, masks help but are not a magic shield, distancing helps, isolation helps but is not a fun way to live, and boosting the immune system helps. Politicians, much of mainstream media, and big pharma are not our friends. Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader. US COVID cases have occurred in 14% of the population. COVID cases that resulted in death, 1.6%. Overall COVID deaths are 0.23% of the population. Fighting amongst each other is worthless.

Good day sir. Yes, you've done what most are not willing or maybe capable of doing. As you know, because we've discussed it before, in SC the prices are much lower than CA and the rate structures don't provide a solar subsidy, that other customers are forced to pay, to offset the capital cost. Frankly, I would feel guilty taking the "social welfare" subsidy that's provided by the utility for my solar system but paid to them by all customers including those least capable of affording it. Because of the low rates solar is usually not economically feasible here. So yes, I pay more than $5. But, at least for now, I'll accept service at about half the rate of what is charged in CA and just roll on not worrying about solar hardware and it's headaches.

The energy policies in CA have done a whole lot more than "reduce coal." It's a long story with many twists and turns. I was replying to the comment, "SCE can't keep up with peak demand now, for their failures we get to pay them for a premium pricing event, no joke and it's an increasing phenomenon." The comment infers that it's all SCE's fault. Not true. One thing the policies did was to drive most conventional generation out of the state and make new conventional generation super expensive or impossible to build. I don't want to make too many comments and get in a drawn out discussion with billvon over minor nuances or slight misstatements. We've had those discussion before. When the generator is moved further and further away from the load one solution is major transmission lines. They are extremely expensive, if they are even possible to build, and have their own drawbacks. One way to discourage folks from using power during peak times is to raise prices. That's exactly how a real-time-pricing rate structure works. A "peak" can be defined as lack of generation but also as lack of transmission capability.

lol - CA energy policy and a few other things drive what the utility can and can not do. Anything is possible if one throws enough money at it. In this case the consumers get to pay for the energy policies set by the state.

Yes, that is data for that time period. The data on the map is data thru 11-2 and the last time reported. In this case it was 1:47 PM. It's interesting that you can drill down further and see detail data. Regardless, what you show demonstrates one item I was addressing. One can't look at data at any one particular small snapshot of time and draw any accurate conclusions.

Bill - The CDC data says as below not Oct 22 - 28.

On the CDC site CDC COVID Data Tracker Look at the map and hover on the state to see the data. It shows the FL rate as zero because it is so low. I took there population number and did the math to get the figure.

Interesting CDC data for the last week. FL has been trending down and now has the lowest death rate in the country with CT a close second (also trending down). CA , which was with FL a week ago, is trending upward. It's interesting that FL and CA have two distinctly different thoughts on managing COVID yet the results are what they are. Last week they were about even. Great example of how stats may be misleading. One has to look at this data over a period of time and consider all the factors, which could be too many to make meaningful conclusions. Adding blue/red political analysis/comments is just silly. So many factors that may or may not impact the data. FL - maybe most of the old and vulnerable already croaked. TX - maybe it's the illegal immigrants causing the problem. And that may be true since the northern states of OK and Kansas are quite high, and the east/west states are similar to TX. CA - maybe the reporting is better or it's tourists bringing it in. SC - live free or die, we're just stubborn, or maybe it's the huge influx of northerners escaping the taxes and politics up north. Oh well, here comes cold weather when people go inside and pass around stuff. We'll see. Deaths in the last 7 days, rate per 100,000, FL - 5, 0.02, CT - 26, 0.7 CA - 635, 1.6 IL - 206, 1.6 MI - 194, 1.9 Oregon - 88, 2.1 SC - 168, 3.2 TX - 909, 3.1 OK - 178, 4.5 Kansas - 204, 7 Montana - 99, 9.3

Fact check and the claims above are false. Assuming the CDC website is accurate. FL deaths are at the lowest rate in the country while IL is in the middle of the pack. TX is in the second highest group along with 8 other states. There are 7 states in the highest group.