gowlerk

We need geeks and dreamers too I guess. And they are all firmly in the "Man must go to Mars" camp with Elon. I'm not going to pretend I have any knowledge of the hardware these guys are excited about. It seems to me that Bill's expertise is in unmanned vehicles, so he knows their limitations. But Joe is correct, the limitations that sending humans places on what can be done mostly rule them out as cargo. We are far too fragile to waste all that launch capacity on. Not that long ago everyone was raving about Perseverance landing on Mars. It's still there plugging away. Landing on the Moon was the biggest and best adventure ever, but that was then and it has been done. Until there are realistic plans for a Moon station, what's the point?

I wonder what the carbon footprint for this is? What would Greta do?

Obviously Bill cares about this planned Lunar manned mission and has given a lot of thought to it. I have also given it some thought, but my conclusions are very different. There is no good reason for a manned Moon mission at this time. Therefore in the end most likely there will not be one until there is a reason.

Isn't that a call for socialism?

My wife, who normally works in an out patient eye surgery clinic doing pre and post op nursing, or as I like to say "helping the blind to see", has just been informed that most likely she will be reassigned into an ICU unit to help with the current surge in about a week. Mostly caused by anti-vaxxers in our small but stubborn conservative bible belt. She had to do it for a while earlier this year and she hates it because she is not trained and is afraid of making an error there. I have no patience for anti-vaxxers. None.

Mid-terms in one year. They will simply run out the clock and hope for a return to the majority in Congress. And it will almost certainly work. Sad.

It turns out that Merrick Garland is not afraid to proceed.

My 2 cents. I long ago figured out that people who call themselves "Libertarian" are generally those who dislike the rules that they perceive as limiting them. But rules that only limit others and protect them are of course just natural and needed. They drive down the road blithely unable to see that the road could never exist without society, government, and rules. A phrase I like to use instead of that word is "self centred".

You are watching the wrong talking heads.

There are many diseases caused by the immune system getting out of hand and attacking otherwise healthy tissue. This is a very complex subject and not something most of us can really even begin to understand. People who take drugs and supplements to "strengthen the immune system" are completely clueless. The only reasonable phrase in the quote from you above is when you type the words "I don't know".

Vaccines have been a proven strategy for dealing with many of the pathogens that infect people and cause disease. I'm not going to list them here as I am sure you are familiar with this fact. SARS‐CoV‐2 is just the latest in a long line of them. Just as there is essentially no easy way to treat other infections caused by viruses, like colds for instance, there is no easy and effective way to treat Covid-19 disease. Most people recover thankfully. Prevention is always far better than cure anyway. The only real difference in public acceptance of vaccine as the best method of dealing with it is that somehow it has managed to become a political issue.

Common sense? The vaccine, or basically any vaccine does not prevent infection. It does prevent or lessen disease. We still have a lot of infections to come in this pandemic. We would have far less if more people were protected by a vaccine that gives their bodies a head start.

Fox News one time slogan........."We report. You decide".

Your country at its founding was considered radically liberal. Conservatives wanted to stay loyal to the Crown.

When it is followed by a controlled study. No controlled studies have shown any benefit whatsoever.

Maybe fewer, IDK. But Aspirin has a ton of very bad side effects when used inappropriately.

How is the Ivermectin thing different from "medicate to cure"?

Head scratching? You are bordering, but not quite crossing into conspiracy theory territory on this Ivermectin thing. Again I ask you, if it was effective why would Merck or anyone else suppress that information?

And the conclusions of that link are as follows: Conclusions: The incidence in mortality rates and number of cases is significantly lower among the APOC countries compared to non-APOC countries. That a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use is an attractive hypothesis. Additional studies are needed to confirm it. In other words there is some anecdotal reason to hope, but no reliable evidence. I give you this more detailed report from 6 days ago that looks into this and explains that despite quite a few proper studies into the efficacy of the drug in treating or preventing Covid-19 there is still no reason to think it can help. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-ivermectin-in-treatment-and-prevention-rapid-review.pdf The fact is the even Merck, the profit driven "big pharma" company that you express such dislike for, who produces Ivermectin and stands to make bank from its successful products says this: Merck, the manufacturers of ivermectin, have concluded that there is: • “No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; • No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; • A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.” Furthermore, Merck states that “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agencyapproved prescribing information.” Other than the fact that this gives you a chance to rail on against both government agencies and drug companies, tell me why you would continue to believe and spread the Ivermectin myth?

Except for one glaring thing, so am I. That one thing? "Ivermectin works". I have seen no reason to believe that.

Generally the somewhat better value products are purchased either by younger newer jumpers, or older experienced people who understand the value of a dollar. The friends you heard from may be people who are a little full of themselves. Something that is very common in the sport. Pay no attention to what people say and instead watch what they do.

The real question should be not what the keyboard warrior trolls do in places like this. If a man really believes that word is not offensive just ask him if he would be comfortable using in front of a first nations woman, to her face, in referring to her. If not then he is being a coward. If so then he is just a plain asshole.

Extreme finger wagging, as always.

Probably the very best thing that could be done is to put you in charge of everything. You always seem to have all the answers

I would be surprised if he did not realize that and used it anyway.