How many of the people doing that are locals doing it as a regular thing, vs tourists doing it as a one off experience? The core argument in the article is that the younger generation aren't going to their local clubs regularly enough to keep them afloat, preferring going to do much fewer and more 'special' events. The places that can survive are those that either bring in lots of tourists and/or focus larger one off events that can pull in a really large crowd.
Depends on what you're comparing it to. This thread is about unconditional cash. Giving everyone $1000 a month, unconditionally, is clearly many times more expensive than subsidizing the minimum wage by $1 an hour - it's rather difficult to work 1000 hours when a month has ~730 hours!
The "investment" (assuming that's what you mean by the math) can be as high or as low as any other proposal, there's nothing special about it. You can adjust the $/hr that you subsidize and the size of the group that is eligible to fit the proposed investment.
> It's idiotic. Just phone it in directly and go pick it up.
I don't have a car at the moment — am I just never supposed to eat outside of home-made food anymore? I've done that math many times, Ubering both ways to a restaurant is even dramatically more expensive than a delivery service.
If you don't live in an extremely walk-able place, sometimes it's the only option.
Without links to more information on these engineering decisions, I don't think I'm qualified to evaluate whether these are serious risks, and I don't believe you are either. I tend to listen to engineers.
We used spreadsheets to manage offices -- there is about 15 separate offices -- complete data set (clients, analytics, call logs) and each sheet has many, many different formulas interconnecting all the sheets in the book.
We use Google Sheets, as we changed from Office at the beginning of this year, and 10-15 times a day my tab crashes on Chrome from just existing, let alone when trying to do any operations.
It's a mess, and I'd rather build a simple web app to replace it, but don't have the time, approval, or financial resources to make the switch. So instead of letting me improve 100+ peoples daily workflows, we just suffer.
I know it sounds like a terrible idea,but next time you wait for the tab to restart how about looking into the sheets api docs? And the next time,try to write a quick script that just makes updating the cells you need to update a bit easier. At the end of it,at least you won't have to suffer.
+1 for Google Apps Script. I’ve built dashboards in sheets using Apps Script to call web services. I think you can even make your Apps Script act as a rudimentary FAAS using the sheet as a database.
That's not an Excel problem. That's a problem with using Google's shitty, half-baked, bloated facsimile of Excel.
I personally would rather build an Excel sheet (in actual Excel) than a simple web app. In fact, I believe a double digit percentage of SaaS startups would be strictly more useful to their users if they came in the form of a downloadable Excel sheet instead of the bullshit web SPA thing. But of course, selling something useful for the customer is not how you make money today.
> Nobody's ditching the dollar. However Saudi Arabia and China significantly reduced their investment in US bonds lately. Also notice that the interests on US debt come dangerously close to the whole of US government revenue.
Revenue for 2023 was $4.4T[0], debt servicing cost was $624B. This year it's projected to be in the ~800s.
I'll bite - how much of this 4.4T revenue is non discretionary spending and how much is the discretionary? Because I think that roughly 25% of USG income was discretionary. Which is quite close to the 800 figure.
Does the debt servicing include repaying the principal of maturing treasuries or just the interest?
I haven’t been able to figure out if the principal is not counted in these numbers because it is getting refinanced by rolling over to new treasuries.
If so, it’s like continuously rolling over an Interest Only loan and taking more and more out over time to refinance the ballooning principal.
It's both, although an extremely low percentage of people, IIRC, actually "cash out", most just roll the funds into a new bond once the previous one matures.
> Long COVID, as currently defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other authorities, is a symptomatic condition that has been shown to affect an estimated 10-30% of non-hospitalized patients after one infection.
Then they need to stop saying that Covid causes these things. They need to say Covid increases a risk of causing these diseases in some people.
I mean, look at the title of the paper
“Spectrum of COVID-19: From Asymptomatic Organ Damage to Long COVID Syndrome”
Where is the part of the spectrum where nothing happens at all? The spectrum of COVID-19 is from nothing happened to dying.
And I can see everyone on Twitter right now yelling at me to wear a mask because the spectrum of Covid is always disabling. It’s just really really bad messaging
> COVID-19 can cause brain damage including loss of brain tissue, small blood vessels, and merged brain cells. In some patients, perhaps many, there is also damage to the immune system.
Now that, I did not know. Crazy how much damage COVID can actually do.
I suspect lots of viruses do tons of long-term damage in at least some cases, but it’s just less-studied or comes up less in the media. Flu, colds, hand and foot, all that stuff.
Though even allowing that, it’s still possible Covid-19 is worse than most viruses, as far as that sort of damage goes.
The big 2024 National Academies consensus paper says that they see similar long term damage from chronic fatigue syndrome and several rare diseases, but don't mention this as an outcome from more common viruses.[1] (Skip ahead to the summary).
The big open question is cumulative damage from multiple COVID-19 infections.[2] There are now many people who have had COVID more than once. (US: 60% at least once, maybe 11% more than once.) A few people have had it many more times, but that seems to involve some pre-existing condition. A VA study of older veterans indicates that cumulative damage is real in older adults. As
time goes on, there will be more previously healthy people who have had COVID multiple times, and this question will be answered the hard way.
Energy depletion indicated by the reduced levels of ATP and GTP has been described in several studies on infectious diseases and endotoxemia16,17,18. Reduced ATP levels in blood and various organs, including the liver, have been previously associated with influenza virus infection in a mouse model16. Decreased GTP levels have been shown in the lung tissues of rabbits treated with bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide17. Increases in the serum levels of hypoxanthine and inosine have also been reported in patients with primary dengue virus infection at the febrile stage, suggesting an imbalance of ATP and/or GTP synthesis and degradation during the acute stage of the dengue fever18. These studies and ours indicate that regulatory energy depletion is a common symptom of infectious diseases.
In this article, we provide a novel hypothesis to describe how an increase in cellular adenosine triphosphate (c-ATP) can potentially improve the efficiency of innate and adaptive immune systems to either prevent or fight off COVID-19.
Measles for example wipes out the immune systems memory of everything it has learned to defend against, leaving people newly vulnerable to everything they were immune to before:
There's a good chance that a lot of the "mystery diseases" are due to longer lasting damage from viruses, to organs and to the immune system, including ordinary colds and flu. Colds and flu are probably spread via the air also, yet this also remains unstudied (otherwise known as "there is no evidence") and hospitals don't take precautions for most patients, probably because the cost would be large to treat the air in all hospital rooms. It would mean ending practices like putting two patients in each room as well. I think that in the past a lot was overlooked as being too complex to deal with ("we can't cure flu, it mutates too fast") or too costly (but so was mapping DNA), or both (drugs personalized to each persons DNA) so a certain amount of death and disability was allowed and drugs and surgery statistically only work for some people (see "number needed to treat", NNT). Now we have better tools and understanding and these things should change.
That's not true, as you have no idea what the distribution of complications is for almost any illness... you need to understand the complication distribution and the transmissibility in order to judge impact.
They were speaking hypothetically. Even if denotes a scenario where the impact per infection is equal.
In such a scenario Covid has worse impact due to the higher transmissibility. People seem to get it every 6-12 months. Flu infection is much less frequent.
Your assumption is that the impact per infection is equal or worse.
I think that there's no real basis to assume that, especially when young. I would expect the distribution of flu complications (externally validated, not based on self-reports) is actually worse.
I think the flu data is somewhat difficult here. Most people do not refer to having had it if they didn't get sick. Yet, studies are showing from a third to a half of people with the flu will be asymptomatic. Which, is kind of terrifying to me.
True, but Covid also has plenty of asymptomatic or low symptomatic cases. I’ve known a few who tested positive while reporting no symptoms.
A Chinese field study estimated people got the flu once every five years. It is simply much less contagious. Flu collapsed globally when countries put in place Covid precautions.
Latest study I saw on flu was about 10% of people get it each season. And there was another study showing that families with toddlers are basically always exposed.
COVID does follow the same general rates of corona viruses, from what I remember. Which is to say it is higher than flu. So, I am not trying to downplay that.
I'm very hesitant to extrapolate from those numbers. Often times they will use that as "per exposure" number. Such that it will often be far higher than you'd take from a naive reading. Sadly, I don't remember where I saw that number, so can't check up on it.
That said, feels very in the weeds here. My stance is largely to have as much patience with folks as can be. I don't personally go through as much effort as many do, but I see no reason for that to be something to get upset over, either.
Different etiologies can have the same symptoms and it is silly to suggest there is no difference between diseases. They’ve found tests which can distinguish long Covid.
Covid doesn’t reactivate the Epstein-Barr virus. What it does is it weaken the immune system further by depleting ATP and GTP. That weakening of the immune system stops our immune system from suppressing EBV.
Because exercise alone can weaken the immune system enough to Reactivate viruses.
Thankfully exercise can also help strengthen the immune system. (source: I've been exercising a lot lately after years of feeling like I had chronic fatigue - more accurately it seems to have been sleep apnea - and have had 3 diagnosed cases of mono in my life)
EBV is liked to many other diseases. To quote wikipedia:
"EBV has also been implicated in several other diseases, including Burkitt's lymphoma,[58] hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis,[59] Hodgkin's lymphoma,[60] stomach cancer,[12][61] nasopharyngeal carcinoma,[62] multiple sclerosis,[15][16][63][17] and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.[64]"
Burkitt's lymphoma is an oddball cancer in which growth is so fast treatment should begin almost immediately.
I've heard Covid referred to in some quarters as "aerosolised HIV", which should be at least taken seriously, even if it is (possibly) overly alarmist. It's certainly easier to catch than HIV.
While it's useful to have a distinct name for the virus/disease, it really should have been called what it is: It's SARS-CoV-2 not Covid. SARS: severe acute respiratory syndrome.
I wear a n95 mask at work (medical practice) and I consistently wear one in shops, especially shopping centres. It's kept me safe so far.
> I've heard Covid referred to in some quarters as "aerosolised HIV", which should be at least taken seriously, even if it is (possibly) overly alarmist.
I've heard it too and it's definitely one of the more deranged takes I've run into.
To be clear, I do find it alarmist, but I take it seriously in the sense that it's definitely clear that Sars-cov-2 isn't "just a cold", and it's perhaps promotes a more healthy and cautious attitude to the virus in the face of the dangerous community apathy and dismissal, even in medical spaces.
In other words, "there would be no smoke without fire". I believe, personally, that this truism is a major cause of injustice and grief in the world, historically and at present time. It is absolutely fair and warranted to be skeptical in every possible way every time it is pronounced.
* Sars-cov-2 is a new virus to us and research into is ongoing.
* It demonstratably has short and long term health effects, and some of those lead to death or disability (see TFA). Repeat infections cause further damage.
* It is an easy virus to catch.
With those factors I believe in erring on the side of caution, and am alarmed at the way the a serious public health problem has become politicised and polarised.
I work in a medical practice staffed by sane people so we had excellent infection control and procedures from even before the pandemic, and just doubled down on it. I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. I'm an introvert and seldom socialise. My SO is susceptible to respiratory infections which motivates me to keep as safe as possible.
> I consistently wear one in shops, especially shopping centres.
...I don't know how I feel about this, honestly. I respect everyone's right to be as cautious how they want in their life and dress how they choose but after 4+ years I think those who haven't returned to not wearing masks 24/7 outside the home are being a little, uh -- I guess a word for it would be over-dramatic.
If nothing else, there are still legitimate medical risks to catching COVID for people who are immunocompromised (at minimum). A good mask lets them at least have less risk being out and about.
Plus, given how often it mutates, perhaps people just don't want to get sick again even if they don't have any long-term aftereffects.
I had COVID five times over the past four years. Last three times barely any symptoms.
> It’s kind Wrong to say that Covid causes these things. Because if Covid alone caused these issues then everyone would have these issues after Infected.
However, this is not sound logic. As stated in the study, it causes these different issues in some percentage of cases, not all.
