[hrothgar]

thepossum, on 2022-January-11, 16:30, said:

Question to Cooler brains trust

Hopefully relevant

What was the greatest cause of development of antibiotic resistant bacterial infection

Who is behind corner stores all over the world selling individual pills for viral infection

Who is behind pushing antipsychotic meds as sleeping pills in a similar way

Who is behind that

Who is behind the mass sale of unnecessary and wasteful clinical grade PPE

Etc

I'm going to stick my personal and professional neck out, unlike many others who should also, and call out the bullshit

Who is behind major health issues and decisions, individual decisions, being pushed through a global retail model with the help of media, government, international agencies etc

Who was behind the influence trust model where selling of health is done through your ignorant mate on Facebook

I currently have a list of health risks which are being neglected. All anyone cares about is what I mask I wear. When I get my booster. Supermarkets and pharmacies are stripped of important health products. People wasting days traveling round cities looking for unnecessary tests instead of staying home

Normally, when I see people talking like this, the answer they are looking for is "the Jews".

[cherdano]

https://twitter.com/...976894589906950

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2022-January-13, 03:40, said:

https://twitter.com/...976894589906950

I saw a sardonic write-up about this with the added (presumably made-up) follow-up that when Fauci was criticized for calling the Senator a moron he said "I was just following the science".

[pilowsky]

It's a lot worse than it seems.
Many politicians hold scientific inquiry in complete contempt.
Randall Paul has been railing against funding for science for a very long time.
He is one of those people that mocks grants selected by rigorous peer-review at every opportunity.
I suspect this animus towards actual scientists stems from his peculiar behaviour when he abandoned the American board of ophthalmology because he disagreed with them.

Perhaps his open contempt for all things science and his cloying need to justify it constantly explains his self-destructive attitude towards vaccines.

Roughly a quarter of Americans believe that science is bad and not in the public interest (Pew).
Conservative party politicians sing to this choir.

[Winstonm]

thepossum, on 2022-January-11, 16:30, said:

Question to Cooler brains trust

Hopefully relevant

What was the greatest cause of development of antibiotic resistant bacterial infection

Who is behind corner stores all over the world selling individual pills for viral infection

Who is behind pushing antipsychotic meds as sleeping pills in a similar way

Who is behind that

Who is behind the mass sale of unnecessary and wasteful clinical grade PPE

Etc

I'm going to stick my personal and professional neck out, unlike many others who should also, and call out the bullshit

Who is behind major health issues and decisions, individual decisions, being pushed through a global retail model with the help of media, government, international agencies etc

Who was behind the influence trust model where selling of health is done through your ignorant mate on Facebook

I currently have a list of health risks which are being neglected. All anyone cares about is what I mask I wear. When I get my booster. Supermarkets and pharmacies are stripped of important health products. People wasting days traveling round cities looking for unnecessary tests instead of staying home

What is the driver? 1) Capitalism. 2) Greed. 3) Ayn Rand,

[pilowsky]

Visa cancelled.
Don't mess with Australia.

[Winstonm]

pilowsky, on 2022-January-14, 04:46, said:

Visa cancelled.
Don't mess with Australia.

Maybe he can get a match with Aaron Rogers

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2022-January-13, 15:25, said:

It's a lot worse than it seems.
Many politicians hold scientific inquiry in complete contempt.
Randall Paul has been railing against funding for science for a very long time.
He is one of those people that mocks grants selected by rigorous peer-review at every opportunity.
I suspect this animus towards actual scientists stems from his peculiar behaviour when he abandoned the American board of ophthalmology because he disagreed with them.

Perhaps his open contempt for all things science and his cloying need to justify it constantly explains his self-destructive attitude towards vaccines.

Roughly a quarter of Americans believe that science is bad and not in the public interest (Pew).
Conservative party politicians sing to this choir.

I clicked on the link to Pew. This could lead to a very extended and I think interesting discussion, probably worth a thread of its own. Let me take just one simple result of their poll:

https://www.pewresea...up_05.png?w=620

If I understand it correctly, people were asked to choose between exactly two statements:

A: Scientists should stick to establishing sound scientific facts when it comes to policy debates about scientific issues.

B: Scientists should take an active role when it comes to policy debates about scientific issues.


Which do I choose? For B, I would like to know what sort of "active role" is envisioned. A friend once gave a math lecture wearing a T-shirt that said "P=NP? I don't know and I don't care".

If called before the Senate to testify, he could probably do pretty good job of explaining the issue and report on the progress, especially on the lack of progress. He could probably do this so that at least some of the senators would have a decent understanding of the issue. But then it should probably stop there. Here is an actual example of what I am talking about: At a recent family Christmas gathering, yes, a small gathering where we kept our distance, somehow the discussion veered into technical issues of mathematics, computer science and logic. (Yeah, Merry Christmas).. Not everyone was following the discussion about provable versus true, so I ventured in with the 3x+1 problem. It goes like this:

You start with a positive whole number x and apply a rule. The rule takes into account whether x is odd or even.
If x is od, you multiply by 3 and add 1. So 11->34
If x is even, you divide by 2. So 34->17.

Now apply this rule repeatedly and see what happens. 11->34 -> 17 -> 52 -> 26 -> 13 -> 40 -> 20 -> 10 -> 5 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4-> 2 ->1 -> 4->2 -> 1 etc

Question: Is it true that no matter which positive integer you begin with you always get to 1?

Suppose you try it for all numbers less than 100000000 and you always end up at 1. Great, but there are many numbers bigger than 100000000 so we are not done.

Suppose you try it on some number no one has ever tried before. You set the computer to work and after three days of working day and night the computer is still chugging along, not yet having reached 1. Patience, Give it time.


In neither case have we found an answer that we can prove is correct.

I am pleased to say that my granddaughter, who had been quiet for a while, said "That's the first thing anyone has said about this that I can understand."

So: If playing an active role in the debate means helping policymakers understand what has and what has not been established and with what degree f confidence, then I am all for scientists taking an active role in a policy debate. If, otoh, it means the scientist says "I know everything, shut up, listen to me, do what I say" then I am less enthusiastic.

Btw: Yes, one thing that could someday occur in the 3x+1 problem is that a cycle other than 1 -> 4->2 -> 1 is found. Say three numbers x, y, z such that x->y ->z ->x (well, it would be longer than three numbers x,y,z) and then just continues on in this cycle. This would prove that starting with that x you never get to 1. So the problem has been refined to 'Do you always reach a cycle? 1 starts a cycle 1 ->4 -> 2->1 , but there might be others. No one knows. It is either true or false that you always reach a cycle, but possibly there will never be, and never can be, a proof of which it is.

Scientists might lie, anyone might, but very few scientists do, it goes deeply against the grain. But convincing themselves that they know more than they do? We are all in danger of that.

[PassedOut]

Good article in the NY Times: Halting Progress and Happy Accidents: How mRNA Vaccines Were Made

Includes a good photo of the young Dr. Fauci giving an explanation to Bill Clinton and Al Gore!

[helene_t]

I have mostly stayed out of this thread because I am afraid of saying something which I will later regret.

Just one thing came to my mind which I will probably regret also, but anyway:

Isn't it a bit problematic that the OZ government can deport the covidiot because he is a talisman for anti-vaxers? What's next? Someone being deported because they are a talisman for anti-capitalism?

Of course, the covidiot shouldn't have been given a visa in the first place, and maybe they could have found some technicality to deport him on (his lying on his travel to Spain, for example), but the reason given seems problematic to me.

[sfi]

helene_t, on 2022-January-16, 05:33, said:

I have mostly stayed out of this thread because I am afraid of saying something which I will later regret.

Just one thing came to my mind which I will probably regret also, but anyway:

Isn't it a bit problematic that the OZ government can deport the covidiot because he is a talisman for anti-vaxers? What's next? Someone being deported because they are a talisman for anti-capitalism?

Of course, the covidiot shouldn't have been given a visa in the first place, and maybe they could have found some technicality to deport him on (his lying on his travel to Spain, for example), but the reason given seems problematic to me.

I'm actually glad they didn't go with the straight technicality approach. It's a rare instance where this government takes a stand on something, and that's better than hiding behind some loophole. As for Djokovic, I'm ambivalent. I kind of think they should have refused a visa because he's a prat, but it has been pointed out this is probably an unworkably broad criterion.

The larger question is one of failing a "character test", where Australia refuses entry or cancel the visa for some people who will be promoting ideas seen as wildly different from societal norms or who have a criminal history deemed to be sufficient to not let them in. You can find an incomplete list of people here. You can include Mike Tyson, Chris Brown, Holocaust denier David Irving and recently Katie Hopkins, among others. The Minister has a broad power to cancel visas.

Yes, this is problematic. However, the argument that some views should be kept out of the country in the first place is not a nonsensical one. To take your hypothetical, they could ban someone for being anti-capitalism. And if the person were preaching active and violent overthrow of the capitalist system they might just do that. But if they did, the media coverage would be intense enough that everyone would be exposed to the person's ideas and start to form a view of what they are talking about. So the public discussion needs to be considered in this decision anyway - for instance, I know more about Milo Yiannopoulos' views because of that situation than I ever wanted to learn.

[Winstonm]

Australia
+1

[pilowsky]

In the USA you can apparently say anything you want.
You can march down the streets wearing Nazi symbology shouting "Jews will -insert slogan here".
And people will say - oh, I disagree but I'll shoot myself to protect their right to say it.
This BS doesn't apply in other countries.

Djokovic was deported after he entered the country illegally - he lied on his landing card.
In it's judgement the court pointed out that its job was not to decide whether or not the Minister was "reasonable" - which was the argument made by Djokovic - only that it was legal.
In his first case he won because procedural fairness was not followed.
In the second he lost because he didn't follow the laws of the land.
Australia is not America. Australians believe fervently that Australians are jointly responsible for the welfare of other Australians.
Education is free, Health care is free, access to a pension and unemployment benefits are available to all.

It's very rare to find anything that >75% of Australians agree on but "special treatment" because a person is a "celebrity" is definitely one of them.

The rantings from his team and Serbian politicians about how "important" he is because he plays tennis well would only serve to annoy Australians more.

[smerriman]

pilowsky, on 2022-January-16, 14:45, said:

Djokovic was deported after he entered the country illegally - he lied on his landing card.
..
In the second he lost because he didn't follow the laws of the land.

This isn't true. He was deported because it was decided it was not in the public's best interest for him to be in the country. The government lawyers gave up on arguing any illegality of the visa (they basically conceded that part was legal), instead just exercising the minister's right to remove him solely on health and good order grounds.

[pilowsky]

smerriman, on 2022-January-16, 16:26, said:

This isn't true. He was deported because it was decided it was not in the public's best interest for him to be in the country. The government lawyers gave up on arguing any illegality of the visa (they basically conceded that part was legal), instead just exercising the minister's right to remove him solely on health and good order grounds.

There is a difference between the court process and the ministerial process.
The court made it clear that they could only rule on whether or not the Minister had acted within the law.
The lawyers for "the applicant" tried to argue that the Ministers decision was unreasonable.
The Court was pretty blunt in their assessment of this attempt.

Breaking the law by lying on the card (inter alia) is not conducive to "good order" and is sufficient grounds (IMHO).

To be clear, he was deported by Morrison not by the court.
Attempting to get into the mind of Morrison and his ministers to know what their actual reasons were seems like a fruitless exercise.
Given that they are politicians and that polls show ~75% support for deportation (highest amongst Morrison voters) I think I can guess what the main motivation was.

[pilowsky]

smerriman, on 2022-January-16, 16:26, said:

This isn't true. He was deported because it was decided it was not in the public's best interest for him to be in the country. The government lawyers gave up on arguing any illegality of the visa (they basically conceded that part was legal), instead just exercising the minister's right to remove him solely on health and good order grounds.

There is a difference between the court process and the ministerial process.
The court made it clear that they could only rule on whether or not the Minister had acted within the law.
The lawyers for "the applicant" tried to argue that the Ministers decision was unreasonable.
The Court was pretty blunt in their assessment of this attempt.

Breaking the law by lying on the card (inter alia) is not conducive to "good order" and is sufficient grounds (IMHO).

To be clear, he was deported by Morrison not by the court.
Attempting to get into the mind of Morrison and his ministers to know what their actual reasons were seems like a fruitless exercise.
Given that they are politicians and that polls show ~75% support for deportation (highest amongst Morrison voters) I think I can guess what the main motivation was.

[smerriman]

pilowsky, on 2022-January-16, 17:08, said:

Breaking the law by lying on the card (inter alia) is not conducive to "good order" and is sufficient grounds (IMHO).

Attempting to get into the mind of Morrison and his ministers to know what their actual reasons were seems like a fruitless exercise.

Well, all you have to go on is the reason Hawke provided the court. Where he specifically noted the error on the travel document, but that it was considered minor and not the reason he came to his decision.

And also specifically stated at the start that he was basing the whole document on the assumption that Novak had a medical reason to not get vaccinated and had entered the country lawfully.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on 2022-January-16, 05:33, said:

Isn't it a bit problematic that the OZ government can deport the covidiot because he is a talisman for anti-vaxers? What's next? Someone being deported because they are a talisman for anti-capitalism?

I was wondering the same thing.

However, I think public health had always been given particular weight by courts, e.g. when deciding whether an action is in the "public interest". ("Always" as in every court everywhere in the world in the last century, except for SCOTUS in the last two years.)
I've only been an expert an Australian immigration law for about a week, so I can't tell you whether that's relevant for the covidiot.

Just to put things in perspective, here is an excerpt from US immigration law.

Quote

After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. (...) There shall be no means of judicial review (...) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.

Grounds for revocation by consular officers. A consular officer, the Secretary, or a Department official to whom the Secretary has delegated this authority is authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in his or her discretion.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the Home Secretary has the power to revoke visas for "reasons related to an individual’s character, conduct or associations". A 2005 list of unacceptable behaviours that would lead to such a revocation includes "using any means or medium to express views which (...) foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK". In November 2014, the then Home Secretary "said that she had excluded “hundreds” of people from the UK". I am sure at least one of these hundreds of cases is more outrageous than that of the covidiot...
https://commonslibra...efings/sn07035/

The one aspect that really leaves me confused - if the covidiot knows people who "through that energetical transformation, through the power of prayer, through the power of gratitude, they manage to turn the most toxic food or the most polluted water, into the most healing water", surely one of them could have accompanied him to a vaccine appointment, turn the vaccine into a saline solution through their gratitude, and allow Djokovic to pretend to get vaccinated?

[Cyberyeti]

Further to what Cherdano was saying, I'm sure the fact that he admitted to going out to do an interview after testing positive for Covid didn't go down well as far as showing him as a desirable person for Australia to let in.

[thepossum]

I still think it was much ado about nothing. It was ridiculous

Instead of the World Number One opening his defence on Rod Laver Arena he had to open it against the Federal Government in front of the full Bench of the Federal District Court

And without making any comment on the ruling I still don't understand the public health or civil order issues involved. I'm sure the Court was simply following the law and arguments presented

I will make a comment on the issue not the case. It was beaten up in a ridiculous way by many parties