Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,612
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Vesuvius
    Newest Member
    Vesuvius
    Joined

Spring Banter


Baroclinic Zone
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hoth said:

Sames to vary quite a bit. My mom had almost no reaction to the second shot beyond a little fatigue; dad was like a two day flu virus. He was down and out.

Yeah it's hard to gauge. When my friend got her second dose back in January she woke up in the middle of the night with a fever, chills, and a horrible headache and all of this lasted for like 8-10 hours. She is also quite positive she had COVID (right near when this all started) b/c for a few weeks she couldn't smell or taste (this was really before testing got cranking) and I know there is some indications that if you've already had COVID and get vaccinated the side effects could be enhanced a bit.

Another friend felt like crap for a day and I've known a few others who were like knocked out for a few days and then others who barely had anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Along with pushing the vaccine, the experts ought to be using this moment to reverse the trend of the last decade that says being obese is still healthy. Obesity is very strongly correlated to negative outcomes from COVID. It seems to have become socially unacceptable to point out that someone is grossly overweight and unhealthy. We need to bring back "fat shaming" as a part of combating disease, IMO. I have seen basically zero voices pushing for diet and exercise as a major preventative measure against diseases such as COVID.

Obesity is almost certainly a significant part of the reason we've been hit so hard as a country. I'm not sure shaming the obese is effective, but not trying to spin it as healthy (as some media are wont to do) seems reasonable to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Well almost 29-hours since the first shot...very minor side effects really. Arm got sore through the day yesterday and became quite sore during the evening and overnight but the soreness has really gone down since this morning. I did get this crazy brief spell of fatigue yesterday afternoon like around 3:30...laid down for about 30 minutes and was fine after that. Felt a little nauseous at times (especially earlier in the morning) but not bad!

I am anticipating some harsher side effects from the second shot. Has anyone here gotten the second dose of Pfizier yet? If so, did you experience symptoms? From the several I know the signals have been very mixed. I don't care about the side effects, just planning ahead for work purposes as to whether I should take a day off or just plan to work from home.  

I'm planning on working from home for my second shot but haven't got the first yet so I may adjust my thinking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lava Rock said:

very much agree with this and like you said, not one mention on msm about correlation between being less healthy and covid risk and how we as a society should take better care of ourselves, but then that's a whole different conversation.

There seems to still be a desire to push a narrative that "everyone can die from COVID at any time," which is true in a technical sense, but the data is really clear on the risk factors for COVID, and when you see clusters of deaths, there are definitely patterns around weight, age, and underlying diseases, which also then tend to dovetail with certain demographic patterns such as income and population density. More honesty is needed here to help people understand both their actual risk from the virus, as well as the need to get vaccinated, which should be much more urgent for some communities than others. Pretending we are all at the same risk is deeply unhelpful; it makes people at less risk worry way too much and makes people at major risk think they will be fine and can skip the vaccine. I see this all the time in the media and from people like Fauci. I think the intent is to try to scare everyone equally to avoid complacency, but it just doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hoth said:

Obesity is almost certainly a significant part of the reason we've been hit so hard as a country. I'm not sure shaming the obese is effective, but not trying to spin it as healthy (as some media are wont to do) seems reasonable to me.

And by "shaming" I meant by doctors and family members. I don't mean pointing and laughing at strangers on the street. But we need to be able to be honest with people that being obese is a major cause of disease and death and COVID seems to really love killing fat people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhineasC said:

Oh look, here comes the govt with ridiculous unemployment pay rules and UBI to enable just that!

just reading some of the reddit responses to this are lol. I get that there are some benefits to WFO, but when people say it allows me to sleep in longer and other lame excuses, it's not the type of people I'd want working for me anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

just reading some of the reddit responses to this are lol. I get that there are some benefits to WFO, but when people say it allows me to sleep in longer and other lame excuses, it's not the type of people I'd want working for me anyway.

They also want their college debt forgiven 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

There seems to still be a desire to push a narrative that "everyone can die from COVID at any time," which is true in a technical sense, but the data is really clear on the risk factors for COVID, and when you see clusters of deaths, there are definitely patterns around weight, age, and underlying diseases, which also then tend to dovetail with certain demographic patterns such as income and population density. More honesty is needed here to help people understand both their actual risk from the virus, as well as the need to get vaccinated, which should be much more urgent for some communities than others. Pretending we are all at the same risk is deeply unhelpful; it makes people at less risk worry way too much and makes people at major risk think they will be fine and can skip the vaccine. I see this all the time in the media and from people like Fauci. I think the intent is to try to scare everyone equally to avoid complacency, but it just doesn't work.

Contrary to popular belief, there's very little correlation between Covid case rates and population density. 

Now, there's a lot of correlation between crowding and Covid case rates, but that is distinct from density.

For example, Manhattan below 96th St actually have Covid case rates below the national average. Despite being dense, most people do not live in multi-generational households nor do they share a bedroom with someone. 

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/04/11/new-york-citys-most-crowded-neighborhoods-are-often-hardest-hit-by-coronavirus-1274875

This is an article from April 2020, but it illustrates that it's not the densest neighborhoods that have had the worst experiences with Covid, but instead the most crowded.

For example, I live in the 10005 zip code, which is the 11th densest zip code in NYC. 11368 (Corona-One of the areas referenced in that article) is approximately 60% less dense, and comes in as the 80th most dense zip code in NYC.

image.thumb.png.7c5a5211f4b5d8646b8ab7bf3419dbbf.png

image.thumb.png.efc282346c2306ec800ab0afab8ef59e.png

 

Finally, to illustrate that this not a NY specific phenomenon, compare the case rates in Pacific Heights in SF to the case rates in Hunters Point in SF. Pacific Heights is far more dense, but Hunters Point has had far more Covid cases.https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/Map-of-Cumulative-Cases/adm5-wq8i#cumulative-cases-map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

We could go into a huge discussion about how Big Food definitely wants people eating less healthy and in bigger quantities than ever.  What we consume as Americans (I’m guilty here) is obscene.  Not to mention unsustainable.     And now I’m craving steak. 

I'd argue that's not true... Especially the bigger quantities piece (but to your point about less healthy-the recent acquisitions by companies like PEP, MDLZ, etc would suggest they are making an effort to have a healthier portfolio).

I've worked for the US's largest snack manufacturer and now work for a large confectionary company, and contrary to popular belief, these companies aren't opposed to smaller package sizes as you can increase your net revenue/lb. If I can charge the same price for less product, I'm expanding my margins. Bet you didn't notice in 2019 that your bag of Family Size Doritos stayed $4.29 but the bags had a fraction of an ounce less product ;) .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bch2014 said:

Contrary to popular belief, there's very little correlation between Covid case rates and population density. 

Now, there's a lot of correlation between crowding and Covid case rates, but that is distinct from density.

For example, Manhattan below 96th St actually have Covid case rates below the national average. Despite being dense, most people do not live in multi-generational households nor do they share a bedroom with someone. 

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/04/11/new-york-citys-most-crowded-neighborhoods-are-often-hardest-hit-by-coronavirus-1274875

This is an article from April 2020, but it illustrates that it's not the densest neighborhoods that have had the worst experiences with Covid, but instead the most crowded.

For example, I live in the 10005 zip code, which is the 11th densest zip code in NYC. 11368 (Corona-One of the areas referenced in that article) is approximately 60% less dense, and comes in as the 80th most dense zip code in NYC.

image.thumb.png.7c5a5211f4b5d8646b8ab7bf3419dbbf.png

image.thumb.png.efc282346c2306ec800ab0afab8ef59e.png

 

Finally, to illustrate that this not a NY specific phenomenon, compare the case rates in Pacific Heights in SF to the case rates in Hunters Point in SF. Pacific Heights is far more dense, but Hunters Point has had far more Covid cases.https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/Map-of-Cumulative-Cases/adm5-wq8i#cumulative-cases-map

I see your point, but surely there must be a frequent overlap between crowding and overall population density. They would seem to go together in places such as the Bronx. That said, I understand the concept that something like household density and crowding may be more strongly correlated than overall city density. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite confident (+75%) that I will never return to a 5 day in office work week.  For all of the reasons listed above both on the employee and employer side + forecasts putting the unemployment rate in a range where employers will have to offer flexibility to remain competitive.  Which is where I'm at mentally- "oh you want me in 5 days a week regardless of what I have going on? Ok, I'll go work for someone else- Thanks!" I guess I'm fortunate to be in that position, but I would imagine many people are in a similar boat.

Below is my fave WFH anecdote from the dimmest Goldman CEO of our lifetimes:

Few things annoyed Solomon more last year than an encounter with a junior employee in the Hamptons. The Goldman Sachs boss has told lieutenants how the underling walked up at a restaurant, introduced himself and pointed to associates with him -- in the middle of a workday.

The tale has become the CEO’s go-to anecdote when he vents about his mostly-empty offices: proof that remote work has run amok.

Some who’ve heard the story note the apparent disconnect. The boss is perturbed by bumping into staff while he himself was spending extended summer weekends in the Hamptons at a luxe seaside rental. Solomon’s time there even made national news after he deejayed a concert where attendees flouted social-distancing guidelines, leaving New York state officials fuming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I see your point, but surely there must be a frequent overlap between crowding and overall population density. They would seem to go together in places such as the Bronx. That said, I understand the concept that something like household density and crowding may be more strongly correlated than overall city density. 

Yup-A place like the Bronx is both dense and crowded.

A good example of a place that is not particularly dense, but crowded, and suffered heavily from covid would be the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bch2014 said:

I'd argue that's not true... Especially the bigger quantities piece (but to your point about less healthy-the recent acquisitions by companies like PEP, MDLZ, etc would suggest they are making an effort to have a healthier portfolio).

I've worked for the US's largest snack manufacturer and now work for a large confectionary company, and contrary to popular belief, these companies aren't opposed to smaller package sizes as you can increase your net revenue/lb. If I can charge the same price for less product, I'm expanding my margins. Bet you didn't notice in 2019 that your bag of Family Size Doritos stayed $4.29 but the bags had a fraction of an ounce less product ;) .

Snack and confectionary companies definitely want everyone eating unhealthy foods because that is what they sell. They want people to pay the same for shrinking portions and end up buying more in the end to satisfy their cravings. 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Snack and confectionary companies definitely want everyone eating unhealthy foods because that is what they sell. They want people to pay the same for shrinking portions and end up buying more in the end to satisfy their cravings. 

Sure-obviously we want people to buy our products. But I can honestly say that we focus more on household penetration (i.e. we want as many people as possible to buy the product a moderate amount) than per capita consumption (i.e. we want a static amount of people to buy our product more and more).

Focus on per capita consumption is more of a thing in shrinking categories (i.e. tobacco and bread).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bch2014 said:

Sure-obviously we want people to buy our products. But I can honestly say that we focus more on household penetration (i.e. we want as many people as possible to buy the product a moderate amount) than per capita consumption (i.e. we want a static amount of people to buy our product more and more).

Focus on per capita consumption is more of a focus in shrinking categories (i.e. tobacco and bread).

LOL I see where this is headed. You guys want everyone very fat and addicted to snack food, but not so fat that any single customer eats too much and dies. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t get why sleeping in a bit is a sign of a bad employee.   I worked at a location other than home for 50 years.   The biggest pain was getting less sleep than I should in order to get showered and dressed and travel to work so I could be there on time.   If a remote worker can do the same things and have better work life balance why is that bad?   If I were paying rent or buying office space I’d push remote work for those where it doesn’t make a difference.   There are some face to face times but the overall benefit for the company and employee is high.  
 

Since I retired, I’ve had a part time remote gig (1 day/week).    I realize that the work can get done and indeed I own the schedule more so everyone is happy.    In fact, if anything I’m giving them more than their $$ worth.    But admittedly I have the luxury of saying no at any time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

LOL I see where this is headed. You guys want everyone very fat and addicted to snack food, but not so fat that any single customer eats too much and dies. 

The US isn’t even in the top ten for confectionary consumption (lbs) per capita. The consumption medals go to Germany, Ireland, and Switzerland, all three of which have far lower obesity rates than the US.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Supernovice said:

I'm quite confident (+75%) that I will never return to a 5 day in office work week.  For all of the reasons listed above both on the employee and employer side + forecasts putting the unemployment rate in a range where employers will have to offer flexibility to remain competitive.  Which is where I'm at mentally- "oh you want me in 5 days a week regardless of what I have going on? Ok, I'll go work for someone else- Thanks!" I guess I'm fortunate to be in that position, but I would imagine many people are in a similar boat.

Below is my fave WFH anecdote from the dimmest Goldman CEO of our lifetimes:

Few things annoyed Solomon more last year than an encounter with a junior employee in the Hamptons. The Goldman Sachs boss has told lieutenants how the underling walked up at a restaurant, introduced himself and pointed to associates with him -- in the middle of a workday.

The tale has become the CEO’s go-to anecdote when he vents about his mostly-empty offices: proof that remote work has run amok.

Some who’ve heard the story note the apparent disconnect. The boss is perturbed by bumping into staff while he himself was spending extended summer weekends in the Hamptons at a luxe seaside rental. Solomon’s time there even made national news after he deejayed a concert where attendees flouted social-distancing guidelines, leaving New York state officials fuming

This will just become another differentiator that employers use to determine bonuses and advancements. Two employees generate roughly equal work, but one comes into the office to network with the boss and his peers and works in a more collaborative manner, the other is working remotely and requires more review of his deliverables and oversight and has very little camaraderie with his team. In many cases, the former will advance more rapidly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

This will just become another differentiator that employers use to determine bonuses and advancements. Two employees generate roughly equal work, but one comes into the office to network with the boss and his peers and works in a more collaborative manner, the other is working remotely and requires more review of his deliverables and oversight and has very little camaraderie with his team. In many cases, the former will advance more rapidly.

Schmoozing opens more doors than being a hard worker does in many fields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, weathafella said:

I don’t get why sleeping in a bit is a sign of a bad employee.   I worked at a location other than home for 50 years.   The biggest pain was getting less sleep than I should in order to get showered and dressed and travel to work so I could be there on time.   If a remote worker can do the same things and have better work life balance why is that bad?   If I were paying rent or buying office space I’d push remote work for those where it doesn’t make a difference.   There are some face to face times but the overall benefit for the company and employee is high.  
 

Since I retired, I’ve had a part time remote gig (1 day/week).    I realize that the work can get done and indeed I own the schedule more so everyone is happy.    In fact, if anything I’m giving them more than their $$ worth.    But admittedly I have the luxury of saying no at any time.

I am an employer who hires almost exclusively high-end engineers, scientists, and other technical people. 

WFH is fine for many people, but there is a segment of the population for which it is a disaster and can spiral their careers into the toilet. They need more oversight. With the freedom and flexibility of WFH comes greater demands on personal responsibility. I have found that many Americans have not been taught basic timekeeping and scheduling skills, and many of them are also really terrible at taking general guidance and distilling it down into discrete tasks. You wouldn't believe how few people under 30 I have hired that even know how to take notes on a call. Apparently you don't do that in college anymore, everything is printed out and handed to you. So they are not very useful when listening to someone give a technical briefing over a Zoom call and then left to their own devices. They just sit there all day. In an office environment, they would get to see activity buzzing after the meeting and be able to mimic the work efforts of their peers (fake it until they make it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Schmoozing opens more doors than being a hard worker does in many fields. 

Agreed 100%.

I will provide a caveat and say that I have also found that there sometimes can be a strong overlap between those who refuse to "schmooze" and complain about it and those who also have delusions that they are a hard worker, when really they are just subpar at work and bad at normal social interactions.

The flip side is that there are also definitely those who are terrible workers but pop their head in my office 4 times a day with silly "great ideas" so it goes both ways!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhineasC said:

Looks like the CDC updated their "best guess" in mid-March and are saying 99.35% now (0.65% of people die from COVID).

Of course, the deaths are still heavily clustered in the 65 and up age group with underlying diseases and can vary greatly between states and regions.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Doesn't seem to change the overall situation, but OK.

I have zero issue with the vaccine being "deployed." I hope everyone has a chance to get it if they want it. No, I don't trust big pharma to always make the right call when they have zero liability on the line, so that's why I don't think this vaccine should be mandatory. That's all.

There have also been several studies citing mental and physical long term effects. In one case, a 21 year old from Florida was paralyzed from the neck down because covid attacked his spinal column. He counts as a survivor, but I don't count that was a victory. We barely know the long term effects of this illness. So if a person is in any way concerned about the vaccines safety, they should be equally concerned about the diseases long term effects. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I am an employer who hires almost exclusively high-end engineers, scientists, and other technical people. 

WFH is fine for many people, but there is a segment of the population for which it is a disaster and can spiral their careers into the toilet. They need more oversight. With the freedom and flexibility of WFH comes greater demands on personal responsibility. I have found that many Americans have not been taught basic timekeeping and scheduling skills, and many of them are also really terrible at taking general guidance and distilling it down into discrete tasks. You wouldn't believe how few people under 30 I have hired that even  how to take notes on a call. Apparently you don't do that in college anymore, everything is printed out and handed to you. So they are not very useful when listening to someone give a technical briefing over a Zoom call and then left to their own devices. They just sit there all day. In an office environment, they would get to see activity buzzing after the meeting and be able to mimic the work efforts of their peers (fake it until they make it).

I get this argument.    New age parenting and current public education has turned out it many young adults unable to cope in the adult world.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

I'm actually not worried in the least about mRNA effects. You have hundreds of strands of mRNA at any given time in almost every cell in your body coding for all manner of proteins most people cant even begin to pronounce. mRNA is pretty short lived. They get gobbled up pretty fast once they code for whatever protein they are designed to make. 

It was one of your posts that alleviated any concerns I had. I do listen to scientists on the front lines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...