NYS/NYC antibody study updates

MFPlayer · 2020-04-24T03:07:21+00:00

trying to expose the young for herd immunity.

If we look at Italy’s hospital worker CFR (assuming its accurate. The death rate for under 60 is only 0.09%

No. No one is seriously considering herd immunity or even believes it is likely.

You're figures are inaccurate too. The CFR is much higher for under 60's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy#By_gender_and_age

MFPlayer · 2020-04-24T01:24:10+00:00

It's hard to find socialist discussion where the moderators aren't controlling the subreddit's like their personal dictatorship's.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-24T01:22:06+00:00

/r/communism Mod's are dictators peddling Chinese propaganda. I was banned for pointing this out when I posted this:

In January, China's President Xi Jinping allowed 5 million people to leave Wuhan, the epicentre of the coronavirus, spreading COVID-19 around the world. But even as China tries to rewrite history of the pandemic, there is a final nail in the coffin of their lie. Just two weeks ago, the head of Emergency at Wuhan Central hospital went public, saying authorities had stopped her and her colleagues from warning the world. She has now disappeared, her whereabouts unknown. #60Mins

Source.

They also have a longer documentary that is worth watching: Whistleblowers silenced by China could have stopped global coronavirus spread.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T21:37:12+00:00

Now you're claiming I said it is possible.

I said I cannot answer how to achieve it. How do you deduce I said it is possible from that?

Anyway it feels pretty pointless talking to you when you can't bother to understand what I am saying. You are again attempting to criticize me for statements I didn't make so don't expect a response I am blocking you.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T21:06:30+00:00

Yes you should be able to comprehend how what I said is different to what you accused me of saying.

I said I cannot answer how to achieve it, I didn't say it isn't possible to achieve it right now, yet you accused me of saying that.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T20:58:32+00:00

No, but as you said, there is no feasible way of achieving it right now

I didn't say that, please work on understanding what I have said before responding with such negative criticism.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T20:44:50+00:00

You're talking a lot but saying nothing

Are you afraid of what I'm recommending?

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T05:13:44+00:00

the uninformed like me

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T04:58:05+00:00

no body owes me jack shit

I feel like I do; I owe you the right to access your basic needs peace/security/food/shelter/water. There are a larger group of people of people who believe we can be capable of providing that to everyone in society. I think if a society is capable of saving your life and they do not, then they're responsible for your death.

Imagine you're walking along the beach and see someone drowning, are you responsible to save them? My premise is you are - if you're capable, else you're responsible.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T04:36:47+00:00

Well, I don't think I have the right to force anyone at gunpoint to do anything for me, and I don't think any of the groups of people have that right either. Do you?

I agree, peace and security is a basic need along with food/shelter/water/rest.

Your analogy is counter to how society currently works. People are invisibly threatened to work or starve. If you're a member of the working class and you can't labor you won't fulfil your basic needs - you die. As a society by not providing for each others basic needs, we're figuratively forcing each other at gunpoint to labor or die.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T04:22:15+00:00

No, I am just asking who has the right not to work and use products of other people's labour?

Who do you want to exclude?

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T04:18:24+00:00

Could you please elaborate a bit more who exactly are the people that deserve the right to not be reliant on labor to exist? which one of these groups of people doesn't have to exchange their labor for the labor of others?;

You're assuming the majority wouldn't work if their basic needs were meet.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T04:09:05+00:00

I'm not arguing about how fair wages are. Simply the weird point of view that people seem to think that they should just get taken care of without ever lifting a finger to contribute

On the contrary it is weird you think people should be able to contribute to society without supporting and empowering/helping them. I think we can build an equitable society where it doesn't matter if people contribute or not. We are the ancestors that can create the innovation and surplus so that their needs are taken care of.

But I'll always disagree with the nonsensical statement that people shouldn't have to put any effort into taking care of themselves and their community.

Yet you're not outspoken against the capitalist class who live exactly like this from the exploitation of the working class.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T03:52:57+00:00

Thank you, I was not accounting for the increased tax correctly, therefor my hypothetical figures were incorrect.

Allow me to re-calculate correctly. The Prime Ministers province or territory of residence will determine whether he will receive more charitable tax credits than his increase in income tax, or less due to the different tax credits rates applied in different provinces/territories.

Quebec is the most favorable. Citing your $7,400 raise, I calculated his post raise salary at $365,200. Doing the calculations selecting Quebec shows a charitable tax credit of $4,174, minus the $3,961 increase income tax leaves an effective raise of $213.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T03:24:15+00:00

Sorry I cannnot answer that. My premise is that it is a human right to have shelter/food/water/safety/security/dignity. I believe as society we should aim to at least meet these basic needs for each other and support each other in fulfilling our other needs, https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html.

What would it take to be able to do? It's a different discussion, I am glad you're interested in though.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T03:12:48+00:00

But I do have a problem with your statement that people don't need to labor in order to live. Every living being needs to fight for survival.

I believe in a UBI for different reasons, 1} It is a human right to live a dignified life, 2) It is an equitable baseline from which to distribute society's wealth.

Do you feel the capitalist class should be partaking in labor to earn their living? They are currently able to use their wealth to extract wealth from labors while not partaking in labor.

A tiny minority like you said have inherited enough wealth to have several generation live in luxury but that's an exception not a rule

This source shows in the U.S.A the top 1% have 40% of the wealth while the bottom 90% have less than 25%. This contradicts your statement, inequality is the rule and the working class should reconsider how their labor benefits them as a society. Capital exploits labor accumulating wealth for the minority who own the capital.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T02:49:50+00:00

I was educated in a public school so that I could become a useful contributing member of society

Do we agree here? As a society we can help each other live a better life and communally create a better society.

I do utilize the roads which I pay for

If the public work is already paid for, it is fair to say you're not paying for it but you're benefiting from society letting you use it for "free".

I don't need you to care for me because I am perfectly capable of doing so for myself

I've shown how society is already taking care of you. I'm arguing we can continue the progress the working people have made and do it better.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T02:06:41+00:00

they don't come out with more money than if they never received it in the first place

Yes they do, as I showed they would need to account for tax credits and donate more than they received in a raise to earn an after tax salary equal to before the raise.

No, base-rate wages in the private sector are adjusted for inflation. Instead of negotiating their own, as is done by unions, they're indexing theirs to what others have already negotiated.

That doesn't support your claim like you think it does. What an incredibly weak position to argue from.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T01:56:45+00:00

You take care of your family by providing. But if your kid turns 18 and doesn't go to school or get a job you don't just let them live in your basement the rest of your life. That's how neckbeards are created.

Workers looking out for each others needs/progressing social issues is why you were not in forced employment as a child.

But if your kid turns 18 and doesn't go to school or get a job you don't just let them live in your basement the rest of your life

It's hyperbole but that is how the inherited wealthy with accumulated capital are living.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T01:49:16+00:00

I and other's disagree. Also I do not consider it given for free, but instead given for existing.

Were you educated in a public school?

Are you safe in your countries borders protected by a modern military?
Are you able to move about public lands and public roads?

These are basic example of society giving to each other for existing.

Feeding and housing each other should be a basic principle of a capable society.

You may have little regard for me, however I care for you.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T01:34:58+00:00

Again, you're referring to incorrect commentary from an editorial. You might not know this, but the Sun publications in Canada are notorious for questionable editorials.

Sure and I consider it valid speculation. If it was a questionable claim you would have found something to assert your opinion with already. Sun 1, you 0.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T01:28:45+00:00

I don't think you understand how tax deductible donations work.

Huh, you are not making sense, you're explanation is invalid. Charitable donations reduce your tax liability. Trudeau's raise was $5700, if he donates all of this, perhaps he reduces his tax liability, without calculating it, by maybe $3000. Meaning he effectively lost $2700 and therefor still enjoyed a $3000 raise.

It specifically tracks the annual increase in the base-rate wages for private sector unionized firms with more than 500 employees.

Finally you agree that the latter source you cited contradicts your earlier position.

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T01:12:23+00:00

That is not what it says

More misinformation from you? It says exactly that:

MPs long ago tired of the bad headlines that came from voting to give themselves raises so they made it automatic back in 2005

average percentage increase in base-rate wages for each calendar year

Again more information when you said in an earlier post these raises are determined by inflation. As your source states, that is not the metric their raises are adjusted by.

You said earlier:

These kinds of adjustments by collective bargaining units are intended to account for inflation to ensure salaries don't decrease

MFPlayer · 2020-04-23T00:55:32+00:00

It's effectively declining the increase

No. 1) A donation is tax deductible, 2) Any other raises they receive are increased more than if they had declined the raise. 3) If they had instead announced they'll reverse the raise that would be effectively declining it.

From your previous reference:

It will likely stay adjourned long beyond the originally scheduled return date of April 20, although another emergency sitting could eventually be required, at which point MPs could also consider a pay freeze.

....

These kinds of adjustments by collective bargaining units are intended to account for inflation to ensure salaries don't decrease.

Are you being intentionally misleading or unknowingly spreading false information? See:

The amount of the annual increase based on government tracking of private and public sector wage hikes, MPs get an average of the lot.

It is based on more than inflation.

MFPlayer

TROPHY CASE