ERICOPOLY

Trigger alert! Doctors hate this trick! I cut my net carbs down to 20 grams/day and all a sudden i lose 40-45lbs in a 16 month period. I didn't even exercise much. My diet is a little heavy on bacon and eggs at the moment. (Eric, to each his/her own. Keto is the way that I keep the weight off. Please play along with this faux meat vs Vegan drama that I am creating.) Going whole foods plant-based would get you the same weight loss while also reversing cardiovascular disease, which you are not getting on the all-meat diet. If weight loss were the only goal I'd rather eat the bacon and eggs like you. But just remember, the arteries that feed your erections are much smaller than the coronary arteries, so guess what's gonna go first. I don't think my blood work has ever been so good. Thank you for thinking of my junk. I think going whole foods plant-based would get me depressed. Just can't imagine skipping meat, cheese, and seafood. Honestly, I wish I can do a Vegan diet. I doubt my body is built for that. But then I said the same thing about carbs and now I feel much better on a higher fat diet. #All_Out_Keto_Vs_Vegan_War (Joking) The blood work is not measuring the problem if you are talking about blood lipids: https://www.clevelandheartlab.com/blog/the-gut-the-heart-and-tmao/ https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/red-meat-tmao-and-your-heart Eric, I don't know what to think of new scientific studies on diets anymore. For years we were told to eat 10+ servings of carbs a day. It didn't even distinguish between refined carbs or whole grain. Eggs were bad, eggs were good, fat was bad, fat is good. I now try to think about a world without agriculture and what would human being eat then? I assume that we are naturally omnivores. We probably ate meat, fish, berries, and some sort of veggies. Despite thousands of years of civilization, I don't think human metabolism has evolved much. This is largely due to the fact that humans are very good at surviving and we haven't needed dramatic mutations in our genes to survive in the last 10,000 years or so. The joke is that "You're not really on a Keto diet, unless you tell people." I guess the same goes for people on a vegan diet "You're not truly Vegan, unless you tell people." I am self aware that I am annoying to a fault with my going on and on about Keto. If red meat causes cancer and limp dick, I guess I'll take my chances. As I get older, my desire for red meat will likely go down and I'll focus on fish and veggie fats such as avocado etc. To each their own. Let's just eat what makes us happy and allow us to believe our own dietary religions. There has long been a link between red meat and cardiovascular disease. Being right for the wrong reason for a long time does not make them wrong about the danger of red meat, although now it's a "boy who cried wolf" situation where people have stopped listening because the explanation wasn't correct the first time and now it's changed with new discoveries and deeper understanding. Think of how frustrated people are about listening to scientists about wearing masks, when earlier this year they were told that masks don't help. Somewhere around the 19 minute mark, one of the Cleveland Clinic doctors shows the results of his patients with reversal of cardiovascular disease:

Trigger alert! Doctors hate this trick! I cut my net carbs down to 20 grams/day and all a sudden i lose 40-45lbs in a 16 month period. I didn't even exercise much. My diet is a little heavy on bacon and eggs at the moment. (Eric, to each his/her own. Keto is the way that I keep the weight off. Please play along with this faux meat vs Vegan drama that I am creating.) Going whole foods plant-based would get you the same weight loss while also reversing cardiovascular disease, which you are not getting on the all-meat diet. If weight loss were the only goal I'd rather eat the bacon and eggs like you. But just remember, the arteries that feed your erections are much smaller than the coronary arteries, so guess what's gonna go first. I don't think my blood work has ever been so good. Thank you for thinking of my junk. I think going whole foods plant-based would get me depressed. Just can't imagine skipping meat, cheese, and seafood. Honestly, I wish I can do a Vegan diet. I doubt my body is built for that. But then I said the same thing about carbs and now I feel much better on a higher fat diet. #All_Out_Keto_Vs_Vegan_War (Joking) The blood work is not measuring the problem if you are talking about blood lipids: https://www.clevelandheartlab.com/blog/the-gut-the-heart-and-tmao/ https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/red-meat-tmao-and-your-heart

Trigger alert! Doctors hate this trick! I cut my net carbs down to 20 grams/day and all a sudden i lose 40-45lbs in a 16 month period. I didn't even exercise much. My diet is a little heavy on bacon and eggs at the moment. (Eric, to each his/her own. Keto is the way that I keep the weight off. Please play along with this faux meat vs Vegan drama that I am creating.) Going whole foods plant-based would get you the same weight loss while also reversing cardiovascular disease, which you are not getting on the all-meat diet. If weight loss were the only goal I'd rather eat the bacon and eggs like you. But just remember, the arteries that feed your erections are much smaller than the coronary arteries, so guess what's gonna go first.

I'm watching last night's ABC news on Hulu. This fear over a pork shortage due to covid-19 is such a non-crisis. The best thing that could probably happen to the US health is to cut meat consumption down by 80%, even 100%. It's alarming that Trump used an executive order to keep meat packing plants open, so unnecessary.

Eric did you go vegetarian? I remember you used to raise chickens and would eat fresh chicken. Cheers! Worse than vegetarian: I have been eating vegan for more than a year.

Here is what I might have for a day of groceries for myself: Breakfast: oatmeal Lunch: broccoli & spinach, Dinner: cauliflower with wild rice,beans, and corn with glass of wine. About $12/day

Microsoft founder Bill Gates said he talks to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, regularly. In terms of a timeline, Gates said he's aligned with Fauci on his prediction that there will be a viable vaccine by the end of the year, or early 2021. Gates explained that there are two characteristics being evaluated in developing a vaccine. Firstly, that the vaccine prevents you from getting sick and secondly, that it prevents you spreading it to others. On the latter, he warned that "it's not guaranteed that the vaccine will be a perfect transmission blocker." Despite that, Gates said recent evidence points to the antibody response being "very strong," which suggests about a year of immunity to anyone who gets the disease. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-06-25-20-intl/h_f9cdeec8b36668a90a2807116308916e

Similar is said about Putin in this article: Putin’s goal today is the same as when he invaded my country in 2008: to tighten his grip on the levers of power in Russia. Whenever Putin’s domestic popularity dips, he either escalates an ongoing conflict or launches a new offensive. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/15/russias-next-land-grab-wont-be-in-an-ex-soviet-state-it-will-be-in-europe-putin-saakashvili-sweden-finland-arctic-northern-sea-route-baltics-nato/

Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information. https://www.medrxiv.org/

I find that surprising since the CDC recommends getting the flu vaccine by the end of October each year. Then the number of flu cases rise afterwards. Because we all know that summer time respiratory diseases go down and winter they go up. Thats why they give flu vaccine in October. Nevertheless. Cases rising X amount after locking people down does not show that it was ineffective. For example, let's say one person in my household was just exposed on the morning the lockdown began. That person doesn't test positive for 10 more days, and then 10 more days after that a couple more people in the household come down with it. That's 20 days of lockdown and an explosion in cases within my household. Did you just accidentally make a case against lockdowns? ;) Yup. Eric just described how to get an explosion of cases. The data from NYC itself is clear. More crowded, more cases. People living in small houses, more cases. People going out such as transit and police, less cases. I take it you are being facetious. Intra-household spread is going to occur regardless of policy. No, I am not being facetious. See below. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html Cuomo says it’s ‘shocking’ most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/05/18/cuomo-said-most-coronavirus-cases-are-from-people-staying-at-home-public-health-experts-have-a-few-ideas-why/#5389e322d20e I have put bold emphasis on what I deem suspicious and particularly interesting (was this a political statement by Cuomo?). Jha called for Cuomo to release the full survey results: “Without having a full splay of the data, it’s very hard to know what this analysis tells you.” Cuomo’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment by Forbes. Social media users questioned the survey’s results, saying that because patients were coming from their homes, it meant that stay-at-home orders were flawed or an outright failure. Jha disagreed, saying other studies have shown that reducing people’s mobility flattens the curve, and that’s what has taken place in New York’s outbreak. “I don’t have a question in my mind whether ‘stay at home’ worked,” Jha said. Both Vasan and Jha said the type of lockdown seen in Wuhan, where COVID-19 was first detected, was much more stringent than what New York and other U.S. states have been under⁠—meaning the virus could be transmitting more easily here. Dr. Ashish Jha, Director of Harvard Global Health Institute, was first surprised by the survey’s results, but realized that “older and sicker people are less likely to go out and travel, and much more likely to get infected and to need hospital care.” Dr. Ashwin Vasan, Columbia University Medical Center professor and CEO of nonprofit Fountain House, wanted to know more about the patients: “Even though these people are older, do they live with essential workers? Did they live in multi-generational households?” According to Vasan, who also once served as an executive director for the NYC Department of Health, older people either living with essential workers or in multi-generational households are more common in low income and African American communities. What New York did not account for, Vasan said, was transmission inside apartment buildings⁠—”particularly in densely-populated communities, which seems to track with the [survey’s] results.”

I find that surprising since the CDC recommends getting the flu vaccine by the end of October each year. Then the number of flu cases rise afterwards. Because we all know that summer time respiratory diseases go down and winter they go up. Thats why they give flu vaccine in October. Nevertheless. Cases rising X amount after locking people down does not show that it was ineffective. For example, let's say one person in my household was just exposed on the morning the lockdown began. That person doesn't test positive for 10 more days, and then 10 more days after that a couple more people in the household come down with it. That's 20 days of lockdown and an explosion in cases within my household. Did you just accidentally make a case against lockdowns? ;) Yup. Eric just described how to get an explosion of cases. The data from NYC itself is clear. More crowded, more cases. People living in small houses, more cases. People going out such as transit and police, less cases. I take it you are being facetious. Intra-household spread is going to occur regardless of policy.

Are cases starting to go down?

I find that surprising since the CDC recommends getting the flu vaccine by the end of October each year. Then the number of flu cases rise afterwards. Because we all know that summer time respiratory diseases go down and winter they go up. Thats why they give flu vaccine in October. Nevertheless. Cases rising X amount after locking people down does not show that it was ineffective. For example, let's say one person in my household was just exposed on the morning the lockdown began. That person doesn't test positive for 10 more days, and then 10 more days after that a couple more people in the household come down with it. That's 20 days of lockdown and an explosion in cases within my household.

I find that surprising since the CDC recommends getting the flu vaccine by the end of October each year. Then the number of flu cases rise afterwards.

Increasing contact tracing may also increase the rate of positive tests. I'm not leaning either way.

Trump says he asked 'to slow testing down' for coronavirus because of increased cases https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-says-he-asked-to-slow-testing-down-for-coronavirus-because-of-increased-cases-85520453715

Yes, this is why I called Gato's analysis the stupidest thing posted on this thread! Let's do this analysis for February. U.S. -> 1 death, no lockdown Canada -> 0 deaths, no lockdown Wuhan -> Thousands of deaths*, lockdown. Lockdowns are definitely correlated with deaths! But, I'm confident that Wuhan locked down BECAUSE of the outbreak. * numbers made up Lets take this further. Causation comes with timing. When did lockdown start in New York City? When did all the deaths come. Before or after? Well, most people die of the flu after the vaccine has been administered. Another correlation: most of the deaths came after Trump told us that he shut down the flights from China. And it all happened after Valentine's Day, so I'm wondering if all those Hallmark cards were involved.

I have been watching Florida Gov Ron DeSantis explain. He says increased contact tracing is revealing cases that would never have been found before -- asymptomatic young people running around with the virus.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office is refusing to enforce California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) order requiring residents to wear face coverings in public as part of an effort to combat the Chinese coronavirus pandemic. The Sheriff’s Office said it would be “inappropriate” to criminally enforce Newsom’s mandate or punish individuals and businesses for not complying. Additionally, the Placer County Sheriff’s Office also said it will not uphold the order, spokeswoman Angela Musallam said. “We do hope (people) will take the rule to heart, but we have no interest in arresting or penalizing people who aren’t wearing masks in any way,” said Musallam. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/19/ssacramento-sheriff-refuses-to-enforce-newsoms-mask-order/

Californians must wear face masks in public under coronavirus order issued by Newsom https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-18/california-mandatory-face-masks-statewide-order-coronavirus-gavin-newsom

That's not a bad thought. Keep in mind though that such technology allows our creative people to work in creative fields no matter where they live. I'm sure some bright people across America are working noncreative jobs as IT people for their local governments because it's the only tech jobs they have locally -- these people may be better utilized as creative engineers. I just noticed that I typed Trump rather than Musk. My fingers not listening to my brain. Weird. Okay, now it's a bad thought :)

Good point about the share of the worlds best talent. Will the pool of the world's best talent grow much faster than world population (perhaps via expanded and cheap online education)? I have a question: what percentage of today's best talent are currently impoverished and underutilized, not making it into engineering programs? When I was at Microsoft, I kept bumping into Indian engineers and it seemed as though not one of them grew up dirt poor, even though so much of the country is dirt poor.

That's not a bad thought. Keep in mind though that such technology allows our creative people to work in creative fields no matter where they live. I'm sure some bright people across America are working noncreative jobs as IT people for their local governments because it's the only tech jobs they have locally -- these people may be better utilized as creative engineers.

I agree. However, in theory it should be possible to tune our immigration policy towards cherry picking creative minds from elsewhere. I don't know if that can be pulled off to an increasing degree relative to the past. Musk is from South Africa. A lot of young people simply don't work creative jobs and those are the ones that are likely to be automated -- some of those people can be more creative through automation. I don't see robots taking care of old people. I see robots doing the non-creative work that younger people once did. And today's old people, and tomorrow's old people, once did those uncreative jobs themselves. That is an interesting thought. My comments are simply based on the fact that not everyone is creative, so having a large pool of people in those ages are more likely to produce more creative risk takers. If you had someway to bring them in, or at least attract them specifically, that would probably work too. One way to attract them, I think, is with low taxes and few regulations on business. Make the US the place to start, grow, and operate a business from start up right through to global corporate goliath. Having a local market and workforce is important now, but with travel, working from home, robots, and shipping all likely to get better and easier, if running your business from Singapore or some other tax haven is easier, cheaper, and makes more sense then people will go there not here. Musk didn't come here because the taxes were low, he came here to get a degree from Stanford. From there he was arms length away from all of the engineering minds that he needed to start Tesla. Also, California is nice. He didn't forego all of that for a lower tax jurisdiction. I mean, look at what we charge international students for tuition? I think there are ways to bring those people into the country For example, tuition assistance or waiver. Why leave your home country which pays for your tuition in order to come here and pay a fortune for that same education?

I agree. However, in theory it should be possible to tune our immigration policy towards cherry picking creative minds from elsewhere. I don't know if that can be pulled off to an increasing degree relative to the past. Musk is from South Africa. A lot of young people simply don't work creative jobs and those are the ones that are likely to be automated -- some of those people can be more creative through automation. I don't see robots taking care of old people. I see robots doing the non-creative work that younger people once did. And some of the old people once did those uncreative jobs themselves so losing them from the workplace to retirement is of no big consequence in terms of productivity.