Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates <<MOD WARNING>>

~ We don't know what China's death toll is. We do know they are still in lockdown / restrictions. We do know people are getting sick.

 

China is not communist. It is supposed to be a meritocracy, but in fact is a dictatorship.
Communism has never ever happened because the ideal of communism is counter to human instinct.

 

They locked down areas where the virus appeared in a heartless matter of fact way. Chinese fathers speak of leaving Wuhan to go to work and not seeing their families again for months. It was almost certainly effective at slowing the spread, but I'm not sure we would want our governments to have such absolute control.

 

~ I disagree. Communistic government wears a disguise but fools nobody.

 

In what way is the Chinese government of the people, for the people?
You might as well just call them the boogie man.

 

He doesn't know what communism is.

You are getting the Fox Notes [you know, like CliffsNotes]

 

That's an old apology for the various governments of the world that have called themselves communist in my lifetime. Communism is to government as Unicorns are to horses, they just aren't real. We can go into communism front door, back door or either side and we are going to get a totalitarian government that most likely keeps the population poor and controlled.

 

I'm not defending communism, I have already said twice that it cannot be because it relies on a human trait that does not exist.
What I am defending is people who think looking after the poor is the right thing to do, being branded communist as if caring about the poor would make America into China.
Communism has become a word used to scare people (The bogeyman) The word no longer has any connection to its meaning.

 

I don't even consider California to be a State. It has been a long time since they have abided by their State Constitution, let alone the Federal Constitution. I call them the SOTC (Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of California)... Same thing applies to the former State of New York (now the SOTNY), and the former USA is now split between the SODC (Socialist Oligarchy of the District of Columbia) and the SOA (States of America, no longer united under a federal constitution).

 

It’s a shame. Both New York and California are beautiful states. Fifteen years ago my dad was still running interstate reefer freight—mostly produce and meat. Even though there were good loads in and out of CA he wouldn’t do business there. The fines and environmental regulations were more costly than the extra revenue from the high paying freight rates. It just wasn’t worth it. I’ve seen most of CA except for the northern coast. While I’d love to spend more time there I doubt I’ll go back. If it was the early 1800’s you wouldn’t be able to keep me away from CA!

 

To us in the UK California is probably the nearest we see to where we are. Environmentally and culturally, I really worry you guys are slipping behind with your refusal to change and update.

 

Agreed, it is very sad indeed... They really do have quite beautiful land (judging from pictures, as I've never personally been to either)...

Now, they are allies with the SODC... Hopefully us common sense folks can get a grip on Wisconsin before it is too late and they ally with the SODC as well. Madison and Milwaukee are just chock full of godless stupidity. The rest of the State ain't too bad though.

 

Well, let’s look at carbon emissions from fossil fuel for example. California emits about half the CO2 per capita of my state from fossil fuels. But their other boneheaded environmental policies have resulted in so many acres of forest burning per year their actual total CO2 emissions rival the top CO2 producing states.

An interesting fact about pollution reduction from fossil fuel usage is California’s use of ethanol as an oxygenate in gasoline. Now about 12% of “gas” used in CA is ethanol. They use somewhere between 1.2-1.5 billion gallons annually. Yet they produce around 223 million gallons annually. So the low per capita fossil fuel emissions from Californians are being subsidized by my state, Iowa, and foreign countries like Brazil. These states and countries are using quite a bit of fossil fuels as power sources for equipment and irrigation to provide ethanol to California, yet California is claiming they aren’t responsible for those carbon emissions. That’s without even considering the destruction of forests (carbon sinks) in Brazil to supply that ethanol.

So if we factor in all the above in relation to fossil fuel emissions in California, they are one of the biggest CO2 polluters per capita in the nation.

We can also look at water use. Californians domestically use 13 gallons more water per day per capita than my state’s residents according to the National Environmental Education Foundation.

Water use per irrigated acre is about double in California as compared to my state, and even though the value of their production from those acres is higher, the caloric yield is lower.

Moving on to “culture” we find the violent crime rate per 100,000 in CA is 440, above the national average. My state is below the national average at 300/100,000.

California is above national average for property crime, my state is below national average.

The homeless rate in my state is 1/3 that of California.

Using supplemental poverty measure which accounts for cost of living etc. we see California at over 23% of the population living in poverty. For my state it’s about 9% we’ll below the national average of 16%.

California records higher drug use than my state.

Nebraska is #6 nationally in quality of education. California is #21.

I guess I’m really not sure how California would be leaving us behind. Not many people want to go where California is going.

 

... in fact, many people are currently FLEEING the SOTC while they still can. They are going to States such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee, among others. People are fleeing the SOTNY as well...

 

Yeh, the CA folks have been fleeing to my state of birth, Colorado for decades. It’s becoming unrecognizable.

 

A bit of cherry picking going on here I think my friend.

Anyone looking even vaguely at this knows California's forests are to vast to manage in any meaningful way and the reason for the fires was lack of rainfall over a decade. Which is due to climate change, something they are trying to fight.

{quote]An interesting fact about pollution reduction from fossil fuel usage is California’s use of ethanol as an oxygenate in gasoline. Now about 12% of “gas” used in CA is ethanol. They use somewhere between 1.2-1.5 billion gallons annually. Yet they produce around 223 million gallons annually. So the low per capita fossil fuel emissions from Californians are being subsidized by my state, Iowa, and foreign countries like Brazil. These states and countries are using quite a bit of fossil fuels as power sources for equipment and irrigation to provide ethanol to California, yet California is claiming they aren’t responsible for those carbon emissions. That’s without even considering the destruction of forests (carbon sinks) in Brazil to supply that ethanol. [/quote]
Are you suggesting the California stop producing ethanol and selling it? And that if they did the states and countries they sell it to would not purchase it elsewhere?

Yes, if we factored in all those things. Maybe you should add in that there's more people living there as well.

This is something we agree on, though to mitigate they were very good at storing water run off from the Nevada desert, that was until all the snow started melting in the first 3 months of the year.

Do you have an explanation for this? Type of crop, porosity of soil, leaving the hose on too long?

Only because there's only 3 of you living there and you never meet.

See above

Getting silly now, like comparing homelessness in London and surrey.

Here is that cherry picking I was referring to.
How about globalisation, culture, innovation? Why do you think so many people aren't rushing to live in Nebraska?

 

Yeah, you guys have gotten completely compromised by liberalism (and election fraud) to where you all but can't win a Statewide election anymore. It's a shame, since it's such a beautiful State...

We've been having our own election fraud issues here in Wisconsin (over the last couple of cycles at least)... This is a Trump supporting State through and through... I talked to plenty of people throughout South and Central Wisconsin and I saw plenty of political signs and displays and what not. I saw all of the excitement for Trump. I even saw freaking "horse riders for Trump" at a State Park one day...

No, I am not going to just suddenly deny what I saw with my own two eyes... No, I am not going to act as if Biden somehow had more support than Trump in the State of Wisconsin. King Evers most certainly did NOT have more support than Gov Walker in 2018, either. I even question our last two State Supreme Court elections.

 

No forest is too vast to manage. The scale of fires in California are a result of decades of mismanagement by the state and federal government. Here’s a piece from Reuters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1NJ1G6

The state is beginning to realize their mistakes, but it’s very difficult to begin controlled burning in forests already overgrown. I grew up around the timber industry in Colorado so know a bit about mistakes that can be made. Many areas of Colorado where logging was not allowed are being ravaged by beetles, leaving the forest even more susceptible to fire. Here in Nebraska we do quite a lot of prescribed burning to control cedar tree growth. I’ve done some formal training and helped with some burns. I’ve also responded to a couple fires with the volunteer fire department where attempted controlled burns went bad (because the instigators were morons). I can attest to the fact California is now on the right track but it will take decades to reverse the damage done because controlled burns are very complex. You design the burn parameters usually at least a year in advance. Everything from specific ignition points and timing of those ignitions to exact temperature, humidity, wind direction and velocity at time of ignition are set pretty much in stone. If forecasts for weather conditions during and after the burn is scheduled to conclude are not as written in the plan, the burn is cancelled. In essence it’s a long drawn out process that may take a couple years to implement each burn.

No, California is not the only state to mess up forest management but they are the kings of it.

California imports 86% of the ethanol it uses. It is not a net exporter. My state sends trainloads of ethanol (on diesel electric rail) to California. We use our water, diesel fossil fuel from all over the world , and fossil fuel derived nitrogen fertilizer from all over to produce that ethanol. Then California claims their fossil fuel emissions are low when actually they are outsourcing their pollution to the rest of the world.

Don’t get me wrong, ethanol is a very viable alternative renewable fuel. But laying it’s polluting (albeit less polluting than fossil fuel) processes onto other states and countries like Brazil that burn forests and deplete soil organic matter to produce California’s ethanol is a smoke and mirrors scheme that hides their actual contributions to CO2 “pollution”.

All my calculations on comparisons are based on per capita metrics. Total population is irrelevant.

Most states seem to be making progress in reducing domestic water use. That’s a good thing.

Mainly heat and humidity differences as well as length of growing season and precipitation differences.

There is a lot of misunderstanding concerning CA agricultural. It’s a great agricultural powerhouse. But many of the high value crops are inefficient from a land and water use perspective in relation to societal caloric benefit. Take the wine industry for example. It’s a great thing to have luxury items like fine wine. But if environmental concerns are paramount such agricultural endeavors are wasteful of resources. If we are to take environmentalism seriously such things must be considered.

Another aspect of CA agricultural that is misleading is the beef finishing and dairy industries (and poultry and hogs to an extent). They would cease to exist in large part without the massive quantities of corn, soybeans and dairy quality hay imported from other states. I’m not against this, I’m just pointing out California is laying those water uses and other environmental costs onto other states as well.

There’s more to it than that. New York State has nearly twice the population density of California yet the violent crime rate is 350 ish per 100,000 compared to California’s 440. New York is also below the national average.

No California has property crime issues independent of population or density. New York has nearly half the property crime of California.

On the surface you could assume the weather is responsible for California’s homeless problem. Until you remember nearly 1/4 of the state is living in poverty and other warm weather states have much lower homelessness.

Fun fact. Since 2010 the growth rate of Nebraska=6.69%. The growth rate of California since 2010=6.15%.

California is nearing negative growth rate. It’s been steadily declining for decades. It’s at historical lows. Money and business are leaving in large numbers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/23/why-companies-are-fleeing-california.html

In CNBC annual rankings for best states for business Nebraska ranks 8th, California 32nd nationally.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/americas-top-states-for-business-2019.html

On the innovation and globalism front, Nebraska is now in the top twelve states for startups.
https://news.crunchbase.com/news/nebraskas-silicon-prairie-is-growing-into-a-hub-for-innovation/

We headquarter the largest railway in the world, Berkshire Hathaway, TD Ameritrade, and other large companies with 35-45% multinational employees.

Culture. I’m not sure what that includes in your opinion. But we have pretty good access to world class performing arts through our university system as well as local theatre. My local area has some pretty decent art museums/galleries that are well attended and financially supported.

I really don’t know in what area California is leaving us behind.

 

I thought I'd start with this one as it kind of underlines my point about cherry picking your words
California has a population of 39 million so 6.15% = 1.800,000 more people
Nebraska has a population of 1.9 million so 6.69% = 127,000 more people.
And you think this demonstrates Nebraska is the better place to live?
I say you are playing statistics.

So now you are saying Nebraska is the polluter, but California sells it on. In reality no one is expecting states to move back into caves.
But California was the first state to adopt electric vehicles and they produce over 33% of the power from renewable sources, compared to Nebraska's 20%

I hope your not seriously thinking that California should stop making wine, that's blasphemous. In any case water shortage is a result of global warming, not a cause.

That was my English humour again. My point was that most of the things you cite are linked to large populations living in close proximity.
That further you picked those things which make California look worse, but are only there because California is so popular.

I am pleased, but I have to say the numbers are tiny compared to California. Start ups will be attracted to Nebraska where real estate is cheap and setup costs low, especially if you have good links to California where all the customers are.
Sadly the HUDL mentioned in your article was back in 2013 and no longer made.

Enough for now. I'm not knocking Nebraska, how could I when I know so little about it. My original comment was more about how backward facing much of the US seems to us in Europe now. Attitudes, religion, culture, all seem frozen in aspic over there.

 

I’m simply pointing out California is becoming an increasingly less desirable place to live. A place becoming less desirable is not leaving any other state behind by any metric.

I’m saying CA is pulling a smoke and mirrors act to appear “green” when they are not. I’m a fan of renewable energy (with caveats). I’m not a fan of smoke and mirrors deceptions to make people feel like they are helping the environment.

It’s more than just water. It’s about land use as well.

But by showing New York with higher density has less problems in many respects than California its clear population isn’t the problem. It’s policy related.

But you just said we have to look at population and size, so wouldn’t we expect NE overall numbers to be smaller?

I know you aren’t knocking anything. But you seemed to be saying CA was more advanced or progressive. I don’t see how a state with the most poverty, terrible education, and crime disproportionate to its population and population density is to be desired. I simply can’t understand what it is about California that appeals to you. And if CA really is like Europe why you would praise such negative attributes. So far I’m not seeing anything positive out if California.

What specific things do you mean when you say religion, culture, and attitudes? Can you point to some specific contrasts as examples?

 

A cloth mask would not make any difference. A full respirator might if you're only in the room for a very short amount of time. If such exposure is prolongued, even that won't matter.

 

As I said elsewhere, the attitude in the USA at the moment is to point at the guy trying and say he's not doing as well as he claims, rather than trying yourself.

Then point out that CA produces far more green energy than most states, rather than pick the little things they don't do. And then rail against your own state for its abject failure at only 20%.

You would need to give examples for me to address this.

True, but you were looking for bad things to compare, not a balanced objective view. You might have mitigated your view by admitting New York has a policy of driving out itinerant beggars which CA doesn't.

Well I was referring to attitudes towards Abortion, Religion, Sexuality, Global warming, Globalisation. Which are more in line with UK views.

 

But California doesn’t, remember? Overall they produce as much CO2 per capita as any other state. It’s a smoke and mirrors scheme.

See the other thread for why NE is slow to move to alternatives. It’s because of one of the most “progressive” policies anywhere in the US or Europe. Far lass people in Nebraska die from cold exposure per year than in the U.K. There are positives and negatives to all policy.

Ever hear of glyphosate? Vineyards use tons of it. It’s in the wine, even organic wine from vineyards that don’t use glyphosate. This is one land use issue. Wine is a luxury item. If we are truly serious about the environment we use land in a way that decrease pollution of all kinds. Including pesticides.

You know what glyphosate does, right? It is a broad spectrum herbicide meaning it kills most plant life. If we are killing all the plant life between vines we are leaving sterile soil that is not sequestering carbon. It’s also collecting more heat from the sun than soils growing grass or anything with shading potential.

Land used for grapes could potentially be used for a caloric dense crop that sequesters more carbon, uses cover crops to control unwanted plant growth instead of using glyphosate repeatedly, and shades soils to prevent warming effects.

Instead, such land is being used for production of a luxury item. We aren’t serious about climate change or environmentalism if we only want others to sacrifice.

Fair point about exporting problems. But California is doing the same thing with carbon emissions. As far as New York and homelessness, who does the state have the responsibility to? Taxpayers or non taxpayers? Who’s rights are more important? As far as I know New York doesn’t have laws allowing property crime without consequences. I could be wrong but I’m not aware of it. Do people have the right to steal?

I guess I wasn’t aware things were that different over there. Are you saying there are no pro life people in the UK? Or religious people? This country is nuts over global warming. Perhaps there are less climate change deniers over there?

Your original premise seemed to be CA was somehow more advanced than say NE. I just don’t see it at all. Just by the two metrics of poverty and education alone (the two most important metrics in my opinion) CA is a disaster. Certainly not something to admire or wish to emulate in any way. In my opinion “progressivism” must translate into something measurable that is positive and not just be change for change’s sake.

 

I didn't say Co2, I said green energy. The biggest producer of Co2 by far is electricity production.

 

And stop eating animals, if ofcourse you are seriously looking at Co2 land waste.

We are talking microscopic differences to Co2 here. Certainly far less than Cows on the same acreage.

And I think you'll find more co2 absorption area on a field of vines like this compared to grass, even if they killed all the plants at ground level.
Which they don't appear to do.