Jump to content

jazzdude

Supreme User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,151

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jazzdude

  1. jazzdude
    There's always NGA's Aero app that's free. Just need an NGA account for FLIP. ETA: I also used Naviator in the past as my backup in the T-6 (didn't have iOS devices). Not sure if it added ADS-B capability, as it's been a while since I've flown with it. But for general moving map with gps position off the phone and approach plates, it was a decent backup. There's a subscription fee for charts though.
  2. jazzdude
    5 was the original doses per vial, but recently was upped to 6 like you said. Pfizer vaccine is cut with saline before it's administered, so if there's a little less saline mixed in (nurse or tech is eyeballing the measurement on a syringe, and syringes vary as well), you may not be able to always get 6 doses with a standard syringe. Hence the need for a low dead space syringe to increase the odds of getting that 6th dose regularly. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/index.html The low dead space syringes doesn't look like it ships with the vaccine-it's likely a separate supply chain item for clinics to purchase and manage. The downside is now the FDA approved the label change to 6 doses per vial, Pfizer is reducing vials shipped per contract, since most everyone seems to have negotiated based on dose, not vial. So figuring out the special syringe becomes a problem for the clinics, and could reduce actual doses available by up to one 1/6. And Pfizer will be there to sell the makeup doses required. #profit https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/health/pfizer-vaccine.html
  3. jazzdude
    Right now there's literally no science to say one way or the other; data is still being collected. It's the downside of an EUA vaccine against a new disease There's a lot of medicine/health that relies on assumptions or educated guesses. There's also limited funding to do scientific research, and ethical human trials generally are expensive and take time, so many questions just don't get answered.
  4. jazzdude
    CDC says within 42 days/6 days of scheduled second dose (9-10 weeks from the first) Beyond that, there isn't enough data right now to say one way or another, or how long immunity lasts if you only get one shot. But they also aren't recommending restarting the sequence right now if you're outside that window.
  5. jazzdude
    We are generally pretty capitalist: but that also means the more capital/money you have, the more influence/power you have to affect change in your favor, whether it's the market or government. That's not a flaw, that's the system. The whole gamestop situation is showing if "regular" people band together and pool their resources towards a common goal, they collectively can also weild a small amount of influence as well. Regulations and government are the only check on that to keep the extremely wealthy from screwing over the average person completely, outside of the extremely wealthy also having "good" values/morals and self regulating. But that's also dependent on government representing their constituents as a while, and not personal gain for themselves or friends. So it'll be interesting to see where this goes, but I think you're right, Robinhood gets a slap on the wrist band that's about it.
  6. jazzdude
    We've had plenty of time to ramp up production on PPE. It has improved since the start of the pandemic (surgical style non medical masks and kn95 masks seem to be more available in stores). But for whatever reason, CDC is hanging onto cloth masks vs recommending a transition to the surgical style mask. N95 and similar respirator supplies probably still aren't there for mandating their use without creating a run on them when hospitals and clinic just caught up on supply. Mask 1: filter layer, surgical style mask Mask 2: cloth later, to help close gaps and improve the fit for the filter layer (around the sides) https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210126/double-masking-makes-common-sense-fauci-says I don't think this is really anything too new, there's been a lot of attention last year on how to improve the fit of surgical style masks and close the leaking sides to improve filtration, and this seems to be what was settled on (there's 3d printed face pieces as well that pin a mask to your face to create a seal). The cloth mask also has the advantage of being personalizable/fashionable. May sound stupid, but may help people feel better about wearing a mask if they can use it as an accessory to their outfit when they do to out. Alternatively Mask 1: N95 or similar, reuse until dirty/clogged Mask 2: cloth or surgical style mask to keep the N95 as clean as possible (splash protection) CDC on extending the life of N95 respirators for healthcare professionals. My wife's work has implemented the N95/surgical mask c ok mbo, plus face shield (working with blood and fluids with known COVID patients). That guidance for them has been around for several months now, since surgical grade N95 masks (which have splash protection) are in higher demand than regular N95s.
  7. jazzdude
    Well, it'll be interesting to see what, if any, laws or regulations come out of the whole gamestop short squeeze. Seems to be a decent amount of support for the individual traders by members on both sides of the aisle: let's see if that support on Twitter actually translates to law or policy.
  8. jazzdude
    Much of the violence associated with the race riots was opportunistic by people who wanted an excuse to be violent. AOC was in the wrong here voicing support for the violence. Small business owners were in the crossfire, which was unfortunate. But again, much of that violence appeared to be by people who just needed an excuse. Police were the intended target for the protests due to perceived and likely some real injustices. That was the whole point: police being biased against a particular race, and any concerns from the community being swept under the rug. Doesn't mean it should've escalated to violence, but just as some protesters escalated to violence, some jurisdictions also did just that using their police. It's still a valid shot, and still needs to be addressed at all levels of government and policing.
  9. jazzdude
    I don't think the violence/riots we saw last year over racial issues were justified, and there seems to be a fair amount of people looting and destroying things and taking advantage of the protests. Don't think anyone really is justifying or condoning those actions. It'd be a different discussion had the protesters/rioters/insurrectionists stayed outside and peacefully protested outside the Capitol. Sure, it'd be uncomfortable for Congress. And Capitol police have been more aggressive with peaceful protests in the past. But surging into Congress while it's in session to stop a certification vote? Yeah, that's a problem, it's no longer discomfort, but rather danger, both to then and our country. Want to play revolutionary? Better be prepared to go all in, and not just for the selfies or likes, because there are going to be very real consequences for your actions.
  10. jazzdude
    Riots and protests should make people uncomfortable. That's the point of even peaceful protests: make people uncomfortable enough to take action for your cause. Whether it's appealing to emotion, logic, values, etc. Even safety is not off the board if the issue is important enough, though it carries heavy consequences if you lose, or even potentially if you win. Fortunately, we generally don't get to violence in protests, but when it does, history favors the victors (terrorist vs freedom fighter is only separated by who wins and writes the history). Creating discomfort (to include civil disobedience) is the only way change really happens, especially in a democracy. It's why we have the right to assemble or petition the government. I see AOC as sticking to what she seems to value in this case regarding Cruz: if you help incite a mob to storm the Capitol to threaten Congress with violence through your rhetoric, you're not worth working with in that same Capitol. That's not playing politics, that's just being principled. Probably would've been better to take the high road here, but based on what I've seen of AOC's personality, it wasn't going to happen. But she's also done similar things with Democrats who think she's too outspoken as well, so I guess she provides snarky comments with equal opportunity regardless of party.
  11. jazzdude
    I don't have a problem with AOC's reaction. Seems like she's willing to work with the GOP in this issue, just not with the handful of Republicans that supported the rioters/insurrectionists and undermining our democracy. The fact that the GOP hasn't taken any action against those handful of Republicans points to a lack of principle on the GOP's part.
  12. jazzdude
    As much as I despise Tucker Carlson, he's also essentially agreeing with AOC as well.
  13. jazzdude
    I'm not sure people really flipped. Republicans tend to be in favor of business (like to speak about small business, but really financially and politically tied to big business), so it's not surprising to see those that care about big business/wall street defending their interests (calls for regulating individual investors to protect "professional" investors). Democrats tend to call for government control and oversight, but primarily on social issues. They get painted as anti business or anti free market (maybe rightfully so in some areas). It doesn't mean they don't necessarily support some aspects of capitalism or individualism. But this is all just capitalism and a relatively free market, and we're seeing who really believes in a free market, and who just says they do to pander to their base. Money buys you influence (in this case, influence on the market), and the more money you have, the more influence you have. Redditors banding together as individual investors with one aim gives them a lot of capital to influence the market (arguably democratically, with people voting with their checkbook in a very decentralized manner). Contrast that with hedge funds that essentially do the same thing, though with more control (centralized control of the capital of individual investors).
  14. jazzdude
    Free market! We don't need government oversight! /s Probably not a politician that (directly) entrusted it to that company. More likely is whatever office is managing the COVID response for bad risk management and (possibly) poor oversight, though they did terminate the contract within a day of concerns being raised. Hopefully their contracting official wrote a good contract (adequately defending government interests and defining breach penalties, though), though I'd bet not. Though we'll see how all that shakes out in court. The unfortunate thing is any leftover vaccine doses that company has are likely wasted (should the government trust that they maintained the vaccine appropriately with so much other signs pointing to general incompetence?) That company rightfully owns at least half the blame for over promising if not out right lying. The city does own the other half for not managing risk appropriately in their contracting process and their decision to do business with them. Sure, a politician might be ultimately blamed/have to own the responsibility, but there's still likely several layers of problems to fix.
  15. jazzdude
    Some heartburn if not used for rental cars, ticket transportation, and hotels. Just had to justify use of personal card (forgot gtcc a few times since it normally doesn't stay in my wallet), but no problem getting reimbursed.
  16. jazzdude
    There also used to be some people out at Pueblo that would top off your IFS training to get your PPL as well (I think it was primarily for the RPA guys with a longer IFS), so that's another option to look into if you want to fly on your own before or during UPT. Plus you'll have the added benefit of not having to pay as much to get comfortable for the checkride.
  17. jazzdude
    One of the issues is that the more it spreads, the more chances it has to mutate. Those mutations might be insignificant, or it might make things worse (more severe symptoms, higher transmission, etc). Those mutations also may make the vaccine less effective (may not stop you from getting sick, but may still help reduce severity of symptoms). So at the individual level, you take risks based on what you're willing to accept, but your decisions can affect others, while others are taking risks that can impact you as well. Plus COVID sucks, would not recommend. Had a "mild" case, pretty much felt wiped out for a couple weeks, and still slowly recovering to normal a few weeks later (primarily aerobic fitness, which has been slow to recover). Though it does feel good not to be winded while grocery shopping anymore after I had "recovered" and was testing negative. Pretty sure those retirees at the commissary were moving faster than me...
  18. jazzdude
    I think regarding the vaccine volunteerism, there's a good number of people in the "wait and see" camp, and waiting for more people to get it to feel better about the risks before they decide to take it. I know I was in that camp initially, but decided to volunteer to get it once it becomes available at my clinic (though my phase puts me at the back of the line, so I'd be surprised if it's before summertime).
  19. jazzdude
    I generally agree with you, and you have valid points regarding guns making violence easier. My intent was that getting rid of guns doesn't eliminate the underlying problem of violence in schools, which many anti-gun advocates claim. https://everytownresearch.org/report/a-plan-for-preventing-mass-shootings-and-ending-all-gun-violence-in-american-schools/#intro https://www.nea.org/student-success/smart-just-policies/gun-violence-prevention That's what I'm trying to refute. It's a two prong problem: - Reduce access or means to commit violence (securing guns, limits for purchase, etc) - Reduce/eliminate intent to commit violence (counseling, therapy, mental healthcare access) The problem doesn't get solved without solving part parts of the problem. Even if guns are locked up, a kid intent on planning and executing a school shooting is going to find a way, unless the parent has a "good" safe and doesn't have a weak combination (like birthdays, favorite numbers, etc). The other issue is that any solutions applied to reduce school shootings will likely be applied to society at large (ref outrage about AR15s and assault weapons). It's already generally illegal to bring a gun to a school. So requiring guns to be locked up in a private residence has about as much effect on school shootings as banning guns from school property, unless the government is going to do spot inspections to verify gun owner compliance (which no gun owner wants, and sets a terrible precedent regarding privacy). Also, what is considered sufficient for securing firearms? Is my locked front door sufficient (can I have a loaded firearm in my nightstand for personal defense if I don't have kids)? What about a locked desk drawer? Can I have a firearm (functional or not) in a display case? Or does it need to be in a dedicated gun safe at all times when I'm not actively handling or transporting the firearm? Does that gun safe need to be anchored to my residence (otherwise, a smaller, lighter, non anchored safe could just be stolen, and the safe or lock can be beat at a later time). What kind of lock is suitable (many store padlocks are relatively easy to beat)? How often does the combination need to be changed to prevent a troubled kid from learning the combination? If your kid has a friend who's deemed a high risk to commit a school shooting, does that give the government the right to temporarily impound your guns you keep in a safe to reduce that other troubled kid's access to guns to prevent a school shooting (as advocates by everytown and NEA)? That bill is overly vague and broad.
  20. jazzdude
    Sounds like Modena and Pfizer are working on a booster shot for the south african variant, but best case that's probably 9 months out (driven mainly by testing, like the original vaccines). But even though it's not as effective on the new stains, the hope is that the current vaccine at least reduced the chances of a severe illness requiring hospitalization. And more people vaccinated means slower transmission, which means slower mutations. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/covid-vaccine-moderna-working-on-covid-booster-shots-for-south-african-strain.html https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/fauci-said-the-uss-covid-19-vaccines-are-powerful-enough-that-they-should-be-able-to-shoulder-new-strains-of-the-infection-with-limited-impact-on-efficacy/articleshow/80398864.cms I'm guessing COVID is probably here to stay. My bet is there will be a target date set for reopening/getting back to normal in mid/late 2022, to give everyone the opportunity to get vaccinated (would need a study done on kids as well and get them vaccinated), and then basically say you had your chance, so if you get sick and die from Covid, it's on you (just like the flu in the past). International travel will probably return slower, with restrictions/quarantines based on where you traveled. All this assuming no crazy variants of the virus emerge in the interim. But I'm just a pilot, so my opinion doesn't really mean squat in COVID policy...
  21. jazzdude
    I don't think the race issues weren't new in the Trump era- that's stuff that's been festering for decades like you noted. I think what changed under Trump was that white supremacists and those sympathetic to them were emboldened by Trump's rhetoric, combined with ever increasing usage of social media by all sides (and traditional media following suit), and that forced the issue to the forefront. I don't think the complaints really rise and fall with the party in power, just how much focus is placed on it by media and the PR from both parties. So it's unfair to say these recent racial issues are solely Trump's fault like some on the left would argue, but it's also disingenuous to say that Trump didn't fan the flames of a smoldering problem in our country like some on the right would argue.
  22. jazzdude
    If voter ID was actually viewed as important/critical, the infrastructure allowing voter ID to be put in practice should be fully funded. This includes ID issuing sites, polling sites, backend databases, and verification (both before issuance, and at the polling sites to stop fake IDs from being used). Since it is not, it's not really important, and there's nothing a politician can say to convince me otherwise. Where we spend our money shows us what we value in our capitalistic society. So I agree, many times politicians calling for voter ID are using it as a means of voter suppression, because if they truly believed in it, they would fund everything necessary to implement it, though they never do. So then it gets turned into something like getting turned away from the deployed DFAC because you're in sweaty PTUs and not a clean uniform (or without a reflective belt, remember those days?), despite being 110 degrees outside (i.e. stupid nonner games)
  23. jazzdude
    This problem isn't deranged kids with guns, it's deranged kids with intent to commit violence. Guns make it easier (so yes limiting their access is important), but if someone is intent on hurting people, they will find a way. But it's easier to talk removing guns than to address mental health issues and treatments, class size (smaller sizes encourage teachers to build a better relationship with students), bullying in schools, and parental responsibilities regarding their child.
  24. jazzdude
    If mail in voting is secure for a subset of people like you caveat, why is it not secure for the general population? Waiting in long lines to vote is a failure of the voting system; it means the voting infrastructure does not support the number of people that are voting. Either not enough voting sites, or not enough voting booths. Same with long waits at DMV; long waits exist due to inadequate staffing. In addition, how would requiring everyone to vote in person actually work? It would require a complete closing of our economy for every election/vote. Otherwise, how do you ensure those that have to work have an opportunity to vote? Especially if there are long waits at the polling sites. If you don't think it'd be a problem, you've never had a crappy boss. On top of that, would there be any compensation for lost work? Primarily for low earning, hourly workers struggling to make ends meet, and don't have paid time off available to them. Mail in voting means these people do not have to take time off work to execute their civic duty to vote. Every American citizen already has skin in the game every election, as we are voting for our representatives, it sometimes directly on measures. If you want voter ID, what we have is completely inadequate (voter card, driver's license). You would need to verify the ID somehow. Just like our CACs; picture ID, scan and retrieve info from a database to confirm picture/name has not been altered, then two factor authentication, like chip (something you have) & PIN/password (something you know) to authenticate your vote. Anything short of that would not be secure in our modern age. If you're just going to signature match, then there is no reason it has to be done in person (so why is mail in voting insecure?). I prefer mail in voting, because it allows me to slowly go through the ballot, research each item up for vote as needed, and make my vote without having to remember what I decided on and go somewhere to vote. Plus my state also provided a voters packet, with statements from each candidate, and for measures being considered, a statement for and against it. I'd argue it helps encourage more informed voting.
  25. jazzdude
    I guess I'm naive to believe that the GOP would hold to it's professed values, and boot extremists from the party. Instead, they clung to "well, they'll increase our voter base" in the name of maintaining power ahead of maintaining their values. So they sold out their soul to increase party membership, and that caused a shift in values, which was reflected in the party's nominee. Trump is the symptom, not the disease
×
×
  • Create New...