Gromnir

for a number of years we were paying ~$800 per month for our sister's meds. she had lupus, which became other problems. she also had some emotional problems stemming in large part from an assault when she were a student at Cal. took meds for the mental health issues, but those weren't what was costing most o' the $800. if it makes skarp_one feel better, after her attack incident, she tended to vote republican, or perhaps she voted republican 'cause that is what Gromnir were doing at the time. whatever. however, the reason her meds were so expensive were in part 'cause we were supporting her. we couldn't get her onto our personal insurance plan for various reasons, but we coulda' finagled so she were medi-cal eligible (and most o' her meds woulda' been free) but while her medical care woulda' been not terrible... well, that is the best we can say. we supported and so she weren't ssi and medi-cal eligible. our meds, save one, has copays o' $10, but we checked and on average we would be paying $15 for each even if we had no insurance 'cause they is not particular expensive. is one exception. costs us $80 but is not a monthly med. would cost us far more than $80 if we had to pay brand name price with no generic option. considering our med issues, we don't spend much on meds... yet. a couple years past we did have surgery and a single overnight stay post-op. were real surgery--not cosmetic. needed anesthesia. weren't life saving though. something to keep us able to walk and maintain bladder control, so kinda necessary from our pov. our insurance were billed $350k. we paid $25 out of pocket. in 2021, if you are a day gig worker in the US, chances are you still need decide 'tween rent, food, transportation, utilities and health insurance. at least one from that list is gonna be a loser. guess which most choose. accident happens or you suffer a burst appendix or whatever... get a $350k bill and then what? HA! Good Fun!

power corrupts, but powerlessness corrupts absolute. if you believe you have nothing to lose, what is there to stop you from doing the unthinkable? there are sociopaths and psychopaths who commit horrible crimes 'cause they are getting what they want and other people are just obstacles. rare. a large % of people do bad things 'cause they believe they have run out of better options. governments necessarily have a monopoly on force, and the threat o' force discourages the powerless from taking action, but there is usual a breaking point. edit: am gonna go out on a limb and predict somebody on tucker carlson's staff gets fired, 'cause ed gavin clear weren't the guest tuck thought he were. HA! Good Fun!

LeVar Burton lands guest host gig on 'Jeopardy!' after more than 246,000 fans sign online petition a story which brought a genuine smile to our grumpy mug. HA! Good Fun!

the unforgivable flaw o' cops is that they are human beings, which means they is busted and broken and corruptible same as is football coaches, church ministers, movie directors and doctors. Gromnir's planet is rough and is obvious not same as the planet many o' you hale from. here we got this phrase, which is stoopid and terrible, but it persists 'cause is also real: snitches get stitches. military whistleblowers get stitches if they don't follow the chain o' command with their complaints, and if the do follow chain of command, then is a good chance they get punished anyways. sports teams is all too frequent falling victim to the culture o' exploitation and punishment o' anybody who would criticize. us gymnastics, penn state football, ohio state wrestling (we haven't forgotten about you mr. jim jordan) and more than a few pro teams has all been in the news 'cause the bad culture where folks doing the right thing were treated monstrous. how many has done same and never been subject o' a news story? church ministers and boy scouts. doubt we need actual supply details to an earthling to make instant apparent how church and boy scouts is relevant to this topic. some o' the stories o' good christian men and women and the cruelty they used to silence those who dared to suggest church and boy scout leadership were guilty o' horrific wrongs is making us ashamed to be an earthling. on the waterfront is a movie from 1954, back when a guy named brando were arguable the best earth actor. fantastic film. union dirty is a bit different today, but you gotta be pretty freaking courageous to rock the boat (another earth idiom, apologies) in a union shop. not long ago, on earth, we had this awakening, which weren't. #metoo. people pretended to be shocked and dismayed to discover that actresses were exploited by movie producers, and if the actresses complained, they were blacklisted and victim blamed and worse... and then women (and even a few men) from a wide range o' professions and jobs revealed how they too had also suffered and been silenced by threats overt and subtle. on earth some o' us pretended to be surprised by the revelations o' the #metoo movement, while others just dismissed the whole thing. as we said, we come from a rough planet. and yeah, firemen, cops, military and sports teams got these esprit de corps cultures wherein bad behavior, if not addressed and active stamped out by those in charge, can become pervasive and generational. there will be busted teams and departments which keep breeding more bad and the fact nobody has the courage to stop is revolting... and very human. our planet is rough. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) 'cause become is one word.

our grandma (maternal side) made something she called pittsburgh lasagna. grandma said it were s'posed to include sausage but she used cooked chicken (diced) 'cause that were what she typical had available. remaining ingredients: mozzarella, parmesan and ricotta, 1 egg, a package o' frozen spinach, lasagna noodles, milk and a couple cans o' cream of mushroom soup. the egg, thawed and drained (extreme drained... dry as possible w/o using oven) spinach and ricotta got combined, milk and soup were combined. take a casserole dish and layer some o' the soup+ milk, then noodles, then half o' the spinach and ricotta mixture, then chicken (or sausage), then mozzarella. repeat layers leaving last o' the soup and the parmesan for last layer. have no idea what were the measurements. we got a ridiculous good memory, but grandma didn't measure, so... has been many years since we had that casserole. the (not) lasagna were delicious. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. most o' us have worked in a profession or occupation where discrimination 'gainst minorities and/or women happens and where such discrimination has been a problem for a considerable period o' time. am not gonna suggest they is all bad. is the nonsense gd does with politicians. they are all complicit, yes? the growing tendency to call every white male a racist and a bigot is one o' the reasons we ended up with trump as President. even if you believe every white male is a racist and every male a bigot, such accusations is not helpful. dismiss every cop similar? same mistake. am hardly suggesting there is no responsibility for the other cops who witness or know and do nothing. contrary. however, am thinking is not appropriate to make it a stark +/- thing. brings up why am actual more interested in what happens to the other cops present when floyd died. their trial will take place in the near future and will be more meaningful in our mind than were chauvin. asian cop. mixed-race cop. white cop. none helped floyd and only the white guy protested 'bout what were happening to floyd. am thinking all the cops bear some responsibility for what happened to floyd, but am not thinking is +/-, and am not willing to go so far as to suggest every cop everywhere is responsible in a +/- kinda way. HA! Good Fun!

unlike lassie, the law overwhelming sympathizes with children. if a child is hurt or dies or could be hurt or scared a lot, then a cop may be fubar. one reason why former officer chauvin may get more than recommended 12.5 years is 'cause children were present when he killed mr. floyd. if kids are present, cops got far less leeway to use deadly force. tell us that ain't fair? is law. fair and law is not the same. HA! Good Fun!

'ccording to fbi, numbers o' homicide victims in 2017: total firearms-10,982 rifles-403 (which included the vegas shooter, explaining the small but noticeable increase in rifle death totals from immediate preceding years) knives-1,591 blunt objects (not fists)-467 personal weapons (hands, feet)-696 403 is not a good number. not suggesting we should ignore 403. however, if you believe we got a firearms problem, overwhelming focus on 403 is perplexing to us. HA! Good Fun!

am recalling the most obscure advice we got 'fore taking the bar exam so many decades past: "don't sympathize with lassie." cops is supposed to involve themselves in domestic disputes. duh. imagine if cop walks on by and then next day is discovered the woman killed the guy moments after the cop were outta sight. that would be the mistake. the dog is distracting gd. that dog doesn't care about gd, so don't let it distract you. same scenario you describe with the cop legal on premises, but instead o' a big barking dog rushing towards the cop, is a young man with a kitchen knife. cop pulls his gun and accidentally shots the woman. does gd react same? gd focuses on dog. is always a mistake to focus on the animal. if you have seen wounds left by k-9 unit dogs, you would be appropriate afraid o' strange dogs. an angry dog o' even middling size can mess up your day if it chooses to. gd doesn't even see the other part o' the story which undercuts so many o' his previous claims. the cop, who has considerable training with firearms, missed the dog and shot the woman, which should not be any surprise at all. if you have one person armed in any tense situation, the chances o' somebody dying accidental or purpose is high. increase the number o' armed personas and danger increases or decreases? the multi-state portion o' the bar exam (the multiple choice portion) ordinarily included at least one question which were meant to trick you into sympathizing with an animal. don't fall into the trap. if you got a legal question, do not sympathize with lassie. HA! Good Fun!

not complete tongue-in-cheek. states may compel hunters to wear day-glow vests. if enough legislators believe there is a reasonable correlation 'tween the sinister appearance o' certain weapons and their use in mass shootings, am s'posing those sinister attributes could be prohibited. make certain all firearms is pink and coated in a paint resistant seal? can't very well claim your right to bear arms is abridged 'cause your weapon looks too childish or "girly." but the core problem remains. you gotta make law with objective standards broad enough so is meaningful and is resistant to those who will find ways to circumvent. what makes ar-15 appearance so appealing? well, it is black. other than that, it gets tougher to objective explain what makes it scary. and am knowing it sounds callous, but the mass shooting incidents involving ar-15 and weapons which look similar is a distraction to a much larger problem. tens o' thousands o' americans die in firearm homicides and accidents each year. the number o' deaths wherein an ar-15, or any long rifle is used, accounts for a tiny fraction o' those deaths. in point o' fact, blunt weapons not including human fists account for many more homicide deaths than rifles and shotguns per year, but every time a drunk man beats his wife and kids to death with a baseball bat there is no similar outrage against the louisville slugger folks. sure, the guy with the ar-15 and his admitted illegal ammo drum killed more people in a single incident, but... HA! Good Fun!

it is difficult to write a meaningful law which prohibits scary looking guns which will appeal to the worst instincts o' people who might eventual consider a mass shooting. perhaps require all firearms to be painted pink and adorned with a care bears motif? HA! Good Fun!

bump stocks catching you off guard were the point, you didn't know, and neither did many lawmakers. the tech is constant changing and even today is increasing difficult to make laws which adequate encompass the range o' real world possibilities. a handgun used in a mass shooting even if you is ok with the ruger being a handgun, there will be tech which catches you off guard in the future, so is not reasonable to suggest agreed limits circa 2021 should be the end. ... am not sure how to advance the no compromise point. you will not consider admitted reasonable limits today because you are certain that democrats will, at some point in the future, demand the unreasonable. by definition you are being unreasonable. you don't see it or are ok with being unreasonable. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

sorry for the double, but 'cause am certain is a misconception many will have. keep in mind guilty on all counts ain't additive. chauvin has no criminal history, so minnesota guidelines would suggest 128-180 months with 150 being expected. 12 years and six months would be normal for second degree murder. 'course the current situation ain't normal. HA! Good Fun!

after watching the video we feel moderate affronted by being described as a private equity goon... and we went to a public university and not harvard, so there. more serious, am daily baffled by recognition that 2021 feels so much like 2006-2007, and how in spite o' multiple experts and lay people complaining that we collective learned nothing from 2008+, no serious effort is being made to prevent the next crisis. our properties is paid for and if housing values halved tomorrow we would feel it not at all save for we would get properties reassessed and our taxes would decrease. is part o' the problem. last time the housing bubble burst, it led to a sharp increase in income disparity and numbers has not improved since. covid-19 made the wealth gap problems worse as it were those folks who had jobs they could not do remote were the ones suffering the most. we personal may shrug this impending crisis stuff off but it is literal destroying families... again. how can this be happening again, particular so soon after last time? oh well, would be tough to take smaug serious if he lamented the suffering proletariat as he stretched languid 'pon an enormous pile o' treasure. HA! Good Fun!

which is why am thinking this ain't the win many is gonna imagine it to be. were the +9 minutes and the refusal to listen to concerns o' others present and the failure to remove pressure once there were no pulse and... chauvin behavior were shock the conscience level stoopid, and as much as people hate cops 'round here, is rare we see a trial when is quite so obvious. nothing is gonna change precise 'cause is so easy to identify multiple points when chauvin shoulda' done something he did not. sooper cop got rolled up by his own department as a police captain and training expert testified against him? don't count on that happening in the future unless the foolishness is equal extreme. oh, and in spite o' fact we observed multiple times we thought outliers such as dp were not how reasonable jurors would see, we nevertheless were not sure the jury would do as we thought reasonable jurors should. chauvin were exact what law enforcement claims is the problem: a bad apple. the bad apple has been identified and discarded so it may no longer poison the rest o' the barrel. everybody wins. the system worked, no? law enforcement pundits and more than a few folks on the right will agree chauvin got his proper reward 'cause doing so reinforces the bad apple narrative. everybody wins? HA! Good Fun!

judges hate to overturn a jury verdict. hardly a new problem. is more than a few instances when trump commented on trials and judges just kinda ignored. biden were a bit more vague than waters, but both shoulda' kept their mouth shut 'til after the trial were over. shoulda' known better. good chance to win mistrial appeal? doubt it, but why should we even need be discussing? HA! Good Fun!

to characterize public policy efforts as analogous to terrorist demands or a hostage situation is what should be obvious wrong with the no compromise position o' so many 2nd amendment purists... who as we indicated earlier is comical misguided 'bout what is 2nd amendment purity. can't give an inch today, 'cause tomorrow they will demand more. y'know, every time the uppity naacp asked for more accountability and more access, the establishment responded similar. if we desegregate schools, the next thing you know, people o' color will be demanding equal access to public swimming pools and consumer credit. and then they will be making laws which force private business owners to hire a minimum % of minority employees. and then they will take businesses from white owners to make certain there are enough business owners with the right skin color. imagine a parade of horrible is so 1840s and 1920s, 1950s, 1970s, etc... am also gonna observe how reality intrudes on gd notions and undermines him when and where he least expects, or remembers. las vegas shooter? recall gd reaction to video... more specific to the audio from the video? gd opined how obvious the shooter were using auto weapons, so the weapons used in the mass killing event were already prohibited by law. reasonable. reasonable and wrong. bump stocks, which am admitting to having only being tangential aware, made gd wrong 'bout gun laws and the vegas shooter. firearms is increasing moldable and tech changes the rules o' the game faster than new laws may be properly debated in Congress or state legislatures. expect any compromise or reasonable law in 2021 ends the debate forever is a tad myopic, no? but you are correct in one sense. no matter what gun laws is passed, as soon as the inevitable next mass shooting event happens, there will be a cry for more regulation no matter how much regulation current exists. so what? deal with it. am agreeing people will react and even overreact. no argument. now what? HA! Good Fun!

am not predicting jury results w/o having seen jury behavior. been in such situations too many times to realize predict from outside courtroom is inherent flawed. jurors is people, and we all should know the people is the element o' chaos indivisible from so many human activities. that said, am gonna take a quick opportunity to observe how there is no legit reason to wait for the verdict to protest. IF you believe system is rigged or flawed, is flawed regardless o' verdict. anybody saw any evidence this trial were handled poorly by da, judge or other governmental actors to ensure a defendant win? this were an extreme transparent trial, and we ain't heard any complaints o' government sabotage. IF you are bothered by laws which make chauvin less likely to be convicted, such has nothing to do with the trial in general or the verdict specific. IF you are angered by law enforcement treatment o' people o' color, the jury verdict in this case does noes not make law enforcement more or less culpable. IF you simple believe jury trials is bs, then verdict is inconsequential. people are on the edge o' their seats waiting for a verdict to express outrage, but the verdict shouldn't make a difference for any source o' outrage we can identify... other than outrage at specific jurors which is an unavoidable if you got jury trials. am bothered by so many waiting for this verdict as some kinda litmus test or bellwether. is not. just ain't. HA! Good Fun! ps somehow got culpable autocorrected to capable. fixed.

answer: prohibit Americans from owning so many handguns. is the obvious solution. accidents, intentional homicides, and suicide attempts resulting in death by firearms overwhelming happen 'cause o' the accessibility o' handguns. firearms are lethal and they are designed to be lethal. act surprised we got so many die in firearm incidents is national level obtuse. the only meaningful solutions are the ones which serious limit the access americans have to the firearms they use to kill each other. however, handgun ownership is Constitutional protected, which is kinda weird 'cause the most recent 2nd amendment cases, written by textualists, took a decidedly originalist approach focusing on history o' gun laws and intent o' the founders n' such. arming a militia circa 1787 as the basis for the kind o' weapons being protected by second amendment is gonna result in the ar-15 kinda weapons getting protection as 'posed to handguns, no? no. also, as weird as it may be, there were no comprehensive history o' gun laws previous to heller, so scalia and others were kinda talking out their arse and turns out they made a few objective wrong assumptions. moot. 2nd amendment current protects handgun ownership. all liberties have a body count. nobody wants to face that truism. protect freedom o' religion means those folks who believe invasive medical practices taint one's soul is protected from government interference even if it means children will be denied basic life saving procedures. taken to an extreme no previous Court would recognize, freedom o' religion means even if we know groups o' people singing in close quarters indoors for an hour or more great increases the risk o' covid-19 transmission, Court says such religious gatherings need be protected, tacit accepting the resulting body count. freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures or self incrimination means guilty people will go free and be free to prey 'pon and even murder american citizens in the future. etc. second amendment has a body count which is more easily observed than most liberties, but is no different. as Americans we have accepted the body count as necessary, or at least unavoidable-- a cost in blood to protect a priceless freedom. right to bear arms allows an individual to protect themselves not only from bandits, british invaders and indians, but from the US government if it ever decides to go too far, with "too far" being an admitted subjective measure. am not mocking as is indeed a legit concern and as vulgar and crude as it may appear, am personal recognizing some kinda body count is indeed warranted to guarantee americans is able to protect themselves from bad guys, especial if those bad guys is claiming to be agents o' the government. 'course the history o' 2nd amendment protections is NOT as described by most o' the 2nd amendment honks here and elsewhere. literal were not until after ww1 that the fed took any meaningful position on gun regulation by the individual states. is this weird narrative that the government is itching to take your guns and your God-given second amendment rights which has existed since the founding. utter poppy****. you have more second amendment protection today than during any meaningful span o' US history... evar. government, and Courts, inexplicable keep finding ways to expand you gun rights, in spite o' the nonsense nightmares concocted by the alt-right which suggest that w/o constant vigilance, washington would beat down your door and take away your guns the moment they thought they could get away with doing so. regardless, solution would seem to be bans on handguns, and am honest not giving a freaking darn 'bout recreational use exceptions. deaths attributed to ownership o' shotguns and rifles, while frequent the most lurid when presented in the media stories, is resulting in negligible body counts when looking at the totals o' tens o' thousands. even the guy in las vegas were representing a near insignificant addition to the yearly total o' firearms deaths. try and ban only bad people from owing guns as a solution to the problem is doomed. such limits is a way to make people feel like they did something useful or have some kinda agency. obvious accidents happen all the time and background checks don't prevent the child from killing himself in a walmart when he gets ahold o' the s'posed secured weapon in mom's handbag. worse, most gun deaths which is intentional is resulting from impulsive action. is not just the clinical insane and/or felons who act stoopid for a quarter hour. you are most likely to be shot and killed by somebody you know as 'posed to a rando stranger trying to take your stuff. nevertheless, gotta start with being self honest. accept the reality o' some kinda body count. recognize how the protection o' the particular liberty in question is gonna result in dead americans. one reason our cops act as if every american is armed is hostile is 'cause statistically there is more than one gun per american. hundreds o' deaths in school shooting over the past decades is a tragedy. tens o' thousands o' firearms suicides yearly is a statistic. etc. so own it. as a society we can't act shocked every time ameircans die in a firearm tragedy. the deaths are anything but unpredictable. is not difficult to come up with ways to prevent firearms deaths. problem is there is no way to get americans to accept the genuine effective solutions, which is fine just so long as people would be honest 'bout the costs and their willingness to accept the predictable body count. you won't get any significant percentage o' democrats to agree to a serious ban on handgun ownership. instead folks will argue over relative minor restrictions such as background checks and waiting periods. firearms are lethal and they are designed to be lethal. act surprised we got so many die in firearm incidents is national level obtuse. HA! Good Fun!

more relevant is recognition the situation is not as binary as dp describes, or at least not binary how he suggests. in point o' fact, while both the shooting o' the capitol rioter and the clearing o' the person who shot her were covered extensive by mainstream media (not swept under the rug by law enforcement or media) am still shocked so few o' the capitol rioters were repelled with serious force. is the f'ing Capitol for chrissakes, and you got protesters erecting mock gallows and calling for the deaths o' pence and other Congressmen as they storm the Capitol while the 2020 Presidential election results is being confirmed. protesters get disturbing close to members o' Congress after having broken through windows, doors and barricades. one protester is shot? just one? wth? as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, law enforcement in this country has broad leeway to use force to protect self and others, but to protect Congressmen at the US Capitol from an angry mob, law enforcement showed curious restraint. dp seems to have "swept under a rug" misattributed, 'cause am genuine still wanting to know how protesters got so far with so little law enforcement resistance. contrary to bruce notions, history shows that shoot people in a mob is as likely to increase violence as to curb it. that said, when law enforcement is severe outnumbered, and until law enforcement achieves overwhelming tactical advantage, am seeing a plausible explanation for the milquetoast response we witnessed. nevertheless, am kinda wanting an explanation as to how a bunch ' flannel bedecked hooligans managed to storm the Capitol with so little law enforcement resistance. more important, am wondering what is the response for future, 'cause no doubt domestic militia groups and foreign powers were surprised by how little force were used to stop the protests. if there were to be some kinda next time at Capitol or elsewhere, am hopeful the response is better. swept under a rug is exact what gop in Congress is doing as republicans still refuse to agree to support for independent investigations o' the January 6 incident. wanna know truth and details o' January 6? good luck. have had this conversation with @Guard Dog once or twice how the history o' the most famous battles of the civil war is not quite the uncontroverted facts we all accept. read firsthand sources o' civil war battles is an utter mess, 'cause battles, less than riots, is chaotic. historians has come to a consensus regarding what happened during famous civil war battles based on physical evidence and first had accounts, but is not the objective real we all pretend. making sense o' battles is as much art as science and expecting all facts to be correct regarding what is obviously an event peopled heavily by fact-challenged narrators and their iphones will make investigations more difficult. all the more reason to investigate now, as soon as possible. dp is predictable selective with his choice o' intraweb sources and experts to reinforce his chosen pov and narrative, which is so 21st century banal, but disappointing nevertheless. want truth? do as Gromnir has advised many times (and received curiously forceful resistance more than once) and wait for facts pending thorough and transparent investigations. unfortunately, one party appears disturbing dedicated to sweeping the events o' january 6 under the rug, right up until a detail seems to support a chosen narrative. shame. HA! Good Fun! ps investigate events leading up to the moment when a mob headed to the Capitol on January 6 should be much easier to manage than make sense o' the events at the Capitol itself. we know who said what and when they said and what they did and who they paid... and the who, what, where and why we don't know can be discovered with a bit o' effort. far less chaos. nevertheless, Congress is instead cultivating mushrooms. unforgivable. somebodies is sweeping under a rug.

... am feeling old. thanks. HA! Good Fun!

given a few o' the problematic stereotypes o' the shang-chi comics character, not least o' which is inexorable linked to fu manchu, am suspecting significant changes from the source material. am admitted knowing shag-chi only a little, but am curious how this is gonna developed so as to not cheese off the increasing important chinese audience w/o appearing to be overt pandering to the same audience. HA! Good Fun!

quick clarification, 'cause am knowing we weren't clear: our observations about the number of unarmed people of color killed by cops is not a suggestion such deaths is inconsequential. after all, IF law enforcement agencies made just enough changes to reduce the deaths from twenties to single digits, no doubt many would applaud such effort, but am gonna suggest such would be misleading. the problem is the casual brutality o' law enforcement in the US. we noted when the george floyd incident first happened, many police would see chauvin's actions as inappropriate, but the only thing they would see as wrong were the duration o' the force used. so go ahead and listen to the testimony by cops at the chauvin trial. have chauvin's superior testify were indeed novel and almost unheard o' in a cop trial, but the cop testimony at trial reinforced the idea that chauvin were a bad actor who abused otherwise ok cop practices and took 'em too far. there were no condemnation o' law enforcement willingness to use casual brutality to gain control in a situation. the problem were the nine minutes. if chauvin is found guilty it will be because o' the nine minutes, and every other cop will have only learned that after three minutes they might need be a bit more careful when twisting up a person in custody. is many millions o' arrests every year in the US. there is 500k arrests in the US every year for violent crimes. there is gonna be deaths particularly as, at the very least, the cops in such situation is gonna be armed with lethal weapons. focus on the deaths, which already does not occur in great numbers, is a mistake. focus on the deaths is human and understandable for anybody with a shred o' empathy. am nevertheless worried the deaths take focus from the bigger and more fundamental problem. HA! Good Fun!

Little Difference In Vaccine Hesitancy Among White And Black Americans, Poll Finds Overall, 67% of people said they had either planned to get a coronavirus vaccine, or had done so already. Thirty percent said they did not plan to get a shot. While there was little racial difference in who wants the vaccine, there were sharp partisan differences, according to the poll. am admitted surprised a bit by a few o' the numbers. reducing the historic reluctance o' minorities has been a kinda success. pleasant surprise. unfortunate, men, the gender more likely to suffer severe symptoms from a covid-19 infection than women, is less likely to get vaccinated. women, who disproportionate populate teaching and healthcare professions even in 2021, has been vaccinated earlier than men. 67% is much better than the ~50% numbers we saw late last year regarding persons willing to be vaccinated in the US. has been a significant decrease in vaccine hesitancy in a short time, particular in communities o' color and whatever education and outreach efforts resulted in such a significant change is deserving recognition. need find out what worked and repeat if possible. am impressed by the diminished levels o' hesitancy. even so, thank goodness the vaccines is so efficacious. is worth remembering the yearly flu vaccine is 'tween 40 and 60% effective. is nevertheless gonna be difficult to reach a few o' the targets deemed necessary for herd immunity with current levels o' hesitancy, particular as social distancing behaviors in the US, which were never adhered to well, is breaking down at an increasing rate. HA! Good Fun!

you realize that admission doesn't help you, yes? we treat you little different than a handful o' other posters who are habitual dishonest and/or comical obdurate. you are not a special snowflake from our pov. nothing noteworthy save to observe the company you share is hardly illustrious. converse, admit to singling us out? well, ok. thanks? is a smidge creepy, but am s'posing such is a hazard o' the internet. that said, am thinking will hold off on the fee as am all too often compelled to correct zor errors to ever consider financing his self-serving sloth. well, you and nunia business university guy provided some entertainment, which am guessing is "the point" we were looking for in pour previous post, but if you refuse to add anything constructive, then we end up with these little sucking toilet bowl swirlies o' the inane which become progressive more infantile and exponential increase the likelihood o' mod interference. even Gromnir has limited patience for such. HA! Good Fun! ps edited out a repeat word.