If you're going to criticize a thing, organization, or person, it's helpful to be able to answer the question: Compared to what?

National currencies can also be used for ransoms, bribes, etc. In some circumstances one is better than the other for a criminal's purpose. The same is true for beneficial uses of currency.

National currencies can be devalued via inflation, with devastating effect on the populace -- modest with moderate inflation, severe with hyperinflation. In a country where, on payday, you are paid in cash and it's by the pound, there may be political instability and an opportunity for demagoguery, or worse. See the rise in Germany of one A. Hitler, and others in perhaps more than one Third World country.

National currencies also require resources to create them, including ones implicated in global warming. Producing the paper or polymer. Producing the ink. Putting the ink and holograms and other things on or in that paper or polymer. Cutting that paper or polymer into convenient-sized rectangles. Shipping those rectangles from the printers to the central banks and then to other banks in the banking system. Withdrawing those rectangles from banks and other financial institutions. Depositing those rectangles into accounts at banks and other financial institutions. Getting damaged and "recalled" rectangles out of circulation and replaced by fresh ones.

National currencies also occur in forms other than rectangular money. There's also coins, which have similar considerations in their creation, distribution, and replacement.

National currencies are mostly just accounting, though. In computers. Computers that use electricity. Computers have to keep track of electronic national money as it is created and destroyed, as it flows through financial institutions -- traditional ones like banks and credit unions, and newer ones like credit cards and PayPal and gift cards -- and that also takes electricity.

So, before you go branding cryptocurrencies as eeeevil, you might want to ask yourself: In comparison to what?

Different studies reach different conclusions. The one done in Israel uses a more pertinent methodology than the CDC's, and shows a factor of 27 in favor of natural immunity in the covid-recovered over the vaccinated.

Personally, I find the CDC lacks credibility, for some reason.

https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

I've encountered speculation -- or perhaps an outright claim -- that the reason for hiding this information is that White House videos were getting a lot of dislikes.

Seems like a reasonable explanation.

And what of people who have recovered from Covid? They are are also immunized, with an effectiveness apparently about 27 times better than the vaccinated.

If recovering from Covid isn't treated by this new law/regulation/diktat as being at least as good as getting vaccination, that should tell you something. If you're smart and calm enough to think clearly about that awkward fact.

And what that should tell you is, it's not about health. Politicians get what politicians always get from unthinking obedience. And the vaccine companies get money (and a different kind of immunity).

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, and this time, there won't be restrictions placed upon the unvaccinated who have recovered from Covid, that they will be treated like the vaccinated.

Anyone have evidence that that is the case?

So his watch only saw five minutes go by, but subjective time was much longer? Was his brain inside the time speedup zone but his wrist was not?

How about his heart and lungs? Apparently his brain was getting enough oxygen to not become dead. If his brain was getting enough blood flow, his hand must have been getting many times that. Ruh, roh.

If you see a modified Delorean with no Mr. Fusion, but it does have a Mr. Catalyst, you'll know not to feed it beer cans and banana peels. Instead, just pee into the fuel tank.

Having lousy prospects, and a home you can't sell in a down market for as much as is needed to buy something comparable in a stronger market, is worse than having lousy prospects and having no home to sell? Looked at unemotionally, that makes no sense.

Agreed, the "sunk cost fallacy" can keep people from making good decisions.

Makes sense. Probably why it didn't occur to some people.

If a place is no longer a good place live -- due to global warming or changes in hat fashion or no known cause -- why shouldn't people leave it?

Because it makes other people sad to see a small town go away? Not much of a reason.

The root cause is the inability or unwillingness of some people to think clearly and to inform themselves so that they have adequate information to think about.

Blaming FB is either misguided or misdirection.

If Facebook didn't exist, this would still be happening. On MySpace or whatever. And if MySpace or whatever didn't exist, it would be happening or GeoCities or whatever.

As long as someone believes that thinking and feeling are the same thing, this will be a problem for them. And indirectly, for the rest of us.

TDS comes in two forms.

In each, the patient has an extreme emotional response to Donald Trump, which limits reasoning ability, including but not limited to: the ability to recognize hypocrisy, the ability to detect B.S., the ability to correctly identify sarcasm, belief in ludicrous claims on limited or nonexistent evidence (and even in the presence of evidence to the contrary), the willingness to believe claims of people who have lied in the past, and more.

The best-known form, TDS-D, afflicts Democrats.

Also quite prevalent but not as well recognized is TDS-R, which afflicts Republicans.

As the patient does not recognize their condition, it is incongruous to say they "suffer" from it. They often revel in their delusions and conclusions.

But those around them frequently do suffer from the patient's condition.

Not me. I just realize that, 5 or 10 or 15 years from now, they'll realize what an idiot they have been. Well, some of them will.

The cherry-picking continues. Not content with comparing Sweden's current numbers with (selected) countries in the present, the lockdown apologists are now mining the history books.

How does Rwanda's current death rate compare to rates from previous years? Or how about Venezuela? Ireland? Haiti?

Not going to find that info in the article.

Not just economic damage, though the consequences of that are bad enough. It doesn't matter how much money people have, if people aren't making stuff, there isn't stuff to buy.

People with nothing to do and no people to be with suffer. And sometimes suicide, or behave irresponsibly, with tragic consequences. Or they cause others to suffer: violence (domestic or against strangers), crazy-ass driving causing crashes, etc.

These sorts of unintended consequences of mandated isolation at home and mandated closure of businesses outside the home were not considered beforehand, and are only now being acknowledged after they've become obvious.

The apologists for lockdowns and closures are irresponsible.

We have two dominant political parties except during times of transition when an issue important to the voters is not being addressed or not being addressed the way the voters want it addressed. During those times, a new party or parties would form and one of the two dominant parties would either adopt a position on the issue or go under when the new party replaced it. Or sometimes both dominant parties would adopt the position.

That lasted until the Progressive Era legislation gave state governments the power to decide who was a "real" candidate and which political parties were "relevant".

Voter turnout declined. Election competitiveness declined. They all declined to modern levels, where they have stayed.

Details in _Why America Stopped Voting_, by Mark L. Kornbluh. http://www.worldcat.org/search...

Thing would improve if all candidates and all political parties were equal before the law.

Fat chance getting that out of a duopoly-controlled state legislature, and past a duopoly party governor.

Ending Daylight Saving Time is a much smaller challenge that is pretty much all up-side. If you can make that happen, switching the entire planet to London time might be possible.