Hey, hey! I'd say that these are broadly correct. I did some more analysis since then and added some empirical data from the human trial, where they measured Omicron growth in human nose and mouth samples for 18 infected volunteers in 12-hour strides.

Also you get the point on Québec too.

@VoiceOfFranky DAMN. From a 28:1 ratio in favour of trusting science and experts to a 1:3.5 ratio opposed to trusting science and experts by degree of disinformation supported.

@allisongill Occam's Shaving Cream was asking when you might be coming over to Bluesky? We miss your awesomeness! We have all the great conversations and way less hostility and bullshit on account of the superblock. :)

They call for "dismantling" NOAA, dropping the free, public National Weather Service in favour of data transfer direct to AccuWeather, and closing the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.

Elmo pitched this earlier, but of course he has it ass-backwards.

The per-infection risk is roughly flat at 2/3rds of the infection risk of the first infection (or 60%, thereabouts). The aggregate risk increases linearly with infection number. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/…

Exhibits 9a and 9b are fun. justice.gov/d9/2024-09/exhib…

New indictment just dropped. storage.courtlistener.com/re…