it's satire.
i don't mind the humor, because good lord it's so damn depressing otherwise.
edit - just saw the news, my comment is moot, i suppose.
let me try this another way. i don't agree with the statement that a is currently causing b, because i don't see a happening. b has some other cause.
i don't think pushing for Biden is leading to a Trump win, because i don't see many people pushing for Biden. i see a lot of people (social media, talking heads, news outlets) complaining about Biden.
if Dems and progressives want to defeat Trump, well, you coulda fooled me because that's not what their behavior accomplishes. it looks like a great many are weakening and undermining our current path to success. right now, with no compelling alternative, that means a Trump win.
as far as i can tell, we can support Biden or continue to shoot at our own feet in a panic which only makes the opposition stronger.
because we don't beat dumbfuck if people don't get out to vote. for all their asshattery, republicans get one thing right - they tow the party line when it counts. by contrast, dems have been projecting increasing hysteria and doubt over the last several weeks. how does that motivate anyone?
i think AOC cares about results. the results aren't going to be good if dems don't get it together and vote for Biden or whichever politician gets the nomination. doesn't even matter at this point who it is.
looks like they have tried to take that one as well. 🙄
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_devotions_to_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary
i could say a lot in response to your comment about the benefits and shortcomings of algorithms (or put another way, screening tools or assessments), but i'm tired.
i will just point out this, for anyone reading.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2573025/
i am exceedingly troubled that something which is commonly regarded as indicating very high risk when working with victims of domestic violence was ignored in the cited case (disclaimer - i haven't read the article). if the algorithm fails to consider history of strangulation, it's garbage. if the user of the algorithm did not include that information (and it was disclosed to them), or keyed it incorrectly, they made an egregious error or omission.
i suppose, without getting into it, i would add - 35 questions (ie established statistical risk factors) is a good amount. large categories are fine. no screening tool is totally accurate, because we can't predict the future or have total and complete understanding of complex situations. tools are only useful to people trained to use them and with accurate data and inputs. screening tools and algorithms must find a balance between accurate capture and avoiding false positives.
more than you'd think, i'm guessing.
anyway, what's it to you? if someone has an abortion and never chooses to have a child, why does that matter to anyone else?
i hope you will forgive me for asking something so personal (and i understand if you choose to ignore it), but - if you want a hysterectomy now and have been advised of the impacts, why is she unwilling at present?
i hear you, you are expected to do an unrealistic amount of work. i believe you, data does not support a delayed schedule for most.
i continue to support the need to obtain patient consent to protect bodily autonomy.
i am not foolish enough to believe i have an easy solution to the difficulties inherent in that conflict given the shortcomings of healthcare systems.
the letter doesn't say, and the reporter may or may not have had good reason. we don't know based on the information provided.
the fact that a report was made does not inherently mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone reported concern. the fact that the report is being investigated does not mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone with CPS agreed to open a case based on what they were told.
i could call CPS and say that you are abusing a child or other vulnerable person, provide enough information about you and a plausible concern (in theory at least, whether it's based in fact or not), and CPS could choose to follow up on that report. i can make this report and they can investigate regardless of whether there is any actual evidence of abuse or neglect.
let me preface my statement by clarifying i am definitely NOT anti-vax. and like the poster you are addressing, i agree that the needs of people in public education/care settings are important and it is good to require vaccination for participation.
to me, where a parent has concerns about the pace of vaccinations, a medical provider can share information with that person to help them better understand the risks and benefits of the typical schedule (as you have done). they should still have the opportunity to consent.
medical care without consent is a violation of bodily autonomy.
edit - i wonder if i was downvoted for a) i endorse vaccination as a benefit to the public, b) i think education is valuable in addressing fear or conspiratorial thinking, or c) i believe people have a right to bodily autonomy.
or was it d) i expressed these things instead of dogpiling the sovcit? 🤔
children are not property, but consent is also important.
i wouldn't assume the best of CPS. in my work, i see many families who are dealing with CPS, and it is often an unjust shitshow for families.
the notion that an agency should exist to protect the interests of vulnerable people is obviously a good one. in practice, many workers are undereducated, overworked, often lacking professionalism, and empowered by the state to enact bias against families and family members who may also be vulnerable.
cps, unfortunately, should be viewed in context of our country's history of criminalizing and victimizing minorities (people of color, people experiencing poverty, women and sexual minorities). they do some good work. they also hurt a lot of people they should not, including children.
this parent did not find it weird to be asked, because that's what they wanted. they requested that staff seek their consent before providing care.
i don't think the parent denied testing. when asked, they consented.
edit "when they asked me, i gave them permission."
it looks like this person wanted to be consulted before any care/treatment was provided to their children. when asked, they agreed to suggested care.
it looks like there is an error in their post. i do not read their statement to mean they accepted care for their own self and not for their children.
i hear you, fellow texan. no fan of ercot, but reading this thread has been infuriating.
for anyone else reading my comment - some years ago, i lived in oklahoma for a little while. years of drought, one year a lot rain. lots of trees with a lot dead branches weighted by new growth, then that winter an ice storm hit. trees bigger than my car came crashing down and it was all over the town i lived in. for three days in the silence, you could hear branches cracking and falling. two houses down a tree went right through their living room. one end of our street was impassable for several days until someone could cut one tree into small enough pieces to clear it.
needless to say, power was out. parts of town had power back within days, some parts of the state, if i remember correctly, didn't have power for weeks.
grid stability or redundancy couldn't have prevented that problem.