Jay_millerjay Categories Society
I've heard a lot of scientists claim these three - including most recently the chief advisor to the CDC, where the claim that most transmission doesn't happen within the walls of schools. There is strong evidence to rebut this claim. Let's look at
The science shows us that most disease transmission does not happen in the walls of the school, but it comes in from the community. So, CDC is advocating to get our K-5 students back in school at least in a hybrid mode with universal mask wearing and 6 ft of distancing. https://t.co/dfvJ2nl2s4
— Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH (@CDCDirector) February 14, 2021
Let's look at the trends of infection in different age groups in England first- as reported by the ONS. Being a random survey of infection in the community, this doesn't suffer from the biases of symptom-based testing, particularly important in children who are often asymptomatic
A few things to note:
1. The infection rates among primary & secondary school children closely follow school openings, closures & levels of attendance. E.g. We see a dip in infections following Oct half-term, followed by a rise after school reopening.

We see steep drops in both primary & secondary school groups after end of term (18th December), but these drops plateau out in primary school children, where attendance has been >20% after re-opening in January (by contrast with 2ndary schools where this is ~5%).
The Equality and Diversity section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
However...
1/15

However, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
2/15

You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
3/15

Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
4/15

Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
5/15

My first observations in the main thread are here, but this offshoot is needed because there's been so many wise & witty things I've
37.90/ Limbaugh was a cruel hate-machine who made a fortune off hurting people. To say "don't speak ill of the dead" is the attitude of abuse enablers.
— Joshua Cypess (@JoshuaCypess) February 18, 2021
If you can't condemn a ghoul who dedicated his life to destroying society, you're part of the problem! https://t.co/ijvG2zDACH
2/ First, re: those who in their wayward moral obtuseness feel we "can't speak ill of the dead." I've said that this is what abuse enablers say, but I hear that some religious traditions preach this. Oy.
So there's this: https://t.co/7Ky4RA3nkZ &
This is how Rush's death should be honored. Let's not speak ill of the dead, let's quote Rush speaking ill of the dead.
— Sane English (@SaneEnglish) February 17, 2021
3/ Drucker is another great wit, and this carries the proper mood
It's easy to make fun of Rush Limbaugh right now, but it's important to remember that he also brought a lot of people a lot of joy by dying
— Mike Drucker (@MikeDrucker) February 17, 2021
4/ There's definitely a Jewish Tradition angle for how to treat evil people who die: the only respect is to justice, right & wrong, and above all compassion's existence necessitates condemning cruelty
It\u2019s ok\u2014essential, even\u2014to speak the truth about people who caused great harm.
— Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg (@TheRaDR) February 17, 2021
Even after their death.
5/ We're coming up on #Purim, and that's all about how to remember evil. There may be a reason, then, that I share the attitude of many other people committed to righting
today i said Jewish culture requires dancing on the graves of those who have wronged us and i picked up like 300 followers LMAO
— Erin Biba (@erinbiba) February 18, 2021
people love Jewish vengeance \U0001f923\U0001f923
wait till they hear about Purim
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
"If they start canceling these American presidents, they're gonna come after Bible characters next. Mark my words" -- Fox News "news side" host Bill Hemmer pic.twitter.com/qTPV0NERv8
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 19, 2021
Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.
Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.