There is basically no difference in transmission rates. Look at the study linked in the RKI FAQ (eyre et Al I believe). It is a clear-cut contact tracing study.
You were infected? -> who were you in close contact with? -> did they get infected?
Result? Negligible impact, rapidly declining. Reducing your contacts by 30% has a much greater impact on spread than vaccination does.
And what the ZDF wrote is from August and thus completely out of date. GP is completely correct.
Not to mention that at this time the RKI was still counting reported hospitalizations into the "unvaccinated" category if there was no vaccination status known.
Currently that figure is at around 60% of all reported hospitalizations and can be checked by everyone, since the raw data is public.
I expect GP to have thought along the lines of "established journals, academic titles, and prestigious universities", aka "the institutions of organized academia". And other signals that one belongs to these groups, like the aforementioned "scientific language".
Which is what most people use as the actual heuristics of competence, including journalists and politicians. GP seems to believe that this heuristic will cease to be accepted if things continue, just like "being a religious authority" ceased to be an accepted heuristic for moral authority in many communities.
I agree that this is a problem, since going back to the substrate of hypothesis and experiment is just not very efficient. We need institutions like those.
If you want more than the 20, you just need to save a bigger stack.
In general, you just need to plug in your target income from your investment, and your expected long-term return in percent. That gives you the amount of money you need to save.
The more you save per year, and the lower your target income, the faster you get there.
> Cassidy has noticed a growing dynamic. “The knitting community has a big issue with people being very concerned that, if they don’t support a callout, they’ll be called out themselves,” she told me. “Not joining it seems scary to people.”
I really have to say, I think this is a bad article. Not because it is badly written, or because it is factually wrong. But because an unfamiliar reader would get the wrong impression about what is really going on.
Ravelry and the knitting community do have a big problem. But it is not primarily with political polarization per se. It's the community-oriented mindset that does not work at scale.
The knitting community is experiencing what we all will experience wherever this mindset becomes dominant: homogenization and the enforcement of conformity. We need distance and live-and-let-live in society. It's not a family.
Simple: this state of affairs is only possible when consumer products and necessities are not scarce.
When scarcity comes into play, well, then it does not matter whether the dollars you are competing with come from the "real economy" or bitcoin. Prices will shoot up.
We're building something similar at work. There is actually an implementation of the very same mechanism using the operator framework. Here's the link: https://github.com/mumoshu/aws-secret-operator
Were you aware of this project? If so, why did you go for this implementation?
You were infected? -> who were you in close contact with? -> did they get infected?
Result? Negligible impact, rapidly declining. Reducing your contacts by 30% has a much greater impact on spread than vaccination does.