The coronavirus

lastexitlondon said:

Beets by chaos

Do you wear them over or in your ears?

Merkin Baller said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Sweden is going to hell.

New restrictions. 

- No alkohol to be sold after 20.00
- 4 people max at tables in restaurants.
- All non-essential workers to work from home till jan 24
- Schools for 16-19 years old are to be held remotely till jan 24
- Stores are not allowed to have Christmas sales in stores


AND

- USE MASKS WHEN USING PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND WHEN IN CROWDED AREAS



WE HAVE CROSSED THE RUBICON

If by "going to hell" you mean 'is finally acknowledging the reality of this situation after 10 frigging months' then yeah, you would be accurate, Sweden is absolutely going to hell. 

Got my hand-basket!

HughFreakingDillon said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Sweden is going to hell.

New restrictions. 

- No alkohol to be sold after 20.00
- 4 people max at tables in restaurants.
- All non-essential workers to work from home till jan 24
- Schools for 16-19 years old are to be held remotely till jan 24
- Stores are not allowed to have Christmas sales in stores


AND

- USE MASKS WHEN USING PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND WHEN IN CROWDED AREAS



WE HAVE CROSSED THE RUBICON

that's where we've been in manitoba since november

And here for months on end

mcgruff10 said:

My school district finally went full remote this week until January 11th.  We had over 1,000 students and staff home because they were exposed to COVID symptoms meaning if a kid has a headache and goes to the nurse then any student within six feet has to quarantine for two weeks.  If a teacher was within six feet for more than 15 minutes than they also have to quarantine for two weeks.  

I hit the school lottery jackpot here. Not a single case reported in my kid's elementary school. 

Edit: mind you, kids could go to school with symptoms and now they don't even want to do tests here unless they are chill, fever, no smell, or breathing difficulties.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there are already adds for what are certainly fake covid vaccines online. How dumb (or naive) does one need to be, to believe that you'll get a legitimate vaccine when even a cursory glance at the news shows high tightly the manufacturing and distribution of these products are being monitored?

48 hours after vaccine and I woke up this morning feeling 100% 

no hesitations at all to get the second dose.  Will let you all know how I react to that one in 3 weeks

F Me In The Brain said:

mace1229 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i don't trust nor distrust them. they are regular people to me. just a different job with wildly different social events. except when you have 8 million followers to my 97, you tend to have more ears than i do. 

feigned altruism? does living in LA cause that level of cynicism? (serious question)

I lived in LA a good chunk of my life. It’s funny, people who are are into it can spot celebrities often. I couldn’t care less, most of the time when I was with friends and they pointed someone out I didn’t even know who it was. I generally stayed away from those hot spots because everything is overpriced, but when I was in my 20s that’s where coworkers and friends want to go for happy hour.
But what makes me mad is how much money they make, and really shows our level of worship. Not just Hollywood, but sports too. NFL minimum is $600,000. Even  practice squad makes $150-$200,000 for 17 weeks of practice. When you think about it and the best teacher in the country who literally turns lives around makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player in the country makes who never even made it off the bench. To me that shows where our priorities are and our level of worship on sports and Hollywood. Like anyone would say “no thanks, I’ll go back to working at Best Buy” if the standard for salaries, TV or sports, were 1/5 what they are now. They’d still very well off financially.

Glad you are not a math teacher.  

Entertainers get paid what the market will bear

Not their problem we underpay teachers in many parts of the country.

What does the market have to do with teaching math?
Obviously they get paid what the market allows, never said it didn't. The market allows it because people are willing to pay $100 a ticket and $12 a beer to watch an NFL game, so the owners can afford to pay the worst player in the league 600k. Not sure what any of that has to do with teaching math. If anything, teaching economics, but I didn't dispute any of that. It just shows the level of devotion we have. Same applies with TV and movies. 40 years ago movie stars and athletes didn't make anything close compared to what they do today, even considering inflation. 

Simple.  The two statements I made there are separate.

Re: my statement at relief that you are not teaching future leaders the subject of math:

Your math is not correct. 

Your statement is that the best teacher in the country makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player makes.

The number you shared as the worst player's salary is $600,00.

1/10 of that is $60,000.  "About 1/10" would give you some reasonable leeway of probably another +/-10% of that #....so $6,000.

$54,000-$66,000

I guess the question would be who the best teacher in the country would be.

Teachers in our district can make over $100,000, and many do based on the public listings each year.

If any of the best teachers in the country have access to six figures teaching in public schools then the minimum salary for NFL player would need to be $1MM for your math to work. 

The national average for a teacher salary is about $60,000 (actually last I heard it was $58,000, but that still falls within your +/- 10%). Your basing your opinion off one district, I was using the national average.
10% of $600,000 is in fact $60,000. I was going off the assumption that the best teacher in the country is probably closer to the national average rather than being located in an area where the cost of living is high and therefore can make $100,000. Yes, that is possible. It is also possible the best teacher in the country also makes $40k. Which is why I found it better to base my statement off the national average, rather than assume this hypothetical teacher is located in the top 10% of the country. 

Teacher's salaries are usually not based off performance, but years of experience and location. Often times the "teacher of the year" award goes to a teacher who has only been on the job 5-10 years. Yes, there could be someone about to retire too, and sometimes its a rookie. The vast majority of teachers in the country will never have an opportunity to earn 100k unless they move out of state, and start their career over again, and in that case, will be at retirement age before they get to that 100k anyway. 
Since pay generally doesn't reflect performance, and even in the cases that it does, it often does it incorrectly by rewarding teachers who teach high level honors classes and punishing those who teach the lower level kids, this hypothetical best teacher is more likely to fall near the average than the highest paid district. 
So I don't know what was so mathematically wrong about using an average to make a statement about a hypothetical teacher and instead should have used an example of your single district? Perhaps you can continue to enlighten me? I guess averages are bad now? I haven't taken a math class since high school, I tested out of it for college, so maybe that's changed, averages are bad now when making claims. Base it off your personal bubble to favor your point of view.