|
SeeSharp2 wrote: It's hard enough to get people to vaccinate but now you want them to do it every 4-6 months? It doesn't feel like it's ever going to happen.
Is it really such a huge leap from an annual flu shot to a biannual Covid booster shot?
SeeSharp2 wrote: I'm not sure it's even worth me getting the second dose now. If I do get Covid, it's unlikely to be bad.
I'm not sure it's worth me sticking to the speed limit through the school zone. If I do run into a child, it's unlikely to injure me. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Richard - I see his/her account has been disabled
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
That seems extreme, he got his shot, wasn't necessarily against it, but was simply questioning whether it's worth it.
Can't say I disagree with him.
An annual flu shot for the elderly is not the same as a biannual COVID shot for an entire population.
Getting a shot that may have severe side effects is also not the same as sticking to the speed limit or wearing a seat belt.
I'm also not keen on driving an hour to get a shot that protects me against something that likely isn't going to be a big deal for me, every six months, possibly twice.
He wasn't rude or anything, just asking a question.
This seems more like cancel culture or political censorship, agree with us or be banned 
|
|
|
|
|
Ask the admins - I can't see why it should be disabled either
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, no user has the power to disable an account. If it was closed due to abuse reports, it would show as closed, not disabled. I suspect one of the hamsters has put him in a "time out" for some reason.
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm also not keen on driving an hour to get a shot ...
You'd hope that by the time the booster shots are needed, they would be available from your local GP, or even in your local pharmacy, in the same way as flu shots are currently.
Having said that, I've seen how well our lot have coped...
Sander Rossel wrote: ... that protects me against something that likely isn't going to be a big deal for me ...
But potentially a very big deal for any elderly or vulnerable people you might pass it on to.
Take whatever chances you want with your own health. But when your choices affect other people's health, then we have a problem.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Local authorities here estimates the protection period a bit longer, up to a year.
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
The "flu" vaccine needs to be taken every year (apparently). I knew people doing that into their 90's like religion; worked for them.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
They can only say 4-6 months because the vaccines have not been approved for much longer and there is not yet "proof" that they protect longer. It does not mean that they don't protect for longer, just that they can't know for sure.
And like anything biological, it will differ vastly from person to person. Some (a small minority) won't have any protection, some will have an immunity for much longer, and some will be in between. Even if the protection decreases after 6 months, you might still be better protected than with no vaccine at all.
Unfortunately, when something is that new, it limits what we actually know (and it goes for this disease at least as much as for the vaccines for it).
|
|
|
|
|
They want us to get a booster shot after 8 months. So you are protected for at least 8 months. Was it worth it? Well, 1.6% of the people that got Covid-19 in the USA died from it. A larger percentage have "long hauler" symptoms that may never go away. Who knows what other weird issues may show up. It's a virus, sometimes problems show up years later.
|
|
|
|
|
These three words get tossed around randomly at times. Often interchangeably. I get really confused by some articles To me they have three different definitions. Here is my take, what is yours.
1. A Property can be either a Parameter or Field.
2. Parameters have get and set.
3. Fields are declared and that is it. Mostly simple atomics but can be instances of enums or lists or etc.
I know this may be oversimplified this is gist of it.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
It may depend on the language in use, but what you list is not entirely correct for C#.
Edit:
1. A Property can be either a Parameter or Field. -- No, a Property may or may not be backed by a field, but has nothing to do with parameters
2. Parameters have get and set. -- No, that's Properties.
3. Fields are declared and that is it. Mostly simple atomics but can be instances of enums or lists or etc. -- Sorta, but a field may be any type. (Though there may be restrictions I'm not thinking of right now.)
modified 17-Aug-21 14:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I was talking about C#
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This mostly comes from Microsoft's website and not the books on C#. There are some discrepancies.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
What books?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I would tell you where you are wrong but it would be better for you to look it up in an authoritative work.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
And then there's arguments...
Nothing succeeds like a budgie without teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that the five minute argument, or the full half-hour? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Coming from C#, parameters don't exist (the way you describe them). There's fields & properties with properties having getters/setters and fields being just member variables.
I personally use fields as much as possible (KISS principle), but switch to properties if needed, i.e. when I need a private setter and a public getter or override getters in derived classes.
The difference is more on the syntactic side of things. Semantically, both properties & fields are variables-this-object-exposes and whatever the object does with those variables, that's the object's own business.
|
|
|
|
|
Please read the Lounge posting guidelines, and post technical question in an appropriate forum.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
It is not meant to be a technical argument. It is just general usage of ambiguous terms. After all, no semicolons were harmed by it.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
As shown by others, this is not correct for C#. But it did bring one question to mind.
When talking about a method signature, what are the inputs given to the method considered to be? Parameters or arguments? Those are the two most common that come to my mind, though I can think of others.
Are parameters and arguments just completely synonymous? Does it matter how they're being used? Maybe describing the definition of the method compared to describing being executed at runtime? What are they called when using one as a value or reference within the method? Or do they just just turn into "variable" at that point and the original term is meaningless?
I've thought about this too much now while writing this and can only contradict my own thoughts now. Does anyone have a clear way of thinking about this case?
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments is an old term that is not used much any more. You still find arguments in many references. Parameters is the newer term for the same thing.
This is where words get confusing. When you use get/set many consider it a kind of super argument/parameter. That is why many references consider things with get/set use the term parameters.
My whole point in this rant is no one is right or wrong. They are not terms with rigid meanings cast in syntax stone. They are all just general concepts.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
Nanci Griffith[^]
A wonderful singer/songwriter, a lovely, distinctive voice, and had a ear for other great songwriters (she turned me on to several), damn. 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
sad, what is the cause?
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
