unicorn

My sister moved to Portugal. All you need do is buy a $500,000+ home and live there, and you're on track to EU citizenship in some 5 years. The climate of Canada is so horrid, I can't imagine living there, except maybe Vancouver or Victoria. If you think you can learn Portuguese, Portugal is a great place to live. They're all fully vaccinated, have no problems with Covid or anti-vaxxer nuts, and the climate is decent. The only thing to be aware of is that the waters, even in the Algarve on the southern coast, are quite cold year-round. You have to be on the Mediterranean (Spain) to get warm waters, but I think immigration to Spain is more difficult than Portugal. I've thought of it myself.

Well, I do have a scholarship fund in my name to help university students who've suffered on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity, which is designed to last into perpetuity. I suppose the recipient many never bother to learn anything about me, but at least he or she will know my name.

I don't know how things are in Australia, but charities in the US are happy to help you navigating donations in ways which will lower your tax burden most efficiently. The laws are complex in the US, and these people know these laws well. An accountant can help you as well. I know that in the US, for instance, I have to pay heavy taxes if I donate from my retirement accounts before I turn 70. I have donated some from my non-retirement accounts, but hope not to touch my retirement accounts until I turn 70. If you donate to individuals with substantial sums, you know you will be fondly remembered for years to come. If you donate towards building schools, you can ask for buildings to be named after you, so that you will also be fondly remembered long after you're gone.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination It looks like for those fully vaccinated and boosted, the death rate is about 1 to 5 in a million, unvaccinated some 20 times higher, albeit falling, perhaps due to their getting some immunity from infection, which may offer some protection?

I wouldn't say never. I'd go for usually. It's OK to out someone who profits from anti-gay activities and promotes an anti-gay agenda (for example the late Senator Daniel Craig and Senator Lindsay Graham).

Well, a good deal is going to my partner. No children. I have two nieces, one of whose parents is extremely rich, so no need from me. The other niece's parent is also wealthy, so a fairly token amount to her. As of this time, most of my estate will go to charities, including a scholarship fund for university students who've suffered on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity (i.e. parents kicked them out).

Me and my domestic partner (who's 30 years younger than I am) went to a comedy club last night, where a bunch of stand-up comedians performed. We sat in the 2nd row because he doesn't like to be called out by the comedians. It all went find until the 5th and last comedian of the evening. He picked on almost everyone in the first 3 rows. He asked if I was his Dad, and I said we were domestic partners, and he said "Oh, I see, a sugar-daddy!". I just laughed it off but he was mortified. He hates being called a sugar-baby. I've been picked on by a bunch of comedians at these stand-up shows throughout the year, and I just laugh it off. Just part of the show. How do you feel about being picked on by stand-up comics?

People who don't have wills usually don't think their deaths are possible. And/or they don't care about their potential beneficiaries much. 🙄

Although I never met the man, someone I know who met him assures me that he was in quite poor health, and should have been quite aware of his precarious situation during this pandemic. I'm in great health, yet I have a will (although no children). Although I'm grateful he continued the site after Hooboy's death, from what I know about him (mostly, but not all, second hand, I'll admit), I'm not an adulating admirer....

I take it that you do have succession plans?

The reason we have to still wear a mask even after vaccination is that there's no way to identify the vaccinated from the unvaccinated. So far, the vaccines, which are against the spike protein, have shown to be effective against all variants studied: UK, South Africa, California, etc. Obviously, if there is a new Indian variant in the US, that hasn't been tested yet, but no reason to think it will prove any different from all of the other variants.

There has been tons of research on this subject of contagion.People seem to have a high viral load and are most contagious from just prior to getting symptoms, to about a week after getting symptoms. Once IgG antibodies (the long-term antibodies) develop, generally 2 weeks after infection or immunization, contagiousness really becomes negligible, as there is no more live virus: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-020-2228-9 "To what extent can simple antibody testing assist in addressing the first and second points above? Given that there is no overlap in time between the end of viral infectiousness and the earliest formation of IgG antibody, if specific antiviral IgG is detectable, that person is extremely unlikely to be infectious. As IgG antibodies are then detectable for weeks or months, non-infectiousness can be assured for at least as long as these antibodies are detectable, and probably a lot longer because of residual T cell memory."

Well, I had some when I was posting on this on the now-defunct website, but there have been no reports of transmission from a vaccinated individual, and that has been looked at. There have also been some studies that looked at transmissibility after the development of antibodies, starting with the South Korean CDC study almost a year ago, and it appears that except in highly unusual circumstances, once a person develops IgG antibodies, any viral particles, even if recovered by PCR, are not infectious: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/05/22/861061727/south-korean-study-shows-no-evidence-recovered-covid-patients-can-infect-others So it does not appear that vaccinated people transmit the virus even if they get sick, though it's still important to wear masks, because there's no way to visually identify the vaccinated from unvaccinated when they're out and about. Unfortunately, a lof of the links I provided in the prior website may be lost for good. https://www.krqe.com/health/cdc-evidence-suggests-fully-vaccinated-people-do-not-transmit-covid-19/

There was a false alarm about a week ago, but this time it may be permanent or nearly permanent. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. Getting things settled when he didn't even have a will could take a great deal of time. Too bad he didn't make any effort to make things easier for anyone who might have to take over...

Although perhaps counter-intuitive to those not in the medical field, as it turns out people who are vaccinated can get ill, but don't pass it on even if they do get ill. Although people often associate "testing positive" with "being contagious," that's actually not the case. Although protecting the vaccinee from getting sick is obviously one of the great benefits of a vaccine, the biggest benefit may be preventing further spread. That's also the case with almost every vaccine developed to date: may not provide complete protection against illness, but does make the vaccinee non-contagious. Also, people who get ill a 2nd time don't seem to be contagious the 2nd time around. We know this both from public health data and also from studies which have tried to grow out virus from people who've tested positive but been vaccinated or previously infected. Unless a person is taking medications which seriously wipe out the immune system, contagiousness stops 9 days after first testing positive (hence the current guidelines for stopping quarantine after 10 days of a negative test).

It's not as well known to the general public, but birth control pills carry a 1 in 10,000 risk of blood clots in non-smoking women, and in smoking women it's much higher. I wonder if the women who got the clots (and they've all been women) were smokers. It hasn't been discussed. Smoking alone carries a huge risk of blood clotting. Of course, the risk for the illness is much higher than the risk of clotting from the vaccine, but if the risk is only for smoking women, maybe smoking women can be steered to the other vaccines, unless they really don't want the 2nd shot that the other two manufacturers' vaccines recommend.

It looks as though whatever vaccine Chile's using, it's not as effective as Pfizer, Moderna, A-Z, or J&J.

Am I considered newbie with the merger?

Not just that, but I'm sure some of the photographers (credited) and models got business due to the postings. Sometimes I even publicized the OnlyFans sites for these people. It was a win-win for everyone.

Well, I'm obviously not happy that years of work collecting photos into categories has gone down the toilet with a click of a button--especially when all of those photos are readily available to anyone on the internet, just not categorized. I would clearly have preferred to see the 40 questionable photos removed, rather than throwing away the baby with the bathwater. I'm not sure how Daddy's avoids trouble, but I guess I'll have to go back there. I feel a bit like an artist whose work has been vandalized....

Did you actually read the article, or just the headline? "It is not known if adults are as likely to carry the virus and the antibodies at the same time. Also not clear from the study is whether children who have developed antibodies are still able to pass the virus to others." Sorry, but the studies have been done by the South Korean CDC. Once people have antibodies, viral particles can still be detected for quite some time in the nasopharynx. But these particles are not contagious.

Pretty ridiculous. If you're that close for that long, a mask won't help you.

All I can say is "Wow." Someone resurrected at the M4M foums a 5 year-old string (What's Your Earliest "I'm Queer" memory?) in which people were asked to recall when they first realized they were gay (in my case it when I was a 12 year-old in my gym class, admiring the 14 year-old who led us into calisthenics, which I discussed in my 2015 response). The string was locked with the following message: "Thread Closed. It is against the rules to discuss children; even ourselves." So discussing our past is child porn?? I don't think even Justice Thomas or Justice Alito would go that far. I can certainly understand and wholly support banning child pornography. But if the mere mention of children in a non-sexual way is child pornography, so is Mary Poppins. Am I the only person who feels this way, or is the leadership at M4M completely off its rocker?

No, I did not sit through the entire trial, obviously. But I would love to hear about what you heard about the jurors' logic. Why was there essentially no doubt in their minds that the sex couldn't have been consensual and/or used for personal gain of the women involved? I haven't heard those interviews. What did they say?