rebot
-
Posts
122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by rebot
-
-
@El... I would love your resource list. We are doing US History and lit this year and I think my son would love this.
-
1
-
-
@Clarita Thanks for working it out for me. It looks like he doesn't have a unique method. He's just way faster at mentally manipulating numbers than I am.
16 minutes ago, Clarita said:Essentially 7*6 = (6+6+6+6+6) + (6+6) = 6*5 + 6*2
I often split up problems like this but I think his 4+4+4 threw me because like you said 6x2 is easier but I'm guessing he is just comfortable with fours.
We actually have the addition facts that stick book but haven't really used it. I'll have to pull it back out again.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Clarita said:
Essentially your younger son is using the associative property and how multiplication works (adding the same number a bunch of times). Therefore you can use parts of the multiplication table you do know/have memorized to quickly find the answers to parts of the table you don't have memorized. The methods he'll tell you will sound complicated but if he can do it quickly he probably "pictures" the whole thing in his head. Also, know the sequence he recites to you may not be the sequence he did in his head the first time around. The sequence of operations I actually started to do may not be the sequence that I would relay to you unless I'm actively trying to teach you what I'm doing.
I think this must be what he does. He's not as fast as I am with the multiplication table recall but he's pretty close and he says he calculates the problems in his head every time.
-
1 minute ago, SusanC said:
But the answer he gave you was 72?
Opps. I mis-typed. I asked 9x8.
-
1
-
-
I just asked him if he didn't know 9x5 how would he work it out. He immediately said 9+9-3+30. Then I asked how he would work out 7x6. He said, "Add 4+4+4=12. Everyone knows that 6 fives is 30. Then add 12 and 30."
He's typically good with math so I've always let it go but I'm worried that his unique way of solving will make it harder for him in the future. I'm trying to figure out if how he solves problems is logical and I'm so use to how I do it I can't figure out his method.
-
1
-
-
My oldest struggles to memorize his nine multiples. He can do it but he just isn't fast so I've been randomly asking them throughout the day. I asked 9x8 and my youngest says, "oh, that's easy .... double the 9 subtract 6 and add 60." Can anyone walk me through the mental way this makes sense. He uses methods like this for a bunch of problems and he always gets them right but in my head it doesn't make sense.
-
1
-
-
When my kids get bites they swell and itch. We tried all of the various creams and what works the best for both of them is lavender essential oil. It doesn't reduce swelling but both claim it does better at reducing the itch than anything else.
-
2
-
-
On 4/27/2022 at 1:02 PM, cintinative said:
As to my original question, it sounds like the consensus is that I can offer the audiobook as a tool but I shouldn't force him to use it.
I have ADHD-inattentive. I wasn't diagnosed until after college and had to figure out some ways to stay focused. Here are a few things that I still do to focus even though I'm now on medication. Maybe they can help him.
When I have to pay attention to something I'm reading that I'm not interested in, I read it out loud. I can also comprehend it faster when I read it out loud to myself.
When I can't shut off my brain and need to focus, I make lists. Once it's on the list, I can think about other stuff. Normally, I don't even look at the list again. I just need to get it out of my brain. This is the biggest helper for me. I found an old one the other day that buns, dog, purple, pay water on it. I'd love to know what I was thinking that day.
When I was young I'm pretty sure there weren't any fidgets. Since I was in my young teens I've done figure eight patterns on my thumb with my finger. My husband calls it my antsy meter. The more antsy I am the faster the figure eight. I mention this because I've tried to get my 11 year old (also has ADHD-inattentive) to use one but he doesn't like them (I think he's embarrassed to use them) so I told him to find a small movement that isn't distracting to others. He's started doing circles with one of his ankles. It sounds silly but I think it helps him to focus. Whenever he does math you can see his ankle spinning around.
For me audiobooks are painful. I try so hard to pay attention but 20 minutes in, I realize I've only hear the first 5 minutes.
-
3
-
-
I would say that people like me are one reason why there shouldn't be loan forgiveness and perhaps low interest rates. I graduated in 2005. I still have ~$24,000 in loans. I could pay it off in full but I managed to lock in interest at around 1.8% (I don't remember exactly and it is currently at 0% for covid relief). Currently, I make more by investing that money than the cost of my monthly payment on the loan. In my current situation, it doesn't make sense for me to pay it off. What if they decide to forgive loans? How do they decide who to forgive? Do they forgive me? It's been 17 years and I still don't have it paid off. Honestly, if they decide to forgive loans I'm not going to say no even though I don't need forgiveness and I'm betting no one else would either. That's the problem. A bunch of people that have already paid off their loans or chose not to go to college gets stuck paying. I definitely think there needs to be changes made. I don't know what those changes should be but I think whatever changes should be going forward not forgiving past loans.
-
4
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, KSera said:
I think one of the problems we have today is that a lot of people think that there is no objective truth about anything. There are lots of things there is objective truth about. For example with the vaccine, when people say they have been 48,000 people died as a result of the vaccine, that’s misinformation. That’s not true. same when people say the vaccine makes people magnetic or they contain to microchip. That’s objectively, prove-ably, misinformation. Same with saying the vaccine changes your DNA or the vaccine doesn’t work or that masks cause people to breathe harmful levels of CO2. So, there’s lots of misinformation out there that has nothing to do with opinion.
I agree. There is a lot of crazy talk out there, but what about the doctors that were ostracized for promoting ivermectin? What about the people kicked off social media for claiming the virus came from a lab?
and I'm not going to lie... I totally had everyone I know that got the vaccine try to stick a magnet to their arm. As expected, none of them stuck but it was fun to try.
-
3 minutes ago, KSera said:
admit, this is frustrating. Because again, I think you really do want to know what is true, but you have some misunderstandings. It’s not a tainted trial. It was a well run randomized trial that did exactly what it set out to do. It’s not even a case where they had to end a study early because of the results as perhaps would have been the case in the heart transplant example I gave. The study was completed all the way to its end point before people were given the opportunity to be unblinded and know whether or not they received the vaccine and receive it at that point. That part of the study was done. Complete. We don’t ever make people stay in a placebo group forever and ever. That’s just plainly not the way it works.
No, I understand what you are saying and I can also see how I could be frustrating. Like I said previously, it comes down to a persons perceived fear. The trial has been completed, but out of safety to the control group, they offered the vaccine before the observational portion was supposed to be complete. My hesitation of the vaccine is with the long term safety of a brand new, never to be approved before vaccine.
-
22 minutes ago, KSera said:
I'm going to give one more try at an example. If there is a trial studying a new method for performing heart transplants in children, and they find eureka! this new method means they have NO deaths in children receiving heart transplants, whereas 10% died before (made up number), once they determine that, it would be totally wrong for them to not switch to the new method from that point further. It would be wrong to continue the study for years, killing 10 out of every 100 kids having a heart transplant when they know that the other method would be successful and keep them alive.
I agree. Save the kids, but they can't then refer to that trial as if it's untainted.
Give the people the vaccine, but they can't toss out their numbers as fact when they have no control group to compare to.
I'm not saying it was wrong to give the vaccine. I'm saying it's wrong to use the data from the trial as if it is from a well-run randomized trial.
-
8 minutes ago, KSera said:
The "faster" part of the headline might make people with safety concerns recoil a bit, but the article explains why this is not a concern and that this is a red tape issue at this point:
I'm glad you noted this, otherwise I would have probably scanned your quotes and moved on. Instead I took time to read it. It was interesting.
I really struggle with the misinformation label. Who is to determine what constitutes misinformation? At this point, I feel anyone with a differing opinion to the status quo gets that label and not just a differing opinion about the vaccine.
I'm wondering if anyone has really sat down and talked to those that are hesitating and not just relied on informal polls? Pretty sure "sprinting" for approval will have the exact opposite effect than what they are hoping for. I agree the science has been done for the last 1.5 years.
"there is no vaccine where adverse effects first appear more than eight weeks after the shot. So we can be confident that we now know what to expect." In the entire article, this is what jumps out at me. How can they be confident when they are comparing never before used mRNA vaccine to more traditional vaccines.
-
2
-
-
I’m new on social media. It’s definitely different than real life. I’ve found it fascinating the last few days to watch how difficult it is for people (one either side) to admit fault with their side. I guess in real life, people get called out, but on here it’s much easier to ignore what you don’t want to deal with. I admit to posting because I was interested to see if any of the pro vaccine people would say that this was a bad way to conduct a scientific study. We’re on a homeschooling forum. I’m assuming that means most posters either homeschool or homeschooled in the past. Every fall, I get to go over the scientific method and how to set up a good experiment with my kids. What Moderna and Pfizer did, does not make a good experiment.
I don’t actually know where I stand on this. I would assume that most people who signed up for the trial did so because they believe that a vaccine would provide protection against covid. Disregarding the fact that they joined a trial, is it right to withhold the vaccine from them? Again, disregarding the trial that they signed up for, I’m all for people making their own health choices. That doesn’t change the fact, that from a scientific standpoint, Moderna and Pfizer pretty much screwed the pooch.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Danae said:
You made your decision that you’d rather catch covid naturally than get the vaccine without reading the vaccine trial results?
No, I've read through the trial results. I'm questioning, at what number is it considered astronomical? Do we keep going with their original reported data? Should we consider what's going on in Israel?
-
1 hour ago, KSera said:
That was one of several issues in that post I was going to respond to, but I decided to let it go. This is standard procedure in a trial when the evidence is starkly clear the intervention either saves too many people to deny the control group the treatment or if the intervention harms too many people for it to be ethical to keep giving it. Both are ethically important to adhere to. If keeping someone in the control group is causing astronomically higher illness and death rates, it would be plainly wrong to not allow them the treatment that would save them from that. And as mentioned before, at this point in the trial process, it is common for full authorization to proceed while long-term safety data continues to be collected. That’s how it works.
So you're saying that a huge number of people in the control group must have been either dying from covid or there must have been a much larger group of them getting sick vs those vaccinated, correct? I'm curious, does anyone have any idea what those numbers are? What exactly constitutes astronomical.
Here’s what I don’t get, they already skewed the trial, why not replace the former control group with some of the millions that don’t want the vax? I mean they can say that’s not how it’s done, but they can’t really say that they are concerned about following typical trial protocol. By doing this they eliminated any way to measure the efficacy, effectiveness, or the safety of the vaccine. As a person who questions the safety of the vaccine, this doesn’t inspire confidence. I’d even say that, to me, it almost seems like they intentionally don’t want to have a group to compare to.
I just spent two days last week going over how to set up a good experiment with my fifth grader. We talked about variables, controls, observations, etc… Now I get to figure out how to find two different kinds of bird seed in a foreign country. Thank you for that fun tomorrow, Oak Meadow. I guess I should have been more impressed that he realized that if you get rid of your control group, you have nothing to compare your results to.
-
8 hours ago, rebot said:
both Pfizer and Moderna have admitted to giving their control group the vaccine because it was the right thing to do. That's right, they got rid of their control group.
That's right, I totally just quoted myself. I admit that I'm a little surprised that no one commented on the fact that both Moderna and Pfizer eliminated their control group. Trials are officially ongoing for two more years.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Frances said:
Personally, I don’t take any medications except the very rare OTC allergy pill. My husband is very much an advocate of avoiding medications whenever possible, despite being ga healthcare provider. But we do get all recommended vaccines, including for covid.
I think most people on here are in agreement that everyone should be able to make their own choices when it comes to which medicines to take. It gets sticky when it comes to vaccines.
Honestly, I'm a maybe for the covid vaccine someday, but not if it's determined that I can have as good of immunity with natural infection. I don't see my kids taking it anytime soon. The risks outweigh the benefits for their age group. They also don't receive the flu shot and haven't received the HPV vaccine.
What I keep saying, but it somehow gets twisted around every time, is that I understand that I may be a risk to be around. To combat that, I am willing to be exposed, get sick, quarantine and recover in order to start living life again. Yes, I understand the implications of this statement.
-
24 minutes ago, Frances said:
They do seem to be for some people, such as @rebot. With all of the different covid threads, it’s hard to keep track of who is for and against vaccines. I’m glad to hear you are vaccinated and pro-vaccine.
I admit for me, at this time, the benefits don't outweigh the risks of the vaccine. I'm not saying I'm forever opposed. I'm saying when there is long term data, when I know that it isn't going to become a yearly booster, when I know it confers better immunity that can't be gotten through natural infection, when there is more research into the spike proteins (which I haven't mentioned because I know that's going to open a whole other can of worms) then I'll consider it.
I'm also the mom who doesn't give her kids ibuprofen to break a fever, pulls out lavender essential oil for bug bites, uses garlic olive oil for ear aches, etc... I'm not opposed to medicine (and I'm gratefully of our medical system, especially emergency care) but I like to let the bodies immune system take care of illness when possible.
-
3
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Frances said:
I consume very little news and then only print news and this is my only social media outlet. So my perspective on the media may be different than those watching lots of TV or on Twitter and Facebook.
Originally, I watched the news nightly, trying to figure out what was going on. Now I peruse a few sites that I trust. I think a lot of younger people rely on social media for their news, but I know my parents and IL's turn the tv on every night to get their news.
I've never been active on social media. I'm trying here because I lost my in person social circle when we moved. So far I like it. I tried Facebook, but wow. I feel like I have to be way more excited about what I eat for dinner and doing crafts with my kids to fit in there.
-
2
-
-
@Frances I was thinking about your reply while I was prepping dinner. I think you, and others like you, have a distinct advantage over people like me. I have to rely on the news for information, whereas, you have someone on the 'front lines’ that you can confirm information with. Honestly, for me I feel like this pretty much sums up the last 1.5 years.
...only 2 weeks, we’re all in it together …… just a little longer ….. almost there
...it definitely didn’t come from a lab… not a lab … misinformation, science deniers, don’t believe it came from a lab ….. well, maybe it came from a lab … it probably came from a lab
...you don’t have to wear a mask if you’re healthy… everyone should wear a mask … if you’re vaccinated, you don’t need a mask …. yea, no masks…. just kidding, everyone should wear one
...vaccinated people can not transmit the virus… misinformation, don't believe the science deniers …. so, vaccinated people can pass the virus but just a little
...social distancing is very important … unless you are a politician with what you consider a worthwhile event
The local news had a newscaster in front of the hospital. You heard sirens in the back ground as she passionately talked about how the hospitals in my area were almost to capacity. The next day, one of my closest friends (who is quite high-up in one of the local hospital systems) stated that a bunch of doctors/nurses were out either to due to covid or for being exposed (I can’t remember exactly). The hospitals were almost to capacity because of staffing not because they were jammed packed with sick patients. The way the news presented it was misleading.
I was on board with all of it (I mean, things change as new data comes out, right?) until, when they realized they were wrong about the lab and transmission, they didn’t admit fault and apologize to the doctors and scientists that got discredited and blocked off of social media. Nope. Instead they doubled down with their finger pointing and misinformation labels.
-
4
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Frances said:
That’s exactly what I said, data is still being collected, as it’s early in the Delta surge in the US. Although the article did not provide links, it did say Alpha was more serious than the original. I’m guessing studies could be found if one was interested. Since my husband is actually working with covid patients, I trust his observations about Delta. I don’t watch TV and local news articles match what he is seeing. So at least for me, it doesn’t seem like fear mongering. It seems like reality. YMMV.
I went back and edited my response because I totally sounded nitpicky. I have found, now more than ever, that articles are written to conform to the narrative. This happens on both sides.
The fact that your husband does work with covid patients gives you an inside perspective that I don't have. I've seen people (not so much on here) recently referencing tweets about how unvaccinated people are begging for the vaccine on their deathbed. These people are honestly taking a random persons tweet as proof that Delta is more deadly. The scary thing is a quick search shows that these tweets are bots.
Again sorry about my previous post. It's more directed towards not trusting that the media is accurately reporting without also trying to make sure they grab those headlines.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Frances said:
Although they are still collecting data, there does seem to be growing evidence that Delta is actually more dangerous than Alpha which was more dangerous than the original. So while it is more contagious as you say is the expected trajectory, it doesn’t seem to be following the less lethal prediction, at least not yet.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/08/421171/how-dangerous-delta-variant-heres-what-science-says
I'm not trying to nit-pick, but I read the article and clicked on each of the referenced link. Below are each referenced link conclusions. I’m not saying that Delta is not more severe. I’m saying at this time, there is not enough data to conclude that it is more severe. However, when you turn on the tv or open a news webpage all you get is fear mongering.
-
The internal CDC summarized Delta was highly contagious, likely more severe, and breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.
-
The China study showed that it is more transmissible. It did not say anything about severity.
-
Another study stated that there was signal toward increased severity associated with Delta. It also showed that Delta lasts longer and is transmitted easier.
-
The unpublished studies discusses the spike protein and that 75% of spikes are primed in Delta. There isn’t anything discussing severity.
-
Canada study notes increased transmissibility but increased virulence data is limited.
-
The Scotland study isn’t actually available to read.
The rest of the article goes on to discuss the cell mediated immune system.
Edited to add that even though I said I didn't want to nit-pick, my entire response sounds nit-picky. This wasn't in any way directed at Frances. I know that I'm guilty and I'm guessing everyone on here is guilty of skimming an article, or a headline and assuming it as fact. My nit-pick is directed at the media who are sensationalizing Covid to increase their followers.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Moonhawk said:
At the best, you are paying a higher price for a lotto ticket that might be a knockoff.
I like this analogy.
Quote
I am just not absolving them of the responsibility they now carry in this scenario. And this isn't even addressing the societal cost that this approach brings. They did not do a simple step available to everyone, and did not use their agency to both save themselves and help out society as a whole.I enjoyed reading your opinion and although I disagree with portions of it, I can absolutely understand where you are coming from.
I speak in generalities from what I’ve previously read and I’m probably not going to get every detail correct but ... Coronaviruses are all around us. Often these are the illnesses that cause the common cold. Their only goal is to survive and reproduce. They do this by mutating to become less lethal but more contagious. When you are exposed, your body produces both a cell-mediated and a humoral response. After time, humoral memory fades. However, your cell mediated memory is long term. Later, when you are re-exposed your body yells “attack” and rushes into battle. If it is a mutated strain, your cell mediated system recognizes the similarities, modifies its battle plan, and urges the humoral system to join it in battle. This is why sometimes you will get the ’sniffles’ for a day or two but your kids will have a cold for more than a week. Covid isn’t going away. If its path follows other coronaviruses, it will eventually manifest similar to a common cold. That’s not to say that it isn’t big, bad, and scary now but that is because no one on the planet had been exposed to this particular virus. No one had any way to fight it.
To counteract that, a vaccine was introduced using technology that, although studied for a long time, had never received approval for vaccine usage. Side note… I do think mRNA may be the ‘miracle’ drug of the future but I don’t think we’re there yet. Covid is already following the trajectory of other coronaviruses. I’m assuming that this is not going to change, which is why I’d rather take my changes with getting Covid vs. taking my changes with a new vaccine that they are rushing through the approval process. If it continues to mutate (which I don't see changing) we are setting ourselves up to need yearly boosters. For me that's a no thank you. They are relying on copious amount of short term data to rush FDA approval while forgoing the collection of long term data. Not only that, but both Pfizer and Moderna have admitted to giving their control group the vaccine because it was the right thing to do. That's right, they got rid of their control group.
I have trouble trusting the people/organizations that are making our pandemic policies when they talk out of one side of their mouth claiming that we know enough to know that the new vaccine is safe. While talking out of the other side of their mouth stirring up fear and claiming that it is impossible to have answers about Covid because it’s new and we are still learning about it.
-
3
-
American Music History course
in High School and Self-Education Board
Posted
This looks amazing. Thank you. I asked my son if he would be interested in this as a class and he is more excited for this than he is for any of his other classes. I'm going to order the book tonight so I can try to get the chapters lined up with the history book we are using.