We're eating way more meat than any other civilisation before us. We're not exactly in good shape, regarding health and sound nutrition. I'm not sure what you even argue about. That the status quo is in any way good? It's pretty much destructive on all levels.

I'm no vegetarian or even vegan. But I do think the way we treat meat, and the animals it comes from is really one of the biggest sins of mankind in this day.

No, this was just the reality for most people until meat became "industrial".

That's the thing, though: I don't believe you.

Even still, the human body is quite capable of dealing with varying nutrition like this. While I don't believe the status quo of today (which is the wildest variance in human history) is healthy, I also don't believe we were particularly health before today, either. We should see some manifestation of our drastic increase in meat consumption, yet human life expectancy has gone up for the most part. Having worked in the meat industry, you might have a point ont the treatment of animals if the rumors i've heard from the front end of the plant are true. That said, I don't think they were. I find that very hard to believe.

Actual infections should help your immune system grow stronger and fight off an infection faster and easier by creating anti-bodies. However, people with immune system problems need special medication since their body cannot fight it off. Since vaccines technically dumb down an infection for your body to produce anti bodies, actual infections should as well produce the same anti-bodies since your body is made to battle against sickness. However, if they do not produce the same anti bodies, that means they might add additional chemicals or things inside the vaccine that you are not told about. I have no clue if what I said is creditable. Feel free to correct and criticize me (The more I learn from others thoughts! :) ). Your immune system/body in general is made to combat bacteria/illness whether you got or do not have a vaccine.

The extra chemicals found in vaccines are generally harmful, but the basis of the vaccine is that the ounce of prevention they present is more valuable than the (generally near zero) damage presented by the other materials. One of the nice things of the new mRNA vaccine technology (which is actually quite old, but was not able to be made public by government regulations) is that we can actually cut down on the harmful chemicals that have traditionally been used to create vaccines.

The basic process of the "old way" was to harvest enough of a particular virus and then "kill" it with mercury. By doing so, you can protect the shell (what the body actually looks for) while preventing infection resultant from the DNA/RNA contained within the shell (which is how it hijacks your cells to reproduce). The process was imperfect, as was the filtration process to remove the chemicals. Also, this process (understandably) took a very, very long time to amass quantities necessary to vaccinate a larger population.

The "new way" (which is now being used to attempt to make an HIV vaccine among other things) is to isolate the DNA/RNA of the virus, and find out what certain bits do, then only isolate the bits necessry to create the "shell" that our body targets, rather than the other things that thus produce code for more viruses (it's our body's response to the reproduction that creates all the symptoms that we get [for most viruses anyway], not the virus itself). By having a small dose, and without it's ability to create that chain reaction to keep producing, it's rendered harmless. Now, to get it into your cells, they attempt to get the proteins in animal fats. Unfortunately, this means some people will have allergic responses (especially since i think they use eggs), however this is far, far safer.

There's another new technology behind the Johnson and Johnson vaccine that is a whole other can of worms.

Puscifer just did a stream of a live performance they'd previously done, and then re streamed the stream for people because it was in such popular demand.

I almost bought a ticket but went out that evening, instead.

So they did go ahead with it after all, and announced Marco's replacement with the occasion. Hadn't been following since he announced his retirement, and was worried it'll be too big a blow for them, even more so now with Floor having recently added to the world's worst problem (which I'm glad to see at least get mentioned in this thread already), and now that I did a quick search it seems Tuomas and Emppu were thinking it was indeed going to be over at first, so glad it's not, at least for now, especially since with this latest album they finally seemed to have finally returned to being, well, Nightwish again. I mean, they introduced me to the genre and will probably always be at the top of my list and I stood by them even through their more troubled... decade and a half (wow), the fact that Imaginaerum was a masterpiece despite them needing to somehow make do with Anette for vocals admittedly helping, but they seemed to have rather lost their way on Endless Forms... and it'd have sucked for them to call it quits just now that they seemed to have found it again.

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, I'll say it will be a part of the normal, and what a good thing that is. Those of us who have problems or just don't care to interact with others, any sort of introvert, those with social anxiety, or on the autism spectrum, and not only, kept being forced into it for everything. Maybe the extroverts who have been forced away from it now can get an idea of how that feels... and imagine it happening every day of your life, not due to an exceptional situation for maybe a couple of years (which is how long a pandemic tends to last, those who expected less were deluding themselves from the start), and considered normal and desirable, not an unusual situation that most of the world is fighting to "fix"...
As it was also said from the beginning by some, COVID-19 should be compared more with HIV than with the Spanish Flu, because it's here to stay and we'll learn to live with it. The appearance of HIV in the developed world didn't mean that people stopped having sex or getting tattoos or dental work or blood transfusions, but it did bring about serious changes to the relevant aspects of life, those dealing with sex and blood, like new medical protocols and training, an end to widespread "free love", normalizing and greatly increasing the use of condoms, more safety regulations and precautions in other areas too... And this is transmitted by breathing, so affects a whole lot more.
So the restrictions as a whole won't stay, and they're already being relaxed in many places after all (even if the situation in parts of the world is critical and the whole thing is just a(nother) slip away from returning to disaster), but things won't fully return to what used to be normal either. Or hopefully they won't, for many reasons.

,,, like any history book? Or simply talking to old people?

Advances in medicine?

You know about life expectancy statistics? What played a big part until the last century? Death on child-bed, both for the (usually young) women and the children. And the classic children diseases, which we pretty much defeated, And vaccinations and treatments rooting our plagues like the pox, the black death, tuberkulos and the likes. But just that we don't die that easily any more doesn't mean we're more healthy. The fast food temple makes us fat, and the pharmacy makes it tolerable - that's how we live. There's no respect for food and where it comes from - no wonder - we don't respect ourselves either. Everything - from the steak on the table to our own biceps is just a means to an end.

which is far prior to your parents age - unless of course they're 200 years old or more.


you have long appeared to find facts hard to believe

I used to work in a nursing home, and no one ever complained about the meat. People did complain about the overall serving sizes, however. Mind you, I worked in the dietary department, too, so it would've been relevant to come to me with such complaints. In contrast, I've had people request more portions of meat. That would include diet, as well. No, you're wrong. By definition by dying less we're more healthy. Doesn't mean it's due to our diets, but it does mean we're more healthy, 'cause, you know, we're alive... It's kinda like cancer: it's far more common now that we live longer, but that doesn't mean cancer itself has changed or that we do things that cause cancer more often (although i would make that case, I can't use cancer prevelance compared to 500 years ago to make that case). With the exception of certain religious traditions, I don't believe at all that we had any more respect before than we do now. To the contrary, because of those religious traditions, it seems reasonable that the need to enforce such an idea in a religion suggests that indeed we had no more respect before than we do now, because why make rules for that which is normal? I don't see any religious institutions campaigning for us not to poke our eyes out with forks, or not to run headfirst into walls, to wear shoes, etc.
Very difficult to believe facts that aren't even presented with evidence, or at all. Maybe people should just up their game a little and actually try to be convincing.

I would love to go to one of their show. With their charisma, that must be quite the experience.

Never seen one of their shows, but their newest (I think?) album, Existential Reckoning is AWESOME.

Did you see how fast the companies started churning out designer masks and gloves and sanitizer and etc, and how much they stock the stores with it?

That alone tells me that this will keep on going until either people get sick of it or there's no more profit to be made from it(vaccines, sales of the aforementioned supplies, etc).

-

"Funny thing": many small businesses in my area can now open at full capacity and without many restrictions, yet they are closing most week days at 8PM.

Makes no sense to me...if they can recover their losses they should do so, imo(but eh, if they want to lose more money, then that's up to them).

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your skepticism. You are indeed correct with it being variable. I was erroneously conflating economic demand and the desire to eat meat. This paper analyzed US meat demand in Apr-July 2020 did find 10-11% of people wouldn't buy any meat if beef prices jumped +25-50% in price respectively and 11-13% for the same price increases for pork respectively in price sensitivity polling. Between retail and restaurant willingness-to-pay (WTP) metrics, average prices stayed fairly constant to within $1 USD difference between Feb-July 2020. When you break down the income levels, though, you do see much more variances in WTP / demand with higher price sensitivity for those negatively impacted in finances by the pandemic.

Some of us did....but many others called those of us who thought such "whacko conspiracy theorists" when we said such things.....things that later turned out to be true, btw(of course yes, not everything people said or guessed at was true).

As I said above: a number of us had a good idea of the origins of the coof long ago. Not many listened, and the experts that did and agreed with said ideas were mostly mocked/shunned/etc.