Deleted Comment
They expect repeated exposures to mean the west is weakened with lots of people unable to participate in the economy, while their population won't have that issue.
Overall, if true, the weak showing of the US seems to be in large part a matter of motivation and persistence than what we’d traditionally call math ability (so maybe we need to change our thinking to include grit to stick it out as part of the math curriculum).
Paper on the topic: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24004/w240...
I mean "Ivermectin has been shown to significantly help with Covid" has the same weight to it, and I'd never recommend anyone take horse dewormer. Maybe if they had worms and it was the only thing available.
I attend college football games. Everyone goes through security. Outside security we pack up in masses of humanity outside the gates waiting to get through the inevitably slow security.
It would be far more effective to do something at the gates dude to the density of humanity there where there is no security ... than in the stadium where people are actually more spread out.
If someone did want to do something at such a sporting event, nothing is stopping them from doing it at the gates where there is a reliable and unsecured mass of humanity, and I don't think anyone is bothering with that ...
I used to wheel my grandfather into games on a wheelchair... they didn't check anything, just waved you through. A wheel chair sized bomb would be easy to bring in, but you don't even have to bring it in.
We have secure ID schemes that I believe most if not all of the 9/11 attackers would have qualified to get ...
In the US we don't have mass terrorist events that any of this would prevent.
Why do we keep subjecting non-terrorists to these systems?
What are we doing this for?
I think we are doing these mostly useless things in order to signal that as a society we're somewhat careful in order to reassure people. I feel our best security defense is that most people are not terrorists?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid#Toxicology
"Although it does not appear to be carcinogenic, studies in dogs have reported testicular atrophy after exposure to 32 mg/kg bw/day for 90 days. This level is far lower than the LD50."
The base toxic dosage (on the order of multiple grams per kilogram bodyweight) is the reason it's typically labeled as very safe.
Kind of different than just boric acid itself?
Or is it just goods, and in that case why focus on goods?