General Corona Virus Discussion

[Crasher]

Personally being myself a white middle class semi intellectual capitalist I thought I was in the clear. I feel having a go at Israel has ancient religious, cultural and race connotations; having a go at the CCP (probaly a better way to do it), to me, is different being political, therefore chosen. Yes we need to get on with them but there is no way I am dropping my draws, bending over and taking in in the backside for communism.

 

[Bruce]

Internalizing what I wrote, I am not above the fray. I am no better than any other. I know when I point my finger at others, the 3 pointing back at me will show that I too am guilty of putting others down.

My dream and my hope is that as intelligent evolved humans we can get beyond such, discussing matters without innuendo. The innuendo adds nothing to any discussion yet I know I fail and use it.

@Crasher, I was not criticizing anyone. I first have to take my own medicine, become perfect and flawless before I point out other's flaws. I was commenting that I feel the dialog is degraded when we begin to use race to make our points. Indeed to your comment - to speak of the political is acceptable. The choice of words we use however can be interpreted as racial. Fine lines are often not visible.

I would never ask any to "drop their draws" to take anything up the backside - well maybe with the exception of a vaccine to cure racism - starting with me at the head of the line.

 

[Crasher]

We can't avoid the subjects of race and gender as the left have taken it up as a weapon for their own ends, you would have to depoliticise contentious subjects to stop them being used and that is never going to happen. As long as there are two people or more on this planet, they will argue, animal instinct that no level of innate intellect or education will ever overcome such as communism trying to make everyone equal; never going to work as there will always be the lazy, weak and apathetic and the hard working, competitive and aspiring who begrudge being held back.

 

[Bruce]

@Crasher, I did write it was my dream, no?

 

[Crasher]

There was a chap who once said "I have a dream" I believe it cost him dear...

 

[Bruce]

Indeed but his dream lived on and change did occur and may still be occurring.

 

[Uwe]

We're getting well off the topic of this thread now.

Here, let's bring it back on topic. Click the picture. Anyone wanna take a stab at explaining Sweden?



-Uwe-

 

[Uwe]

Regeneron says antiviral COVID-19 cocktail shows protection after 8 months - UPI.com

Pharma company Regeneron announced on Monday that a late-stage clinical trial continues to show that its antiviral drug is effective and offers solid immunity against COVID-19.

www.upi.com

Hah! That's as long as any of the "vaccines" work, and it does this without turning your own body into a spike-protein factory. In fact, you're never exposed to the toxic spike protein at all.

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

So? You're not suggesting that assuaging some people's irrational fears justifies violating other people's bodily autonomy via coercive measures, are you?

-Uwe-

Uwe: I am not - and once again you make an extremely valid point. However, that particular horse bolted long ago, and to extend the analogy - those stable doors have been shut for a very long time!

There was a period during the early development of the world's response to COVID where it was indeed possible for world Governments to use a solution that more equitably focused on assuaging community fears. But as we will both agree, such a solution needs far more finesse and it's a much more complex task to add to a program that relies on artificial herd immunity through vaccination.

Plus, as is well known by news media - nothing is more effective in forming community views than fear (it's the life-blood that finances most media businesses)!! So, the community's fear of COVID really isn't all the fault of government. That said, I've absolutely no doubt that governments has been very happy to piggy-back off the media engendered fear in the community as a very opportune vehicle to drive their vaccination program.

And with 50% of humanity currently vaccinated, it would appear that the strategy of not assuaging community fear has been very effective - notwithstanding that there may have been some detrimental consequences like impacts on personal freedoms!!

So, bottom line = I suspect that it's all too late to assuage community fears; community attitudes have already been set (in concrete?) - it's only deep thinkers (like you) that bemoan the impact of personal freedoms and alas, in the context of your bretheren 8x Billion fellow souls, a minority view is well.......... a minority view (no offense)!!

Don

 

[Uwe]

in the context of your bretheren 8x Billion fellow souls, a minority view is well.......... a minority view

Perhaps, but the reason the western world has settled on a limited "republican" form of government rather than pure democracy is precisely so that the whims (or irrational fears) of a majority cannot trample the rights of a minority using the power of the state.

-Uwe-

 

[RGH0]

Covid vaccinations work and are very effective at reducing infections, hospitalisations and death in all classes of people regardless of age and other health affecting influences... no question, no argument unless you have your head totally in the sand. So lets stop debating that question unless you are prepared to sit down and do true statistically valid analysis and not quote newspaper headlines based on random variation in carefully selected data

What's more complex and the real issue is the morale and political question in how does society react to that in terms of rules, mandates, employment and social behaviour requirements during the journey from a zero vaccinated society to one with a high level of vaccination and how does this best manage societal risk without trampling unnecessarily on the rights of individuals. Each society and population will choose or have imposed on it a particular balance. In many societies around the world you do not get a choice or will have a very limited choice, at least in some you can express your disagreement, in many that expression is not possible.

cheers
Rohan

 

[NZDubNurd]

New Zealand is becoming VERY dictatorial in that sense (which is no surprise, with our current frootloop "leader"!):

Recently, we had "abortion law reform" where it was constantly espoused that: "It's her body, her choice!" now these people have gone VERY quiet, when many people are mandated to have vaccines, or won't be able to keep their jobs.

It's no longer the choice of the body owner!

 

[DV52]

Perhaps, but the reason the western world has settled on a limited "republican" form of government rather than pure democracy is precisely so that the whims (or irrational fears) of a majority cannot trample the rights of a minority using the power of the state.

-Uwe-

hmm...... maybe.

Yes there can be absolutely no doubt that the political leaning of world governments in democratic countries has become more "republican" (because we are both pedants and your use of quotation-marks notwithstanding, let's agree to call this "conservative" - in the true political sense, the term "republican" is more popularly linked to anti-monarch rule outside USA, I believe). However, I'm not sure that the driver for this political tilt is "irrational fear" - so I question the flow of cause-and-effect in your line of reasoning.

In my mind, the principal reason for the shift away from leftist governments is the changing profile of world communities in general, and in western democracies in particular. Since records started, the median age of the super-organism that we know as man-kind has been increasing. Maybe this has been happening because of decreasing fertility rates, or rising life expectancy, or the increasing penetration of education (which has a tendency to lower birth rates) - or a combination of all of these?

At the same time as the profile of voters is getting older, the absolute numbers of our fellow humans is increasing at a very fast rate (this may sound counter intuitive, but it isn't). Added to this is today's concerns about the ability of the earth's limited resources to satisfy the needs of a growing population

This all means that in general, citizens in the western world are becoming more risk averse and standards of acceptable community behavior when we were young are now considered intolerable in the modern era. As an example, I'm sure that like me, you were allowed to travel to and from school at an early age unaccompanied - this is certainly not a generally accepted practice in western democracies these days!

Anyhow, it's not a long-stretch in logic to extend the more risk averse nature of modern societies to what drives voter decisions on election day. Hence the tendency to more conservative governments in western democracies in the modern era - IMO!!

Now, does the fact of conservatism (itself) enhance government's control of citizens so that "the whims (or irrational fears) of a majority cannot trample the rights of a minority"? I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable conclusion - but I remain a convertible skeptic should you have further, more compelling evidence for the claim!!

Don

 

[Uwe]

let's agree to call this "conservative"

No, not at all. I mean it in the sense explained here:

Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained For Dummies

Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained For Dummies

thefederalistpapers.org

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

So lets stop debating that question unless you are prepared to sit down and do true statistically valid analysis and not quote newspaper headlines based on random variation in carefully selected data

Rohan: Don't get me wrong - I love mathematics with a passion!! It's the universal language of everything as large as the cosmos and as small as the sub-particles of matter itself- and I consider the discipline to be the most compelling decider possible in solving controversy about facts!

But, I don't believe that the question of vaccination as it relates to the compulsory inoculation of citizens in communities is purely, or is even substantially a controversy about facts! What we are talking about here is the forced injection of a drug into citizens at the cost of their personal democratic freedoms (and some folk believe, to their personal medical detriment).

Now of course the question regarding medical benefits is debatable on the basis of observable scientific evidence - however this is only a part (maybe a small part?) of a far wider issue (as you say below). Citizens and therefore the societies in which they live are driven as much by human traits (like emotion, intuition, perception, prejudice etc) as they are by cold clinical facts! Those of us with a scientific background may view society's human drivers as being somehow inferior, but they are not; they are real and I maintain that they are even more important in this question.

So, with no offense intended - I suspect that it would be a mistake to rely on "true statistically valid analysis" (is there such a thing?) in deciding the question of mandatory vaccination, alas

What's more complex and the real issue is the morale and political question in how does society react to that in terms of rules, mandates, employment and social behaviour requirements during the journey from a zero vaccinated society to one with a high level of vaccination and how does this best manage societal risk without trampling unnecessarily on the rights of individuals. Each society and population will choose or have imposed on it a particular balance. In many societies around the world you do not get a choice or will have a very limited choice, at least in some you can express your disagreement, in many that expression is not possible.

Agree!!!

 

[DV52]

No, not at all. I mean it in the sense explained here:

Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained For Dummies

Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained For Dummies

thefederalistpapers.org

-Uwe-

haha........ really?

Maybe it's the fact that English is my second language - or maybe words operate differently on the Northern side of the hemisphere (like the direction of water spinning down a drain) - but definition of "republican" in your link has a certain party political leaning IMHO.

I don't believe that it changes anything in my response, but I prefer the less partisan definition in Dictionary.com

Don

 

[jyoung8607]

I've about had my fill of bad faith arguments made ten times faster than I can respond to them, so I think I'll just start doing it too.

Let's get in the wayback machine!

Second, think of your risk of being hospitalized or dying from exposure to COVID-19 more like me standing two houses down from your residence and mag-dumping a decent sized handgun randomly distributed across the visible surface area of your house. Technically the risk of intersecting your body with a projectile isn't that high, and lower still of killing you, but incredibly avoidable on my part with the most basic of self control and awareness, and something for which you'd rightly have some extremely strong and direct feelings (and actions) in response. Do you feel like I should be accountable for risks I knowingly expose you to?

Going about one's life in a normal way is not the same as doing a mag-dump into the side of someones house!

When I make fully voluntary and deliberate choices that have extremely well characterized risks of injury or death for others, it doesn't really matter that much what gets written on the hospital paperwork or death certificate. There's just conveniences for me and consequences for you.

Spoiler: libertarian style of argument

It's only a small caliber weapon anyway, a handgun chambered in .22LR. If you do ANY of your own research, you'll find that .22LR really isn't that dangerous. How often have we talked on this very forum about the relative stopping power of various calibers? I mean, seriously, who uses .22LR for home defense? Won't do shit to stop a healthy adult home invader and even children almost always bounce back.

As for the the unhealthy or the elderly, they're just going to have to make better choices and do more to protect themselves. Sometimes people die OF a lifetime of smoking WITH gunshot wounds, and that is not my problem. My grandparents didn't ask me to give up shooting, and I'm not giving it up for you either.

I know that you're going to feel all triggered by this, but this is America and I'll shoot where I want to. We're not going to shut down the Second Amendment over your irrational fears. I will NOT be controlled by YOU, and you're just going to have to deal with the consequences of how I feel. And if anyone has a problem with that, I can join the talk-like-Timothy-McVeigh party too.

Spoiler: my actual style of argument

I don't stand behind any of that crap above because it's poisonous douchebaggery that physically pained me to write. If I ever find myself standing across from your house with a gun, I'll put it in my own mouth and pull the trigger before I point it at you or your family. Even if I feel with ALL of my feelings and ALL of my Internet-doctoring that .22LR isn't really a big deal. Even if I feel "controlled". I will do the same when making other deliberate and voluntary choices for which you and yours bear the consequences.

 

[jyoung8607]

Here, let's bring it back on topic. Click the picture. Anyone wanna take a stab at explaining Sweden?

I don't want to make any wrong assumptions... what do YOU think is significant about that graph? What's #awkward about it?

I'm not sure of the source, but since you seem to have accepted it as credible, we're going to be talking about it a lot.

 

[RGH0]

Don

My point was that we need to separate the question of vaccine effectiveness in a population from the question of vaccine application in a society.

As far as I can see vaccine effectiveness has been established. However the question of mandatory vaccination has not been established as a necessary step to protect the society. In most "western first world nominal democratic " societies most people have chosen to vaccinate and some have not chosen to be vaccinated voluntarily based on the available data of risk versus benefits. Does it require mandates to get those choosing to not vaccinate to be forced one way or another to do so is the area of debate. Each society will have to choose how it addresses this question

cheers
Rohan

 

[PetrolDave]

Does it require mandates to get those choosing to not vaccinate to be forced one way or another to do so is the area of debate. Each society will have to choose how it addresses this question

The UK Government has decreed that those working in patient fronting roles in care homes and the NHS MUST be vaccinated or lose their job or be redeployed to a non patient fronting role. Implementation in care homes is from tomorrow (11/11/21) and in the NHS from April 2022.

Personally I want the risk of me being infected by a medical practitioner to be minimised, but IMHO compulsion is never right so my suggestion is that medical practitioners should be required to reveal to their patients whether they have been fully vaccinated and for the patient to have to right to choose to be treated by another practitioner if they are unhappy with the vaccination state of the practitioner - this would retain the right of choice for both practitioner and patient.