COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 244

starting strength gym
Page 244 of 1253 FirstFirst ... 1441942342422432442452462542943447441244 ... LastLast
Results 2,431 to 2,440 of 12522

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2431
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    412

    Default

    • starting strength seminar june 2021
    • starting strength seminar august 2021
    • starting strength seminar october 2021
    I do NOT think the issue here is that SOMETIMES individual liberties must be abrogated for the General good ....I think most people get that concept no problem...I think the question is that the reason for that is a very high bar under a very prescribed set of circumstances for a very specific amount of time and that the data...even the so-called data that the scientists spew has NOT even come close to justifying that action...I mean government would be way more justified in outlawing booze, cigarettes, shit even cars and greasy cheeseburgers than literally placing 333,000,000 people under house arrest because 66,000 people died in a time frame when probably that many would have died anyway..thats no justification..

    I mean this seriously say they started collecting data on all deaths that were caused by alcohol or alcohol was a contributing factor...and we received a running tally on this every day...then they started expanding it to any accident or mishap where the person had alcohol in their system...then they expanded it further to all police and other emergency response contacts with people under the influence or affected by alcohol...than to include anyone who ever had any type of problem where alcohol was involved...than expanded it further to include drugs...any type of drugs...then to include anybody was ever had a problem with drugs and alcohol....then further to anyone who has ever taken drugs or alcohol...

    That number would be so high and affect such a large percentage of the population that government could justify anything...we ALL would have to report to a daily kiosk and give urine samples and positive people would be quarantined...whatever....and the government would be way more justified than this....and we under practically house arrest for this and may live under further dictates for months maybe even years

    Especially when that number of people die anyway within a certain time frame

  2. #2432
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    I agree that reaching consensus on the greater good, and deciding who gets to make those decisions is not trivial. But do these challenges mean that those decisions should never be made, even in cases where the risks are unequivocal?

    Remember, we're talking about mass gatherings here.

    No sensible epidemiologist is recommending mass gatherings be permitted, especially in places that haven't already made substantial progress towards herd immunity.

    Show me where John Ioannidis, David Katz, or Anders Tegnell are calling for allowing mass gatherings at this point (I'm talking hundreds to thousands of people btw, not dozens).

    Even in Sweden, the sweetheart of many here, mass gatherings of 50 or more people are banned.

    We know enough about this virus to know that mass gatherings are a terrible idea, and in many places will cause shitloads of harm for those who don't choose to attend those gatherings.

    So do we disagree about the degree of risk posed to others by mass gatherings? Or do we disagree about whether the right to assemble is sacrosanct?
    In this case, nobody is debating and deciding who gets to call the shots. The various governments, from the federal on down to the local, were very proactive.

    My only argument (not that I've been posting frequently and vociferously) is simply that we shouldn't defer to the government to fix this, because its track record is awful. Even at the federal level, where you may have some of the smartest epidemiologists to have ever graced this Earth advising policy makers, history suggests that our duly elected leaders will fuck it up. I'm not even touching the philosophical debate of greater good over individual liberty.

    This is a situation without modern precedent, maybe of an urgency we've never experienced before. Will they rise to the occasion? No.

    If mass gatherings are a threat, put that information out there and let individuals decide for themselves. Allow people the liberty to actually live, rather than being confined at home sustaining a pulse.

    For those that don't have any direct experience dealing with the U.S. Government, take some time to listen to the Congressional Dish podcast. The most recent episode is an analysis of the CARES Act. It's great, if you can get past the host's verbal conniptions.

  3. #2433
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    RS WY
    Posts
    973

    Default

    The author of “The Curve is Already Flat” has published another interesting piece:

    The Ban on Elective Procedures Is Killing More People Than COVID-19

    Also a lot of interesting opines and references on her Twitter feed if anyone is interested...

  4. #2434
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    184

    Default

    I first handidly have seen what many have spoke about regarding potential undiagnosed cases from doctors being closed at the moment. I’ve had a lump pushing against the right side of my Adam’s apple that is extremely irritating when I speak, had to for a month. I tried waiting a bit but decided the other day to get it looked at, but every fucking doctor only does FaceTime appointments. On top of that, my endocrinologist said she doesn’t know anyone who would do imaging on that at the moment. So my chances of that being something dangerous and dying from are much higher than my 28 year old self dying from covid. My buddy’s mother has an infected tooth that she hasn’t been able to get treatment for too. This is all extremely shortsighted of the policymakers.

  5. #2435
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post

    You are attempting to explain this to a Canadian. He cannot understand. He must not understand.

    [/B]

    All I'm going to say, Rip, is that while we have far too many who fit, not all Canadians think like this guy.

  6. #2436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    More fundamentally (and I think this is the deeper issue where we disagree), I believe that it is sometimes necessary to infringe upon individual rights for the greater good. And if you disagree, I'm more than happy to have this discussion.
    This feels like a strawman. No rational person, in this thread or elsewhere, suggests the government has no right to curtail any liberty for the greater good.

    You're right that, ostensibly, these arguments are always about degree and proportionality. But what's distressing is that by this point it's obvious that your side of the argument has no limiting principal to these curtailments. You can say "well, I believe in some limited cases the state has authority to restrict some liberties, temporarily, carefully, sometimes, etc etc" but what's been demonstrated so far is there is nothing you're not willing to give up, or to force others to give up. We're not talking about the state collecting sales taxes or restricting how high you can build your apartment complex in certain zones: in most parts of the country it's a crime to invite a friend over for dinner. It's a crime to go outside without justification that satisfies the state. It's a crime to operate a business deemed unnecessary by the state.

    It's not just you, obviously. It's (distressingly) more like 2/3 of the country. If the government decided "the models" predicted children were at risk because the virus is in the water or something, and the state sent troopers door to door to remove children from their parents for their safety, the people stroking their beards about "well of course I support limited government intervention in extenuating circumstances" wouldn't just comply with the orders, they'd likely offer to help kick down the doors of non-compliant neighbors.

    It's just all so tiresome.

  7. #2437
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Im going to drop this in here... I dont have a dog in this fight, Im just a skeptical person by nature.

    BREAKING: Funeral Directors in COVID-19 Epicenter Doubt Legitimacy of Deaths Attributed to Pandemi..

  8. #2438
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Santana View Post
    Better read before it gets taken down

    Delaying herd immunity is costing lives - spiked
    It is funny, but certainly not "ha, ha" funny how the geezers are getting screwed every which way possible with this:

    In a sane world, we'd have protected them and developed herd immunity among the rest of us by now. Soon enough the season would have passed and they could all have stepped back into basically the same world they left.

    But instead we not only didn't give them special protection, but shipped them Covid roommates to kill them.
    Then we dragged out the spread to make sure more of them die from being under even longer lockdown than otherwise nexessary.
    Next we'll kill them through the shitty economy they are stepping into being less able to provide for them and them having less resources to provide for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    I agree that individuals should be able to determine their own risk assessment and tolerance.

    But this isn't about them. It's about the effect they have on the rest of the community.
    The "rest of the community" cannot be harmed by my risks unless the steps that we are all being forced to take don't actually work to protect "rest of the community" in the first place.

    (Which they don't and probably exacerbate things, but that's a separate issue.)

    I cannot get anyone sick (again assuming that shudder in place orders work) unless I am allowed to violate you individual rights by invading your space.

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    Even in Sweden, the sweetheart of many here, mass gatherings of 50 or more people are banned.
    I was under the impression that all of Sweden's steps were voluntary. That they are being told what they "should" do, but not suffering any criminal penalty for noncompliance.

  9. #2439
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    803

    Default

    I wonder how the rest of the world views us now? I wonder if the people of Hong Kong and Tehran still hold hope because we are, obviously, no longer the country of liberty for all? Do they wonder how one event, even if it had been serious, caused so many Americans to crawl into their homes and sweatpants on the orders of their government while they die for their protesting? I wonder if the Yellowvests will still march in France, or did they retire out of an abundance of caution? I'm not even mad at the politicians and experts -- they're carrying on as they always have.

    I hate war, and lucky for me I don't have to worry about that. If it does happen, it won't even be White Plains. It'll just be Waco.

  10. #2440
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    No sensible epidemiologist is recommending mass gatherings be permitted, especially in places that haven't already made substantial progress towards herd immunity.

    Show me where John Ioannidis, David Katz, or Anders Tegnell are calling for allowing mass gatherings at this point (I'm talking hundreds to thousands of people btw, not dozens).

    We know enough about this virus to know that mass gatherings are a terrible idea, and in many places will cause shitloads of harm for those who don't choose to attend those gatherings.
    It's one thing to take a doctor's advice and not go to a large gathering, or not eat too much saturated fat, or not smoke, or not (put your own example here). It's quite another to have the recommendation of a doctor enforced by men with guns. Besides, if we all know it's dangerous, why do we need men with guns preventing us from gathering?

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    So do we disagree about the degree of risk posed to others by mass gatherings? Or do we disagree about whether the right to assemble is sacrosanct?
    Well, we probably do disagree about the risk posed to others by mass gatherings, but more fundamentally, we disagree about who is responsible for mitigating that risk and what rights are being violated.

    Another fun little line from the Bill of Rights that I've posted once already is: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Interpretations certainly differ on that, but I take that to mean you can't lock me in my house under the assumption that I might be carrying a disease that I might infect you with that might become symptomatic and that might cause you some sort of harm. That kind of violates due process and the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •