I'll take it off in the gym, screw that.....
Printable View
Mask mandates are comical at this point especially when Fauci himself asserts their uselessness for this application. The reality is that the government panic bought them and needs a to both save face and recoup their investment. God forbid they force companies to make millions of masks only to tell us they aren’t necessary. But wait, that’s what they did.
Rip, I get that society is being wronged by government, and that change has to happen. And that this thread, among many things, serves as a support group for those of us who feel that way.
I'm fortunate enough to work for a company that provides what is considered an essential service (I work in water utilities). My financial future is not in utter chaos right now, and I have not yet had to bear the burden of that deep gnawing anxiety that comes with an uncertain economic future. I have not had a business that I have poured my soul into for decades perish in an instant, and frankly it's horrifying to imagine that happening.
But I've got a bit of skin in the game. I have not been able to hold my girlfriend, or hug her kids for months now, and it's painful to see a kid in tears because she can't hug you on her 10th birthday.
I also think that, while those measures may have been justified a few weeks ago, at least in my city, they are rapidly approaching the point where they are becoming an unjustified violation of society.
And one a right, and perhaps a moral duty, to react.
Some may choose to do it through forceful resistance. In some cases, I think that this is justified. I don't think that the current situation rises to that threshold, at least not in North America. As always, I'm happy to discuss why I believe this, and I remain open minded. And to be clear, I believe this regardless of what the constitution says. We cannot confuse laws for moral bedrock.
My own mode of action is to seek, develop, and spread ideas that I think have a good chance of improving things. And yes, these ideas cannot be only about the virus. The virus is but one element in this whole affair.
I also get that it's not just about the distancing - it's also about that it's enforced, rather than requested, or advised.
But learning about the virus is still important, and it's not easy to do. This thread has had some excellent technical contributions that serve to really inform. And that's powerful. Because if it's true that we ought to be loosening restrictions, one of the reasons it is true is because the threat of the virus is outweighed by the harms and risks of lockdown. And to understand the threat of the virus, one has to learn as much as possible about it. Doing so allows a convincing case to be made to those in your community (online and offline) who can then share and spread these ideas.
And one should not be vilified for not having skin in the game. We are not always responsible for our suffering, be it its presence or its absence.
I'm posting here under the assumption that this thread is not exclusively a support group.
33 million job losses in the US alone with more on the horizon, lockdowns extended until at least the end of May in multiple states, trillions more dollars about to be printed in a futile effort to stave off disaster: the virus is inconsequential, bud.Quote:
Some may choose to do it through forceful resistance. In some cases, I think that this is justified. I don't think that the current situation rises to that threshold, at least not in North America. As always, I'm happy to discuss why I believe this, and I remain open minded. And to be clear, I believe this regardless of what the constitution says. We cannot confuse laws for moral bedrock.
I'm at a total loss for what to do with people like you. We've already crossed the Rubicon. The people governing us no longer have control over this situation. Anyone who thinks that their job and financial situation is "secure" is delusional.
Don't begrudge my presentation of new data, and I'll stay clear of your lurid murder fantasies. Is that OK? There are enough pages for both.
How is all-cause mortality faked?Quote:
Your data is all fake, we all know it
Which horse is that? For the past 2-3 weeks, have we disagreed on any COVID-19 government policies? (The answer is no.)Quote:
Your horse has left the barn, Shiva.
So you're telling us that in Canadia it is illegal for an unmarried couple in separate households to get together? That you must be physically separated on pain of death? So you don't do it?
I think in Manitoba and New Brunswick, they're allowing one household to interact with one and only one other household.
In BC, they are about to loosen even more, and allow the public to make their own risk assessments when it comes to personal interactions.
From the provincial health officer in BC:
She also has no qualms being honest about the fact that this loosening will increase the number of hospitalizations (and therefore the number of deaths):Quote:
Chief medical officer of health Dr. Bonnie Henry says it comes down to common sense as to how much and with whom you expand your circle. “If you expand your circle, you need to do it thoughtfully and you need to understand the risk in your family,” she said.
And yes, I don't do it. Not because I'm a thoughtless sheep, but because I don't think the threshold for breaking the law, in my particular situation, has been met.Quote:
Henry confirmed the province continues to work under the assumption that B.C. is currently at around 30 per cent of regular interactions, and said the virus can be kept in check if it stays below 60 per cent going forward.
"We might have increased numbers of cases and some hospitalizations … but they would be manageable. We'd be able to manage that, and there are things we can do to make these contacts safer for people, as well," she said.
"Our challenge, and our work together, is to find that sweet spot — somewhere around increasing our contacts by twice as many as we have now, but without allowing those opportunities for rapid exponential growth in our communities."