starting strength gym
Page 243 of 3003 FirstFirst ... 1431932332412422432442452532933437431243 ... LastLast
Results 2,421 to 2,430 of 30027

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2421
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brothers View Post
    In general, the U.S. is a union of various cultural nations with their own identities, and values conflict between the nations. You won't find a peaceful consensus on what "the greater good" is.
    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?

  2. #2422
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    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).

    Even in Sweden, the sweetheart of many here, mass gatherings of 50 or more people are banned.
    Your assumptions are disturbing. Your position is, essentially, that individual liberty is optional when it's not in our best interest, and the decisions will be made for us. Lots of people agree with you.

    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.
    And I think you're overstating the harm to the population in general, since the piles-of-bodies thing has not occurred. But at least you came clean about the totalitarianism: it's justified, when you guys decide it is.

  3. #2423
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Provo, Utah
    Posts
    520

    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 really is the heart of the discussion.

    Now...a question. Who gets to define “the greater good?”

    Those adhering to Sharia? Hell, I’ve even been around some Christians I don’t want making laws for “the greater good.”

    I think in the interest of the greater good we all need to get back to work.

    That, and please leave me alone.

    C.S. Lewis said it best,

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

  4. #2424
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Your assumptions are disturbing. Your position is, essentially, that individual liberty is optional when it's not in our best interest, and the decisions will be made for us. Lots of people agree with you.
    That is a fairly accurate summary of my position, but I remain open minded.

    The nuance here is in the decision making. Are the people making the decision-to-enforce-whatever-measure competent? Do they examine the issue from many domains? Do they do proper risk analysis? Do they genuinely have the interests of the people in mind? Do they have the trust of the people who they serve?

    If the answer to the above is yes, then there is a better chance that the right decisions will be made, even if those decisions involve the abrogation of individual liberty.

    My position here is not inconsistent with the notion that there is something fundamentally crucial about the individual, especially when it comes to freedom of thought and expression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    And I think you're overstating the harm to the population in general, since the piles-of-bodies thing has not occurred. But at least you came clean about the totalitarianism: it's justified, when you guys decide it is.
    This may indeed be the case. It is, afterall, an empirical issue. I, and those who also think that mass gatherings pose a huge risk, may be wrong - I'm going on the data I've seen thus far, but I may have missed some important details or made some thinking errors along the way.

  5. #2425
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpalios View Post
    1) any ad blocker recs for YT?
    2) gym limitations... An open gym with those restrictions is better than a closed gym.
    The two most basic that I see recommended often are Privacy Badger and Ghostery. I have not watch an ad on Youtube in years.

    The problem is that the new rules could well be the nail in the coffin that ruins many of these gyms financially. The economic cost of compliance with those rules is actually quite high.

    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    Are you still training? I have no access to barbells in my area. I tried to do the push up/assistance style workouts, but I can't stand more than 10 reps of anything and there's no way for me to load any movements beyond the weight of a few milk jugs. Training is on hold until I get back in the gym. I switched to 1 meal a day to knock out as much bodyfat as possible, which also slashed my grocery bill by about 50%.
    I wasn't about to stop training. Still making a few PRs. If you are willing to put in some effort and or take a few minor risks, black market gym time can be had.

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    You speak for everyone on this board?
    Short answer: Yes.

    Long answer: My impression is that 3/4 of the posts in this 200 page thread reflect the same opinion, as well as the ethos of community. The opinion has been stated repeatedly in many forms.

    In the United States, the constitution outlines very specifically when individual rights may be infringed upon for the greater good. Those requirements are either a prior declaration of martial law or a national health emergency declaration by the president, in addition or prior written notification from the president to congress of specifically what measures need to be taken, a thorough justification of those measures and a statement of when they will expire. None of these steps have been taken, so infringements on freedoms are unconstitutional. Mayors do not have the power they have grabbed, police do not have the authority they have usurped, health departments are not law-making agencies, governors can declare martial law in a state, but it is subject to judicial and federal oversight. Not one governor has declared martial law, because that would be political suicide, except in the most dire of circumstances.

    The current political response has bypassed not only the constitution, but also the system of checks and balances that has kept the United States free and intact.

  6. #2426
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    604

    Default

    Not to deviate from the subject too greatly, but I was hoping maybe Rip, Sully, Santana or some others might find this interesting.

    In a video posted here within the last 24 hours, a doctor talks at length about oxidative stress on cells and how, by blocking ACE2, the virus compromises people's abilities to rid themselves of oxidative stress. You're probably better off watching the video as my laymen explanation would probably fail.

    Of more interest to me was that I've heard one of the SS experts talk at length about the oxidative stress in endurance sports while also discussing the ability for strength training to help reduce oxidative stress. I know I read an article from Dr. Sullivan, at one point, which discussed muscle loss resulting in oxidative stress. In the Barbell Prescription, I think this was covered to some degree as well. Again, it's been a while since I read/watched that info, so maybe I'm screwing up my understanding.

    I did find this article by Guy Forer and, in it, he talks about aging, oxidative stress, the immune system and what happens during progressive training to mitigate this. Seems to be a lot of overlap with many of the terms we're hearing and made me think that perhaps it attacks the elderly the most because of their inabilities to reduce oxidative stress... Potentially because they have no strength left.

    I know someone on this thread got pissed off at some point that Rip suggested squat numbers had a correlation with who dies... Maybe that is, in fact, the case.

  7. #2427
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    That is a fairly accurate summary of my position, but I remain open minded.
    That's swell.

    The nuance here is in the decision making. Are the people making the decision-to-enforce-whatever-measure competent? Do they examine the issue from many domains? Do they do proper risk analysis? Do they genuinely have the interests of the people in mind? Do they have the trust of the people who they serve?
    The trust of scared people is easy to obtain. That's why it's necessary to keep them afraid.

    If the answer to the above is yes, then there is a better chance that the right decisions will be made, even if those decisions involve the abrogation of individual liberty.

    My position here is not inconsistent with the notion that there is something fundamentally crucial about the individual, especially when it comes to freedom of thought and expression.
    You are advocating for a benevolent dictatorship. I appreciate your honesty, even though I would kill you if I had to, to preserve my freedom. Many of us would, and you would find that to be a problem. I really hope it doesn't come down to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    In the United States, the constitution outlines very specifically when individual rights may be infringed upon for the greater good. Those requirements are either a prior declaration of martial law or a national health emergency declaration by the president, in addition or prior written notification from the president to congress of specifically what measures need to be taken, a thorough justification of those measures and a statement of when they will expire. None of these steps have been taken, so infringements on freedoms are unconstitutional. Mayors do not have the power they have grabbed, police do not have the authority they have usurped, health departments are not law-making agencies, governors can declare martial law in a state, but it is subject to judicial and federal oversight. Not one governor has declared martial law, because that would be political suicide, except in the most dire of circumstances.

    The current political response has bypassed not only the constitution, but also the system of checks and balances that has kept the United States free and intact.
    You are attempting to explain this to a Canadian. He cannot understand. He must not understand.

    Let me try, one more time, to summarize my position for you, before you risk your life trying to take my liberty: In Wichita County, Texas there have been 62 confirmed cases of COVID-19 out of a county population of 131,000. This is a case rate of 0.04%. Of that number, there have been 2 deaths, for a CFR of 3.2% but a death rate of 0.0015% of the population. We have no idea about the number of infections, because widespread testing has not been done, but the number is obviously higher than 62. But this does not matter to me -- 2 deaths out of 131,000 is not a significant number of deaths to justify giving up my liberty, and I will not do it voluntarily.

  8. #2428
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    You speak for everyone on this board? The question was directed at David.

    But I'm happy to engage.

    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.

    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.
    You are making an error. This is a misunderstanding on the nature of individual rights, there necessity and the functional role of the Government.

    If someone knowingly infects other people with a disease, they are not observing individual rights, they are initiating force. In this case the Government has a role to lock this person up and get justice for those who got the disease as a result of that initiation of force.

    In the case of people who have no idea whether they are infected and who therefore must assume there is a possibility that others are in the same position, then there is no deliberate initiation of force and people must therefore mitigate that risk as they see fit. The role of the experts here, is to impart the facts of the disease, how it spreads, who is most likely to be most affected. In a free market this kind of issue is dealt with quite quickly by people who will make a profit out of the provision of test kits, protective gear and cures. No business wants to be seen as being a place where the disease is more transmissible, in the same way that bad business actors who are seen to rip off their customers rapidly go out of business once the word gets around. Everyone responds in their own interests as long as the facts of the disease are clear-those who are on a mission to infect others get dealt with by the Government and that would be for the 'individual' good (the individual rights defence) of everyone.

  9. #2429
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    If the answer to the above is yes, then there is a better chance that the right decisions will be made, even if those decisions involve the abrogation of individual liberty.

    My position here is not inconsistent with the notion that there is something fundamentally crucial about the individual, especially when it comes to freedom of thought and expression.
    You are advocating for a benevolent dictatorship. I appreciate your honesty, even though I would kill you if I had to, to preserve my freedom. Many of us would, and you would find that to be a problem. I really hope it doesn't come down to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    In the United States, the constitution outlines very specifically when individual rights may be infringed upon for the greater good. Those requirements are either a prior declaration of martial law or a national health emergency declaration by the president, in addition or prior written notification from the president to congress of specifically what measures need to be taken, a thorough justification of those measures and a statement of when they will expire. None of these steps have been taken, so infringements on freedoms are unconstitutional. Mayors do not have the power they have grabbed, police do not have the authority they have usurped, health departments are not law-making agencies, governors can declare martial law in a state, but it is subject to judicial and federal oversight. Not one governor has declared martial law, because that would be political suicide, except in the most dire of circumstances.

    The current political response has bypassed not only the constitution, but also the system of checks and balances that has kept the United States free and intact.
    You are attempting to explain this to a Canadian. He cannot understand. He must not understand.

    Let me try, one more time, to summarize my position for you, before you risk your life trying to take my liberty: In Wichita County, Texas there have been 62 confirmed cases of COVID-19 out of a county population of 131,000. This is a case rate of 0.04%. Of that number, there have been 2 deaths, for a CFR of 3.2% but a death rate of 0.0015% of the population. We have no idea about the number of infections, because widespread testing has not been done, but the number is obviously higher than 62. But this does not matter to me -- 2 deaths out of 131,000 is not a significant number of deaths to justify giving up my liberty, and I will not do it voluntarily.
    Here's a short 10 minute video addressing some of what you guys are discussing here.
    YouTube
    It's a month and 1/2 old but I think that he expresses a similar viewpoint to what Rip and Yngvi are talking about here.

  10. #2430
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    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.
    It's this type of thinking that has allowed the American government to repeatedly disenfranchise the Native American people and never truly offer civil discourse or amend any of their past wrongs.

    The thinking for the quarantine goes as follows: old and sick are at risk, so we take precautionary steps to safeguard them while allowing life to continue for all other age groups. You quarantine the sick and at risk, not the healthy.

Posting Permissions

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