COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 247

starting strength gym
Page 247 of 2385 FirstFirst ... 1471972372452462472482492572973477471247 ... LastLast
Results 2,461 to 2,470 of 23849

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #2461
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    494

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    Priorities. High seroprevalence is a very compelling argument in favor of reopening - definitely more than hearsay about probable-coded deaths being not-so-probable.

  2. #2462
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    What action by myself would constitute threatening your freedom, Rip?
    You, in the general sense, SD.

  3. #2463
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dillon Spencer View Post
    It's not the New York City Health Department Bruno was calling a far right rag, it was Project Veritas, the posters of the funeral director video. If people are going to rail against the agenda of the MSM, at least do some research about these alternative sources and consider whether or not they may have agendas of their own. I had actually forgotten about Project Veritas and James O'Keefe. Clicked on over to their website, and actually thought their stated goal of using citizen journalism to expose corruption sounds pretty cool! It's obviously up to each individual to decide whether or not they're pursuing that goal in an even handed, agenda free manner. I don't think anyone here is going to change anyone else's mind one way or the other.
    I totally understand that News outlets are biased...Fox= Right wing, CNN= Left wing, so on and so forth, got it...but thats true of ALL information that is coming from a source outside of yourself, and even we have our biases and can even deceive ourselves but that doesn't mean that ALL news they report is untrue...a lot of it is TRUE although as you already know is presented in a way that bolsters their world view...that is why we study logic and understand the difference between an eyewitness or a direct witness and a second hand source..yes, they could have culled through 50 funeral directors and picked the 5 that agree with them but you are still getting information from a primary source and THAT matters because even biased people will often change their views when they themselves experience something directly..it makes all the difference..but doesn't mean they are 100% correct either..the funeral directors are giving us another primary source of evidence separate from the medical and government entities and thus giving us another set of eyes to look at this issue to determine this vital and most important question that we all really want the answer to...IS THIS A REAL THREAT OR NOT ?because we need to seek the answer to that and we're fucked if we get the answer wrong because depending on the answer will be serious consequences

  4. #2464
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    The revised Santa Clara paper is posted. As I previously told, they collected more validation data and completely redid their flawed CI estimate.

    They now claim 0.7-1.8% prevalence; 1.3-4.7% if you believe their reweighting scheme. I haven't looked at their new analysis yet.
    Like they said originally, many many more than were thought to be infected.

    These prevalence point estimates imply that 54,000 (95CI 25,000 to 91,000 using weighted prevalence; 23,000 with 95CI 14,000-35,000 using unweighted prevalence) people were infected in Santa Clara County by early April, many more than the approximately 1,000 confirmed cases at the time of the survey. Conclusions The estimated population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection may be much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.

  5. #2465
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Toronto, ON, CA
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    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.
    You make your case eloquently, but I couldn't help but be reminded of this. It made me chuckle to myself, and I post it in the spirit of levity in a thread that I feel could use some. I hope it is received as such.


  6. #2466
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kirkham View Post
    Bruno was a troll. He traded in pain and suffering.
    ftfy...I'm afraid the strain was more than he could bear

  7. #2467
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    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.
    This is nice in theory, but we're currently living in an era where there are significant numbers of people who have lost so must trust in received wisdom that they think the planet is flat.

    These are the sorts of folks who would campaign for and likely bring into being mass gatherings, if given a chance, no matter what the experts say. And a single mass gathering can cause havoc if conditions are ripe.

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    I am open, in principle, to a world in which the level of education has risen to such heights that people need much less governing.

  8. #2468
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,602

    Default

    Yes, Spacediver, a simple football game could easily mean the end of all human life on the planet. This is absolutely true.

    Nobody believes this bullshit anymore. We're more concerned with the survival of our culture.

  9. #2469
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,003

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
    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.
    Not really a strawman in the context of my statement. I was stating what I hoped would be some common ground to build upon. As such, I attempted something basic and obvious that would have a high chance of being agreed upon.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
    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.
    Perhaps this discussion would be more fruitful if you stopped assuming that there are only two positions to this argument. Instead of assuming things about my beliefs, why don't you query them instead, so we can have an actual conversation?

    Nothing will be gained through conversation if we merely roleplay our expected scripts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    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?[/B]
    If we all know it's dangerous, we wouldn't need men with guns preventing us from gathering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Waskis View Post
    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.
    A viral epidemic that spreads through respiration is a decidedly communal phenomenon, and as such, is a rather interesting test of your above-stated principle.

    "Innocent until proven guilty" by design weighs the harms associated with depriving freedom of an innocent person more greatly than the harms associated with letting a guilty person go free.

    The harms associated with letting unwitting people mingle in large crowds may, in some cases, outweigh the harms associated with restricting their freedom to assemble in large groups.

  10. #2470
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,602

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    If we all know it's dangerous, we wouldn't need men with guns preventing us from gathering.
    Absolutely false. People do dangerous things all the time -- for a variety of reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
    The harms associated with letting unwitting people mingle in large crowds may, in some cases, outweigh the harms associated with restricting their freedom to assemble in large groups.
    This is just a math problem to SD.

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
  •