Bad News Thread

Freedom needs some limits.
Got that right. Being free from government tyranny driven by faulty science that relys on the wrong test for determining presence of Corona. Right test for finding corona genetic sequences. Wrong test for determining how long those sequences have been in your boogers. Start there. Otherwise, you're credibility is like Fauci's. And we all know how smart he is.
 
You would prefer they had never done the first lockdown? Just issue some voluntary guidance and trust adults to “be responsible”.

Remember that, when we trusted adults to “be responsible”, half the rich people in New York hopped on planes to go to their vacation homes- bringing covid with them. The very first thing they did with their freedom of movement was seed new infection clusters all over the country.

Freedom needs some limits. Had we just kept with the freedom plan, the whole country would have had NYC levels of infection by late April, 2020. And that 2.2 million deaths estimate would have been much more accurate.
Again never "my testimony". Stop trying to pin a no mask, everything open and no precaution policy on me. I never said that and I'm in fact on record as saying I was OK with the initial flatten the curve lockdown. And while not preferable, it was not totally unreasonable to keep schools closed through the end of the last school year. However, not reopening schools for the new school year in Aug/Sep crossed way past the line for me. It was nothing short of reprehensible.

Like I said we will never agree. Your livelihood is entirely dependent on the government, mine is not, and oftentimes government is more of a hinderance to me than a help. Of course, you would want more government intervention and protection.

I believe you have the right to be an idiot in the US; however, I also believe believe you should be held individually accountable for your actions that harm others. Unfortunately, these days it seems were trading individual accountability for government control and victimhood. I don't like that trend.
 
What would be a more creative solution?
Open schools to those that wanted to go back. If they didn't have enough teachers to teach in person, have them Zoom into the classroom. If grandma lives at home, keep your kid at home. If you didn't see grandma for 15 months like us, send your kid to school if you are comfortable. Look at "real world" results before restricting activities such as outside sports, playgrounds, and hiking trails, etc. Oh yeah, don't lie to people and expect them to accept that "it was for their own good". Normally I'd call that common sense, but based on what we have seen at all levels of government, this qualifies as creative.
 
Again never "my testimony". Stop trying to pin a no mask, everything open and no precaution policy on me. I never said that and I'm in fact on record as saying I was OK with the initial flatten the curve lockdown. And while not preferable, it was not totally unreasonable to keep schools closed through the end of the last school year. However, not reopening schools for the new school year in Aug/Sep crossed way past the line for me. It was nothing short of reprehensible.

Like I said we will never agree. Your livelihood is entirely dependent on the government, mine is not, and oftentimes government is more of a hinderance to me than a help. Of course, you would want more government intervention and protection.

I believe you have the right to be an idiot in the US; however, I also believe believe you should be held individually accountable for your actions that harm others. Unfortunately, these days it seems were trading individual accountability for government control and victimhood. I don't like that trend.
In an infectious disease context, how is it possible to “be held individually accountable for your actions that harm others.”? Can you even define what you mean by that? Or give a workable example of how we could do it?

Supposing I go to a restaurant, catch covid, give it to a senior citizen at the grocery store, and they then die.

How, exactly, do you propose to have ‘individual accountability” for my role in their death?

Sounds like a lot of empty words to me. You can’t even define what you mean by them or how it would work.
 
In an infectious disease context, how is it possible to “be held individually accountable for your actions that harm others.”? Can you even define what you mean by that? Or give a workable example of how we could do it?
Accountability? How about you start with the wrong test used to identify CORONA infection.

Otherwise, you're just babblin'.
 
In an infectious disease context, how is it possible to “be held individually accountable for your actions that harm others.”? Can you even define what you mean by that? Or give a workable example of how we could do it?

Supposing I go to a restaurant, catch covid, give it to a senior citizen at the grocery store, and they then die.

How, exactly, do you propose to have ‘individual accountability” for my role in their death?

Sounds like a lot of empty words to me. You can’t even define what you mean by them or how it would work.
Simple concept. If grandma or any adult is concerned about getting sick from kids or anyone outside their family, then limit your exposure or do it only fully masked. Masks work right? Or if your concerned about getting it from school children, then don't send your kids to school. If you get sick then you have just been held accountable for your actions and don't play the victim card. Maybe personal responsibility is a better word. Worry about your own behavior, and less the behavior of others. Like I've said many times your behavior, and not the behavior or others, overwhelming impacts whether you get Covid (a car accident probably less so). Your approach is "I don't want to be a victim, so please government control the behavior of others". That's a selfish mentality.
 
Simple concept. If grandma or any adult is concerned about getting sick from kids or anyone outside their family, then limit your exposure or do it only fully masked. Masks work right? Or if your concerned about getting it from school children, then don't send your kids to school. If you get sick then you have just been held accountable for your actions and don't play the victim card. Maybe personal responsibility is a better word. Worry about your own behavior, and less the behavior of others. Like I've said many times your behavior, and not the behavior or others, overwhelming impacts whether you get Covid (a car accident probably less so). Your approach is "I don't want to be a victim, so please government control the behavior of others". That's a selfish mentality.
No one can answer your “Masks work, right?” question. You are asking for a boolean answer to a non-boolean question. It’s no more meaningful than asking whether a goalie blocks goals- and insisting that the only possible answers are “yes” and “no”.

Masks reduce the probability of transmission. That’s all. They do not come close to eliminating transmission.

The argument for masks, distance, and moving things outside has nothing to do with eliminating transmission. If you try to think of it in those terms, you will never get your head around it.

All of these measures work by reducing transmission. The goal isn’t zero. Zero isn’t even possible. The goal is to keep cutting transmission in half until it is less than one.

This is why public health officials can‘t just let you go away and do your thing. What good does it do if 70% of us are busy cutting our transmission, while 30% of you keep spreading disease? The disease will continue to spread, because, no matter what the rest of us do, your 30% is enough to keep transmission above 1.
 
No one can answer your “Masks work, right?” question.
You're funny, a couple weeks ago I tried to get you to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks work, as I was willing to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks don't work. You adamantly refused. I'm glad you've finally come around, but somehow I don't think its sincere and more a convenient change in opinion to rebut the argument at hand.

BTW I had to look "boolean" up to refresh my memory on what it meant. Of course I agree with you that we don't know "yes or no" whether masks work. It's a big "maybe" and I'm glad you're finally conceding that point...or not.
 
No one can answer your “Masks work, right?” question. You are asking for a boolean answer to a non-boolean question. It’s no more meaningful than asking whether a goalie blocks goals- and insisting that the only possible answers are “yes” and “no”.

Masks reduce the probability of transmission. That’s all. They do not come close to eliminating transmission.

The argument for masks, distance, and moving things outside has nothing to do with eliminating transmission. If you try to think of it in those terms, you will never get your head around it.

All of these measures work by reducing transmission. The goal isn’t zero. Zero isn’t even possible. The goal is to keep cutting transmission in half until it is less than one.

This is why public health officials can‘t just let you go away and do your thing. What good does it do if 70% of us are busy cutting our transmission, while 30% of you keep spreading disease? The disease will continue to spread, because, no matter what the rest of us do, your 30% is enough to keep transmission above 1.
Circle
 
You're funny, a couple weeks ago I tried to get you to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks work, as I was willing to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks don't work. You adamantly refused. I'm glad you've finally come around, but somehow I don't think its sincere and more a convenient change in opinion to rebut the argument at hand.

BTW I had to look "boolean" up to refresh my memory on what it meant. Of course I agree with you that we don't know "yes or no" whether masks work. It's a big "maybe" and I'm glad you're finally conceding that point...or not.
The Whirling Dervish have stamina.
 
You're funny, a couple weeks ago I tried to get you to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks work, as I was willing to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks don't work. You adamantly refused. I'm glad you've finally come around, but somehow I don't think its sincere and more a convenient change in opinion to rebut the argument at hand.

BTW I had to look "boolean" up to refresh my memory on what it meant. Of course I agree with you that we don't know "yes or no" whether masks work. It's a big "maybe" and I'm glad you're finally conceding that point...or not.

There is reliable evidence that masks reduce the transmission rate of airborne diseases. Is that what you mean by "masks work"?
 
You're funny, a couple weeks ago I tried to get you to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks work, as I was willing to stipulate to the fact that there is no reliable evidence that masks don't work. You adamantly refused. I'm glad you've finally come around, but somehow I don't think its sincere and more a convenient change in opinion to rebut the argument at hand.

BTW I had to look "boolean" up to refresh my memory on what it meant. Of course I agree with you that we don't know "yes or no" whether masks work. It's a big "maybe" and I'm glad you're finally conceding that point...or not.
You still have the wrong answer.

The answer isn't "Maybe". There is not doubt about it. We know that masks reduce the odds of transmission.

The correct answer is "Somewhat.". Masks reduce the odds of transmission, but they do not reduce it to near zero.
 
There is reliable evidence that masks reduce the transmission rate of airborne diseases. Is that what you mean by "masks work"?
IDK is there reliable evidence of that? Whether masks work or not is a better question for Dad4. I know there is evidence masks reduce the spray of respiratory droplets (bigger no shit). But beyond that i haven't seen anything compelling but I'm open to have my mind changed.
 
Back
Top