Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1021 - 1040 of 1113 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
You're conflating freedom to associate and speak with liability for willfully misleading people that results in injury. Someone deciding that the low risk of having Thanksgiving with loved ones is worth it is not tantamount to telling everyone in a burning theater that there is no fire.

It's non-sequitur.



Well, you'll be super convinced by the imagery of how horrific the holocaust was, and because of how horrible that was that you must obey my commands, beginning with my command not to think about whether a non-related bad thing should convey authority to me.
You are correct. I was making two points in the same post. Not good. I intended comparing your reasoning only to people willingly sitting in a burning theater.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
Well, you'll be super convinced by the imagery of how horrific the holocaust was, and because of how horrible that was that you must obey my commands, beginning with my command not to think about whether a non-related bad thing should convey authority to me.
You are comparing genocide to temporary restrictions on assembly size, to avoid overwhelming the medical system, and causing needless deaths. So during a war, if you refuse to fight, you have the right o refuse, but the government also has the right to jail you, or force you into alternative service. Is that fascism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
42. Freedom to choose what and how much to eat.

The freedom of association is more important than my physical life, because life derives meaning from living (freely exchanging thoughts and feelings with those you wish to associate).
This is absurd. Life is more important than the right to associate, and society consistently demonstrates this by making the punishment for murder (taking of physical life) much greater than the punishment for kidnapping (taking of freedom of movement and association).

That your right to freely associate has not been taken from you is amply demonstrated by your continued presence on this forum. In case you haven't noticed, associating and sharing ideas with others in our modern world doesn't require physically gathering in close proximity in an enclosed space.

Also, regulating what and how much you eat would actually be much more invasive than regulating your physical association with others, because regulating your eating would require constantly monitoring you in your own home, while monitoring your association could be done simply by watching how many people enter your front door. I'm not saying that we should watch your front door, but it's patently false to say that it's more invasive than watching you in your kitchen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
Uh huh, because it's the governors job to make sure people don't make bad personal decisions. Nobody forced anyone to attend the wedding, or be in close proximity, etc, etc.
You when your bad personal decision risks other people's lives, it becomes a matter for society to regulate your behaviour. That's exactly why we have laws against drinking and driving. There's a wide spectrum of behaviors, risks and the degree to which regulation is acceptable to society - but the principle is very clear.

The big problem we have right now is that a wide swath of the population seems to be in denial of the amount of risk. And I think a lot of the blame for that can be put on the shoulders of governors who are more scared of the economic fallout than they are of the human toll, without understanding that the economic fallout is due to the human toll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
The big problem we have right now is that a wide swath of the population seems to be in denial of the amount of risk. And I think a lot of the blame for that can be put on the shoulders of governors who are more scared of the economic fallout than they are of the human toll, without understanding that the economic fallout is due to the human toll.
And don't forget the ones who do so for not-so-subtle political machinations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,153 Posts
You when your bad personal decision risks other people's lives, it becomes a matter for society to regulate your behaviour. That's exactly why we have laws against drinking and driving. There's a wide spectrum of behaviors, risks and the degree to which regulation is acceptable to society - but the principle is very clear.

The big problem we have right now is that a wide swath of the population seems to be in denial of the amount of risk. And I think a lot of the blame for that can be put on the shoulders of governors who are more scared of the economic fallout than they are of the human toll, without understanding that the economic fallout is due to the human toll.
85% of Covid spread is due to close and prolonged contact in settings like the home. In other words, it's mostly voluntarily gathering. Very little of the spread is from that trip to the grocery store. Those wedding attendees will mostly spread to others who think the risk of gathering in their homes is worth it, and they are responsible to make that decision for themselves.

The legal orders are precisely why Covid has become a political issue rather than a health issue. Most people aren't willing to listen to any amount of evidence once a certain principle has been breached. I'm just barely capable of staying tuned in to hear the reasons after some public servant unlawfully orders restrictions on freedom of association. I'm going to publically push back against unlawful edicts, but personally exercise reasonable precautions which largely follow the edict. Many people aren't though, because the red line has been crossed. The sleazy politicians have yet again pushed an "us vs them" narrative and alienated any hope of collaboration. All stick, no carrot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
The legal orders are precisely why Covid has become a political issue rather than a health issue. Most people aren't willing to listen to any amount of evidence once a certain principle has been breached.
It's a chicken and egg problem. The reason we got to the point where we need guidelines about who you should invite into your home is because people weren't exercising due caution. If people had been sensible then we wouldn't have gotten to this point.

If it's off limits to regulate the behaviour that's driving the exponential growth that's flooding and overflowing the hospitals, what then? Should the government just throw up it's hands and tell everyone that it's every man for themselves? There's a pretty wide swath of the population for which that's not acceptable, either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
It's a chicken and egg problem. The reason we got to the point where we need guidelines about who you should invite into your home is because people weren't exercising due caution. If people had been sensible then we wouldn't have gotten to this point.

If it's off limits to regulate the behaviour that's driving the exponential growth that's flooding and overflowing the hospitals, what then? Should the government just throw up it's hands and tell everyone that it's every man for themselves? There's a pretty wide swath of the population for which that's not acceptable, either.
The issue is that too many people feel the infection death rate is not high enough to justify the authoritarianism being seen from state governments and then add to that the governors and federal representatives not abiding by their own mandates and rules (Newsom, Pelosi, Feinstein, Whitmer) and you get people getting angry. Here is the CDC infection death rate, looking at the numbers I don't feel it's outrageous or selfish to think the government is overstepping its bounds when it is telling people they can't celebrate holidays in the citizen's private home.

31767


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
The issue is that too many people feel the infection death rate is not high enough to justify the authoritarianism being seen from state governments and then add to that the governors and federal representatives not abiding by their own mandates and rules (Newsom, Pelosi, Feinstein, Whitmer) and you get people getting angry. Here is the CDC infection death rate, looking at the numbers I don't feel it's outrageous or selfish to think the government is overstepping its bounds when it is telling people they can't celebrate holidays in the citizen's private home.

View attachment 31767

On a side note, I find it interesting that the CDC website preview just had to sneak in a blurb saying that "The CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S." Given the multiple missteps the agency has made in the past months, it's almost like it's begging the public to trust it again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
The issue is that too many people feel the infection death rate is not high enough to justify the authoritarianism being seen from state governments and then add to that the governors and federal representatives not abiding by their own mandates and rules (Newsom, Pelosi, Feinstein, Whitmer) and you get people getting angry. Here is the CDC infection death rate, looking at the numbers I don't feel it's outrageous or selfish to think the government is overstepping its bounds when it is telling people they can't celebrate holidays in the citizen's private home.

I absolutely agree that this is what people feel, including privileged politicians. But the medical, and scientific community is telling us they are wrong. Medical facilities, and staff are, and will be overwhelmed as this gets worse over the coming several months. Those who will pay for our lack of spine are those who least deserve it, medical professionals, and those in need of medical help, not limited to those with COVID-19.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
I absolutely agree that this is what people feel, including privileged politicians. But the medical, and scientific community is telling us they are wrong. Medical facilities, and staff are, and will be overwhelmed as this gets worse over the coming several months. Those who will pay for our lack of spine are those who least deserve it, medical professionals, and those in need of medical help, not limited to those with COVID-19.
I do listen to Osterholm like you and am fully aware that medical facilities and staff can become overwhelmed but I still feel it is government overstep to mandate home gatherings. We as a country are divided on this question and dismissing people's objections isn't going to help and this is just a point we can disagree on. The IDR is low and if people chose to gather in private homes I support that. I am not saying this next part for sympathy. My mother died last monday (not due to covid) and there will be no service or ceremony due to lockdowns which is fine because normally they are held in a public building, I saw her 3 times this year due to listening to the covid recommendations because I was concerned about her health and now with 20/20 hindsight I wish I would have seen her more this year but that's hindsight for ya. With that story I am trying to say I get both sides but I fall on the side of freedom of association over government control on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
I absolutely agree that this is what people feel, including privileged politicians. But the medical, and scientific community is telling us they are wrong. Medical facilities, and staff are, and will be overwhelmed as this gets worse over the coming several months. Those who will pay for our lack of spine are those who least deserve it, medical professionals, and those in need of medical help, not limited to those with COVID-19.
One more quick question, do you support the government making the vaccine mandatory for adults?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
One more quick question, do you support the government making the vaccine mandatory for adults?
If, after a few months of frontline people getting the vaccine, and there being a reasonable number of side effects/complications, yes.

I don't understand the position of folks who oppose this, as I suspect they very closely match those who supported mandatory military service, for decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
I do listen to Osterholm like you and am fully aware that medical facilities and staff can become overwhelmed but I still feel it is government overstep to mandate home gatherings.
But home gatherings seem to be one of the main, if not the main vector for spread of the virus. If you can't control that kind of risky behaviour, then you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying "there's nothing we can do". Some people may be fine with that, but an awful lot more are not.

Society has the right to regulate behaviours that put others risk. I can't help thinking that too many people feel their own personal risk is low and that's driving their attitudes. If this virus was an equal opportunity killer I strongly suspect there would be a lot more support for restrictions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
One more quick question, do you support the government making the vaccine mandatory for adults?
It may come down to restrictions for unvaccinated people. For example, you may need proof of vaccination to fly or to attend concerts, cinemas, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
If, after a few months of frontline people getting the vaccine, and there being a reasonable number of side effects/complications, yes.

I don't understand the position of folks who oppose this, as I suspect they very closely match those who supported mandatory military service, for decades.
I am not an anti-vaxer but I will not be getting it until it has at least 5 years of research on it because I don't trust it or the government and my risk of mortality is relatively low at 0.0003% per the CDC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
But home gatherings seem to be one of the main, if not the main vector for spread of the virus. If you can't control that kind of risky behaviour, then you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying "there's nothing we can do". Some people may be fine with that, but an awful lot more are not.

Society has the right to regulate behaviours that put others risk. I can't help thinking that too many people feel their own personal risk is low and that's driving their attitudes. If this virus was an equal opportunity killer I strongly suspect there would be a lot more support for restrictions.
But if I go to someone's house for the holidays and get covid it effects me only because I knew the risk and took it. This isn't a mask in public or attending a concerts or cinemas issue, it's a privet home and everyone attending accepts the risk issue.

It may come down to restrictions for unvaccinated people. For example, you may need proof of vaccination to fly or to attend concerts, cinemas, etc.
Why would you need to do that if everyone that wanted to get the vaccine got it? Now we go back to it's only affecting the people that choose to not get it. If it is 90% effective like it is being reported there is no reason to mandate it, those that choose to inoculate themselves will be protected and those that don't will roll the dice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
I am not an anti-vaxer but I will not be getting it until it has at least 5 years of research on it because I don't trust it or the government and my risk of mortality is relatively low at 0.0003% per the CDC.
I don't have the medical or statistical skill to interpret that CDC mortality number. I do know that In the Iceland study, with the most analyzed population on the planet, they counted every person who had contracted COVID, including testing over 50% of the population for antibodies, and determined that, in their relatively healthy population, with great national healthcare, they had a death rate for all cases of 0.30%...twice as high as for seasonal flu.

We are all adults here, so do as you choose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
I don't have the medical or statistical skill to interpret that CDC mortality number. I do know that In the Iceland study, with the most analyzed population on the planet, they counted every person who had contracted COVID, including testing over 50% of the population for antibodies, and determined that, in their relatively healthy population, with great national healthcare, they had a death rate for all cases of 0.30%...twice as high as for seasonal flu.

We are all adults here, so do as you choose.
There are two death rates, an Infection fatality rate which is never accurate and an underestimate because it tries to assume how many were infected and those are the numbers I used from the CDC, and there is also the Case fatality rate which is an overestimate and gets the death rate from confirmed cases. Is the Iceland numbers IFR or CFR?
 
1021 - 1040 of 1113 Posts
Top