World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Mentality differences
Beau, we know the unvaccinated pass the virus on. If they didn't, we could not have this pandemic. Just what the Ro value is for them is unclear because there are some who don't pass it on and others who are super spreaders.If the vaccine works, it has to reduce the chances of spreading - if it does not, then it is useless.
The evidence of the Pfizer vaccine losing effectiveness with time is known, and once all effectiveness is lost, then people who have had it are the same as the unvaccinated. I understand Pfizer recommends booster shots.
I am unaware of anywhere where it is mandatory, but I see no reason why others should not exercise their right to avoid the unvaccinated. Others have rights to avoid those who knowingly reject the opportunity to minimize their risk of infection.
Ian wrote: "Beau, we know the unvaccinated pass the virus on. If they didn't, we could not have this pandemic. Just what the Ro value is for them is unclear because there are some who don't pass it on and othe..."
I've left this thread, Ian.
I've left this thread, Ian.
I guess if a vaccinated person needs to avoid anything, s/he doesn’t feel protected enough 🥸
J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "So I will say it again. If you do not want to take the shot. DON'T. However, you do not get to be a public health hazard either, so stay inside the ..."What part of 745,000 dead do you not get? This is in 18 months. We have only the Civil War before this becomes the biggest killer of Americans EVER. All in 18 months. If the trend continues at 2,000 deaths a day, we will surpass the Civil War before Christmas. You tell me about the butcher's bill, maybe you should check you own tally sheet.
BTW, if the seasonal flu killed like this, there would absolutely be an outcry demanding the flu shot.
BTW, the flu shots are dirt cheap and many places they are free.
If anyone is so against the vaccine, then why have them at all?
Adrian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I am going to say it again, until the politicians have exactly the same coverage as every American, I want no part of it."That's our system. The politicians have the same basic..."
It is not ours. So if it ever becomes ours, I will look at it then.
J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "It would be logical to have widespread flu shots as well. As an aside, like Papa, I had mine earlier in the year (we are 6 months out of phase with diseases that strike in winter.)"Bu..."
There is a far cry from a Pandemic to seasonal flu. BTW, if the seasonal flu started killing in the numbers of COVID, the answer will be yes.
We've already established the ends of your spectrum. Now, we're figuring out where the line in the middle sits. Exactly when does the number of corpses outweigh the rights of our neighbors? And by transitive property, when do they get to lock us up for not doing what they say?
Beau wrote: " Ian, why are you unquestioningly stating that the unvaccinated are the ones keeping the R number above one?..."I am not sure if you are pulling our leg or losing it. If the unvaccinated did not keep R above 1, how do you think the Pandemic started and spread BEFORE there was a vaccine?
Every vaccine has knocked out disease, unless the vaccine does not work. That has happened in the past with a flu a couple of years ago. But saying this vaccine does not work when all of the data available show other wise is bordering on conspiracy.
Beau wrote: "Be careful who you choose as your bedfellows. Consider their views on other topics. They are not your natural allies. .."If you think I am anything other than I am my own man, then you really do not understand anything about me. I will agree or disagree with anyone on any subject at any time. Unlike many, I do not follow any one political doctrine. If one chooses not to agree with me on subject Y because I believe something different than them on subject X, that is their failure.
J. wrote: "We've already established the ends of your spectrum. Now, we're figuring out where the line in the middle sits. Exactly when does the number of corpses outweigh the rights of our neighbors? And by ..."I think I have made it plainly clear where I stand. Why do you think it is OK the unvaccinated get to run around and spread this disease? You are a conservative guy, what will you think when this gets to the Supreme Court and it becomes a slam dunk 9-0 against the anti-vaxxers?
BTW,
At its height, Polio killed no more than 3200 Americans every year and that was considered a scourge. That took a vaccine and it was erdicated by 1979 in the United States.
Here's a good example of mentality differences between Canada and the U.S. I talked to a friend today who had planned a visit to his cousins in Canada. After finding out how complicated the process is, how many Covid hoops there are to jump through to get into Canada, he decided not to go. He feared that he would get to the border and not have all the paperwork and tests required. He was very frustrated, as people crossing our southern border have no Covid requirements for tests or shots. Canada is protecting itself, which seems a logical policy; the U.S. is not. What do you think?
Scout, you may be interested to know that in the summer of 1967 I crossed from Canada to do some US sightseeing, and at Sand Point, Idaho, I was taken into this little shed and made to fill out simply enormous forms, in pentiplicate, and no carbon paper was allowed. All this even though I had a multiple entry visa.
Papaphilly wrote: "...If you think I am anything other than I am my own man, then you really do not understand anything about me. I will agree or disagree with anyone on any subject at any time. Unlike many, I do not follow any one political doctrine. If one chooses not to agree with me on subject Y because I believe something different than them on subject X, that is their failure...."Personally, I think it's good to have both you and Beau, arguing for diametrically opposite positions and others in between, arguing for theirs - gives us all the fullest spectrum
Papaphilly, I'm most certainly not pulling your leg.
I'd like to emphasise that what I'm going to say only relates to the covid debate and no other topic.
We might be at opposite ends of this argument but we also have a big mentality difference. I listen and you don't.
I always read and digest your posts. I've even acknowledged that some of them have influenced me and modified my opinions.
You, on the other hand, keep regurgitating the same arguments as if nothing had already been said to counter them. Look back at your last set of posts and then at the arguments put to you the day before and you'll see what I mean.
On your argument about the R number and spread of covid before the vaccines, it's based on the false assumptions that the vaccines prevent transmission and that the R number remains constant. Besides,
as viruses like this do not retain their lethality for an indefinite period because of herd immunity, there will be a point when it becomes irrelevant anyway.
I'd like to emphasise that what I'm going to say only relates to the covid debate and no other topic.
We might be at opposite ends of this argument but we also have a big mentality difference. I listen and you don't.
I always read and digest your posts. I've even acknowledged that some of them have influenced me and modified my opinions.
You, on the other hand, keep regurgitating the same arguments as if nothing had already been said to counter them. Look back at your last set of posts and then at the arguments put to you the day before and you'll see what I mean.
On your argument about the R number and spread of covid before the vaccines, it's based on the false assumptions that the vaccines prevent transmission and that the R number remains constant. Besides,
as viruses like this do not retain their lethality for an indefinite period because of herd immunity, there will be a point when it becomes irrelevant anyway.
Beau, the medical evidence is that vaccines do greatly reduce transmission and they do it by reducing the viral load,. As an example, a vaccinated person from Australia brought the virus to Wellington, over a weekend came into moderately close contact with at least 2500 people in enclosed spaces, and nobody else contracted it. There is other evidence to support that it reduces transmission probability, and viral load. The Lancet article you gave showed the reduction iks not total, BUT it was a study on selected homes where the virus was spread to others in the house. Obviously, it people are locked in together for a long time, prolonged exposure tp a low viral load can give an infection.I have no idea where you got the idea that anyone thinks Ro remains constant.
Viruses like this do retain infectivity. There are three corona viruses that cause the common cold and I haven't noticed too many people having permanent immunity although in fairness there are also rhinoviruses. Herd immunity for this virus probably requires at least 95% to be vaccinated or contract it within a three month period.
Ian, I respect your scientific expertise and am really grateful to have encountered you on here. However, you seem to suffer with the same problem as Papaphilly - you don't listen to other arguments on covid.
You've already told me about the Wellington case and I agree with you that there are plenty of studies showing that the vaccines dramatically reduce transmission. But if you think that those saying the opposite are limited to the household study, you need to pay more attention. Even our own covid cultist Prime Minister would tell you that.
Honestly, I'm sat at home just shaking my head in disbelief at you and Papaphilly on this. You are two incredibly intelligent, open minded blokes but you both seem to have a mental block on this topic.
I don't think either of you are the type to be driven mad by irrational fear and I don't think either of you want to destroy your own societies. But what you both are is bloody stubborn. Come on, think back over this last year and a bit of debate. You know I'm on the money with what's been going on.
You've already told me about the Wellington case and I agree with you that there are plenty of studies showing that the vaccines dramatically reduce transmission. But if you think that those saying the opposite are limited to the household study, you need to pay more attention. Even our own covid cultist Prime Minister would tell you that.
Honestly, I'm sat at home just shaking my head in disbelief at you and Papaphilly on this. You are two incredibly intelligent, open minded blokes but you both seem to have a mental block on this topic.
I don't think either of you are the type to be driven mad by irrational fear and I don't think either of you want to destroy your own societies. But what you both are is bloody stubborn. Come on, think back over this last year and a bit of debate. You know I'm on the money with what's been going on.
Ian and Papaphilly, this argument has gone on long enough. I cannot bear being at odds with you any more. I challenge you both to a showdown on the covid thread next week. Think of it as our High Noon and an end to our disagreements.
One post each, entitled 'Case Summary', on why you believe goverments have been right to impose the measures we've seen over the last 18 months. I will oppose your stance in one post. As we can't all post at exactly the same time, no right to reply. Deadline for submissions: 12pm next Saturday.
Then, if the moderators agree, all group members have 1 week to vote for who they believe is right. None of us are allowed to question the voters or hold their vote against them in any way. Voter intimidation will not be tolerated.
The member with the most votes is declared the person with the best understanding of this topic and all 3 of us must publicly acknowledge that.
Do you accept my challenge?
One post each, entitled 'Case Summary', on why you believe goverments have been right to impose the measures we've seen over the last 18 months. I will oppose your stance in one post. As we can't all post at exactly the same time, no right to reply. Deadline for submissions: 12pm next Saturday.
Then, if the moderators agree, all group members have 1 week to vote for who they believe is right. None of us are allowed to question the voters or hold their vote against them in any way. Voter intimidation will not be tolerated.
The member with the most votes is declared the person with the best understanding of this topic and all 3 of us must publicly acknowledge that.
Do you accept my challenge?
Sounds interesting and we can open a poll after the summations and use this excellent function on our dashboard :)A few suggestions, if I may:
- Lets have corona related discussions in one, corona-dedicated thread though, no need to spread it over a few;
- If more participants would want to share their input, why not?
- Not sure the theme is formulated sufficiently: maybe Papa would want more measures and more enforcement and thus the government is wrong in not imposing them and maybe Ian is unhappy with his government for slow rollout of vaccines, etc.. I'm kinda under impression - nobody's happy with the government, but for different reasons... Maybe specific items: like lockdowns, masks, etc, or more general - about what a proper response on the part of the authorities should have been? But up to you, of course, I'm off to watch football :)
Beau wrote: "Ian and Papaphilly, this argument has gone on long enough. I cannot bear being at odds with you any more. I challenge you both to a showdown on the covid thread next week. Think of it as our High N..."Is popcorn provided?
Papaphilly wrote: "...You are a conservative guy..."Yes, I am. Which means that I know people to be panicky, wrathful animals who never consider the price of our fear and anger until after we have visited them upon ourselves.
In my lifetime, I have witnessed our government rationalize and occasionally apologize for the horrors which it commits in our names. So I know it to not be benevolent. And I have watched as our government has increasingly encroached upon our liberties and privacy. So I know it to be aggressive. Now I see scared, angry people asking for an aggressive government, with a history of horrors, to strip the rights from a part of our own.
If you get your wish, and all of the evil unvaccinated people are locked away where they can't harm you or yours, what makes you think that you won't be next? Why won't the politicians move the goalposts past your limits? If you do find yourself taking a stand, who will stand with you as you're fired and stripped of your rights?
Yes, I am a "conservative guy". That's why I know that I cannot chain others without binding myself.
Beau, I have no problem with the challenge, however, I suggest a couple or so conditions.The first is it is on a nominated post. The moderators can nominate which one. "Coronavirus" may be the best, or maybe the moderators might start a new separate post for it.
Second, if there is a time deadline, we nominate a time zone. I don't care what that is - GMT would be fine.
Third, the posts are blind to each other. That is, we submit to a moderator, then all are posted at the same time. The reason for this is we don't want someone responding to what the first one in posted because first one has no right of reply.
So, Beau, accept my conditions?
J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "...You are a conservative guy..."
Yes, I am. Which means that I know people to be panicky, wrathful animals who never consider the price of our fear and anger until after we hav..."
What an incredibly powerful and eloquent post.
Yes, I am. Which means that I know people to be panicky, wrathful animals who never consider the price of our fear and anger until after we hav..."
What an incredibly powerful and eloquent post.
Ian wrote: "Beau, I have no problem with the challenge, however, I suggest a couple or so conditions.The first is it is on a nominated post. The moderators can nominate which one. "Coronavirus" may be the be..."
Yay, intellectual blood sports.
I would suggest that the initial posts would be simultaneously released by a mod, but subsequent responses would be posted by the originators, in an agreed order, with a time limit to prevent one debater from trying to kill the debate by dragging their feet.
At an agreed time the thread may be opened to all members, with the stipulation that non-debaters limit their posts to singular questions.
Both before and after the debate, member polls could be opened to allow the debaters to evaluate their performance.
Out of respect for this thread and Nik's request as a moderator, I promise this is my final covid post outside the covid thread.
Ian, let nobody claim that you're not a man of action, in the very same vein as Sir Richard Hadlee. I accept all of your conditions.
Can I respectfully suggest the following motion, purely so we can cover all aspects of the debate without excluding any of our views:
This house believes that governments' response to covid have been disproportionately draconian. I support the motion, while you and Papaphilly (if he wants in) oppose it. What do you think?
I've just reread my earlier post and want to clear something important up. I am in no way suggesting that Ian, Papaphilly or I are the most knowledgeable group member on covid. Philip, Lena, Nik, Graeme, J and Scout have been prolific posters too. One of them may well know the most. Equally, one of the less prolific posters or, of course, somebody who hasn't posted at all, may be the resident expert.
The reason I've challenged Ian and Papaphilly is that they are the polar opposite end of the spectrum to me on this important subject. They are the unacceptable face of covidism. Once the showdown is over, one of us has to eat humble pie, accept that they are wrong and all animosity is ended.
If Philip or anyone else requires popcorn, feel free to privately message me and I'll be happy to discuss how I can help you.
Ian, let nobody claim that you're not a man of action, in the very same vein as Sir Richard Hadlee. I accept all of your conditions.
Can I respectfully suggest the following motion, purely so we can cover all aspects of the debate without excluding any of our views:
This house believes that governments' response to covid have been disproportionately draconian. I support the motion, while you and Papaphilly (if he wants in) oppose it. What do you think?
I've just reread my earlier post and want to clear something important up. I am in no way suggesting that Ian, Papaphilly or I are the most knowledgeable group member on covid. Philip, Lena, Nik, Graeme, J and Scout have been prolific posters too. One of them may well know the most. Equally, one of the less prolific posters or, of course, somebody who hasn't posted at all, may be the resident expert.
The reason I've challenged Ian and Papaphilly is that they are the polar opposite end of the spectrum to me on this important subject. They are the unacceptable face of covidism. Once the showdown is over, one of us has to eat humble pie, accept that they are wrong and all animosity is ended.
If Philip or anyone else requires popcorn, feel free to privately message me and I'll be happy to discuss how I can help you.
As with war, after a contentious, occasionally heated, debate is finally ended, there are no winners and no losers. There are only survivors.
Jim wrote: "As with war, after a contentious, occasionally heated, debate is finally ended, there no winners and no losers. There are only survivors."
Brilliantly put, true, and from a man who knows.
Brilliantly put, true, and from a man who knows.
Cool, looks like t&c are being thrashed out and it spurs interest of other members. I’ll play along: whoever wants to have a dog 🐕 in the fight is welcome to send me a private message here on GR during the next week and I’ll air them all simultaneously next Sat, 6th of Nov at around 15:00 - 16:00 gmt on a new dedicated thread. Now the question is whether afterwards you’d like to have an opportunity or two to relate to what other contenders write, like J. suggested, or go straight to the polls, which we can open shortly after the debate is over? And/or whether we’d have questions from members as another subroutine?
Nik, I believe in democracy and am presenting an open, honest case. I am happy to submit to whatever group members want and would be delighted to answer questions, to the best of my ability, from everyone, and in any format. I accept any time frame you decide upon on as long as it doesn't interfere with my unpaid work helping orphaned children and sick animals to live as happy and fulfilling lives as possible.
Great, then after the initial summaries, we’ll have three days in case any of the contenders would like to react to opponent’s statement with 1 post, then a couple of days for members’ questions - one each, which you’ll have three more days to cover and then voting. Michael Buffer’s phone probably blocked a call from an unknown number, so I’ll step in instead to announce 📣 :
Let’s get ready to rrrruuuuummmmbbblllleee!
Looking forward to your summaries sent privately until next Sat.
Beau wrote: "Papaphilly, I'm most certainly not pulling your leg.I'd like to emphasise that what I'm going to say only relates to the covid debate and no other topic.
We might be at opposite ends of this arg..."
Well actually your argument has not changed one iota. As for irrelevance, I agree, at some point it will not matter. Now tell me how many dead that can be prevented is acceptable for you? Maybe if Great Britain or any other country had the death numbers the United States has, it would be different.
As for not listening, you are wrong. I always listen, it just so happens I reject your argument. The numbers do not lie. Depending on which numbers one uses, Either COVID is the highest killer of Americans in history or it is number two and closing in on number one. For me I use the extreme high estimate for Civil War dead at 850,000. Other numbers are 750,000 and the traditional number is 620,000 dead.
What I have found is that there is always a reason someone cannot have the vaccine and it is not a good reason. The only reason I accept is a medical reason one cannot have the shot.
If you do not want the shot, do not take it. But, then stay in the house.
Beau wrote: "Ian and Papaphilly, this argument has gone on long enough. I cannot bear being at odds with you any more. I challenge you both to a showdown on the covid thread next week. Think of it as our High N..."Why?
Do you really think anything I am going to say is going to change your mind? I have walked my walk and I am going for the third shot within a week or so. I am protected from those that will not get the shot and are spreading it.
I am not going to debate because there is no debate to be had.
Either you get the shot or not. If you do not, at some pint you will get the virus. The odds are too great against you not to at this point. If you get it nothing will happen or something will. If something happens it could kill you or hurt you badly and leave you crippled. That is happening and no one is talking about it because of the death rates.
I am not angry at you. I cannot make you get the shot. I see someone playing with Darwin. I truly hope you do not win an award, but I cannot prevent you from playing the game.
Sure, you are unlikely to convince each other, but the better part would be to present each case and then put it to voting and see how popular support divides. Ian & Beau - game. Anyone else?
J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "...You are a conservative guy..."Yes, I am. Which means that I know people to be panicky, wrathful animals who never consider the price of our fear and anger until after we hav..."
What a great statement. Except Freedom is not absolute and has never been absolute even in our country. What I find binding is the cloaking oneself in ignorance and spreading it to others.
How many deaths are acceptable to you?
Why do you think it is OK that disease can be spread? Especially when it can be prevented?
I am going to ask you again what are you going to say when the Supreme Court rules against the anti-vaxxers? This is a six to three conservative court and it will go at least 6-3 and my guess it will be 9-0 with a couple of concurring opinions on religious exemptions.
You speak of freedom, yet seem to fail to understand the freedom from spreading disease. Our country has long history of requiring vaccines with the courts firmly on the vaccine side. This is not new. Why should this vaccine be different?
I do not think those the refuse the vaccine are evil. I think they are stupid and ignorant. They wrap themselves in the flag and talk about their rights. It does not make them any less stupid or ignorant. I find their stand Anti-American. What sacrifice will they make? They are asking others to sacrifices for them.
As for understanding freedom, I grew up in Valley Forge. Trust me, it is part of our DNA.
My post about my friend trying to get into Canada has fallen by the wayside. I was looking forward to responses about the difficulty getting into Canada vs. the ease with which people cross our open southern border. I thought it fit the thread, since it dealt with mentality differences. Maybe I should post it elsewhere?
Jim, I’ve just finished ‘A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court’, by Mark Twain. Thanks ever so much for recommending what is a superb book. You mentioned it on this thread and it was fitting to do so.
In some ways, it had a feel of Pickwick Papers, by Charles Dickens, and Don Quixote, by Cervantes, but it was also completely original. I found the storyline riveting, loved the humour and there’s plenty of thoughtful philosophical questions (including mentality differences) to chew over.
I can see why this book would particularly appeal to someone who values meritocracy, science and the power of reason, and it definitely made me question a few of my own beliefs. However, credit to MT, he didn’t fall into the trap of just laughing at the past; he found time to subtly but powerfully criticise the beliefs and values of his own era too.
Oh, one other thing – if I hadn’t known when it was written and who wrote it, I’d have had it down as being from the 1940s or 50s, not the 19thC. Perhaps MT was ahead of his time?
In some ways, it had a feel of Pickwick Papers, by Charles Dickens, and Don Quixote, by Cervantes, but it was also completely original. I found the storyline riveting, loved the humour and there’s plenty of thoughtful philosophical questions (including mentality differences) to chew over.
I can see why this book would particularly appeal to someone who values meritocracy, science and the power of reason, and it definitely made me question a few of my own beliefs. However, credit to MT, he didn’t fall into the trap of just laughing at the past; he found time to subtly but powerfully criticise the beliefs and values of his own era too.
Oh, one other thing – if I hadn’t known when it was written and who wrote it, I’d have had it down as being from the 1940s or 50s, not the 19thC. Perhaps MT was ahead of his time?
Papaphilly wrote: "I see someone playing with Darwin."
Yep, no problems with that. A 99.5%+ chance of success is good enough odds for me.
Darwin talked about survival of the fittest. A caring society recognises this can be cruel, so it protects those who are vulnerable. However, it should not equate to treating the fittest as if they are the vulnerable because that would result in a regressive society based upon a survival of the weakest. I wouldn't give humanity too long if it follows that path.
Yep, no problems with that. A 99.5%+ chance of success is good enough odds for me.
Darwin talked about survival of the fittest. A caring society recognises this can be cruel, so it protects those who are vulnerable. However, it should not equate to treating the fittest as if they are the vulnerable because that would result in a regressive society based upon a survival of the weakest. I wouldn't give humanity too long if it follows that path.
Scout wrote: "My post about my friend trying to get into Canada has fallen by the wayside. I was looking forward to responses about the difficulty getting into Canada vs. the ease with which people cross our ope..."The States and most countries protect themselves pretty diligently, but for the States it's just not everywhere .... Apparently the situ is very different if one arrives by air travel and another - if another just crosses from the South... An anomaly that's hard to understand why it is allowed to happen (if it does).
Seen those happy faces on TV of Australian airports opening up after a long while. Some families appeared separated for long months...
Beau, a correction. Darwinism is NOT survival of the fittest. It is survival of the adequate to reproduce.
Ian wrote: "Beau, a correction. Darwinism is NOT survival of the fittest. It is survival of the adequate to reproduce."No, reproduction of the fittest. Longevity only matters if it increases your reproduction. There are countless organisms with life cycles of a year or less.
J., I don't understand your point. What I wrote has nothing to do with longevity. It is simple mathematics. If your generation can reproduce the next generation in equal numbers or better the species will survive; if it cannot eventually it will die out. Like the Ro of a virus.
Ian wrote: "Beau, a correction. Darwinism is NOT survival of the fittest. It is survival of the adequate to reproduce."
Ian, you sent your snipers out on the covid thread and, as you will see, I opened fire on them with a gattling gun.
Now to you. Survival of the fittest was a term first coined here:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - The Original Classic Edition
The good members of this group are busy people and trust someone like you to tell the truth, not attempt to distort it. Now, retire to your bunker before I throw a grenade at you.
Ian, you sent your snipers out on the covid thread and, as you will see, I opened fire on them with a gattling gun.
Now to you. Survival of the fittest was a term first coined here:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - The Original Classic Edition
The good members of this group are busy people and trust someone like you to tell the truth, not attempt to distort it. Now, retire to your bunker before I throw a grenade at you.
Ian wrote: "J., I don't understand your point. What I wrote has nothing to do with longevity. It is simple mathematics. If your generation can reproduce the next generation in equal numbers or better the speci..."Survival without reproduction is a Darwinian failure. Conversely, an early death is only relevant if it hinders reproduction. Therefore saying "survival of the adequate to reproduce" is incorrect in that survival is irrelevant, only reproduction matters.
Sorry Ian and group, term first coined by Herbert Spencer but certainly associated with social Darwinism, as inferred by Papaphilly.
Papaphilly wrote: "How many deaths are acceptable to you?"I asked you that question about the flu. You still haven't answered.
Papaphilly wrote: "Why do you think it is OK that disease can be spread? Especially when it can be prevented?"
Death is part of the human condition. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol? Do you think that it's OK to let people die because of alcohol? Especially when it can be prevented? How about obesity? That's a massive killer. Imagine how many lives we could save by making people weigh in before eating out or buying groceries. Wouldn't it be immoral to not save them from themselves? Or do we own ourselves?
Papaphilly wrote: "I am going to ask you again what are you going to say when the Supreme Court rules against the anti-vaxxers? This is a six to three conservative court and it will go at least 6-3 and my guess it will be 9-0 with a couple of concurring opinions on religious exemptions."
What are you going to do when such a ruling gets used against you?
Papaphilly wrote: "You speak of freedom, yet seem to fail to understand the freedom from spreading disease. Our country has long history of requiring vaccines with the courts firmly on the vaccine side. This is not new. Why should this vaccine be different?"
It's a novel vaccine with ongoing questions about its ability to prevent transmission.
Papaphilly wrote: "I do not think those the refuse the vaccine are evil. I think they are stupid and ignorant. They wrap themselves in the flag and talk about their rights. It does not make them any less stupid or ignorant. I find their stand Anti-American. What sacrifice will they make? They are asking others to sacrifices for them."
You are promoting a plan to essentially place them under house arrest. That is treating them as criminals, hence evil.
Considering that vaccines are intended to protect the vaccinated, they are potentially sacrificing themselves.
On a final note, Beau is correct about vaccinations not ending lockdowns. As he pointed out, they've promised and moved the goalposts several times already. There is no reason to believe that they won't do it again and again and again...
Beau wrote: "Sorry Ian and group, term first coined by Herbert Spencer but certainly associated with social Darwinism, as inferred by Papaphilly."No as in Darwin awards. The tongue in cheek award is given to an individual that does something stupid to take themselves our of the gene pool either through death or sterilization, thus improving humanities gene pool.
The actual idea of survival of the fittest is about the organism that survives because they fit a given ecosphere the best both continuing to thrive and growing their numbers.
Of course reproduction matters. What on earth do you think "adequate to reproduce" means? It merely has to last long enough to replace itself and to do that it has to be adequate.Let me show an example. I once found an alga that seemed restricted to the North East face of greywacke rocks and it lived in a zone about four cm below low king tide, it extended down a further two cm, and it was a restricted to the North East part of one bay. That is the fittest for what? You find thirty or so different species of algae in one bay. Why is one not the fittest and overwhelms the rest?
The answer for these occurrences is that the various algae are adequate too find a way of reproducing themselves. There is nothing superior required.
Ian wrote: "Of course reproduction matters. What on earth do you think "adequate to reproduce" means? It merely has to last long enough to replace itself and to do that it has to be adequate.Let me show an e..."
Sometimes the fittest does overwhelm an ecosphere. You example may be in that stage of figuring who is best suited.
Ian wrote: "Let me show an example. I once found an alga that seemed restricted to the North East face of greywacke rocks and it lived in a zone about four cm below low king tide, it extended down a further two cm, and it was a restricted to the North East part of one bay. That is the fittest for what? You find thirty or so different species of algae in one bay. Why is one not the fittest and overwhelms the rest?"That's niche partitioning. Your particular alga may be the best adapted for the specific few centimeters in which it's found. The alga above may not deal with the salt water exposure in that band. And the alga below may not be able to handle being dry for that long. So your alga succeeds and reproduces in that one band where its competition gets wiped out.
One of the cooler niche partitions that I've seen is the lack of midsized carnivores in late mesozoic habitats. There are big hyper-predators and small predators, but no midsized predators. It would be like if in Africa we had meerkats and lions, but nothing between. The current thinking is that the midsized niche was occupied by sub-adults of the big predators. In short, midsized specie couldn't get a foothold because they would have to compete with half grown T. rexes.
You chose not to engage with me on the covid thread when I showed you UK Health Agency data suggesting that the vaccines may actually hobble the immune response on infection, so let’s provide you with some examples of vaccine ‘effectiveness’ in reducing transmission…
Writing in The Lancet, researchers from institutions including Imperial College London and the UK Health Security Agency find:
Fully vaccinated people are just as likely to pass virus on to those they share a home with
https://www.theguardian.com/world/202...
I completely understand why they would focus on people who share a home because it’s easier to collate the data. However, the home doesn’t include any magical properties not found in other confined spaces. In fact, if the vaccinated are equally likely to pass the disease on at home, they are equally likely to pass it on anywhere.
Also, here’s a Lancet Pre-Print. The study finds that Pfizer vaccine effectiveness wanes from 92% at day 15-30 to 47% at day 121-180, and from day 211 (7 months) onwards ‘no effectiveness could be detected’.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
The case for mandatory vaccination and vaccines passports is dead.
I’ll move back on to the covid thread to continue the fight against covid misinformation because it’s not fair of us to invade the space of people studying mentality differences.
On mentality differences, one of the many themes in ‘A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court’, by Mark Twain, is how sometimes those in power and their expert advisors continue to pursue policies that they know are wrong. Their reason for doing this is usually borne out of self-interest, and they get away with it by people just accepting it as the way it is. I do not accept any unjust manmade law because ‘it’s just the way it is’. Do you?