The coronavirus response seems somewhat suspicious.

[Holly-May Leslie]

I know the virus might be dangerous, but then it might not be. I know that the so called vaccine might actually be a vaccine, but then again it might not be. I know that the lockdowns might be happening just to prevent the spread of the virus, but then again they might not be. I basically have no idea what to believe here, but I do know that something about this whole fiasco seems very, very wrong. I do not doubt the existence of the virus. I have heard that there are medical tests verifying it's existence. I do however doubt that it is AS dangerous as it is made out to be, because, delving into the hypothetical's here, if it was I probably would have seen at least one of the numerous people I knew drop dead from it, and yet I have not. Like most viruses, it is probably a little bit dangerous, at least to the elderly, and especially to them because they are ridiculously frail. This response to it just seems silly though, because from what I have heard, it is terrible for the economy, terrible for travel, terrible for mental health, terrible for family violence rates, (After all, who wants to be stuck at home all day every day with their bratty annoying family members) and just stops people generally having worthwhile lives. I know for a fact that it is terrible for personal freedom. I personally was under the impression that violating somebodies freedom of movement, with the exception of stopping them from trespassing, was against some piece of legislation which said that everyone had the freedom of movement, and that this piece of legislation was valid in most countries. It appears that this piece of legislation, whatever it was, has been simply thrown away, and that does not bode well. That is dangerous. Which vital law will be thrown out next? Will this become a trend? It had better not. Anyway, it is clear that there is probably some truth in all of this hype about how dangerous coronavirus is, which is why I recommend that, instead of detaining everyone, perhaps illegally, the government warns everybody about the danger of the virus and allows them to take there own precautions, which would probably entail self isolation in many cases anyway. A vaccine might come into play also, but not this freaky new one which from what I have heard from people who have gotten it doesn't even work properly. I don't know, maybe it does work properly. Maybe they just say it doesn't in a desparate bid to talk me down when I have backed them into a metaphorical corner by saying that if the vaccine works so well then those who get it are safe from those who don't. I usually hear the claim that the vaccine doesn't work very well as a response to this.

However, delving into the hypothetical here yet again, wouldn't it just be easier to directly inject the spike protien of the virus into the person than to inject mRNA enclosed in lipid capsules into the body to be absorbed by the body cells, so that the mRNA could then trigger the cells to produce the spike protein? I have been told that the coronavirus vaccine works like so. It seems unnecessarily and suspiciously complicated. It seems like gene therapy. I can see why so many conspiracy theorists might think that it IS gene therapy. I get the case that the vaccine only works like this so that the individual doesn't have to be directly exposed to the coronavirus, which would probably kill them if that happened, but it still doesn't make much sense for a vaccine to work exactly like this. Also, the claim that the vaccine doesn't work is not a defense to my implication that one shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others, despite what the people who try to use this claim as a defense to said implication may think. That is because, the vaccinated are not forced to interact with the unvaccinated, in any case. Stores can ban the unvaccinated if they want. The vaccinated can avoid the stores where the unvaccinated are NOT banned if they want. An unvaccinated person might, in some special case or other, end up harassing a vaccinated person. Following them around and what not. However, as far as I am aware, harassment is a punishable crime anyway, so the police can deal with that. I have also heard a rather retarded implication that people should get vaccinated to protect others because there is not enough of the virus to go around. This is wrong because in such a case it would be much safer for others for them to be given your dose instead. I'm also pretty sure that there is more than enough of the vaccine to go around.

Anyway, in summary it seems like people are being forced into a whole lot of things using this fiasco as a very poor excuse. Being locked up at home, having to get governmental permission to travel, having to get the vaccine, OR ELSE, etc. That is why it makes me go hmmmm.

 

[billvon]

I know the virus might be dangerous, but then it might not be.

5.2 million dead COVID victims might disagree. (Or more accurately, their families might disagree.)

I know that the so called vaccine might actually be a vaccine, but then again it might not be.

Again, the people surviving due to the vaccine are going to disagree with that.

I basically have no idea what to believe here, but I do know that something about this whole fiasco seems very, very wrong.

Why? How is this different from the last deadly worldwide pandemic that you experienced?

Like most viruses, it is probably a little bit dangerous, at least to the elderly, and especially to them because they are ridiculously frail.

It killed a good friend of mine. He was an active skydiver and SCUBA diver; the opposite of ridiculously frail.

This response to it just seems silly though, because from what I have heard, it is terrible for the economy, terrible for travel, terrible for mental health, terrible for family violence rates

It is all that. We are doing it because having millions of dead Americans is even worse.

World War II was terrible for the people living in the US - rationing, drafts, dead family members etc etc. But World War II killed less than half the Americans that COVID has.

The response to 9/11 crippled our economy - and that was for only 3000 dead Americans. As of today there are 800,000 dead Americans due to COVID.

(After all, who wants to be stuck at home all day every day with their bratty annoying family members)

They would probably be more OK with that then watching those annoying family members die alone in an ICU over a Facetime link.

I personally was under the impression that violating somebodies freedom of movement, with the exception of stopping them from trespassing, was against some piece of legislation which said that everyone had the freedom of movement, and that this piece of legislation was valid in most countries.

No one has stopped your freedom of movement. You can still walk or drive anywhere you like.

It appears that this piece of legislation, whatever it was, has been simply thrown away, and that does not bode well. That is dangerous.

OK. Which law is it? If it is so critical and vital to freedom, it must be right at your fingertips.

However, delving into the hypothetical here yet again, wouldn't it just be easier to directly inject the spike protien of the virus into the person than to inject mRNA enclosed in lipid capsules into the body to be absorbed by the body cells, so that the mRNA could then trigger the cells to produce the spike protein?

The spike protein does not last very long ex vivo. It would decay before your immune system could recognize it.

It seems like gene therapy.

It may seem like it. But it's actually in reality not gene therapy.

But in any case if you don't like mRNA vaccines, get the J+J. It's an adenovirus vector vaccine and does not use mRNA.

That is because, the vaccinated are not forced to interact with the unvaccinated, in any case.

They are.

If you are living in a retirement home, you can't avoid the unvaccinated janitor or laundry worker. And if you need assistance getting around or getting dressed, you cannot avoid the unvaccinated health care worker who is helping you.

If you get pulled over, you cannot avoid the unvaccinated cop. If you have to renew your driver's license, you cannot avoid the unvaccinated DMV worker.

I have also heard a rather retarded implication that people should get vaccinated to protect others because there is not enough of the virus to go around.

I have never heard that. Can you point to some example of someone saying that? That sounds like a made up meme.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

5.2 million dead COVID victims might disagree. (Or more accurately, their families might disagree.)

Again, the people surviving due to the vaccine are going to disagree with that.

Why? How is this different from the last deadly worldwide pandemic that you experienced?

It killed a good friend of mine. He was an active skydiver and SCUBA diver; the opposite of ridiculously frail.

It is all that. We are doing it because having millions of dead Americans is even worse.

World War II was terrible for the people living in the US - rationing, drafts, dead family members etc etc. But World War II killed less than half the Americans that COVID has.

The response to 9/11 crippled our economy - and that was for only 3000 dead Americans. As of today there are 800,000 dead Americans due to COVID.

They would probably be more OK with that then watching those annoying family members die alone in an ICU over a Facetime link.

No one has stopped your freedom of movement. You can still walk or drive anywhere you like.

OK. Which law is it? If it is so critical and vital to freedom, it must be right at your fingertips.

The spike protein does not last very long ex vivo. It would decay before your immune system could recognize it.

It may seem like it. But it's actually in reality not gene therapy.

But in any case if you don't like mRNA vaccines, get the J+J. It's an adenovirus vector vaccine and does not use mRNA.

They are.

If you are living in a retirement home, you can't avoid the unvaccinated janitor or laundry worker. And if you need assistance getting around or getting dressed, you cannot avoid the unvaccinated health care worker who is helping you.

If you get pulled over, you cannot avoid the unvaccinated cop. If you have to renew your driver's license, you cannot avoid the unvaccinated DMV worker.

I have never heard that. Can you point to some example of someone saying that? That sounds like a made up meme.

The people working in roles with people who are forced to interact with them are forced to get the vaccine, or be fired, so my claim stands. Also, I was under the impression that lockdown meant not being allowed to leave one's house. Also, you imply a dilemma with this statement: We are doing it because having millions of dead Americans is even worse. That dilemma is: lockdown or millions of dead american's. Lockdown is not required to stop death from the virus as far as I am aware. I mean, it works to do so obviously, but it would be better to just let people take their own precautions. If there are other vaccine's which work then great. I still don't believe the hype about this though. I would rather take my chances with the virus, because I have not seen it take anybody yet, so I doubt it is so bad. Sorry about your friend. Are you sure it was the virus that took him? I have not experienced a pandemic before this. Obviously. But then you were just asking that to prove a point by implying that I am unnacustomed to my predicament. I agree with everything else you just mentioned. I don't know what the piece of legislation is. I have been trying to find out but I suck at getting the answers which I am looking for from the internet.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

I have never heard that. Can you point to some example of someone saying that? That sounds like a made up meme.

I meant to write vaccine instead of virus. Otherwise it does sound like a made up meme.

 

[Michael 345]

allows them to take there own precautions, which would probably entail self isolation in many cases anyway

Not practical BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO ARE INFECTED BUT NOT AFFECTED deciding NOT to isolate and risking the lives of those frail elderly and other compromised persons

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I basically have no idea what to believe here, but I do know that something about this whole fiasco seems very, very wrong.

using your critical analytical thinking skills

what is it that makes you feel something is "wrong"
&
what is the "Wrong part/thing"



i am reading & replying as i go so i dont forget or miss a point

I do however doubt that it is AS dangerous as it is made out to be, because, delving into the hypothetical's here, if it was I probably would have seen at least one of the numerous people I knew drop dead from it, and yet I have not.

how many people have you seen drop dead in front of you from a
1 heart attack
2 being shot dead
3 hit & killed by a vehicle
4 killed right in front of you from a road accident
5 suicide
6 cancer
right in front of you ...

how many of each ?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

terrible for family violence rates

poor education
poor intellect
poor emotional intelligence
poor mental health support services
poor money people

the violence was always there
just waiting for something to light the fuse

why are they not seeking professional therapy before they become violent ?

perspective
subjectivity
(almost a different subject)

A vaccine might come into play also, but not this freaky new one which from what I have heard from people who have gotten it doesn't even work properly.

getting super technical here
its very technical stuff

which vaccine are you talking about ?

I usually hear the claim that the vaccine doesn't work very well as a response to this.

'it's the response that's not right
something is just not right
give me all your power & belief'

sewing the seeds of mistrust to create a devote cult member


what is a good way to respond to being dead ?
so who is it that is making this claim that their own privilege should be worth more than other peoples lives ?
this is called political spin for propaganda to create false ideologies inside a premise of bias
very much cult programming
you should avoid such people producing & repeating this if you value scientific independent thinking & liberal freedoms.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

wouldn't it just be easier to directly inject the spike protien of the virus into the person than to inject mRNA enclosed in lipid capsules into the body to be absorbed by the body cells, so that the mRNA could then trigger the cells to produce the spike protein?

this is probably a separate thread
around vaccine science & genetic engineering
more soo genetic engineering & micro biology

a blase' walk through the daisy's on this one wont do you any credit in the intellectual accumulation of science facts
it will just throw smoke mirrors & mud into your view screen(while driving at speed, possibly at night)

how the change is done is specific
there are boundary's for its ability to do its job
like running on a slippery track
you can only take the corners at certain speeds if you want to finish the race
and the key is
you need to finish the race or you die

you need the vaccine to work
or you die

Also, the claim that the vaccine doesn't work is not a defense to my implication that one shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others, despite what the people who try to use this claim as a defense to said implication may think.

here you are using their crack pot cult programming thinking model
to falsely balance un-balanced concepts

1 no one is being forced to get vaccinated
like no one is forced to buy a gun
2 vaccinating for the sake of herd immunity is equal to vaccinating to remain healthy for your children & dependents
(herd immunity is to preserve your own personal community where you live & to protect your family so the selfish drive of self serving to the human psyche is very similar however this is twisted a lot in user pays society because money buys morals & food & health care)

when you add in the risk factor to compare it against the result

what are the risks ?

"real" risk analysis requires cold hearted critical thinking
no shortage of cold hearted people
no shortage of selfish uncaring people
but a massive shortage in people capable of applying critical thinking without being a groupy or having massive bias.

 

[exchemist]

I know the virus might be dangerous, but then it might not be. I know that the so called vaccine might actually be a vaccine, but then again it might not be. I know that the lockdowns might be happening just to prevent the spread of the virus, but then again they might not be. I basically have no idea what to believe here, but I do know that something about this whole fiasco seems very, very wrong. I do not doubt the existence of the virus. I have heard that there are medical tests verifying it's existence. I do however doubt that it is AS dangerous as it is made out to be, because, delving into the hypothetical's here, if it was I probably would have seen at least one of the numerous people I knew drop dead from it, and yet I have not. Like most viruses, it is probably a little bit dangerous, at least to the elderly, and especially to them because they are ridiculously frail. This response to it just seems silly though, because from what I have heard, it is terrible for the economy, terrible for travel, terrible for mental health, terrible for family violence rates, (After all, who wants to be stuck at home all day every day with their bratty annoying family members) and just stops people generally having worthwhile lives. I know for a fact that it is terrible for personal freedom. I personally was under the impression that violating somebodies freedom of movement, with the exception of stopping them from trespassing, was against some piece of legislation which said that everyone had the freedom of movement, and that this piece of legislation was valid in most countries. It appears that this piece of legislation, whatever it was, has been simply thrown away, and that does not bode well. That is dangerous. Which vital law will be thrown out next? Will this become a trend? It had better not. Anyway, it is clear that there is probably some truth in all of this hype about how dangerous coronavirus is, which is why I recommend that, instead of detaining everyone, perhaps illegally, the government warns everybody about the danger of the virus and allows them to take there own precautions, which would probably entail self isolation in many cases anyway. A vaccine might come into play also, but not this freaky new one which from what I have heard from people who have gotten it doesn't even work properly. I don't know, maybe it does work properly. Maybe they just say it doesn't in a desparate bid to talk me down when I have backed them into a metaphorical corner by saying that if the vaccine works so well then those who get it are safe from those who don't. I usually hear the claim that the vaccine doesn't work very well as a response to this.

However, delving into the hypothetical here yet again, wouldn't it just be easier to directly inject the spike protien of the virus into the person than to inject mRNA enclosed in lipid capsules into the body to be absorbed by the body cells, so that the mRNA could then trigger the cells to produce the spike protein? I have been told that the coronavirus vaccine works like so. It seems unnecessarily and suspiciously complicated. It seems like gene therapy. I can see why so many conspiracy theorists might think that it IS gene therapy. I get the case that the vaccine only works like this so that the individual doesn't have to be directly exposed to the coronavirus, which would probably kill them if that happened, but it still doesn't make much sense for a vaccine to work exactly like this. Also, the claim that the vaccine doesn't work is not a defense to my implication that one shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others, despite what the people who try to use this claim as a defense to said implication may think. That is because, the vaccinated are not forced to interact with the unvaccinated, in any case. Stores can ban the unvaccinated if they want. The vaccinated can avoid the stores where the unvaccinated are NOT banned if they want. An unvaccinated person might, in some special case or other, end up harassing a vaccinated person. Following them around and what not. However, as far as I am aware, harassment is a punishable crime anyway, so the police can deal with that. I have also heard a rather retarded implication that people should get vaccinated to protect others because there is not enough of the virus to go around. This is wrong because in such a case it would be much safer for others for them to be given your dose instead. I'm also pretty sure that there is more than enough of the vaccine to go around.

Anyway, in summary it seems like people are being forced into a whole lot of things using this fiasco as a very poor excuse. Being locked up at home, having to get governmental permission to travel, having to get the vaccine, OR ELSE, etc. That is why it makes me go hmmmm.

Aha. I was wondering when you would run up the Jolly Roger.

 

[Bells]

I know the virus might be dangerous, but then it might not be.

It's killed close to 5.2 million people.

What part of that screams 'might not be' to you?

I know that the so called vaccine might actually be a vaccine, but then again it might not be.

Then what do you think it is?

I know that the lockdowns might be happening just to prevent the spread of the virus, but then again they might not be.

It does stop the spread if done correctly.

For someone claiming to know things, you don't seem to know that much.

I basically have no idea what to believe here, but I do know that something about this whole fiasco seems very, very wrong.

What is wrong is this constant stream of people who are deniers of what is verifiably true.

I do not doubt the existence of the virus. I have heard that there are medical tests verifying it's existence.

Well that's a relief..

I do however doubt that it is AS dangerous as it is made out to be, because, delving into the hypothetical's here, if it was I probably would have seen at least one of the numerous people I knew drop dead from it, and yet I have not.

I would say that is a good thing!

5.2 million dead since it all began. That we know of. Millions of people have lost people they know. Just because you aren't one of them (and you should be thankful for this), does not mean it is not dangerous.

Like most viruses, it is probably a little bit dangerous, at least to the elderly, and especially to them because they are ridiculously frail.

This virus is dangerous for everyone. Just because not everyone gets very sick or dies from it, does not make it less dangerous. Even a mild case can have long lasting effects on the body. You don't have to be "dangerously frail" to die or suffer long term or even permanent effects from it.

This response to it just seems silly though, because from what I have heard, it is terrible for the economy, terrible for travel, terrible for mental health, terrible for family violence rates, (After all, who wants to be stuck at home all day every day with their bratty annoying family members) and just stops people generally having worthwhile lives.

Dead people is even worse for the economy, travel, mental health (of relatives and friends of the deceased), etc..

I mean, I don't know if you've heard, but dead people generally can't participate in the economy or travel.

I know for a fact that it is terrible for personal freedom.

So is dying and/or suffering long COVID... https://www.health.gov.au/sites/def...vaccination-long-term-effects-of-covid-19.pdf

I personally was under the impression that violating somebodies freedom of movement, with the exception of stopping them from trespassing, was against some piece of legislation which said that everyone had the freedom of movement, and that this piece of legislation was valid in most countries.

What legislation are you talking about?

And I don't know if you've heard, but during certain periods, such as in times of war, natural disasters, pandemics, etc, Governments around the world can enact laws or establish policies or rules to protect citizens - such as enacting stay at home orders or lockdowns in the case of a pandemic. Or say, evacuation orders in a natural disaster. That's just a couple of examples.

It appears that this piece of legislation, whatever it was, has been simply thrown away, and that does not bode well.

You are making zero sense.

What legislation are you talking about?

Which vital law will be thrown out next?

You still haven't said what initial law you were talking about...

Anyway, it is clear that there is probably some truth in all of this hype about how dangerous coronavirus is, which is why I recommend that, instead of detaining everyone, perhaps illegally, the government warns everybody about the danger of the virus and allows them to take there own precautions, which would probably entail self isolation in many cases anyway.

Who is being detained?

What are you talking about?

A vaccine might come into play also, but not this freaky new one which from what I have heard from people who have gotten it doesn't even work properly. I don't know, maybe it does work properly.

The vaccine is quite effective against the current strain.

Perhaps you should do your own research and steer clear of right wing nut jobs or those who vote for the likes of Trump for information.

Maybe they just say it doesn't in a desparate bid to talk me down when I have backed them into a metaphorical corner by saying that if the vaccine works so well then those who get it are safe from those who don't. I usually hear the claim that the vaccine doesn't work very well as a response to this.

I'm honestly finding it hard to believe you could back anyone into a corner at this point in time.

However, delving into the hypothetical here yet again,

Please no...!

wouldn't it just be easier to directly inject the spike protien of the virus into the person than to inject mRNA enclosed in lipid capsules into the body to be absorbed by the body cells, so that the mRNA could then trigger the cells to produce the spike protein?

No.

It seems unnecessarily and suspiciously complicated.

Not really. It's not complicated at all.

It seems like gene therapy. I can see why so many conspiracy theorists might think that it IS gene therapy.

I get the case that the vaccine only works like this so that the individual doesn't have to be directly exposed to the coronavirus, which would probably kill them if that happened, but it still doesn't make much sense for a vaccine to work exactly like this.

Didn't you just claim that you didn't think that it was that dangerous because no one you know dropped dead from it?

Also, the claim that the vaccine doesn't work is not a defense to my implication that one shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others, despite what the people who try to use this claim as a defense to said implication may think. That is because, the vaccinated are not forced to interact with the unvaccinated, in any case.

This makes absolutely no sense.
Firstly, those who refuse to be vaccinated are constantly in contact with those who are not and are also in contact with those who cannot be vaccinated because of a medical condition or they may be compromised in some way. So they are endangering those people. For example, a newborn or baby cannot be vaccinated. They could come into contact with a nurse, doctor, family member, etc who is not vaccinated.

People should be vaccinated because it can help reduce the spread of the virus, as well as reduce the severity of the virus itself if one does get it.

The vaccinated can avoid the stores where the unvaccinated are NOT banned if they want. An unvaccinated person might, in some special case or other, end up harassing a vaccinated person. Following them around and what not. However, as far as I am aware, harassment is a punishable crime anyway, so the police can deal with that. I have also heard a rather retarded implication that people should get vaccinated to protect others because there is not enough of the virus to go around. This is wrong because in such a case it would be much safer for others for them to be given your dose instead. I'm also pretty sure that there is more than enough of the vaccine to go around.

Again, zero sense you be making...

Anyway, in summary it seems like people are being forced into a whole lot of things using this fiasco as a very poor excuse. Being locked up at home, having to get governmental permission to travel, having to get the vaccine, OR ELSE, etc. That is why it makes me go hmmmm.

That makes you go "hmmmm" but 5.2 million dead people does not?

 

[Bells]

The people working in roles with people who are forced to interact with them are forced to get the vaccine, or be fired, so my claim stands.

What?

You're now creating strawman..

That's all that was missing in this thread!

Also, I was under the impression that lockdown meant not being allowed to leave one's house.

You can still go out, shopping, buy food, exercise, etc. A lot of offices closed and people worked from home and others did not and people went in to work. You shouldn't visit other people's houses, because you want to stop the spread.

Common sense things..

Also, you imply a dilemma with this statement: We are doing it because having millions of dead Americans is even worse. That dilemma is: lockdown or millions of dead american's. Lockdown is not required to stop death from the virus as far as I am aware.

If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers.

And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation’s deaths — about 83 percent — would have been avoided, the researchers estimated.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing-deaths.html]​

You can access the full text of the study here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.15.20103655v2.full-text

I mean, it works to do so obviously, but it would be better to just let people take their own precautions.

You tried that initially.

Tens of thousands of people died.

If there are other vaccine's which work then great.

Which other vaccine do you want?

This is the first time you actually get to choose which vaccine to take. Every other vaccine, there's no choice or option about which one you get. You get to pick and choose this time. So, what other vaccine are you talking about?

I still don't believe the hype about this though. I would rather take my chances with the virus, because I have not seen it take anybody yet, so I doubt it is so bad.

If you've never seen anyone die from a heart attack, or cancer, or any other illness, are you going to question whether it's bad?

Your stance in this regard makes no sense whatsoever. Frankly, it borders on childish. A friend of mine in the US got what could be deemed a mild case of Delta, in that he and his wife did not require hospitalisation. It's been months now and he's still suffering from the long term effects of it. He's in his early 40's and he's using a walking aid just to help him get to the bathroom from his bed.

Are you sure it was the virus that took him?

Unbelievable!

I don't know what the piece of legislation is. I have been trying to find out but I suck at getting the answers which I am looking for from the internet.

Perhaps you should refrain from making claims..

 

[billvon]

The people working in roles with people who are forced to interact with them are forced to get the vaccine, or be fired, so my claim stands.

You said "the vaccinated are not forced to interact with the unvaccinated, in any case." That doesn't work in your scenario where everyone can choose for themselves without any concern for the effect of their decisions.

I am also opposed to forcing anyone to get any vaccine. What we have instead is a pretty good compromise - you have to get the vaccine if you want specific jobs (like nursing) but not otherwise.

Also, I was under the impression that lockdown meant not being allowed to leave one's house.

That is incorrect. The lockdowns referred to the closing of restaurants and other public venues.

Also, you imply a dilemma with this statement: We are doing it because having millions of dead Americans is even worse. That dilemma is: lockdown or millions of dead american's. Lockdown is not required to stop death from the virus as far as I am aware. I mean, it works to do so obviously

You're contradicting yourself there. Either lockdowns work (and are therefore justified during severe pandemics) or they don't (and are not justified.)

History has shown that they are effective. Surges in infection rates are linked to relaxation of lockdowns (and other NPI's) - reduction in infection rates follow closely after lockdowns (and other NPI's, and vaccination efforts.)

but it would be better to just let people take their own precautions.

People can - PROVIDED they do not put others at risk. You have a responsibility to not spread infection in your community.

I would rather take my chances with the virus, because I have not seen it take anybody yet, so I doubt it is so bad.

There is a page - the Herman Cain award page - full of people who thought it was a hoax or that it was like a flu. Often they beg for the vaccine, when it is far too late to work for them. Their final zoom calls with their families are especially sad to hear about.

Sorry about your friend. Are you sure it was the virus that took him?

Yes.

I don't know what the piece of legislation is. I have been trying to find out but I suck at getting the answers which I am looking for from the internet.

I actually don't think it exists.

It's easy to find fake news on the Internet about the pandemic, since it has become a political wedge issue. The right feels that if they acknowledge the pandemic is real, they somehow "lose," perhaps because they are often anti-science, and beating this pandemic will represent a victory for science. Or perhaps it is simply that political leaders like Trump have been attempting to minimize and play down the pandemic from the beginning, at the same time that less conservative scientists and doctors have been warning people about it.

 

[billvon]

I meant to write vaccine instead of virus. Otherwise it does sound like a made up meme.

So you meant to say "I have also heard a rather retarded implication that people should get vaccinated to protect others because there is not enough of the vaccine to go around?" I haven't heard anyone say that either. Do you have a source?

What you may have heard (and which has been stated) is:

1) People should get vaccinated to protect others. That's true. When enough people are vaccinated against a given strain, then Re drops below 1 and the pandemic dies out. That saves (in our case) hundreds of thousands of lives.

2) There is not enough vaccine to go around. This is also true. For example, South Africa (with a vaccination rate of only 25%) recently saw the start of the Omicron variant. These variants are going to become more common in places with spotty vaccination rates. There are some countries with vaccination rates below 10% - due to both vaccine scarcity and our usual tendency to ignore the poorer parts of the world as "not important."

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Not practical BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO ARE INFECTED BUT NOT AFFECTED deciding NOT to isolate and risking the lives of those frail elderly and other compromised persons

Okay. But it is practical overall and the most practical option. Far more practical than shutting the world down.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Not practical BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO ARE INFECTED BUT NOT AFFECTED deciding NOT to isolate and risking the lives of those frail elderly and other compromised persons

Sorry that there is no perfect solution.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

using your critical analytical thinking skills

what is it that makes you feel something is "wrong"
&
what is the "Wrong part/thing"



i am reading & replying as i go so i dont forget or miss a point

It is just that I'm frequently seeing freedoms degraded before my eyes and everyone seems really scared and Hitler like. That is why this seems wrong. I already outlined the first point about freedoms being degraded. I think it is too dangerous and my alternative of letting people take there own precautions after being warned should happen instead. I might be wrong, but this is my estimation.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

using your critical analytical thinking skills

what is it that makes you feel something is "wrong"
&
what is the "Wrong part/thing"



i am reading & replying as i go so i dont forget or miss a point



how many people have you seen drop dead in front of you from a
1 heart attack
2 being shot dead
3 hit & killed by a vehicle
4 killed right in front of you from a road accident
5 suicide
6 cancer
right in front of you ...

how many of each ?

I haven't seen any of them do that RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. However, I have heard of 2 suicides, one by a girl at my school. Another by a friend of my mother. And as for cancer, it took my uncle and my grandfather. And a truck driving accident took my father's best friend, Taylor. I have read lots of news paper articles about fatal car accidents too. Those are pretty much the only specific examples of such deaths I know about. Anyway, your implication that even if coronavirus was super dangerous I probably would not have known about anyone dying from it is probably correct. I have changed my estimation. You are very persuasive. Well done.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

how many people have you seen drop dead in front of you from a
1 heart attack
2 being shot dead
3 hit & killed by a vehicle
4 killed right in front of you from a road accident
5 suicide
6 cancer
right in front of you ...

how many of each ?

Maybe it is rather dangerous after all. I still doubt that it is as dangerous as it is made out to be though. If that were the case this would probably be a lot like a zombie apocalypse movie.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

I have never heard that. Can you point to some example of someone saying that? That sounds like a made up meme.

Here is an example from one of the many debates I have had when it probably would have been politer to shut up: Her: we need to get everyone vaccinated so that they are not a danger to others. Me: But that is bs because if the vaccine works then those who get it are protected by it from those who don't, AND I have heard that there is enough of it for everyone to get a dose. The other woman: What makes you think that there is enough to go around? Me: Are you saying that there is not enough to go around? Her: There is not.

Here is another example: Sue the school librarian: The unvaccinated are on the loose! It is so concerning. It is dangerous. There are some real nut cases out there. Me: But that is bs because if the vaccine works then those who get it are protected from those who don't. Sue: It doesn't work. Those who get it can still pass the virus on. It just minimizes the risk. Me: Then it doesn't work. Sue: It works. It minimises the risk. Me: Then it works a little bit, but also doesn't work. Sue: people should get vaccinated to protect others. Me: Eh, no. Those others should probably just stay the hell away from us. Sue: Also there might not be enough of the vaccine to go around, so people should get the vaccine to protect others. Me: I stand by my previous statement. Also, it is probably better for others, for one to decline to get one's vaccine and save it for somebody else in the case you outline.

Here is another example: Daniel from school: What if there is not enough to go around though? Me: Then it is probably more moral for one to give up one's vaccine for the next person. Daniel: It is probably best if everyone gets vaccinated though. Me: I don't trust anything about anything about this, so I'm going to have to disagree. Daniel: Oh. You are a conspiracy theorist.

I am pretty sure that calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is an insult these days. That does not bode well for critical thinking, for it is essentially insulting someone for thinking freely by calling them a free thinker

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

poor education
poor intellect
poor emotional intelligence
poor mental health support services
poor money people

the violence was always there
just waiting for something to light the fuse

why are they not seeking professional therapy before they become violent ?

perspective
subjectivity
(almost a different subject)

I put it in a different thread in the Ethics morality and justice section. I entitled the thread Family violence.