COVID-19 News

[marduk]

Agreed. However the point I was making is that first the virus has to be present. If it's not. It's pointless, and the evidence does not indicate the virus is ubiquitous. There are only places of relatively higher or lower risk. Therefore the presumption that anyone who is not wearing a mask is either getting or spreading the virus is false. Unless they are in a high risk area, the likelihood of them being exposed is also very small, and even if they are exposed the chances of infection are small, and even if they are infected, the chance of any serious health issues is also very small.

So... how do you know if it's present or not? I know you know how the math works, but it raises to a probability of someone having it the more people that gather because it multiplies. The more people you're in contact with, the higher the odds. Any one of them could have it and not care (as is the case with some of my in-laws) or they simply didn't know they have it (because of the extended delay to onset of symptoms).

Given the above, I think that higher risk places should have the option of mandating masks of their own accord, and that people should have the right to voluntarily wear masks if they feel like it. I don't believe in the bylaws or the fines.

That's exactly the experiment we ran. Again, look at those graphs. Low/no restrictions - cases increase geometrically.

Exactly, and whenever we have we convicted people of crimes based on probabilities rather than actual crimes, there has been discontent. We put up with very few examples ( seat belts, insurance, impaired driving ). When it comes to an epidemic, or pandemic, there could be sufficient reason to invoke emergency measures ( which is what this is ), but in this case, the data shows the initial danger was far less than was assumed. See some of the other postes where there are actual statistics.

I'm simply not buying it, Randall. Let's use drunk driving as an example. Odds are actually staggeringly high that if you drive while intoxicated, nothing will happen. The vast majority of the time, nothing goes wrong.

The problem is that when something goes wrong, it goes very very wrong, and it impacts other people. We have the same effect here with Covid. We don't allow for drunk driving, have random check stops, and you lose your ability to drive when caught. Why is this any different?

I've been to Chinook. The only thing I got was a sore dry eye from the goddamned mask. I could hardly wait to get out of there. I'm just not as afraid of infection as you seem to be. That being said, I don't want to get it either, and I do my part.

Again, not afraid at all. I'm in a low risk category, as is my family. Just trying to do my part so we can get on with the business of life and put this behind us.

But I also hate the mall, Chinook especially. Damn apple store.

Whether or not the lockdowns were necessary before or even now is a matter of debate and I have taken on the side of The Great Barrington Declaration. That's where the real debate is. From what I can tell, the lockdowns are livelihood and economy killers that overall contribute to the loss of lives, most probably to the extent that they cause more of an overall problem than they solve.

I think that people should not be harassed for wearing masks. If they want to put on a mask it should be entirely their right to do so, and it should not be construed as some sort of political statement or condemnation of other people's belief that they shouldn't be forced under threat of law, to wear one.

Again, not wearing a mask is akin to driving drunk in my opinion. That only changed when MADD made the social stigma of driving drunk so severe that the rates went down.

I think we should do the same thing. A bylaw is a bylaw. If you don't like it, go into politics.

Like I've said many times now. I signed the Great Barrington Declaration.

I don't think we need to disagree here so much as accept the data, and the data clearly shows that the largest infections and deaths have come from high-risk locations like long-term care facilities etc. This doesn't mean that group gatherings cannot themselves become a high risk. However if they don't consist of high-risk individuals who are going to clog the hospital system, then all they need to do is self-isolate for 14 days, and contribute to the herd immunity.

Herd immunity isn't working. Interesting that you reference Sweden next, where it isn't working: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Revisit the vid I posted on the progress of the Swedish model, and consider how that would look if they'd just protected the vulnerable better at the start. How this plays out in the long run is where all the numbers will matter. Managing the virus alone is only one factor in a much bigger picture.

Swedish model isn't working. Period.

The rationale is that the failure of contact tracing means we we're making assumptions about lockdowns that have certain sweeping negative ramifications, but uncertain positive ramifications, and a possibility of them doing more harm than good in the long run. Therefore before these AEMA lockdowns became a strategy, there should have been far more convincing data to support them.

Contact tracing worked when infection rates are low. It can't work when infection rates are high for logistical reasons. It's partly why we need the lockdowns. We're chasing our tails on this one.

As you can see from the 50,000 plus signatures of scientists and medical professionals on the Great Barrington Declaration, the authors of which are PhDs, not everyone agrees with the "medical establishment". The "establishment" has been known to be wrong on more than one occasion in history, and I believe it's lockdown strategy has the serious potential to be one of them.

We ran an experiment in Alberta. It failed. Again, look at the graphs. It's quite clear.

And again, we could have done this all without lockdowns in the first place, and therefore saying because they failed the first time is a good reason to keep using them doesn't make any sense.

Prove it. It's not working in areas without lockdowns. So how can you make that claim?

Perhaps there were some people who fall into the category you suggest. But I wasn't there. I didn't talk to them. I don't know what the specific individuals reasoning was, or even if they had any. I do however think it's entirely safe to assume, given the prevalence of "Put Calgarians Back To Work" signs, that many were concerned about their ability to pay their rent and feed their families. That should not be equated with some kid who doesn't take his medicine.

Gotta run... will respond to the rest in a bit.

 

[Randall]

I heard on the local news that New Zealand had reported zero active cases, but then I went to verify that and apparently, that's not the case.

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

The latest information about the COVID-19 coronavirus disease (formerly known as 2019-nCoV). Includes public health advice, signs and symptoms, current cases, advice for travellers and advice for health professionals.

www.health.govt.nz

 

[Randall]

So... how do you know if it's present or not?

Exactly. So what justifies the presumption that anyone is guilty?

I know you know how the math works, but it raises to a probability of someone having it the more people that gather because it multiplies. The more people you're in contact with, the higher the odds. Any one of them could have it and not care (as is the case with some of my in-laws) or they simply didn't know they have it (because of the extended delay to onset of symptoms).

So we convict people of a crime based on the probability that they might be a virus carrier? That's a hard sell. A lot of fear is needed to get people to go along with it. So I'm not surprised that some people aren't behind it.

That's exactly the experiment we ran. Again, look at those graphs. Low/no restrictions - cases increase geometrically.

As I've said before, case numbers aren't the concern, it's how many become a burden on the system. If we want to talk graphs, then remember where the whole "flatten the curve" slogan came from. It was case of a relatively short spike in cases that might overwhelm the healthcare system, leading to relatively fast natural immunity within the population, versus a prolonged period of lower cases that for sure don't overwhelm the healthcare system.

What too few people were looking at are the incidental consequences of the prolonged approach that as indicated in previous links, may outweigh the benefits of the lock down approach. You keep mentioning the math. People who are very smart have already done that. And the people who have been critical of them have not provided sufficiently valid counterpoint to justify themselves ( at least that I've seen ).

In short, the graphs are missing some important variables, like the lines that keep going up over time that indicate the fallout from prolonging the measures that affect people's lives and livelihoods. The virus isn't the only factor that affects lives. Literally millions are suffering from lockdown fallout, and it's as if they're being written-off as inconsequential, just collateral damage. They should not be forgotten.

I'm simply not buying it,

And I'm not selling. This is a discussion that has the potential to push our understanding of the issue forward significantly.

Randall. Let's use drunk driving as an example. Odds are actually staggeringly high that if you drive while intoxicated, nothing will happen. The vast majority of the time, nothing goes wrong.

The relevant idea in your analogy is that some behavior should be punishable simply because something bad might happen. This can have some weight depending on the various factors involved.

The problem is that when something goes wrong, it goes very very wrong, and it impacts other people. We have the same effect here with Covid. We don't allow for drunk driving, have random check stops, and you lose your ability to drive when caught. Why is this any different?

Car crashes and viral infections differ in a number of ways, but if we're concerned with the central issue described above, then we're getting into some very interesting territory, which is why I like the way you think. I'll make an effort to come back to this later after going through the rest of your response.

Again, not afraid at all. I'm in a low risk category, as is my family. Just trying to do my part so we can get on with the business of life and put this behind us.

Same here. But that doesn't mean "getting on with the business of life" all along by handling things differently wouldn't have been a better choice for millions of people over the longer term.

But I also hate the mall, Chinook especially. Damn apple store.

I used to love the mall until the mask bylaw. Now I can't wait to get out of there. It has ruined every shopping experience ( for me ).

I think we should do the same thing. A bylaw is a bylaw. If you don't like it, go into politics.

Are you saying there should be no such thing as the right of concerned citizens to question the actions of their elected representatives? Somehow I don't see you getting onboard with that. Then there's just how far we should allow everyone to bend the rules. How authoritarian is justifiable to you? Isn't dragging someone off and fining them $1000 sufficient ?

Herd immunity isn't working. Interesting that you reference Sweden next, where it isn't working: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The concept of herd immunity is being misrepresented in such articles by implying it is a strategy. That is not the case. Herd immunity is a stage in the life cycle of an epidemic or pandemic. It is like the finish line. The question is: If you can't opt out of the race, would you sooner get to the finish line faster or slower? And what are the consequences for both?

Swedish model isn't working. Period.

Did you watch the video I posted about it? There's lots of numbers there for you to consider. So I don't think it's that cut and dried. Every system could be improved upon ( IMO ). My main focus is on the enforcement of lock downs and mask bylaws. IMO these should both be voluntary and the system should be reinforced to handle increased cases over a shorter term, rather than dragging it out over time.

Contact tracing worked when infection rates are low. It can't work when infection rates are high for logistical reasons. It's partly why we need the lockdowns. We're chasing our tails on this one.

Yup.

We ran an experiment in Alberta. It failed. Again, look at the graphs. It's quite clear.

Not as clear as it seems. Graphs need a context and a set of data. I was looking at data from respiratory deaths dating back to 1999, and it was pointing toward supporting what I've been getting at, but more data is needed before it can be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a lot of work. I wish I had a team of people who could get access to the info we really need.

Prove it. It's not working in areas without lockdowns. So how can you make that claim?

We need to identify exactly was the "it" is there and compare the relevant points to the data, and then ask how that compares to the alternatives. If by "it" we're talking about case numbers, then case numbers aren't really the concern. Presently case numbers are up, but hospitalizations have levelled off.

Therefore if the majority of citizens with the virus aren't experiencing symptoms that need serious medical attention, why are we in an AEMA Emergency lockdown? This speaks back to the original point about impaired driving. First of all, there is an inherent risk in all driving, so let's use that as a baseline. Now to improve on the analogy, let's remove intoxicants from the equation and replace it with age.

This is a closer analogy because in both cases deaths from the cause are proportional to the age of the subject. In the case of old people, their reflexes are about as responsive as an impaired young person's. So what is the solution we use for that? It's simple. We keep old people out from behind the wheel, while letting young people who aren't affected to the point of impairment, take the risk as part of their daily business.

The virus works the same way. Based on reflexes rather than behavior, and all else being equal, old people are at a high risk of crashing, while most young people aren't. Either way there is a risk when driving, but young people accept the risk in order to put a roof over their heads, and dinner on the table. In doing so they also drive the economy. Both sides of the equation are then better off than shutting both of them down.

The way this seems to boil down is that we need more fine grained data, and that has been difficult to get. That's where the brick wall is. We'd need a small team and some kind of political clout to get the data and properly analyze it. At present the available data only justifies the concerns, but when millions of lives are on the line, that concern ought to be taken a lot more seriously than it is ( IMO ).

 

[Randall]

60 Minutes Australia​

Former diplomat to China explains the ‘weaponisation of COVID’​

​

 

[Gene Steinberg]

OK, one of those things. Lots of time are lurking online.

 

[Randall]

OK, one of those things. Lots of time are lurking online.

Not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate?

 

[Randall]

60 Minutes Australia
Inside COVID-19 conspiracy theories: from 5G towers to Bill Gates

 

[Randall]

Vitamin D and COVID 19​

The Evidence for Prevention and Treatment of Coronavirus (SARS CoV 2)​

 

[Randall]

The Wuhan files - Leaked documents reveal China's mishandling of the early stages of Covid-19​

Leaked documents reveal China's mishandling of the early stages of Covid-19 pandemic

Misleading public data, a three-week lag in diagnosing new virus cases, and a previously undeclared regional spike in influenza cases: 117 pages of internal documents show a chaotic and underfunded provincial health care system struggling to confront a mysterious viral outbreak.

www.cnn.com

 

[Randall]

THE VIRUS OF LIES: 2020’S TOP TEN MINISTRY OF TRUTH DIRECTIVES​

The Virus of Lies: 2020’s Top Ten Ministry of Truth Directives (Translation) | China Digital Times (CDT)

chinadigitaltimes.net

 

[Gene Steinberg]

A surprising number of famous people have been infected. Here's a list that did not include one of the latest, talk show legend Larry King, who had been hospitalized for a week with COVID-19 when CNN first revealed the story:

https://www.vulture.com/article/famous-people-celebrities-with-coronavirus.html

 

[Randall]

A surprising number of famous people have been infected. Here's a list that did not include one of the latest, talk show legend Larry King, who had been hospitalized for a week with COVID-19 when CNN first revealed the story:

https://www.vulture.com/article/famous-people-celebrities-with-coronavirus.html

I'm not surprised. It's like the politicians up here who tell everyone to stay home while they go on vacations to Hawaii. Affluent people have a sense of entitlement or that the rules don't apply to them, and in many ways they're right, so they get used to behaving that way, but a virus doesn't acknowledge any of that sort of privilege. They're just like little self-replicating nano-mines, and if they get into your system, it makes no difference to them what your ideology is.

 

[marduk]

Exactly. So what justifies the presumption that anyone is guilty?

Uh, what? Covid is a disease, not a criminal act. The (current) criminal act would be not obeying the by-laws, not having or not having covid. Just like (I think) it's a crime to knowingly have unsafe sex while you have AIDs without disclosing it. The crime isn't having the disease, it's spreading it.

Can we start here? We have so many conversation topics going in one post that it's difficult to nail down.

 

[Randall]

Uh, what? Covid is a disease, not a criminal act.

The bylaws have been created on the presumption that individuals charged with the offense(s) are guilty of intentionally contributing to the spread of the disease when there may be no evidence that any of them actually are. I find this very problematic.

The (current) criminal act would be not obeying the by-laws, not having or not having covid. Just like (I think) it's a crime to knowingly have unsafe sex while you have AIDs without disclosing it.

The analogy there doesn't correspond because intentionally spreading a disease you know you have is entirely different than making the assumption someone might be spreading a disease they don't know they have.

The crime isn't having the disease, it's spreading it.

Accordingly, if there is no evidence that a person is knowingly spreading a disease, then they should not be assumed to be guilty of doing so.

Can we start here? We have so many conversation topics going in one post that it's difficult to nail down.

True. I think perhaps a better use of time would be to:

1. Get the fine grained data needed to create an accurate picture of the situation.
2. Determine which ways of interpreting that data make the most sense.
3. Compare that to what we're being told.
4. Then decide from there if it's worth putting-up with until it resolves itself, or doing something proactive about it.

The problem is that I know you're busy and don't really have the time to get into it that deep. I've approached a couple of groups composed of concerned business people, but haven't got a response. Danielle Smith on QR-77 makes some good points and is about the only media person challenging what we're being fed. Maybe I'll see if any of these protesters have the wherewithal to take a more analytical approach instead of simply stomping around protesting.

BTW I've run into a couple of those who are way out there on the virus denier one-world govt. population control, plandemic conspiracy train. So if you think I'm a bit controversial, these people are completely bats in the belfry by comparison.

In the meantime we could probably discuss theory on what constitutes justice, moral behavior, and how that should apply to the legal system, but I'm not sure how much good it can actually do apart from being interesting as a conversation.

 

[marduk]

The bylaws have been created on the presumption that individuals charged with the offense(s) are guilty of intentionally contributing to the spread of the disease when there may be no evidence that any of them actually are. I find this very problematic.

The analogy there doesn't correspond because intentionally spreading a disease you know you have is entirely different than making the assumption someone might be spreading a disease they don't know they have.

Accordingly, if there is no evidence that a person is knowingly spreading a disease, then they should not be assumed to be guilty of doing so.

True. I think perhaps a better use of time would be to:

1. Get the fine grained data needed to create an accurate picture of the situation.
2. Determine which ways of interpreting that data make the most sense.
3. Compare that to what we're being told.
4. Then decide from there if it's worth putting-up with until it resolves itself, or doing something proactive about it.

The problem is that I know you're busy and don't really have the time to get into it that deep. I've approached a couple of groups composed of concerned business people, but haven't got a response. Danielle Smith on QR-77 makes some good points and is about the only media person challenging what we're being fed. Maybe I'll see if any of these protesters have the wherewithal to take a more analytical approach instead of simply stomping around protesting.

BTW I've run into a couple of those who are way out there on the virus denier one-world govt. population control, plandemic conspiracy train. So if you think I'm a bit controversial, these people are completely bats in the belfry by comparison.

In the meantime we could probably discuss theory on what constitutes justice, moral behavior, and how that should apply to the legal system, but I'm not sure how much good it can actually do apart from being interesting as a conversation.

What's the real difference between knowingly spreading something and purposefully not stopping something you might have from spreading? I could see if you tested negative recently (say in the last 24 hours or something) making a case for not needing to wear a mask... but how do you know you have it or not without being tested?

To me, that's a bit like deciding deciding you can drive impaired because you're convinced you're not going to get into an accident. Or without insurance. And then if you do, expecting the healthcare system to patch you up. Along with everybody else you might injure along the way. How is this different?

Alternatively, and very much offhandedly, I could decide to walk down the street punching people. They probably won't die, and probably won't suffer more than minor injuries in a way that likely compares fairly well with covid mortality rates. So why can't I do that? Why don't I have the freedom to walk up to people and swing my fists the way I want to?

I think for me it comes down to reasonableness. What's reasonable to you is clearly different than what's reasonable to me. And to me, attempts to rely on people's reasonableness in our province clearly crapped the bed. So I guess we're getting what we deserve, and need bylaws. That's where I sit... if people were reasonable, rational, and took their personal accountabilities seriously, we wouldn't need most bylaws, including the mask bylaws.

 

[Randall]

What's the real difference between knowingly spreading something and purposefully not stopping something you might have from spreading?

There's a huge real difference, because the first part presents a definitively real transmission. The latter does not. The latter is like saying there is a real possibility you might run over somebody on the way downtown, therefore if you get in your car and drive you are guilty of maybe running someone over.

I could see if you tested negative recently (say in the last 24 hours or something) making a case for not needing to wear a mask... but how do you know you have it or not without being tested?

Exactly my point. Without evidence, why assume guilt? That doesn't mean that there aren't any reasonable grounds for safety policies based on probabilities, but it's a matter of degree. We take many risks on a daily basis that can affect ourselves and others, without the need for an Emergency Measures Act coming into play.

Essentially, it's our tolerance for risk without intervention that determines how free a society is. Yes there are obvious boundaries, but there needs to be a balance based on objective reasoning, and I'm one of those people who tend to tend to question authority in order to ascertain just how objective and reasonable they are.

To me, that's a bit like deciding deciding you can drive impaired because you're convinced you're not going to get into an accident. Or without insurance. And then if you do, expecting the healthcare system to patch you up. Along with everybody else you might injure along the way. How is this different?

First of all, we've been through the impaired driving analogy already and it is plain to see that the age based analogy is far better. Maybe you missed that? On the issue of auto insurance: Auto insurance is a mandatory specific risk based compensation system that is integrated with our healthcare system to some degree.

Consequently, what your analogy suggests is that there should also be mandatory insurance for the specific risk of walking around breathing because everyone is a germbag who might infect another person and cause a drain on the healthcare system, forgetting that we already pay via taxes into exactly such an insurance system.

So is this extra layer of authoritarian enforcement really necessary? That is my question, and when one looks at the evidence, there's plenty of reason to be critical of it.

Alternatively, and very much offhandedly, I could decide to walk down the street punching people. They probably won't die, and probably won't suffer more than minor injuries in a way that likely compares fairly well with covid mortality rates. So why can't I do that? Why don't I have the freedom to walk up to people and swing my fists the way I want to?

In your rationale above you're equating personal intent to harm someone directly with your own actions that you are aware of and can directly control, as opposed to having no intent to harm anyone as a result of actions you're unaware of that are to some extent within your indirect control.

So the question is whether or not the measures within your indirect control e.g. sanitizing, and living a fairly clean lifestyle, are considered reasonable enough? I would contend that given what we know about COVID-19 invoking the Emergency Measures Act and basically confining everyone to house arrest unless they need groceries under threat of fines and jail for non-compliance is not reasonable.

I think for me it comes down to reasonableness. What's reasonable to you is clearly different than what's reasonable to me.

Seems that way. My position is backed by PhDs from Harvard, Stanford, & Oxford, along with over 50,000 scientists and others in healthcare and medicine. It's also backed by several academic papers. They're all in this thread. So by now there should be very little doubt left that my position is entirely reasonable.

But that doesn't automatically mean your position isn't reasonable. Knowing you to some degree, I believe you genuinely have people's welfare at heart. So here's where that boils down for me:

I believe it's reasonable for people to protect themselves to whatever extent they are comfortable with, provided it doesn't degrade the lives of others around them, and that it's also reasonable to allow people the freedom to take risks that not only affect them, but possibly others as well, sometimes even knowing it will do harm to others e.g. certain combat situations and competitive sports, because sometimes that's the only way people can survive, enjoy life, or get anything done.

Think about it. Risk tolerance is what drives a society forward, scientifically and technologically, and provides a major portion of our entertainment. Consequently, shutting everything down because of fear has the very real possibility of costing far more in lives and quality of life than the virus itself.

Being inundated with fear that keeps us isolated inside our homes, forces us not to socialize, kills livelihoods, reduces our quality of life of and causes collateral damage and death on top of the direct effects of the virus, makes me personally feel that those authoritarians enforcing this situation are a bigger problem than those who question their authority ( yours truly included ).

I would personally sooner take the risk of getting COVID-19 myself, and maybe dying, than living in this kind of society. The only thing that keeps me from becoming an activist instead of an analyst, is the assumption that it's all temporary, and if we just do our part, we'll get through it.

And to me, attempts to rely on people's reasonableness in our province clearly crapped the bed. So I guess we're getting what we deserve, and need bylaws. That's where I sit... if people were reasonable, rational, and took their personal accountabilities seriously, we wouldn't need most bylaws, including the mask bylaws.

I think that I'd switch out "personal accountability" with "personal responsibility" and focus accountability more on government than individuals. But then again, I'm a peaceful anarchist who believes in as much personal freedom as we can get without disaffecting others.

 

[marduk]

There's a huge real difference, because the first part presents a definitively real transmission. The latter does not. The latter is like saying there is a real possibility you might run over somebody on the way downtown, therefore if you get in your car and drive you are guilty of maybe running someone over.

Exactly my point. Without evidence, why assume guilt? That doesn't mean that there aren't any reasonable grounds for safety policies based on probabilities, but it's a matter of degree. We take many risks on a daily basis that can affect ourselves and others, without the need for an Emergency Measures Act coming into play.

Essentially, it's our tolerance for risk without intervention that determines how free a society is. Yes there are obvious boundaries, but there needs to be a reasonable balance based on objective reasoning, and I'm one of those people who tend to tend to question authority in order to ascertain just how objective and reasonable they are.

First of all, we've been through the impaired driving analogy already and it is plain to see that the age based analogy is far better. Maybe you missed that? On the issue of auto insurance: Auto insurance is a mandatory specific risk based compensation system that is integrated with our healthcare system to some degree.

Why is it better? It involves a choice, and the primary consequence of the decision making is how hurt other people get. I don't like the age based analogy, because age isn't a choice.
But let's go back to insurance, because it's mandatory if you're going to drive on public roads, and it's there primarily to protect other people from you accidentally harming them.

Consequently, what your analogy suggests is that there should also be mandatory insurance for the specific risk of walking around breathing because everyone is a germbag who might infect another person and cause a drain on the healthcare system, forgetting that we already pay via taxes into exactly such an insurance system.

Sure, why not though? Isn't that kinda what public healthcare is? And the fact that we all pay for it kinda does mean that we should innately care what other people do that could harm others... or even themselves. Like, say, smoking. I would be just fine with smokers paying more for Alberta Health Care. Or obesity. Or other high risk lifestyle choices.

So is this extra layer of authoritarian enforcement really necessary? That is my question, and when one looks at the evidence, there's plenty of reason to be critical of it.

Why not? I mean, who exactly is it harming? Please don't fall back on the old tired 'slippery slope' kinda argument.

In your rationale above you're equating personal intent to harm someone directly with your own actions that you are aware of and can directly control, as opposed to having no intent to harm anyone as a result of actions you're unaware of that are to some extent within your indirect control.

Just like with auto insurance, right? Same deal. Maybe we could have "I don't want to wear a mask" insurance? (I'm kidding).

So the question is whether or not the measures within your indirect control e.g. sanitizing, and living a fairly clean lifestyle, are considered reasonable enough? I would contend that given what we know about COVID-19 invoking the Emergency Measures Act and basically confining everyone to house arrest unless they need groceries under threat of fines and jail for non-compliance is not reasonable.

Again, the charts above are exceptionally clear evidence in my mind that those things aren't reasonable enough. Without the bylaws, cases spiked to 3x what they were when we locked down the first time. With the bylaws, they come back down. Kinda QED, isn't it?

Seems that way. My position is backed by PhDs from Harvard, Stanford, & Oxford, along with over 50,000 scientists and others in healthcare and medicine. It's also backed by several academic papers. They're all in this thread. So by now there should be very little doubt left that my position is entirely reasonable.

Is it though? I mean, the rest of the world broadly thinks it's unreasonable. I know that's an appeal to authority kinda argument, but so is your argument, so even though those people agree with you, more seem to agree with me, so... I'm not sure that gets either one of us anywhere, because as we both know, the majority can be wrong. Or it can be right.

But that doesn't automatically mean your position isn't reasonable. Knowing you to some degree, I believe you genuinely have people's welfare at heart. So here's where that boils down for me:

I believe it's reasonable for people to protect themselves to whatever extent they are comfortable with, provided it doesn't degrade the lives of others around them, and that it's also reasonable to allow people the freedom to take risks that not only affect them, but possibly others as well, sometimes even knowing it will do harm to others e.g. certain combat situations and competitive sports, because sometimes that's the only way people can survive, enjoy life, or get anything done.

Right. That's the social contract. I'm with you.

Think about it. Risk tolerance is what drives a society forward, scientifically and technologically, and provides a major portion of our entertainment. Consequently, shutting everything down because of fear has the very real possibility of costing far more in lives and quality of life than the virus itself.

I'm also with you. I also practice martial arts (before covid), and my risk tolerance is actually quite high. My concern is not fear for myself or even really my family, who is all healthy, but for the math of the situation - geometric progression due to the 1.1+ infection rate.

Being inundated with fear that keeps us isolated inside our homes, forces us not to socialize, kills livelihoods, reduces our quality of life of and causes collateral damage and death on top of the direct effects of the virus, makes me personally feel that those authoritarians enforcing this situation are a bigger problem than those who question their authority ( yours truly included ).

Sure. My view is that if we take the lockdown seriously, and do it harshly, it will be over sooner. Which means we can all get back to whatever normal is going to look like after this. Dragging our heels on this likely means that we will have more damage to undo, like very slowly peeling a bandaid off. Might as well rip that sucker off and get on with things.

I would personally sooner take the risk of getting COVID-19 myself, and maybe dying, than living in this kind of society. The only thing that keeps me from becoming an activist instead of an analyst, is the assumption that it's all temporary, and if we just do our part, we'll get through it.

Right, but it isn't your risk really to take here, isn't it? Couldn't the same line of thinking apply back to "you're willing to take the risk that you're going to go bankrupt or die if you get sick" (therefore privatized healthcare) or "you're willing to take the risk of driving without insurance and going bankrupt" (therefore no need for car insurance), etc. Kinda the US-style far-right individualism that's reaching it's conclusions right now. All of that conveniently forgets that no person is an island, right? What I do to myself actually does impact you slightly through the economy and other factors, and sometimes what I do to you impacts you directly (if I injure you in an auto accident without insurance).

I think that I'd switch out "personal accountability" with "personal responsibility" and focus accountability more on government than individuals. But then again, I'm a peaceful anarchist who believes in as much personal freedom as we can get without disaffecting others.

I'm good with switching that out, it's fairly analogous to what I was trying to say. As far as being a peaceful anarchist, I'm good with that as well. My first big boy job performance review literally said (in writing) "He's a self-reliant anarchist" so I guess I've spent some time there myself

 

[Randall]

Why is it better? It involves a choice, and the primary consequence of the decision making is how hurt other people get. I don't like the age based analogy, because age isn't a choice.

Exactly. The age based analogy is better because it uses your premise of impairment, but rather than a choice based cause like consuming an intoxicant, it uses a natural factor ( age ), which has a closer relationship with other natural factors like a disease that few people choose to purposefully get infected with, and because COVID-19's relationship to mortality is primarily age based, there is more of a correlation between old-age and risk in both COVID-19 stats and increased risk because of impairment due to age.

But let's go back to insurance, because it's mandatory if you're going to drive on public roads, and it's there primarily to protect other people from you accidentally harming them.

Like I said, we already pay into an insurance system for healthcare. I'm all for that. What I'm not in favor of is these extra measures brought in by the Emergency Measures Act.

Sure, why not though? Isn't that kinda what public healthcare is? And the fact that we all pay for it kinda does mean that we should innately care what other people do that could harm others... or even themselves. Like, say, smoking. I would be just fine with smokers paying more for Alberta Health Care. Or obesity. Or other high risk lifestyle choices.

Interesting that you should go there. With things like smoking, people are making a conscious choice that is within their direct control, at least until they become hopeless addicts and need intervention. However, people don't consciously make a choice to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. And besides that, smokers already do pay a fee in taxes.

Why not? I mean, who exactly is it harming? Please don't fall back on the old tired 'slippery slope' kinda argument.

It's harming all kinds of people by destroying their livelihoods and reducing our overall quality of life. As I've already said, they have the potential to cost more in lives and quality of life than the virus itself. Literally millions of otherwise healthy productive people are suffering as a result right now, and seriously credentialed experts say it just not necessary. So why isn't that part not getting through?

Just like with auto insurance, right? Same deal. Maybe we could have "I don't want to wear a mask" insurance? (I'm kidding).

That's just it. We already have that insurance. It's called AHCIP and it covers all kinds of things, including COVID-19 and things more deadly than COVID-19, without the need for invoking Emergency Measures.

Again, the charts above are exceptionally clear evidence in my mind that those things aren't reasonable enough. Without the bylaws, cases spiked to 3x what they were when we locked down the first time. With the bylaws, they come back down. Kinda QED, isn't it?

As I've said before, the charts are misleading, and I've explained why. So instead of simply repeating that you think the charts aren't misleading, what we need to do is dig into that data to get a more objective picture. I've dug into it as far as I can on my own with the Internet as a resource, and that research definitely gives cause for concern. Is it proof? No. But neither are the graphs and models being pushed by the PTB "proof" either.

Is it though? I mean, the rest of the world broadly thinks it's unreasonable. I know that's an appeal to authority kinda argument, but so is your argument, so even though those people agree with you, more seem to agree with me, so... I'm not sure that gets either one of us anywhere, because as we both know, the majority can be wrong. Or it can be right.

The thing about appeals to authority is that they're in the grey basket when it comes to logical fallacies. In this case the authorities in question are impeccably credentialed academics, backed by thousands more, compared to a relatively few in positions of political power. Both have a certain amount of reasonableness in their rationale, and I'm not one of the big "plandemic" or "scamdemic" conspircay theorist.

I just see an obvious disconnect between those who were in favor of the lockdowns and those who aren't, so that makes me curious, and when I look into it as an intelligent person, I see that there is room for improvement based on the concerns of both sides.

Right. That's the social contract. I'm with you.

At last. I'll take moment out here to pour me some lemonade.

I'm also with you. I also practice martial arts (before covid), and my risk tolerance is actually quite high. My concern is not fear for myself or even really my family, who is all healthy, but for the math of the situation - geometric progression due to the 1.1+ infection rate.

The number of cases isn't the problem. It's the number of hospitalizations, and then the number of those who don't survive. When we look deeper into this situation. that's when the sorts of questions I've been asking come into play, but are very hard to get accurate data on. However what it looks like is that the numbers on mortality are misleading, as well as the numbers on our capacity to deal with the numbers of cases.

Sure. My view is that if we take the lockdown seriously, and do it harshly, it will be over sooner. Which means we can all get back to whatever normal is going to look like after this.

It seems to have worked in New Zealand, where according to the news the other day, there were zero active cases. So maybe if things had gone that way voluntarily, it might be over. But even then, the stats on COVID-19 aren't so bad that such drastic measures are necessary across the board.

This is a disease that healthy people recover from fairly quickly, and virtually all those who don't have some preexisting condition or have exceeded their normal lifespan, so if it wasn't specifically COVID-19 that was pinpointed as the cause, it would be some other disease or form of pneumonia that does them in. So why destroy the lives of millions of healthy people to "protect" the vulnerable, when it's only the vulnerable that need protecting?

Dragging our heels on this likely means that we will have more damage to undo, like very slowly peeling a bandaid off. Might as well rip that sucker off and get on with things.

What you're forgetting is that the whole "flatten the curve" strategy is a trade-off where we deal with more cases over a shorter time span for the disease, versus the same number ( or more cases ) over a longer time span that is more manageable given the system we have to manage it.

So given the stats, we could have just as easily done nothing but exercise stringent controls on the high-risk segment of society, and let the rest go about their daily business, in which case by now we'd be well into the downside of the curve, the costs would be far less, nobody would have lost their livelihoods, or homes, or business. People wouldn't be so depressed and committing suicide, there would be no need for fines and enforcement, and fewer of the high-risk population would have died. How does that not sound like a better strategy?

Right, but it isn't your risk really to take here, isn't it? Couldn't the same line of thinking apply back to "you're willing to take the risk that you're going to go bankrupt or die if you get sick" (therefore privatized healthcare) or "you're willing to take the risk of driving without insurance and going bankrupt" (therefore no need for car insurance), etc. Kinda the US-style far-right individualism that's reaching it's conclusions right now. All of that conveniently forgets that no person is an island, right? What I do to myself actually does impact you slightly through the economy and other factors, and sometimes what I do to you impacts you directly (if I injure you in an auto accident without insurance).

Yes I completely agree. There needs to be a well-reasoned system of checks and balances, and I am perfectly fine with universal healthcare. It's the going beyond that to these extremes that may cost society more than it saves that I'm concerned about.

I'm good with switching that out, it's fairly analogous to what I was trying to say. As far as being a peaceful anarchist, I'm good with that as well. My first big boy job performance review literally said (in writing) "He's a self-reliant anarchist" so I guess I've spent some time there myself

I just knew it was in there somewhere

 

[Randall]

How COVID tests work,
retracted papers, and the faith of science​

 

[Randall]

Dr Clare Craig - The trouble with PCR testing: https://pcrclaims.co.uk/video/Clare-Craig-PCRC-Full-Length.mp4