|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 26 2022 16:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2022 13:51 StasisField wrote:On August 26 2022 12:38 gobbledydook wrote: There's always a balance to be had right. It is clearly healthier to not eat fast food, so we should institute a ban on it, then less people will die of obesity related diseases. Somehow there is no credible push for banning fast food. All we do is try to educate people to eat healthier and force fast food stores to display information about the calories.
Someone getting heart disease from McDonald's doesn't also transmit said heart disease to their neighbor. That's one of the big reasons vaccines are mandated. When it comes to vaccines, your choice does effect others. Also, eating fast food isn't putting the healthcare system on the brink of collapse like COVID was. Just two really big differences that should be obvious to people still using this talking point 2 years later. tobacco isnt a banned substance. alcohol isnt a banned substance. 2 examples of things that are proven to be harmful to its consumers but also have an effect on people around the consumer. if decision making was as simple and black and white as sermokala suggests they should be, then there would be a massive list of things that should be prohibited in todays society. the reality is these decisions are far more nuanced due to the considerations that have to be given to intangible and unquantifiable values. approaching huge decisions from a solely statistical standpoint is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of why and how society functions the way it does and why governments/politicians fail so much to actually get shit done. Both are taxed and discouranged. Vaccines are not forced, it is discouraged for people to not get them.
Can the lot of you who are mad about mandates at least talk about real mandates that exist and not pretend people are getting forced?
If people were getting strapped down and injected some of your points might be valid but instead it comes off as kids who can not play video games until they finish they.homework crying that live in a dictatorship.
|
On August 26 2022 18:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2022 08:58 Sermokala wrote:On August 26 2022 06:46 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2022 01:18 Sermokala wrote:On August 25 2022 16:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 25 2022 14:41 Sermokala wrote:On August 25 2022 06:34 BlackJack wrote:On August 25 2022 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 13:42 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 10:53 Sermokala wrote: [quote] He hasn't though people keep trying to posit what he's trying to say and he simply agrees without elaborating on any points of confusion people have.
He states that he's against vaccine mandates on seemingly two major vectors. That it has cons to it and that it doesn't stop transmission. His only offered explanation on the first is about how you get a heart condition sometimes if you get it. However he is then shown studies that say that it is at such a low rate that even compared to getting covid normally that it isn't a real con. He doesn't respond to this information and insists that people are attacking him for contradicting this information. The second has some truth to it that the protection against infection fades after some time without boosters. However when he is confronted with the fact that it was never the point to stop transmission completely and that it still shows clear improvements on not going to the hospital with it or dying. He doesn't respond to this information and then says that him getting the vaccine should tell us that he understands what the vaccine is doing.
After ignoring his basic points being refuted he turns into the common anti-vaxer argument of "if its so good then why should people have to get it to work with people who don't get it." this of course ignoring the swaths of other safety mandates in jobs that are for peoples protections that he is informed of and never responds about. then he repeats yet another antivax argument about it actually being about bodily autonomy, just like abortion, before being informed that it is a decision that effects other people but hey again he doesn't respond to this point.
But its the fact that he can't answer a basic question that keeps getting to why I think he's an anti vaxer. He understands that if he answers that basic question about why he doesn't think people should get the vaccine then it would be impossible to deny that he's an antivaxer despite his claim about being vaccinated himself. He said he would request a ban if I showed him information of him being anti vax and when I did he welched on this he went on like nothing happened and never responded to the quotes of him.
If we can't have a simple discussion of asking people questions and answering them then we're not having a discussion. And its an extremely simple question that I keep asking in so many different ways that he just somehow can't answer. Don't you find it odd that people have to say that he answered the question without being able to say even vaugly what that answer is? I’ve answered that question many times. Vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. That’s not my opinion that’s just how it works. Why do you suppose schools mandate MMR vaccines and not flu vaccines? Do you just think that the people making these decisions are just flu anti-vaxxers? Since you think the only thing that matters is if vaccines do more good than harm and otherwise there is no moral argument against vaccine mandates does that mean you also support vaccine mandates for flu as well? Or do you just not give a shit about the people that die of the flu? Or maybe your answer is something like “personally I draw the line just before thinking we need to mandate the flu vaccine for everyone” and if that’s your answer you should read it over and over and over until you realize that that’s an acceptable answer Edit: also in before the people that are incapable of understanding nuanced perspectives come in to post “OMG BJ is comparing COVID to the flu! What a typical anti-vaxxer!!” Yes I am for a flu vaccine in workplaces and where it is judged to provide a cost-effective solution to flu outbreaks. There are flu vaccine mandates in such workplaces already where it is not already strongly recommended by experts. But again you dodge the question by trying to posit a different question without giving any sort of argument or point about what you think about the vaccine mandates. You don't even say if you are against flu vaccine mandates but somehow think that fighting on the front of it being the flu is an argument that you would win. You feel the need to pre emt this criticism because you know how much anti-vax propaganda is saying that covid is just the flu. So again why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine that makes the covid vaccine different than other vacines? You couldn't infer from my post that I would also be against flu vaccine mandates? I'm not sure how else I can explain my position if you're not satisfied with my answer that vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. Are you trying to argue that if I'm in favor of some vaccine mandates then I have to be in favor of all vaccine mandates? I repeat a simple question. A simple question you refuse to answer in anything but misdirecting questions in response. I am hopeful now that we are reaching near where you will answer such a simple question. Simply stating that you look at things on a case-by-case basis isn't an answer to any question about the vaccine or anything that people were asking you. Now that we've gotten to the point where you agree that it is a case-by-case basis about vaccines. My question remains about why you have a problem with the covid vaccine to where you don't think it shouldn't be mandated like any number of the other mandates that we have and accept. People in elementary and middle schools should be getting a flu vaccine every year. They work in an environment that contains a massive amount of vectors for outbreaks in the kids that go to these schools. I don't really understand why people won't listen to the science on that front but society has at least come to accept the level of death that comes with flu season every year. Covid however is not the flu, covid is much worse by any metric measurable. It is the modern plague with the capability of breaking down society if it wasn't handled with the levels of modern care that our hospitals employ. Even with the lockdowns that forced so much suffering it still caused the system to almost buckle while cranking up the deaths from a thousand other things that normally go on at hospitals. If you want the question framed yet another way now what about the case of the covid vaccine that you believe that it shouldn't be mandated? that is literally his answer. for him covid is at a level now where the risk is acceptable for society without having to take away the freedom of choice for individuals. your idea that all decisions are black and white and the freedom to make choices, even bad choices, does not stack up in value compared to the objective benefit claimed by science is your own opinion. i most certainly do not think flu vaccines should be mandatory, even in schools. you both are going around in circles basically because you refuse to read between the lines and keep assuming hes dodging your questions. hes already answered it and most people have recognised it. his answer has been smacking your face for a while so much that you even wrote it down for him. drones summary below is good and accurate about what ive interpreted to be bj's stance On August 25 2022 04:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: .... the value of what I like to describe as perceived autonomy. Myself, I think this, that people should be allowed to themselves steer the direction of their life even if it entails them making stupid decisions, is a significant independent value. Even acknowledging that experts or whatnot can make better decisions for people than what they can themselves make, the consequences of people making bad choices must be very dire before I want to strip people of the power to make bad choices. He doesn't need other people to help him dodge the simple question I keep asking. I don't keep asking him a black and white question I keep asking a question that asks a very simple very foundational question about what his opinion is regarding the vaccine. If his shitck this whole time was "Gee I think that a mandate now that the vaccine isn't at a plague level it isn't needed to be mandated" He could have said that pages and pages ago. I have never made it a black and white issue to make decisions I have quite insistently asked what his thinking about the covid vaccine now is different than the other vaccines that are mandated. Do you want to say what your issue is with flu vaccines that you don't think people in schools should be mandated to get it, with the science that we know it would save lives? If I've had to write it down for him then I would then be able to do this cool thing where I respond to the thing he says. Some call that discussion, I know its a wild concept for BJ but you know you learn new things every day. If he wants the question framed yet another way I will do so again. What about the covid vaccine makes it so that it doesn't cross the line of "people's ability to make bad decisions" compared to other mandates that we have in society? Typically the things we vaccinate children for in schools are very dangerous to them and offer them immunity for years. Another study came out that showed vaccine efficacy in adolescents in Brazil was 5.9% after 98 days. So if you require all the kids to get a booster at the start of the school year they'll have almost no protection against infection by winter break which is not even halfway through the school year. At that point I don't think DPB or Liquid`Drone will be so safe knowing that only 19 of their students will get COVID instead of 20. Will mandating flu vaccines save lives? Yeah. Will mandating COVID boosters every school year save lives? Yeah. Will mandating COVID boosters every 3 months save lives? Yeah. Do you think we should mandate boosters every 3 months or do you just want people to be killed by others? Everyone is entitled to view the competing interests of bodily autonomy/personal choice vs public health and determine where they think the lines should be drawn. You just happen to think that you personally get to decide where the lines are drawn and everyone who disagrees is just less moral or less rational. "But BJ why are you talking about transmission again, why don't you mention how COVID vaccines prevent severe illness and death" Well I am glad you asked. COVID vaccines have shown to offer lasting protection against severe illness and death. Talk to your doctor today about receiving the COVID vaccine! You keep trying to come up with gotchas like they mean anything to the conversation. For someone that complains about a black and white argument against you you are really really eager to find one that works for you. The problem is that you keep wanting to switch up transmission and protection. If boosters every 3 months was what was needed to keep hospitals from collapsing then yes I would be for it. The schedule of shots for kids is based on what will kill them if they don't get the shot or the booster from it. The problem is that you jump instantly from this to the idea that them still getting the disease matters when its already a success that they will have a resistance enough to not die from it. If you accept that people get to determine where they think the lines should be drawn then they bear responsibility for placing where those lines are drawn. Thats how making decisions work. I can disagree with people and say that they are less moral or less rational because they were free to make that decision the same as I am able to make that decision. This is how free choice works we've been working with it for a few thousand years or more depending on what you believe about the creation of the universe. This is another gotcha that isn't a real point. Making statements about how people have free choice and how you have a decision structure are not answers to a question. They're just general statements about existence. I'm glad you decide to admit that vaccines are good and would save lives if they were mandated though at the end. Its been a long journey but I'm glad to have reached the point with you where you agree with covid vaccine mandates now. yep, you got me. well played
If you are so upset with people not understanding your perspective it might be time to stop using sarcasm as your main response to people. It is hard enough with tone for people to understand it and even then the only information people get is that you disagree, it is not their fault that they assume you disagree in a different way than you actually do because you have not communicated that. It is also a dickish way to communicate so it is also not shocking that people assume the worst. Between that and you taking "facts" out of context to prove your point there is no reason for you to feel like a victim but a ton of ways you could communicate better.
|
On August 26 2022 12:38 gobbledydook wrote: There's always a balance to be had right. It is clearly healthier to not eat fast food, so we should institute a ban on it, then less people will die of obesity related diseases. Somehow there is no credible push for banning fast food. All we do is try to educate people to eat healthier and force fast food stores to display information about the calories.
Food is a problem but the bigger problem is too many people have sedentary jobs staring at a screen all day.Now, even after the mass hysteria is over many of them are still demanding to work from home.Many people aren’t even leaving their homes for days at a time, if they get groceries delivered maybe they’re not leaving for weeks.Walking to the refrigerator is their workout for the day.
That’s the bigger problem than food.
|
On August 29 2022 16:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2022 12:38 gobbledydook wrote: There's always a balance to be had right. It is clearly healthier to not eat fast food, so we should institute a ban on it, then less people will die of obesity related diseases. Somehow there is no credible push for banning fast food. All we do is try to educate people to eat healthier and force fast food stores to display information about the calories.
Food is a problem but the bigger problem is too many people have sedentary jobs staring at a screen all day.Now, even after the mass hysteria is over many of them are still demanding to work from home.Many people aren’t even leaving their homes for days at a time, if they get groceries delivered maybe they’re not leaving for weeks.Walking to the refrigerator is their workout for the day. That’s the bigger problem than food. Where would they go and what would they do otherwise? Our cities have been built for cars to live in instead of people. We have people resistant to the most basic public transportation systems let alone getting any sort of housing density that is absolutely needed. Meanwhile we work more hours than any other developed country with few to no labor rights compared to heather nations.
Office jobs exist just fine in other countries it's not the problem by any means. Wfh is a vast improvement for working conditions when you're not stuck communing for hours a week and can prepare food in your house instead of garbage in the office.
|
On August 29 2022 16:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2022 12:38 gobbledydook wrote: There's always a balance to be had right. It is clearly healthier to not eat fast food, so we should institute a ban on it, then less people will die of obesity related diseases. Somehow there is no credible push for banning fast food. All we do is try to educate people to eat healthier and force fast food stores to display information about the calories.
Food is a problem but the bigger problem is too many people have sedentary jobs staring at a screen all day.Now, even after the mass hysteria is over many of them are still demanding to work from home.Many people aren’t even leaving their homes for days at a time, if they get groceries delivered maybe they’re not leaving for weeks.Walking to the refrigerator is their workout for the day. That’s the bigger problem than food.
I'm able to exercise and eat healthy more easily working from home since I don't lose time commuting and various other inefficiencies that come from being in an office. Office work is a cancer on society.
|
On August 29 2022 16:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2022 12:38 gobbledydook wrote: There's always a balance to be had right. It is clearly healthier to not eat fast food, so we should institute a ban on it, then less people will die of obesity related diseases. Somehow there is no credible push for banning fast food. All we do is try to educate people to eat healthier and force fast food stores to display information about the calories.
Food is a problem but the bigger problem is too many people have sedentary jobs staring at a screen all day.Now, even after the mass hysteria is over many of them are still demanding to work from home.Many people aren’t even leaving their homes for days at a time, if they get groceries delivered maybe they’re not leaving for weeks.Walking to the refrigerator is their workout for the day. That’s the bigger problem than food.
Translated, this feels like "We can't trust your average person to properly take care of themselves"
I don't feel like forcing/encouraging people into the stress of transit and office work is the solution to that problem. In fact, I would strongly speculate it's part of the goddamn problem.
|
I think it's obviously true that many people can't properly take care of themselves. In fact if there is any one thing that everyone in this thread can agree on it's that many people can't make the correct decisions for their health. The debate is how far we should go to get people to make the correct decisions.
|
That and what happens when their choices impact the system as a whole.
|
But that's more of a general debate than a Covid problem. I'd rather not pay towards the same healthcare with probably way over 50% of the people here. There are tons of reasons, not only antivaxers, but also smokers, fat people, people with allergies, people who go skiing and break stuff, people who drive too fast, etc.
|
On August 30 2022 04:11 BlackJack wrote: I think it's obviously true that many people can't properly take care of themselves. In fact if there is any one thing that everyone in this thread can agree on it's that many people can't make the correct decisions for their health. The debate is how far we should go to get people to make the correct decisions.
Not "can't make the correct decisions...", but won't make the correct decisions. I'm suggesting that it's a symptom of a generally poor understanding of happiness and health in general, and Nettles' proposed solution of forcing people to go to the office only addresses symptoms of excercise and social activity poorly, instead of recognizing those as important elements of someone's health and noting that work-from-home allows those issues to be dealt with BETTER than an office environment.
|
We're all just speculating on whether people will use their newfound free time from commuting to exercise and be social butterflies or whether they will just sit on the couch and watch Netflix. Americans in general spend many more hours consuming mindless entertainment behind a screen than they do commuting so I'm not really buying the argument that commuting was cutting into their time to exercise and cook their own meals. They could have still easily done those things if they cut back on their GoT or Stranger Things time.
Either way, Nettles didn't propose forcing people into the office. He was merely opining that he thinks it's less healthy when people don't don't have to leave their house and go into the office.
|
Northern Ireland20513 Posts
Well given the entire socioeconomic system underpinning our lives rather likes us to consume and actively works to convince us to do so in myriad ways, quel surprise people will go and do that.
It’s only relatively recently that as an individual not getting family or friends to shop for you, that one can conceivably never leave the house and get everything delivered.
It’s convenience and innovation when you’re a consumer, encouraging a sedentary lifestyle and social isolation when you’re a prospective worker.
It’s very dependent on individuals, work environments and a multitude of other factors like shift patterns, distance of commute etc. Leave it to individuals to find out what works for them.
As a quite extroverted fellow, who likes my home city, doesn’t have a long commute and has already met many of my new prospective colleagues, and am doing a job I’m a novice in, you can bet your arse I’m going the office. It’s a sweet office too, plus I generally dislike my home environment being my work one, find it hard to relax. Others may be the complete opposite to me and nothing wrong with that.
It helps that Belfast commutes are light by other standards, I get travel sickness bloody badly so spending an hour+ commuting each direction will tire me out more than a lot of people.
And yes for many work is very much a social crutch, but I’d put that down to work swallowing so much of our collective time, focus and energy.
I don’t think it’s really a good argument from enforcing office work, especially for those it doesn’t especially suit. In the same way I think chatting to a cashier for a lonely person is a side benefit of not automating the process, but it’s not a particularly good argument in keeping a job in the cycle that is so mundane and sedentary for the person doing it.
Work shouldn’t be considered the solution for problems of isolation and stress that its import in our structured causes in the first place.
|
^ I started typing something similar several times, and decided it was generally a further derailment from the thread. Thank you for for clarifying the position better than I could, though!
@BlackJack
Being social and taking care of yourself are learned skills. People haven't learned those skills. Suggesting that I'm speculating people will just magically develop these skills overnight if only they didn't have that -darn- 45 minute commute is dishonest, and WombaT read it correctly in it alluding to overall systemic change breaking people from a sleep - work - consume - repeat cycle that is overall proving unhealthy.
Similarly, you could read well enough that I know Nettles hasn't outright proposed a ban on work-from-home, I was just following their passing whining to its logical end and trying to point out that a crutch doesn't address the wound. If you read a little deeper than surface level, I'm sure we'll meet some kind of understanding of each other's position.
|
why can an employer dictate me to come to work if I can do the same work at home, or even more work at home? where's the freedom in that?
|
On August 30 2022 07:20 aseq wrote: But that's more of a general debate than a Covid problem. I'd rather not pay towards the same healthcare with probably way over 50% of the people here. There are tons of reasons, not only antivaxers, but also smokers, fat people, people with allergies, people who go skiing and break stuff, people who drive too fast, etc.
Wait till you find out perverse incentives, on various degrees, apply to all government programs
|
On August 31 2022 04:20 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2022 07:20 aseq wrote: But that's more of a general debate than a Covid problem. I'd rather not pay towards the same healthcare with probably way over 50% of the people here. There are tons of reasons, not only antivaxers, but also smokers, fat people, people with allergies, people who go skiing and break stuff, people who drive too fast, etc. Wait till you find out perverse incentives, on various degrees, apply to all government programs What makes them perverse and why would you not want the government to incentivize positive behavior?
|
By choosing to live in a society you choose to live in a system where not everyone is exactly the same as you. Sorry if that's news to anyone.
|
On August 31 2022 02:48 Artisreal wrote: why can an employer dictate me to come to work if I can do the same work at home, or even more work at home? where's the freedom in that?
Well, they pay you. And they don't only pay you to do your work, they pay you to do the work in the way they want it done.
Your choice, obviously, is to choose an employer which allows you to do that same work from home. And if enough people do that, the employers which don't allow it will notice that they have a greatly reduce pool to hire from, and may change their ways.
|
On August 31 2022 02:44 Fleetfeet wrote: ^ I started typing something similar several times, and decided it was generally a further derailment from the thread. Thank you for for clarifying the position better than I could, though!
@BlackJack
Being social and taking care of yourself are learned skills. People haven't learned those skills. Suggesting that I'm speculating people will just magically develop these skills overnight if only they didn't have that -darn- 45 minute commute is dishonest, and WombaT read it correctly in it alluding to overall systemic change breaking people from a sleep - work - consume - repeat cycle that is overall proving unhealthy.
Similarly, you could read well enough that I know Nettles hasn't outright proposed a ban on work-from-home, I was just following their passing whining to its logical end and trying to point out that a crutch doesn't address the wound. If you read a little deeper than surface level, I'm sure we'll meet some kind of understanding of each other's position.
Nettles thinks WFH will lead to more sedentary and socially isolated lives and you think WFH will be a more healthful alternative than our typical work grind. You've both offered a hypothesis but neither of you have offered any evidence. I think it's fair to say you're both speculating.
|
On August 31 2022 04:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2022 04:20 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 30 2022 07:20 aseq wrote: But that's more of a general debate than a Covid problem. I'd rather not pay towards the same healthcare with probably way over 50% of the people here. There are tons of reasons, not only antivaxers, but also smokers, fat people, people with allergies, people who go skiing and break stuff, people who drive too fast, etc. Wait till you find out perverse incentives, on various degrees, apply to all government programs What makes them perverse and why would you not want the government to incentivize positive behavior?
Perverse incentives is when you get the benefits and have other people pay the costs. Free rider problem is another name, it can also happen on some private industries. In the healthcare example it's pretty obvious; since everyone pays taxes regardless, there is no economical benefit (i.e paying less) for healthy lifestyle choises. Everyone has to foot the bill for obese people chronic care, for example.
Or when you go to college and people who didn't go, pay your tuition and they call it "free college". (happens in latin america)
Or when terrorism gets rewarded with land and money to "solve the conflict" (also happens in latin america)
Or basically any other government service that someone pays for against their will, without benefiting from it or even actively opposing it.
|
|
|
|