I am the only one who can free [my]self. — Merkwurdichliebe

There are many who can and would free you. I suggest that while there is an echo of truth in what you wrote, the better and more accurate statement is that you're the one that keeps yourself imprisoned. And of course there are many who are each proud of his or her prison and won't be pried out of it. And these not to be confused with those who make free choices based in freedom. Life is adaption to constraint, which can be done in freedom.

Your ideas savor too much of extremity without proportion, destructive of meaning and of freedom.

What is the difference between Merkywurdy’s cage and Plato’s cave?

The cage is unique to each individual, while the cave is universal, consisting of the laws, and of the religious beliefs, of the community. Communities vary in these particulars, but the character of these laws and beliefs is the same: they are designed to require allegiance to community, and to the gods that insure its safety and prosperity.

The key to the cage is unique to each individual, while the way out of the cave is universal, effected by following the dictates of Nature as opposed to those of Community. Beyond the cage there is no universal Nature, the assumption of all science and (at least before Nietzsche) philosophy.

But, beyond the cage, at least some hope of a reunion of freed souls is offered: “...there is nothing to prevent one person’s place from overlapping with another’s” (Merkwurdichliebe)...but what is there to suggest, beyond the author’s mere statement of this supposed fact, the existence of such overlapping? What can individuals uniquely freed from unique circumstances expect to find, on the other side, in common after they are free, like the common Nature Plato’s philosophers can expect to share?

In fine, Plato’s cave is more congenial to me than Merkywurdy’s cage, because I find, in those who exit it, a potential community, based on Nature, beyond the vulgar community; whereas in the Nietzscean/Merkywurdian cage I find only unique individuals uniquely freed who have nothing certainly in common other than that they were freed from something different from anything I was ever liberated from.

What true dissent or protest is:

It is certainly not in drawing attention to yourself;

Intus omnia dissimilia sint, frons populo nostra conveniat.

Not wearing a mask in public is not proving your freedom from mob hysteria; it only shows that you don’t understand the true nature of dissent...which is in HAVING your own opinion, and not necessarily EXPRESSING it...unless you do so in a philosophy forum...ha ha!

I think that the Coronavirus restrictions are raising major areas of philosophical debate although in the media they are not touched upon in that exact way.

It is a complex lifeboat ethics situation, with questions about who should be saved. In placing decisions about the lockdowns, governments have been favouring the vulnerable and older people, because the statistics show that only a minimal amount of younger people have died from the virus.

Many people are aware of this slant and this is causing a backlash. Aside from protests, in England the majority of England are now thrown into tier 2, which involves many restrictions, but not as tight as lockdown. Today, lockdown is over and what I have seen in London is that people are seizing all opportunities for freedom after lockdown. I think it is likely that this loosening will probably result in tier 3 restrictions for London within a week.

The point I am trying to make is that political leaders have been making lifeboat ethical decisions in terms of the elderly and vulnerable, 9without this being said outrightly. But the other side of this is that other parts of the population are being thrown into poverty. This is acknowledged in the news but almost as an afterthought. In England it is described in the rhetoric of the need for the NHS to avoid being overwhelmed. But the true lack of consensus about priorities is not being addressed by leaders in open debate.

Of course the deaths cannot be ignored but perhaps it would be more helpful if, rather than coercion by endless rules, which cause anger, people were encouraged to think in terms of risks and responsibilities. In the end, vaccinations may be offered and some might refuse. In this way, the whole area of thinking may have to be reframed to allow for individual choice and informed risk assessment rather than all encompassing rules and regulations.

Yes. Life is hard for the protestor. Lenin had to ride a train all the way across europe to get to Russia in time to kill the czar. They say he was in bad mood when he got home. — frank

Great anecdote! :rofl:

Are you going to get vaccinated? — frank

Only if they pay me. I will be taking a capitalist approach with the vaccine.

what about you? And why?

I'm getting vaccinated because I have a functioning brain.

you really do not understand his posts do you? Just not getting it. It's ok, intellectual diversity is everywhere.

Not even if they pay me. Thanks.

On the upside I finally figured out what my issue is with the response I have been seeing to this Covid bug. S.I.R.S!!! Only with the human population of the planet as the body. Totally makes sense now. And it has a high mortality rate left untreated, so...The whales are gonna win. I am ok with that.

S.I.R.S: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome. For those who don't know. Look it up, apply it globally, and good luck.

Explain them to me.

It's all good. Truth will out. Evolution will soon remove the unmasked.

Thanks. Go evolution!

I don't have that kind of time on my hands. Mostly they are about self realization. That's a much assistance as I can provide, the rest is up to you.

Mostly they are about self realization. — Book273

Perhaps he should think about what kind of self he's self-realizing himself into.

Hmm.

Demystifying U.S. Covid-19 death counts (Tam Hunt; Dec 3, 2020)

Death toll significantly overestimated...?
Either way, looks like an attempt at downplay.

The article is strangely reminiscent of Trump's attempt to disqualify Biden votes as illegal. And so it all adds up to the claim of "very significant mistake". Do you think that if a person died in a car crash, and they had previously tested positive for Covid-19, their death would be counted as a Covid-19 death?

Do you think that if a person died in a car crash, and they had previously tested positive for Covid-19, their death would be counted as a Covid-19 death? — Metaphysician Undercover

If their recovery was in any way hampered by Covid-19 (even having had it) then it would form part of the chain of events leading to death (the other being the car crash injuries) and so it would form part of the Covid-19 statistics, yes. That's how they're designed and it's a deliberate strategy so that the statistics encompass the full impact of the pandemic - ie that person might not have died if one part of the chain of events was removed.

But just pointing that out that the issue of 'excess deaths' is consequently complicated by by this decision is not in the least bit reminiscent of Trump's nonsense. Partisanship in politics is one thing, but when millions of people are dying or at risk of dying what we need is good data and dispassionate analysis, not mob rule shutting down any discussion not totally on board with the Hollywood version of this disaster movie.

The decision to count all listings of Covid involvement as a Covid death was a perfectly rational one, and a good idea, in my view, but subsequently pointing out that the result of this decision is that the statistics, particularly related to excess deaths caused by policy responses, needs to be treated with caution is not

an attempt at downplay. — jorndoe

it's a necessary part of developing policies which cause the least collateral harm whilst still tackling the pandemic.

If their recovery was in any way hampered by Covid-19 (even having had it) then it would form part of the chain of events leading to death (the other being the car crash injuries) and so it would form part of the Covid-19 statistics, yes. — Isaac

Obviously there is no recovery in my example. The person died "in" a car crash, not in a hospital. The article said that in some states, if any person who dies had previously tested positive, it was counted as a Covid-19 death. The article doesn't mention any judgement of a "chain of events".

But just pointing that out that the issue of 'excess deaths' is consequently complicated by by this decision is not in the least bit reminiscent of Trump's nonsense. Partisanship in politics is one thing, but when millions of people are dying or at risk of dying what we need is good data and dispassionate analysis, not mob rule shutting down any discussion not totally on board with the Hollywood version of this disaster movie. — Isaac

Did you read the article? It seems to have been written with a very bias slant, to me. The way they suggest that Covid deaths ought to be recounted to exclude a whole bunch as illegitimate seems very similar to the way that Trump suggests votes ought to be recounted.

No one is "shutting down any discussion". The article is right there for you to read, and we are discussing it here. Of course I am free to say shut up, I don't want to hear your nonsense, and walk away from this discussion, which is what the judges are doing to Trump. But the thing which Trump is complaining about, a presidential election, seems to be a lot more important than the other thing, number of Covid deaths, which is just statistics used for models. And, I think we all know that error is inherent within descriptive statistics. Is the point, that maybe we do not all know this, and so the various possibilities for error ought to be pointed to?

The decision to count all listings of Covid involvement as a Covid death was a perfectly rational one, and a good idea, in my view, but subsequently pointing out that the result of this decision is that the statistics, particularly related to excess deaths caused by policy responses, needs to be treated with caution is not — Isaac

As I said, the article appears to be written with a slant, as evidenced by my example. Have you read the article? Here's the quote:

The over-counting of deaths goes even further than Ezeke and Birx suggested because most U.S. states (including Illinois) include in their Covid-19 death tally anyone who has tested positive for the virus at any point prior to death.
...
2) most states go even further and include anyone who tested positive for the virus at any time and then died, whether or not they actually had Covid-19 or were an asymptomatic carrier;

This does not even address the authors claim of "90% or more effective false positives" in "various types" of testing. I don't know which agencies would be using different types of testing which are known to give results with more than ninety percent of the positives being false positives.
.

The person died "in" a car crash, not in a hospital. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a post mortem which will still try to establish the cause of death. If the person in the car died from their injuries at the scene and one excaserbating factor was a covid infection then it would be listed as a covid death. We're talking unlikely circumstances at this stage, but it would be recorded the way the article describes, and for good reason too.

The article doesn't mention any judgement of a "chain of events". — Metaphysician Undercover

It's how death certificates work.

Did you read the article? It seems to have been written with a very bias slant, to me. The way they suggest that Covid deaths ought to be recounted to exclude a whole bunch as illegitimate seems very similar to the way that Trump suggests votes ought to be recounted. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that they're both asking for a recount? Surely the significant factor in Trump's actions is that he's asking for legitimate votes to be discounted. The legitimacy of the picture presented by the statistics for the job at hand is what matters, not the superficial resemblance anyone making such a request shares.

No one is "shutting down any discussion". — Metaphysician Undercover

I was referring here to the general trend, not that specific article.

the thing which Trump is complaining about, a presidential election, seems to be a lot more important than the other thing, number of Covid deaths, which is just statistics used for models. — Metaphysician Undercover

Those models determine policy and public response which, in the current state of crisis, determines who and how many die. So I think they are extremely important.

This does not even address the authors claim of "90% or more effective false positives" in "various types" of testing. I don't know which agencies would be using different types of testing which are known to give results with more than ninety percent of the positives being false positives. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I don't either, and that claim about false positives should have been supported with a citation or quote from an expert. It doesn't invalidate the consequences the author highlights on the counting of non-covid excess deaths.

It's pretty much uncontested that policies designed to reduce deaths from covid will cause a rise in deaths from other causes. So how we monitor and predict those collateral deaths really matters.

It's all good. Truth will out. Evolution will soon remove the unmasked. — Banno

:up: Darwin Awards (& complimentary presidential pardons) for MAGA-sheeple.

I can only respectfully disagree. For me, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, but for me, wearing masks as prescribed is a little too close to wearing tinfoil hats to block out all the radiowaves penetrating your skull.

There are millions of healthy people wearing masks, not because they are sick and risk infecting someone, but because they are ignorant of whether they are sick or not. Ignorance, not illness. Conformity, not heroism.

There are millions of healthy people wearing masks, not because they are sick and risk infecting someone, but because they are ignorant of whether they are sick or not. — NOS4A2

Wow, we agree about something! Now if this was bubonic plague, and everyone who was sick came out in huge pustules, or leprosy, where bits fall off, then we would all know who to socially distance from and so on. That would be much better. But alas it is not so simple with covid, and nobody knows the virtuous from the unclean, except by arcane ritual of swab and test, performed in the holy inner sanctum of science labs. Ah, the good old days of freedom...

There's a post mortem which will still try to establish the cause of death. If the person in the car died from their injuries at the scene and one excaserbating factor was a covid infection then it would be listed as a covid death. We're talking unlikely circumstances at this stage, but it would be recorded the way the article describes, and for good reason too. — Isaac

But the article says it would be recorded as a Covid-19 death even if Covid-19 wasn't an exacerbating factor. That's a big difference.

In that they're both asking for a recount? Surely the significant factor in Trump's actions is that he's asking for legitimate votes to be discounted. The legitimacy of the picture presented by the statistics for the job at hand is what matters, not the superficial resemblance anyone making such a request shares. — Isaac

The principle is the same as that demonstrated by the president . The author is dissatisfied with the way that something has been counted, and makes exaggerated, deceptive, and arguably false claims, in an attempt to discredit the count.

It doesn't invalidate the consequences the author highlights on the counting of non-covid excess deaths. — Isaac

Yes, but the same principle as Trump arguing for a fraudulent election applies here again. Sure there are going to be some improper ballots, and some wrongly counted deaths, but using a deceptive presentation to create the appearance that if some insignificant mistakes had been prevented, this would have resulted in a significantly different outcome, is simply wrong.

It's pretty much uncontested that policies designed to reduce deaths from covid will cause a rise in deaths from other causes. — Isaac

Actually I think this is a very dubious statement. I remember seeing some statistics showing that when the lock down was in effect in the spring, the number of deaths in the US was down sharply from the same period in recent years. In general staying at home is a lot safer than going out.

There's a post mortem which will still try to establish the cause of death. If the person in the car died from their injuries at the scene and one excaserbating factor was a covid infection then it would be listed as a covid death. We're talking unlikely circumstances at this stage, but it would be recorded the way the article describes, and for good reason too. — Isaac

Autopsies aren't routine in the US. They only do them if the family wants it or there's some other good reason. Nobody wants to examine the body of someone with covid-19 because the body is a disease vector.

If someone had a covid related stroke while driving and subsequently died of injuries from the crash, it's likely that those facts would never come to light. The death would be attributed to the injuries.

But the article says it would be recorded as a Covid-19 death even if Covid-19 wasn't an exacerbating factor. That's a big difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Why would you just prima facie disbelieve this? He's provided sources, and the was good reason to, as John Newton at PHE said

The way we count deaths in people with COVID-19 in England was originally chosen to avoid underestimating deaths caused by the virus in the early stages of the pandemic.

Since then changes have been made to include epidemiological evidence that Covid -19 was indeed an exacerbating factor.
I don't know as much about the situation in America, but I see no reason why it wouldn't have been the same. It was a good decision.
From the UK government's own website

concerns [were] raised by academics from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine about the original measure, which counted anyone who had ever tested positive as a COVID-associated death.

the numbers of deaths in people who have tested positive have become substantially greater than the numbers of deaths subsequently registered as COVID-19 deaths by the ONS, which is why we are now changing our approach to reporting deaths — PHE

What's interesting here is not the facts themselves, which are as indisputable as it gets, but the way in which, without even researching the article's sources, you've already assume it is

exaggerated, deceptive, and arguably false — Metaphysician Undercover

It's pretty much uncontested that policies designed to reduce deaths from covid will cause a rise in deaths from other causes. — Isaac


Actually I think this is a very dubious statement. — Metaphysician Undercover

These figures might support a contention that the measures being taken to deal with covid-19 may be having a negative effect on other causes of death, particularly other respiratory causes — BMJ

Since the week ending June 26 there have been more non-coronavirus deaths registered above what would usually be expected in private homes than deaths registered involving Covid-19 — Office for National Statistics

...which is just to address the direct correlation - not even touch on the knock on effects...

Even temporary disruptions can cause long-term increases in TB incidence and mortality. If lockdown-related disruptions cause a temporary 50% reduction in TB transmission, we estimated that a 3-month suspension of TB services, followed by 10 months to restore to normal, would cause, over the next 5 years, an additional 1⋅19 million TB cases (Crl 1⋅06–1⋅33) and 361,000 TB deaths (CrI 333–394 thousand) in India, 24,700 (16,100–44,700) TB cases and 12,500 deaths (8.8–17.8 thousand) in Kenya, and 4,350 (826–6,540) cases and 1,340 deaths (815–1,980) in Ukraine. The principal driver of these adverse impacts is the accumulation of undetected TB during a lockdown. — The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tuberculosis epidemic a modelling analysis - The Lancet

... but you carry on with your preferred narrative, don't let any of these tricky complications get in the way of your all-American hero flick.

Why would you just prima facie disbelieve this? — Isaac

I disbelieved it "prima facie" because it appeared completely unreasonable to me, because of the specific claims which were made, and the way that they were presented. So I placed one of the many dubious claims made there, onto this forum, in the form of an example. And you confirmed that you also believed, as I do, that the reporting practice was not as stated in the article, by saying that Covid-19 must be apprehended as a contributing factor in the death. Remember, the article which I see as deceptive, states that the person merely has to have tested positive for Covid-19 at some prior time in their life, then died, and it is reported as a Covid-19 death. This I see as completely unreasonable, and that unreasonableness, along with other unreasonable claims, presented in a way so as to act as premises toward an implied unreasonable conclusion, is good reason for disbelief.

Since then changes have been made to include epidemiological evidence that Covid -19 was indeed an exacerbating factor. — Isaac

OK, so at the beginning of the pandemic, when there was only a few people in the population of a given country who tested positive already, there was even less people who tested positive and died. The practice of counting everyone who tests positive and dies would produce a very small number of mistakes, even if it might have been a somewhat significant percentage of the overall count, at that time. Then this practice was changed. Now when there are huge numbers who have tested positive, and large numbers of those who have tested positive are dying, the practice is no longer used. Therefore relative to the overall numbers, the mistakes reported at the beginning when there was a very small number, are very insignificant, constituting a very small percentage of the overall numbers.

What's interesting here is not the facts themselves, which are as indisputable as it gets, but the way in which, without even researching the article's sources, you've already assume it is — Isaac

Yes, of course, when a deceptive proposal is poorly fabricated, I can readily identify its mal-intent without looking for discrepancies between it and the claimed sources. It's just like when a telephone scammer calls me. Most of the time it is obviously a scam, as evidenced by the unreasonableness of the claims, and the way that the claims are presented, in an unreasonable way, pointing toward mal-intent. For the scammers to get beyond this intuitive, or learned capacity, to identify mal-intent (that you seem to find very interesting), which we all possess in varying degrees, the scammer needs to put some serious effort into constructing the deceptive proposal. But because the intuitive, or learned capacity, varies from one person to another, some are more easily deceived than others, and the ways in which we are gullible also varies.

but you carry on with your preferred narrative, don't let any of these tricky complications... — Isaac

By "tricky complications" you really mean deceptive speak. Maybe you should try that line on your telephone scam day job, if you have one. "Wait, wait, don't hang up on me, it only appears like a scam because you are not grasping the tricky complications required to make what I'm saying seem reasonable". That's why Trump made that 46 minute speech (highly extraordinary for him) the other night, to present the tricky complications which the professional judges refused to consider, deeming them as unnecessary in making a reasonable judgement; because those tricky complications are smoke and mirrors.

And you confirmed that you also believed, as I do, that the reporting practice was not as stated in the article, — Metaphysician Undercover

The reporting practice was exactly as stated in the article.

concerns [were] raised by academics from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine about the original measure, which counted anyone who had ever tested positive as a COVID-associated death.

I don't understand how much more clear that can be. It says they used to count anyone who ever tested positive as a Covid-associated death, which is exactly what the article claims. And unsurprisingly, since rather than just writing about whet he reckons might be the case, the author has just quoted the two sources from which he gained the information.

OK, so at the beginning of the pandemic, when there was only a few people in the population of a given country who tested positive already, there was even less people who tested positive and died. The practice of counting everyone who tests positive and dies would produce a very small number of mistakes, even if it might have been a somewhat significant percentage of the overall count, at that time. — Metaphysician Undercover

How many cases and deaths were there at the time of the change?

relative to the overall numbers, the mistakes reported at the beginning when there was a very small number, are very insignificant, constituting a very small percentage of the overall numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover

What percentages of the deaths recorded were recorded under the old/new system?

By "tricky complications" you really mean deceptive speak. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're going to be that flippant about nearly half a million excess deaths then there's no point talking to you. I don't suppose you give a shit about what we do if you don't even care how many people die. It's pointless trying to talk to someone about strategy whose motives I don't share at all.

This debate around Covid-19 would be even more vitriolic in the US if the country would have successfully handled the pandemic. Now as finally the corona pandemic has killed more than heart disease does, the rhetoric of it being a "just another cold" isn't so popular anymore.

Let's say the US would be where Canada is now and wouldn't have the 871 deaths/million, but would have only 334 deaths/million (of Canada), which would mean that there would be only 110 000 deaths until now. That one hundred thousand death mark was reached now in May, by the way. If the US would be in a similar state as my country, it would have only 10% of the total deaths: only roughly 28 000 now. Of course this simply isn't realistic as the US is the third most traveled to country in the World, which is absolutely crucial to why the country could not have realistically kept the virus spreading before the alarm bells went off. Closing the borders well before the WHO considered this a pandemic isn't realistic.

If success would be that the US would have now half or one tenth of the body count, would the discourse be different? I find it very unlikely that Americans would be pleased with a far lower body count, as in any case a "lock down" of some sort would have been implemented.

Prior to the pandemic many studies put the US with it's large resources as the best prepared country to face a pandemic. Now it's obvious that reality is nothing like it. It's not only the structure of the US being literally United States where the States decide what to do themselves, it is also the individualist liberalism at the core of the ideology of the country. Simply Americans abhor "big government" and won't fall into line and follow orders given by "the rulers" as many other countries do. Nope, every man pursues his happiness, or his health in this occasion, by himself. Collectivism is something sinister and this pandemic is just a trick to snatch away those freedoms that Americans enjoy.

If you're going to be that flippant about nearly half a million excess deaths then there's no point talking to you. — Isaac

The article was concerned with "US Covid-19 Death Counts". You flippantly mention "nearly half a million excess deaths", and accuse me of being flippant.