A wise and benevolent govt — Todd Martin

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.....headed by Santa and the Easter bunny!

Sad that you think your girlfriend is foolish and selfish. Maybe let her go on her own while you stay safe in the basement eh. Her and her family can go have a good Christmas, workout their immune systems a bit, and maybe she can meet a guy that sees the world a little more her way. You can meet a mask in your basement and enjoy yourself safely.

Good plan!

Life isn't safe. Adjust.

Ah yes, I cited that most famous of conspiracy theory publishers, the British Medical Journal. Not to mention that hotbed of zealotry that is The Lancet. And I can't think what came over me when trusting sources as obviously partisan as the actual published trial data!

Clearly, what I should have been doing, to avoid this rampant tin-foil hat brigade, is watching videos on YouTube.

I'll leave you with the former head of that famous conspiracy-theory promoting agency the European Medicines Agency

“Personally I would have expected a robust review of all available data, which the British government has not done"

...but I couldn't find a YouTube video on it, only Reuters, so who knows it's authenticity... I'll be sure to check my sources with the relevant arm of Google in future.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/13/chicago-mercy-hospital-closure-covid-19

But fuck, I don't think Pfizer have quite enough money yet. Perhaps we could shut a few more clinics and rustle up a couple of million more for them.

Ah yes, I cited that most famous of conspiracy theory publishers, the British Medical Journal. Not to mention that hotbed of zealotry that is The Lancet. — Isaac

And what you are talking about, just like above "But fuck, I don't think Pfizer have quite enough money yet. Perhaps we could shut a few more clinics and rustle up a couple of million more for them." and earlier has absolutely nothing to do with any article in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal.

@Book273 My girlfriend is 87 yrs old and underwent lung cancer chemo and radiation 3 yrs ago, from which she successfully recovered.

She can’t have a happy Christmas with her family without me, as she told me, and backed up her statement by going on a hunger strike until I relented, and told her I would go. When she had begun to eat her first meal after the strike, she suddenly headed for the toilet, where she vomited up those first couple bites, because she had been so distraught at the prospect of me not accompanying her.

Would you want your beloved girlfriend who was in such a condition to, as you call it, “work out” her immune system?

And what you are talking about, just like above "But fuck, I don't think Pfizer have quite enough money yet. Perhaps we could shut a few more clinics and rustle up a couple of million more for them." and earlier has absolutely nothing to do with any article in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal. — ssu

Well, not 'absolutely nothing', no. It is a political opinion based on solid cited evidence. Are all political opinions that you don't agree with to be branded conspiracy theories now? We've seen that move before.

Good that you referred yourself to a political opinion here.

Being against the political decisions is different to being against the technological or medical aspects here.

Right. But it's the technological and medical aspects that I've provided professional cited sources taking issue with. The political argument is whether the money is being spent on vaccine research at the expense of community health care. The medical and technological issue is that the vaccine has not been tested for efficacy at reducing either transmission or hospitalisation, nor has it been tested for safety on key demographics. So claims that it will do so are without sufficient scientific support. That's not a political opinion. It's just a fact. Those tests simply have not been carried out, end of story.

To further support what @Isaac is saying here, and as I've mentioned before, the vaccine data so far does not exclude simply re-distributing harms rather than reducing harms overall.

The phase 3 trials do demonstrate people don't usually drop dead after getting the vaccine, so this is a good thing. But the reasoning offered by the corporations, government and media that "we'll start to see the end of the pandemic due vaccine roll out" is simply an unsound conclusion based on the available evidence.

It might be true, hopefully it is, but the idea it is certain or has passed standards of scientific validity is simply false. It is a gamble, a really, really, big gamble. It was a gamble to formulate a policy to basically do nothing to contain or mitigate the pandemic in hard hit countries due to mismanagement (compared to the countries that demonstrated competent policies) but rather wait for a vaccine to "solve the issue in the proper corporate friendly way". And it's a gamble now to roll out the vaccine with insufficient evidence that it will actually work to end the pandemic.

There are lot's of ludicrously stupid comments on reddit that claim "yes, there's insufficient evidence of effectiveness and unknown side effects beyond two months of trial data and lot's of population subgroups not represented in the trials, but the vaccine is for sure better than actually getting covid; in otherwords, we can know the risk of the vaccine is less than the risk of Covid".

Obviously, evidence is required to make such a conclusion, and premising any argument on a lack of evidence is the sign of a completely incompetent mind, which we can expect of reddit but hopefully can arrive at a clearer understanding on this forum.

Now, the experts developing and approving the vaccine certainly have reasons to believe their gamble will pay off. And maybe it will, but it is a mistake to believe there isn't a very large gamble being played and that the public has been properly informed about it.

If the gamble succeeds, great.

If it doesn't, there are innumerable potential reasons (due to the complexity and diversity of human biology including our biomes), but it's easy to list a few in addition to what @Isaac has already mentioned, that the experiments simply did not test for reducing transmission or reducing severe disease; some additional ones are:

- Statistical analysis did not include the fact many projects were trying to do the same thing at once and so some projects are expected to simply get lucky. I.e. no one conducted a proper Bayesian analysis of the vaccine development effort as a whole because the people involved are simply corrupt.
- The side-effects of the vaccine changed behaviour (for instance tiredness and lethargy) that was long lasting due to the long tail of degradation of the mRNA (many half life cycles are needed to be completely degraded and even one strand can activate an immune response, as one mRNA can fabricate many spike proteins). Lethargy reduces social interaction and chances of getting the disease compared to the control of placebo or another vaccine with shorter lived side-effects.
- Mutations (that may already exist but are currently suppressed by the dominant strains) can defeat the vaccine and not only spread easily between vaccinated people but the chance of severe disease is actually greater due to having the vaccine. The range of immune response of vaccinated individuals to a different strain is completely unexpected, because mRNA vaccine is new and there's lot's of things that no one thought of. I.e. the assumption that the shear number of virus particles in existence right now isn't an evolutionary advantage that more than compensates the usually slow mutation of this Coronavirus, turns out to be wrong.
- The effects of the vaccine program are benign, not making anything better but not making things overall worse (it simply redistributes the same level of harm rather than reduce it overall), but, other than the wasted money, trust in public health authorities completely collapses due to the failed gamble making it nearly impossible to formulate any new effective policy.
- Significant corners needed to be cut to scale-up production and quality control at scale turns out to be essentially impossible with current technology, and the assumption that "bad mRNAs" resulting from the stochastic processes would have zero effect turns out to be wrong.

Please note, these are not predictions, but a few, of a great many things, that could go wrong that professors for decades will solemnly explain to their classes as an example of the "reasoning mistakes even experts can make even though it's a classic example of X, Y, Z that was well understood already not to do but is now the new poster child of stupid in this category".

Other than the critical policy mistakes of abandoning containment in the early stages of the pandemic (which every country that made a competent effort succeeded in doing), if things do go wrong with the vaccine, we can note the further policy disaster of allowing vaccine developers to issue press releases on their data and work with their media sycophants to create such a hype train that governments basically had to approve the vaccines (not only because they too are sycophants but, in addition, due to the overwhelming pressure and belief created in the media that "over 90% effective and the pandemic will soon be over with these vaccines!! woweee").

Governments should have designed and mandated new trial protocols appropriate for the situation (much larger with much better experimental design and carried out by third parties), and corporations should have been gag-ordered to provide zero information to the press so that review and approval processes were not affected by public opinion and media hype. Simply accelerating the old normal process was not a reasonable policy because phase 3 is not usually followed by massive deployment of a new pharmaceutical, but there is phase 4 of post market surveillance, that is usually many years of "seeing what happens" and only a small percentage of the population gets the intervention every year (i.e. the risk of something being missed isn't so great because few people get the new intervention for many years). A competent medical professional would want a new trial design that would seek to get some of the same insights as phase 4 in an accelerated time line, which (if it is statistically impossible to do) then want direct challenge experiments (exposing trial participants to the virus deliberately, including known mutations) would be the only reasonable course of action; the benefit obviously outweighs the harm in this pandemic situation, and the only reason direct challenge experiments weren't used to get much, much more certainty about efficacy and side-effects in humans is because policy makers and their corporate donors preferred not to know, but to rather roll out a multi billion dollar gamble in a statistical haze.

The die is cast now though, so we'll see what happens.

And if you think policy makers aren't disastrously idiotic and corrupt, just look at the pandemic up until this point in the places rushing to be first to deploy the vaccine. Although past stupidity and corruption doesn't guarantee future stupidity and corruption, I wouldn't personally bet against it.

The medical and technological issue is that the vaccine has not been tested for efficacy at reducing either transmission or hospitalisation, nor has it been tested for safety on key demographics. — Isaac

Which key demographics are you referring to?

And more importantly, I think one should refer here to distinct vaccines, or is it really alleged that all various vaccines now studied have been dealt in similar way? That's what the Lancet article says? (I guess you had a link)

And if you think policy makers aren't disastrously idiotic and corrupt, just look at the pandemic up until this point in the places rushing to be first to deploy the vaccine. Although past stupidity and corruption doesn't guarantee future stupidity and corruption, I wouldn't personally bet against it. — boethius

Well, looking at just my country, I don't really feel that they have been disastrously idiotic and corrupt when the country is among the least effected countries in the EU. If you want to paint every leadership in such gloom, that's your problem. I don't know then were you draw the line of what then would be an adequate, OK response to a pandemic.

The medical and technological issue is that the vaccine has not been tested for efficacy at reducing either transmission or hospitalisation, nor has it been tested for safety on key demographics. — Isaac

Which key demographics are you referring to? — ssu

The elderly, the immunocompromised, the chronically ill, ethnic minorities, very young children...

And more importantly, I think one should refer here to distinct vaccines, or is it really alleged that all various vaccines now studied have been dealt in similar way? — ssu

Yes. The testing methodology is publicly available - if you haven't even looked at it in all this discussion then that really shows what level of blind faith we're working with. Someone raises an issue with the testing methodology as cited in a reputable medical journal and you construct an argument that no such omission exists without even looking?

Further testing is now being carried out. They will plug the gaps in those demographics eventually, that's not the point. The point is the amount of money going into it without any assurances as to its likely efficacy contrasted with the complete lack of investment (cuts even) in services which have a far better evidence base for reduction in both transmission and severity, for this virus, and all it's future strains, and any future virus.

And you'd like me to believe that the massive investment in an industry which spends more on lobbying than any other, and industry with representatives and shareholders in the highest positions in government, is all just a sound level-headed strategic decision?

Well, looking at just my country, I don't really feel that they have been disastrously idiotic and corrupt when the country is among the least effected countries in the EU. If you want to paint every leadership in such gloom, that's your problem. I don't know then were you draw the line of what then would be an adequate, OK response to a pandemic. — ssu

I qualified my statement with "in the places rushing to be first to deploy the vaccine". Finland is not such a country. I contrasted incompetent management with the countries that have managed competently and kept cases low through containment (which, at the start of this thread in March, I was advocating for and pointing out the disaster that abandoning containment would create, which is did).

Incompetent governments abandoned containment because "waaa, it's so hard .. and aviation stocks!" and are now the ones trying to fix things with vaccines that do not have sufficient evidence to conclude they will work to end the pandemic.

The competent governments with low cases have no need to rush to deploy the vaccine and get to see how it plays out in other countries, which is what they are doing as it's the competent thing to do. Rollout plans in countries with low cases are also much slower.

Keep in mind that many side-effects cannot be detected without time, in particular any impact on fertility. So just giving the vaccine to a million people in a month doesn't suddenly prove it's safe.

Likewise, since it's a novel pharmaceutical technology it could create disorders that have simply not existed before, which again simply takes time to notice and for doctors to understand. Side-effects are only found quickly if they correspond to a known pathology with clear symptoms and tests. Lot's of side-effects can simply have no symptoms on a short time scale; if the vaccines induce these sorts of pathologies there is simply no way to know at this point (hence phase-4 trials on a limited amount of the population to see what comes up in a usual safety evaluation program).

The assumption that the number of unfortunate side-effects will be "one in a million" is simply an assumption based on nothing. Extrapolating from other vaccines in the market, as people on reddit like to do, has not technical basis as these vaccines are new technology and is all the more absurd because those vaccines passed phase 4 trials.

One must also consider that the disease disproportionately harms the old, but side-effects could be life-long lasting on the young. It is not necessarily reasonable to sacrifice the quality of life of a young person to save the life of someone over 80. Such an analysis is required and simply requires time to have the required data upon which to make a conclusion.

Since this is a philosophy forum, we can also note that (in countries with catastrophic health crisis at the moment) the pandemic is, to a large extent, a self-inflicted harm by the elderly upon themselves, by creating a society designed to spread a pandemic as quickly as possible and tolerating a government incapable of an effective response for so long. Not only must we take age and quality of life into consideration in evaluating the cost-benefit of the vaccines, but there is little moral motivation for the young to take any risk at all to help the elderly in such societies; the old dying of coronavirus are lying in the bed they have made.

Therefore, the young should not be content to know the vaccine is safer than getting covid in a general sense, but should insist it is proven to be safer for their particular risk profile and with enough data to make such a conclusion (which requires even more time and data, as the risk of Covid to healthy young people is very low, so proving the vaccine is even lower is much more difficult statistically).

I'd also like to point out that many people on reddit like to describe the vaccine in an hyper oversimplified 3 lines and then say "so you see, couldn't possibly do anything bad", then they pat each other on the back for a while. These vaccines are extremely complex in their design, manufacturing, deployment and interaction with both human cells and other organisms in the human body, not to mention the coronavirus and existing and yet to come mutations. Some of these mRNA particles will go to places they aren't "supposed to go" within the body (maybe it doesn't matter, maybe it does), the other compounds in these vaccines may have completely unexpected consequences and interactions with other drugs people are taking or other pathogens some people have, human cells don't usually reverse transcribe mRNA but other organism may (maybe it doesn't matter, maybe it does), there will be manufacturing errors and deployment mishaps (to little or greater effect), etc. etc. To make a long story short, there are unknowns we know we don't know, as well as the unknown unknowns we don't know we know, but what we can know is we're about to find out. The FDA approval was not "yep, totally safe" to summarize a summary went along the lines of "a lot we don't know, but whatever, let's do it". Like a gambler putting up the deed to his house to double up and pay some loan sharks, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but what we can be sure of is anyone in such a position is an idiot regardless of the outcome; disaster is simply poetic justice and success we are safe to assume a short lived high before the next catastrophe.

Diseases and plagues come and go, none of which have ever really stopped humanity for long. Perhaps, this pandemic instead shows us the true disease which plagues most societies, one that no vaccine made in a lab could ever hope to cure. In a word, dehumanization. Not just of one another or those whom we disagree/don't get along with- but our very selves.

How many hours a day are you on your phone, staring at your computer, your TV, your Xbox, what have you. How many hours are you actually talking to your fellow man face to face, not just talking like you'd do in a line to pass the time or make it less awkward or boring, but socializing, connecting, sharing ideas and feelings, and bonding. Odds are not many.

The fact that this lock down doesn't really interrupt the lives or quality of life of many (people use their phones and the internet, get food and nearly everything delivered anyhow, continue to numb their minds and senses with TV, video games, etc., and when out in public running an errand still rush back home as quickly as possible to get back to the monotony) should be a real eyeopener.

We can speak to anyone anywhere in the world- but can we understand or care for each other or appreciate their company? We can order nearly anything in the world, be it food or goods, and have it delivered to our door the same day- but can we appreciate it or procure said things ourselves without our precious devices? We can annihilate an entire nation in the push of a button or two- but why is even that seemingly not enough to avoid losing what those who came before us had?

What happened to the days of yore where kids would go outside to play until dusk with no problems because everybody knew their neighbors and families would play board games or perhaps watch a good movie before/while preparing a home-cooked meal to discuss their day or other family topics around. What has our species become? Something other than human I fear. Perhaps this is the meta behind the old religious adage of "gaining the world, but losing one's soul."

I would not have stressed her out so much in the first place. I have a very different approach to life than you have it seems. I am very comfortable with a certain level of risk. I do not expect everyone to accept my level of risk. I am however, opposed to being forced to operate at someone else's level of risk. That everyone is expected to conform to universally accepted risk tolerances is offensive to those of us that have lived through horrific experiences and have found balance with it. This trivializes our growth and development, effectively negating our healing process and forcing us to pretend to live in fear as do those around us.

I am a fire fighter. People run from the burning building, car fire, wildfire etc. I do not expect you to suit up and join me in an interior attack of a burning building. I do however expect that you will allow me to do so, as it is a risk I have accepted as an adult. Your values are not mine, nor should they be. I am not asking anyone to adopt my values, I am however, not interested in adopting theirs either. It is sheer arrogance to impose or mandate values on others. It is, in my opinion, quite evil, robbing people of that which makes them them.

@Book273 “I would not have stressed her out in the first place”; but you don’t know, haven’t dealt with her family as I have over the years. I have pleaded with them that we not get together this Christmas, and all my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. They are of one mindset and I of another, but they won’t listen to me...

I helped her through cancer, and they were grateful they were relieved of that burden; I have lived with her day to day (as they haven’t: they only see her a couple times a year) for years, helping her get groceries, get things fixed around the house, take out the trash, vacuum the floors, visit doctors, make calls, etc, etc, etc...more importantly, lie with her to keep her warm, willingly sit with her to hear the same old stories of yore, go to church with her, help her elderly friends by working for them, in a word, be her man and companion during the last years of her life...

And how do they honor my service to the matriarch? They ignore me, follow their own selfish interest and encourage her to gather with them at her own peril and my anguish.

This Christmas with her family will be the worst one I’ve ever experienced in my life since I was a wee tot, wearing a mask and sitting in a corner while they laugh and eat and carry on and try to ignore me, and they know that; but do they care?

Book, if our house burned, I would do everything I could to get her and me out. But when my house burns the neighbors’ houses don’t necessarily also burn. In, however, a pandemic, what my neighbor does effects me, cause I might meet him at the grocery store, or at the post office, or the restaurant, and if he fails to wear a mask, and fails to keep his distance, I am put at risk...

Do you really think not wearing a mask makes you who you are?

I failed to mention that I have worked hard all year to keep my foolish lover and beloved from unnecessarily risking her health and life by going into church or dining in at restaurants, things she has wanted to do at different times. I talked her into sitting in the church parking lot and listening to the service on the radio; I talked her into take-out when she wanted to dine in, when she said, “but there’s hardly anyone at all in the dining room.” “Honey”, I explained to her, “I know there are few in the dining room now, but it’s only quarter till noon; how many will sit down to eat before we can exit?”

Yes, she can be foolish...but if we loved only the wise it would be hard to find a lover at all.

I think that allowing you to wear your mask, respecting your decision, while not mandating you to adopt mine, recognizing that your values are different than mine, but of equal value, makes me who I am. I do not begrudge anyone their mask, the decisions they make, or the values that guide their lives. I simply ask for the same respect in return. When the house is on fire, I will go in after those inside, I will risk life and limb for those unable to escape, and I will not begrudge those who choose not to. However, when I am no longer allowed to go inside, not because of my concern, but because those watching aren't willing to do so, THAT I have a problem with.

You will live your life by your tenets, as you should. Wear your mask if you like. Get the vaccine if you like. However, do not impose your values on to others. We are not you, nor do we want to be. We wish to live life on our terms, not yours, or anyone else's. I have freeclimbed 250 foot chimneys (rock climbing narrow rock cracks without ropes), I have snowboarded in avalanche zones, and stood within petting distance of Wild grizzlies in rivers in Alaska. Most people will never see any of these things, let alone do them. I have driven at excess of 300kph. I ask not that others are mandated to do these things, but I have no interest in begin told I must stop because others are uncomfortable with them.

The mask dehumanizes my patients, my coworkers, everyone. Wear it if you want, but also recognize that others don't want to, and as with any decision you make, someone might mock you for it. Your extended family sound rather horrid. My condolences there. I can not support mandating values onto pother people. Not now, not ever.

Eventually they will demand that I get the vaccine or they will fire me. Too bad really, I like my jobs. But I am not taking the vaccine. Ah well. Career change I guess, no more fire fighting, no more first responding, no more Emergency Department. If enough of us do this...No more emergency services.

Poorly thought through mandate.

You will live your life by your tenets, as you should. Wear your mask if you like. Get the vaccine if you like. However, do not impose your values on to others. We are not you, nor do we want to be. We wish to live life on our terms, not yours, or anyone else's. — Book273

I don't understand this position. If you're of the view that people should be left to do as they please (even if that causes problems for other people - in terms of exposing them to a risk they'd rather not take), then how is grouping together, electing a government, and making laws not 'a thing' that people should be allowed to do if they want to, even if it causes problems for other people (you, in this case). You seem to be arguing that you should be allowed to do as you please even if it risks some harm to others, but other people cannot do as they please (in forming governments and laws) because that risks some harm to you (in terms of restricting your freedoms).

I've finally started seeing people of your type getting the virus. I think it was Thanksgiving plus it's just thoroughly present in the environment now.

Good luck to you and all exposed to your speech.

I have driven at excess of 300kph. — Book273

If you do that in a city you might kill someone, so it’s forbidden. Likewise you are more than welcome to not wear a mask when you’re alone in the wilderness, hugging grizzlies, but not in a shop or in an office.

Elect your government, make your rules, engage in your community. It seems exceedingly one sided that your values, your perspective, and what you want, is somehow of more value than what those who disagree with you want. Animal farm anyone? YOU are more equal than I, because ...you want to be I guess. And it's fair, according to you. So I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, as long as I check with you first, and you say it's ok. Because you are everyone's mom, and everyone not you is somehow less than you, and needs to be protected from themselves, because they couldn't possibly know as much as you, etc. Seriously I could go on for hours about the greater good, and blah blah blah. But, in order to save time and typing please fill in every autocratic speech in history, Religious reform speeches, residential school justifications speeches, you get the idea. We need to be protected FROM you. Not the other way around.

Life isn't safe. Wear your mask, get the vaccine, live in a bubble. You are still gonna die eh. I plan on living a little before the end, those are my values. Enjoy yours and leave me be.

Go suck grizzlies all you like, but let other people live.

I have freeclimbed 250 foot chimneys (rock climbing narrow rock cracks without ropes), I have snowboarded in avalanche zones, and stood within petting distance of Wild grizzlies in rivers in Alaska. Most people will never see any of these things, let alone do them. I have driven at excess of 300kph. I ask not that others are mandated to do these things, but I have no interest in begin told I must stop because others are uncomfortable with them. — Book273

You have demonstrated a high level of "risk tolerance" and (apparently) have competently conducted high-risk activities and lived to tell about it. People vary in their capacity to tolerate potential harm from very risk-averse to very risk tolerant. I suspect this is less a learned attitude and more innate. It may be the case that neither the bold nor the cautious can claim personal credit for their approach.

I have a moderate level of risk tolerance; I do and have done some things that many other people would consider reckless. I don't consider myself irresponsible in the same way you do not (more or less--I don't know you, of course).

I do recognize that sometimes our risk tolerance is irrelevant. Public safety trumps risk tolerance, and I consider this acceptable because we can generally find venues to take risks where public safety is not compromised. You flirting with grizzlies doesn't harm public safety and a grizzly might enjoy devouring you, a win-win. Driving at very high speeds on an isolated road poses little public safety risk. Doing so on a heavily used freeway does pose a public safety risk.

Sometimes the risk to others isn't obvious. Should you deliberately ski in an avalanche zone, and it is known that you were in that area during an avalanche, you may put rescuers at risk--especially since responders don't have the option of saying "He took the risk, so let him die."

Public safety (or national purpose) trumps risk aversion too. I would guess most soldiers sent into battle would strongly prefer to be somewhere else. But public safety, or national purpose, trumps their personal cautiousness.

So, I think we need to balance our attitudes toward risk (tolerance or aversion) with the needs of the collective. What I mean is, find a way of enjoying risk that doesn't endanger others, and accept the consequences (like, if the grizzly overcomes its risk aversion and decides you would make a fine meal).

I would guess most soldiers sent into battle would strongly prefer to be somewhere else. But public safety, or national purpose, trumps their personal cautiousness. — Bitter Crank

You should talk to them, ask them how they feel about it. The ones I know looked forward to action, but I make no assumptions that all of them do. However, perhaps being a soldier is a bad idea if one has no interest in being in battle. As with fire fighters that don't want to go to fire calls, they have made a poor professional choice.

So, I think we need to balance our attitudes toward risk (tolerance or aversion) with the needs of the collective. — Bitter Crank

I work in healthcare. I know how to read the studies. I know that most of what has been announced by public health has been "spun" to illicit a specific response: "Remain calm. it will be ok" Which is entirely accurate. Remain calm because it will be ok. Having said that, there is no point panicking because it won't help anything. Everything will be ok because it always sorts itself out at some point, just wait long enough.

The government is blaming the "non-compliers" for the spread of the virus; they need someone to blame, so they have. Truth is, it was going to spread like this no matter what we did. The language they are using demonstrates their awareness of this. "Numbers would be so much worse if we had not done this...Numbers would be lower if we had better compliance..." etc. Good thing there are those who are not complying otherwise the party line wouldn't have a scape goat. No way the the government says "this won't do shit, but try it anyway eh, just so you think you are doing something." Despite it being accurate.

South Dakota did not mandate anything. North Dakota jumped on the band wagon. North Dakota is doing worse than South Dakota: infections/deaths. I am not judging them, just looking at the numbers.

Sweden did nothing, their numbers have increased, as did everyone else's. Their curve looks just like everyone else's. Their economy...better. Number of suicides...less. I see these as indicators that they made the right call. I wish my country had had the spine to do the same. Suicide hotline activity has more than doubled, actual suicides have "data unavailable", but locally have more than doubled. "no data available" for domestic violence increases, but if we don't look, I guess it doesn't exist? No data available for the lives lost due to cancelled and postponed medical procedures and tests as a result of our narrow focus on Covid. There is only Covid apparently. It's bullshit. My mask protects me from your bad breath, usually, and that is about it.

I won't take the vaccine, no short term, medium term or long term data exist for it. Hard Pass. If others want it, good for them.

So you came here especially to tell us to leave you alone. That's weird

@Book273 I want to thank you, mr Book: after I read about all the dangerous adventures you enjoyed in your life, I thought to myself, “Todd where are your balls? Why can’t you be that daring?” So I told my girlfriend I refused to go with her to gather with her family this Christmas, and, as the Bible says, lo and behold! She decided to stay here with me.

Now let me challenge you: if I’m bold enough to defy her family, can you be bold enough to dare to wear a mask? To socially distance, to not gather with those who don’t live with you? Let me give you some encouragement: doing those things won’t detract from who you really are. They’re just superficial things. Who you are is deeper than that,...I hope?

Let me tell you a famous local story:

An 18 yr old kid here, some years ago, as young kids are won’t to do, was out on an isolated country road eager to test the power of the engine in his new pickup truck, and gunned it as hard as he could. Unfortunately, a young boy suddenly emerged from the adjoining wood, and ran out into the road, right in front of the pickup. Unable, because of his speed to either stop in time or swerve out of the way, the kid struck the boy, and after he finally stopped, ran back and found the boy lifeless...

...suddenly aware of his folly, and remembering he had his pistol in the truck, he walked back to the vehicle, extracted the firearm, walked into the woods, and shot himself in the head, becoming, as they say, his “own judge, jury and executioner”...

Let me ask you, Mr Book: do you have the balls to so severely judge yourself? If not, you better slow down when you drive.

I have slowed down. I had kids, reassessed my life and put them first. Such is the way of life. But I am a much more severe judge for myself than others. I have tried to be a good man, as I define the term, based on my values. So far I have managed it, ask me again on my death bed, perhaps I will have a different view then. I do wear a mask at work, and now that it is mandated, at stores when I shop. My Christmas circle is always very small, this year is no different.

I am not an an anti-masker, nor am I an anti-vaxxer. I am an ardent pro-choicer. Allow others to make their own choices, or don't, and mandate the issue. But the argument that someone else's values and opinions make them selfish, because they oppose yours, is morally wrong.

I am glad that your girl decided to stay with you, that's great. Mine chose me, and I her, and our extended families can eat it if they disagree with our choices.

As to your question, would I end my life because I took someone else's accidentally? Probably not. I would trade places with them, but ending my life serves little purpose at that time, except to end any remorse I may have at my actions. I am too pragmatic to waste a life, mine or another's, on a pointless gesture.

Have a Great Christmas eh.

I came here to see what is being posted by those of a philosophical bend, presumably of higher functioning than those I am regularly dealing with. Most of the forum reflects this assumption and I am enjoying the sparring. Sometimes it is essentially the same closed thinking loops, with a much better vocabulary to draw upon, which is refreshing. However, once someone starts swearing at me, it tends to colour future interactions with them.

Truth is, it was going to spread like this no matter what we did. — Book273

People just don't get it, you know? We are only slowing it down. There is no stopping it. No matter what precautions we take, covid will run its course. I loathe the conceit of the present age: to think we can prevent sickness (and on a mass scale), is utterly retarded, laughable at best.

When a person chooses fear, he forfeits all other choice, and nothing is more pathetic than a life spent in fear.