(12-04-2020 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It seems like you’re responding to me, but why the martyrdom? Clearly I agree with reopening schools, so not clear why you felt the need to self identify yourself as a “heathen” that “want children to die.”

You can respect one’s personal risk tolerance while disagreeing with how it is applied. But doing so requires one to not be disrespectful towards the person and their opinions, which is what I was commenting on. That Illini’s overly dramatic and rude descriptions were likely what elicited the response.

This. Categorizing those who hold opposing (and reasonable IMO) views as neurotic and/or irrational is a bit much.

We ALL seem to be on the same page on this issue (for once). Not sure why there are continued efforts to snipe at each other. Believe me... there is nobody on this planet who does not want forced homeschooling more than yours truly.

So let's talk about the people who will not wear masks. Are those views reasonable?

In my opinion... unreasonable. I understand the downside to closing down schools and closing down restaurants. What is the downside to wearing a mask? It seems that mask wear goes a long way towards cutting down the rate of infection. There is literally no significant downside that I can see despite the ridiculous "Masks cause CO2 intoxication!!!" posts that I was seeing on right-winger facebook posts.

Quote:How about the people who will not get vaccinations? Are those views reasonable?

Again just my opinion but I think it is reasonable for people to be concerned about receiving a vaccination that has been rushed to approval.

masks - I agree, unreasonable. But does that mean we, the reasonable people, can and should pass regulations to protect them and us from their unreasonableness? I think this gets at the heart of the matter - who decides what is reasonable and unreasonable. I, for one, think shutting down every restaurant in LA is unreasonable. I think a natiional mask mandate is unreasonable. I think a lot of the actions on the part of of leaders are unreasonable. Do you wish I was on the board to determine reasonableness? Or would you rather have Big or Lad?

Vaccinations. here i include all kinds of vaccinations, not just Covid. I think the anti-vaxxers are unreasonable. Should we, the reasonable people, make them get vaccinations? How about the anti-blood transfusion people? how about the jews? A lot of people in 1930's Germany thought those actions were reasonable.

The point, I think, is that the fearful people, the ones I refer to as Chicken Littles, are the ones determining what is reasonable. A lot of people think the actions forced on them are unreasonable. A LOT.

This gets to my point in another thread - do these (or other) “unreasonable” actions begin to harm others? The reason that these “chicken littles” are driving rules in some areas (you incredibly miss all the states where chicken littles definitely aren’t running the show) is because they clearly believe that the more risk averse actions are needed to protect their populations. There are plenty of places where that didn’t occur (Texas, Iowa, Florida, S Dakota, to name a few), and a number of them changed courses on mask mandates.

Your freedoms end where my nose begins, cuts to the core of the issue.

Someone has to make a decision about where others’ noses begin. I would prefer those people to be a diverse group based on their training. And I would prefer the decisions be transparent, and backed up by financial support for those affected.

(12-04-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This. Categorizing those who hold opposing (and reasonable IMO) views as neurotic and/or irrational is a bit much.

We ALL seem to be on the same page on this issue (for once). Not sure why there are continued efforts to snipe at each other. Believe me... there is nobody on this planet who does not want forced homeschooling more than yours truly.

So let's talk about the people who will not wear masks. Are those views reasonable?

In my opinion... unreasonable. I understand the downside to closing down schools and closing down restaurants. What is the downside to wearing a mask? It seems that mask wear goes a long way towards cutting down the rate of infection. There is literally no significant downside that I can see despite the ridiculous "Masks cause CO2 intoxication!!!" posts that I was seeing on right-winger facebook posts.

Quote:How about the people who will not get vaccinations? Are those views reasonable?

Again just my opinion but I think it is reasonable for people to be concerned about receiving a vaccination that has been rushed to approval.

masks - I agree, unreasonable. But does that mean we, the reasonable people, can and should pass regulations to protect them and us from their unreasonableness? I think this gets at the heart of the matter - who decides what is reasonable and unreasonable. I, for one, think shutting down every restaurant in LA is unreasonable. I think a natiional mask mandate is unreasonable. I think a lot of the actions on the part of of leaders are unreasonable. Do you wish I was on the board to determine reasonableness? Or would you rather have Big or Lad?

Vaccinations. here i include all kinds of vaccinations, not just Covid. I think the anti-vaxxers are unreasonable. Should we, the reasonable people, make them get vaccinations? How about the anti-blood transfusion people? how about the jews? A lot of people in 1930's Germany thought those actions were reasonable.

The point, I think, is that the fearful people, the ones I refer to as Chicken Littles, are the ones determining what is reasonable. A lot of people think the actions forced on them are unreasonable. A LOT.

This gets to my point in another thread - do these (or other) “unreasonable” actions begin to harm others? The reason that these “chicken littles” are driving rules in some areas (you incredibly miss all the states where chicken littles definitely aren’t running the show) is because they clearly believe that the more risk averse actions are needed to protect their populations. There are plenty of places where that didn’t occur (Texas, Iowa, Florida, S Dakota, to name a few), and a number of them changed courses on mask mandates.

Your freedoms end where my nose begins, cuts to the core of the issue.

Someone has to make a decision about where others’ noses begin. I would prefer those people to be a diverse group based on their training. And I would prefer the decisions be transparent, and backed up by financial support for those affected.

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down my business and putting dozens out of work?

Does 'where my nose begins" have any sway if your nose begins in a different place?

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down school systems?

I am not fighting fighting mask wearing, so table that. Red herring. I think though, that the over-reaction of the chicken littles has hurt a lot of people economically. what about their noses?

I think every action hurts somebody, as well as helping somebody. There is nothing that is purely good for 100% of the people. Take the orders to shut down barber shops. It hurt barbers, obviously. Who did it help? What "nose" was being protected? The question is not what is reasonable, the question is who decides what is reasonable. I think the chicken littles ha.ve been making too many of the decisions, and they base their decision solely or mostly on virus spread, with little or no care for economics and social ramifications. personally, I think a more balanced approach is better overall, not the "shut it all down" approach we are seeing in too many places.

(12-04-2020 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So let's talk about the people who will not wear masks. Are those views reasonable?

In my opinion... unreasonable. I understand the downside to closing down schools and closing down restaurants. What is the downside to wearing a mask? It seems that mask wear goes a long way towards cutting down the rate of infection. There is literally no significant downside that I can see despite the ridiculous "Masks cause CO2 intoxication!!!" posts that I was seeing on right-winger facebook posts.

Quote:How about the people who will not get vaccinations? Are those views reasonable?

Again just my opinion but I think it is reasonable for people to be concerned about receiving a vaccination that has been rushed to approval.

masks - I agree, unreasonable. But does that mean we, the reasonable people, can and should pass regulations to protect them and us from their unreasonableness? I think this gets at the heart of the matter - who decides what is reasonable and unreasonable. I, for one, think shutting down every restaurant in LA is unreasonable. I think a natiional mask mandate is unreasonable. I think a lot of the actions on the part of of leaders are unreasonable. Do you wish I was on the board to determine reasonableness? Or would you rather have Big or Lad?

Vaccinations. here i include all kinds of vaccinations, not just Covid. I think the anti-vaxxers are unreasonable. Should we, the reasonable people, make them get vaccinations? How about the anti-blood transfusion people? how about the jews? A lot of people in 1930's Germany thought those actions were reasonable.

The point, I think, is that the fearful people, the ones I refer to as Chicken Littles, are the ones determining what is reasonable. A lot of people think the actions forced on them are unreasonable. A LOT.

This gets to my point in another thread - do these (or other) “unreasonable” actions begin to harm others? The reason that these “chicken littles” are driving rules in some areas (you incredibly miss all the states where chicken littles definitely aren’t running the show) is because they clearly believe that the more risk averse actions are needed to protect their populations. There are plenty of places where that didn’t occur (Texas, Iowa, Florida, S Dakota, to name a few), and a number of them changed courses on mask mandates.

Your freedoms end where my nose begins, cuts to the core of the issue.

Someone has to make a decision about where others’ noses begin. I would prefer those people to be a diverse group based on their training. And I would prefer the decisions be transparent, and backed up by financial support for those affected.

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down my business and putting dozens out of work?

Does 'where my nose begins" have any sway if your nose begins in a different place?

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down school systems?

I am not fighting fighting mask wearing, so table that. Red herring. I think though, that the over-reaction of the chicken littles has hurt a lot of people economically. what about their noses?

I think every action hurts somebody, as well as helping somebody. There is nothing that is purely good for 100% of the people. Take the orders to shut down barber shops. It hurt barbers, obviously. Who did it help? What "nose" was being protected? The question is not what is reasonable, the question is who decides what is reasonable. I think the chicken littles ha.ve been making too many of the decisions, and they base their decision solely or mostly on virus spread, with little or no care for economics and social ramifications. personally, I think a more balanced approach is better overall, not the "shut it all down" approach we are seeing in too many places.

I would be shocked if these decision makers are making these decisions with little or no care for economics.

I think you’re fighting a demon that isn’t there. Outside of LA, where are you seeing “shut it all down” being applied? After initial lockdowns in early 2020, we have not really seen “shut it all down” approaches adopted.

Or are you talking about targeted shut downs of specific industries or activities?

As to your first questions - yes. And that is why I advocate for economic support for industries that are being affected by orders. You keep ignoring that or playing down how much support can be given.

Take bars. Bars have shown to be absolutely ripe for COVID spread. Do you think there should be any restrictions on their operation? It sounds like you don’t want any economic restrictions, and you disagree with any sort of restrictions on activities.

(12-04-2020 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  In my opinion... unreasonable. I understand the downside to closing down schools and closing down restaurants. What is the downside to wearing a mask? It seems that mask wear goes a long way towards cutting down the rate of infection. There is literally no significant downside that I can see despite the ridiculous "Masks cause CO2 intoxication!!!" posts that I was seeing on right-winger facebook posts.


Again just my opinion but I think it is reasonable for people to be concerned about receiving a vaccination that has been rushed to approval.

masks - I agree, unreasonable. But does that mean we, the reasonable people, can and should pass regulations to protect them and us from their unreasonableness? I think this gets at the heart of the matter - who decides what is reasonable and unreasonable. I, for one, think shutting down every restaurant in LA is unreasonable. I think a natiional mask mandate is unreasonable. I think a lot of the actions on the part of of leaders are unreasonable. Do you wish I was on the board to determine reasonableness? Or would you rather have Big or Lad?

Vaccinations. here i include all kinds of vaccinations, not just Covid. I think the anti-vaxxers are unreasonable. Should we, the reasonable people, make them get vaccinations? How about the anti-blood transfusion people? how about the jews? A lot of people in 1930's Germany thought those actions were reasonable.

The point, I think, is that the fearful people, the ones I refer to as Chicken Littles, are the ones determining what is reasonable. A lot of people think the actions forced on them are unreasonable. A LOT.

This gets to my point in another thread - do these (or other) “unreasonable” actions begin to harm others? The reason that these “chicken littles” are driving rules in some areas (you incredibly miss all the states where chicken littles definitely aren’t running the show) is because they clearly believe that the more risk averse actions are needed to protect their populations. There are plenty of places where that didn’t occur (Texas, Iowa, Florida, S Dakota, to name a few), and a number of them changed courses on mask mandates.

Your freedoms end where my nose begins, cuts to the core of the issue.

Someone has to make a decision about where others’ noses begin. I would prefer those people to be a diverse group based on their training. And I would prefer the decisions be transparent, and backed up by financial support for those affected.

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down my business and putting dozens out of work?

Does 'where my nose begins" have any sway if your nose begins in a different place?

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down school systems?

I am not fighting fighting mask wearing, so table that. Red herring. I think though, that the over-reaction of the chicken littles has hurt a lot of people economically. what about their noses?

I think every action hurts somebody, as well as helping somebody. There is nothing that is purely good for 100% of the people. Take the orders to shut down barber shops. It hurt barbers, obviously. Who did it help? What "nose" was being protected? The question is not what is reasonable, the question is who decides what is reasonable. I think the chicken littles ha.ve been making too many of the decisions, and they base their decision solely or mostly on virus spread, with little or no care for economics and social ramifications. personally, I think a more balanced approach is better overall, not the "shut it all down" approach we are seeing in too many places.

I would be shocked if these decision makers are making these decisions with little or no care for economics.

I think you’re fighting a demon that isn’t there. Outside of LA, where are you seeing “shut it all down” being applied? After initial lockdowns in early 2020, we have not really seen “shut it all down” approaches adopted.

Or are you talking about targeted shut downs of specific industries or activities?

As to your first questions - yes. And that is why I advocate for economic support for industries that are being affected by orders. You keep ignoring that or playing down how much support can be given.

Take bars. Bars have shown to be absolutely ripe for COVID spread. Do you think there should be any restrictions on their operation? It sounds like you don’t want any economic restrictions, and you disagree with any sort of restrictions on activities.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governo...on-service

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/nyreg...spike.html

https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/covid19-s...own-orders

I think bars could be open with some modifications - spacing between barstools and tables, for example. Most businesses ordered shut down culd remain open with some common sense modifications. heck, if we can play football with common sense modifications, what can't we do?

Well, here it is in a nutshell. Which of these two (men)(approaches) do you think reasonable and which unreasonable, and why?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

One says, "I think our viewers are smart enough to make part of those decisions on their own."

The other says "I'm sorry, I would like to keep our viewers as healthy as humanly possible."

Exactly the polar attitudes I see in the nation at large.

(12-04-2020 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  masks - I agree, unreasonable. But does that mean we, the reasonable people, can and should pass regulations to protect them and us from their unreasonableness? I think this gets at the heart of the matter - who decides what is reasonable and unreasonable. I, for one, think shutting down every restaurant in LA is unreasonable. I think a natiional mask mandate is unreasonable. I think a lot of the actions on the part of of leaders are unreasonable. Do you wish I was on the board to determine reasonableness? Or would you rather have Big or Lad?

Vaccinations. here i include all kinds of vaccinations, not just Covid. I think the anti-vaxxers are unreasonable. Should we, the reasonable people, make them get vaccinations? How about the anti-blood transfusion people? how about the jews? A lot of people in 1930's Germany thought those actions were reasonable.

The point, I think, is that the fearful people, the ones I refer to as Chicken Littles, are the ones determining what is reasonable. A lot of people think the actions forced on them are unreasonable. A LOT.

This gets to my point in another thread - do these (or other) “unreasonable” actions begin to harm others? The reason that these “chicken littles” are driving rules in some areas (you incredibly miss all the states where chicken littles definitely aren’t running the show) is because they clearly believe that the more risk averse actions are needed to protect their populations. There are plenty of places where that didn’t occur (Texas, Iowa, Florida, S Dakota, to name a few), and a number of them changed courses on mask mandates.

Your freedoms end where my nose begins, cuts to the core of the issue.

Someone has to make a decision about where others’ noses begin. I would prefer those people to be a diverse group based on their training. And I would prefer the decisions be transparent, and backed up by financial support for those affected.

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down my business and putting dozens out of work?

Does 'where my nose begins" have any sway if your nose begins in a different place?

Does "where my nose begins" include shutting down school systems?

I am not fighting fighting mask wearing, so table that. Red herring. I think though, that the over-reaction of the chicken littles has hurt a lot of people economically. what about their noses?

I think every action hurts somebody, as well as helping somebody. There is nothing that is purely good for 100% of the people. Take the orders to shut down barber shops. It hurt barbers, obviously. Who did it help? What "nose" was being protected? The question is not what is reasonable, the question is who decides what is reasonable. I think the chicken littles ha.ve been making too many of the decisions, and they base their decision solely or mostly on virus spread, with little or no care for economics and social ramifications. personally, I think a more balanced approach is better overall, not the "shut it all down" approach we are seeing in too many places.

I would be shocked if these decision makers are making these decisions with little or no care for economics.

I think you’re fighting a demon that isn’t there. Outside of LA, where are you seeing “shut it all down” being applied? After initial lockdowns in early 2020, we have not really seen “shut it all down” approaches adopted.

Or are you talking about targeted shut downs of specific industries or activities?

As to your first questions - yes. And that is why I advocate for economic support for industries that are being affected by orders. You keep ignoring that or playing down how much support can be given.

Take bars. Bars have shown to be absolutely ripe for COVID spread. Do you think there should be any restrictions on their operation? It sounds like you don’t want any economic restrictions, and you disagree with any sort of restrictions on activities.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governo...on-service

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/nyreg...spike.html

https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/covid19-s...own-orders

I think bars could be open with some modifications - spacing between barstools and tables, for example. Most businesses ordered shut down culd remain open with some common sense modifications. heck, if we can play football with common sense modifications, what can't we do?

So your complete shutdown comments is about any business type. Thanks for clarifying.

(12-04-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The reason that these “chicken littles” are driving rules in some areas (you incredibly miss all the states where chicken littles definitely aren’t running the show) is because they clearly believe that the more risk averse actions are needed to protect their populations.

That stated concern is for some the genuine motive, and for others a useful excuse. The defining principle of leftism is the compulsion to tell people what to do, and COVID is a long-awaited, all-purpose, too-good-to-miss, once-in-a-century excuse to live that compulsion to a degree many have only dreamed of.

Of course they say it is for the good of the collective order -- but there are plenty of things that are good for the world that leftists oppose.
If leftists uniformly favored things that benefit mankind at large, and opposed things that hurt mankind at large, then one might give some credit to the notion that the real underlying motive -- the thing that makes them tick -- is simple altruism. Since they don't, one is not.

(12-04-2020 07:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The reason that these “chicken littles” are driving rules in some areas (you incredibly miss all the states where chicken littles definitely aren’t running the show) is because they clearly believe that the more risk averse actions are needed to protect their populations.

That stated concern is for some the genuine motive, and for others a useful excuse. The defining principle of leftism is the compulsion to tell people what to do, and COVID is a long-awaited, all-purpose, too-good-to-miss, once-in-a-century excuse to live that compulsion to a degree many have only dreamed of.

Of course they say it is for the good of the collective order -- but there are plenty of things that are good for the world that leftists oppose.
If leftists uniformly favored things that benefit mankind at large, and opposed things that hurt mankind at large, then one might give some credit to the notion that the real underlying motive -- the thing that makes them tick -- is simple altruism. Since they don't, one is not.

Never let a good crisis go to waste - Rahm Emmanuel

(12-04-2020 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  the CDC says its the safest place for kids to be...

Wasn't there some political party that said they would listen to the experts?

I don’t know if the CDC has gone quite that far and said that it is THE safest place for kids.

But we have a lot more information now about risk for spread for children and mitigation measures, and I don’t see how any school system can justify being completely closed, safe for some extreme case spread/outbreak within the system itself or scheduling purposes. I say the latter just due to logistics - it makes sense to complete an entire semester in one mode given there has already been a lot of upheaval, so a school system remaining closed through 2020, but reopening in Jan 2021 makes sense.

If they aren’t already providing individual teachers the ability to choose to teach in person in 2021, like above, I’m not sure how they could justify that position.

Speaking to the Illini comment, my guess is that the added commentary about risk tolerance (neurosis and irrationality) was the crucial part that set off Rice93, especially after we’ve had conversations about respecting people’s personal risk tolerances in the other way (i.e. respecting when people want to be less risk averse).

Again with the pedantic arguments. Clearly I wasn't implying that there were no dangers at all anywhere or that kids that weren't in school to begin with (home school) should now suddenly GO to school because its 'safer' or that you couldn't possibly make your home environment 'safe'. In fact, in the line before this quote, I said...

The director of the CDC has said that one of the safest places for kids to be during the pandemic is in the schools. He said that within the last 2 week

This was ignored by OO because it was part of a longer comment thus more difficult to edit... and not really related to his point at all in any way. He certainly wasn't implying what you read into it either. Whether it is THE safest place or ONE OF the safest places, they did not recommend closing schools... EVER.

Here is the entire quote I'm referencing

Quote:CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield told reporters Thursday his agency never recommended schools close in the spring nor has he recommended they do so now.

“The truth is, for kids K through 12, one of the safest places they can be from our perspective is to remain in school," he said.

So as OO points out, whom is 'denying experts' when they decide to close schools en masse?? Your correction deflects from that and nothing else.

While you're arguing logically later, you're ignoring that the people whom your party has mostly ceded (or would like to cede) your Presidential vote to in a 'popular' vote in NY and Cali are the ones 'denying science'... A claim you levied numerous times against Trump, Trump supporters, Republicans (despite the fact that his comments had zero impact on you because he never imposed a ban like that) and one you dance around here. If Republicans in any way were responsible for Trump, then Democrats OWN these 'denials' just as much.


Also, saw yesterday that 50% of NYFD said they wouldn't take the vaccine. Wonder if the Mayor will require that THEY stay home?

(12-08-2020 01:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  the CDC says its the safest place for kids to be...

Wasn't there some political party that said they would listen to the experts?

I don’t know if the CDC has gone quite that far and said that it is THE safest place for kids.

But we have a lot more information now about risk for spread for children and mitigation measures, and I don’t see how any school system can justify being completely closed, safe for some extreme case spread/outbreak within the system itself or scheduling purposes. I say the latter just due to logistics - it makes sense to complete an entire semester in one mode given there has already been a lot of upheaval, so a school system remaining closed through 2020, but reopening in Jan 2021 makes sense.

If they aren’t already providing individual teachers the ability to choose to teach in person in 2021, like above, I’m not sure how they could justify that position.

Speaking to the Illini comment, my guess is that the added commentary about risk tolerance (neurosis and irrationality) was the crucial part that set off Rice93, especially after we’ve had conversations about respecting people’s personal risk tolerances in the other way (i.e. respecting when people want to be less risk averse).

Again with the pedantic arguments. Clearly I wasn't implying that there were no dangers at all anywhere or that kids that weren't in school to begin with (home school) should now suddenly GO to school because its 'safer' or that you couldn't possibly make your home environment 'safe'. In fact, in the line before this quote, I said...

The director of the CDC has said that one of the safest places for kids to be during the pandemic is in the schools. He said that within the last 2 week

This was ignored by OO because it was part of a longer comment thus more difficult to edit... and not really related to his point at all in any way. He certainly wasn't implying what you read into it either. Whether it is THE safest place or ONE OF the safest places, they did not recommend closing schools... EVER.

Here is the entire quote I'm referencing

Quote:CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield told reporters Thursday his agency never recommended schools close in the spring nor has he recommended they do so now.

“The truth is, for kids K through 12, one of the safest places they can be from our perspective is to remain in school," he said.

So as OO points out, whom is 'denying experts' when they decide to close schools en masse?? Your correction deflects from that and nothing else.

While you're arguing logically later, you're ignoring that the people whom your party has mostly ceded (or would like to cede) your Presidential vote to in a 'popular' vote in NY and Cali are the ones 'denying science'... A claim you levied numerous times against Trump, Trump supporters, Republicans (despite the fact that his comments had zero impact on you because he never imposed a ban like that) and one you dance around here. If Republicans in any way were responsible for Trump, then Democrats OWN these 'denials' just as much.


Also, saw yesterday that 50% of NYFD said they wouldn't take the vaccine. Wonder if the Mayor will require that THEY stay home?

There has been discussion on this forum in the past as to who are the anti-vaxxers? Are they left or right-wingers?

I wonder if the anti-vaxxers when it comes to COVID will be the same anti-vaxxers that we are used to or if there will be new demographics?

(12-04-2020 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I would be shocked if these decision makers are making these decisions with little or no care for economics.

I wouldn't. When one makes the argument 'ignore science', they're basically arguing science over everything else... and that has happened a lot.

Quote:I think you’re fighting a demon that isn’t there. Outside of LA, where are you seeing “shut it all down” being applied? After initial lockdowns in early 2020, we have not really seen “shut it all down” approaches adopted.

Or are you talking about targeted shut downs of specific industries or activities?

I think this speaks to a difference of opinion about what 'targeted' or 'specific' means. Shutting down schools can be argued to be both targeted AND 'shut it all down'. I think, but will let others speak for themselves that many people believe that 'shutting down all activities within an industry' (such as attending schools) without regard to the specifics of each school or even student or teacher is 'shut it all down'.

Quote:Take bars. Bars have shown to be absolutely ripe for COVID spread. Do you think there should be any restrictions on their operation? It sounds like you don’t want any economic restrictions, and you disagree with any sort of restrictions on activities.

Have they? There is no reason why the presence or not of food would reduce the ability to spread COVID. Singing (so a karaoke bar) spreads much more vapor than does speaking.

A quiet bar frequented by 40+ yr old locals is not nearly as likely to spread the disease as a 21-30 yr old tourist bar with loud music (leading to loud speaking) or singing. Where I am, I see a relatively 'careful' older population (mostly conservative) and a relatively 'bullet proof' younger population (a mix of politics) who are the risk. Most of the spread here seems to be related to younger people who feel bullet-proof as opposed to generic 'bar patrons'.

I went to one such bar the other night. At 6pm, it was quiet... mostly 40+yr olds after work... either what looked like a date or just peole after work. By the time 8 came around, it was mostly 30 or younger... playing games... flirting... a party atmosphere.

So the activity that needs to be (based on my anecdotal observations as well as science that I follow) would be parties and not bars, per se. Not all bars are party bars.

I'm not chastising you as much as I am demonstrating the application of appropriate consideration of the facts. You say people consider the economics, but I haven't seen any studies talking about the economics of a federal grant vs an open business. I don't know that you could do that, other than as an 'on the whole' generalization which of course would have a ton of exceptions.

It's fine to say 'pay for the consequences', but how are we to determine that? Last years profits?? A guy who made no money in 2019 because he invested in his business would get nothing, but the guy who ran his business into the ground in 2019 would get a windfall. Is that what we should do?

(12-08-2020 03:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There has been discussion on this forum in the past as to who are the anti-vaxxers? Are they left or right-wingers?

I wonder if the anti-vaxxers when it comes to COVID will be the same anti-vaxxers that we are used to or if there will be new demographics?

Agree. I think it is easy to say 'anti vaxxer' and get a picture of someone, and to some degree that would carry over in that people who are more remote would feel less concerned about COVID.... but there are plenty of people who don't want to be 'early adopters'.... Hence my preference all along for encouraging better flu hygiene as a society and not merely as related to COVID. This is where the calls for state actions are most problematic to me. It goes from being 'a good idea in most cases but especially now' to something that you 'have to do now' that many will pull off the moment it is no longer the law, but still a good idea.

Get your rocks ready to throw…I have thick skin.

The idea that all anti vaxxers are luddites is self-serving tripe.

When my daughter had her initial MMR jab she had an adverse reaction, a raised temperature. This is common and normally treated with an over the counter remedy in the UK, Calpol (paracetamol syrup). When her temperature increased again a few hours later to over 103F, and spiking to 105F, we took her to the emergency room. She recovered. No harm done I guess.

When my son had his initial MMR jab he stopped speaking for God knows how long. A year and a half later he was diagnosed with autism. I was told there is no connection. I was told the MMR jab is ‘perfectly safe’. I may never know.

My daughter had her MMR booster in due course and again she had a reaction. This time she only had a relatively mild temperature, but a rash proximal to the injection. The NHS Direct counsellor asked over the phone if the rash was the size of a 5p (size of a dime) or the size of a 10p (size of a quarter). I informed them it was the “size of my fist”. We were sent to the emergency room. She recovered.

I subsequently learned that the NHS has incentives in their contract with GPs based on “vaccination coverage”. This was not disclosed at the time, nor is it common knowledge. Some might argue that non-disclosure is at the very least unethical when the GP advises you that the MMR jab is ‘perfectly safe’.

When it came time for my son’s MMR booster, I said “No.” Instead I was referred to the area Paediatrician. I asked for a serological study and I think the Paediatrician was wrong-footed by my request. The study showed that a booster wasn’t required.

The MMR jab is supposedly ‘perfectly safe’. It is based on an attenuated virus that should cause only a mild temperature of two or three degrees above normal and not 103F, much less 105F.

‘Perfectly safe’ is a statistical fiction. It does not mean 100% safe as perfect in the instant case is not 100%. It is generally ‘perfectly safe’. But ‘generally’ is not 100%.

So when individuals push back against health care professionals don’t think they’re all luddites. Many just want to fully understand all the facts and all the consequences. The MMR (combination) jab is touted as more effective than single jabs for measles (and rubella?) and mumps. It is touted as more effective only if you assume both single jabs don’t occur. It is obviously more cost effective, but what is the relative risk? And even though the MMR jab was deemed ‘perfectly safe’ in the UK it was changed. Why would one change something ‘perfectly safe’?

I am not an anti vaxxer, but I do at times have questions as well as the reading comprehension level of a high school graduate.

My parents, both in their nineties and Stateside, are in line waiting to take the Covid-19 vaccine. This is based on the advice they received from their Internist. I have been exposed to the virus by my daughter so it is unclear whether I have had the virus and may consequently be at least partially immune. My daughter has subsequently been re-exposed to the virus, but to date (daily tests for the past week) has not tested positive. The Covid-19 science (aka knowledge) is still very much imperfect and will be for some time. Unless I am given a test for the anti-bodies and found to be immune, I will take the vaccine in due course.

So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

(12-10-2020 12:32 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

(12-10-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:32 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:32 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

I always get a kick out the "but my rights" crowd...nice to have a selective memory that conveniently allows them to forget that one of those rights is that a private business can make its own rules about what one must wear when entering said private business, or the means of payment that a private business can take, etc. If they don't like the rules, then go somewhere else; it's (theroretically) a free country.

I will not be surprised when a vaccine will effectively be needed to "rejoin" society in 2021 (i.e. get on an airplane, go to a conference, go to a sporting event) due to rules implemented by private organizations.

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

I think it worth noting.... The person anecdotally said that 20% of people at her HEB weren't wearing masks and that ANOTHER 30% weren't wearing them properly. In my experience where I've been (which is still hard right, went for Trump by 20+ points) its been more like 5% or fewer not wearing and while 30% not wearing them properly, their improper use did not constitute an issue. Said differently, if they were to sneeze (which is caveat #1), the mask might have provided only 50% reduction in the spread rather than 70% (these are not N95's)

I'd also say that when I go to Home Depot, I see a much larger percentage of Hispanic men/construction laborers and despite them likely having access to masks (due to their apparent jobs based on where I see them, what they're buying and how they're dressed) I almost never see them wearing masks. That's my anecdotal experience... that the largest (not the only) cohort of non-mask wearers is blue collar Hispanic males.

HEB is throughout the state, but I believe more common in Central and South Texas.

It also talks about confrontations, but it doesn't say if these are people 'attacking' the non-mask wearers or non-mask wearers fighting back against being told to wear a mask... like whether the correction is coming from the store or from other patrons. I suspect there is a bit of it all from all directions.

I certainly understand why HEB doesn't want to lose patrons over it either because of the confrontations or upset over the requirements...

but as I've said from the start.... I think this is a good reason why pro-maskers (such as me but I have no forum outside of healthcare that is high compliance) are responsible for delivering a clear and direct message. Instead we've gotten mixed signals and deflections, even from the CDC.

The purpose of masks is simple... and should have been told this way from the start...

Masks are not a solution. Masks do not prevent the disease. What masks do is limit the volume and distance that the water vapor we produce when we breathe, talk, and especially sing, shout, cough or sneeze upon which the virus most frequently travels. Wearing a mask is a service and courtesy to those around you; especially those that are at the greatest risks. Even when we put mandates in place, we most often use inflammatory language and not supportive language to enforce it.... because we sure aren't really using 'the police' to enforce it.

Its really that simple.... and we (mask supporters) blew it. Its not anti-mask people's fault that we failed to clearly make our case, and I hope that future Fauci's learn from this. Fauci was talking to College educated people and the average ADULT American has a 7th grade comprehension level.

The HEB “estimated mask index”, or EMI, as I call it, is well above 90% at our local joints. But 35 miles east in the town I grew up in, it’s closer to 50%. My hometown is considerably smaller and although the incidence of COVID is about the same as where I live now, the visibility there of COVID is vanishingly small. Mainly because almost all of the serious cases are transferred out.

(12-10-2020 05:16 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:32 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

I always get a kick out the "but my rights" crowd...nice to have a selective memory that conveniently allows them to forget that one of those rights is that a private business can make its own rules about what one must wear when entering said private business, or the means of payment that a private business can take, etc. If they don't like the rules, then go somewhere else; it's (theroretically) a free country.

I will not be surprised when a vaccine will effectively be needed to "rejoin" society in 2021 (i.e. get on an airplane, go to a conference, go to a sporting event) due to rules implemented by private organizations.

Good post, Westside. As the vaccine rolls out I think the number of vaccine hesitations will drop. My sources in the industry are telling me that the vaccine manufacturers are expecting big demand for vaccine by March-April...(buy Pfizer!) after a lot of the fears of adverse side effects have abated and there is a realization that people can get back to “normal” quicker after treatment.

In the UK, as you might have noticed, people getting vaccinated are being issued an NHS card certifying that they have received the vaccine on such and such date. A so-called immunization “passport”. This suggests that, in the UK at least, you might have to have a card to go back to work, or school, or attend sporting events etc. Doubt we will see that happen in the US.

However... you may have noticed that in the US, when you go for your vaccine, you will be issued a card or reminder (to receive a second dose, if needed, on such and such date) that “can be placed in your purse or wallet for future reference”. It’s going to be issued by the CDC and I suppose will contain the demographics (and other data) you supply to the pharmacy or other provider that gave you the injection. Unclear how that card will be used in the future.
He who has the data has the power.

Qantas has already announced that sometime in 2021 they will require proof of immunization for travel on any of their routes.

(12-10-2020 05:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wearing a mask is a service and courtesy to those around you

Exactly why I do it.