U.S. to close..

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

How do you figure?



"Socialized medicine puts a premium on maintaining good health"



Yes, because the either the government mandates every detail of your life, and what you are allowed to eat, or refuses to pay.



SO you better keep your health up, because God help you if you get sick, and need to stand in line for up to a year at the government hospital.

Simple Reductio ad absurdum nonsense

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by UFO

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have pretty much had, as have my children and friends children all the childhood illnesses - Measles, Chickenpox, Mumps, German Measles etc. In my day no one thought anything of getting these illnesses, it was part of growing up, but today these illnesses have been demonised for profit and everyone thinks they are mass killers, but they are not - Yes people do have rare complications from them and if you are weak in anyway it can be very bad, hence the need for vaccines for such individuals, but pretty much no one in the West dies of Measles anymore as we know how to manage and treat it, in the developing world where poor water and malnutrition are rife, its a very different matter though. (Don't bother with the counter argument that they do not die because of vaccines, as I said vaccines do serve a purpose)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

it was part of growing up

I was born in 1945. Thank goodness it was NOT part of growing up for me. I think you are incorrect.


And here's why: see my post #338


My father got really, really mad at me only once in my life. He was a kind and gentle man.

When I was a kid in the 50s and measles were going around, I said, "Heck, why don't we just let everyone get it!" They'd just come up with the vaccine and I was scared of needles and didn't want to get jabbed. He was a doctor - podiatrist.

He rounded on me and pointed to one of his eyes. "I lost a lot of the sight in this eye because of measles. I only wish they'd had a vaccine for it when I was your age. You WILL get the shot."

My aunt lost most of her left shoulder due to polio. I got that shot, too.

I find it irresponsible of people to be anti-vax, pro-herd immunity, and selfish. It isn't about freedom, it's about community.

I wonder if these same people haven't gotten their polio and other shots.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

OK, I misspoke, by defeating a virus, I meant without a vaccine.

My point was none have been eradicated by quarantine or responsible behavior, it took a vaccine

Indeed , but that logic does not extend to doing nothing , where a vaccine isn’t available.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

I only have my perspective.



No one had the duty to protect me.

And most modern societies accept that , but remember , your rights stop at my nose. Society does have a duty to protect me from your actions , if those actions are viewed as threatening me. ( and you don’t get to determine that)

Hence interventions to control your behaviour so that it doesn’t threaten me occur in every modern society and hence the response to Covid is just another one

[goboatingnow]

Anti vaxxers largely exist because the vast majority of citizens act responsibility and take the vaccine , which then suppresses the diesease such that those that eschew such vaccines tend not to contract the disease. Ie they freeload of the group that behave responsibility

This is the same process as “ off the grid “ and preppers etc. They essentially can live out their delusions largely because normal society builds civil structures that let them do so.

Imagine a doomsday where society has run out of food , you think a few preppers with guns will stave off thousands looking to raid your supplies ..... sure

Again these “ outliers” get to be so because civil society tolerated them ( to a point ) push the concept too far and people turn nasty and tend to enforce the collective view

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The working poor ARE under the bus, now, in more ways than one. They deserve more consideration for doing most of the getting sick and dying, and the way that their hardships keep the rest of us safe and solvent through the pandemic, AND for the fact that their wages and working conditions have stagnated or declined over the past couple of decades. . .

Then please stop saying "don't worry about the unemployed, they can be helped, think only about saving COVID victims".

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

We can get close.

A $20 trillion a year economy shut down for several months requiring $5 trillion in emergency spending.

That's 3 months of no stuff being made.

It doesn't work that way at all. The economy is not even "stuff" anymore. Destroy businesses and jobs and they don't just pop back up again. The knock on effects can reverberate for years, for decades even. Unemployed people don't spend money, other businesses fail, it's a vicious cycle.

You get into a deflationary spiral, but if you print too much money and flip over into hyperinflation, then you can beggar the whole next generation, set back progress by decades.

And several months? We already had the several months. It didn't work. Shall we do it again?

Originally Posted by capn_billl

. . .Take an average of 25% off of everyone's net worth, with the bulk of that minimum wage fast food workers.

The average minimum wage fast food worker has a negative net worth already. Throw him out of a job, give him a couple months salary as "emergency assistance", feel good about we're helping the less fortunate, then he's on the streets anyway a couple months later. It's already happening even in Finland. Well no one ends up on the streets, but people knocked out of the productive economy and out of any possible career path.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Misquoting, quoting out of context (contextomy), and misappropriating rhetoric, in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, arises from the need to push an ideological mindset, rather than investigate truth.
It’s no shocker, then, that (often libertarian) campaigns, and ideological works, have been the culprits of butchering Franklin’s words.

Franklin was writing about a tax dispute, between the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony, who ruled it from afar. The legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands, to pay for frontier defense, during the French and Indian War. There were raids on these frontier towns. And he regarded the ability of a community to defend itself, as the essential liberty, that it would be contemptible to trade.
The Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto those taxes.
Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern.
And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money, in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

Franklin was voicing a pro-taxation, and pro-defense spending, sentiment, defending the authority of a legislature to govern, in the interests of collective security.
Not freedom from government; but freedom of government.

Franklin’s letter (see 2ND last paragraph) ➥ https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107

Interesting take.

I keep reading the bill of rights and don’t see any fine print about a cough voiding any of the 10 rights

My rights trump your “safety”, I’ll say it again, my rights trump your “safety”

If you feel a fashion mask makes you safe, wear one, if you think two masks are needed, toss another one on, or buy a full contained bio hazard suit, or build a sealed bunker, you are free to make any of those choices.

It’s very funny, people are worried the danger from a virus with a 99% survival rate, but seem very secure in messing with strangers, even more secure in religious like faith in anything government or their media say.

You can find tons more evidence in trusting government and the media being dangerous to your health.
Lots of reports of people getting damaged by messing with strangers too.

Folks just need to race their own race and leave strangers alone, maybe also look into the aftermath of people who took big government as god.


Per shots, being pro vax is just as dumb as anti vax, it’s a medical procedure, weigh the cost/benefit for yourself, take ownership in your own life, use some common sense. There are some shots I have, including ones many don’t, and some I pass on, the covid one, with over a 99% survival rate, I’ll be passing on that one.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

And most modern societies accept that , but remember , your rights stop at my nose. Society does have a duty to protect me from your actions , if those actions are viewed as threatening me. ( and you don’t get to determine that)

Hence interventions to control your behaviour so that it doesn’t threaten me occur in every modern society and hence the response to Covid is just another one

I recognize that other people have no duty to protect me and when I meet other people I am happy to comply with whatever Covid safety measures they feel are necessary.

Everyone has their unique perspective on what safety measures are appropriate and I completely respect all positions on this.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

...It’s very funny, people are worried the danger from a virus with a 99% survival rate, but seem very secure in messing with strangers, even more secure in religious like faith in anything government or their media say.

Do you insure your boat against total loss? Oh heck, do you carry 3rd-party liability? If the answer is yes to either of these then, in your estimation, you are "very funny." The odds of a total loss of a cruising-level boat, or a significant 3rd party impact, is far lower than a 1% risk (based on USCG statistics).

We routinely guard against much less than a 1% risk in our societies. Everything from pollution standards to traffic organization. Yet no one seems to suggest this is "very funny."

What is "funny" is how ideological this discussion has become.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

. . . I keep reading the bill of rights and don’t see any fine print about a cough voiding any of the 10 rights

My rights trump your “safety”, I’ll say it again, my rights trump your “safety”. . .

No they don't. Former Constitutional Law instructor here. That's not how the Bill of Rights works.

There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill of Rights (or the body of the Constitution) which forbids a state or municipal government from requiring you to wear a mask under certain circumstance for well-formed reasons of public health. Even the most ardent Libertarian legal scholars agree about this.

Whether the federal government can do it or not is less clear-cut. If you read the Constitution like a law (as it should be read) then the federal government can't do it except under very limited and unusual circumstances. If you read the Constitution more loosely, you might slip it into the Commerce Clause, which has been so much tortured over the last 100 years that you can slip almost anything into it. A libertarian perspective on that here: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/14...-mask-mandate/

In general, your "rights" are not as unconditional as you think they are.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

There WAS policy book. The White House threw it out..,,

Here is the 69-page document was from the NSC, not CDC (to me somewhat important to my earlier reference):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...c-Playbook.pdf

When you read it you can see how it could have been put together by a grad school intern over a semester. I don't mean that it's wrong, but a document cannot overnight relate to tens of thousands of people across the US what they are supposed to do in an emergency.

I suggest that people underestimate the capacity and scope of responsibility of epidemiologists/public health folks in time past and/or in other countries today. South Korea was hit by MERS and they got their act together from whatever it was before MERS....in the same interval the US had PPE rotting away in containers while private equity firms off-shored mission critical items. All in, a real March of Folly deal.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So the percentage was off (I said I couldn't find the source) but the underlying principal is true...

Partly because you didn't get the percentage right, your conclusions are partly wrong.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No they don't. Former Constitutional Law instructor here. That's not how the Bill of Rights works.

There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill of Rights (or the body of the Constitution) which forbids a state or municipal government from requiring you to wear a mask under certain circumstance for well-formed reasons of public health. Even the most ardent Libertarian legal scholars agree about this.

Whether the federal government can do it or not is less clear-cut. If you read the Constitution like a law (as it should be read) then the federal government can't do it except under very limited and unusual circumstances. If you read the Constitution more loosely, you might slip it into the Commerce Clause, which has been so much tortured over the last 100 years that you can slip almost anything into it. A libertarian perspective on that here: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/14...-mask-mandate/

In general, your "rights" are not as unconditional as you think they are.

And preventing folks from getting together to worship or petition the gov?

Or requiring people to fill out a invasive questionnaire to disembark a plane or come into a state?

Banning sales of ammo because some pissant mayor decided it was a “emergency”


Could you point out, or rather link, where the government can force me to wear a muzzle/mask?
Or force me to close my biz?

Feels like our forefathers removed our last government for much less

[goboatingnow]

What didn’t work. Social distancing and yes partial lockdowns have indeed reduced the infection rate that’s undeniable