NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Exactly. So what justifies the presumption that anyone is guilty?
So we convict people of a crime based on the probability that they might be a virus carrier? That's a hard sell. A lot of fear is needed to get people to go along with it. So I'm not surprised that some people aren't behind it.
As I've said before, case numbers aren't the concern, it's how many become a burden on the system. If we want to talk graphs, then remember where the whole "flatten the curve" slogan came from. It was case of a relatively short spike in cases that might overwhelm the healthcare system, leading to relatively fast natural immunity within the population, versus a prolonged period of lower cases that for sure don't overwhelm the healthcare system.
And I'm not selling. This is a discussion that has the potential to push our understanding of the issue forward significantly.
The relevant idea in your analogy is that some behavior should be punishable simply because something bad might happen. This can have some weight depending on the various factors involved.
Car crashes and viral infections differ in a number of ways, but if we're concerned with the central issue described above, then we're getting into some very interesting territory, which is why I like the way you think. I'll make an effort to come back to this later after going through the rest of your response.
Same here. But that doesn't mean "getting on with the business of life" all along by handling things differently wouldn't have been a better choice for millions of people over the longer term.
I used to love the mall until the mask bylaw. Now I can't wait to get out of there. It has ruined every shopping experience ( for me ).
Are you saying there should be no such thing as the right of concerned citizens to question the actions of their elected representatives? Somehow I don't see you getting onboard with that. Then there's just how far we should allow everyone to bend the rules. How authoritarian is justifiable to you? Isn't dragging someone off and fining them $1000 sufficient
?The concept of herd immunity is being misrepresented in such articles by implying it is a strategy. That is not the case. Herd immunity is a stage in the life cycle of an epidemic or pandemic. It is like the finish line. The question is: If you can't opt out of the race, would you sooner get to the finish line faster or slower? And what are the consequences for both?
Did you watch the video I posted about it? There's lots of numbers there for you to consider. So I don't think it's that cut and dried. Every system could be improved upon ( IMO ). My main focus is on the enforcement of lock downs and mask bylaws. IMO these should both be voluntary and the system should be reinforced to handle increased cases over a shorter term, rather than dragging it out over time.
Yup.
Not as clear as it seems. Graphs need a context and a set of data. I was looking at data from respiratory deaths dating back to 1999, and it was pointing toward supporting what I've been getting at, but more data is needed before it can be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a lot of work. I wish I had a team of people who could get access to the info we really need.
We need to identify exactly was the "it" is there and compare the relevant points to the data, and then ask how that compares to the alternatives. If by "it" we're talking about case numbers, then case numbers aren't really the concern. Presently case numbers are up, but hospitalizations have levelled off.
Not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate?
chinadigitaltimes.net
I'm not surprised. It's like the politicians up here who tell everyone to stay home while they go on vacations to Hawaii. Affluent people have a sense of entitlement or that the rules don't apply to them, and in many ways they're right, so they get used to behaving that way, but a virus doesn't acknowledge any of that sort of privilege. They're just like little self-replicating nano-mines, and if they get into your system, it makes no difference to them what your ideology is.
Uh, what? Covid is a disease, not a criminal act. The (current) criminal act would be not obeying the by-laws, not having or not having covid. Just like (I think) it's a crime to knowingly have unsafe sex while you have AIDs without disclosing it. The crime isn't having the disease, it's spreading it.
The bylaws have been created on the presumption that individuals charged with the offense(s) are guilty of intentionally contributing to the spread of the disease when there may be no evidence that any of them actually are. I find this very problematic.
The analogy there doesn't correspond because intentionally spreading a disease you know you have is entirely different than making the assumption someone might be spreading a disease they don't know they have.
Accordingly, if there is no evidence that a person is knowingly spreading a disease, then they should not be assumed to be guilty of doing so.
True. I think perhaps a better use of time would be to:
What's the real difference between knowingly spreading something and purposefully not stopping something you might have from spreading? I could see if you tested negative recently (say in the last 24 hours or something) making a case for not needing to wear a mask... but how do you know you have it or not without being tested?
There's a huge real difference, because the first part presents a definitively real transmission. The latter does not. The latter is like saying there is a real possibility you might run over somebody on the way downtown, therefore if you get in your car and drive you are guilty of maybe running someone over.
Exactly my point. Without evidence, why assume guilt? That doesn't mean that there aren't any reasonable grounds for safety policies based on probabilities, but it's a matter of degree. We take many risks on a daily basis that can affect ourselves and others, without the need for an Emergency Measures Act coming into play.
First of all, we've been through the impaired driving analogy already and it is plain to see that the age based analogy is far better. Maybe you missed that? On the issue of auto insurance: Auto insurance is a mandatory specific risk based compensation system that is integrated with our healthcare system to some degree.
In your rationale above you're equating personal intent to harm someone directly with your own actions that you are aware of and can directly control, as opposed to having no intent to harm anyone as a result of actions you're unaware of that are to some extent within your indirect control.
Seems that way. My position is backed by PhDs from Harvard, Stanford, & Oxford, along with over 50,000 scientists and others in healthcare and medicine. It's also backed by several academic papers. They're all in this thread. So by now there should be very little doubt left that my position is entirely reasonable.
I think that I'd switch out "personal accountability" with "personal responsibility" and focus accountability more on government than individuals. But then again, I'm a peaceful anarchist who believes in as much personal freedom as we can get without disaffecting others.
Why is it better? It involves a choice, and the primary consequence of the decision making is how hurt other people get. I don't like the age based analogy, because age isn't a choice.
Sure, why not though? Isn't that kinda what public healthcare is? And the fact that we all pay for it kinda does mean that we should innately care what other people do that could harm others... or even themselves. Like, say, smoking. I would be just fine with smokers paying more for Alberta Health Care. Or obesity. Or other high risk lifestyle choices.
Why not? I mean, who exactly is it harming? Please don't fall back on the old tired 'slippery slope' kinda argument.
Just like with auto insurance, right? Same deal. Maybe we could have "I don't want to wear a mask" insurance? (I'm kidding).
Again, the charts above are exceptionally clear evidence in my mind that those things aren't reasonable enough. Without the bylaws, cases spiked to 3x what they were when we locked down the first time. With the bylaws, they come back down. Kinda QED, isn't it?
Is it though? I mean, the rest of the world broadly thinks it's unreasonable. I know that's an appeal to authority kinda argument, but so is your argument, so even though those people agree with you, more seem to agree with me, so... I'm not sure that gets either one of us anywhere, because as we both know, the majority can be wrong. Or it can be right.
Right. That's the social contract. I'm with you.
I'm also with you. I also practice martial arts (before covid), and my risk tolerance is actually quite high. My concern is not fear for myself or even really my family, who is all healthy, but for the math of the situation - geometric progression due to the 1.1+ infection rate.
Sure. My view is that if we take the lockdown seriously, and do it harshly, it will be over sooner. Which means we can all get back to whatever normal is going to look like after this. Dragging our heels on this likely means that we will have more damage to undo, like very slowly peeling a bandaid off. Might as well rip that sucker off and get on with things.
Right, but it isn't your risk really to take here, isn't it? Couldn't the same line of thinking apply back to "you're willing to take the risk that you're going to go bankrupt or die if you get sick" (therefore privatized healthcare) or "you're willing to take the risk of driving without insurance and going bankrupt" (therefore no need for car insurance), etc. Kinda the US-style far-right individualism that's reaching it's conclusions right now. All of that conveniently forgets that no person is an island, right? What I do to myself actually does impact you slightly through the economy and other factors, and sometimes what I do to you impacts you directly (if I injure you in an auto accident without insurance).
I'm good with switching that out, it's fairly analogous to what I was trying to say. As far as being a peaceful anarchist, I'm good with that as well. My first big boy job performance review literally said (in writing) "He's a self-reliant anarchist" so I guess I've spent some time there myself
Exactly. The age based analogy is better because it uses your premise of impairment, but rather than a choice based cause like consuming an intoxicant, it uses a natural factor ( age ), which has a closer relationship with other natural factors like a disease that few people choose to purposefully get infected with, and because COVID-19's relationship to mortality is primarily age based, there is more of a correlation between old-age and risk in both COVID-19 stats and increased risk because of impairment due to age.
Like I said, we already pay into an insurance system for healthcare. I'm all for that. What I'm not in favor of is these extra measures brought in by the Emergency Measures Act.
Interesting that you should go there. With things like smoking, people are making a conscious choice that is within their direct control, at least until they become hopeless addicts and need intervention. However, people don't consciously make a choice to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. And besides that, smokers already do pay a fee in taxes.
It's harming all kinds of people by destroying their livelihoods and reducing our overall quality of life. As I've already said, they have the potential to cost more in lives and quality of life than the virus itself. Literally millions of otherwise healthy productive people are suffering as a result right now, and seriously credentialed experts say it just not necessary. So why isn't that part not getting through?
That's just it. We already have that insurance. It's called AHCIP and it covers all kinds of things, including COVID-19 and things more deadly than COVID-19, without the need for invoking Emergency Measures.
As I've said before, the charts are misleading, and I've explained why. So instead of simply repeating that you think the charts aren't misleading, what we need to do is dig into that data to get a more objective picture. I've dug into it as far as I can on my own with the Internet as a resource, and that research definitely gives cause for concern. Is it proof? No. But neither are the graphs and models being pushed by the PTB "proof" either.
The thing about appeals to authority is that they're in the grey basket when it comes to logical fallacies. In this case the authorities in question are impeccably credentialed academics, backed by thousands more, compared to a relatively few in positions of political power. Both have a certain amount of reasonableness in their rationale, and I'm not one of the big "plandemic" or "scamdemic" conspircay theorist.
At last. I'll take moment out here to pour me some lemonade.
The number of cases isn't the problem. It's the number of hospitalizations, and then the number of those who don't survive. When we look deeper into this situation. that's when the sorts of questions I've been asking come into play, but are very hard to get accurate data on. However what it looks like is that the numbers on mortality are misleading, as well as the numbers on our capacity to deal with the numbers of cases.
It seems to have worked in New Zealand, where according to the news the other day, there were zero active cases. So maybe if things had gone that way voluntarily, it might be over. But even then, the stats on COVID-19 aren't so bad that such drastic measures are necessary across the board.
What you're forgetting is that the whole "flatten the curve" strategy is a trade-off where we deal with more cases over a shorter time span for the disease, versus the same number ( or more cases ) over a longer time span that is more manageable given the system we have to manage it.
Yes I completely agree. There needs to be a well-reasoned system of checks and balances, and I am perfectly fine with universal healthcare. It's the going beyond that to these extremes that may cost society more than it saves that I'm concerned about.
I just knew it was in there somewhereI'm good with switching that out, it's fairly analogous to what I was trying to say. As far as being a peaceful anarchist, I'm good with that as well. My first big boy job performance review literally said (in writing) "He's a self-reliant anarchist" so I guess I've spent some time there myself
