COVID-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (a non-political thread, see pg. 36 #1778)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Saying cloth masks don't help with the spread of the virus is like saying that trees in the fairway won't keep the ball from going in the cup when I hit it.

Just because you can still catch and transmit the virus with masks on doesn't mean that it's not an effective part of an overall plan to help limit transmission.

I'm not masking now unless I'm required to, and I think it's time to roll things back and transition to the next stage, but there's a difference between saying masks don't help and recognizing why they were encouraged and mandated. There's a lot of in between in the understanding between "they don't help" and "wearing them makes me bulletproof from it".

I think recognizing and understanding all that, by everyone regardless of your opinions, helps us all get to the end faster.

From what I've read, cloth masks don't do much with omicron. I've not been able to find studies with % effectiveness but everything I've read says its low or worthless. Stick with N95 or medical. I have read that cloth with triple-ply or with medical mask is better ... but regular cloth masks (that my wife has been sewing and sending to relatives) is likely ineffective.

I do think its fair to ask if cloth masks were ever really that effective even against the original strain. If there is a robust study on effectiveness of cloth masks with stats, please post it but I've not seen one that compares N95, medical mask, regular cloth mask against each other.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if the mask skeptics cover their mouth when they cough generally, or wash their hands after they use the bathroom.

There's no guarantees, but certain circumstances call for hygienic practices.

When I traveled, it surprised me the number of men that did not wash their hands afterwards in airport restrooms. I'm going to swag and say 10-20%.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Come on Jim, you must know by now not to argue with the uber-enlightened is not the done thing

The key is, and I'm sure this guy gets it, if the other side were in power, had the media, etc, they'd do the exact same thing. Those of us over 50 (in the US) surely remember the Moral Majority. Our grandparents remember the days of Father Coughlin. It never stops and it never will stop.

What's different is social media and the instant ability to google a vast trove of data about everyone.

We used to have heros and idols. For many Christians, Jesus fills that role. For an old liberal like me, I always answer Albert Einstein. I'm not sure today, with all that data out there, that anyone holds up to the new standards.

Kids must feel lost. It would be interesting to hear from our younger set (if there is one here) about the concept of hero and inspiration. I was asking my wife about this tonight, since she teaches a lot of college freshman and sophomores. She doesn't think things have changed as much as I do. She's been very happy this week since the first significant papers of the term were turned in and she says her new batch is surprisingly good.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There was also the weird aspect where his team was tweeting under his name about how Covid was hoax while he was hooked up to a ventilator slowly dying. Those actions made him the perfect symbol for the spiraling death cult.

It was just retweeting a CDC comment that most who die have comorbidities. And it was tweeted a while after he died. So, yeah, weird. But correct. It's just that the biggest comorbidity is being old. By far the biggest. We shouldn't forget that. Anyone who tells someone over 65 not to get the vaccine is seriously misguided. It has saved countless lives.

I'm not sure he was remarkable in the COVID discussion, other than being pictured with a lot of other unmasked people at a rally. But it was a Trump rally and I wonder if him being African-American and a Trump supporter had a lot to do with it. Because all sorts of common sense (on both sides) seems to go out the window where Trump is concerned.

I really, really, really hope Trump decides against running again. One, he'd probably win, if the polling is anywhere near accurate. And two, he's a shitty president - we already know this. I'm sorry to those here who disagree with that - I don't think you're bad people for supporting him. But no... I don't want him back. Retire in peace. Go fund your twitter-equivalent and send out all the mean tweets you like. But please, please don't run again.

[Edward64]

Wife and I decided to eat some dim sum tomorrow in Atlanta's chinatown. Haven't been to one well over 2+ years. Another step towards return to normality.

Went grocery shopping tonight. Kroger staff had their masks, hardly any customers did. I think ribeye has gone down a buck per pound since last time I checked.

I checked Truecar.com. A car I was using as a benchmark showed it was going at regular MSRP. Whereas 2-3 months ago it was $500+. Hopefully a sign that supply chain is moving towards normal. GPU prices are coming down but unsure if its because bitcoin mining has become unprofitable or supply chain has improved ... prob bit of both.

(I like to think inflation will be tamed some with a recovered supply chain. Putin and war worries are a different matter)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It was just retweeting a CDC comment that most who die have comorbidities. And it was tweeted a while after he died. So, yeah, weird. But correct. It's just that the biggest comorbidity is being old. By far the biggest. We shouldn't forget that. Anyone who tells someone over 65 not to get the vaccine is seriously misguided. It has saved countless lives.

I'm not sure he was remarkable in the COVID discussion, other than being pictured with a lot of other unmasked people at a rally. But it was a Trump rally and I wonder if him being African-American and a Trump supporter had a lot to do with it. Because all sorts of common sense (on both sides) seems to go out the window where Trump is concerned.

I really, really, really hope Trump decides against running again. One, he'd probably win, if the polling is anywhere near accurate. And two, he's a shitty president - we already know this. I'm sorry to those here who disagree with that - I don't think you're bad people for supporting him. But no... I don't want him back. Retire in peace. Go fund your twitter-equivalent and send out all the mean tweets you like. But please, please don't run again.

You're reading way too much into this. It was because he was a Trump aide at a time when him and others were downplaying the severity of the virus and mocking precautionary steps people were taking.

Guy sacrificed his own life for a few thousand likes on Twitter. That's going to lead to people making fun of you. You're showing more reverence for his life than he did.

[Edward64]

Not surprising but 4th shot, 2nd booster is being monitored/considered. Appreciate Israel being first.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/19/healt...-us/index.html

Israel was the first nation to roll out fourth doses, announcing in December that adults 60 and older, medical workers and people with suppressed immune systems were eligible to receive the extra shot if at least four months have passed since their third dose.

More recently, the Public Health Agency of Sweden announced last week that second booster doses are recommended for everyone 80 and older in the country.

In addition to monitoring mutations, I assume they are also monitoring the "level of antibodies" from month to month? Is there % when they would make the call e.g. antibodies have fallen from 90% to 50% by month X so we need another booster.

In the United States, health officials emphasized late last year that fourth doses were not yet needed and said it was too premature to be discussing a potential fourth dose of coronavirus vaccine for most people.

Now, the US Food and Drug Administration "is indeed continually looking at the emerging data on the pandemic and variants in the United States and overseas in order to evaluate the potential utility and composition of booster doses," FDA spokesperson Alison Hunt wrote in an email to CNN on Friday.

[Edward64]

Haven't been top of mind for me but interesting WSJ article on compensation for those that did have deadly reaction to vaccinations.

Covid-19 Vaccines Were Deadly in Rare Cases. Governments Are Now Weighing Compensation. - WSJ

She is part of a very small, little-discussed community of pandemic victims: those who have suffered—or had family or loved ones suffer—from rare but serious vaccine side effects recognized by doctors, regulators and researchers. They say they feel lost in wider Covid-19 statistics, which have shown vaccines to be extremely safe and effective for most of the population
:
Faced with the gravest health crisis in memory, governments deployed newly developed vaccines in record time. Many countries indemnified pharmaceutical companies that made the shots, with some governments promising to consider compensation for suspected Covid-19 vaccine-related injuries.

Now governments, including the U.S. and U.K., are trying to live up to that pledge. They are in the very early stages of applying existing vaccine-injury programs to hundreds of claims of injury alleged from Covid-19 shots.

Serious side effects so far have been very rare—estimated at roughly one to 11 per 100,000 doses

I don't know what the right $ is but $163K sounds lite to me. If someone has been incapacitated due to vaccinations, provide free healthcare.

The U.K.’s National Health Service has received more than 720 claims requesting Covid-19 vaccine-related compensation. The country’s vaccine-injury compensation program entails a one-size-fits-all cash payment of £120,000, equivalent to around $163,000. The volume of Covid-related claims has grown by about 20 a week, toward a projected 1,500 to 1,800 new claims this year, according to U.K. government projections.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Come on Jim, you must know by now not to argue with the uber-enlightened is not the done thing

This. As he does fairly regularly, Pie hits the nail squarely on the head in that clip.

Much more could be said in this thread, but for me this whole mindset of how we are treating each other now makes me more ashamed to be an American than anything else that has happened in my lifetime. At the time, I thought Trump being elected would be the low point. I was very wrong.

[sterlingice]

There must be a lot of extra wood laying around in this thread with all the crosses people are putting themselves on.

SI

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This. As he does fairly regularly, Pie hits the nail squarely on the head in that clip.

Much more could be said in this thread, but for me this whole mindset of how we are treating each other now makes me more ashamed to be an American than anything else that has happened in my lifetime. At the time, I thought Trump being elected would be the low point. I was very wrong.

You seem to be criticizing woke people for shaming others for their free speech/behavior just before shaming others for their free speech/behavior.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This. As he does fairly regularly, Pie hits the nail squarely on the head in that clip.

Much more could be said in this thread, but for me this whole mindset of how we are treating each other now makes me more ashamed to be an American than anything else that has happened in my lifetime. At the time, I thought Trump being elected would be the low point. I was very wrong.

It's "interesting" how you constantly talk about your respect for the hypothetical people & opinions you've invented that are contrary to whatever someone else is saying, but actively & directly shame any real people with opinions contrary to your own.

[Brian Swartz]

Only 'interesting' in the sense that it's not at all what I'm doing.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This. As he does fairly regularly, Pie hits the nail squarely on the head in that clip.

Much more could be said in this thread, but for me this whole mindset of how we are treating each other now makes me more ashamed to be an American than anything else that has happened in my lifetime. At the time, I thought Trump being elected would be the low point. I was very wrong.

Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

You seem to be criticizing woke people for shaming others for their free speech/behavior just before shaming others for their free speech/behavior.

Nope. Woke people, like all people, should absolutely criticize whoever and whatever they think is worthy of criticism. I'm absolutely pro-free expression.

What I'm against is the assumption of motivations, lies and distortions, and I'm against it regardless of which direction it comes from. When it comes from the direction of right-wing misinformation, accusations that the woke people are making a big power grab and don't really care about the pandemic itself, it's just about enlarging government power etc. I call that out as well. That doesn't come up around here much so it's not heard as often, this being the largely left-wing echo chamber that it is, but acquaintances and relatives of mine would tell you that I make this point when it comes up on social media.

There's a difference between 'this is wrong and here's why' and 'this is wrong and you wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't for *insert nefarious motivation here*', and also between that and 'this is wrong, but I won't stop at what the facts actually are, I'll blatantly exaggerate them'. I enjoy debate with people in the first column. Multiple members of this forum refuse to stay in that column. Many who do things like the Herman Cain Awards do as well. Those are the ones I have a problem with. Reasonable, civil debate is healthy, essential, and a benefit to society. This is not that.

[RainMaker]

Do you think vaccines or acknowledgement of diseases are left-wing?

This was never political till one side decided that they needed to downplay the virus to show fealty to their King. Before that, we'd make fun of Jenny McCarthy for being anti-vax or Gwenyth Paltrow for thinking coffee enemas cured some ailment.

And what is the debate you're looking for? Do we have to go through every single drug in existence and debate their merits when there is no scientific evidence to support it? If some science comes through that shows a solution more successful than vaccines, we're all ears. Otherwise we're debating if Windex can cure scurvy when we can just eat an orange.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you think vaccines or acknowledgement of diseases are left-wing?

No. As usual this is completely besides the point, and is followed by proving my point in the previous post I made.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And what is the debate you're looking for? Do we have to go through every single drug in existence and debate their merits when there is no scientific evidence to support it?

This is part of the problem. You're pre-supposing what a legitimate debate can be about and what it can't be about a priori. Therefore any view which you decide is ridiculous can be pre-emptively dismissed. Civil discussion and debate doesn't impose those conditions. It starts with the floor completely open to all ideas.

ETA: I've said it before but the way this is going, it seems I need to say it again: I am pro-vax. I've gotten my shots and recommended to others that they do so. This isn't about the vaccine. It's much bigger and more fundamental than that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is part of the problem. You're pre-supposing what a legitimate debate can be about and what it can't be about a priori. Therefore any view which you decide is ridiculous can be pre-emptively dismissed. Civil discussion and debate doesn't impose those conditions. It starts with the floor completely open to all ideas.

ETA: I've said it before but the way this is going, it seems I need to say it again: I am pro-vax. I've gotten my shots and recommended to others that they do so. This isn't about the vaccine. It's much bigger and more fundamental than that.

No, I'm asking what you think should be debated. You people keep talking about debate and never will get around to what you think should be debated. Just vague platitudes.

So please let us what the debate you think we should be having that people are per-emptively dismissing.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Therefore any view which you decide is ridiculous can be pre-emptively dismissed. Civil discussion and debate doesn't impose those conditions. It starts with the floor completely open to all ideas.
.

Because some ideas are just flat out wrong and should be dismissed. If someone tries to tell me the earth is flat I'm not going to have that debate with them and legitimize their easily disproved argument.

[Brian Swartz]

Everything. I don't have any limits on what it should be. It's not a 'vague platitude', it's a statement of principle.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Because some ideas are just flat out wrong and should be dismissed. If someone tries to tell me the earth is flat I'm not going to have that debate with them and legitimize their easily disproved argument.

Who gets to decide what ideas are this wrong, and on what basis? What recourse do you have if a vital principle that you hold dear is subject to such dismissal?

Debating something doesn't legitimize it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Everything. I don't have any limits on what it should be. It's not a 'vague platitude', it's a statement of principle.

Can you name one topic that should have been seriously debated in here that was shot down? Everything is pretty broad. Do we need a serious debate on whether Pop Tarts cure Covid?

[stevew]

I just wish the ignore feature worked better

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Who gets to decide what ideas are this wrong, and on what basis?

Debating something doesn't legitimize it.

How about science for one?

It absolutely does. Once you tell someone you will listing to their position that is so obviously wrong and easily disproved you are validating their point and making them think they could sell you on their side of the issue.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This was never political till one side decided that they needed to downplay the virus to show fealty to their King.

That sentence is loaded with quite a few assumptions and conclusions that are difficult to unwind. I don't agree with any of it, but how do you debate these sorts of loaded statements? It isn't civilized, fun, or productive in any way.

The whole COVID debate is a complicated one, where we learn more every day. But reducing it to that sentence just doesn't work. For instance:

Percent of Total Population that has Received a COVID-19 Vaccine by Race/Ethnicity | KFF

You could spend days discussing this chart, and I don't really have much to say about it other than "it's complicated". Well, that and what the hell is going on in Oregon? I'll just assume that's a misunderstanding of some sort.

I've noticed myself, living in a very diverse area, that a very small percentage of white people are wearing masks and a very large percentage of black people are wearing masks. I find that interesting, especially since Ohio is trending the other way when it comes to vaccinations. Whatever that means. I know it's hard to talk about race without being unintentionally biased in some way. I don't mean this as a racial thing, other than it's fairly well documented that African Americans vote about 90% with the side that apparently isn't led by a member of the royal family.

A year and a half ago, people worried that Trump would unveil a vaccine just before the election in order to get votes. Kamala Harris memorably indicated during a debate that she would get a vaccine, but only as long as she was convinced Trump wasn't pushing it for votes before anyone knew whether it worked. I hope I'm paraphrasing her fairly. I've viewed the statement and I think that's in context.

But this has been political since day one. Both sides. I don't consider that a false equivalency. Partisans on both sides have squeezed COVID as hard as humanly possible to try and divine something that would generate a political advantage.

Fortunately, the vaccine developers could ignore all that and performed many miracles and have saved millions of lives.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can you name one topic that should have been seriously debated in here that was shot down? Everything is pretty broad. Do we need a serious debate on whether Pop Tarts cure Covid?

I for one, am sick and tired of the War on Pop Tarts.

Brown Sugar Cinnamon Pop Tarts contain every ingredient essential to life on Earth.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Partisans on both sides have squeezed COVID as hard as humanly possible to try and divine something that would generate a political advantage.

What do you think the left is trying to gain out of their stance to take the vaccine? I get there are politicians and activists who virtue signal, but can't figure out what political advantage you see in this. In fact, letting Republicans continue to die en masse seems much more politically advantageous.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I for one, am sick and tired of the War on Pop Tarts.

Brown Sugar Cinnamon Pop Tarts contain every ingredient essential to life on Earth.

Thank goodness since on mornings when I am brutally hung over I just give my kids cold pop tarts for breakfast

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It absolutely does. Once you tell someone you will listing to their position that is so obviously wrong and easily disproved you are validating their point and making them think they could sell you on their side of the issue.

No, you aren't validating their point one bit. You're saying only that you're going to listen to them, which is a good idea because they are a human being, not because of anything they have to say. There's no implied commitment to change your opinion one iota. Meanwhile, what dismissing them does is simply harden them and cause them to seek out others that agree with them, which further reduces the opportunity for growth.

Originally Posted by Lathum

How about science for one?

So what do we do when the science changes, as happens quite often (it wouldn't be science if it didn't)? What about those who were dismissed previously for saying things science didn't approve of then, but were actually in line with what the new scientific understanding is? What of opinions abou subjects that are just plain beyond the realm of science?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can you name one topic that should have been seriously debated in here that was shot down?

This continues to be besides the point. It's not about 'we should debate topic X or Y'. It's about how we treat people who have opinions we find ridiculous/unacceptable. As I said before, it's not that 'people who are anti-vax are wrong' is a problem. It's that 'people who are anti-vax only say so because of reason X and we can conclude Y and Z about their character because of this opinion they hold' is a problem. Then of course extrapolating to other issues, this is just one that happens to be hot-button at the moment.

Going back to my original post that set this sub-conversation off, I'm rereading it and I think I expressed what I was trying to say clearly. It's not about what topic we debate or don't debate. It's about how we treat people who hold certain contrary opinions when those issues come up.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No, you aren't validating their point one bit. You're saying only that you're going to listen to them, which is a good idea because they are a human being, not because of anything they have to say. There's no implied commitment to change your opinion one iota. Meanwhile, what dismissing them does is simply harden them and cause them to seek out others that agree with them, which further reduces the opportunity for growth.

.

And what is the end game? Listen to them then tell them they are wrong? That just brings you back to point A. Kind of like we are doing right now.

If you don't think giving someone a chance to explain an obviously wrong POV gives them validation I don't know what to tell you. I'm not talking about obvious opinions or even questionable science. I am talking about lizard people, Joe Biden was executed at GITMO, Obama drink the blood of children arguments. There is zero point in spending one second debating these things.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

So what do we do when the science changes, as happens quite often (it wouldn't be science if it didn't)? What about those who were dismissed previously for saying things science didn't approve of then, but were actually in line with what the new scientific understanding is? What of opinions abou subjects that are just plain beyond the realm of science?

Science obviously chenages, and I actually think peoples inability to grasp that concept is a huge reason we are where we are. Too many "Fauci is always changing his mind" people out there. That being said some science is irrefutable based on data, and any argument to the contrary is flat out wrong.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And what is the end game? Listen to them then tell them they are wrong? That just brings you back to point A. Kind of like we are doing right now.

It's not back at point A though. You've given them the basic human dignity of listening to them. Secondly, you don't have conclude at the end that they are not merely wrong, but wrong because they are immoral/other ulterior motives. These are major differences.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Going back to my original post that set this sub-conversation off, I'm rereading it and I think I expressed what I was trying to say clearly. It's not about what topic we debate or don't debate. It's about how we treat people who hold certain contrary opinions when those issues come up.

"Contrary opinions" seems to be underselling it a bit. What if a chef decides not to fully cook chicken you eat at a restaurant because they don't believe in salmonella? Is that just a "contrary opinion"?

One side is actively trying to spread a deadly virus and kill as many people as they can. It's not a debate about how good the last Star Wars movie was.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not back at point A though. You've given them the basic human dignity of listening to them. Secondly, you don't have conclude at the end that they are not merely wrong, but wrong because they are immoral/other ulterior motives. These are major differences.

We have listened for years. The highest office in the land routinely spun out this misinformation. The largest social media platform in the world is entirely transfixed on anti-vax content. The biggest cable news outlet spends its days doing the same.

These people have been heard over and over. It's left us with hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. The deadliest and worst Covid response in the industrialized world.

What does the body count have to reach before someone can be considered immoral?

[Solecismic]

You don't have to engage in the debate. It's not like we need a serious discussion over whether Obama drinks the blood of children in response to that claim (I can't say I've ever heard that one - the blood of children thing is more the traditional Protocols of Zion type hate of Jewish people).

But if someone wants to debate something a little less, well, unpleasant, like whether elementary schools should have a vaccine mandate or masks, and the response is (and I'm not saying you did this) "well, those who think kids shouldn't wear masks are the same people who say Obama drinks their blood," that's not a civilized response.

Nor is it terribly convincing, though that person might "win" the debate since there probably isn't going to be a response to that rebuttal.

People shouldn't be afraid to ask what they think are legitimate questions because they realize if the people being asked think they're dumb questions, they might be accused of believing the Earth is flat (it is, by the way, except for my damned driveway which is all uphill both ways). They might not be the best-informed questions, but if we consistently try and believe that most human beings want to be good people (and the rest become journalists or politicians), we'll end up with more good questions in the long run and probably more people vaccinated in this particular case.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not back at point A though. You've given them the basic human dignity of listening to them. Secondly, you don't have conclude at the end that they are not merely wrong, but wrong because they are immoral/other ulterior motives. These are major differences.

I am floored you can; grasp that by listening to them you are doing them a disservice. It also isn't about motives. Usually these people are just stupid or brainwashed.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But if someone wants to debate something a little less, well, unpleasant, like whether elementary schools should have a vaccine mandate or masks, and the response is (and I'm not saying you did this) "well, those who think kids shouldn't wear masks are the same people who say Obama drinks their blood," that's not a civilized response.

.

I agree with this, but the talking points coming from a lot of the right are beyond this and just plain wrong or in bad faith.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

"Contrary opinions" seems to be underselling it a bit. What if a chef decides not to fully cook chicken you eat at a restaurant because they don't believe in salmonella? Is that just a "contrary opinion"?

In a free society there's not a useful distinction between the two, in terms of 'acceptable dissent' or 'unacceptable dissent'. It's all just 'dissent'. That's fundamental to the very concept of a free society.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One side is actively trying to spread a deadly virus and kill as many people as they can.

Again, framing it in terms of motivations. This is exactly what's wrong. Then they will just come back and say 'one side is actively profiteering off a virus to expand government power and turn the country into a nanny state'. Which is equally wrong.

On the other hand, instead of framing it that way, we could frame it differently. We could say, as one example, that one side believes that vaccination is a matter of personal choice that should be up the individual, and the other believes that the interests of public health are more important than that concern, that everyone should get vaccinated, and that people who are reluctant to do so should be coerced/mandated into compliance.

Certainly there probably better ways to word both sides, but the point is this; that is a description of actions and beliefs. It is not a description of motivations and goals, which only the person themselves can possibly know, not others who can't get into their mind. When we address ourselves to the facts of actions, decisions, and the like we have a foundation for a civilized and productive debate. When we address ourselves to the presumed and unknowable motivations, we have the foundation for inflammatory demonization and not a whole lot else.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What does the body count have to reach before someone can be considered immoral?

For their opinion? That's not immoral under any condition/number. That's not even a relevant factor. This simply lacks any semblance of perspective. As has been said before, if we are going to rank people's morality based on their actions to prevent preventable deaths, there is an extremely long list there and the pandemic as a whole is barely a blip on that radar, if even that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

In a free society there's not a useful distinction between the two, in terms of 'acceptable dissent' or 'unacceptable dissent'. It's all just 'dissent'. That's fundamental to the very concept of a free society.

There absolutely is. How do you think someone who dissents to having an age of consent is treated by society? No one is saying to lock people up for dissent, just that we don't have to treat all dissents the same.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

For their opinion? That's not immoral under any condition/number. That's not even a relevant factor. This simply lacks any semblance of perspective. As has been said before, if we are going to rank people's morality based on their actions to prevent preventable deaths, there is an extremely long list there and the pandemic as a whole is barely a blip on that radar, if even that.

Yes, I can view someone as immoral for the opinions they hold. And yes, I can rank people's morality based on heir actions to prevent preventable deaths. For instance, I think Hitler was highly immoral for his opinion that the eradication of the Jewish race was necessary. Despite it being his opinion, I view him as more immoral than the person who liked Season 8 of Game of Thrones.

Maybe a controversial stance but I'll stick to it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I for one, am sick and tired of the War on Pop Tarts.

Brown Sugar Cinnamon Pop Tarts contain every ingredient essential to life on Earth.

As the risk of dividing us further: frosted or unfrosted?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Again, framing it in terms of motivations. This is exactly what's wrong. Then they will just come back and say 'one side is actively profiteering off a virus to expand government power and turn the country into a nanny state'. Which is equally wrong.

On the other hand, instead of framing it that way, we could frame it differently. We could say, as one example, that one side believes that vaccination is a matter of personal choice that should be up the individual, and the other believes that the interests of public health are more important than that concern, that everyone should get vaccinated, and that people who are reluctant to do so should be coerced/mandated into compliance.

Certainly there probably better ways to word both sides, but the point is this; that is a description of actions and beliefs. It is not a description of motivations and goals, which only the person themselves can possibly know, not others who can't get into their mind. When we address ourselves to the facts of actions, decisions, and the like we have a foundation for a civilized and productive debate. When we address ourselves to the presumed and unknowable motivations, we have the foundation for inflammatory demonization and not a whole lot else.

This seems to have a blind spot for people who are actively engaging in bad faith arguments to attempt to elevate their known false argument so it is treated on par with arguments based on the best information we have at the time.

There's a lot of examples out there. For instance, the "scientists" who were intentionally trying to muddy the water about, say, smoking causing cancer to make it seem like the science is "unsettled" to keep allowing cigarettes to be sold without risk of litigation. How about the Andrew Wakefield? Turns out his "vaccines cause autism" study was straight up fabricated (he fudged his numbers /and/ his study was funded by lawyers trying to sue MMR vaccine manufacturers).

Those people are not going to come out and say "oh, you caught me - I was just trying to profiteer off my increased visibility or ability to sell you placebo X". So, yes, you have to try and discern motivations in those cases.

On a smaller scale, yeah, I think there are people online who just want to try to look smart or be contrarian or score some sort of internet points by engaging in bad faith arguments. I mean it's common enough that we have internet-age terms like "concern troll" and "tone policing". Of course none of that ever happens here (crickets chirp).

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You don't have to engage in the debate. It's not like we need a serious discussion over whether Obama drinks the blood of children in response to that claim (I can't say I've ever heard that one - the blood of children thing is more the traditional Protocols of Zion type hate of Jewish people).

But if someone wants to debate something a little less, well, unpleasant, like whether elementary schools should have a vaccine mandate or masks, and the response is (and I'm not saying you did this) "well, those who think kids shouldn't wear masks are the same people who say Obama drinks their blood," that's not a civilized response.

Nor is it terribly convincing, though that person might "win" the debate since there probably isn't going to be a response to that rebuttal.

People shouldn't be afraid to ask what they think are legitimate questions because they realize if the people being asked think they're dumb questions, they might be accused of believing the Earth is flat (it is, by the way, except for my damned driveway which is all uphill both ways). They might not be the best-informed questions, but if we consistently try and believe that most human beings want to be good people (and the rest become journalists or politicians), we'll end up with more good questions in the long run and probably more people vaccinated in this particular case.

Similar to the above, I think there is a real case to be made that giving all points of view a "fair" showing is harmful. That's not to throw someone in jail for making a bad point. However, there is some responsibility to be had, especially if you knowingly are making false arguments, especially with something like this that is really harmful.

The platforming /is/ a part of the problem. It's how we have literally tens of millions of people in this country thinking Joe Rogan and his merry band of charlatans, snake oil salesmen, and dime store sophists have better medical advice than Anthony Fauci or the CDC or their own physician. This is not to say the latter has been perfect - far from it - during the pandemic. However, even with that, they should have far more credibility that we could mostly dismiss the former. Instead, we have the unvaccinated dying in droves (at a more than 20:1 ratio) and poison control jammed up at various times during the pandemic with calls about hydroxychlorquine and ivermectin.

SI

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I for one, am sick and tired of the War on Pop Tarts.

Brown Sugar Cinnamon Pop Tarts contain every ingredient essential to life on Earth.

I will march on Kellogg's if they ever decide to get rid of them

[Ksyrup]

One of the negative side effects of the Covid lockdown for me was re-discovering my love for pop tarts. Brown sugar cinnamon and cherry, especially. If you are trying to be good, the Special K pastry crisps do a decent job of kinda replacing them, at a fraction of the calories. I lightly toast mine to get it even closer to the original.

[JPhillips]

There are times when not questioning motives is then turned around as a defense because at least the person is sincere. Person X may not be right, but they are sincere so we should sympathize with them even if we know they are wrong.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As the risk of dividing us further: frosted or unfrosted?

SI

The people who claim unfrosted is a worthy substitute are often the same people who wore Milli Vanilli tee-shirts in high school and have memorized the entire text of Lee Iacoca's autobiography... in its original Mandarin.

What's a bad faith argument? We often use the lawyers and scientists hired by the tobacco industry in the '80s and '90s. But that didn't stop medical researchers from studying the issue and, well, an awful lot of people still die from smoking every year.

But where does one draw that line? Who decides what's harmful and what isn't when it comes to publication? So far, one the biggest uses of platform censorship has been to quiet those who questioned whether COVID was the result of gain-of-function research. Yet that might be what actually happened.

I'm really uncomfortable with anyone deciding these things - especially government agents. Speech needs to be protected except when it in itself is an action (like blocking a road where we confuse the vehicle for the speech - pun intended - with the speech itself or the tried-and-tested "fire" in a crowded theater).

We can go back to the "but Facebook and Twitter are private companies" argument, and that circles back to the 230 protection and I think we're at a standstill there. I think section 230 protection implies that the service is considered a public utility. Many do not agree.

What is a "fair" hearing of evidence? I think we'd all like to imagine a public debate where representative experts settle a debate decisively. That never happens. Which doesn't mean we stop trying. For me, we patiently answer questions the best we can as long as we can. But I'm human, too, and there are certain issues like anti-semitism and racism that I don't have much patience for. Mostly, it's just not agreeing that being civilized even when we think the other person is being an idiot is not usually the best course of action. Being nasty just makes things worse, makes those who might have legitimate questions stop listening or fear asking. It wasn't any more endearing when Trump did it with the press - in fact, they were happy to take his obvious sarcasm literally and that ended up making the situation even worse.

Another example I'd give is the abortion argument. For those who oppose abortion, they simply see it as murdering a human being and that's more important than the rights of the mother. For those who think abortion should be legal (and I'm in that camp), they don't see it as murdering a human being. Unfortunately, for almost every single person who feels strongly one way or another about the issue, there is no common ground or debate to be had. It's not a legal argument, it's an argument about whether human rights include fertilized embryos (and yet, we ask the Supreme Court to decide it, sigh). I don't know how that gets resolved without one group feeling very much like an incredible and obvious wrong was committed. How should we deal with speech advocating one position or the other?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

One of the negative side effects of the Covid lockdown for me was re-discovering my love for pop tarts. Brown sugar cinnamon and cherry, especially. If you are trying to be good, the Special K pastry crisps do a decent job of kinda replacing them, at a fraction of the calories. I lightly toast mine to get it even closer to the original.

See, you get it. In a pinch, the cherry is a decent substitute for the brown sugar cinnamon. I would have to try the Special K crisps, though, before I'd sign off on that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The people who claim unfrosted is a worthy substitute are often the same people who wore Milli Vanilli tee-shirts in high school and have memorized the entire text of Lee Iacoca's autobiography... in its original Mandarin.

I fear we can find no common ground and you are now my sworn enemy. A pox on you, your family, and your family's family.

(For the record, I don't think of one as a substitute for another but 2 entirely different things - the unfrosted cinnamon is more akin to the unfrosted strawberry as a lighter, less sweet one while the frosted cinnamon is more like the various chocolate or whatever ones - much sweeter)

SI

[Edward64]

Haven't tried pop tarts in a while. Doubt I'll love them like you guys. But will have to try them now.

If there is a treat I would indulge myself, it would be hot off the conveyor belt Krispy Kreme regular glaze.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Haven't tried pop tarts in a while. Doubt I'll love them like you guys. But will have to try them now.

If there is a treat I would indulge myself, it would be hot off the conveyor belt Krispy Kreme regular glaze.

Not sure they are available everywhere, but I recently had an Eggo Pop Tart (meh), and a Boston Creme Donut (I think that's what it's called). It was good.


I'm sorry CoviD-19 for posting on your thread.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

See, you get it. In a pinch, the cherry is a decent substitute for the brown sugar cinnamon. I would have to try the Special K crisps, though, before I'd sign off on that.

It's a trade-off. Two crisps are 100 calories as opposed to one pop tart being 200.

Interestingly, frosted pop tarts have, on average, fewer calories than unfrosted. Its because the unfrosted have a thicker crust which accounts for more calories than the frosting.

[Brian Swartz]

I endorse almost everything in Solecismic's second-most-recent post, but I cannot abide the proposition of sanctioning people to eat cherry Pop-Tarts. A line must drawn on behalf of good taste.

* In all seriousness, 'not wrong just different' and all that.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This seems to have a blind spot for people who are actively engaging in bad faith arguments to attempt to elevate their known false argument so it is treated on par with arguments based on the best information we have at the time.

This is a valid point, good post here as well. I wouldn't call it a blind spot, but you are quite correct that elevating bad-faith arguments is a goal of some. Where we disagree is on the matter of what can and should be done about this, and it seems to me based on what I've read from you on this subject that perhaps there is a blind spot in your statements as well - they don't address the negative consequences that absolutely will accrue from the efforts to distinguish bad-faith from good-faith arguments (which as I've said is an impossibility to be sure about).

From a purely practical standpoint, this is similar to trying to close Pandora's Box, or very much analogous to trying to handle the changing economy in the information age by isolationism, punitive tariffs, combating outsourcing, opposing automation, etc. I.e. we're not going back to a world of cheap energy, dirty manufacturing, cashiers in every checkout line in a grocery store, teller service only instead of ATMs at banks, etc. despite the desire of some people to do so. Similarly, in the internet age the flow of information can't be controlled. Walter Cronkite-style gatekeepers are a thing of the past. You can de-platform whoever you want and all you will succeed in is mild amounts of suppression. People will still gather with those who agree with them in various virtual places, and they will still elect representatives whose pronouncements will be dispensed, etc. The only way we have a chance of being effective against misinformation is to inoculate society against being overly impacted or swayed by it.

On the other side you have the issue of whether you *should*, which from a basic perspective of the value of ideas I strongly dissent from. Whether it's in ages past via thinkers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, etc. or in the more modern world Christopher Hitchens, Rosa Luxemburg, George Carlin, on and on one could go, the value of the free flow of ideas is a fundamental part of a free society. And as I noted early and Solecismic did as well more recently, it is inevitable that any attempt to shut down 'harmful' ideas will also shut down valid perspectives. It cannot be otherwhise, and I didn't read anything in your post which indicates an answer to the question I posed earlier in the thread; who is to decide, and on what basis? What recourse do you have against ideas you consider to be true, valid, and important being suppressed against such a force? Meanwhile we also have the impact of simply repressing and hardening people who believe the harmful ideas, while not doing all that much to stop the spread of them.