Coronavirus 666: The Number of the Delta Variant (but in an entirely scientific context)

[Bartimaeus]

10 hours ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:

I think in many cases the answer to the acknowledgement of someone as a person (with personal bonds and all that jazz) can be "I don't care, **** them". Rush Limbaugh is a man who contributed to making a lot of lives hell and made millions doing so, when I think of all the people I've known who got kicked out of their homes or suffered abuse by their parents because ol' Rush was telling them how teh gheys were abominations, it's hard to give him anything but scorn. I'll fully admit to saying that empathy is conditional, and I think anyone who tries to say otherwise is lying to themselves. You will be glad when people you think are horrible kick the bucket.

Yes, that's why I don't acknowledge a guy like Valentine as a person, and instead keep it more distant. Like I said to Guard Dog, Valentine is just a few half-formed ideas attached to a name in my brain, empathy's not even really possible when you know and feel so little about someone. But for the same reason that I can't be empathetic towards him, I also can't empathetically feel that I'm glad that that he the person is dead. Hatred is a form of passion, and I can't muster up that kind of passion for such a vague idea of a person that I really know nothing about. This dude may have been a fantastic dad, a loving husband, gone to great lengths to take care of his parents when they were terminally ill, had a tough upbringing, given money and time to local animal shelters or orphanages or other worthwhile charitable passion projects...you never know the entire make-up of a person at just a glance. But that's the thing: I don't know anything of any kind of substance about him, which is why he's not really a person to me, so all I can really do is be like "glad they won't be doing (x thing that I think is bad) anymore", which is not really at all the same as lighting up fireworks and being truly happy about someone dying - it's really quite worlds apart even if the sentiment may sound similar on the surface.

Rush Limbaugh's death is exactly whom I was thinking of when we last had this discussion, where I previously made more or less this exact argument in the same manner: if you feel the world has become a net better place after someone who was a rotten, miserly bastard that sowed hatred and division (and who has actually had a meaningful hand in negatively impacting many lives*) has departed from it, I certainly can't blame you if you're glad about it. I wouldn't be giving out high-fives or holding parties for it (and I'd think it'd be in terrible taste for anyone else to do so), but I'd totally get it.

*Personal responsibility not just for your actions, but also for your words, . I'm always hearing so much about personal responsibility...I think we should always stress the importance of personal responsibility, don't you? If you wish intolerance, hatred, and death upon others...is it any surprise others wish the same upon you? No: I reserve my general tolerance and respect for those who give general respect and tolerance to others - no more, no less.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

 

 

To state that someone is happy that Limbaugh died because they didn't like his radio show is incredibly disingenuous. It's akin to saying that some people were happy Ted Bundy died because they disliked his murder weapons. 

 

 

I am not sure if that is true, you cant separate the show from the person and his comments. 

He became very famous specifically because  of the show and his raising of certain left vs right issues. So I would not say I was happy he died but his show did have its offensive and misleading views 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

I am not sure if that is true, you cant separate the show from the person and his comments. 

He became very famous specifically because  of the show and his raising of certain left vs right issues. So I would not say I was happy he died but his show did have its offensive and misleading views 

Like Guard Dog, I've never heard any of his shows and didn't know who he was until it was announced that he died.

Here's what I find interesting:

Quote

The post concluded with his family urging people to get vaccinated: "Please continue to pray for his recovery and PLEASE GO GET VACCINATED!"

Valentine's brother, Mark Valentine, also spoke on the radio after his brother's condition began to deteriorate, saying that Valentine was, "regretful that he wasn't a more vocal advocate of the vaccination," according to AP. "For those listening, I know if he were able to tell you this, he would tell you, 'Go get vaccinated. Quit worrying about the politics. Quit worrying about all the conspiracy theories.'"

Prior to his diagnosis, Valentine voiced skepticism about the coronavirus vaccines.

In December of 2020 he tweeted "I have a very low risk of A) Getting COVID and B) dying of it if I do. Why would I risk getting a heart attack or paralysis by getting the vaccine?"

He also recorded a parody song titled "Vaxman," which mocked the vaccine, according to WTVF.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/phil-valentine-dies-covid-conservative-radio-host-vaccine-skeptic/

Was Valentine a person of influence? It sure seems that he was. Or at the very least, he and those around him thought that he was. Otherwise, the last minute pleas to "GO GET VACCINATED!" don't make much sense.

So, in a moment of clarity, at the end of his life, he realized that maybe he made a mistake and tried to correct it. Good for him. Really.

But how was he using the influence that he clearly thought he had prior to that? "A parody song called 'Vaxman'". Spreading misinformation about vaccine risks.

If the issue at the heart of the matter was that he didn't know enough to know better, then opened his pie-hole and shared his opinion anyway, then he bears some responsibility for what others did based on that opinion. He had the option to not weigh in. He had the option to say, "I don't know, talk to your doctor". Instead he recorded parody tracks. If he was some wacko with a ham radio that would be one thing, but people with an audience have a responsibility to know what they are talking about before they open their mouths (and that responsibility is proportional to the size of the audience). If people died because they didn't get vaccinated and they didn't get vaccinated because Valentine used his platform to misinform them, then Valentine has blood on his hands.

[Hurlshort]

Honestly though, no one here has really 'celebrated' the death of anyone. I doubt anyone is dancing around and toasting a glass to his death. There is always going to be a disconnect when it comes to celebrity. These aren't personal relationships, and so I have a hard time attacking someone's empathy over any of it.

Back to the Jesse Jackson situation: I think he is a very complex character. He was with Martin Luther King Jr. when he died. If Jackson passes, I'll think more about the civil rights movement of the 60's and his place in it than anything else.  

[Gorth]

I can think of a few current and former heads of state, whose deaths would at the very least please me. Not to the point of celebrating it though... Seems like there is no way to avoid the subject of Covid its entanglement with politics.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58273322

"In May, US president Joe Biden ordered a 90-day probe into whether the Covid-19 virus came from a lab accident or emerged from human contact with an infected animal.

Until then, the "Wuhan lab leak" theory had been dismissed by most scientists as a fringe conspiracy theory.

But now as the report is due to be released, China has gone on the offensive. In the past few weeks, Chinese sources have been amplifying a baseless claim that Covid-19 was made in the US.

Using everything from rap music to fake Facebook posts, experts say the propaganda efforts have been successful at convincing the domestic Chinese audience to cast scepticism on international criticism of the country's role in the Covid-19 pandemic. But, experts say, it has done little to legitimise China to the outside world."

 

I.e. standard politics by the text book. If you're worried about what the competition is going to do to you, do it to them first and go on the offensive. Truth was never part of the equation as long as you can make people believe your message.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Achilles said:

Like Guard Dog, I've never heard any of his shows and didn't know who he was until it was announced that he died.

Here's what I find interesting:

Was Valentine a person of influence? It sure seems that he was. Or at the very least, he and those around him thought that he was. Otherwise, the last minute pleas to "GO GET VACCINATED!" don't make much sense.

So, in a moment of clarity, at the end of his life, he realized that maybe he made a mistake and tried to correct it. Good for him. Really.

But how was he using the influence that he clearly thought he had prior to that? "A parody song called 'Vaxman'". Spreading misinformation about vaccine risks.

If the issue at the heart of the matter was that he didn't know enough to know better, then opened his pie-hole and shared his opinion anyway, then he bears some responsibility for what others did based on that opinion. He had the option to not weigh in. He had the option to say, "I don't know, talk to your doctor". Instead he recorded parody tracks. If he was some wacko with a ham radio that would be one thing, but people with an audience have a responsibility to know what they are talking about before they open their mouths (and that responsibility is proportional to the size of the audience). If people died because they didn't get vaccinated and they didn't get vaccinated because Valentine used his platform to misinform them, then Valentine has blood on his hands.

I agree that in this time of pandemic people  in positions of influence should be expected to not spread misinformation about the virus and vaccines 

But with the general misinformation in the US, 28% of citizens,  I dont think you would change anyone opinion when you suggest what Valentine was saying. He becomes part of the echo chamber that  doesnt really change its views 

[Guard Dog]

At the beginning it was actually hard to say what was misinformation and what wasn’t . Go back to April 2020 and all of the advice concerning COVID changes on a month to month basis. First they tell us don’t wear the mask. Then they tell us wear the mask. Then it’s wear two masks. Stay 6 feet apart. Ah but the virus can travel 28 feet through the air. All of this was coming from the Trump admin and the CDC. Of course the reason for that is this particular virus was new. It has not been around long and no one knew much about it. So they were feeling their way along. But how does all these changing directives sound to people who are already distrustful of the current administration or government in general? Skepticism is understandable. Even the vaccines that exist today are not traditional vaccines. They manipulate the messenger RNA to create a protein it makes the body resistant to the virus. Generally speaking that’s not how inoculations work. They usually give the body a dead sample of the target disease so natural immunity can be built. The Covid vaccine forces the body to construct a proteins that may or may not be affective. So once again skepticism is understandable. And there is no way to know the long-term effect. We may all be zombies in 10 years.

The problem is the government, used in the general term, did not look at the American people right in the face and say we don’t know everything there is to know about this virus. Every single directive is presented as an authoritative direction only to be contradicted a short time later in small or large part. That just bred skepticism. 
 

I think the way this should’ve been framed, and it is the way it is being framed now, is that you’re better off with the vaccine them without it. They should have let off with that back in January. Instead the Trump administration and then the Biden administration following them when the vaccine was first released we’re telling people it would protect them. It wasn’t until months later the message changed to “better off with them without“.

The best piece of advice is the one I took to heart. Avoid all the other humans like the dirty and diseased apes they probably are LOL!

Edit: Another factor that caused skepticism is assertively stating it did not come from the lab in Wuhan China. Nobody knows where it came from. When you don’t know the answer it’s acceptable to say we don’t know. And to tell you the truth right now it really doesn’t matter. Questions like origins and culpability can be worked out later.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

At the beginning it was actually hard to say what was misinformation and what wasn’t . Go back to April 2020 and all of the advice concerning COVID changes on a month to month basis. First they tell us don’t wear the mask. Then they tell us wear the mask. Then it’s wear two masks. Stay 6 feet apart. Ah but the virus can travel 28 feet through the air. All of this was coming from the Trump admin and the CDC. Of course the reason for that is this particular virus was new. It has not been around long and no one knew much about it. So they were feeling their way along. But how does all these changing directives sound to people who are already distrustful of the current administration or government in general? Skepticism is understandable. Even the vaccines that exist today are not traditional vaccines.

The biggest problem (IMO) wasn't that the recommendations changed, but that why they changed was not communicated well (and to be honest, ignored, even when it was).  That combined with a general lack of understanding about how scientific research works and...

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Even the vaccines that exist today are not traditional vaccines. They manipulate the messenger RNA to create a protein it makes the body resistant to the virus. Generally speaking that’s not how inoculations work. They usually give the body a dead sample of the target disease so natural immunity can be built. The Covid vaccine forces the body to construct a proteins that may or may not be affective. So once again skepticism is understandable. And there is no way to know the long-term effect. We may all be zombies in 10 years.

While they haven't been rolled out in human trials (to my knowledge), mRNA vaccines have been studied since the late 1980s, with animal trials being successful for several viruses a few years before COVID hit.

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

The problem is the government, used in the general term, did not look at the American people right in the face and say we don’t know everything there is to know about this virus. Every single directive is presented as an authoritative direction only to be contradicted a short time later in small or large part. That just bred skepticism. 

I dunno, there was skepticism at the start, and it had nothing to do with authoritative directives, but people saying "Its just a flu" and trying to show morbidity graphs hadn't increased. Indeed my memory is that people were saying the government was inflating numbers of infected before there were directives to do diddly, even shut-down.  It only got worse as the directives came, from what I saw, as each new directive had people spinning conspiracy theories.  Like the 'no one has actually died of COVID, its all been deaths due to other reasons, but the government wants you in a panic so they can tell you what to do' kind of things.

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I think the way this should’ve been framed, and it is the way it is being framed now, is that you’re better off with the vaccine them without it. They should have let off with that back in January. Instead the Trump administration and then the Biden administration following them when the vaccine was first released we’re telling people it would protect them. It wasn’t until months later the message changed to “better off with them without“.

I don't disagree there; its only 90% effective, statistically speaking, which makes the "it will protect you statements" falter when the news talks about 'break through' cases (not really break through, in the sense that I'd think of it, but certainly that term would be applicable with the language being "it will protect you".

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

The best piece of advice is the one I took to heart. Avoid all the other humans like the dirty and diseased apes they probably are LOL!

Evergreen advice!

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Edit: Another factor that caused skepticism is assertively stating it did not come from the lab in Wuhan China. Nobody knows where it came from. When you don’t know the answer it’s acceptable to say we don’t know. And to tell you the truth right now it really doesn’t matter. Questions like origins and culpability can be worked out later.

I'm not sure why its origins mattered at the time, but as I recall scientists looked at it and said it didn't show signs of being genetically manipulated, and that the theory about it coming from an animal was more likely.  But honestly, the people worrying about where it came from, in my experience, were the same one spinning conspiracy theories about it (like the one that China/Russia/Democrats had intentionally started/manufactured/faked a pandemic to make Trump look bad) and scientists had to say something to counter the speculation (not that it would matter as conspiracy theories don't work that way. Silence = ITS TRUE, denial = ITS TRUE, admission of truth = there's a bigger conspiracy they're hiding if they're admitting to this one!).

[rjshae]

26 minutes ago, Amentep said:

I'm not sure why its origins mattered at the time, but as I recall scientists looked at it and said it didn't show signs of being genetically manipulated, and that the theory about it coming from an animal was more likely.  But honestly, the people worrying about where it came from, in my experience, were the same one spinning conspiracy theories about it (like the one that China/Russia/Democrats had intentionally started/manufactured/faked a pandemic to make Trump look bad) and scientists had to say something to counter the speculation (not that it would matter as conspiracy theories don't work that way. Silence = ITS TRUE, denial = ITS TRUE, admission of truth = there's a bigger conspiracy they're hiding if they're admitting to this one!).

The evidence I've heard supporting the lab leak theory amounts to:

• The lab is located in the same city as the outbreak
• A few of the lab workers reported getting sick at around that time (during cold/flu season)
• There were some prior concerns about sloppy safety standards at the lab
• China did their best to cover up any possible blame

All of which is weakly circumstantial. There's a strong element of scapegoating in those who support the lab leak theory, and their arguments tend to be heavily biased. For that reason I tend to scoff at the discussion, which leans decidedly to the sinophobic at times.

There is still some debate over whether the COVID-19 has been genetically modified. I've seen at least one paper arguing that it was, and the subject is complex for a lay person like me. But it would seem there is no way to settle that scientifically without an extensive exploration of possible sources. The fact that the virus has natural sources in China explains why the lab could have collected samples from the region, so an accidental lab leak is not entirely out of the question. But the odds seem lower than for other explanations.

[BruceVC]

29 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

At the beginning it was actually hard to say what was misinformation and what wasn’t . Go back to April 2020 and all of the advice concerning COVID changes on a month to month basis. First they tell us don’t wear the mask. Then they tell us wear the mask. Then it’s wear two masks. Stay 6 feet apart. Ah but the virus can travel 28 feet through the air. All of this was coming from the Trump admin and the CDC. Of course the reason for that is this particular virus was new. It has not been around long and no one knew much about it. So they were feeling their way along. But how does all these changing directives sound to people who are already distrustful of the current administration or government in general? Skepticism is understandable. Even the vaccines that exist today are not traditional vaccines. They manipulate the messenger RNA to create a protein it makes the body resistant to the virus. Generally speaking that’s not how inoculations work. They usually give the body a dead sample of the target disease so natural immunity can be built. The Covid vaccine forces the body to construct a proteins that may or may not be affective. So once again skepticism is understandable. And there is no way to know the long-term effect. We may all be zombies in 10 years.

The problem is the government, used in the general term, did not look at the American people right in the face and say we don’t know everything there is to know about this virus. Every single directive is presented as an authoritative direction only to be contradicted a short time later in small or large part. That just bred skepticism. 
 

I think the way this should’ve been framed, and it is the way it is being framed now, is that you’re better off with the vaccine them without it. They should have let off with that back in January. Instead the Trump administration and then the Biden administration following them when the vaccine was first released we’re telling people it would protect them. It wasn’t until months later the message changed to “better off with them without“.

The best piece of advice is the one I took to heart. Avoid all the other humans like the dirty and diseased apes they probably are LOL!

Edit: Another factor that caused skepticism is assertively stating it did not come from the lab in Wuhan China. Nobody knows where it came from. When you don’t know the answer it’s acceptable to say we don’t know. And to tell you the truth right now it really doesn’t matter. Questions like origins and culpability can be worked out later.

You make some good points and they could be the reasons for the failures of various countries to stop the virus spread? 

But are they really the relevant reasons, for example in the US lets say their was some confusion in the beginning around mask wearing. But this was changed within a few months. And yes vaccines had their concerns but nowadays its irrefutable outcomes that tell us 99% of people hospitalized are unvaccinated so their should be no questioning of the efficacy of vaccines 

When you say " government didnt look  people in the eye " ....what do you mean by that because  since Bidens presidency he constantly makes these speeches that are honest but not always inspirational but he is  honest. Trump did not create any confidence in the ability to deal with the virus ...in fact  he contributed towards the disastrous outcomes 

Yes the origin is not a factor that should be a big deal, its got nothing to do with how countries have mishandled the spread. Its funny how this has become a point of interest ?

[Guard Dog]

No I was attempting to explain why so many people are skeptical about everything they are told about COVID-19. And apparently you’ve been watching different press conferences to conclude that about  Biden‘s honesty. The statements made about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan have been far from honest. Or maybe he really is just clueless or doesn’t listen to people who are not telling him what he wants to hear. But that’s a subject for a different thread.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

The biggest problem (IMO) wasn't that the recommendations changed, but that why they changed was not communicated well (and to be honest, ignored, even when it was).  That combined with a general lack of understanding about how scientific research works and...

While they haven't been rolled out in human trials (to my knowledge), mRNA vaccines have been studied since the late 1980s, with animal trials being successful for several viruses a few years before COVID hit.

I dunno, there was skepticism at the start, and it had nothing to do with authoritative directives, but people saying "Its just a flu" and trying to show morbidity graphs hadn't increased. Indeed my memory is that people were saying the government was inflating numbers of infected before there were directives to do diddly, even shut-down.  It only got worse as the directives came, from what I saw, as each new directive had people spinning conspiracy theories.  Like the 'no one has actually died of COVID, its all been deaths due to other reasons, but the government wants you in a panic so they can tell you what to do' kind of things.

I don't disagree there; its only 90% effective, statistically speaking, which makes the "it will protect you statements" falter when the news talks about 'break through' cases (not really break through, in the sense that I'd think of it, but certainly that term would be applicable with the language being "it will protect you".

Evergreen advice!

I'm not sure why its origins mattered at the time, but as I recall scientists looked at it and said it didn't show signs of being genetically manipulated, and that the theory about it coming from an animal was more likely.  But honestly, the people worrying about where it came from, in my experience, were the same one spinning conspiracy theories about it (like the one that China/Russia/Democrats had intentionally started/manufactured/faked a pandemic to make Trump look bad) and scientists had to say something to counter the speculation (not that it would matter as conspiracy theories don't work that way. Silence = ITS TRUE, denial = ITS TRUE, admission of truth = there's a bigger conspiracy they're hiding if they're admitting to this one!).

Great post!

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

The evidence I've heard supporting the lab leak theory amounts to:

• The lab is located in the same city as the outbreak
• A few of the lab workers reported getting sick at around that time (during cold/flu season)
• There were some prior concerns about sloppy safety standards at the lab
• China did their best to cover up any possible blame

All of which is weakly circumstantial. There's a strong element of scapegoating in those who support the lab leak theory, and their arguments tend to be heavily biased. For that reason I tend to scoff at the discussion, which leans decidedly to the sinophobic at times.

There is still some debate over whether the COVID-19 has been genetically modified. I've seen at least one paper arguing that it was, and the subject is complex for a lay person like me. But it would seem there is no way to settle that scientifically without an extensive exploration of possible sources. The fact that the virus has natural sources in China explains why the lab could have collected samples from the region, so an accidental lab leak is not entirely out of the question. But the odds seem lower than for other explanations.

This guy is a former science journalist who now does science education on YT. He has a few videos related to covid and the lab-leak theory which may be worth your time if you're looking for something to help make heads or tails of the technical discussion.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

No I was attempting to explain why so many people are skeptical about everything they are told about COVID-19.

Sorry for the double post.

I'm honestly surprised that you're not taking a "individuals have a personal responsibility to be scientifically literate" stance here.

You seem to be quite comfortable taking a position that the government was responsible for better messaging and are willing to let people off the hook for whatever dire straits they ended up in as a result. Contrary to this, Phil Valentine wasn't responsible for his messaging and individuals were responsible for whatever they did as a result. Again, it seems like another example of a "gobernment bad" bias standing in the way of consistent thinking.

[rjshae]

n/m

Edited August 23, 2021 by rjshae

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, Achilles said:

Great post!

This guy is a former science journalist who now does science education on YT. He has a few videos related to covid and the lab-leak theory which may be worth your time if you're looking for something to help make heads or tails of the technical discussion.

For the lab/ man made theory specifically the above video is best since it sums up the earlier theories at the start then deals with the more recent stuff.

(I'll admit to a bit of bias since pretty much every objection he's raised is one I've raised too and he has about as much respect for 'scientific' articles leaked to the Daily Fail as I have. I did find 4 positively charged amino acids actually in SARS- CoV2 though, even better, in a sequence it shares with SARS-CoV1)

[Zoraptor]

Double post, but completely separate subtopic...

Support for lock down/ elimination strategy remains strong here as 84% of New Zealanders support current lockdown (10% opposed). Mostly posted because there's an awful lot of foreign media coverage and social media suggesting we're getting lockdown fatigue when in reality we aren't because we haven't been in actual lockdown since May, have functionally zero unemployment and a housing bubble economy that is doing very well. Oh yeah, that's May 2020; apart from a few weeks of lockdown lite.

Bit of an eyeroller when you see criticism coming from countries with deaths per million in the 1000s when ours is... 5.

[Raithe]

Meanwhile, in Florida...

These are appearing:

[Raithe]

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Double post, but completely separate subtopic...

Support for lock down/ elimination strategy remains strong here as 84% of New Zealanders support current lockdown (10% opposed). Mostly posted because there's an awful lot of foreign media coverage and social media suggesting we're getting lockdown fatigue when in reality we aren't because we haven't been in actual lockdown since May, have functionally zero unemployment and a housing bubble economy that is doing very well. Oh yeah, that's May 2020; apart from a few weeks of lockdown lite.

Bit of an eyeroller when you see criticism coming from countries with deaths per million in the 1000s when ours is... 5.

Zora its okay to admit the truth, no one is going to think less of NZ for admitting the truth about the widespread lockdown fatigue your country is definitely going through ......you can ask anyone on this forum and we have all been  through it 

All I can ask is please dont become angry and lash out on the members of the forum because its not our fault your PM has failed in such a spectacular fashion. I  am sorry she has not been removed from office and I can imagine what you thinking....yes its a case of gender equality abuse, you are right that a man would have been removed by now 

Here is something that will cheer you up, you guys produce one of the best mature, cheddars I have ever eaten but I cant get it in Cpt anymore. It superlative and demonstrates your countries diary skills 

https://www.anchorfoodprofessionals.com/nz/en/products/cheese/block-cheese/mainland-epicure-cheddar-cheese.html#:~:text=Mainland Epicure Cheddar Cheese | Anchor Food Professionals,characterised by small white crystals that form naturally.

Here is the full catalogue of cheeses available.....I didnt know this company had such variety 

https://www.anchorfoodprofessionals.com/nz/en/products/cheese.html

Edited August 24, 2021 by BruceVC

[Guest]

If anyone is looking for a deep dive on the FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine:

 

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Gromnir]

17 hours ago, Raithe said:

image

am seeming to recall that were for leprosery specific.

it may not be our job to ruin every meme, but it probable seems that way at times.

(no longer responding to raithe in particular)

am s'posing this is exact what the bible thumpers is angry 'bout: indulging in hyperbole, they equate mask wearing mandates, which has been de rigueur since at least the time o' the black death, to be being treated like a leper. anybody who isn't wearing a mask, says the religious folks, second amendment honks and @Guard Dog, is being treated as if they actual have leprosery in ye olde times. 

of course is bs, but there is a whole lotta bs no? claim: early in the pandemic, the cdc offered conflicting guidance? reality: the cdc offered guidance based on what were reasonable and supported by science at the time. recognizing how at the start o' the pandemic, given the extreme limited supply o' n95 masks, and before it were understood that an individual infected with covid-19 were most contagious prior to being symptomatic, the wearing o' mask were discouraged 'cause at the time mask wearing were seen as a largely ineffectual measure for preventing an individual from catching the disease and we only later understood how important were masks in preventing the asymptomatic carriers who were already widespread in the community from spreading the disease. IF there is a complaint 'bout cdc guidance it shouldn't be at the not genuine confusing or conflicting guidance regarding a NOVEL virus at the beginning o' a pandemic, but rather their willingness to lift social distancing guidelines and mask restrictions more recent... which ironic is the opposite o' what the Liberty and Personal Responsibility folks is complaining 'bout.

have said it more than once that all liberties have a body count. spread disinformation 'bout a disease which has already killed hundreds o' thousands o' americans in a relative brief period o' time is a rather extreme example o' how painful may be the costs o' protecting speech rights o' the malicious and stoopid. the fact that in the US we ere on the side o' freedom o' speech as 'posed to public safety is telling and is indeed a strong argument (but in our mind insufficient) for a finding that the First Amendment is too protective. however, personal responsibility and law all too often has little in common and we wish people would stop conflating. Legal is so not a synonym for Right or even Justice.

the recognition that covid-19 makes it difficult if not impossible to identify which liberty loving american who refused to wear a mask in a hardware store managed to nevertheless infect multiple people asymptomatically with the delta variant, should makes the personal responsibility folks more willing to don masks and social distance, but all too frequent it don't.

similar, we will never legal prove which alt-right radio personality convinced an individual white and male conservative to forego getting vaccinated or to resist wearing masks. yeah, such irresponsible behaviors led to innocent third persons dying, but prove the causal link is extreme difficult. however, given that a high percentage o' folks being hospitalized and dying is unvaccinated, pretending as if the alt-right radio guys and self-interested republican and libertarian politicians ain't at least partial responsible requires a three wise monkeys approach bordering on the willful obtuse. 

am thinking the fundamental error o' the current group o' death cult hypocrites is that they confuse a lack o' personal liability with an absence o' personal responsibility. lack o' a provable causal link 'tween stoopid behaviours and deaths or a recognition that the First Amendment prevents prosecution even when such a link is found does not in any way diminish personal responsibility. the government won't be locking up alt-right radio personalities and "conservative" politicians for spreading disinformation 'bout covid-19. God help us, but am ok with not making the radio hosts and politicians personal liable for so many unnecessary deaths. however, americans should should be able to recognize the personal responsibility 'o those same radio personalities and politicians for spreading disinformation which led to harm. there should be a personal reckoning... but there won't be.

heck, as weird as it may sound, trump is the only politician am able to name who suffered some kinda political setback 'cause they spread disinformation regarding the pandemic. there may be other such politicians who were voted outta office in large part 'cause o' covid-19, but we cannot name a single such individual. go figure.

HA! Good Fun!

ps funny aside 'bout the mask wearing and social distancing guidelines during previous pandemics, but for many christian nations, social distancing guidelines and mask wearing mandates which were ordinarily enforced with draconian severity for centuries were lifted w/i the confines o' churches and during mass... 'cause 'course God would not allow disease to spread in a church.

spanish flu were actual kinda a turning point in the US regarding special rules for churches. more than a few cities in the US, for firstest time evar, refused to make religious exceptions to social distancing mandates. not surprising, those cities which ignored exceptions and were quick to act fared better... relative speaking. *chuckle* in 2020, SCOTUS actual scroll back the calendar regarding religious exceptions by a century. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Gromnir
repeat word fail(s)

[Raithe]

[Gfted1]

Mother refuses to get COVID shot, so judge strips her of visitation rights.

I wish I had carte blanche to make stuff up and then impose it on people.