Corono

The reason for the generalization comment is interesting (and self-contradictory, as that is what evolution is, a generalization): most of what little I read on this topic of viral evolution so far (from similar authoritative sources) suggests that the usual trend is toward less lethality, rather than more.

There's a difference between the fundamental values that give rise to the different ways of approaching this and the actual facts surrounding Covid.

This was my statement: "My views on this thing are a direct reflection of my most fundamental values, as are most people's views on it. And in that sense, I don't necessarily see either camp as being right or wrong. As I keep saying, This really is a discussion/debate about basic values."

What I meant there was that I don't see one set of values as being more right or more wrong than the other. I was specifically referring there to the two camps of values; One that values safety over freedom, the other that values freedom over safety. (The different value camps are a little more complicated than just that I admit, but for the purpose of making my point here, that will suffice). Values themselves are neither right or wrong.


As I see it though, those who value safety above freedom, are  applying those values to this virus, absent an acknowledgement of certain facts/data regarding the virus.

And I full out admitted earlier right  in that same post, that yes, I do very much see one approach as better/more correct than the other.

Figgles: "Obviously I believe that the approach that preserves the greatest degree of freedoms and rights is superior, but I don't profess to have all the moving parts of it all completely figured out. I'm on board with those experts who support the Great Barrington Declaration. If I think anyone has a sound plan 'figured out,' it's those doctors and scientists. "



Not sure what you mean by this below...can you elaborate?

I have no problem admitting that my views, like everyone elses on this are entirely self-serving in the sense that they are based upon MY personal feelings, my values, how the idea of masses dying due to Covid lockdowns, hits me. In terms of my passion on this subject i could likely also factor in the fact that I also had a lifelong friend OD back in late March, a death as I see directly related to Covid lockdown and I have two kids, almost 18 and 21, who have been told by specialists, their life expectancy is under age 30, and as such, the idea of a year or two of a world in lock-down doesn't sit particularly great with them or me. Indeed, I have some very selfish reasons for wanting lockdowns to end. That said, I also DO very much care about the plight of anyone who might suffer due to lockdowns. I think caring about others plays into both sides of the Covid argument, so I don't think I'm unique there at all.

In short, I've never tried to sell myself as a Mother Teresa type figure in this convo so I'm not sure what all your talk of 'mutating versions of self image' is all about.

And what of the fact that the mandates imposed for the purpose of stopping viral spread themselves also kill and cause suffering?

looks like there are two schools of thought.. one is a science based response, recommended by doctors and experts, to control the spread of the virus through isolation of the infected.. in order to save as many lives as possible..