Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Nov 28, 2020 19:08:28 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 19:08:28 GMT
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.. That approach completely ignores and dismisses the negative ramifications of mandates enacted to stop the spread. If in trying to save lives due to a virus, you create a whole slough of other kinds of death in the process, can you really call that a success? Not so. And this response is also a science based one, recommended by doctors and experts. You seem to be unaware that there is not a consensus of doctors/scientists the world over on this thing. And you cannot dismiss those who disagree with enacting restrictive mandates to address the virus as quacks, simply because they disagree. These are legitimate doctors and scientists who back up their recommendations with science also. This alternate approach is a targeted one...those at risk are protected, sheltered while those who are not at risk, go about their business as usual, thereby eventually reaching a level of herd immunity and thereby maintaining economic, mental and physical health for the masses. You completely ignored my question; Do the deaths of despair, the economic devastation, the deaths due to not receiving medical treatments, that are a result of the mandates, does any of that register on your radar at all as important also? Surely if the lockdowns are resulting in death and suffering, that needs to be factored in? Do we have any firm numbers on how many deaths are in this group? |
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 28, 2020 20:29:32 GMT
Post by someNothing on Nov 28, 2020 20:29:32 GMT
I think you're personally happy with your points of view. Enjoy. Maybe I'm just sensitive to the nuances of language and the potential dimensions of the "below" it reflects. Don't worry about it.
It's also possible you are sensing stuff that isn't actually there. After all, if you can't actually come up with a definitive example of where I've mistakingly asserted a mere opinion as a science based fact, then your assertion that I am constantly doing that, falls a tad flat, no? And....You too seem to be equally personally happy with your points of view...as do all here who are espousing their views. I'm not sure why you felt the need to add that bit...? The interest in discussing this stuff does not necessitate unhappiness or dissatisfaction with one's current personal point of view. Being interested in the perspectives of others,does not mean I must be unhappy with my own perspective. Yeah, I'm not going to go back through your posts looking for examples to prove a point and give some kind of detailed analysis of how you use language to then interact at the level of droning lawyerese arguing some set of other potentials, hehe. Thousands of academic essays read and/or edited and countless hours of feedback just make a person sensitive to nuances. That's all. But like I said, this is a message board, a very different genre with different sets of linguistic expectations. If you want to state that you are completely innocent of such unconscious proclivities and then turn it into an opportunity to say I may be sensing stuff or trying to paint something about you for whatever purpose you are likely starting to come up with, that's fine. I know I'm not, so not interested.
I hope you find what you're looking for. G'luck.
|
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 28, 2020 20:32:59 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 28, 2020 20:32:59 GMT
That approach completely ignores and dismisses the negative ramifications of mandates enacted to stop the spread. If in trying to save lives due to a virus, you create a whole slough of other kinds of death in the process, can you really call that a success? Not so. And this response is also a science based one, recommended by doctors and experts. You seem to be unaware that there is not a consensus of doctors/scientists the world over on this thing. And you cannot dismiss those who disagree with enacting restrictive mandates to address the virus as quacks, simply because they disagree. These are legitimate doctors and scientists who back up their recommendations with science also. This alternate approach is a targeted one...those at risk are protected, sheltered while those who are not at risk, go about their business as usual, thereby eventually reaching a level of herd immunity and thereby maintaining economic, mental and physical health for the masses. You completely ignored my question; Do the deaths of despair, the economic devastation, the deaths due to not receiving medical treatments, that are a result of the mandates, does any of that register on your radar at all as important also? Surely if the lockdowns are resulting in death and suffering, that needs to be factored in? Do we have any firm numbers on how many deaths are in this group? While I know overdoses in Canada for example, have gone up significantly, and there are specific stats re: that, & there are some stats on missed cancer treatments, diagnosis, etc. experts say the real numbers/data won't be available for some time...possibly years, as the impacts of the mandates, economic and otherwise, play out. The following Reuters article does a nice job of explaining the ramifications: www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/ |
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 28, 2020 20:34:16 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 28, 2020 20:34:16 GMT
It's also possible you are sensing stuff that isn't actually there. After all, if you can't actually come up with a definitive example of where I've mistakingly asserted a mere opinion as a science based fact, then your assertion that I am constantly doing that, falls a tad flat, no? And....You too seem to be equally personally happy with your points of view...as do all here who are espousing their views. I'm not sure why you felt the need to add that bit...? The interest in discussing this stuff does not necessitate unhappiness or dissatisfaction with one's current personal point of view. Being interested in the perspectives of others,does not mean I must be unhappy with my own perspective. Yeah, I'm not going to go back through your posts looking for examples to prove a point and give some kind of detailed analysis of how you use language to then interact at the level of droning lawyerese arguing some set of other potentials, hehe. Thousands of academic essays read and/or edited and countless hours of feedback just make a person sensitive to nuances. That's all. But like I said, this is a message board, a very different genre with different sets of linguistic expectations. If you want to state that you are completely innocent of such unconscious proclivities and then turn it into an opportunity to say I may be sensing stuff or trying to paint something about you for whatever purpose you are likely starting to come up with, that's fine. I know I'm not, so not interested. I hope you find what you're looking for. G'luck.
No firm position there at all.  |
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 28, 2020 21:00:00 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 28, 2020 21:00:00 GMT
It's also possible you are sensing stuff that isn't actually there. After all, if you can't actually come up with a definitive example of where I've mistakingly asserted a mere opinion as a science based fact, then your assertion that I am constantly doing that, falls a tad flat, no? And....You too seem to be equally personally happy with your points of view...as do all here who are espousing their views. I'm not sure why you felt the need to add that bit...? The interest in discussing this stuff does not necessitate unhappiness or dissatisfaction with one's current personal point of view. Being interested in the perspectives of others,does not mean I must be unhappy with my own perspective. Yeah, I'm not going to go back through your posts looking for examples to prove a point and give some kind of detailed analysis of how you use language to then interact at the level of droning lawyerese arguing some set of other potentials, hehe. Thousands of academic essays read and/or edited and countless hours of feedback just make a person sensitive to nuances. That's all. But like I said, this is a message board, a very different genre with different sets of linguistic expectations. If you want to state that you are completely innocent of such unconscious proclivities and then turn it into an opportunity to say I may be sensing stuff or trying to paint something about you for whatever purpose you are likely starting to come up with, that's fine. I know I'm not, so not interested. I hope you find what you're looking for. G'luck.
I'm kinda of scratching my head here.....without you giving me some precise examples, I actually don't even know at this point, particularly with your having said you signed the Barrington Declaration, and that you haven't been for lockdowns since very early on, where it is we actually even differ in opinion about this thing...or why it is that you see me taking a very shallow approach to the whole thing whereas you are taking a more inclusive/expansive one.  You've really yet to say specifically what it is I've put forth here, in terms of a viewpoint, that you disagree with. Do you even know? |
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 29, 2020 1:04:22 GMT
Post by someNothing on Nov 29, 2020 1:04:22 GMT
Yeah, I'm not going to go back through your posts looking for examples to prove a point and give some kind of detailed analysis of how you use language to then interact at the level of droning lawyerese arguing some set of other potentials, hehe. Thousands of academic essays read and/or edited and countless hours of feedback just make a person sensitive to nuances. That's all. But like I said, this is a message board, a very different genre with different sets of linguistic expectations. If you want to state that you are completely innocent of such unconscious proclivities and then turn it into an opportunity to say I may be sensing stuff or trying to paint something about you for whatever purpose you are likely starting to come up with, that's fine. I know I'm not, so not interested. I hope you find what you're looking for. G'luck.
I'm kinda of scratching my head here.....without you giving me some precise examples, I actually don't even know at this point, particularly with your having said you signed the Barrington Declaration, and that you haven't been for lockdowns since very early on, where it is we actually even differ in opinion about this thing...or why it is that you see me taking a very shallow approach to the whole thing whereas you are taking a more inclusive/expansive one. You've really yet to say specifically what it is I've put forth here, in terms of a viewpoint, that you disagree with. Do you even know? I signed the Barrington because, with numbers, there's a chance for some reconciliation between what I see as a divisiveness that has gone full swing into a bitter scorched earth extremes.
I have only a limited time for online chats of this nature. Honestly, I'm not interested in going down the path of your queries and don't see that it matters all that much. It's the wrong context, as I've said, and I just don't think it's worth the time and energy. I'll gladly take the blame for any loss of face.
My apologies.
|
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 29, 2020 1:11:00 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 29, 2020 1:11:00 GMT
I'm kinda of scratching my head here.....without you giving me some precise examples, I actually don't even know at this point, particularly with your having said you signed the Barrington Declaration, and that you haven't been for lockdowns since very early on, where it is we actually even differ in opinion about this thing...or why it is that you see me taking a very shallow approach to the whole thing whereas you are taking a more inclusive/expansive one. You've really yet to say specifically what it is I've put forth here, in terms of a viewpoint, that you disagree with. Do you even know? I signed the Barrington because, with numbers, there's a chance for some reconciliation between what I see as a divisiveness that has gone full swing into a bitter scorched earth extremes.
I have only a limited time for online chats of this nature. Honestly, I'm not interested in going down the path of your queries and don't see that it matters all that much. It's the wrong context, as I've said, and I just don't think it's worth the time and energy. I'll gladly take the blame for any loss of face. My apologies.
Sorry, I don't fully understand what that means.  I think you said previously that at this point you did not support lockdowns. I'll go with that. And if that is so, then we are pretty much in agreement after all. No apologies necessary. It is interesting though how often folks suddenly get busy as hell...too busy for 'these kinds of conversations,' when they get called on something. |
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 29, 2020 13:06:04 GMT
Post by someNothing on Nov 29, 2020 13:06:04 GMT
I signed the Barrington because, with numbers, there's a chance for some reconciliation between what I see as a divisiveness that has gone full swing into a bitter scorched earth extremes.
I have only a limited time for online chats of this nature. Honestly, I'm not interested in going down the path of your queries and don't see that it matters all that much. It's the wrong context, as I've said, and I just don't think it's worth the time and energy. I'll gladly take the blame for any loss of face. My apologies.
Sorry, I don't fully understand what that means. I think you said previously that at this point you did not support lockdowns. I'll go with that. And if that is so, then we are pretty much in agreement after all. No apologies necessary. It is interesting though how often folks suddenly get busy as hell...too busy for 'these kinds of conversations,' when they get called on something.
You don't understand that supporting a group presenting a balanced and reviewed set of data can lead to actions that bridge ideological libertarian and socialistic extremes of control. OK. Again, I am an advocate of not creating sides, making peeps pick one, and then bludgeoning the "other" with apparently biased or cherry-picked facts, anecdotes, and conspiracy-ish narratives; ESPECIALLY when done for political gaming and blaming.
Just a few examples of assumptions/ideas coming across as facts that, in my opinion, can feed the confusion, sustain the divide of game and blame, and keep peeps' real concerns relegated to the margins. But, sure, keep painting your picture of me any way you like. It's very telling.
Meanwhile, other countries like South Korea are better prepared for a potentially tough winter and were able to avoid certain degrees of drastic measures. Mind you, SK has twice the population of Texas crammed into an area an 1/8 its size and, sure, there is a potential that the comparative numbers could be off due to counting standards. I'm not sure. SK is a much more collectivized culture, traditionally, but have been gradually moving toward and/or incorporating certain individualistic tendencies as they have continued to modernize since 1988, when the last of the American "presidential" puppet dictators came to an end. I provide this anecdote only as an example of how suspending one's libertarian ideals in the face of certain potential existential threats CAN be advantageous. For me, it's not about choosing a camp, arguing/debating for my own personal perspective, or pinning blame....but moving towards generally replicable game plans for future outbreaks that minimize any loss of democratic powers. The difficult thing about "freedom" (of the individual) is that it also requires "responsibility" (towards the social); otherwise, dat bird (of democracy) don't fly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Nov 29, 2020 13:28:54 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2020 13:28:54 GMT
Ut oh
"In Japan, more people died from suicide last month than from Covid in all of 2020. And women have been impacted most.." - cnn
|
|
|
|
Corono
Nov 29, 2020 21:08:27 GMT
Post by Figgles on Nov 29, 2020 21:08:27 GMT
You don't understand that supporting a group presenting a balanced and reviewed set of data can lead to actions that bridge ideological libertarian and socialistic extremes of control. OK. Your wording was murky. So, do you or don’t you then see the Barrington approach as “more balanced” an approach than the present approach? If you do, then we’re in agreement. What would a bridging of the two camps even look like? The approaches are diametrically different...as different as covering the earth in leather to protect your feet vs. putting on shoes so your feet don't hurt when you walk about the earth. Fwiw, As balanced as the Barrington approach is, it’s not being received well here: www.alberta.ca/herd-immunity-and-the-great-barrington-declaration.aspx I think you like the idea of not taking sides and so very much want to appear as though you are unbiased and easy about the whole thing either way. You are in denial that you have some very strong opinions about all this. My first clue of that was how quickly your ire rose as our discussion unfurled. We were having a perfectly civil discussion, albeit with a few differences of view, and then out of nowhere, you were suddenly making personal snipes. Ah...this is where our true argument lies.  All of my assertions about Covid have expert/science back-up or plain and simply, I don't put them forth. The problem with this whole thing is that there is NOT scientific consensus. There ARE two camps of experts/scientists, both sides with solid credentials. There are equally valid/accredited studies that indicate masks don't work and they cause harm and spread the virus, just as there are studies on masks indicating they do work. It's important to consider ALL valid information in arriving at a conclusive opinion. That's what I've done and that's what many scientists/doctors who share the same view have done. This is really why I’m against Covid mandates; because the scientific community itself is split. Yup. I stand by that one. Those ‘experts’ I reference, are some the very doctors that signed that Barrington Approach you signed and that you reference as 'balanced.' Again....that IS a fact. You need look no further than the Barrington Declaration for those some of those 'experts' I reference. The mainstream narrative favors mandates and lockdowns for the masses. The Barrington Approach does not. You dispute the fact of face/mask touching and that that can cause viral spread? Fauci made that point early on in a video and it’s referenced in the mask study and science based articles I linked to. And there's a question mark at the end of the last sentence, which indicates that 'cancelling out' is not being presented as fact, but an opinion. I think you have trouble deciphering when someone is positing something to be a hard fact vs. when they are positing strong opinion. Too much trying to read between the lines methinks. So you think there HAS been much consideration given to mask disposal and the pollution they pose? The fact that there's masks lying all over the place...that there are pics like the one I posted kind of says otherwise. Of course. But there must always be a balance between risk/benefit. The two camps on Covid approach, disagree re: that balance. (Those fundamental value thingies again..) And while you keep saying you have not chosen a camp…that you’re not debating for your own personal perspective, you clearly are. It’s obvious you have a strong personal view that says; The illness and death this virus is causing is a very serious issue for which a solution must be arrived at and implemented. You seem to think that’s an objective fact. It is not. Some really are fully accepting of it all.....they see and accept that nature has it’s ups and downs and that life includes death, and that taking the path of least resistance where all that’s concerned is the only viable way to go. |
|
I think you said previously that at this point you did not support lockdowns. I'll go with that. And if that is so, then we are pretty much in agreement after all. 
All of my assertions about Covid have expert/science back-up or plain and simply, I don't put them forth. The problem with this whole thing is that there is NOT scientific consensus. There ARE two camps of experts/scientists, both sides with solid credentials. There are equally valid/accredited studies that indicate masks don't work and they cause harm and spread the virus, just as there are studies on masks indicating they do work. It's important to consider ALL valid information in arriving at a conclusive opinion. That's what I've done and that's what many scientists/doctors who share the same view have done. This is really why I’m against Covid mandates; because the scientific community itself is split.