Apartheid is Fascism ( or: your crypto won’t save you when the jackboots come-a-marching).

espiegel123

@NeuM : since you are in favor of personal responsibility, I am sure that you would agree that those that choose not to be vaccinated should bear the cost of their medical care should they become sick with COVID and that people (vaccinated or not) that choose not to follow safety protocols should be prevented from going into public places as they pose a threat to the health of others.

Krupa

There’s also the question of whether the right of someone to use their body as a biological weapon by knowingly increasing the likelihood they’ll spread a disease outweighs their right to refuse a treatment that will lower that risk… freedom to harm others and all that are tricky moral questions, especially when it comes down to societies as a whole being affected…

NeuM

@espiegel123 said:
@NeuM : since you are in favor of personal responsibility, I am sure that you would agree that those that choose not to be vaccinated should bear the cost of their medical care should they become sick with COVID and that people (vaccinated or not) that choose not to follow safety protocols should be prevented from going into public places as they pose a threat to the health of others.

How about the more than 100 million Americans with the added tax burdens of the ACA/Obamacare? Do we get a full refund? The many thousands of dollars of increased taxes forcibly taken from me would’ve been better spent on my own healthcare during the years of its passage. After the Federal government interfered in health insurance and healthcare markets my insurance went sky high and I have less and less options available to me, doctors have dropped out of their practices due to the added burdens and competition has decreased.

And the biggest flaw with your comment? People who’ve been fully vaccinated can still get and transmit COVID to others. These vaccines are not cures. They are therapies. Blaming the unvaccinated is not remotely based on known science.

knewspeak

Nobody should be forced vaccinated, no one. The cost of such a policy, outweighs any healthcare cost.

espiegel123

@Neum: your response is a non-sequitur. What-about isn't a valid response.

Again, I am sure that you agree:

1) People that choose not to be vaccinated should bear the cost of their decision. It is true that vaccines aren't a guarantee that one want get sick and require medical care but that odds are dramatically different. People that choose not to be vaccinate are putting themselves at dramatically higher risk. I am sure -- because you talk about personal responsibility and freedom so much -- agree that those that put themselves at much higher risk should bear that cost.

2) People (as I pointed out vaccinated or not) that choose not follow public health measures that minimize the risk to others should be barred from places where they put others at risk.

True even vaccinated people can get sick and pass it on -- but the odds are very different. "Vaccine isn't a guarantee" is irrelevant as to the question of whether people that flout these measures put others (disproportionately) at risk.

With freedom comes responsibility. I am sure you agree.

NeuM

@Krupa said:
There’s also the question of whether the right of someone to use their body as a biological weapon by knowingly increasing the likelihood they’ll spread a disease outweighs their right to refuse a treatment that will lower that risk… freedom to harm others and all that are tricky moral questions, especially when it comes down to societies as a whole being affected…

There’s no such disease in the form of COVID-19. At worst (in the US), .05% of the population has been at severe risk and the factors which put them at severe risk are well known at this point.

I fully expect the majority of people on the planet to be exposed to COVID at some point. I personally know people who’ve died. They all had serious medical problems. Would they have died if they had contracted the flu? Probably. And here’s the flip side of that… I have a relative who is over 100 years old who got COVID and they recovered from it on their own! So, individuals should measure their own level of acceptable risk and decide for themselves.

NeuM

@espiegel123 said:
@Neum: your response is a non-sequitur. What-about isn't a valid response.

Again, I am sure that you agree:

1) People that choose not to be vaccinated should bear the cost of their decision. It is true that vaccines aren't a guarantee that one want get sick and require medical care but that odds are dramatically different. People that choose not to be vaccinate are putting themselves at dramatically higher risk. I am sure -- because you talk about personal responsibility and freedom so much -- agree that those that put themselves at much higher risk should bear that cost.

2) People (as I pointed out vaccinated or not) that choose not follow public health measures that minimize the risk to others should be barred from places where they put others at risk.

True even vaccinated people can get sick and pass it on -- but the odds are very different. "Vaccine isn't a guarantee" is irrelevant as to the question of whether people that flout these measures put others (disproportionately) at risk.

With freedom comes responsibility. I am sure you agree.

People without health insurance and who are now subsidized by my tax dollars are a financial burden and added risk to me and more than 100 million other Americans. Let’s talk about who is really being irresponsible in this scenario.

Are you suggesting that people should be divided by disease and risk factors and isolated from others? How about people with other diseases? Colds? Flus? AIDS? Where does it end under your scenario? Not in a good place, I guarantee you.

Krupa

@NeuM said:

@Krupa said:
There’s also the question of whether the right of someone to use their body as a biological weapon by knowingly increasing the likelihood they’ll spread a disease outweighs their right to refuse a treatment that will lower that risk… freedom to harm others and all that are tricky moral questions, especially when it comes down to societies as a whole being affected…

There’s no such disease in the form of COVID-19. At worst (in the US), .05% of the population has been at severe risk and the factors which put them at severe risk are well known at this point.

I fully expect the majority of people on the planet to be exposed to COVID at some point. I personally know people who’ve died. They all had serious medical problems. Would they have died if they had contracted the flu? Probably. And here’s the flip side of that… I have a relative who is over 100 years old who got COVID and they recovered from it on their own! So, individuals should measure their own level of acceptable risk and decide for themselves.

Kinda knew that would be your response, and I don’t much care for the opinion, as is very anecdotal. There’s plenty of stories that counter that narrative…

I’m more interested in the principle of whether people should be allowed to harm others or is that freedom not above all others? Would it make a difference if it was outside the body, another form of weapon perhaps… I’ve got to say I’m conflicted on it, like I said tricky, and to be honest, anyone who thinks that complex problems like that have simple answers is probably not thinking it through

knewspeak

If you took the $ out of the equation wouldn’t you just help those who were in need of help?

NeuM

@knewspeak said:
Nobody should be forced vaccinated, no one. The cost of such a policy, outweighs any healthcare cost.

Absolutely right. @espiegel123 is suggesting some kind of forced vaccination tyranny.

espiegel123

@NeuM: again you actually won't speak directly to what was asked or presented. Your responses are non-sequiturs. I can't tell if you are unwilling to engage directly with what I posted, don't understand it, or if you are being disingenuous because there is unresolvable tension between your desire for unfettered freedom and bearing responsibility for the exercise of that freedom.

Your responses are consistently what-aboutisms or other non-sequiturs. Neither actually speaks to the direct issue. Whether publicly subisidized insurance is a good thing is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the people that choose to put themselves and others at risk should bear the cost.

You aren't willing to talk about that directly. That's your right. But if you disagree with the statement I made, you have not put forward a justification as to why those people should not bear the cost or why they should be allowed to put us all at risk.

I'm out.

espiegel123

@NeuM said:

@knewspeak said:
Nobody should be forced vaccinated, no one. The cost of such a policy, outweighs any healthcare cost.

Absolutely right. @espiegel123 is suggesting some kind of forced vaccination tyranny.

No I am not. You are totally misrepresenting what I said.

Nothing that I said implied "forced vaccination tyranny". I implied that people that aren't vaccinated should bear the cost -- and that people (vaccinated or not) should be barred from going places where they put us all at risk.

That isn't tyrrany -- or forced.

Please stop mischaracterizing what people say.

NeuM

@espiegel123 said:
@NeuM: again you actually won't speak directly to what was asked or presented. Your responses are non-sequiturs. I can't tell if you are unwilling to engage directly with what I posted, don't understand it, or if you are being disingenuous because there is unresolvable tension between your desire for unfettered freedom and bearing responsibility for the exercise of that freedom.

Your responses are consistently what-aboutisms or other non-sequiturs. Neither actually speaks to the direct issue. Whether publicly subisidized insurance is a good thing is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the people that choose to put themselves and others at risk should bear the cost.

You aren't willing to talk about that directly. That's your right. But if you disagree with the statement I made, you have not put forward a justification as to why those people should not bear the cost or why they should be allowed to put us all at risk.

I'm out.

You posed a loaded question. That is arguing from a dishonest position.

NeuM

@espiegel123 said:

@NeuM said:

@knewspeak said:
Nobody should be forced vaccinated, no one. The cost of such a policy, outweighs any healthcare cost.

Absolutely right. @espiegel123 is suggesting some kind of forced vaccination tyranny.

No I am not. You are totally misrepresenting what I said.

Nothing that I said implied "forced vaccination tyranny". I implied that people that aren't vaccinated should bear the cost -- and that people (vaccinated or not) should be barred from going places where they put us all at risk.

That isn't tyrrany -- or forced.

Please stop mischaracterizing what people say.

What you are suggesting would absolutely be unconstitutional in the US. I know other countries are forcing people to get vaccinated or they get beaten by police or thrown into a camp (I’m looking at you, Australia).

And on television in the background at my place right now is the braindead zombie in the White House hawking yet more authoritarian vaccine mandate nonsense. This garbage ends when the greater population demands it.

espiegel123

@Neum: I am really out after this. It wasn't a loaded question. I am sorry if this seems ungenerous, but I think you great it as loaded because you don't have an answer.

You hate laws requiring vaccination.

You don't want people to have their freedom restricted even if the freedom inherently increases the risk of death and serious illness to others around them.

In all the many months that you have expounded on the topic, I have not once seen a proposal from you that prevents the irresponsible from putting those around them at risk.

I don't doubt that you will respond -- and predict that your response will be a lot of arguments against the things you don't like and no proposal that would protect the public health.

Another prediction: you will totally mischaracterize what I have posted ungenerously. You may even use words like tyrrany which you use for laws you don't like.

For almost two years, we've been hearing from the freedom absolutists -- and their proposal amounts to: "let us do what we want with no cost to us. If you don't want to get sick, stay out of our way." Or, "It is God's will. Have faith in God."

I hope that you will prove me wrong by exhibiting graciousness and good faith and provide a thoughtful proposal without trying to cast my words in a bad light.

NeuM

@espiegel123 said:
@Neum: I am really out after this. It wasn't a loaded question. I am sorry if this seems ungenerous, but I think you great it as loaded because you don't have an answer.

You hate laws requiring vaccination.

You don't want people to have their freedom restricted even if the freedom inherently increases the risk of death and serious illness to others around them.

In all the many months that you have expounded on the topic, I have not once seen a proposal from you that prevents the irresponsible from putting those around them at risk.

I don't doubt that you will respond -- and predict that your response will be a lot of arguments against the things you don't like and no proposal that would protect the public health.

Another prediction: you will totally mischaracterize what I have posted ungenerously. You may even use words like tyrrany which you use for laws you don't like.

For almost two years, we've been hearing from the freedom absolutists -- and their proposal amounts to: "let us do what we want with no cost to us. If you don't want to get sick, stay out of our way." Or, "It is God's will. Have faith in God."

I hope that you will prove me wrong by exhibiting graciousness and good faith and provide a thoughtful proposal without trying to cast my words in a bad light.

There is no constitutional justification to restrict freedom of movement by the Federal government based on vaccination status. That is unbelievable nonsense.

If people suddenly start to become radioactive and their movement puts millions at risk perhaps I’ll revisit my original position. A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

NeuM

@knewspeak said:
If you took the $ out of the equation wouldn’t you just help those who were in need of help?

How would that be done? Everything costs money somewhere along the line.

NeuM

@knewspeak said:

@NeuM said:

@knewspeak said:

@NeuM said:

@knewspeak said:
And to think, if Trump was still in power, there wouldn’t have been thousands of troops amassing at the Ukrainian border, the orange guy, sporting his Lycra swimsuit emblazoned with the letter Q, would have sorted it all out, with his trusty phallus, of truth, justice and MAGA way, then back to the White House to roast the nuts, beside the fire.

What would you have the US do about Ukraine? Get into a ground war with the Russians? I don’t think so.

Aren’t they those ‘god damn’ commies, you keep on about.

Communists/radical Marxists in the US, destroying property and physically attacking people are a problem. The US isn’t the police force for the world. How about the EU address this if they’re concerned? Interventionism for the US has almost always resulted in very bad outcomes. Example: Twenty years stuck in Afghanistan and about as long in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of people dead.

NATO.

Ukraine is not a NATO aligned nation.

knewspeak

@NeuM said:
@knewspeak said:
If you took the $ out of the equation wouldn’t you just help those who were in need of help?

How would that be done? Everything costs money somewhere along the line.

Of course, you are correct, but your answer implies money means everything to you, the question was hypothetical, a question of ethics.

European ethics are in tatters, it pours fuel on the embers of discontent, not wise at all.

NeuM

@knewspeak said:

@NeuM said:
@knewspeak said:
If you took the $ out of the equation wouldn’t you just help those who were in need of help?

How would that be done? Everything costs money somewhere along the line.

Of course, you are correct, but your answer implies money means everything to you, the question was hypothetical, a question of ethics.

European ethics are in tatters, it pours fuel on the embers of discontent, not wise at all.

Governments must do only what they are allowed to do according to their laws. If they exceed the boundary of their laws, then the laws are meaningless. The Constitution and Bill of Rights in the US are restraints on Federal power.

tahiche

@NeuM said:
A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

Not only you define who’s a communist (apparently I am), what’s extreme left and who is antifa, now you’re also a virologist.
I’m 99,9% sure you’re in favor of gun possession, 2nd amendment, bla, bla. The right to “defend yourself “. Yet we don’t have to the right to “defend ourselves” from those that, against all scientific guidelines, deliberately put others in dangers by refusing a vaccine and wearing a mask. It’s liberty, except if you’re black dude jogging in a white neighborhood.

benlefoe

@NeuM said: A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

Well that’s a very basic way of looking at it. Even if Omicron turns out to be less fatal than previous variants, by letting it spread unimpeded the risk of it mutating again to something more dangerous is exponentially increased. Also “less fatal” is not the same as saying that there are no long-term side effects. At the moment there is not enough data to make that call.

As a British person who is always horrified by the seemingly never-ending instances of school shootings in the USA, what is your position on gun control @NeuM? I suspect I know the answer, but I always get a strange thrill from people trying to explain that everyone has a right to a semi-automatic rifle.

knewspeak

@NeuM said:

@knewspeak said:

@NeuM said:

@knewspeak said:

@NeuM said:

@knewspeak said:
And to think, if Trump was still in power, there wouldn’t have been thousands of troops amassing at the Ukrainian border, the orange guy, sporting his Lycra swimsuit emblazoned with the letter Q, would have sorted it all out, with his trusty phallus, of truth, justice and MAGA way, then back to the White House to roast the nuts, beside the fire.

What would you have the US do about Ukraine? Get into a ground war with the Russians? I don’t think so.

Aren’t they those ‘god damn’ commies, you keep on about.

Communists/radical Marxists in the US, destroying property and physically attacking people are a problem. The US isn’t the police force for the world. How about the EU address this if they’re concerned? Interventionism for the US has almost always resulted in very bad outcomes. Example: Twenty years stuck in Afghanistan and about as long in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of people dead.

NATO.

Ukraine is not a NATO aligned nation.

Never said it was, but if Russia invades, NATO would become increasingly worried. The US is still a member.

Krupa

@tahiche said:

@NeuM said:
A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

Not only you define who’s a communist (apparently I am), what’s extreme left and who is antifa, now you’re also a virologist.
I’m 99,9% sure you’re in favor of gun possession, 2nd amendment, bla, bla. The right to “defend yourself “. Yet we don’t have to the right to “defend ourselves” from those that, against all scientific guidelines, deliberately put other in dangers by refusing a vaccine and wearing a mask. It’s liberty, except if you’re black dude jogging in a white neighborhood.

I wonder how it’s weighed if someone wants to defend themselves from a potential carrier by using a gun? There’s got to be parallels with terrorists in there somehow…

Krupa

@Krupa said:

@tahiche said:

@NeuM said:
A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

Not only you define who’s a communist (apparently I am), what’s extreme left and who is antifa, now you’re also a virologist.
I’m 99,9% sure you’re in favor of gun possession, 2nd amendment, bla, bla. The right to “defend yourself “. Yet we don’t have to the right to “defend ourselves” from those that, against all scientific guidelines, deliberately put other in dangers by refusing a vaccine and wearing a mask. It’s liberty, except if you’re black dude jogging in a white neighborhood.

I wonder how it’s weighed if someone wants to defend themselves from a potential carrier by using a gun? There’s got to be parallels with terrorists in there somehow…

(I’m totally being stupid/silly btw)

NeuM

@tahiche said:

@NeuM said:
A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

Not only you define who’s a communist (apparently I am), what’s extreme left and who is antifa, now you’re also a virologist.
I’m 99,9% sure you’re in favor of gun possession, 2nd amendment, bla, bla. The right to “defend yourself “. Yet we don’t have to the right to “defend ourselves” from those that, against all scientific guidelines, deliberately put others in dangers by refusing a vaccine and wearing a mask. It’s liberty, except if you’re black dude jogging in a white neighborhood.

It seems you're jumping to a whole lot of unrelated conclusions. First of all, ARE you a Communist? I'm not a virologist, nor have I ever claimed to be.

And for no apparent reason you are bringing up the recent court case which found three men guilty of murder of a jogger. Why?

NeuM

@benlefoe said:

@NeuM said: A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

Well that’s a very basic way of looking at it. Even if Omicron turns out to be less fatal than previous variants, by letting it spread unimpeded the risk of it mutating again to something more dangerous is exponentially increased. Also “less fatal” is not the same as saying that there are no long-term side effects. At the moment there is not enough data to make that call.

As a British person who is always horrified by the seemingly never-ending instances of school shootings in the USA, what is your position on gun control @NeuM? I suspect I know the answer, but I always get a strange thrill from people trying to explain that everyone has a right to a semi-automatic rifle.

Oh, boy. Another thread derailing detour into wholly unrelated topics meant to poison the well against "the other", eh?

Please let me know what school shootings has to do with anything here.

McD

@NeuM said:
If people suddenly start to become radioactive and their movement puts millions at risk perhaps I’ll revisit my original position. A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

This is a significant factor in making vaccines political... the chances of death seem too remote to impact many and influence their bahaviors. So, they treat anti-max as an act of political defiance.

I try to find positives:

scientist are learning to rapid develop mRNA vaccines that target specific viruses and
a mutation may arrive that changes the outcomes towards the "radioactive" end of the
decision matrix

we are testing the Public Heath policy which fell into disarray under Trump's pattern of highering the incompetent and anti-government non-managers

there will be more pandemics and we should be able to take faster actions to keep the
health care system functional and be able to educate children and maintain a functioning
global economy. One can only hope we learn something.

The negatives speak for themselves:

the "cry wolf" problem is obvious... people give up trying to reduce infection spread

anti-science is the major plank of conservative policy... "experts" are demoted in favor
of loyal toadies

I personally would like to hold out for the "Omega" variant as a badge of honor.

NeuM

@Krupa said:

@Krupa said:

@tahiche said:

@NeuM said:
A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

Not only you define who’s a communist (apparently I am), what’s extreme left and who is antifa, now you’re also a virologist.
I’m 99,9% sure you’re in favor of gun possession, 2nd amendment, bla, bla. The right to “defend yourself “. Yet we don’t have to the right to “defend ourselves” from those that, against all scientific guidelines, deliberately put other in dangers by refusing a vaccine and wearing a mask. It’s liberty, except if you’re black dude jogging in a white neighborhood.

I wonder how it’s weighed if someone wants to defend themselves from a potential carrier by using a gun? There’s got to be parallels with terrorists in there somehow…

(I’m totally being stupid/silly btw)

I'm glad you added that addendum. Had me concerned for a second.

NeuM

@McD said:

@NeuM said:
If people suddenly start to become radioactive and their movement puts millions at risk perhaps I’ll revisit my original position. A bad case of the flu doesn’t do it.

This is a significant factor in making vaccines political... the chances of death seem too remote to impact many and influence their bahaviors. So, they treat anti-max as an act of political defiance.

I try to find positives:

scientist are learning to rapid develop mRNA vaccines that target specific viruses and
a mutation may arrive that changes the outcomes towards the "radioactive" end of the
decision matrix

we are testing the Public Heath policy which fell into disarray under Trump's pattern of highering the incompetent and anti-government non-managers

there will be more pandemics and we should be able to take faster actions to keep the
health care system functional and be able to educate children and maintain a functioning
global economy. One can only hope we learn something.

The negatives speak for themselves:

the "cry wolf" problem is obvious... people give up trying to reduce infection spread

anti-science is the major plank of conservative policy... "experts" are demoted in favor
of loyal toadies

I personally would like to hold out for the "Omega" variant as a badge of honor.

I'll be marking the calendar when they exhaust their choices and return to Alpha.