Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

Do Masks Really Protect Against Covid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HVapwIrdhE&t=8s

quote:

Apparently, quitting breathing would work even better.

But giving those statistics out does not tell the whole story. They are comparing death rates but those are not adjusted for any other factors such as putting Covid-19 patients in among the elderly and other ill individuals in nursing homes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

With your rights come responsibilities. Freedom is not doing what you want at the expense of others, not in modern society. People who give up freedom for safety have neither.

Give up freedom?

What exactly are we talking about here?

A good anecdote form a doctor friend here who is incredulous about the odd mention of personal rights and freedoms regarding mask wearing. "It's like stop lights. I mean, a stoplight is inhibiting my personal freedom to move where I want when I want, so I should just go through it. My freedom is most important here. I mean sure, someone might get hurt, but I won't limit my freedoms to protect someone going the other way if I'm in a hurry."

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

With your rights come responsibilities. Freedom is not doing what you want at the expense of others, not in modern society. People who give up freedom for safety have neither.

Give up freedom?

What exactly are we talking about here?

A good anecdote form a doctor friend here who is incredulous about the odd mention of personal rights and freedoms regarding mask wearing. "It's like stop lights. I mean, a stoplight is inhibiting my personal freedom to move where I want when I want, so I should just go through it. My freedom is most important here. I mean sure, someone might get hurt, but I won't limit my freedoms to protect someone going the other way if I'm in a hurry."

Accepting no limitation on your behavior, to the point where that behavior causes demonstrable harm to other people at only the slightest inconvenience to yourself, is a borderline-sociopathic understanding of freedom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Accepting no limitation on your behavior, to the point where that behavior causes demonstrable harm to other people at only the slightest inconvenience to yourself, is a borderline-sociopathic understanding of freedom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Accepting no limitation on your behavior, to the point where that behavior causes demonstrable harm to other people at only the slightest inconvenience to yourself, is a borderline-sociopathic understanding of freedom.

I think that the key part here is "causes demonstrable harm". Who is to decide what cause demonstrable harm? The majority? The experts? The WHO? The President? The State? The Pope? The Celebrities? The Press? The Party? The UN? Each individual? The Courts? The Law Makers?

And what if they are wrong? Which side to err on? Safety? Safety for whom?

quote:

Go to a crowded theatre when they are open and yell "FIRE!" in the local language and see what happens.

People claim that they have the right to swing their fist until it hits someone's nose (or other part of the body) but that is wrong. If someone thinks that you are going to hit them then they have every right to actively defend themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Accepting no limitation on your behavior, to the point where that behavior causes demonstrable harm to other people at only the slightest inconvenience to yourself, is a borderline-sociopathic understanding of freedom.

I think that the key part here is "causes demonstrable harm". Who is to decide what cause demonstrable harm? The majority? The experts? The WHO? The President? The State? The Pope? The Celebrities? The Press? The Party? The UN? Each individual? The Courts? The Law Makers?

And what if they are wrong? Which side to err on? Safety? Safety for whom?

Go to a crowded theatre when they are open and yell "FIRE!" in the local language and see what happens.

People claim that they have the right to swing their fist until it hits someone's nose (or other part of the body) but that is wrong. If someone thinks that you are going to hit them then they have every right to actively defend themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

quote:

Go to a crowded theatre when they are open and yell "FIRE!" in the local language and see what happens.

People claim that they have the right to swing their fist until it hits someone's nose (or other part of the body) but that is wrong. If someone thinks that you are going to hit them then they have every right to actively defend themselves.

But in this case, the enemy is literally a very small invisible virus, that only the accumulation of medical knowledge (not acquired by single individuals, but by 'collective' effort) can identify and then try to combat.

I find this pandemic a very interesting philosophical challenge for many who stridently advocate for 'freedom of choice' to the point they want to abolish any kind of rules in the society they live in. A deadly, worldwide pandemic is challenging that philosophy right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Accepting no limitation on your behavior, to the point where that behavior causes demonstrable harm to other people at only the slightest inconvenience to yourself, is a borderline-sociopathic understanding of freedom.

I think that the key part here is "causes demonstrable harm". Who is to decide what cause demonstrable harm? The majority? The experts? The WHO? The President? The State? The Pope? The Celebrities? The Press? The Party? The UN? Each individual? The Courts? The Law Makers?

And what if they are wrong? Which side to err on? Safety? Safety for whom?

Go to a crowded theatre when they are open and yell "FIRE!" in the local language and see what happens.

People claim that they have the right to swing their fist until it hits someone's nose (or other part of the body) but that is wrong. If someone thinks that you are going to hit them then they have every right to actively defend themselves.

So if I enter a room and say 'Hello' and the people in that room, for some weird reason, think I am about to attack them they have a right to actively defend themselves?

I suggest that someone "think that you are going to hit them" is not a valid reason for actively defending themselves. The threshold should be higher than that.

Yes, officer, I shot him as soon as saw him because I thought he was going to kill me

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

quote:

Go to a crowded theatre when they are open and yell "FIRE!" in the local language and see what happens.

People claim that they have the right to swing their fist until it hits someone's nose (or other part of the body) but that is wrong. If someone thinks that you are going to hit them then they have every right to actively defend themselves.

But in this case, the enemy is literally a very small invisible virus, that only the accumulation of medical knowledge (not acquired by single individuals, but by 'collective' effort) can identify and then try to combat.

I find this pandemic a very interesting philosophical challenge for many who stridently advocate for 'freedom of choice' to the point they want to abolish any kind of rules in the society they live in. A deadly, worldwide pandemic is challenging that philosophy right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Accepting no limitation on your behavior, to the point where that behavior causes demonstrable harm to other people at only the slightest inconvenience to yourself, is a borderline-sociopathic understanding of freedom.

I think that the key part here is "causes demonstrable harm". Who is to decide what cause demonstrable harm? The majority? The experts? The WHO? The President? The State? The Pope? The Celebrities? The Press? The Party? The UN? Each individual? The Courts? The Law Makers?

And what if they are wrong? Which side to err on? Safety? Safety for whom?

Go to a crowded theatre when they are open and yell "FIRE!" in the local language and see what happens.

People claim that they have the right to swing their fist until it hits someone's nose (or other part of the body) but that is wrong. If someone thinks that you are going to hit them then they have every right to actively defend themselves.

So if I enter a room and say 'Hello' and the people in that room, for some weird reason, think I am about to attack them they have a right to actively defend themselves?

I suggest that someone "think that you are going to hit them" is not a valid reason for actively defending themselves. The threshold should be higher than that.

Yes, officer, I shot him as soon as saw him because I thought he was going to kill me

For one thing, saying "Hello" to people when you enter a room and yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre are two different things. BTW, what is the threat when you say "Hello?" Or is that a mark of death in Sverge?

As far as active defense, I was referring to swinging a fist. Where I live, if you swing a fist and someone thinks that you are going to hit them (they flinch, maybe) then that is assault. If you hit them, then that is battery. So you can be charged criminally and then spend time as a guest of the government. Of course, you might have to spend time in a hospital first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

quote:

Go to a crowded theatre when they are open and yell "FIRE!" in the local language and see what happens.

People claim that they have the right to swing their fist until it hits someone's nose (or other part of the body) but that is wrong. If someone thinks that you are going to hit them then they have every right to actively defend themselves.

But in this case, the enemy is literally a very small invisible virus, that only the accumulation of medical knowledge (not acquired by single individuals, but by 'collective' effort) can identify and then try to combat.

I find this pandemic a very interesting philosophical challenge for many who stridently advocate for 'freedom of choice' to the point they want to abolish any kind of rules in the society they live in. A deadly, worldwide pandemic is challenging that philosophy right now.

And I find it "interesting" that the consequences of these strict rules can be ignored by those that advocate for strict rules on limited evidence. The "experts" seem to me to ignore the fact that the rules they advocate may in the end cause many more lives to be lost because of those rules. Mass starvation may very well be a consequence of the reaction to this pandemic.

Anyway. I am not saying that some, or all, of the rules are wrong. Or that people shouldn't follow the rules. I am one who follows rules. Mostly. It just seems to me that some of the rules are implemented arbitrarily. And with little evidence. And with even less analysis.

And my original question stands. Who decide? And who should decide?

quote:

in the UK the work 'pants' equates to underwear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

So funny story....our company went biz casual many years ago but people were stretching too far (wearing shorts, midriff shirts etc). I was in London at the time and some genius took the US memo to employees trying to get them in line and sent it out to all the global employees without vetting with local folks. It had a line in it that 'men must wear pants'. UK citizens will get the humor of that...for others on the forum, in the UK the work 'pants' equates to underwear. That memo got quite a few chuckles. The US definition of pants in the UK is 'trousers'.

Situational awareness gone off mark.

quote:

Now, how much ethanol do I have to drink to kill the Covid-19?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I have been informed by a letter from management that there is a confirmed case of Covid-19 in my apartment building. Mostly elderly and disabled people living here.

I do have a sinus infection with attendant other issues, but it is relatively minor.

Now, how much ethanol do I have to drink to kill the Covid-19?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I have been informed by a letter from management that there is a confirmed case of Covid-19 in my apartment building. Mostly elderly and disabled people living here.

I do have a sinus infection with attendant other issues, but it is relatively minor.

Now, how much ethanol do I have to drink to kill the Covid-19?

A persistent sinus infection is the symptom of what we think might have been Covid for me. My wife had something much worse with a horrendous cough. Still not sure as no tests, but these days I'm going to treat virtually anything as a Covid symptom.