COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[Pooter]

13 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

define risk. what's your tolerance?

Risk = a * b

a=probability of occurrence
b=severity of outcome if it occurs

Masks slightly reduce variable a.

Vaccines slightly reduce variable a and greatly reduce variable b.  Masks come with no inherent risk. The vaccines come with negligible inherent risk. 
 

So to answer your question, my risk tolerance corresponds to what is easily available to me to mitigate that risk.  I will not intentionally accept higher risk than I need to.  I've never been in a car crash in my whole life, but the risk of not wearing a seatbelt is intolerable to me because it costs nothing and massively reduces variable b. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Pooter

[HeloDude]

20 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I've never been in a car crash in my whole life, but the risk of not wearing a seatbelt is intolerable to me because it costs nothing and massively reduces variable b. 

I wonder why the government doesn’t require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet and propped PPE?  Or perhaps, why not ban them all together?  

[SpeedOfHeat]

46 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Masks come with no inherent *physical* risk.

FIFY

[Lawman]

Risk = a * b
a=probability of occurrence
b=severity of outcome if it occurs
Masks slightly reduce variable a.
Vaccines slightly reduce variable a and greatly reduce variable b.  Masks come with no inherent risk. The vaccines come with negligible inherent risk. 
 
So to answer your question, my risk tolerance corresponds to what is easily available to me to mitigate that risk.  I will not intentionally accept higher risk than I need to.  I've never been in a car crash in my whole life, but the risk of not wearing a seatbelt is intolerable to me because it costs nothing and massively reduces variable b. 

Cloth masks are a show of solidarity and little more.

At this point those “minor inconvenience” events are the equivalent to ordering the Diet Coke with your extra big ass nacho and burger.

More to the point the amount of people incorrectly using barrier systems like rubber gloves create more risk than simply distancing or avoiding social situations. Every moron boldly walking around in rubber gloves spreads risk because lost of the dirty nasty stuff out there lives longer on neoprene than on your fingers. The system is designed to protect you from what you’re immediately touching that is dirty, then be thrown away. Instead those groups are actually increasing risk while taking an active “deterrent” using it incorrectly and engaging in normal activities.

We could tell people screw masks, stay out of the grocery store in your own damn car and use our new app. That would have been safer than watching Americans use masks wrong, touch things with gloves on, and then take their vegetables home and spray bleach on them…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

36 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I wonder why the government doesn’t require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet and propped PPE?  Or perhaps, why not ban them all together?  

Some states do require helmets. Pretty much every state requires seatbelts. 

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by pawnman

[Guardian]

Pawn (straw) man

A does not equal B

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

I wonder why the government doesn’t require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet and propped PPE?  Or perhaps, why not ban them all together?  

Because you can't spread motorcycle accidents by not wearing a helmet. 
 

But that isn't even what we're talking about. I've repeatedly said I'm opposed to civilian mask and vaccine mandates.  I'm opposed to almost all government nanny state interventions. The question was about risk and what I will accept in my own life.  

[Lawman]

Because you can't spread motorcycle accidents by not wearing a helmet. 
 
But that isn't even what we're talking about. I've repeatedly said I'm opposed to civilian mask and vaccine mandates.  I'm opposed to almost all government nanny state interventions. The question was about risk and what I will accept in my own life.  

No, but we all pay higher insurance premiums because of the accepted presence of them on the roadways.

That’s the point… they exist, and the rest of us get on with our lives with the unacknowledged risk they present.

We similarly don’t preclude people from receiving EMT care because they were thrown clear of a motor vehicle crash when the law specifically told them wear their damn seatbelt. They get a bed in the ER regardless. Yet we can find no shortage of people calling for the UNvaccinated to be refused or at the very least out prioritized for any care… that’s some social score status China style triage from the same people that called Death Panels not a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrizzell]

Some states do require helmets. Pretty much every state requires seatbelts. 
 

I think doctors should be able to refuse care for individuals who are injured by not wearing a seatbelt while driving, or are intoxicated and cause an accident. Hey they knew the risk, and chose to not “protect” themselves


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Guardian]

They should also be able to refuse service to anyone who smokes, drinks, or is over a 18 BMI.

[Lawman]

I think doctors should be able to refuse care for individuals who are injured by not wearing a seatbelt while driving, or are intoxicated and cause an accident. Hey they knew the risk, and chose to not “protect” themselves


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Big sign at the front entrance for the people that didn’t use a condom.

*Unwanted pregnancies out back*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

58 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Because you can't spread motorcycle accidents by not wearing a helmet. 
 

But that isn't even what we're talking about. I've repeatedly said I'm opposed to civilian mask and vaccine mandates.  I'm opposed to almost all government nanny state interventions. The question was about risk and what I will accept in my own life.  

I’m pretty sure that the more injured a motorcyclist becomes after an accident the more likely they are to require more hospital care if the initial impact is not fatal.  This means that the person requiring hospital care (that might be in short supply) is putting an undue strain on our medical system…unless this argument only goes towards the unvaccinated?  
 

If you’re going to use the argument that my actions wrt not wearing a mask/not getting a shot can affect the well being of others (ie taking up a hospital bed after getting covid) then the same argument can be used for not taking proper care when riding a motorcycle…or hell, even riding one at all considering how less safe they are compared to automobiles.

I appreciate that you’re not for mandates, but to your point, everything we do in life comes down to risk vs rewards, and you can make the argument that many of our decisions can have a negative impact on someone else.  So where’s the line? 

Just think, if all those who want others to get a shot/wear a mask (and insult those who don’t)…if those same original people felt that strongly about people having unprotected sex.  The odds of you contracting a disease or having an unwanted pregnancy would be near zero.  I mean, is it too much to ask others to utilize a condom during intercourse? 

Good talk.

[Pooter]

25 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So where’s the line? 

 

Probably somewhere between onesie twosie motorcycle accidents and an entire segment of the population (~30-40%) refusing basic covid mitigation measures.

[Lawman]

Probably somewhere between onesie twosie motorcycle accidents and an entire segment of the population (~30-40%) refusing basic covid mitigation measures.

Considering the number of air medevac flights that respond to motorcycle accidents per capita of motor vehicle accidents in general, I’d say your point is F’ing ridiculous.

Every highway motorcycle accident I can recall responding too involved calling out life flight.

That’s a pretty significant commitment of a very Low density high demanded cost intensive resource for the medical system to simply absorb without issue.

Seems the safest thing to do to protect that critical capability for the collective rest of us is simply ban the damn things…..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

32 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Probably somewhere between onesie twosie motorcycle accidents and an entire segment of the population (~30-40%) refusing basic covid mitigation measures.

Fair enough…so you pick and choose what’s acceptable when it comes to others and their personal risk decisions when those decisions could result in people requiring hospitalization or death, when those decisions effect other people directly or indirectly, drive up medical costs, etc.

Just think…if no one did drugs or had unprotected sex (if not attempting to procreate), we could probably come close to eradicating all STDs, especially HIV, not to mention all the welfare costs associated with those unwanted children, or the medical costs associated with abortions.  I also wonder how much medical resources could be redirected after HIV is no longer a problem.

Condoms…people who don’t wear one (or have consensual sex with a partner not wearing one) are so selfish.

[BashiChuni]

the risk factors of covid are highly correlated to age group and co-morbitities.

if you are young and healthy your risk is statistically proven to be VERY low. let people accept that and move on with their lives.

 

if you're a high risk demographic...get the vax, and stay home. easy.

 

none of the "mitigation" factors have done anything to "stop the spread". that has been proven. Good intentions (maybe), but now the gig is up.

[M2]

[Negatory]

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

none of the "mitigation" factors have done anything to "stop the spread". that has been proven. Good intentions (maybe), but now the gig is up.

This is the relevant point. There were only a few select justifications for mandates (masks, school closures, vaccination, boosting).

 

1. Stop the spread. That's dead. None of the mandated actions *meaningfully* stop the spread. Alpha didn't look like it was responding, Delta killed that idea for sure, and omicron is just making a mockery of it. The vaccine turned out to be the fever-dream of libertarians. Instead of working like the measles vax, which absolutely stops the spread of measles, this vaccine only protects the individual who takes it. Fascinating. Sure, we didn't know that a year ago, but we know it for sure now yet some at the highest levels of government are still clinging to mandates. And if you think these people are up there begging to save the lives of their political opposition, you have a much more optimistic view of politics than I do. This is a case study in our ability to cling to a decision as humans despite changes around us.

 

2. Don't overwhelm the hospitals. This one was fascinating, because the average person had no idea how overwhelmed most hospitals are on any normal day. Do you really think nurses started using cocaine to get through the day because of the coronavirus? They are businesses, and like any other well-run business, operating near capacity is usually the most profitable path. But this was also confused with "don't burden the hospitals." There's a big difference between overwhelming and burdening. As the last few posts point out, we allow all manner of personal decision making that burdens hospitals. It's just another cost of freedom that is grossly outweighed by the cost of authoritarianism. You think the hospitals are filled now... Go check out the authoritative states.

 

3. Save the children. This one has been disgusting from the start. Perhaps the best thing about this pandemic is that it doesn't affect children. There's not a single factual analysis that implies children are at risk from this disease. Yet the teachers unions in the most radicalized cities in America have used it as a cudgel, and politicians have jumped on board. Granted, I don't expect the average American to understand the immensity of facial expressions on childhood development, but I do expect experts in the field of childhood development to be honest about it, and they haven't been. 

 

The most profound effect of the pandemic is not going to be a few more old people dying a few years earlier (and yes, compared to the rates of death that have been posted here numerous times, this pandemic did not change the game for old people. They died of a lot of things, now there's one more on the list. As those most susceptible to the coronavirus pass, the rates will return to where they were. It sucks. But it wasn't the only factor and we treated it that way).

Rather the biggest effect will be the millions of children, overwhelmingly those from low-income and single-parent households, who missed out on two years of desperately needed, in person education. Most of the people here have their shit together, and therefore their kids have their shit together. They have no idea the abject misery that children live in, in places like inner city chicago, new york, memphis, St louis, baltimore, Los angeles, or any number of liberal-run catastrophes across the country. 

They had jobs that let them stay at home and watch their kids, many of whom already had a firm basis in academics and could handle the transition to Zoom for a couple years. That's not the case for the kids whose parents didn't make it through a year of high school themselves, and spend their days either judiciously working at shitty jobs to pay for food for their kids, or wasting their lives away in a self-indulgent drug fantasy world, where the effect on their children is the same. Unmonitored, uneducated, and mostly just alone. For a lot of those kids, the teacher was the only person who interacted with them in a meaningful way on a daily basis.

[Sim]

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/01/govexec-daily-vaccine-mandates-after-supreme-court-osha-decision/360986/

 

Quote

federal court in Texas has issued an injunction against President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the federal workforce, pausing implementation of a requirement for more than 2 million civilian servants. 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21183444-judge-jeffrey-brown-injunction-against-fed-employee-vaccine-mandate

Edited January 21, 2022 by Sim

[FLEA]

11 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is the relevant point. There were only a few select justifications for mandates (masks, school closures, vaccination, boosting).

 

1. Stop the spread. That's dead. None of the mandated actions *meaningfully* stop the spread. Alpha didn't look like it was responding, Delta killed that idea for sure, and omicron is just making a mockery of it. The vaccine turned out to be the fever-dream of libertarians. Instead of working like the measles vax, which absolutely stops the spread of measles, this vaccine only protects the individual who takes it. Fascinating. Sure, we didn't know that a year ago, but we know it for sure now yet some at the highest levels of government are still clinging to mandates. And if you think these people are up there begging to save the lives of their political opposition, you have a much more optimistic view of politics than I do. This is a case study in our ability to cling to a decision as humans despite changes around us.

 

2. Don't overwhelm the hospitals. This one was fascinating, because the average person had no idea how overwhelmed most hospitals are on any normal day. Do you really think nurses started using cocaine to get through the day because of the coronavirus? They are businesses, and like any other well-run business, operating near capacity is usually the most profitable path. But this was also confused with "don't burden the hospitals." There's a big difference between overwhelming and burdening. As the last few posts point out, we allow all manner of personal decision making that burdens hospitals. It's just another cost of freedom that is grossly outweighed by the cost of authoritarianism. You think the hospitals are filled now... Go check out the authoritative states.

 

3. Save the children. This one has been disgusting from the start. Perhaps the best thing about this pandemic is that it doesn't affect children. There's not a single factual analysis that implies children are at risk from this disease. Yet the teachers unions in the most radicalized cities in America have used it as a cudgel, and politicians have jumped on board. Granted, I don't expect the average American to understand the immensity of facial expressions on childhood development, but I do expect experts in the field of childhood development to be honest about it, and they haven't been. 

 

The most profound effect of the pandemic is not going to be a few more old people dying a few years earlier (and yes, compared to the rates of death that have been posted here numerous times, this pandemic did not change the game for old people. They died of a lot of things, now there's one more on the list. As those most susceptible to the coronavirus pass, the rates will return to where they were. It sucks. But it wasn't the only factor and we treated it that way).

Rather the biggest effect will be the millions of children, overwhelmingly those from low-income and single-parent households, who missed out on two years of desperately needed, in person education. Most of the people here have their shit together, and therefore their kids have their shit together. They have no idea the abject misery that children live in, in places like inner city chicago, new york, memphis, St louis, baltimore, Los angeles, or any number of liberal-run catastrophes across the country. 

They had jobs that let them stay at home and watch their kids, many of whom already had a firm basis in academics and could handle the transition to Zoom for a couple years. That's not the case for the kids whose parents didn't make it through a year of high school themselves, and spend their days either judiciously working at shitty jobs to pay for food for their kids, or wasting their lives away in a self-indulgent drug fantasy world, where the effect on their children is the same. Unmonitored, uneducated, and mostly just alone. For a lot of those kids, the teacher was the only person who interacted with them in a meaningful way on a daily basis.

You know this raises a good point I haven't thought of. In all of these states where governors are sending in the National Guard to augment hospitals.... are those patients still being billed? The insurance? Etc... Hopefully the hospitals  are required to cap profits if they are receiving said augmentation.....

[TheNewGazmo]

On 1/21/2022 at 10:25 AM, Lord Ratner said:

2. Don't overwhelm the hospitals. This one was fascinating, because the average person had no idea how overwhelmed most hospitals are on any normal day. Do you really think nurses started using cocaine to get through the day because of the coronavirus? They are businesses, and like any other well-run business, operating near capacity is usually the most profitable path. But this was also confused with "don't burden the hospitals." There's a big difference between overwhelming and burdening. As the last few posts point out, we allow all manner of personal decision making that burdens hospitals. It's just another cost of freedom that is grossly outweighed by the cost of authoritarianism. You think the hospitals are filled now... Go check out the authoritative states.

Remember, hospitals were "overwhelmed" in 2018 during the flu endemic.  So much so, they were treating people in tents in certain cities.  Very few knew about it and the ones that did didn't care.  There were no flu shot or mask mandates.  Why not?  Hospitals don't mind being overwhelmed when they are overwhelmed by people with illnesses that are more profitable - cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular and obesity related illnesses all make Big Pharma BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars per year.  For hospitals, elective surgeries are what make them lots of money and they've lost 10's of billions of dollars delaying these surgeries due to COVID.

[BashiChuni]

Oops. Where’s that AP “fact checking” now. 
 

the gig is up. The “experts” were wrong. All vax mandates need to be demolished. All vax passports (I still cannot believe some of you crossed that bridge) need to be removed. 

[Sim]

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/01/24/very-concerning-attorney-testifies-to-compiled-adverse-vaccine-reaction-statistics-provided-by-whistleblowers/

Quote

Mr. Renz outlined data of adverse reaction to the vaccinations including a rate of miscarriages that increased 300% over the five-year average, a rate of increased cancer over 300%, and an increase in neurological issues over 1,000 percent (from 82,000 yearly average to now 863,000 in one year with the vaccines)

https://rumble.com/embed/vqlh63/?pub=264yz

 

[Pooter]

20 hours ago, Sim said:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/01/24/very-concerning-attorney-testifies-to-compiled-adverse-vaccine-reaction-statistics-provided-by-whistleblowers/

https://rumble.com/embed/vqlh63/?pub=264yz

 

I'd be really interested to see literally any amplifying data on these claims.  
 

Also I have a few tiny questions before we just take "the conservative treehouse" (very reputable news organization I'm sure) at face value.

-What was the sample size

-What were the sample demographics

-Which vaccine are we talking about

-What constitutes a "neurological issue" and if the military is approximately 2 million people are we saying almost half of them now have a neurological issue?

-What is the base rate of increase in these categories for unvaccinated people