News Forum - CCSA Covid-19 plan: domestic vaccines, “learning to live with it”

[mcambl61]

16 minutes ago, Soidog said:

No more evidence than you do that it wouldn’t. It’s not tyranny. It’s sensible Pandemic management. 

No, it is not. It has caused exponentially more harm than any virus could have. 

THAT is a irrefutable fact, unlike your ridiculous assertion. 

 

It's sad that you can't find the reality of the massive amount of harm the "measures" have caused. 

 

Keep cowering in irrational fear and believing these "measures" are for the common good. 

 

[AdamX]

17 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Happy to do a cost benefit analysis if you can tell me the cost of a human life? $100? $1,000?  And does that cost change if it’s your wife or your own life? 
 

What is the cost of a whole car factory closing for a month as a result of key workers being off sick with Covid? 
 

The fact is that nearly ALL governments have tried to find a suitable balance. Holding things back as best they can until quality vaccines arrive. 

 The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” 

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-refusal-to-apply-cost

My question to you is this....Should we ban cars?

 

[mcambl61]

22 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Happy to do a cost benefit analysis if you can tell me the cost of a human life? $100? $1,000?  And does that cost change if it’s your wife or your own life? 
 

What is the cost of a whole car factory closing for a month as a result of key workers being off sick with Covid? 
 

The fact is that nearly ALL governments have tried to find a suitable balance. Holding things back as best they can until quality vaccines arrive. 

All governments have tried to find a Suitable balance? 

 

What planet are you on? 

[mcambl61]

4 minutes ago, AdamX said:

 The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” 

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-refusal-to-apply-cost

My question to you is this....Should we ban cars?

We should ban leftist liberal progressives. 

 

That would be the best way to allow people to live and pursue the right to happiness. 

[Soidog]

Just now, mcambl61 said:

No, it is not. It has caused exponentially more harm than any virus could have. 

THAT is a irrefutable fact, unlike your ridiculous assertion. 

It's sad that you can't find the reality of the massive amount of harm the "measures" have caused. 

Keep cowering in irrational fear and believing these "measures" are for the common good. 

Sorry, but what facts have you got? You can’t debate something simply by saying I’m wrong. I’m fully aware of the massive harm this pandemic is doing to people. It’s destroying businesses, it’s causing rises in depression and in suicide. It’s causing people to take out loans that will be holding them back for years to come. I get all of that and I understand the impact. But the flip side is to let it rip uncontrolled through populations. That also will have a massive impact. Even in the U.K. where there have been several lockdowns, the impact on health services has been significant. There is an estimated 4 million hospital appointment backlogs. More cases of cancers going undiagnosed. Heart conditions not being treated. All of this also has a massive impact and is due to overwhelmed health services. If the government had simply let it rip, the impact on all of this would by many times higher. 
 

The fact is there is no right and wrong jere. We are debating a balance (well I am but you are trying to be insulting). No black or white or right or wrong. I personally think what Australia and New Zealand are doing is too much. But it’s their choice. I think what the U.K. government did in lockdown was too little too late. Every government is trying to find that illusive balance that pleases everyone. Well there is no such answer. 

[Soidog]

7 minutes ago, AdamX said:

 The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” 

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-refusal-to-apply-cost

My question to you is this....Should we ban cars?

No. It’s a balance. By your own figures you state 1.35 million people die. That’s around 25% of what Covid has killed even with the lockdowns you are so against. 

[Soidog]

4 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

We should ban leftist liberal progressives. 

That would be the best way to allow people to live and pursue the right to happiness. 

I agree with that. I don’t like leftist liberals progressives. Not my style 

[AdamX]

8 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

We should ban leftist liberal progressives. 

That would be the best way to allow people to live and pursue the right to happiness. 

And yet, merely a decade ago, they used to be deserving what that label implied.

They have become what I would call right wing fascists now, and what we would have considered right wing people are the ones fighting censorship and loss of civil liberties.

Amazing when you think about it

[Soidog]

13 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

All governments have tried to find a Suitable balance? 

What planet are you on? 

Well it may not be a balance you appreciate but they have tried. Some have leaned more towards lockdown (Australia and New Zealand). Some have opened up such as Brazil 
 

No need for the insults as I thought we were having a grown up debate. Not an argument. 

[AdamX]

7 minutes ago, Soidog said:

No. It’s a balance. By your own figures you state 1.35 million people die. That’s around 25% of what Covid has killed even with the lockdowns you are so against. 

If if your numbers were true, which they are not, you are guilty of doing what you accuse the anti lockdown people of doing, which is putting a price on human life.

The sad reality is that we do this all the time, in every aspect of our lives. Wars to Vaccines, Liberty to Lockdowns, its always a balance.

I say lockdowns are complete unbalanced causing an infinitively greater amount of damage, because no one can provide any metric of benefit provided by lockdowns.

 

 

 

 

[LuckyStrike]

One can't hide from a virus. Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand (others too) are just figuring this out.

 

humans gonna human

Viruses gonna virus

[mcambl61]

16 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Well it may not be a balance you appreciate but they have tried. Some have leaned more towards lockdown (Australia and New Zealand). Some have opened up such as Brazil 
 

No need for the insults as I thought we were having a grown up debate. Not an argument. 

It's not an insult, it's just a matter of being astonished that you keep trying to justify the ridiculous measures that are destroying hundreds of millions of people's lives. 

[Soidog]

5 minutes ago, AdamX said:

If if your numbers were true, which they are not, you are guilty of doing what you accuse the anti lockdown people of doing, which is putting a price on human life.

The sad reality is that we do this all the time, in every aspect of our lives. Wars to Vaccines, Liberty to Lockdowns, its always a balance.

I say lockdowns are complete unbalanced causing an infinitively greater amount of damage, because no one can provide any metric of benefit provided by lockdowns.

They are not MY numbers, they are the official numbers. 
 

I never put a price on human life, I asked what value you placed on it as you wanted a cost benefit analysis doing. 
 

The analogy of traffic fatalities is not placing a price in the same way. The vast majority of traffic accidents are totally avoidable and caused by reckless people. Fortunately, those who cause the accident are the ones who normally come off worse. That’s not the case with Covid, in fact it’s often the opposite. 
 

So yes, life is full of risk and risk management. I happen to think that in the majority of cases a combination of lockdowns and other pandemic restrictions until vaccines arrive is the right balance. Where it goes wrong is “partial lockdown” as we see now in Thailand and not keeping up to speed with vaccination planing. Partial lockdown are the worst of both worlds. They destroy economies and do little to curb the pandemic. 

[Soidog]

1 minute ago, mcambl61 said:

It's not an insult, it's just a matter of being astonished that you keep trying to justify the ridiculous measures that are destroying hundreds of millions of people's lives. 

For that to be a fair criticism you would have to be explicit on what measures you are talking about and think I’m trying to justify? The so called lockdowns taking place in Thailand right now are utterly ridiculous. It’s not a lockdown but it’s destroying livelihoods. Where I disagree is with the suggestion is to stop them and open up fully. That is also wrong in a largely unvaccinated population. Short sharp full lockdowns work. Get the vaccines rolled out and then open up. Just because the half assed efforts of the Thais isn’t working, doesn’t mean proper lockdown don’t work. They do what they are designed to do, bring down infections. Control the virus. 
 

As for the destroying hundreds of millions of life’s then I agree.  These are indeed difficult times,  but I also think we would need to be clear on what we mean by “destroying”. If you mean restriction of certain freedoms like going to the gym or having a late night in a bar, then I don’t regard that as destroying. If you mean closure and destruction of a business resulting in major debt or poverty,  or the death of a loved one, then yes, that is destructive. 

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

21 minutes ago, Soidog said:

For that to be a fair criticism you would have to be explicit on what measures you are talking about and think I’m trying to justify? The so called lockdowns taking place in Thailand right now are utterly ridiculous. It’s not a lockdown but it’s destroying livelihoods. Where I disagree is with the suggestion is to stop them and open up fully. That is also wrong in a largely unvaccinated population. Short sharp full lockdowns work. Get the vaccines rolled out and then open up. Just because the half assed efforts of the Thais isn’t working, doesn’t mean proper lockdown don’t work. They do what they are designed to do, bring down infections. Control the virus.

Israel did that opening up this summer after vaccination but did not work out that well. Much better with Sweden with basically now herd immunity. There is no way around it, the vaccines do not work well enough to achieve that herd immunity. You just have to bite the bullet so to speak.

Edited August 30, 2021 by JackIsAGoodBoy

[AdamX]

14 minutes ago, Soidog said:

For that to be a fair criticism you would have to be explicit on what measures you are talking about and think I’m trying to justify? The so called lockdowns taking place in Thailand right now are utterly ridiculous. It’s not a lockdown but it’s destroying livelihoods. Where I disagree is with the suggestion is to stop them and open up fully. That is also wrong in a largely unvaccinated population. Short sharp full lockdowns work. Get the vaccines rolled out and then open up. Just because the half assed efforts of the Thais isn’t working, doesn’t mean proper lockdown don’t work. They do what they are designed to do, bring down infections. Control the virus. 
 

As for the destroying hundreds of millions of life’s then I agree.  These are indeed difficult times,  but I also think we would need to be clear on what we mean by “destroying”. If you mean restriction of certain freedoms like going to the gym or having a late night in a bar, then I don’t regard that as destroying. If you mean closure and destruction of a business resulting in major debt or poverty,  or the death of a loved one, then yes, that is destructive. 

Im glad we agree that lockdowns are responsible for mass problems.

Perhaps we agree that partial lockdowns are simply useless—the virus does not work night shift only. It does not infect small mom and pop businesses and keeps away from large factories (large corporations factories stay open)

My proposal is that people who feel vulnerable should lockdown themselves 24x7, and have friends, family or a voluntary carer deliver essentials to them. They do this untlll they feel safe or have a vaccine.

Everyone else should be allowed to get on with their own business, with the understanding that they may get infected. 

Everyone is happy this way and takes responsibility for their own health. 

What are your specific proposals instead of lockdown?

[Soidog]

24 minutes ago, AdamX said:

Im glad we agree that lockdowns are responsible for mass problems.

Perhaps we agree that partial lockdowns are simply useless—the virus does not work night shift only. It does not infect small mom and pop businesses and keeps away from large factories (large corporations factories stay open)

My proposal is that people who feel vulnerable should lockdown themselves 24x7, and have friends, family or a voluntary carer deliver essentials to them. They do this untlll they feel safe or have a vaccine.

Everyone else should be allowed to get on with their own business, with the understanding that they may get infected. 

Everyone is happy this way and takes responsibility for their own health. 

What are your specific proposals instead of lockdown?

Yes totally agree that lockdowns are responsible for mass problems. Totally agree that partial lockdowns are a waste of time and do more damage than good. 
 

I also agree that vulnerable people should isolate and take responsibility for their own safety. However, I don’t agree that everyone else should be allowed to get on with their life. That just prolongs the pandemic and could well block an ICU bed should the isolating person require medical treatment for some other illness. Chances are, if you are receiving treatment for cancer you are vulnerable and need to isolate more. So you stay at home while some party guy gets Covid and takes up my hospital bed. No thanks!
 

Similarly, what do you do if you work in a factory and feel vulnerable and want to stay isolated but the factory owner won’t allow it? That’s where government full  lockdowns work. 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

So driving at 30mph vs 20mph lowers GDP?

And a 3mm tyre depth vs 2mm depth lowers GDP?

Or no seat belt vs seat belt lowers GDP?

Yes they do, as more traffic  accidents would mean more hospitalisations and more working hours lost, less production and so reduced GDP.

 

It's hardly difficult to follow.

 

Somehow, unsurprisingly, you've also omitted: " but without the lockdown 20 times more people would by dying of Covid" which would have a rather less marginal effect.

 

... and FWIW twenty times is a very conservative estimate given the known 'r' number for the Delta variant and for the original in an unrestricted environment.

 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

 The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” 

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-refusal-to-apply-cost

My question to you is this....Should we ban cars?

and you don't think that would affect GDP, which is so important to you?

 

Maybe you need to think things through a little more .....

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

..... no one can provide any metric of benefit provided by lockdowns.

Of course they can - saved lives, for one.

[AdamX]

On 8/29/2021 at 9:22 PM, Changnam43 said:

Paraphrased:

The elderly?  The sick? 

I don't care if they die.  It's all about me and my freedoms.

That's like saying and I also paraphase:

I am a grumpy old retiree with no mates, no social life and and a basic pension and because the lockdowns don't make an iota of difference to my life, and my health is so bad that even saying the word covid fills me with panic, I don't care if others lose their livelihoods. Its all about my fear

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, JackIsAGoodBoy said:

Israel did that opening up this summer after vaccination but did not work out that well. Much better with Sweden with basically now herd immunity. There is no way around it, the vaccines do not work well enough to achieve that herd immunity. You just have to bite the bullet so to speak.

Where do you get that from about vaccines and herd immunity ?

Israel have 5.4 million vaccinated out of 9 million, while Sweden have 5.5 million vaccinated out of 10 million, with more with a first dose vaccine than Israel.

[AdamX]

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

Where do you get that from about vaccines and herd immunity ?

Israel have 5.4 million vaccinated out of 9 million, while Sweden have 5.5 million vaccinated out of 10 million, with more with a first dose vaccine than Israel.

And from a reinfection point of view, the vaccines have been as much use as a torn prophylactic, wheras this is not seen in people with natural immunity.

Take the vaccine if you want, but the herd immunity from natural immunity is simply better. Much of tis is because natural immunity means exposure to all 27 parts of the virus and not one spike protien.

Not anti vax, just pro choice

[AdamX]

On 8/29/2021 at 9:40 PM, ElMariachi said:

It would be best if you were unable to communicate at all. Like seriously shut up.

A very insightful and meaningful comment.

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

My proposal is that people who feel vulnerable should lockdown themselves 24x7, and have friends, family or a voluntary carer deliver essentials to them. They do this untlll they feel safe or have a vaccine.

You can't run a country, an economy, or a health service based on how people "feel"!

 

Some would work, some wouldn't, so ypur production and GDP would drop and your health service would collapse.

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

Everyone is happy this way and takes responsibility for their own health. 

Extraordinary.

What gives you the right to decide that "everyone is happy this way" when people are dying unnecessarily and the health system has collapsed?

... and how can anyone "take responsibility for their own health" when the third or more of the population who are vulnerable are completely dependent on the rest of the population behaving responsibly?

That isn't "taking responsibility" for anything, it's anarchy and denying responsibility for how your actions affect others.