I have no problem letting people make their own choices, far from it. However, my question remains: If a man desires to do evil, but does good out of pragmatism, is he considered good or evil?

I wouldn't put too much stock in the wikipedia source, but as I mentioned previously, it has been awhile since I did any research on it. However, sweat, gas, etc had been accounted for. My source was not wikipedia, it was a rather old text book. Additionally, if the soul exists, then it is energy of some sort, and would there for have mass, recognizable as weight, which would, lacking a physical, recognized substance, qualify as insubstantial. Would that in effect make the concept of the soul irreconcilable to you? Because it has a measurable weight?

hence the reason that Belgium and the Netherlands have what is referred to as suicide-tourism. North Americans go there, spend a few months, or maybe closer to a year, and then elect to be euthanized there. Their body is then shipped home and the funeral takes place here, with understanding that "Dear old Paul died while on vacation." Which is true, but not entirely accurate.

I find it sad that our healthcare system will provide care for the entire lifespan, except the very end. Then we utterly fail our patient.

I suppose normal depends on your local demograph. I can think of far more people that would rather succeed or have their kids feel hope for the future than watch their businesses crumple and watch their kids' level of hopelessness grow but somehow feel morally superior because the 80 + population are still around. Just saying. If, when I am 80, this situation comes around again, you tell my great grand kids I love them and wish them the best future and put me down.

fucked if we do restrictions (all the collateral damage)
fucked if we don't (covid will kill and injure many people)

so which is the lesser evil? — dazed

Don't do restrictions: lesser evil. My vote. It will be messy, it will leave a mark, and it will not be popular, but it will be over relatively quickly. Everyone left will recover, more quickly and will be functionally immune to the virus (as anyone who isn't is dead) meaning they can move forward with less fear about that thing anyway.

Something to consider: there is more to life than meets the eye. At the turn of the 20th century (1900-ish) an experiment was conducted to weigh people at their exact moment of death, in order to determine if there was a soul ( I may be off on the reason, but I am pretty sure that was it). The experiment determined that, moments before death, the person weighed 21 grams more than their body did immediately after death. There has been no accounting for the change in weight, all measurable losses had been considered and factored in, with a 21 gram discrepancy. Each person weighed had the same discrepancy. Perhaps we are here to ensure that the 21 grams that do not remain with the body have some experiences to move onward with. No further experiments of this nature were ever done as they were summarily considered unethical. I have no idea why, but whatever, my ethics and morals are not mainstream.

Still, something to ponder.

I was going more with the original, but if you prefer yours, fill your boots.

I usually consider "natural selection" to be based on an agent which occurs within the natural environment, personal choice included in that environment. So electing to step off a cliff, or being exposed to a virus, or eaten by a lion, would be a natural selection process. However, in my consideration, being locked in a concentration camp and starving to death as there is no food provided, and one is unable to escape, would not be considered a "natural" process. However, if you would like to open the descriptor of "natural" to include any event which leads to any death, then yes, those who die from collateral damage would be considered, as per your interpretation, as "natural selection", however, once that has been allowed, everything would fall under said category and it would become effectively useless as a descriptor.

We could also lock everyone in their basements, mandate them to quiver in fear and learn to be terrified of the sun. Then make them bathe in anti-microbial soap every three hours, to reduce exposure to bacteria and viruses. That will definitely help their immune system and will have no detrimental effect on the species at all.

Umm...No, the infections are not the "Collateral damage", they are direct damage from the virus. The Collateral damage is the damage caused by the lockdowns et al. The longer the event drags out, the larger the collateral damage. Hence, lockdowns bad.

Sorry but it's a ridiculous premise. "we will do massive collateral damage, requiring generations to rebuild. Lives will be lost, economies will collapse, and possibly wars may start. But we can SLOW IT DOWN, a little." Seriously, terrible plan.

so you checked with those under 80?

I have studied viral growth rates and patterns. Covid is just another virus in a petrie dish. A big petrie dish to be sure, but still, same growth curve applies. Wear a mask, social distance, whatever, same curve, slightly slower progress. That's why we aren't seeing apocalyptic numbers in places that have minimal restrictions and greatly reduced numbers in all the places that have many restrictions. There are variances, but only variances, not monster differences of growth that one would expect to see if the restrictions were particularly functional. However, the appearance of doing something is reassuring to people I am told. I am not one of those, so to me, a waste of effort.

Has anyone thought to actually ask those under 80? or ask those over 80 if they feel they are worth the sacrifice being made by others? I know I would not sacrifice my kids' future for my own and I am no where near 80. Neither would my parents, who are closer to the arbitrary cutoff.

Maybe check before you make an assumption eh.

Ah the voice of reason. I love it.

Thanks for the site. Good data. I notice that there are 16 countries with numbers worse than Sweden. Your position is that none of them have any precautions in place? Because I am thinking that at least some of them do.

I am not claiming best case scenario. I suspect the end number of casualties will be the same. The time it takes to get there is in question, as is the amount of collateral damage from the process of slowing it down. That's all.

I am a tear the band-aid off kinda guy.

Name calling isn't helpful.

So here are my stats, using Johns hopkins number as of two minutes ago.

Canada: 1 death per 40 infections. Lots of precautions in place. low population density. population 36.9 million. 747,362 cases. 18691 deaths. roughly 2% population positive.

Sweden: 1 death per 50 infections. minimal precautions in place (last time I checked). higher population density. population 10.1 million. 547,166 cases. 11005 deaths. roughly 5.5% population positive.

USA: 1 death per 60 infections. some precautions in place (not clear on which), moderate population density (more dense than Canada). population 328.2 million. 25 million cases. 417,441 deaths. roughly 7.5% population positive.

I agree, there are numerical differences. However, I believe much of these differences can be explained by population density, not the effectiveness of the Covid response of the country in question.

However, even if I am solidly wrong on the numbers, I find it disturbing that the science guided public health direction here shifted 180 degrees after a long weekend leadership gathering in early April. Friday was "Science says no to lockdowns and general masking" Tuesday "Science supports lockdowns and general masking". So the science changed over the weekend. Seems totally solid. I can't change my practice without backing it with peer reviewed articles, sheaves of evidenced based support, and a serious amount of defending myself, like months of research and corroboration. Of course, I don't work public health, so...?

South Dakota did very little in terms of restrictions, not that they are doing well, but they are not doing particularly bad either. Which illustrates the position I have been taking: places with restrictions have had comparable results to places with no restrictions, so the value of the restrictions is questionable. Once the damage of the restrictions is calculated in, through increased opioid deaths, domestic violence, increased suicides, increased addictions, economic fallout, healthcare fallout from lack of testing, decreased doctor's visits, decreased overall health due to gym closures and curfews, etc. I maintain that the response is much worse than the disease.

Also, I have worked Critical Care for 10 of my 14 years in healthcare. I can believe my education, training, and experience OR I can believe what public health has been saying since April. I cannot do both as they are very nearly in opposition to each other. Either I was trained and educated to do it wrong, with the wrong information, for the last 14 years...or public health has it wrong. Either way, healthcare does not come out looking good right now.

Lastly, much of the response has been about not overloading the healthcare system, delay the spread, not stop it.

Yep. I am fairly sure I don't want to know everything the government is keeping tabs on.

Well I am not concerned about the virus, so that's one down. I admit the civil unrest isn't appealing, although it is bubbling here too. Your income tax levels are certainly more appealing!

What we have on hour hands is an infectious pandemic and the mode of spread is close contact - living/working in the same space, physical contact, poor hygiene. Put two and two together, what do you get? — TheMadFool

Close contact. Gotcha. So no licking each other, spitting on each other and rubbing our selves on each other (unless we mean it). Exactly how does wearing a mask in the hallway play into this? I can't eat in a restaurant because...the server will sit on my lap and kiss me? NICE PLACE!! I am wearing a mask, the server has a mask, the chef has a mask, to prevent the tiny virus from getting us and...I get a hair in my pizza, easy 8 inches long. So I am supposed to assume that the tiny ass virus is being blocked with all the precautions, but, somehow, the hair is getting through?

We know that increased baseline health increases one's ability to fight off the virus. We know that good airflow and fresh air help reduce viral exposure. We know that UV light helps kill the virus. Public health mandates us to stay home, stay indoors, closes all the gyms, and puts in a curfew to unsure we stay indoors for 10 hours day, breathing recycled air, out of the sun. These are measures which will enhance viral infection. But the reason the numbers go up is the non-compliers. Right.

The numbers go up because they are going up no matter what we do. Do nothing, up they go. do it all, up they go, maybe slower. Prolong the suffering of the masses through attrition. The end result is the same. The numbers go up until enough people have had it that it isn't a problem anymore. That is the end of "the curve". Until then we will keep hearing the snake oil sales pitch "just think how bad it would be if we weren't doing this." and "it would be working if only...." Yeah, if only it would actually work eh.

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look.

I find the speeches from our public health officials and leaders entertaining as hell. I also don't buy into any of it. "imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing this..." And the ever popular "It would be working better but for the unseen non-complier..." Nonsense all around. If I tried that in business or advertising I would be charged criminally with fraud. "Use Jimmy's sleep rub and get a 20% better sleep! Slept badly after using it? Just think how much worse it would have been if you had not used it? You're welcome, buy more." I can't use that logic in business without legal reprisal, but it's ok for my public health officials? No chance. A cheap sales pitch is just that, no matter where it comes from.

If everybody is cruel, wouldn't that entail, given the idea that cruelty is a vice, that everybody is psychologically deformed. What then would be the cause of that deformity? — ChatteringMonkey

if everyone is psychologically deformed, would that not suggest, rather than a deformation, everyone has a certain , unappealing, aspect or proclivity to cruelty? How is it a deformity if it is universal?

Beauty and truth are entirely based on the perspective of the one beholding them. My beauty and truth is different than those around me. Similarly, Heaven (if one accepts such as a concept) must also be individualized, as one's Heaven will be another's Hell.

it constrains their fellow man. — counterpunch

So people need laws to tell them what to do because otherwise they will do what they want, and that works out badly for everyone else, hence the requirement for constraining....

Tell me again why we are concerned about saving people? Seriously, if I need laws to make sure my fellow man does no evil against me then, logically, having less fellow men around me makes me, and everyone else, safer. And we are back at letting the virus run free for the betterment of humanity.

That which does not kill us eh!

It was certainly not supportive of societal morals, unless "what thou wilt" was to support society's moral values. I find it interesting that people immediately assume that if one is left to do what one wants the fall of societal morals will be on the top of the list. Says a lot about the one making the assumption.
The first three descriptors are correct, although he never did admit to being a Satanist. Again, the assumption that, because of the first three, he can not have a valid point is interesting: Why not?

Firstly; There is a world of difference between killing millions of people and letting them die. I realize that most people would not understand, or appreciate, the distinction.

Secondly; The assumption that the lockdowns, social distancing and general fall out from the Covid response will not kill millions long term is laughable. I am impressed with your naivety.

Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus.

I can eat chocolate, have sex, have a drink... and get lots and lots of pleasure with little or no effort. — Rafaelsanchez53

True, but the pleasure is passing until the next round. There is minimal sense of accomplishment. When things are too easy we do not value them as they become mundane, rather than an accomplishment. These are dependent on one's abilities. Making a bed is not an accomplishment for most, for a stroke survivor it may be a massive accomplishment. Getting a degree for some is as difficult, or as easy, as making a bed. Same result, very different feeling of accomplishment.

"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law". -Alistair Crowley.

Don't get me wrong, Crowley was a nutter, but he has a point. Gain the experiences you want, without wondering what "the point" is of all of it. If/when you figure that out it will only be applicable to you anyway, so no one other than you can answer it. The point of my life is far different from yours, which makes sense. Remember, there are no points awarded at the end of your days for arriving there in pristine condition. Live, play, enjoy, and seek out whatever you like. It gets shorter as you go eh.

Why? All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. Dead people can't get infected because they're dead; living people can't get infected because they're immune. That's herd immunity. — InPitzotl

Completely agree. I also completely support the premise. It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. Less economic fallout, healthier general population, and another virus that no one would worry about. Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs!

it isn't that hard really, the virus is figuring it out fairly well.

Spoken very obediently. Well done. It is easy to say that things would be worse if we weren't doing this, very hard to prove something that isn't happening. However, the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us, so really, I am of the opinion that all of this has been a colossal waste of time and money. Things are going to kill us. That is the name of the game.

Human Life: sexually transmitted and 100% fatal. Not sure what the concern is all about. Just another thing that can, but likely won't, kill you. Why the panic?

I like Alaska. Probably be comfortable in Montana too.

Why not recommend it? The civil unrest or the virus?

In simple terms: A thing is wrong if, outside of a fantastic theoretical model, there can be no justification for said thing. I used rape as an example because, outside of some bizarre circumstance wherein only one woman is fertile and, for some reason, procreation of the race is required (no, we don't know why) and she refuses to agree to the act...you see the ridiculous level one must go to to potentially justify said action, therefore, it is, at a base level, wrong. Other wrongs can be rationalized and justified under much less ridiculous circumstances, therefore, arguably, not actually wrong, so much as requiring justification for said action, ergo; conditionally right.

I don't live in china. I live in Canada, the country that fought in WWI and WWII to avoid this kind of crap. I expect this if I am in China, or North Korea, or any other state controlled country. I guess we qualify here now for state monitoring. Civil liberties can eat it I guess. Burn the charter of rights because of Covid and the greater good. No point having a charter if we can just ignore it whenever things get rough eh.

What's the process to immigrate to the US? anyone....?

TORONTO -- After an analysis of mobile phone data revealed more than a million Canadians – the majority of whom were white and wealthy – traveled overnight during the holiday season, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said anyone with a trip still planned should “cancel it.”

Taken from today's news headlines. So, loosely translated, the Canadian government is tracking our cell phones....awesome. I feel so safe, with my government tracking my movements.

On a different note, the next headline will read "travelers leave cell phones at home while on vacation".

oops, one too many howevers!

There are very, very few, Right and Wrongs which are "plain wrong" or "plain right". The rest are conditional, and are not so difficult to determine. They are, however, exceedingly difficult to sell to people who are not interested in accepting someone else's version of right and wrong however.

Makes sense, any right wing views online result in online lefty hatred, which is easily ignored. In person lefty violence is harder to ignore. Sounds like your mother has wisdom. She is more free to be herself online. Good for her.

So how is Trump calling for a legitimate election result to be overturned, through political pressure, or mob pressure, not an action against the democracy of the United States?
If he sincerely believed that certain states manipulated results against him, as he professes, then he files his legal application, as he has done. However, once those avenues have been exhausted, as they have been, any decent leader would have acknowledged the loss, congratulated the winner while extolling the virtues of the system. By refusing to accept, from multiple sources, the election loss, and the subsequent bad-mouthing of the American Democratic system, Trump has effectively, and fundamentally, attacked American democracy at it's core. The standing American President has essentially publicly announced that he does not believe in American Democracy. He then voiced his opinion loud enough to have his followers/supporters attempt to forcibly change the election result. This is the stuff I expect of forming nations. It is astounding to see it in the US.

I hope it is sorted out with a minimal life loss.