What does that look like? Can you elaborate? — baker

It simply means that I regularly think about death and dying, maybe 2 or 3 times a month.

Is it an infringement of human rights to require vaccination of children against childhood diseases before they can go to school? — T Clark

It may be an infringement. Either people have rights or they don't. If they do, then those rights can be infringed.

Another aspect of the problem is how contagious a transmissible disease is, the severity of the infection once contracted, etc.

It may also be argued that contracting a disease is a form of vaccination that results in protection against future infections. From what I have read the vast majority of infected people only develop very mild or no symptoms.

Going after China may not be entirely meaningless. IMO China is a form of National Socialist (i.e., Nazi) dictatorship and history shows that appeasing dictatorships of this kind tends to be counterproductive. I don't think it is just a matter of "making people feel better".

It simply means that I regularly think about death and dying — Tom Storm

What exactly do you mean by "death" and "dying"?

Diseases, ways that people get killed, what will happen with your belongings when you're gone, ...?

And the data show that the risks are incredibly low, and that vaccines are safe. How else are we to talk to those who continue to refuse? — Xtrix

As if they are human beings who are not convinced by mere gambles.

It may be an infringement. Either people have rights or they don't. If they do, then those rights can be infringed. — Apollodorus

I appreciate that you are consistent with your views. If it is such an imposition, why is this becoming an issue now? Vaccination requirements for children have been around since at least the 60s.

I don't think it is just a matter of "making people feel better". — Apollodorus

It's just a continuation of President Trump's original plan to manage the disease by changing it's name to the China virus.

And the data show that the risks are incredibly low, and that vaccines are safe. How else are we to talk to those who continue to refuse?
— Xtrix

As if they are human beings who are not convinced by mere gambles. — baker

If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion? It would be perfectly rational if the rates were higher -- but the chances are so low that to point to this as reason for rejecting it simply makes no sense, as we engage in activities all the time that have higher chances of death and disfigurement, like riding in cars and showering in a bathtub.

True, we don't usually have to "debate" those other activities. But we don't normally have to debate vaccines either -- not until very recently. If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?

Beyond actual statistics and probability, I don't know how. I'm open to ideas.

Oh dear; you don't know what a straw-man is.

I don't know if you are up on current events or not but maybe you're not aware of Biden's vaccine mandates for companies who employ over 100 people, even though it's in the first paragraph of Krugman's piece you quoted. If they do not enforce his vaccine mandates, to fire unvaccinated employees, they face massive fines. So much for corporate power.

His mandate should begin very soon and will effect nearly 100 million workers, you know, those people you used to support.

All of Krugman's specious and fallacious arguments were to support his conclusion, which for some reason you left out.

"All of this has a clear policy implication for the Biden administration and for other leaders like governors and mayors — namely, full speed ahead. Vaccine mandates won’t cause mass resignations; they will cause a sharp rise in vaccination rates, which is key both to finally getting Covid under control and to achieving sustained economic recovery."

Oh look, the state. Does Biden represent United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I mention United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I say physically forcing? Nope.

And now we're comparing vaccine mandates to smoking bans. Another false analogy, I'm afraid, just like seatbelt laws. More casuistry.

Oh dear; you don't know what a straw-man is. — NOS4A2

Yes, it's what you're arguing against close to 100% of the time. Which is the only thing left for you.

I don't know if you are up on current events or not but maybe you're not aware of Biden's vaccine mandates for companies who employ over 100 people, even though it's in the first paragraph of Krugman's piece you quoted. If they do not enforce his vaccine mandates, to fire unvaccinated employees, they face massive fines. So much for corporate power. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure if you're capable of reading, but as I said (and the article says), most of these companies implemented mandates before Biden's announcement. They didn't need "coercion" to do so.

"So much for corporate power." :rofl:

It's never a matter of corporate power in your world, is it? Always the state. "The government is the problem." Jesus, it's incredible how effective propaganda can be, and what a life-long effect it can have.

His mandate should begin very soon and will effect nearly 100 million workers, you know, those people you used to support. — NOS4A2

And continue to support. Unlike you, who only pretend to support, and have actively fought against most of your life.

Oh look, the state. Does Biden represent United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I mention United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I say physically forcing? Nope. — NOS4A2

True, you didn't. I did. For good reason -- and for reasons you evidently still can't understand.

And now we're comparing vaccine mandates to smoking bans. Another false analogy, — NOS4A2

Not at all. Actually a very good analogy. Smoking indoors, through second hand smoke, effects others. Being unvaccinated, and thus more likely to be infected with and thus transmit the virus, also effects others. If you want to be unvaccinated at home, you're free to do so. If you want to smoke at home, you're free to do so. If you feel entitled to do so at work or school, or large gatherings -- no, you don't have that right. Sorry -- that's where your rights end.

Yes, we all know you don't believe the unvaccinated transmit the virus as much as vaccinated people. There are also people who still don't believe second hand smoke is damaging, I'm sure. It matters not -- neither to the government, nor to schools, nor to businesses, nor to the courts. Ignorance isn't a license to harm others.

I appreciate that you are consistent with your views. If it is such an imposition, why is this becoming an issue now? — T Clark

It isn't an issue for me at all. My original comment was in response to the suggested need to "bash one's opponent on the snout."

My point was that since the problem originated in China, and not with the anti-vaxxers, action against China should be given priority.

And, as I said, in my view China is a National Socialist dictatorship similar to Nazi Germany only about 17 times bigger and more dangerous. Far more dangerous than a few thousand anti-vaxxers ....

It's not about the stakes, it's about what is at stake.

I just don't understand gamblers.

If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion? — Xtrix

I'm not making that argument, and it's not clear why people think I am.

It would be perfectly rational if the rates were higher -- but the chances are so low that to point to this as reason for rejecting it simply makes no sense, as we engage in activities all the time that have higher chances of death and disfigurement, like riding in cars and showering in a bathtub.

True, we don't usually have to "debate" those other activities. But we don't normally have to debate vaccines either -- not until very recently.

If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?

I wouldn't try to persuade them at all, it is not my place.

Most importantly, a person doesn't do something because it is "quite safe". The reason people do things is not because there would be a low risk involved. In fact, many things that people do are technically high risk (eating junk food, drunk driving, extreme sports etc.) or small probability of success (applying for a job, seeking love).

People do things because they consider them worthwhile, in line with their value system and such. Not because something would be a low risk or a high probability of success. Considerations of probability are, at best, a distraction.
You don't eat pork chops because you're sure that the risk of contracting a tapeworm would be low; you eat pork chops because you like to eat pork chops, and to hell with tapeworms.


The life that people will get after they get vaccinated will not be better; at best, it merely won't be worse than before. Getting vaccinated will not bring an added quality to one's life. At most and at best, it will merely retain the status quo. This is a weak selling point. Who's excited about the status quo? Barely anyone.


Further, you fail to offer a meaningful consolation for the prospect of vaccine damage and vaccine failure.

, you offered roughly nothing, and called my comment shallow rhetoric? :D

I've already mentioned that the evidence is the ground authority. And we'd be fools not to learn from it.

Maybe you and I could offer the same to those harmed/killed by the virus and those harmed/killed by the vaccine? Plus their loved ones? "Concerted efforts did its best to both contain and avoid this tragedy." (We could also mention the vaccinated that lived to see another day I suppose, unless that'd be insensitive.)

Sep 14, 2021 :sad: ‘The virus is painfully real’: vaccine hesitant people are dying – and their loved ones want the world to listen

Either way, you've been given plenty of information by now, but oddly brush it off with a hand wave. Are you looking for something else altogether...? Of course, if you're afraid or fearful or anxious or something, then that's understandable.


^{Apr 04, 2020 :death: 11 Days After Fuming About a Coughing Passenger, a Bus Driver Died From the Coronavirus
Nov 17, 2020 :gasp: Many COVID-19 patients insist ‘it’s not real’ until they die, nurse says
May 26, 2021 :sad: Study confirms longer-term lung damage after COVID-19
Jul 25, 2021 :death: LA man who mocked Covid-19 vaccines dies of virus
Aug 05, 2021 :death: A Texas Republican leader who repeatedly mocked masks and vaccines has died of COVID-19
Aug 08, 2021 :death: Rightwing radio host and anti-vaxxer dies of Covid
Aug 09, 2021 :sad: More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Aug 16, 2021 :up: To protect our kids from COVID-19, we have to be grown-ups
Aug 19, 2021 :death: Unvaccinated Mom’s Dying Wish: ‘Make Sure My Children Get Vaccinated’
Aug 19, 2021 :death: Man refused to get vaccinated even after his own father died of COVID – now he’s dead from COVID too
Aug 27, 2021 :death: Georgia cop who pushed people to take horse dewormer instead of vaccine dies from COVID-19
Aug 28, 2021 :death: Texas Anti-Mask 'Freedom Defender' Caleb Wallace Dies Of COVID-19
Aug 30, 2021 :death: Conservative Radio Host Who Called Himself 'Mr. Anti-Vax' Dies from COVID After 3 Week Battle
Sep 01, 2021 :gasp: Verbal and physical attacks on health workers surge as emotions boil during latest COVID-19 wave
Sep 13, 2021 :death: Right-Wing Anti-Vax Radio Host Who Mocked AIDS Victims Dies Of COVID-19
Sep 16, 2021 :death: Anti-vaxxer mother and daughter die from Covid in Belfast hospital
Sep 16, 2021 :death: A California father described his regret after his unvaccinated pregnant wife was ventilated and their unborn baby died
Sep 21, 2021 :gasp: The Unbelievable Grimness of HermanCainAward, the Subreddit That Catalogs Anti-Vaxxer COVID Deaths}

Potential harms of the virus - catching it and dying, catching it and getting long-term effects, catching it and passing it on to someone vulnerable, catching it and needing a hospital bed that someone else needed, prolonging economic chaos and all the associated harms by slowing down the speed at which is becomes endemic... and more.

Potential harms of taking the vaccines - short term reactions, needing a hospital bed because of short term reactions that someone else needed, long-term consequences, prolonging economic chaos and all the associated harms by slowing down the speed at which is becomes endemic, further embedding the control that corporations have over government policy by complicity, contributing to the avoidance of more important factors as causes (like community healthcare, economic equality and threat vigilance)...and more.

If it's all about risk profiles, then help me make my choice. What are my numbers? Let's ignore any selfish aims for now. My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. Not the average relative risk (I know for a fact I'm not average), Not the public policy conclusion (that's based on the average risk and public policy is a blunt tool aimed at the masses). My relative risk.

Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it?

You argue your point with strong commitment. I figure we come from different perspectives so I see no good reason to debate this issue with you. I've thrown out the few ideas I wanted to make and do not consider myself a debater. What is interesting is to see people (both pro and con vax) repeating themselves endlessly on a kind of loop. It never seems to go anywhere. Nevertheless, along the way I've learned some new things about how people arrive at decisions. Take care.

Probably had to do with my firewall settings at home because I managed to open the first now as well. It's also a trustworthy source so let's dive into that one shall we?

So what your original link did is not understand the paper. It quotes the paper thinking it supports the conclusions that lockdowns don't work: "“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

But the same paper writes the following as well:

There are important limitations with our data, including the fact that
at or prior to May 1, 2020, many countries included in our dataset were
not yet in the “plateau” or downslope phase of their individual epidemiologic
curves, with border restrictions having been introduced only very
recently. In the context of COVID-19, it is thought that public health
interventions typically require from 2 to 3 weeks to affect outcomes,
hence the impact of widespread border restrictions may not have yet
been detected in our dataset. Additionally, the relative difference
in the number of cases in neighboring countries is likely to have a significant
impact on whether border closures are effective. Two countries
with similar epidemiologic curves and effective social distancing policies
may not see a major impact from border closures, whereas two countries
with very disparate epidemiologic curves may be more likely to
see a significant impact from travel restrictions. In the case of full lockdowns,
such a government policy may only be effective in those countries
where it can be easily implemented and enforced. For example, the
United States has had challenges enforcing lockdowns, with citizens in
several states publicly protesting public health measures to limit viral
transmission, and encouraging open revolt.

At the same time full lockdowns were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

Here's the same journal with a more recent paper specifically looking into the effectiveness of lock-downs.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00315-1/fulltext

It's conclusion:

Lockdowns are an effective way of reducing the reproduction number of COVID-19 and controlling the spread of disease in local communities. However, there is no consensus on when governments should take this action. Here, we found that communities, which implemented the lockdown at or prior to the inflection point (defined as 7 days before the date on which at least 5 cumulative cases were first reported in the community) experienced a slower rise in COVID-19 rates over the first 50 days and a lower cumulative count consistently across all time points during follow-up compared with counties that implemented lockdowns after the inflection point (Fig. 1). In our models, the timing of the lockdown at the county level explained nearly 50% of the total in COVID-19 case counts across US counties, highlighting the importance of early lockdown implementation in controlling the pandemic at the county level.

And here’s another more recent study in a reputable journal concluding lockdowns don’t work: https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605

The conclusion:

Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended. Further tests also show that early interventions offered no additional benefits or effectiveness and even indicate that the lockdowns of the spring of 2020 were associated with significantly more deaths in the particular age group between 60 and 79 years.

And

The main problem at hand is therefore that the evidence presented here suggests that lockdowns have not significantly affected the development of mortality in Europe. They have nevertheless wreaked economic havoc in most societies and may lead to a substantial number of additional deaths for other reasons. A British government report from April for example assessed that a limited lockdown could cause 185,000 excess deaths over the next years, while UNICEF warns of an increase in child marriages, owing to the economic effects of Western lockdowns in developing countries (DHSC 2020; Philipose and Aika 2021). Evaluated as a whole, at a first glance, the lockdown policies of the Spring of 2020 therefore appear to be substantial long-run government failures.

I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates.

If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion?
— Xtrix
I'm not making that argument, and it's not clear why people think I am. — baker

Because you brought up the fact that people are having strokes. So while you may not make this argument yourself (as I would assume, given you’re vaccinated), I assumed you were bringing it up to demonstrate how others may be reasoning about this. If that’s not true, I wonder why you brought it up at all?

If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?

I wouldn't try to persuade them at all, it is not my place. — baker

Okay, but this is the discussion here and now. It’s really up to doctors— so let’s assume we’re in a doctors position.

But even if we aren’t, it’s a bit disingenuous to say “it’s not my business” and walk away. What exactly are you arguing about on here, then? You go on about “pro-vaxxers” and how bad they are at communicating, but you’re answer is: don’t communicate at all?

Seems like a cop out. I will continue to communicate with people about this, and hopefully inform them about it. Especially about the fact that the vaccines are as safe as driving a car— which is very important.

Getting vaccinated will not bring an added quality to one's life. — baker

It will.

Further, you fail to offer a meaningful consolation for the prospect of vaccine damage and vaccine failure. — baker

Consolation? There’s risk involved in everything we do. My consolation is: some people are unlucky. That’s no reason not to get vaccinated.

Also, what’s the consolation for the millions who have died of coronavirus? “People didn’t feel like getting vaccinated— and it wasn’t our place to try to persuade them otherwise.”

People do things because they consider them worthwhile, in line with their value system and such. Not because something would be a low risk or a high probability of success. — baker

Fine— and people should get vaccinated for the same reasons. It’s simply irrational not to, at this point.

Either way, you've been given plenty of information by now, but oddly brush it off with a hand wave. Are you looking for something else altogether...? — jorndoe

I get the feeling that Baker is arguing for the sake of argument. But I see absolutely no substance to it— just the appearance of disagreement and contradiction. Other than “pro-vaxxers are mean in communicating and overly enthusiastic,” which is sometimes true, I see nothing.

Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac

Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor. Risk profiles for individuals are different in some cases, yes. But the same could be argued for flying— after all, we fly out of different airports, using different airlines, different planes within airlines, etc.

The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash.

Lastly, this isn’t solely about you. As I’ll repeatedly remind everyone.

Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor. — Xtrix

How would my doctor know about those risks? I can see why they might keep themselves abreast of the latest medical data (though there's absolutely nothing requiring them to, it's entirely their own choice if they do or don't), but how would they know anything about the wider societal harms I'm considering?

The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash. — Xtrix

OK, so give me the numbers then. If this fact is relevant to my decision then the numbers have to be relevant to me. It's pointless me taking a vaccine because it's a good risk benefit balnce for someone else. I'm aware that they're on average safer than catching the virus (in terms of harm to others), but I'm not average, so the average relative risk is useless to me.

this isn’t solely about you. As I’ll repeatedly remind everyone. — Xtrix

Yep. That's why I said...

Let's ignore any selfish aims for now. My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. — Isaac

...so limit your risk analysis entirely to harm to others.

give me the numbers. If this fact is relevant to my decision then the numbers have to be relevant to me. — Isaac

It is your responsibility to assess the risks you are taking with your and other people's lives, not @Xtrix's responsibility. If the numbers must be relevant to you, then I suggest you collect them yourself.

For God's sake at least put the bare minimum effort into following a line of argument. It's only a few posts up.

I have. You folks have a huge entitlement problem. You want every data to be handed to you free of cost, and all the analysis done, and with convincing data please... But nobody is going to do your homework for you. So put the bare minimum effort into making your own data analysis.

If it's all about risk profiles, then help me make my choice. What are my numbers? — Isaac

Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor.
— Xtrix

How would my doctor know about those risks? — Isaac

Because your doctor could give a more customized treatment plan and "risk profile" for you, given that he or she presumably has more information about you.

How would I know what your numbers are? I know nothing about you.

My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. — Isaac

"Relative risk"?

Your so far off in space I almost think this is satire. If these are the lengths that you must go through to defend not getting vaccinated, that's pretty ridiculous.

In any case: I have no idea what YOUR individual risk is of spreading the virus. Maybe you're a hermit somewhere -- who knows? But this isn't about you or any particular case. As I said before, maybe flying in an airplane isn't for you, for some reason. Maybe taking tylenol isn't for you -- who knows.

For someone who claims to care about statistics, this is pretty embarrassing.

All we know is that the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread. The benefits of taking the vaccine far outweighs the cost of taking the vaccine in nearly all cases. If you feel, for some reason, that you have a greater chance of being an exception, and are in greater risk of dying, then demonstrate how -- but until then, you're just like everyone else.

The absurdity of your argument can be demonstrated fairly easily by switching from this particular vaccine to the measles or smallpox or polio vaccines. Much easier to see the silliness there.

Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac

Which is like saying we cannot calculate the risk of anything, if it isn't individualized to our specific situation. Which is nonsense.

If one wants to understand the risks involved in flying in an airplane, one can look up crash statistics. If one wants to understand the risks of a vaccine, one can look up the potential negative effects of the vaccine.

In this case, the COVID vaccines are extremely safe. It far outweighs the risks of being infected with COVID, and it helps stop the spread of COVID.

Why you continue on like this is baffling.

I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates. — AJJ

You'd most likely lose out. ;)

How about taking a look at what actually takes place, then?

• Anatomy of our battle against COVID-19 (Jun 2, 2021)

And there are historical (textbook) case studies. Common sense is allowed, too, ya' know.

• lockdowns can save lives (+ needless suffering)
• lockdowns have socio-economic and psychological effects
• lockdowns and quarantines work in containment situations
• the more wide-spread the pathogen, the less effective the lockdown (planning needed)
• non-compliance with lockdowns + protocols (mask, distance, sanitize) have an effect

So, make lockdowns decisive, swift, not pro-longed (especially) in containment situations.

Doesn't have much to do with fear-mongering panic or evil tyrant authoritarian government feeding on your misery or conformism for conformism's sake or whatever bullshit; has to do with learning from evidence, common sense, doing the right thing, being socially responsible, not being a loose cannon, and history is a fine teacher.

“Haha! You are wrong because I am right!”

The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash.
— Xtrix

OK, so give me the numbers then. If this fact is relevant to my decision then the numbers have to be relevant to me. — Isaac

I've given the numbers. They should indeed be relevant to you -- as they should be to everyone.

What you're now trying to argue is some ridiculous notion about personalized numbers, as if we can come up with numbers specific to you. That's not how this works. Why?

We have an activity: x. The risk of dying or being harmed by x is shown to be extremely low statistically -- say, 1 in 10 million. You can further crunch the numbers if you'd like, but this is enough to tell anyone what they need to know about x.

True, if you found out that all (making it up) white males aged 35 from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky named Bob were the only ones with negative side effects, then if you fit that description you should take that into account. But that level of specificity is, of course, a fantasy in this discussion -- and one that apparently needs to be invoked to divert from a very easy and obvious choice: take the vaccine.

You're struggling with this because you're overthinking it. You're overthinking it because it's been politicized. That's all that's going on here.

I'm aware that they're on average safer than catching the virus (in terms of harm to others), but I'm not average, so the average relative risk is useless to me. — Isaac

So you really don't understand statistics? It's incredible someone who claims to care about stats could utter something so ridiculous.

First of all, "average" in terms of what? By what metric? These numbers have nothing to do with "average" -- not the ones I'm talking about, regarding death from the vaccination.

The risk of taking the vaccine can be calculated. Just as your risk of crashing in an airplane can be calculated as well. How do we know the risk? Because we can calculate the number of flights and the number of crashes. Likewise, we can calculate the number of shots of the vaccine given (6 billion and counting) and the number of known cases of death. This is how we approach anything.

If you want to believe that you are exempt from the risk somehow (or are somehow more susceptible to risk), the onus is on you to show why. In some cases, like allergies, it's perfectly legitimate to take that into account. But those are very marginal cases.

To say "Well the odds of a plane crashing only pertains to the AVERAGE person, after all, and I'm not average" is just an absurdity.

I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates.
— AJJ

You'd most likely lose out. ;)

How about taking a look at what actually takes place, then?

• Anatomy of our battle against COVID-19 (Jun 2, 2021)

And there are historical (textbook) case studies. Common sense is allowed, too, ya' know.

• lockdowns can save lives (+ needless suffering)
• lockdowns have socio-economic and psychological effects
• lockdowns and quarantines work in containment situations
• the more wide-spread the pathogen, the less effective the lockdown (planning needed)
• non-compliance with lockdowns + protocols (mask, distance, sanitize) have an effect

So, make lockdowns decisive, swift, not pro-longed (especially) in containment situations.

Doesn't have much to do with fear-mongering panic or evil tyrant authoritarian government feeding on your misery or conformism for conformism's sake or whatever bullshit; has to do with learning from evidence, common sense, doing the right thing, being socially responsible, not being a loose cannon, and history is a fine teacher. — jorndoe

Very well written, with sources. The response:

“Haha! You are wrong because I am right!” — AJJ

So again, let's remind ourselves that it isn't about "debating" people who have become as dogmatic as cult members, but to demonstrate how absurd the cult is to otherwise neutral or "on the fence" persons.

The question is: is anyone else listening? Who would follow this stuff? Maybe we have more of a silent audience than we think, but I wonder...

Affect, effect.

It wasn’t that you didn’t know the difference; it was that you wouldn’t accept there was a difference without every dictionary in the world telling you that you were wrong. What does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how you generally think?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What a buffoon.