...by participating in a show trial with a kangaroo court. It's the kind of "investigation" that has its own twitter account and youtube channel, and the members are all chosen by Nancy Pelosi. Now insurrection conspiracy theorists get to watch her try to embarrass her critics by releasing their texts to the public, all on their favorite social media platforms. Meanwhile, real investigations have turned up nothing.

No, Chaney is proving to be nothing more than an arrogant megalomaniacal neocon like her father.

I was only saying I don’t think you were necessarily speaking about defending society, but another group, the State.

Presuming that dissent and nonconformity will be punished, this necessarily leads to the censorship and punishment of some members of society, probably a minority, for the benefit of another. If the minority is a part of society, their suppression will only serve to suppress a part of society rather than defend the whole of it. It reminds me of the expression “Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face”.

As such, far from a society adopting the unwritten format, it will need to be perpetually forced. How a society should force such a format on itself is not made clear but we do know we have tried to change man with law, compulsion, and religions of various kinds throughout history, and the result is nothing to be proud of.

Exactly.

U.S. study suggests COVID-19 vaccines may be ineffective against Omicron without booster

It’s not looking good. I suspect that they’ll widen the goal posts, determine that those who are fully vaccinated are in fact not, and exclude the vaccinated from various aspects of normal life until they get the next Pfizer wonder drug.

Yikes, people are getting angry their conspiracy theories are being criticized. They await further orders from Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, and Chris Cuomo.

Do you think there is some magical spell that stops the virus?
It's about stemming the tide, containing, tracking, learning.

Some of your comments can't be differentiated from paranoia.

No. You can only stop a virus by not letting is spread to others. But there is no evidence governments can accomplish this task. So why let them?

The irresponsible fear of President Trump using the military to "steal the election" was regnant in the press leading up to Jan. 6th, so much so that acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller testified that the hysterics lead him to refuse to send National Guard troops to the capitol building (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lht8T3VDUPE). This same hysteria differed little from the QAnon conspiracy theories, and probably fuelled it, even though Trump declared such reporting as "fake news".

Ex-head of Capitol Police Steven Sund asked for national guard help from security officials in both the house and senate, but was refused due to "optics", just he was when he had a joint call with the Pentagon. It wasn't until around 3pm that Defense Secretary Christopher Miller finally deployed the National Guard, who finally arrived after 5pm.

Within that time Trump made a series of tweets and videos asking the rioters for peace, to stop the violence, to respect law and order, and to go home. The press secretary also said the National Guard and federal law enforcement were deployed at Trump's request. Out of all the powers involved—the mayor of DC, house and senate security officials, the pentagon—Trump was the only one to mobilize forces.

Further investigation reveals FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated, so any notion of coup or insurrection are derived from the same hysteria that hindered the military, security officials and law enforcement in the first place.

So what is your version of events?

Do you mean to say in this particular case or during all or most outbreaks of disease?

In relation to this pandemic, compulsory vaccinations, and vaccine passports.

Is that the extent of your argument, Tim? blind and baffled rage?

I don't see anyone in these texts desiring the events that unfolded that day. It appears no one desired it, and in fact actively worked to stop it. It's no strange wonder that the president called in the national guard, mobilized federal law enforcement, and worked swiftly to end it. Far from "attacking our democracy", they protected it.

I don't consider the unvaccinated special, but governments worldwide consider the unvaccinated special enough to keep them out of participating in many aspects of the market, their jobs, in some cases denying them access to free healthcare (Singapore), to board a plane (Canada), to shopping in malls and other retail, and even hospitals (France). In Austria, one can be fined $4000 a month by virtue of the absence of Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZenica in his blood.

Of course if you threaten to fire people because they do not want a vaccination, or deny them access to any facet of a free society—dining, entertainment, shopping, travel, free healthcare—many will fall in line. Coercion and threat and state force are powerful means to get people to do what you want. The point is it is morally wrong for a government to coerce people by threatening to take their rights away, and if they do not abide, to take their rights away.

I’m not fond of speaking in such groups and groupthink, but I am capable of it. At any rate, I do not believe such groups have moralities or a collective conscience and are nothing more than loose aggregates of individuals.

Those texts really throw the insurrection theory out the window. It’s kind of weird they’re making a big deal of it.

Generally "discriminatory" is considered an unjustified distinction, like race, age, or sex. Refusal to participate in a public health matter is a justified distinction even if considered disagreeable. The threshold for keeping an endemic wave from spiking is pretty sensitive and the R value of the mutations seems to be increasing. Lastly, people just aren't used to having to manage outbreaks of infection. Power granted to the government regarding matters of public health have been understood to be necessary for centuries. If a man wants to live as an island then he ought not complain when finding himself on one.

One can show prejudice against any category of people, of whatever status. This category of people in particular, for whatever reason, do not want these chemicals injected into their body, as is their right. Other categories of people are required to prove their medical history, which is no one else’s business. But because of their status the unvaccinated are being denied access to many components of ordinary life, even if they are at relatively no risk of illness, or have antibodies, and have zero coronavirus on their person.

None of it stops the spread of coronavirus.

Okay, I'm going to break my rule in the OP by mentioning a venn diagram. (Yes, I know I promised no use of other means) But here's the thing -- the majority of the member of society dictate the morality of that society. There are the minority, which include the dissenters, those who engage in crimes against society. And yes they are part of the society. And what did we just accomplish by stating the obvious that they are part of society? We've accomplished saying more words that don't add to this discussion.

The morality of any group of individuals in society is the morality of any group of individuals in society, but not of society itself. By stating the obvious we make clear that we are not talking about society’s right to defend itself, but of a group of people’s right to enforce their morality on others, thereby fracturing society and putting it against itself.

The mandates I speak of are official orders from governments. These orders require private establishments to enforce discriminatory government policy, or risk fine and other punishments. These policies have been implemented around the globe, if you weren’t aware.

Those who engage in your "crimes against society" are also a part of society. So, in truth, what is being proposed here is a far more ruinous crime, namely, a form of slavery: some members of society get to rule over the other members of society.

SO we have one principle: Limit the exposure of the population to those who are infected or likely to be infected

This gives us two policies:
Isolate the infected and those who are likely to be infected
Spare the population from exposure to the unvaccinated
That's sensible, no stupid.

In the hands of a stupid government the principle gives us a stupid policy. When a fully vaccinated but infected man shows up at a establishment with a vaccine passport, he gets let in, increasing the likelihood of spread and illness. A vaccine passport does not indicate health or antibodies, and it is terribly discriminatory.

My point is the vaccine mandates are stupid if the vaccinated can spread the disease. The point of the mandates is to segregate the vaccinated and unvaccinated, not the infected and the uninfected.

One must isolate if they have covid-19 or are expected to have it. Except not everyone knows they have it, or they don’t want to abide by the rules. Those people can enter establishments and congregate with others, spreading the disease.

In many countries, states, provinces, there are mandates that require businesses to prohibit unvaccinated people from certain establishments.

The federal and state vaccine mandates prohibit the unvaccinated from working or entering certain establishments. Is there such a mandate for the infected?

No, they don't.

In many places the requirement to enter an establishment is a vaccination pass, not a covid test. So how do the rules prohibit the infected from entering?

If the consequence of congregating is a cold, then there is little need to slow the spread. Any rules still standing are only there to protect the unvaccinated.

Yes, by not getting vaccinated those folk are making it harder for everyone.

It’s not a cold, though, it’s SARS-CoV-2. Even the asymptomatic can spread the disease. The rules permit that a person infected with this disease can congregate with the uninfected, so long as he has his vaccination. This is because the rules are stupid.

How does a government “slow the spread” if those with colds are given a pass to congregate?

I know. It was sarcasm.

None of what he says contradicts the Reuters article, that "most of the 43 COVID-19 cases caused by the Omicron variant identified in the United States so far were in people who were fully vaccinated, and a third of them had received a booster dose, according to a U.S. report published on Friday."

I wonder if they’ll segregate the vaccinated, just to keep us safe. We need to slow the spread.

Most reported U.S. Omicron cases have hit the fully vaccinated -CDC

Most of the 43 COVID-19 cases caused by the Omicron variant identified in the United States so far were in people who were fully vaccinated, and a third of them had received a booster dose, according to a U.S. report published on Friday.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said that of the 43 cases attributed to Omicron variant, 34 people had been fully vaccinated. Fourteen of them had also received a booster, although five of those cases occurred less than 14 days after the additional shot before full protection kicks in.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-reported-us-omicron-cases-have-hit-fully-vaccinated-cdc-2021-12-10/

The basis of the entire pandemic response.

Inverted or turnkey totalitarianism in a nutshell.

I reserve my right to speak in dysphemism, especially when it comes to matters of injustice and tyranny. These kids didn’t go to the internment camp on their own free will.

And the protocols are not sensible, but stupid; they treat healthy people as threats to public safety, in potentia. They are literally premised on fear and ignorance.

Humans should colonize mars. Until such a landscape is explored and studied we can never know either way, and colonization will be the first step to performing that task.

They tested negative. They contained exactly zero SARS-CoV-2. What they did contain were innocent, healthy children.

(None of this is to say you're necessarily wrong on the facts, of course. It just seems fair to mess with you sometimes.)

Hey, I can take it. So fair enough. But since it only applies to me you must forgive me for disregarding the remarks about my consistency.

I don’t think it’s very useful.

To me it has a confusing grammar. “Quale” is a noun, so it becomes a subject and we apply predicates to it, without it being worthy of such. One can search forever for what we are talking about and never find it, while the person, place, or thing we should be talking about is thrown out with the bath water.

I already mentioned why they were interred, and none of it mentioned any gas chambers.

Consistent fallacy doesn’t do much to convince me, unfortunately. Perhaps a better tactic is in order.

Were they interned in order to send them to the gas chamber?

I wrote:

“The authorities had initially rounded them up and interned them, it appears, for the non-crime of being in contact with covid-positive people, not because they carried any virus or posed any sort of threat.”

ur skewed verbiage betrays an ideological ulterior motive.
SARS-CoV-2 doesn't care.

Ur disapproval of my verbiage betrays yours.

Trump and an appeal to hypocrisy… I’m not surprised.

White House quietly tries to reshape economic coverage

The White House, not happy with the news media's coverage of the supply chain and economy, has been working behind the scenes trying to reshape coverage in its favor. Senior White House and admin officials — including NEC Deputy Directors David Kamin and Bharat Ramamurti, along with Ports Envoy John Porcari — have been briefing major newsrooms over the past week, a source tells me.

The officials have been discussing with newsrooms trends pertaining to job creation, economic growth, supply chains, and more. The basic argument that has been made: That the country's economy is in much better shape than it was last year. I'm told the conversations have been productive, with anchors and reporters and producers getting to talk with the officials...

https://t.co/s3tNP28Lae

That’s hilarious. If you’ve seen this administration’s propaganda, you know they’ll stoop to any level to paint themselves in a certain light, even though it is comes off as phoney as a three dollar bill. Remember this one?

“Berlin: Homeless people without 3G (fully vaccinated, tested, or recovered) proof are no longer allowed to seek refuge from the cold on platforms. The Senate regrets the decision, but remains tough.”

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/3g-in-berlin-senat-verbannt-obdachlose-von-bahnsteigen-l

It’s not surprising how cruel the Covid authoritarian is, but they do it under the guise of protecting others. We should start asking for proof of how many people they’ve protected. Get them to point to one.

That’s true about Americans, as far as I can see.

I would go on and on about collectivism mostly because it is immoral. It is premised on compulsory cooperation, and if that doesn’t work, force, coercion and violence. All one needs do is evoke the common good to justify immoral behavior towards one’s fellows.