For instance, we do not want doctors, nurses, grocers, police officers, government officials and other key workers quitting their jobs to self-isolate full stop — Kenosha Kid

So lock it down! Except for the people that don't eh. That's ok because it would be icky if they lockdown, because that would be an actual lockdown and no one wants to pay the price on that eh.

That is why the lockdown failed and will always fail: Exceptions are made because society is too weak to do it right. therefore, since it will not be done right, there is no purpose doing it at all. Unless the plan is to draw it out unreasonably, then we are on the right path for sure.

Treat, and pay, your people well, never ask them more than you would ask of yourself, and support and promote their improvement and education. Never, ever, screw with their pay cheque or time off. You will have exceedingly loyal staff. Loyal happy staff sell the company to the customers and do a great deal of advertising for you.

Pay them poorly, make them feel disposable and always wonder when you will have to close your doors.

Perhaps the question which I would pose for anyone reading this, is how far their experience has led them to question their systems of belief? — Jack Cummins

I question not so much my system of belief, as acknowledge that there is a great deal that I do not know, and, taking that into account, recognize that simply because something is new to me, or sounds off, does not, in and of itself make it wrong or inaccurate. Foundationally we were raised to create our own guidelines, under the broad guidance of "don't be an asshole". Definitions were left for us to determine on our own. I have read a number of religious books, all have some inherent value, none a definitive path. At least, none that I could see. Those readings have broadened my view and allowed me to have a more tempered response to new concepts and perspectives. "Ever forward" is one of the house mantras.

Nobody in government lost their jobs. They all got paid on-time, every week. — synthesis

Exactly the same in Canada. The people that are deciding to close businesses, and gyms, and stop children's sports, mandating everyone to stay in their homes unless "necessary" to leave are not adversely affected by those decisions. Our chief medical officer is still working, the cheque keeps rolling in, she isn't losing her house anytime soon, she can afford to go skiing on the weekend, and can deem it "necessary for mental health stress release". She likely has a gym at home, and wasn't likely going to the local public venue anyway. Very easy to say "lock it down" when there is minimal down side. Sure she gets criticized sometimes in the news, but all politicians do, and how bad can it be when to silence those voices one need only turn off the T.V?

Ask those who are looking at losing their homes, their businesses, or who have lost a loved one to suicide from the lockdown if it has been worth the cost. Methinks the answer will be very different.

So it makes sense that a company's employees act in line with company policy 24/7 and that the company has some overview and control over it. — baker

And if I am getting paid 24/7 I will be more inclined to follow company policy 24/7. Outside of that, pass on policy. I do not require my employees to follow policy on their off time, unless they are running around in company clothing and company trucks. Simple as that. It's called off time for a reason. A good employee is one who does their job well, is reliable, and lets me know what is frustrating them about the company before they tell others about it. A good boss will listen to what is frustrating the employees and will try to solve the issues before the employees feel so frustrated that they bad mouth the company while off work. If I treat my people well they will be protective of their jobs and the company: no policy required. If I treat them poorly, no policy will protect me from myself.

Fraud is only fraud if it is not done by the government, then it is a policy.

A slick sales pitch (fraud) has always been used by whoever needs it and thinks they can get away with it. I hear the words, I consider them, in context, and weight them against what I know, what makes sense, and ultimately, what I want. If I elect to ignore logic and experience and go only with what I want, and how I want them to support something I already wanted, that result is on me; not the speech maker.

I tell you to stop paying taxes because the government is too busy to notice...First off, Are you actually going to believe me? Secondly, if you do, should I be held accountable for your actions? Is there no such thing as personal responsibility? Or personal accountability?

I make a shit call: my error. I make a great call: my success. Not sure where the narrator comes in.

I see the logo and think "Aww, they kinda fucked that apple symbol forever."

You ARE the centre of your universe. There is no other way perspective could work. You are the centre of your universe in that everything is identified relative to it's relationship to you. There is a Calvin and Hobbes comic (yep, going to humour on this example) which has Calvin and his stuffed tiger, Hobbes, looking out while Calvin muses... "six billion years of evolution...to create me." It is funny, but also completely accurate. Absolutely there are countless other things which exist in your universe, logically this is accepted as fact, however, until YOU know they exist...they are effectively irrelevant in your universe, and, therefore are non-existent. If you were to be removed from your universe, that universe would cease to exist, as you are not there to look upon it.

And No, I do not find this unsettling in the least. I find it soothing.

Very much so.

The dark unrequited romance of those contemplating suicide comes to mind, again, more common in the younger population.

Generally I assume romance is exaggerating a person's importance to the cosmic scale and expressing as much. Any disagreements? — TiredThinker

I would suggest that, to the romantic, the object of their affection is perhaps equally important to them, or more valuable, than the cosmic. Hence the comparison. Romance is being inspired by someone, feeling your day improve merely at the sight of them, letting the idea, or memory of them guide you through what may otherwise be an insurmountable task (getting through a war to get home, etc.) The romantic relishes the company of the object of affection, without adding strings. It sweeps aside logic and rational and is entirely based on a feeling.

Thanks! And yet oddly appealing...

Pretty much, yep. But not just State side eh. Same crap up here. No regard to the collateral damage of the lockdown, or the environmental damage of all the bloody masks. Now they are discussing the value of double masking. Just as useless as single masking, but with double the waste. But as long as it APPEARS that we are doing something...it's all good.

Of course I get fired if I do an intervention on my patients that is designed to make me feel better, or look better, but does nothing of benefit to my patient. However, I do not work public health, so I guess...Different rules eh!

Exactly. Time is a construct created by people to allow us to track the moments of our lives. It usually works fairly well, let's us stay organized and all that. However, as it is essentially a tracking process in it's current use/definition, there is no reason that memory cannot move in what would be considered a backward direction, if the event which created the memory were strong enough. Telling you perhaps to not cross the street, giving you a moments pause, and avoiding getting struck by a truck. The future you did not pause, was struck, and in that moment sent back "Don't step out" which the now you listened to, and avoided the injury or death which followed, and you then carried on your quest for a morning coffee, after having a strong sense of deja vu.

our well intentioned public officials. — Roger Gregoire

Are they though? I mean, really? Am I still considered to be well intentioned if I make a mistake and then cling to that mistake, insisting on repeating it over and over again, rather than admit that it was a shit call in the first place? That sound like a gambling addiction...."it will work this time and then I will win it all back and more....Hey lend me more money, because THIS time it is really gonna happen..."

Ardent denial is difficult to confuse with well intention.

In the model implemented by the program, everyone in an infected environment always gets infected. And immune people never clean the environment. And still, there's a protective effect. — InPitzotl

So: Everyone always gets infected, immune people never clean the environment (so I assume compromised people also do not clean the environment) and there is a protective effect. Where exactly is the the protective effect if everyone always gets infected? That sounds very non-protective to me, like right in the first line: "Everyone in an infected environment always gets infected."

Here is my deja vu theory: your future self is sending memories back to you so that you are better able to pick your path into your preferred future, so the deja vu feeling is a triggered future memory that you have yet to make. Cool eh? I cover it nicely in my book, but that is pretty much it in an nutshell.

I am going with God can do anything and has no bounds, otherwise, not God. As far as illogic and seeming contradictions: Platypus. I think they are awesome beasties, but really, what is that design based on? Lots of ability and maybe, a little weed.

Clearly you have never left anyone in the woods before, people last a lot longer than you think. Also, there is a hell of a lot more in the woods than sticks and stones, so pick an option, do I only have sticks and stones, or am I left in the woods? And why naked? Outside of some fetish, I see no real gain in leaving someone naked, other than the annoying bug bites they would experience. Naked or not, they will just walk out of the woods (again demonstrating your poorly thought out plan). However, as I have been called soulless in the past, maybe you are correct, my body will weigh the same after death as in life. I don't know, I did not pay attention last time I died.

I like Peterson by and large. He captures many of the flaws I see around me rather well. Hard to fault him for being observant.

I read your explanation of purpose. I filed it under "rape the planet some more and then move to a new planet and repeat" Category of positions. The basic Human Virus bit, so I felt a response was unwarranted. Nice scooby-doo reference, I like that you have stepped up your game.

And yet so accurate. Those who are intolerant of intolerance. Figure that out.

I can't, and let's face it, I won't bother, explain it to you. Feel free to not respond to my posts, your responses cheapen the forum.

Lovely story. Pointless and added nothing to the discussion. Thanks for that.

General question: with respect to the impact of social distancing and the lockdown, has anyone mentioned what the plan will be when the numbers of people suffering from Agoraphobia suddenly go through the roof? We are being conditioned to fear our neighbour, stay home and indoors to stay safe, and to constantly wear a mask when not in our homes. There can be little doubt that this will occur. NO mention of this by any government I have heard.

One would no be able to prove what the unexplained difference in weight is, only that it does indeed exist within a living body. The interpretation of said weight would be up for debate. Soul, energy, etc. would be up to the interpreter to decide upon and then defend. Also, if one were to be thorough, one should also measure other, non-human life forms to determine if they have a measurable, inexplicable weight loss associated with death. Again, any such would be interpretable as the interpreter sees fit. It would however, assist in addressing, what I believe to be an erroneous assumption, that animals have no soul.

"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." — simeonz

Bah. So what? Make friends with the abyss and carry on.

The changes of pressure would not affect overall weight of the body, only gas distribution. Clarke should have known that. 21 grams of gas is a lot of gas, volume wise. Barometric pressure should not be an issue if the weights were done within minutes of each other. Also, Clarke's theory of a body's exterior surface partially inflating right after death is erroneous. A body deflates slightly as gases and liquids are expelled due to atmospheric pressure being allowed to compress the tissues as internal pressures from being alive are no longer a factor. Hence the tray to catch the fluids which leave the body.

ICU beds are now quite capable of weighing patients accurately, there is no need to arrange anything. One could program the cardiac monitor to relay a "weigh patient" signal at 30 seconds after asystole begins. There would be no need for outside intervention. Additionally, anyone participating in such a study would be palliative, and therefore, resuscitation and intubation would not apply anyway.

It will never take hold, agreed. We have no real leadership in government, so no one will inspire us as a populace to face the pandemic unfalteringly.

I suspect it is fear of death more than belief in a higher power than make people fearful. I have never understood having fear if one truly believes in a higher power. If you believe, at your core, that your God loves you and will welcome you home, what is there to be afraid of?

Momento.

How would they have been accounted for, given it would be difficult to do even today? — simeonz

Not at all difficult to do today, were the experiment to get past the ethics board. I believe what was done back then was the patient was placed on to, essentially, a large tray and weighed. Immediately upon death they were weighed again, having never been removed from the tray. A tray shaped platform is important as upon dying the sphincters of the body relax, so any fluids within the body would be released. The tray allows these fluids to remain as part of the total measured weight.

Today a similar set up would be done, except that one could use a light, thin plastic tent to ensure any lost gases were also captured and weighed. Not that escaping gasses would account for much weight, but one might as well be thorough.

I would be willing to do this experiment. Providing the subjects gave informed consent prior. Methinks the ethics board would never approve of it. Neither would the church if they had any say in the matter.

How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei

I would respond that said man is an inept, but evil man. Electing to do evil, failing at it, thereby accomplishing good, is still evil, as action and intent are in step and seek the same goal: evil. That the result is not evil does not change the intent and action behind the result.

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.