I don't know why you're still banging on about exceptions. — Isaac

I'm not banging on about exceptions. You asked if I did anything that risked others and I said I did, within the scope of recommendations. They recommend you don't pollute the air. But they allow you to drive and smoke and drink. There are limitations, however.

The state has provided an exception to it's recommendation on vaccination too, I don't have to get vaccinated. — Isaac

Wrong. The recommendation is to get the Vax. While there are exceptions, those are limited to certain medical conditions which you are not hanging your hat on. You are talking about the need for vax overseas or other nuanced arguments that are over your head and/or not supported by government recommendations. The recommendation is that you get a vax. The fact that it is merely a recommendation and not a mandate does no make the recommendation an exception. You just think you're special. That's because you're selfish, inconsiderate and disrespectful. But we've been over that.

You think, in that case, that those taking the government up on its exception are murdering pieces of shit. — Isaac

No. Those who have an exemption are not murdering POS. Those who don't have an exemption and refuse are, or could be the cause of the death of others. So yeah, murdering POS. They are lucky that the general situation is such that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that any single POS was the one who pulled the trigger. Though, hogging up hospital beds resulting in the death of another comes pretty close.

'm wondering if you feel that way about yourself when you choose to take the government up on one of its exceptions to their environmental recommendations. — Isaac

Good question. Asked and answered. But I'll answer yet again: I do feel bad that my driving a car inures to the detriment of those with asthma and other conditions, not to mention the impact it has on the Earth. But I also remember what I taught you before: Some problems can only be solved if a gun is placed in the mouth of every recalcitrant POS and they are forced to play along. If I try to go it alone, it actually ends up working against my goal. Of course, maybe the markets can solve it. Like all the horseshit, all over city streets, went away when the car took over. But then we get air pollution. If the markets would solve that, please do. But if they don't, government may well have to step in. And I will support it when it does, just like I vax when they asked me to. And joined the service, and refrain from drinking and driving, or blowing smoke in peoples faces, etc.

Why do you think there is so much resistance? — Tzeentch

Because of my familiarity with Americans, particularly Trump supporting Republicans and their ilk.

but you show not the slightest ability to understand others either. — Tzeentch

There are a few people who are vax-hesitant with good cause. Take some blacks, for instance. The U.S. has used them, unknowingly, for experiments to benefit white people. There are probably a few others who are peers of, and even experts themselves. But I don't pretend to engage them. I'm not one of them. I'm mainly just poking a stick in the eye of those who's motives I find suspect because they are not experts and seem to advice against expert counsel on matters of public health in a pandemic.

It makes all this yelling from a moral pedestal is very unconvincing. — Tzeentch

Oh, no doubt! Take me and TPF for example: nothing could better demonstrate my inability to teach than my participation here. If I were a teacher, then you'd think I'd make more headway. LOL! So why am I here, pretending to be a teacher? Good question. Maybe folks should ask why non-scientific peer experts are here pretending to pontificate on the vax? It's my understanding that one should pursue knowledge by asking questions. Not by pretending to understand shit they don't understand. But I would never advise anyone to ask questions of a charlatan on the internet spewing advice that contradicts what the real experts say. You'd have to be a fool to ask me how to teach. Watch this:

I am to teaching as Isaac is to infectious disease, immunology, and physician science.

I suppose I could read a few papers from UNC, find a teacher who's opinion confirms my bias, and then come back and claim an understanding, but I don't think I'd have the cred.

Even if you would multiply that number by five, it would still leave 99% of people having to make permanent sacrifices in their way of living. — Tzeentch

Sacrifices? Distancing, wearing a mask, washing your fucking hands and getting free shot? Oh, here, let me shed a tear. I guess folks these days have gone soft. Besides, had they done what they were politely asked to do, the "sacrafices" (LOL) would not be permanent. Indeed, this shit would probably be over by now. But no, too many inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish people couldn't put their fun on hold for the sake of others. Good thing we aren't storming the beaches of Normandy. Somebody might break a nail.

The point of the citations was to point out the clear insanity of the claim that you comply with every single state recommendation. — Isaac

If you can't do that on your own, they you can't think for yourself, not withstanding the fact that is what you accuse me of not being able to do. LOL! I tried to teach you that I don't comply with every single state recommendation because the state itself has created exceptions (remember the lesson about air pollution from cars? No? I didn't think so).

That's exactly what you're doing. You gave a pseudo-intellectual economic argument which you obviously don't understand as to why you needn't comply with a particular government recommendation. — Isaac

No, I did not. I gave you an example of the exceptions that the state provides, as stated in the last paragraph, and my continued schooling of you.

You're not an expert economist so why present the argument as if you understood it... smarter minds than you an' all... Just shut up and follow the recommendations. — Isaac

I do. That's why I still drive. Because the state says I can, even though I generate pollution. I'm not questioning their math as to why. They do it with corporations, too. Shareholders are given protection from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions (cost externalization) because the state deems it worth it to get cowards to come out from under the fridge with their money, invest it and stimulate the markets that we all benefit from. Sure, they are supposed to pay taxes on the profits they glean from this state largess, but that's another matter. The point is, the state sanctions all kinds of bad behavior. But they haven't sanctioned your arguments. Their experts, the experts, disagree with you.

You just did. — Isaac

No, I did not.

Experts say cut down in gas use, you present some neolib, half-cocked pseudo-economics denying you ought to. — Isaac

And I follow their advice. But I don't quit driving altogether because the state, and their experts don't want me to. They have deemed the risk worth it. Besides, remember the lesson I taught you about the futility of trying to do anything alone? No? I didn't think so. Remember what I taught you about state experts and recommendations, and gradients? No? I didn't think so.

Roughly 0.2%, no? — Tzeentch

I don't know, I haven't done the math. But I know it's way more than those killed by guns. Regardless, you cherry picked the 600k without factoring in all the other shit I mentioned.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the miniscule percentage of the population that runs a risk of getting seriously ill from covid to make that sacrifice? I think it does. — Tzeentch

First of all, we'd have to define "miniscule." 600k dead in the U.S alone, not including those who just get sick, and the tapping of health care resources, and those who died "off the grid" and those who died or suffered because they couldn't get a bed. That can all raise the anti. Further, we could consider an unknown number of lives saved by those who did distance, mask and vax. How many of them would be added to the tally?

I don't think so. Neither does the ADA, etc. We err on the side of caring for other people, especially the sick, lame and lazy.

Could we roll with the disco? Hell yes. We did it during the Spanish Flu. The bubonic plague, etc. But even then, the rich would social distance to protect themselves. We're trying to be a little more egalitarian here. Besides, all we're asking is to avoid the disco for a while. Had every one done that from the get-go, we would not be in the pickle we are in now. We'd all be back in the disco, if that's your thing. Hell, it's just a small ask.

Well, even someone who doesn't partake in public life can still be social, but in their private lives. — Tzeentch

True that. I think those that don't want to vax, and all those they socialize with, should do just that. If any of them want to come out and mingle with the pack, they should abide the pack's polite, simple, non-impositional request. Simple courtesy.

I just listed a whole load of policies which you clearly don't take their word as gospel. I do exactly the same with vaccination guidance, yet you think that's immoral, you've yet to explain why. — Isaac

First, I'd rather you think on your own two feet. One wag on this site once linked an article that went on forever, I read it, and found it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. You can just say "X" and we'll take it from there. I did see one of links headlines said something about air quality, so I ran with that and made a point without having to read the thing. If you are capable of saying that I don't take their word as gospel, then just use your own typing skills and say what it is that I don't take as gospel. Here, let me give you an example: "James, society says X and you clearly don't do X." Then we can argue whether you are correct or not. As it stands, your empty, balled face statement that "clearly you don't" is meaningless. Especially given the gradients of social risk balancing that I taught you about.

Defying government advice by using some half-baked idea about markets. Are you a fully qualified government employed economist? If not, then why are you making judgements contrary to those people smarter than you have made? — Isaac

I'm not! That's the point! Stop, think, you are on the verge of a breakthrough, Isaac! I can see it! Keep cogitating on what you just said, then apply what I actually said. There you go! Whew, what a long slog this has been.

So now 'society' is right no matter what their reasons? Your ethics are intriguing to say the least. — Isaac

LOL! Oh, hell no! I've got more truck with society than Carter has pills. But I don't go around advising people to do, or not do things which experts say will place others at risk. Especially when I can't hold a candle to the experts or their counsel, upon which society has based it's policy. If I want to be a BTDT, then I'll go there and do that. I won't be a poser.

:up:

Exactly. So all your moralising about people smarter than me was all bullshit. You don't listen unconditionally to the people smarter than you either. we could agree here, but then you say... — Isaac

It is difficult to argue with those (you, for example) who love the illogical, two-valued, dualistic thinking. My moralizing about people smarter than you is not bullshit. As I taught you some time ago, but you forgot your lessons (take notes and pay attention, son) Society (and politicians) formulate health policy based on evidence and science. I do listen to people smarter than me. I also use my own experience in guiding my daily interactions with my fellow man. I don't know what point you think you scored, but you just stepped on your dick again. LOL!

Regarding some of the examples you provided, particularly those that involve the environment, I would like to take this opportunity to teach you another lesson. Pull up a chair.

I want clean air. I want government to force people to stop using petroleum hydrocarbons. I make the argument. Someone who disagrees with me (you?) says I am a hypocrite, and should be marginalized, and not listened to, because I, myself, drive a car. At first blush, I think that sounds persuasive, at least to stupid people who don't understand markets.

So, in order try and be "consistent" I conserve a gallon of gas by not driving. Good so far, right? The problem is, I just increased the supply of gas, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, which encourages people like you to drive more, defeating my goal. Hmmm. What to do, what to do?

Well, we do what we always do when something requires government to get something done; something where individuals, and the private sector can't handle it alone. We ask, we plead, we cajole. But if the public (as expressed through their government) want something done and you stand in the way, you must learn to accept personal responsibility for your own actions, or inactions. Part of that could be ostracization and marginalization. And it could also result in a stepping up of government efforts to get the job done.

You may very well be treated like a POS. But again, since you can't seem to handle nuance, let me try to simplify it again for you: There are gradients and some things are tolerated with more forbearance than others, based on the judgements of people that are smarter than you. I won't fall into your "poor eating habits" vs vax straw man. It is irrelevant. Society will determine if and when you get treated like a POS and for what reasons. You just have to take personal responsibility for your own actions, whether you like it or not. Unfortunately, others might likewise suffer. Hence the treatment you get.

Doctor Frankenstein recommend the vaccine and his monster boo'd him. They must be scientists that know better than the good doctor. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-54286558

Bullshit. Unless you're Greta fucking Thunberg, you do not comply with every single recommendation made to limit risk of harm to others. If you're just going to brazenly stand by that claim there's little point in continuing. — Isaac

Apparently you are incapable of understanding argument. Let me try to dumb it down for you one more time. Here, hold my hand: Society has made judgement calls about what is suggested, what is requested, what is required, and what is demanded. I play ball within those confines and use them for guidance in my consideration of others. I also understand that if I don't, those steps the state uses can, and most probably will be stepped up. Do you see the answer to your question yet? I do risk others within the confines of the law, and my own respect and consideration of others.

I risk others when I get behind the wheel. But society has said that the risk my driving poses to other people is an acceptable risk. Society has NOT said that you not vaxing is an acceptable risk. Get it? No? Sorry, I don't know how to tell you that you should care about other people.

Society will allow smoking and drinking to protect the interests of those who work in the tobacco and alcohol industries and to respect the freedom of individuals to smoke and drink. Society makes that call, knowing full well that innocent lives will be adversely impacted or even lost. And taxpayers will often have to pick up the bill, or insurance premiums will increase. So, if society tells me that smoking harms not only me, but others, they still let me smoke becausethe calculation was made that I could. I can't, however, exhale my smoke into your face. I suppose I could pull some science paper that says it's okay for me to blow smoke in your face, but I'm not that kind of person.

So, in this gradient, with vaccines, we are at the request stage. You don't have to vax. Happy? But if you don't, don't be surprised if the state starts climbing up the ladder. And don't be surprised if people start treating you like a POS.

Why is the baseline at participation in public life? And why is participation not a luxury like discos? — Tzeentch

Because anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists and other experts have shown that man is a social creature. A pack animal, if you will. Public life has been there since the cave and before. Discos, not so much.

Perhaps not directly related, but something to think about. — Tzeentch

That is something for you to think about. However, it's like the information that Isaac might try to school me with. It's out of my wheelhouse. Here's my wheelhouse: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html Could they be wrong? Oh hell yes. Government is often wrong. But unless and until peer professionals take them down, I'll roll with them.

That wasn't the question. The question was whether you avoid all things that people smarter than you recommend you avoid for the benefit other's well-being? I'm aware society thinks one of those things is getting vaccinated, I'm asking you about the others, do you feel the same way about all of them, do you comply with all of them? — Isaac

I do. I not only use my own intelligence, experience and wisdom in an effort to avoid harming others, but I likewise take the advice, requests, recommendations and outright legal demands of the state into consideration. I know there are others, smarter than me, that say I should slow down when approaching this or that curve that I am not familiar with. But I will use my own, commensurate judgement when approaching a curve that I know well. And, as an occasional risk-taker, I often do this only out of consideration for others. I might risk myself, but I try to respect others.

Let's try an example: While I don't smoke, I could. Society says I can. But they place limits on it. They don't place those limits for my own good. They place those limits due to expenses incurred by others due to my selfish acts. But I can still smoke. I just have to keep my smoke out of other people's lungs. And I have to pay a shit ton of taxed to try and cover the added burden to the healthcare system. Yet I get to drive and pump poison into the air with my car. I breath it and so do asthmatics I don't even know. Now you might come along with your awesome intellect and try to dissect the science and prove how the state is all wrong on this or that. But your opinion doesn't matter. You aren't among the scientist that know, or who inform policy.

Why is wanting to go to the disco selfish, and wanting to participate in public life (even though you're afraid that getting coughed on kills you) isn't? — Tzeentch

It all depends on where you place the baseline. The baseline is participating in public life. Discos didn't come along until much later. Nor are they a right. They are, instead, a privilege.

Do you honestly think your life is so saintly I couldn't find a half dozen things you do which risk others and which people smarter than you have recommended to avoid? — Isaac

I know that society, and people smarter than you, make the call. There was a day, a long time ago, where drinking and driving was not taboo, or as taboo. People were advised not to do it by people who were smarter than them. But, because some inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish people refused to take the advice and continued to drive drunk and kill people, society, and people smarter than you, decided to drop the polite request and make it a law. Even then, it was downplayed until MADD and victims of the selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful drunks turned up the heat and made pariahs out of the drunks.

So here's the short answer to your question: There are X number of things that society says are acceptable, and Y number of things they say are not. Society says avoiding the vax is not acceptable. Granted, they have not done what they can, and probably will do if people like you don't step up, but that does not mean they are wrong just because you, a non-expert, can poo poo their efforts on the internet.

As a selfish, disrespectful, inconsiderate person, you obviously don't have the inclination to actually go to school, get the creds and the experience to know what the CDC knows, and then engage them on the merits of the issue. That wouldn't be a bad thing if you weren't running around pretending that you know and understand the issue better than they do, and then you dissuade folks from playing ball. You are playing a doctor on the internet. You are a charlatan. A snake oil salesman.

I don't see what that's got to do with the question of public health policy. — Isaac

I will add this, regarding the prophylactic issue: Society, and people in it that are smarter than you, with infinitely more experience than you will ever have, have determined that, while it is entirely possible that you could drive under the influence of alcohol, you are, prophylactically, forbidden from doing so. You may not like it. You may think everyone else would be fine if they just stayed out of your way. But society has decided to make the pariah. That's what we do.

The question was why should your right to fast food trump my right to avoid prophylactics? — Isaac

It doesn't. As I said, you can avoid all you want. But you do NOT have the right to spread your filthy disease to me if you get it, especially when you're avoiding government requests from people that are smarter than you. You don't get to absolve yourself of murder just because I have a comorbidity, self-induced or not.

Is inept rage your only mode of response? — Tzeentch

No, it's not. I will try to tone it down. Thank you for the reminder.

Is inept rage your only mode of response? — Tzeentch

I'm not Fauci with his polite "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people." I'm more of the rage guy when dealing with inept incompetent hucksters peddling shit on the internet.

So your freedom to eat junk food trumps my freedom to avoid prophylactic medicine as I choose? Why? — Isaac

Belay my last. Here's a better answer to your question: You are free to avoid prophylactic medicine all you want: just keep your filthy fucking virus off my ass if you get it. How's that? Oh, and the burden of proof on what broke my back is not on me. Society has placed it on you. Now go get a shot or whine like a little bitch when you are treated like a pariah.

So your freedom to eat junk food trumps my freedom to avoid prophylactic medicine as I choose? Why? — Isaac

Because people smarter than you say so.

Excess mortality is excess mortality, whatever the mechanism between here and there. — Srap Tasmaner

:100: As I said a long time ago, it doesn't matter which straw broke a camel's back.

Should some of those other straws not been on there? Maybe, but we have the freedom to put them on without having to worry about some other turd throwing his on too.

P.S. As we say in the law, "You take your victim as you find him."

Refugee and humanitarian problems are likely to go haywire. — jorndoe

I read a piece about how the MSM, in a rush to prove they could be critical of both sides, are making more out of this than is necessary. It's actually going swimmingly well, considering you are closing down a war zone. So far. Knock on wood.

So policy is based on whether, on aggregate, we give more of a fuck about Granny staying alive, or going to the disco. — unenlightened

:death: :party: :100:

What people inject into their bodies is no business but their own. Whatever reasons they may have, no matter how illogical to outsiders, does not factor into whether they should have the right to make their own decision. To me, this discussion is as clear cut as abortion. — Tzeentch

You can drink until you die for all I care. But we have actual punitive laws for those who get behind the wheel and risk the lives of others. So, stay in your home, or go to a place for people like you and stay there. You can snuggle if you want. And if you need help, help each other, but don't take up a scarce hospital bed when you think you need it. I hear if you drink bleach you can clear things right up.

You are lucky that in spreading Covid, it is too hard to prove the culprit. Drive drunk and hurt or kill my loved one and gubmn't will be the least of your worries. Because of this, don't be surprised at scarlet letters and hostility.

However sad that may be, policy should not be determined by emotions. — Tzeentch

:100: :clap:

Much has been said about the effectiveness, side-effects and potential dangers of those things. — Tzeentch

I'm sure that if people paid attention to directions on how to do it, any adverse side-effects would be ameliorated. Especially if everyone played ball. The time would be short. But yeah, I get it. You can't get people to distance or use a mask properly if you can't get them to participate in the first place.

Did I speak too quickly for you? — Isaac

You didn't speak at all. You wrote. You opined that I was unsuccessful in my intent, and driving people away from the vax. You know, freeing it up for the other countries.

Well then don't use one as support for an argument. — Isaac

Then don't ask for it. It's like I taught you, Isaac: It's all academic BS that you'd probably waste time and resources studying instead of distancing, masking and vaxxing.

The plan I was referring to was how to get the whole world vaccinated. Even if everyone was 100% in favour of vaccination the problem we're facing now would be untouched. It's about distribution of vaccines, not willingness to take them. — Isaac

I've already explained my desires on viewing the planet without borders. The problem we are facing would not exist if people would have distanced, masked and vaxxed. No thanks to you and your ilk.

That's why I cite my sources. These aren't my arguments, they are the arguments of experts in their field. — Isaac

And I already taught you about how experts in their field deal with peer issues. But after pressing you, it turns out you agree with me and Fauci on the vax. So that issue has been resolved.

So you are an expert now? You know all about how the academic world works yes? What level of academic qualification do you have? How many years have you spent in the field? — Isaac

I know how licensing works. Decades ago I was an expert on it, with attorney's and engineers, and I was involved in some medical malpractice claims. I'm also a blue-booker, so I know how to properly cite, and I'm trained in analytic and critical thinking. But the most important thing is this: I don't pretend to know shit about things I don't know shit about. I know when to defer to experts in a given field, and if I want to take them on, I put them on the witness stand and ask questions I already know the answers to because I hired one of their peers to help me do it.

I fully agree: infections mean nothing for a virus that cause little to no effects in the vast, vast majority of people. Here too, much has been said of covid-19 being noted as the cause of death even if it did not contribute to the actual death of the patient. What is true of all this, I honestly do not know. — Tzeentch

A year or so ago, rather than go down a rabbit hole on co-morbidities, and whether this or that person would have died anyway, and whether reporting was accurate (under or over), and all the other nuances, I looked at annualized death rates and saw a large jump, even though people were off the roads and staying at home. I can't remember if the jump mirrored the alleged Covid death numbers but the figures were a routine thing, unrelated to Covid. That told me there might be a there there. Also noted that flue deaths were in the toilet.

Regardless, it seems academic if your loved one is dead or dying. Kind of like gun control: when it's your kid that get's shot, the Second Amendment may not mean shit. Covid is killing people. What are the numbers? Compare that question with the inconvenience of distancing, masking and vaxxing.

There's more than one demographic in receipt of your rhetoric. — Isaac

Well, according to you, I'm doing you a favor and freeing up the vax for overseas.

Any evidence for that, or just more of your storytelling? — Isaac

Can't prove a negative. It's like how many lives were saved by all those people who played ball since day one? How much worse would it be if they had all been like you? It's all academic BS that you'd probably waste time and resources studying instead of distancing, masking and vaxxing.

I asked what your plan was, not mine. — Isaac

That's my plan. Calling out your BS so everyone who thinks you're the bees knees can see it. Trying to get you to change your plan, take a seat and quit killing people.

I've asked before for you to back up these accusations, but you've failed to do so. — Isaac

I've already taught you about experts. I never claimed to be one.

What is 'psuedo' about the scientists I've cited, are you suggesting the BMJ is a 'pseudo' scientific journal, is the World Health Organisation a 'psuedo' health organisation? — Isaac

I didn't say they were, I said you are.

If you can't provide any evidence you shouldn't be making such strong statements. — Isaac

Again, I already taught you about the professions and how they work. When I walked you through the vax questions, you agreed with Fauci, et al, and I left you hanging on one thin little made-up reed that had to do with the U.S. hogging all the vax with a non-existent high demand.

Evidence? — Isaac

Yeah, I saw them at Fremont County DHE drinking coffee and waiting for people to show. I saw it in Denver and I saw it on the boob tube. It picked up, marginally, with Delta and FDA approval. Some people couldn't bring themselves to pivot after using the FDA as an excuse. But others are still taking their que from the likes of you.

This data does not report cause of death, and as such represents all deaths in people with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, not just those caused by COVID-19.
— UK Government reporting on SARS-Cov-2 related deaths

I think we need to start moving away from just reporting infections, just reporting positive cases admitted to hospital, to actually start reporting the number of people who are ill because of Covid, those positives that are symptomatic. We need to be moving towards reporting hospital admissions that are admitted because of Covid, not because they just happen to be positive and they’re being admitted for something else, Otherwise as the infection becomes endemic we are going to be frightening ourselves with very high numbers that actually don’t translate into disease burden
— Prof Paul Hunter, University of East Anglia speaking at the the UK All Party Commission — Isaac

Meh, who gives a shit. That sounds like the investigation into whether this was a wild bat release, or a lab release (intentional or otherwise) or a Jewish Space Laser release. Those may be important questions but it's like wondering about whether you should be in a firefight while you are in it. "Oh, gee, the geo-political complexities of international trade, and the influence of the MIC dictate that we shouldn't be in this shit-hole getting overrun by guys with bayonets. What say you, Bob?"

Both. Encouraging is an intentional activity, it doesn't imply success. — Isaac

Then you stepped on your dick. If I am failing in my efforts to gin up U.S. demand then you would champion my driving them away. But since you walked yourself into that corner and slapped yourself, I'll just leave it at that.

61% and still rising. In what way is a figure over 60 and still rising not approaching 70? How far past 60 would a still rising number have to be before you'd consider it to be approaching 70? Are you using some idiosyncratic number line? — Isaac

It's been how many months that the U.S. and state governments, and the people you think you know better than, have been begging, pleading and providing incentives for people to vax, even pre-delta, and we haven't reached that goal? A goal that you and your ilk have been interfering with, by questioning the governments and the people who are smarter and wiser than you? A goal that we would have met long ago, but for the likes of you and Faux News and Tucker Carlson, et al? We'd be at 80% months ago, but for the dummies who think they know better than the CDC and Fauci, et al.

No, it categorically isn't. But then the actual facts have never bothered you have they? — Isaac

BS. We have variants because we haven't distanced, masked and vaxxed. It's people like that have killed thousands of people who listen to your ilk. This isn't a U.S. problem. The virus does not respect borders. People like you are in France, Germany, Brazil and all around the world, naysaying the advice of people that are smarter than you. All because you think you have the critical and analytical skills to make yourself an expert in the area by reading some articles. You, and people like you, remind me of the meme: "If you are not a scientist and you disagree with scientists about science, it's not a disagreement. You are wrong." I don't care if you, Isaac, actually might be some kind of scientist; you don't know shit or you wouldn't be here on TPF flapping your key board. You'd be hard at work somewhere helping out.

So no actual argument then, just spittle-flecked invective. — Isaac

Just because you can't rebut the argument doesn't mean it's not there.

How, exactly, do you plan to 'vax up the whole fucking world'? — Isaac

Well, if you really want to help, you'll quit undermining efforts to get people to distance, mask and vax with your pseudo-scientific questioning of people who you couldn't even carry the corn in their shit.

What method do you advocate which doesn't include reducing current vaccine demand in the US? — Isaac

First, there was little demand in the U.S. (thanks to you people) until the variant came along and even more people started dying, and sharing their come-to-Jesus meetings on T.V. after a close call. There were providers standing around with their thumbs up their ass because there was little demand. There is still not enough demand. But regardless, we (the whole fucking world) should have dumped everything into production, seven months ago, shared the tech and spun up a proper response.

You want to help? Take a god dam seat.

The social contract is not a matter of what infringement of your rights you're willing to put up with, but of you anteing up: you throw in your lot with these people and commit to making it, or not, together. — Srap Tasmaner

I happen to agree with the concept of the social contract, as amended, or interpreted by the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers went over all this quite some time ago, informed by their experience in life. Most were well-read men of the enlightenment, with a good grounding in Greek, Latin, philosophy, politics and the affairs of man, not to mention vast, cumulative real-world experience. I know a lot of people these days think those old white guys are no longer relevant, but they provided a way to deal with that, too.

So your position is that there are things worse than guns, plus guns might or might not guarantee our liberty. — Srap Tasmaner

Definitely the former, and not simply "might", but "probably", on the latter.

I don't think a Right (compare "privilege") should be infringed because someone decides to kill themselves with a gun. Same with accident. Same with peer-to-peer criminal engagement. I don't think a right should be infringed if an innocent victim of violence, where a gun was used, could have been saved had the state enforced the countless laws already on the books. That leaves us with innocent victims of violence where a gun was used. While I don't believe the gun is at fault, we can table that argument for the time being and I will stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that the gun shot the victim. That brings us to my point:

When society (particularly those in favor of gun control) gets it's house in order on a whole panoply of other causes that lead to the horrendous grief of victims and/or survivors, then we can circle back to the issue of the infringement of a Right. But I don't think you will find my position has changed. Indeed, if society will clean up all those other problems, then I don't think there will be much in the way of innocent victims of gun crime to worry about.

I didn't mean to be cryptic. You encouraged me to spend "time thinking about the people who deal everyday with the death and destruction brought about by real people using real guns."

There are are shit-ton more threats to people to worry about if we want to worry about threats to people. Sure, the "blowed up real good" "if it bleeds it leads" morbid curiosity of man draws him to the horror of "BANG", but it's really just a drop in the bucket of blood, and a waste if we are to devote time and resources toward people who suffer from this or that. Sometimes I think gun control advocates (victim families excluded) are more infatuated with guns than the prototypical, insecure, lightly-endowed freak, fondling his guns in the basement.

Because it looks to me like we're betting a great number of lives a year on this theory, — Srap Tasmaner

Like I said, do the math and we talk about which people we might better worry about.

No, not really. I guess I could guess: I think they are more civilized than we are. I also think they suffered through two world wars on their own turf in a matter of decades. That might tire a body out, and bring a little wisdom. I also think they have us to come to their rescue if some punk like Hitler decides to get all uppity again. They also (I think) keep their 1% on a tighter leash, paying their share. Finally, I figure they have greater respect for the rule of law than we do. Sure, they have crime too, and racism, and drugs and whatnot. But over all, they seem to be more inclined to do what they are told to do, when they are told to do it, as fast as they can and to the best of their ability. Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting notwithstanding.

P.S. I think they are packed in a little tighter than we are.

Mind you, I'm way out of my element talking about them. I've spent time in the far east, down under, and a few other places, but not Europe. They don't need people like me and I can live without them.

Btw, what do you think about other developed countries that have not succumbed to tyranny despite not having high rates of gun ownership? — Srap Tasmaner

I only think about those countries when it comes to setting examples I agree with, like universal single payor. I don't think about them at all when I think of the RTKBA. While I believe they have that right, I think that right is denied them. They may be good with that. That's their business. It's kind of like freedom of speech. It's my understanding the UK (and other developed countries) have a view on speech that would cause quite the stir if it were implemented in the U.S. But hey, if they don't want to protect their rights, that's up to them.

I would just encourage you to spend as much time thinking about the people who deal everyday with the death and destruction brought about by real people using real guns as you've evidently spent thinking about the imaginary war you and your buddies would win against a possible enemy wielding potential guns, someday, maybe, or maybe not. — Srap Tasmaner

Do the math and then we can talk about which people we should be thinking about.

To provide free healthcare one must do so through his own efforts and charity. — NOS4A2

That's not free either.