2020: not safe for anyone

For philosophical reflections on the COVID-19 pandemic. How can philosophy help us to understand it, to combat it and to survive it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

the high-larious St. George

Post by henry quirk »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iwvulghyqAk#

the man, the legend, the lie
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

g'night forum (for real this time)

Post by henry quirk »

1C596889-6AC8-4902-82A3-5B0E1A04C337.jpeg
1C596889-6AC8-4902-82A3-5B0E1A04C337.jpeg (75.3 KiB) Viewed 192 times
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

third time: the charm...g'night forum

Post by henry quirk »

E8A2213F-1048-48A3-8427-ED8C9775D376.jpeg
E8A2213F-1048-48A3-8427-ED8C9775D376.jpeg (75.26 KiB) Viewed 190 times
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: not Coronapocalypse

Post by henry quirk »

CROSS-IMMUNITY: Common Colds May Have ‘Primed’ Some People’s Immune Systems For COVID-19. “A cold you got years ago may prove helpful if your body has to fight the new coronavirus. According to a study published Tuesday, some people who’ve never been exposed to the new coronavirus may nonetheless have T cells that react to it. Scientists think that’s because those cells previously learned how to identify and fight coronaviruses that cause common colds. . . . Two other recent studies offer even more evidence for this conclusion. The first, published last month, found that among 68 healthy Germans who’d never had COVID-19, more than one-third had T cells that reacted to the virus. The second, published in the journal Nature, found that more than half of a group of 37 healthy people who had never gotten COVID-19 had memory T cells that could recognise the new coronavirus. The Nature study also examined 23 people who’d survived SARS – which is a coronavirus, too – and found that they still had SARS-specific memory T cells 17 years after getting sick. Those same T cells could recognise the new coronavirus as well.”

47FA112F-CA99-47B5-9F12-8B78CBCCD936.jpeg
47FA112F-CA99-47B5-9F12-8B78CBCCD936.jpeg (100.52 KiB) Viewed 177 times
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

high-larity from a pal of mine...

Post by henry quirk »

The petty tyranny of the Covid panic has gone from a genuine response to a public health concern to just another aspect of post-sanity America. People now wear all sorts of silly face coverings when going about their day for the same reason they wear pants or shoes. It’s just another thing that is required. Soon, it will be custom, like not wearing white before Memorial Day. The ever changing rules issued from local tyrants are now taken in stride like, the weather or earthquakes in California.

The mask issue is another great example of how American politics is just a morality play with the same roles every time. The Official Left strutted onto the stage warning about the great monster and how the democracy was at risk. Their solution was mandatory mask wearing like their sponsors in China use. The Official Right tried to minimize the issue and resisted for a while, but the Official Left whipped up their partisans in the crowd and the Official Right eventually relented.

Meanwhile, out in the crowd, the partisans of the Left now feel emboldened to harass people on the streets about masks, distancing and so forth. Normal people, of course, are still stuck in the world of facts and reason, but they are adjusting to life in a past-sanity world. A similar pattern happened with homosexual marriage. Normal people still think it is ridiculous, just as they think men in sundresses is absurd, but they navigate around it and the crazies that support it.

Unlike homosexual marriage and drag queens, the petty tyranny has a moral signifier to it that makes it tougher to navigate. The mask is the most obvious one. Spend time in a public setting and you can see the believers versus the compliant. The believers make sure their face muffler is firmly attached and is clean and new. They make sure it is on before they leave the car and they wear it all the way to the car. Normal people stick theirs on just before they enter a store.

The same is true of other aspects of this performance. At places that offer hand sanitizer, the faithful queue up, making sure to keep their distance, then make a big show of rubbing themselves down with sanitizer. Normals feel pressured to do it, but they look a bit out of place. It’s like the C&E Catholics taking communion. They just assume everyone knows they are going through the motions. Others, of course, just ignore it and go about their business.

What makes all of this more compelling, from an anthropological and sociological perspective, is no one knows if these measures have any impact. The people who say they are effective almost always have no math or science. They would not know the first step in thinking about how to test the effectiveness of these measures. The other side of the debate does not exist, at least not publicly. Those strongly opposed to these measures base their arguments in the law, not science.

The truth is, there is no reason to think any of these measures have a positive impact on the progress of the pandemic. That’s the first important thing to know if you want to think about a pandemic. It is a process. Assuming the new bug is not 100% lethal to those exposed and humans can develop an immunity to it over time, a pandemic follows a predictable pattern. There is the initial outbreak, where the most vulnerable succumb, then it spreads through the population and eventually burns out.

A pandemic burns out because eventually there is a critical mass of people who are immune to the virus. Maybe they have a natural immunity or they have developed one, but over time, the ability of the virus to find a new host diminishes and it can no longer spread to new victims. Of course, in the extreme, the virus just kills all those vulnerable to it and the rest survive. Some researchers think this could have happened in Philadelphia during the Spanish Flu outbreak.

The theory behind these counter measures was to slow the spread, so hospitals would have time to gear up for patients. The fact that the spread was not impeded in the slightest is a pretty good real-world test of the measures. Maybe in theory they could work, but we don’t live in theory. In reality, months of social distancing and mask wearing have had no impact on the course of the disease. In fact, in places like New York, their policies probably made it worse.

It is possible that all of these measures are bad idea. Take the mandatory mask wearing business as an example. Wearing a surgical mask in a medial setting as part of a protocol to maintain a germ-free environment is well established. Hospitals have very lengthy procedures for the staff, as well as regular training by people who are tasked with maintaining a clean environment. The mask is just one small part of a larger process to maintain a safe environment in the hospital.

In the regular world, where no such procedures are in place and no one is trained in the proper use of masks, or even using proper masks, the mask may be a bad idea. If you watch people in the wild, they are endlessly fiddling with their masks. We know a primary vector for a virus is people touching their face and eyes. A policy that increasing face touching is not a good idea in a pandemic. In other words, mask wearing may increase the spread of the virus in the real world.

The efficacy of mask wearing does not matter, as it is now just another amulet people can wear in public to express their adherence to a particular cult. In the case of the scolds yelling at people about their masks, they believe their mask loyalty is a license to harass the world. Social misfits at the bottom of the social hierarchy now use the mask issue to attack the normal people for not liking the mask policy. The mask is now just another part of the general madness of this age.
Belinda
Posts: 4015
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: 2020: not safe for anyone

Post by Belinda »

Henry, your own literary style is far better than your friend's :D
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: 2020: not safe for anyone

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:46 am Henry, your own literary style is far better than your friend's :D
I stick with short & sweet, in & out...I coulda summarized him but didn't that was my place

my buddy is wordy, yeah, but how he sez it is less important than what he sez
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

sunday morning high-larity from Lionel Shriver...

Post by henry quirk »

There’s nothing unprecedented about COVID-19 itself. The equally novel, equally infectious Asian flu of 1957 had commensurate fatalities in Britain: scaled up for today’s population, the equivalent of 42,000, while the UK’s (statistically flawed) COVID death total now stands at 46,000. Globally, the Asian flu was vastly more lethal, causing between two and four million deaths. The Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 also slew up to four million people worldwide, including 80,000 Britons. Yet in both instances, life went on.

What is unprecedented: never has a virus been so oversold.

In a recent Kekst CNC poll, British respondents estimated that nearly 7 percent of the UK population has died from the coronavirus. That would be 4.5 million people. Scots supposed that more than 10 percent of the UK population has died. That would be seven million people. Astonishingly, Americans believed that COVID has killed nine percent of their compatriots, or almost 30 million people! The real US total has indeed crossed the milestone of *150,000, but for pity’s sake, ‘only’ 20 million people died in World War One.










*as I say: if an accurate accounting were had, subtracting out error and lie, we'd find this figure to be closer to 75,000, perhaps even lower

incompetence & agenda has us boondoggled
commonsense
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: sunday morning high-larity from Lionel Shriver...

Post by commonsense »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:37 pm There’s nothing unprecedented about COVID-19 itself. The equally novel, equally infectious Asian flu of 1957 had commensurate fatalities in Britain: scaled up for today’s population, the equivalent of 42,000, while the UK’s (statistically flawed) COVID death total now stands at 46,000. Globally, the Asian flu was vastly more lethal, causing between two and four million deaths. The Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 also slew up to four million people worldwide, including 80,000 Britons. Yet in both instances, life went on.

What is unprecedented: never has a virus been so oversold.

In a recent Kekst CNC poll, British respondents estimated that nearly 7 percent of the UK population has died from the coronavirus. That would be 4.5 million people. Scots supposed that more than 10 percent of the UK population has died. That would be seven million people. Astonishingly, Americans believed that COVID has killed nine percent of their compatriots, or almost 30 million people! The real US total has indeed crossed the milestone of *150,000, but for pity’s sake, ‘only’ 20 million people died in World War One.










*as I say: if an accurate accounting were had, subtracting out error and lie, we'd find this figure to be closer to 75,000, perhaps even lower

incompetence & agenda has us boondoggled
You’ve just said that life went on in previous global pandemics and their were far more deaths and cases in those pandemics.

How many Coronavirus deaths will satisfy your appetite?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

boondoggle

Post by henry quirk »

How many Coronavirus deaths will satisfy your appetite?

how many of those deaths were from beer virus?

how many of those deaths were with beer virus?

how many of those deaths had nuthin' to do with beer virus?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8829
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: yep, votin' by mail: great idea...

Post by henry quirk »

More Than 84,000 Mail In Ballots Disqualified In New York City Primary

Mail in ballots belonging to more than 84,000 Democrats in New York City who were seeking to vote in the presidential primary were disqualified according to newly released data from the Board of Elections.

According to the NY Post, the city received 403,103 mail in ballots for the June 23 Democratic primary and the certified results on Wednesday confirmed that only 318,995 of these ballots were counted.

The 84,108 ballots that were not counted represented 21% of the total mail-in ballots.


6B7467B2-07AB-474E-9FB7-ABB5075C3C8B.jpeg
6B7467B2-07AB-474E-9FB7-ABB5075C3C8B.jpeg (100.52 KiB) Viewed 139 times
Post Reply