gearhog

Ridiculous. This is how you say: "We're going to pay hefty ransom" without saying "We're going to pay a hefty ransom."

Not sure which one you have, but the NHS passport app's most recent privacy notice advises the user that the app collects and stores a vast amount of "special category" information for Track and Trace. It's worth looking into. As you read this, please realize I'm not into conspiracy theories. I just want to know what we're getting into. I don't go to crazy-eyed right wing websites for this info or editorials about how we're all becoming slaves, I go to the source that anyone can access today, and am posting what these legitimate organizations and individuals themselves are openly saying. If you agree with all of this, go get the app. You may be scanning a simple QR, but there's a lot more to it. I do have a hard time believing that people are ok with all of the below. I think it's just that they're too apathetic to read the fine print. It's all apathy. And, of course: "If I'm doing nothing wrong, then I have nothing to hide." Check out the list, it's amazing. Read the entire page, including the private companies the government will be sending their citizens' data to. This is what is coming here. The attached screenshots are from this website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-test-and-trace-privacy-information/test-and-trace-overarching-privacy-notice

This should get interesting. "On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) has gone rogue to travel to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan on a rescue mission, in the face of multiple warnings not to do so from the Pentagon and State Department — and that nobody knows where he is." https://www.rawstory.com/markwayne-mullin-afghanistan/ And Biden is probably done. He knew, and he wanted people to lie about it. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9945031/Biden-told-Afghan-President-needed-change-perception-Talibans-rapid-advance.html

"Hey, Nav... can you take a picture of us flying the plane?"

October 2019? That's weird. They really nailed it, didn't they? https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about

For anyone wondering how your new COVID passport is going to work, here's the detailed guidance just published by the WHO. It's funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, so you know it's going to work just as well as the Windows computer in your office. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Digital_certificates-vaccination-technical_briefing-2021.1

Sounds like the Tucanos were rendered inoperable on the way out. Other tweets from this account indicate that other aircraft in Kabul were destroyed by us as we left. There are mentions of some still operational, and pilots being available to fly them from Kabul to Khandahar. A few videos of a rebuilt Blackhawk flying over Khandahar celebrated as the Islamic Emirate Air Force . There are also some interesting comments regarding China. Also: Chinooks https://twitter.com/ejwi9ws9/status/1432478761468022784?s=20

Well, then... where do I mail your honorary PhD, Doc?

My whole argument has been centered on the belief that it is not black and white (vaxxed and unvaxxed). And it's not that I'm not interested in answering this question, it's that you posted the question while I was responding to your earlier post. I think you're actually asking me if I showed up after someone else in the ICU, and we both needed ICU, if I would prioritize myself ahead of them and deny them care.. as if it were some giant moral conundrum. Seriously? I'm a retired military officer who has led a full life and has been exposed to more risk than most in the name of service and sacrifice, and I continue to willingly expose myself to high risk activities on nearly a daily basis. Motorcycles, beer, steaks, flying, skiing, etc. Your question is f'ing stupid. Likely the dumbest one I've ever been asked on this forum.

"Hutchinson said hospitals in the state were working to open more ICU beds for virus patients." What a ridiculous concept. So your Aunt Martha is an anti-government lockdown protestor. That's an oddly specific politically charged reference to make when determining who you're going to remove from life support. Why is that always part of the equation and usually one of the first mentioned? You're making my point for me. You say it's not about emotion, I say it is. Just curious, when was your last shift in the hell that is triage?

No, that's not the core of the issue. "Lack of resources" is the vague unspecific backdrop being used to justify killing someone who made a choice different that you. You may not agree with that statement, but let's start with the real core of the issue, which was a very specific hypothetical scenario created by pawnman: not enough ventilators. First, let us establish that today, this is a real threat in real places to the extent that it's worth having a debate over. By "us", I mean "you". Post a link. Second, giving you the benefit of the doubt that the above precondition will be met, I'll give you similar question about the specific scenario pawnman created: You're at a hospital with 20 ventilators and 20 people on ventilators all with hopes of recovery. 8 of them are unvaccinated. 10 more people show up. 6 of them are vaccinated (going with the 60/40% vax stats). Give them all names of friends and family you have close personal relationships with. Now, do you remove one of the ventilators from an unvaxxed patient (thereby giving them a death sentence) and give it to a vaxxed patient? pawnman unapologetically and enthusiastically says "Yes!" with absolutely no other discerning questions or qualifying statements about about any of the patients. He would actively seek to remove life from one individual and give it to another with no expert medical knowledge and would base his decision solely on vaccine - yes/no? criteria and using "insufficient resources" as an excuse. This is a very direct and straightforward question but if I were you, I wouldn't answer it. Maybe skip it.

But I believe it will most definitely happen. This virus will always evade our defenses for as long as there are people and animals. Just as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc have. I've had COVID. Once definitely, twice possibly. For me, it was moderately severe. I was legitimately scared the first time. After, I started to consider my irrational fears and where they came from. I have been hospitalized with pneumonia and atelactasis previously, but wasn't as fearful. Something was different. The information I was getting second hand didn't match what I have experience first hand over the last year. I know people who have died from this. But I also know more people who have died from other things. Took my family to Germany in 2018. Went to Rudesheim. The Carl Jung winery is there. I became interested in his books. They're a little bland, so I can't say that I read them thoroughly, but there's some good stuff in there. For instance: Mass Psychosis. Everything he has said on the subject seems to have been deliberately and carefully put into practice. Here's a boiled down article: https://academyofideas.com/2021/02/mass-psychosis-greatest-threat-to-humanity/ There is more to life than paralyzing fear of death. If a person can't see that not only are we facing a somewhat deadly virus, but worse yet, a system that seeks to exploit it, they're willfully naive. Don't buy into it.

Hey, bro: You've been vigorously defending your argument that it's okay to kill an unvaccinated person to save a vaccinated one. I'm not the troll here. You can either disengage or admit that maybe your position has flaws. Feel free to choose other CoA, but I'll be here ready to bury your posts.

It's not as nice as the feeling of moral superiority when you pull the plug on someone's life support, I'm sure.

I wasn't trying to burn you or score a point. I'm honestly conveying my disgust for a truly despicable and indefensible position.

I guess... if it's even possible to feel good about your argument to jerk someone's breathing tube out of their throat.

Great post, I appreciate the thoughts. I can sort of follow your train of logic, but I still have problems with it. When, not if, the mutation of the virus turns up in the hospital where your girlfriend works and she is at risk because her vaccine is ineffective against it, being vaccinated/unvaccinated has no longer has any meaning. My point being, once a variant exists, everyone is effectively unvaccinated, so it shouldn't be factor in determining who gets treated. There are currently an untold number of variants, and we're told Delta is the predominant one. Let's add that there is no way to know which variant anyone has unless an individual sample is genetically sequenced. That's not happening. The obvious solution is to prevent variants, right? (I'm probably rehashing someone else's argument in another thread here, but I don't know.) Many of us are led to believe that getting everyone vaccinated prevents the mutation and spread of variants. Is that how it works? No. Do vaccines destroy the virus? No. Do vaccines create antibodies? Yes. Do antibodies improve an individuals immune response and perhaps lessen the viral load? I think so. Do vaccines prevent mutations from occurring? No. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants Are natural antibodies more robust and longer lasting than those resulting from vaccines? Who am I to say? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot Check out the phylogenetic tree lineage for viruses. Coronaviruses are distinct from influenza viruses, which are distinct at a higher level than, say, the Polio virus. Until recently, coronaviruses have always been known as the "Common Cold", for which a cure or a vaccine has never before been found. One major reason is because they can never be eradicated from animal reservoirs. We do have annual influenza shots, but how effective have they been in eliminating the flu? The point being, coronavirus variants will always exist because they will always lead the cure. None of this is about curing the virus.

First, I apologize if it seemed I am being hostile and condescending. I know I'm being direct, but I'm trying not to make it personal. I've had this debate with a few friends and although we get charged up over it, we remain friends. I'm assuming your girlfriend is vaccinated. If so, what's the problem? Why do you worry? The specific issue in this debate that I might seem passionate about is the logical leaps one must make to justify actively taking one life in the belief you're saving another on the basis of vaccination status. You're talking about what kind of pants I'm wearing and open borders. Your argument is a mess. What is the goal of vaccines? Is it to create antibodies to fight COVID? If that is the result you are trying to achieve, why would you differentiate the method by which it was achieved? Again, I'm being direct. Don't take it personally. I often don't have time to disarm my language with delicate words and subtle suggestions. I don't think you're an idiot. CS Lewis, circa 1948:

As I told pawnman, it's really easy to set up a hypothetical scenario that allows you punt the football out the stadium. As I did earlier, I could introduce a few complications and complexities to your example and you, also, wouldn't be able to create such an obvious answer. You're not a surgeon, pawnman is not a surgeon, and neither of you have been faced with these false dilemmas, nor do you know of anyone who has. I know that's sort of blunt, and I risk raising your ire by pointing that out. However, I can be reasonably certain that you will never be in that situation or have the ability to comprehend all the nuances and variables required to make such a decision. So... for you to profess that you have the knowledge and moral authority to make a life-death decision in a this unrealistic hypothetical is more than a little off-putting. You don't get to decide who lives or dies in the ER and, thankfully, you never will.

Thanks, I wish I could have articulated my points as well as this article does.

No, I am not. I am simply admitting I do not have enough information to take a life. Therein lies the fundamental difference between us. You would kill over vaccination status. I would not. In just a few posts, we've reached the impasse that all of society will soon face. Words don't solve it.

That's always the only other option.

I didn't poke any holes in your answers. They were already there. You say you're getting tired, so I won't run this into the ground. I could you if you like, but you seem like you don't. You don't have to do it here, but let this thought roll around in your head a while: "I am so secure in my convictions that would take one person off a ventilator and give it to another over their vaccination status."

Brother, I get all that. But here's the way it seems to me: The most embarrassing bumblefcku in American military history had just occurred due to poor decisions and assessment of risk, leading to the conditions that caused to 13 of our military brothers and sisters and countless civilians being killed at the airport gate. We're further shocked and humiliated, and Biden announces that this evil attack will not go unpunished. The same leadership, same decision process, same intelligence methodology that missed the attack at the gate miraculously finds a VBIED in a Kabul neighborhood the next day. So we shoot at an explosive laden vehicle in a dense neighborhood just before our final exist and blame civilian casualties on secondary explosions. Occam's Razor.

First, let's remind ourselves that I have created none of these hypothetical situations we're discussing. All I have done is used your hypotheticals (ventilators and heart transplants), and added some complexity. Adding just a little bit seems to create frustration because they are difficult questions to answer. No offense, but I'm left to assume that's why you didn't. Second, I haven't seen either your examples occurring on a scale or frequency that necessitates a blanket policy decision by you about who gets treatment. Or much, much worse yet, taking life away to give life. To give you an imperfect answer: I would help where help is needed, as it is needed, knowing full well I do not have the moral authority to take life away with regard to changing circumstances, or my personal beliefs. To me, it would seem the most obvious answer that is if you are limited in our capacity help, you increase capacity.