COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[FLEA]

6 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Private company, they get to make the rules...or does that only apply to drug testing?

One thing this pandemic has been good for is watching left and right swap talking points.

Haha I will agree with you on that one. But I think it's more the hypocrisy that exist in both sides. 

[arg]

Biden said 350 million people in the US got the vax. So I guess we’re done with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Day Man]

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

Well if your choice is starving or getting the vaccine you aren't really free to make a choice are you? 

the choice is to be employed there or not, which you are definitely free to make.

[Guardian]

Let’s not jump the gun. This is a sticky situation and there are bound to be exceptions and areas for people to non vaccinate.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Day Man said:

the choice is to be employed there or not, which you are definitely free to make.

 

[M2]

  

5 hours ago, arg said:

Biden said 350 million people in the US got the vax. So I guess we’re done with that.

[gearhog]

I stumbled on this 2016 RAND report while researching something completely different.

If you want to be able to explain all of this to someone else in conversation, read this first.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

 

[Pooter]

On 8/5/2021 at 7:02 PM, tac airlifter said:

Quote for me exactly where I said “intentional bioweapon release.”  Because I specifically said accidentally funded.  No idea why it was released; but an accident is more plausible than intentional to me.

Your entire post is predicated on me saying something I did not say.  

Then don't call it a "Chinese bioweapon." When you call it a bioweapon that implies a high level of intentionality both in the development and release of the virus.  Words mean things. If what you actually think is it was a lab accident then just say that and resist the temptation to get hyperbolic. 

 

It sounds like we actually agree on this, for what it's worth. 

[Guardian]

Then don't call it a "Chinese bioweapon." When you call it a bioweapon that implies a high level of intentionality both in the development and release of the virus.  Words mean things. If what you actually think is it was a lab accident then just say that and resist the temptation to get hyperbolic. 
 
It sounds like we actually agree on this, for what it's worth. 

Just because you read into it and think it says that doesn’t mean that it’s what it implies. Just because he said bioweapon doesn’t mean that he said it was intentionally released. If you have questions about what he means then ask. Don’t put words in his mouth or tell him he needs to say one thing or another. We are getting dangerously close to forced speech. But that doesn’t mean you can tell any of us what to say and we can’t tell you what to say. Just that you are being disingenuous.

[Pooter]

3 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Just because you read into it and think it says that doesn’t mean that it’s what it implies. Just because he said bioweapon doesn’t mean that he said it was intentionally released. If you have questions about what he means then ask. Don’t put words in his mouth or tell him he needs to say one thing or another. We are getting dangerously close to forced speech. But that doesn’t mean you can tell any of us what to say and we can’t tell you what to say. Just that you are being disingenuous.

You can say whatever you want. But don't get upset when you use ridiculous, over dramatic labels for things and then other people take those labels to their logical conclusions. 
 

While we're at it, why not call it an American bioweapon? We helped fund the research after all..

[Guardian]

You can say whatever you want. But don't get upset when you use ridiculous, over dramatic labels for things and then other people take those labels to their logical conclusions. 
 
While we're at it, why not call it an American bioweapon? We helped fund the research after all..

I wasn’t upset and they weren’t my comments. Take a breather. You’re getting all worked up over your own words.

Feel free to unbunch your undies

[war007afa]

On 8/6/2021 at 2:20 AM, Pooter said:

The idea this is an intentional bioweapon is just pure silliness. If you made a bioweapon to mess with the US why would the epicenter of the release be in your own country? Why would you choose an airborne, difficult to control, and not particularly deadly disease? Not to mention, we all know lockdowns and masking don't stop the problem, and China has many of the largest, most dense cities in the world which were "magically" not hit hard like every single other city in the world was. Now do we think this is because they beat covid? Or maybe they're lying about their numbers. Which do you think is easier for the government to pull off?

Lockdowns certainly increased the benefits of buying abroad and through the internet. China specializes in outsourcing goods and shipments. Can’t imagine how any sort of lockdowns (stifling local purchasing) would benefit the economic hegemony China enjoys…/s

[brickhistory]

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, war007afa said:

Lockdowns certainly increased the benefits of buying abroad and through the internet. China specializes in outsourcing goods and shipments. Can’t imagine how any sort of lockdowns (stifling local purchasing) would benefit the economic hegemony China enjoys…/s

Suggest anyone here who is interested in China’s recent rise and what it’s future holds watch the four part “China’s Reckoning” series on the Polymatter YouTube channel. China is facing serious issues, and while it’s meteoric rise to major world power status is concerning, it hardly enjoys economic hegemony on the world stage. 
 

 

[Alpharatz]

On 8/3/2021 at 3:47 PM, Sua Sponte said:

Found your vaccination card.

I'm a Vishnu follower my own self....

[Alpharatz]

Very interesting in depth article  in a recent Vanity Fair (august..it has Dua Lipa in scanty duds on the cover)  ......(don't ax)...........Extensive discussion on the evidence that strongly supports an accidental release of -19 ...Ya gotta wade thru it but it's pretty convincing...There will be a test.    I never knew who Dua Lipa is....

[tac airlifter]

16 hours ago, Pooter said:

Then don't call it a "Chinese bioweapon." When you call it a bioweapon that implies a high level of intentionality both in the development and release of the virus.  Words mean things. If what you actually think is it was a lab accident then just say that and resist the temptation to get hyperbolic. 

 

It sounds like we actually agree on this, for what it's worth. 

I think we mostly agree: words mean things.  Chinese military scientists made a virus more transmissible & deadly.  That involves a high degree of intentionality as you say.  We helped fund it (naively thinking “gain of function” is something other than weaponization).  You might not like the nomenclature, but that is a bioweapon dude.  Whether those scientist meant it to be a weapon or not I don’t know, but surely you don’t think PLA involvement was altruistic?  That I think lab escape was accidental is irrelevant to my language.

The only way this conversation is productive is if we all assume the best intentions of each other.  It’s not hyperbole for me to label something a weapon when military scientists are intentionally increasing lethality.  But I understand why you are sensitive to potential hyperbole; emotion poisons logic.  If you want to call it something else that doesn’t bother me and I’d prefer to focus on areas we agree.

All that said, what do you think we can do to China to combat what they’ve done to our economy?  How can we fight back at something that has hurt us, and must be defended against, but does not look like the traditional war we have trained for?  These are the questions that can unite us.

[Boomer6]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I think we mostly agree: words mean things.  Chinese military scientists made a virus more transmissible & deadly.  That involves a high degree of intentionality as you say.  We helped fund it (naively thinking “gain of function” is something other than weaponization).  You might not like the nomenclature, but that is a bioweapon dude.  Whether those scientist meant it to be a weapon or not I don’t know, but surely you don’t think PLA involvement was altruistic?  That I think lab escape was accidental is irrelevant to my language.

The only way this conversation is productive is if we all assume the best intentions of each other.  It’s not hyperbole for me to label something a weapon when military scientists are intentionally increasing lethality.  But I understand why you are sensitive to potential hyperbole; emotion poisons logic.  If you want to call it something else that doesn’t bother me and I’d prefer to focus on areas we agree.

All that said, what do you think we can do to China to combat what they’ve done to our economy?  How can we fight back at something that has hurt us, and must be defended against, but does not look like the traditional war we have trained for?  These are the questions that can unite us.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Don’t waste your time trying to make logical arguments with the likes of pooter / pawnman etc. If it doesn’t serve their political narrative then it’s invalid regardless of the data (the same goes for the foreverTRUMPERs just so we’re clear).

[pawnman]

24 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Don’t waste your time trying to make logical arguments with the likes of pooter / pawnman etc. If it doesn’t serve their political narrative then it’s invalid regardless of the data (the same goes for the foreverTRUMPERs just so we’re clear).

It's not about political narrative. It's about ending the pandemic. 

I don't understand how you can look at all the data available and conclude that the anti-vaxx argument is the logical one. 

[brabus]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I don't understand how you can look at all the data available and conclude that the anti-vaxx argument is the logical one

I don’t understand how you can look at all the data and conclude everyone needs to get the shot/getting the shot is “all that it takes” to end all this bullshit. But, I respect your difference in opinion though I may disagree, and will not try to force you or your family to align with my views. Maybe you should try doing the same towards others. 

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

I don’t understand how you can look at all the data and conclude everyone needs to get the shot/getting the shot is “all that it takes” to end all this bullshit. But, I respect your difference in opinion though I may disagree, and will not try to force you or your family to align with my views. Maybe you should try doing the same towards others. 

Do you feel the same about all public health measures? Or is it just the covid vaccines?

Edit to add: looks like that Russian propaganda is more effective than we thought.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-vax-movement-russian-trolls-fueled-anti-vaccination-debate-in-us-by-spreading-misinformation-twitter-study/

Edited August 8, 2021 by pawnman

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Do you feel the same about all public health measures? Or is it just the covid vaccines?

Edit to add: looks like that Russian propaganda is more effective than we thought.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-vax-movement-russian-trolls-fueled-anti-vaccination-debate-in-us-by-spreading-misinformation-twitter-study/

 

[pawnman]

8 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

 

Got that from the Alex Jones news center?

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

It's not about political narrative. It's about ending the pandemic. 

I don't understand how you can look at all the data available and conclude that the anti-vaxx argument is the logical one. 

It's not just about ending the pandemic or not ending it. It's about protecting civil liberties as well, which a large amount of people are endanger of losing once we start establishing a precedent. Our constitutional checks and balances weren't written for the convenience of a peace time government, rather, they were delibertly put in there to protect individual freedoms in times of crises, as crises is most often the excuse politicians will use to erode them. 

I personally got the vaccine. But when people who are apprehensive to vaccines come to me about my experience, the only thing I can tell them is I didn't have side effects, and my wife possibly did. I can't tell them there are no long term side effects because we simply don't know that. Noone does. I can't tell them they will be 100% safe because I don't have the ability to guarantee that. I certainly can't tell then that getting vaccinated will means they won't have to wear a mask or get COVID tested anymore because frankly that's not true. So if those are their apprehensions to the vaccine, they are certainly entitled them as well as entitled to their freedom of bodily autonomy. 

But when people start pushing a narrative that we need to do this to end the pandemic and that means we need mandates, I will push back because 1.) I don't care, the pandemic can go for 100 years and I'll still stand on the side of individual liberty and 2.) Vaccination of individuals on its own will not end a pandemic. It may ease it in some cases but the only thing that ends a pandemic is viral eradication (extraordinarily hard) or waiting for the virus to mutate into an evolutionary strategy that is less fatal to humans. It will probably be a decade before either of those happen. Spanish flu took 10 years to mutate into what we know today as H1N1. 

[pawnman]

12 minutes ago, FLEA said:

It's not just about ending the pandemic or not ending it. It's about protecting civil liberties as well, which a large amount of people are endanger of losing once we start establishing a precedent. Our constitutional checks and balances weren't written for the convenience of a peace time government, rather, they were delibertly put in there to protect individual freedoms in times of crises, as crises is most often the excuse politicians will use to erode them. 

I personally got the vaccine. But when people who are apprehensive to vaccines come to me about my experience, the only thing I can tell them is I didn't have side effects, and my wife possibly did. I can't tell them there are no long term side effects because we simply don't know that. Noone does. I can't tell them they will be 100% safe because I don't have the ability to guarantee that. I certainly can't tell then that getting vaccinated will means they won't have to wear a mask or get COVID tested anymore because frankly that's not true. So if those are their apprehensions to the vaccine, they are certainly entitled them as well as entitled to their freedom of bodily autonomy. 

But when people start pushing a narrative that we need to do this to end the pandemic and that means we need mandates, I will push back because 1.) I don't care, the pandemic can go for 100 years and I'll still stand on the side of individual liberty and 2.) Vaccination of individuals on its own will not end a pandemic. It may ease it in some cases but the only thing that ends a pandemic is viral eradication (extraordinarily hard) or waiting for the virus to mutate into an evolutionary strategy that is less fatal to humans. It will probably be a decade before either of those happen. Spanish flu took 10 years to mutate into what we know today as H1N1. 

How did we eradicate polio?  Was it by letting people wring their hands about potential side effects, or by mandating vaccines for every man, woman, and child?

You want to be on the side of liberty, then great. Just realize choices have consequences. I'm 100% for keeping people out of certain jobs, restricting ability to travel to hot spots, mandating quarantine periods for travelers, etc based on vaccine status. Just like we currently do for a whole host of other vaccines.  We've got a whole lot of case law on the side of restrictions for unvaccinated people.

Edited August 8, 2021 by pawnman