Friar Bijou wrote:
"Belief" is not co-equal with science, sorry.
It's interesting for you to say that, given that you are simply declaring your belief to be science, and thus declaring that any opposing opinion is "against science". Um... Actual science doesn't work that way. Science very rarely gives us one and only one answer though. Science tells us what is true and what is not true. It does not tell us what the best course of action to take in response to those truths is though.
Some people seem to think that it does, though.
I laid out the argument quite clearly. We believe that there will be fewer deaths if we do it our way instead of the current method, which says that some 60 year old guy with diabetes should continue working because he works in a grocery store, but a 25 year old in perfect health should stay at home and not work (and not earn a paycheck) because he works in a t-shirt shop. That's totally illogical.
The fact that a 25 year old may easily carry the virus without getting terribly sick, giving him a chance to spread it never once entering into your mind. Astonishing
Never entering my mind despite me previously addressing that exact issue. Hmmm...
Let me re-explain this. If you keep all the at risk folks (said 60 year old with diabetes and a heart condition), at home where they are not interacting with people, and allow the healthy folks to go out freely, then yes, they will carry the virus without getting terribly sick, giving them the chance to spread it to other folks who are not at risk and will also carry the virus without getting terribly sick
. See, cause the at risk folks, who might become terribly sick or even die, are all at home not being exposed.
What part of that do you not understand? This process is what builds herd immunity. Which means that after a relatively short amount of time, all those healthy people, who are not likely to get terribly sick, will have been exposed, have build up immunity, and then there's no one left to carry the virus anymore, and it fades away.
The result of this process is that you ultimately protect the at risk population because they are surrounded by folks with resistance and/or immunity, and thus significantly reduce the vectors of transmission to the at risk folks. Once that immunity rat is high enough, the at risk people can come out to play because the chances of the virus hitting them at that point are low, and it becomes more like a seasonal flu risk.
That's actual science btw. What's baffling to me is that the same folks who are absolute experts on herd immunity when it comes to a vaccination thread seem to be taking the exact opposite position in this case. So when the issue is forcing people to take vaccinations to build herd immunity and protect the at risk folks, of course we should do it. But when the issue is *not* forcing people to stay at home so they can freely move around and build herd immunity naturally and protect the at risk folks, it's suddenly a terrible idea.
You'd almost think that the underlying ideology behind that set of positions is the desire to use the government to force people to do things and not really about public health. It's only consistent in the "force people to do things", and not in the "best for public health". And again, that's just me observing the pattern of positions people take and what commonalities they have. Which again, is science. Observing patterns and making deductions based on them.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Tell me again who just passed a law stating that your search history no longer needs a search warrant for the Feds to look at it. And who presented that bill to begin with. Get back to me on that, will you?
I have no idea. Why don't you tell me? And maybe explain how this is relevant rather than a pivot from the subject?
The only thing I could find on this was a discussion about how the patriot act may allow this, but it's unclear how often it's actually been used.
Um. I'll also put on my IT hat and point out that you don't actually own your search history. The search engine online does. If google chooses to track which searches are done from each IP connected to their servers, they can do that. In the same way that Amazon may remember which searches and purchases you have performed in the past (how sites steer you to "things similar to what you've previously looked at" stuff). They own the data after all. And thus, law enforcement would require only a subpoena to get that, not a warrant.
That's pretty far far away from prohibiting people from working, or gathering (free association is a right, right?), or frankly doing whatever they want. You're trying to equate a single stone with a mountain. It's that positive versus negative thing again. It's one thing to prohibit actions that are innately harmful. It's another to prohibit *all* actions except for those the government deems essential (again, not even "not harmful", as my "60 year old health care worker" example shows). The latter is a massive infringement of our liberties. Edited, May 21st 2020 12:55pm by gbaji