Coronavirus in Massachusetts (how much, live, safer)

[WestieWhitie]

At this point it’s for the most part the hardcore trumpies and farrakhanoids - if they want to prove Darwin right more power to them, they won’t be missed.

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

We have crossed the line of 750,000 Americans dead from this pandemic. But many people care no more than they did when it was 750 Americans dead, and they are absolutely determined to do nothing that could improve the situation. If you had told me this 10 years ago, I would have told you that you were crazy, and that this was impossible.

[bostongymjunkie]

Yes and then there are the those who continue to take actions that have proven to be ineffective, and the sheep who do absolutely nothing more than sit in their living rooms cheering them on and putting down those thinking outside the box, all in the name of being self-righteous groupthinkers. Somewhere in the middle of all that lie the actual solutions.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Yes and then there are the those who continue to take actions that have proven to be ineffective, and the sheep who do absolutely nothing more than sit in their living rooms cheering them on and putting down those thinking outside the box, all in the name of being self-righteous groupthinkers. Somewhere in the middle of all that lie the actual solutions.

These so-called people "thinking outside the box" have done nothing but stand in the way of progress.

Their "solutions" are selfish, not well thought out, would result in millions of unnecessary deaths, and could possibly screw up an entire generation in the form of long covid.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by redplum33

These so-called people "thinking outside the box" have done nothing but stand in the way of progress.

Their "solutions" are selfish, not well thought out, would result in millions of unnecessary deaths, and could possibly screw up an entire generation in the form of long covid.

Quite the contrary. Risk-based policies are always the better choice as they dedicate scarce resources based on risk and not on feelings. Virtue signalling is selfish and those who follow Big Pharma sycophants are foolish.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Quite the contrary. Risk-based policies are always the better choice as they dedicate scarce resources based on risk and not on feelings. Virtue signalling is selfish and those who follow Big Pharma sycophants are foolish.

I see plenty of virtue signalling coming from both sides of the issue, it's certainly nothing the "Big Pharma sycophants" have a monopoly on.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I see plenty of virtue signalling coming from both sides of the issue, it's certainly nothing the "Big Pharma sycophants" have a monopoly on.

Virtuous religiosity from precincts on the left is a relatively recent phenomenon that's come to overtake its counterparts on the right from what I see. But I think the biggest mistake comes from the presumption that there are only two sides of this issue.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Virtuous religiosity from precincts on the left is a relatively recent phenomenon that's come to overtake its counterparts on the right from what I see. But I think the biggest mistake comes from the presumption that there are only two sides of this issue.

Not in my experience, although I don't spend any time in "precincts on the left" so I wouldn't really know anyway. But to think that this is a "right vs. left" issue in the first place, is a big part of the brainwashing.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Not in my experience, although I don't spend any time in "precincts on the left" so I wouldn't really know anyway. But to think that this is a "right vs. left" issue in the first place, is a big part of the brainwashing.

I've spent plenty. And I'm not referring to actual religion itself, but to a religious-like devotion to dogmatic beliefs pushed on dissenters using the pretense of moral righteousness as a weapon.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by redplum33

The three external articles backing your assertion that kids aren't super spreaders...


Article #1:

• dated August 2020
• based on the original strain
• pre-Delta
• pre-vaccines
• kids weren't even back in school yet

Article #2:

• dated March 2021
• based on the original strain
• pre-Delta in the US
• vaccines were very limited and only available to high risk adults

Article #3:

• dated July 2021
• nothing substantive
• quote: “It has been perpetuated in the American media that COVID is dangerous and kids are superspreaders and schools are super-spreader places,” Høeg says. “And none of that has been validated in the scientific literature.”
• Tracy Høeg suggests that covid isn't dangerous. Zero credibility.

jay, respectfully, "irresponsible" was kind.

Do you understand that you’re doing the exact same thing that the antivaccine people have been doing for nearly a year? It’s the same garbage when I say stuff like “vaccines are safe and effective”, even down to the “because delta”. It’s impossible to argue with someone who counters evidence with no evidence. Science is not math, you can’t prove anything. Demanding an insurmountable level of evidence for any statement isn’t reasonable when applied evenly. You aren’t even applying it evenly.

All the available evidence and experts say that kids aren’t super spreaders. None of the infection data from this fall suggest that opening schools had any catastrophic effects. (All the available evidence suggests) Kids aren’t superspreaders. When it comes time to make decisions about what to do, we can’t just throw up our hands and say “we don’t really know” anymore. We have to make decisions based on what we do know, and that means making decisions based on the idea that kids aren’t superspreaders.

[redplum33]

^ straw man