Poll of the Day > Joe Rogan CANCELS his SOLD OUT show in VANCOUVER cause he REFUSES a VACCINE!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

SunWuKung420 posted...

Omicron says "you're welcome".

Preliminary data is suggesting that antibodies from a previous Delta infection are roughly 20% as effective at preventing an Omicron infection as they are for preventing another Delta one. It stands to reason that the reverse will prove to be true (that is, Omicron antibodies are only 20% effective against Delta), meaning Omicron isn't likely to help us achieve herd immunity to any variants other than Omicron. The antigens are just too different, which is why the vaccines are having such a hard time with it.

Unbridled9 posted...

What restrictions are you willing to impose in order to get your 'return to normalcy'?

Pretty much what's already happening: bar the unvaxxed from non-essential public spaces, especially those where people aren't wearing masks (e.g. restaurants, since it's awfully hard to eat through them), fire them from workplaces where their refusal to be vaccinated creates an unsafe working environment (which there is ample precedent for, so that's not even a new idea), and put some extra restrictions on their ability to travel.

Unbridled9 posted...

Are you willing to give up everything, making others suffer immensely, if only so that you can return to 'normalcy'?

It's 2-3 shots and a day or two of flu symptoms. "Suffer immensely" is just a teensy bit overdramatic.

Unbridled9 posted...

What are you willing to do to punish the unvaccinated for their choice or are you willing to even give them a choice?

Again, calling it a punishment is looking at it entirely the wrong way. It's not about trying to change their behaviour. It's about mitigating the consequences of their choices, choices which would otherwise be putting many others in danger. If they respond to those mitigation efforts by changing their behaviour, great. If not, at least the rest of us are protected from them.

The focus is not on the unvaccinated. It's on protecting everyone else. The unvaccinated will likely become casualties of those efforts, but that's their choice, so they can just deal with whatever needs to happen.

Unbridled9 posted...

I will never agree with the sort of mindset willing to punish a five year old child for being unvaccinated.

Would you punish a five-year-old with measles by keeping them from seeing their friends? Or would you keep a five-year-old with measles from seeing their friends out of necessity, recognizing that the safety of everyone around them took precedent over making them happy?

Unbridled9 posted...

Or saying people should be fired from their jobs if they lack it.

Again, there's already precedent for that. There are plenty of ways you can be fired for creating an unsafe work environment, some of which are government-mandated. This is just one more.

Unbridled9 posted...

I've seen photos of people being locked away in containment pods so they could meet their families for holidays and people being welded into their own homes in nations like China. I will never support something like that. Ever.

That is indeed extreme.

With the amount adjl presumes, assumes and denies, while suggesting excluding a group of people from society, he might just be the right wing Joe rogan.

SunWuKung420 posted...

With the amount adjl presumes, assumes and denies, while suggesting excluding a group of people from society, he might just be the right wing Joe rogan.

Admittedly, I don't know how to conclusively determine this, but I'm fairly certain I'm not Joe Rogan.

Whats funny about this is the US considers anyone who had Covid to be fully-vaccinated for three months after they had it.

I know because I was going to go see my family in California and called the US border and some airports they told me to call.

Pretty much what's already happening: bar the unvaxxed from non-essential public spaces, especially those where people aren't wearing masks (e.g. restaurants, since it's awfully hard to eat through them), fire them from workplaces where their refusal to be vaccinated creates an unsafe working environment (which there is ample precedent for, so that's not even a new idea), and put some extra restrictions on their ability to travel.

This seems utterly insane and dictatorial to me. It's treating people who aren't even sick like they have the bubonic plague and making it so they are confined and restricted. This is exactly how you get people refusing out of defiance to boot.

It's 2-3 shots and a day or two of flu symptoms. "Suffer immensely" is just a teensy bit overdramatic.

I didn't say the suffering was the shot. I meant that the suffering was coming from becoming a social outcast unable to function or live a normal life.

Again, calling it a punishment is looking at it entirely the wrong way.

'It's not punishment. It's just inflicting increasingly negative outcomes upon them for their behavior until they conform to our desired outcome.'

Next you're going to tell me that rain isn't wet because only water can get you wet and water is only found in rivers while rain comes from the sky. If this isn't punishment than I dread to think about what you would consider actual punishment.

Would you punish a five-year-old with measles by keeping them from seeing their friends?

There is a MASSIVE difference between a parent preventing their child, who is sick and likely not feeling well enough in the first place (or at least capable of sensing something is wrong), from seeing a friend for a short amount of time because they are sick and a restaurant calling a cop on a child, who may be entirely healthy not just from COVID but any sickness at all, to remove the child indefinitely because the child, who is five, lacks proof of vaccination.

Again, there's already precedent for that. There are plenty of ways you can be fired for creating an unsafe work environment, some of which are government-mandated. This is just one more.

Bullshit. I've been sick to the point of needing to take multiple toilet dashes and gotten told I would be punished if I took a sick day. I had a damned nail impale my foot and had to fight to get a stool to sit down. I had to work at a job that required talking to customers actively when I had bronchitis that was about to turn into pneumonia because 'no one else can cover your shift'. Companies don't give a crap about your health. They'll gladly find some way to deny you healthcare if they can if only so they don't have to shoulder the expense. The only reason they care is because the government is threatening to hold a gun to their head and even then they'll ONLY care about COVID. You could walk in with your leg half torn off, a bullet wound to the head, and your own left arm detatched and reanimated and trying to strangle you in a zombastic fury and they'll still demand you get on the cash register or help bring in totes or answer calls or something. So long as it isn't COVID they won't care and they'll only care about COVID because the government is forcing them to do so.

Bullshit.

SunWuKung420 posted...

With the amount adjl presumes, assumes and denies, while suggesting excluding a group of people from society, he might just be the right wing Joe rogan.

Imagine thinking adjl is right wing in any way, shape, or form.
But then again, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.

Unbridled9 posted...

This seems utterly insane and dictatorial to me. It's treating people who aren't even sick like they have the bubonic plague and making it so they are confined and restricted.

That is how viral outbreak control works. You can't wait until symptoms show as they would have already spread it by then. Everybody has to be treated as infected as you have no way of determining it beforehand.

It's because of people like you that we didn't just have a 6 week mandatory lockdown, stop the spread entirely inland and lockdown the airports until other countries do the same then be back to normal in 3 months.

Zareth posted...

Imagine thinking adjl is right wing in any way, shape, or form.
But then again, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.

I dunno. Advocating for the segregation of a group of people based on the assumption of their political and potentially religious beliefs while classifying them as 'unclean' seems pretty far-right.

Unbridled9 posted...

I dunno. Advocating for the segregation of a group of people based on the assumption of their political and potentially religious beliefs while classifying them as 'unclean' seems pretty far-right.

Your political and religious beliefs aren't protected if they are causing harm to other people.

Unbridled9 posted...

I didn't say the suffering was the shot. I meant that the suffering was coming from becoming a social outcast unable to function or live a normal life.

That's self-inflicted, the shot is what's being offered to them.

Unbridled9 posted...

'It's not punishment. It's just inflicting increasingly negative outcomes upon them for their behavior until they conform to our desired outcome.'

You choosing not to eat isn't other people punishing you, no matter how much it hurts. Just eat your fucking food, it doesn't even taste bad.

Unbridled9 posted...

Next you're going to tell me that rain isn't wet because only water can get you wet and water is only found in rivers while rain comes from the sky. If this isn't punishment than I dread to think about what you would consider actual punishment.

If you come in to someone's house soaking wet, they may ask you to get out of those wet clothes and put something on they offer you. If you choose to stay in your wet clothes you have to stand on the deck as they don't want their carpet soaked. You aren't being punished with staying in wet clothes, you're just not allowed to soak their carpets. Just put on the dry clothes and stop being a child.

Unbridled9 posted...

There is a MASSIVE difference between a parent preventing their child, who is sick and likely not feeling well enough in the first place (or at least capable of sensing something is wrong), from seeing a friend for a short amount of time because they are sick and a restaurant calling a cop on a child, who may be entirely healthy not just from COVID but any sickness at all, to remove the child indefinitely because the child, who is five, lacks proof of vaccination.

Not really, you're just being an idiot.

Unbridled9 posted...

Bullshit. I've been sick to the point of needing to take multiple toilet dashes and gotten told I would be punished if I took a sick day. I had a damned nail impale my foot and had to fight to get a stool to sit down. I had to work at a job that required talking to customers actively when I had bronchitis that was about to turn into pneumonia because 'no one else can cover your shift'.

And? COVID is visible and dangerous enough to society that you will get sued hard if you spread it. Bronchitis doesn't have the same issue so they're willing to risk it, but they can still get in trouble if someone proves it.

Unbridled9 posted...

I dunno. Advocating for the segregation of a group of people based on the assumption of their political and potentially religious beliefs while classifying them as 'unclean' seems pretty far-right.

It also sounds like LGBT activists. It's not left or right, nor is it good or bad, it's an act subject to context.

Unbridled9 posted...

This seems utterly insane and dictatorial to me. It's treating people who aren't even sick like they have the bubonic plague and making it so they are confined and restricted. This is exactly how you get people refusing out of defiance to boot.

That's simply the nature of this beast. People can be contagious for up to two weeks before showing any symptoms; if you wait until they're confirmed to be sick to enact preventative measures. there's a very high chance they've already spread it to many other people. So long as there is still significant transmission happening, unvaccinated people are at considerably greater risk of being infectious than vaccinated people, and should be held to the same precautionary measures as were applied to everyone in the pre-vaccine days.

Unbridled9 posted...

I didn't say the suffering was the shot. I meant that the suffering was coming from becoming a social outcast unable to function or live a normal life.

The alternative of getting the shot is always available. Suffering that's that easily avoided doesn't really count as suffering.

Unbridled9 posted...

'It's not punishment. It's just inflicting increasingly negative outcomes upon them for their behavior until they conform to our desired outcome.'

Again, nobody cares about changing their behaviour. It's purely about results: Take the unvaccinated out of the environment, and the environment becomes safer. That's true whether it's achieved by removing them directly or by them ceasing to be unvaccinated.

Unbridled9 posted...

There is a MASSIVE difference between a parent preventing their child, who is sick and likely not feeling well enough in the first place (or at least capable of sensing something is wrong), from seeing a friend for a short amount of time because they are sick and a restaurant calling a cop on a child, who may be entirely healthy not just from COVID but any sickness at all, to remove the child indefinitely because the child, who is five, lacks proof of vaccination.

If cops are being called, it's entirely because the parents are being belligerent and trespassing after being asked to leave, not simply because an unvaccinated child showed up at the door. Children are already routinely prevented from participating in certain activities based on their vaccination status. Expanding that in this particular way is perfectly consistent with that precedent. It's also consistent with keeping a kid at home even though they feel better because they're still contagious. Perhaps head lice would have been a better example, since measles is usually pretty miserable, but meh.

Unbridled9 posted...

Bulls***. I've been sick to the point of needing to take multiple toilet dashes and gotten told I would be punished if I took a sick day. I had a damned nail impale my foot and had to fight to get a stool to sit down. I had to work at a job that required talking to customers actively when I had bronchitis that was about to turn into pneumonia because 'no one else can cover your shift'. Companies don't give a crap about your health. They'll gladly find some way to deny you healthcare if they can if only so they don't have to shoulder the expense. The only reason they care is because the government is threatening to hold a gun to their head and even then they'll ONLY care about COVID. You could walk in with your leg half torn off, a bullet wound to the head, and your own left arm detatched and reanimated and trying to strangle you in a zombastic fury and they'll still demand you get on the cash register or help bring in totes or answer calls or something. So long as it isn't COVID they won't care and they'll only care about COVID because the government is forcing them to do so.

Bulls***.

Yes, many workplaces will cut as many corners as possible when it comes to health and safety, but that doesn't change the fact that there's still ample precedent for firing people who refuse to work safely (as much because they're a liability as anything), as well as for the government to force them to do so. I gave several examples earlier.

Unbridled9 posted...

I dunno. Advocating for the segregation of a group of people based on the assumption of their political and potentially religious beliefs while classifying them as 'unclean' seems pretty far-right.

But I'm not advocating for their segregation based on assumptions of their political/religious beliefs. I'm advocating for their segregation based on the level of public health risk they pose. There's a clear practical basis of aiming to maximize public health and safety. As it happens, that's significantly correlated with certain political beliefs, thanks to everyone politicizing public health like a bunch of idiots, but that's entirely ancillary to my reasoning.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you come in to someone's house soaking wet, they may ask you to get out of those wet clothes and put something on they offer you. If you choose to stay in your wet clothes you have to stand on the deck as they don't want their carpet soaked. You aren't being punished with staying in wet clothes, you're just not allowed to soak their carpets. Just put on the dry clothes and stop being a child.

I like this analogy. Good job.

Is there any point in considering this discussion? You're clearly convinced any measure is justified so long as it 'helps contain' the outbreak while I'm clearly convinced that, while the vaccines are good and everyone should get them, the lockdowns, mandates, and hysteria have long since passed acceptable levels for this and it's almost certain neither of us are going to budge.

Unbridled9 posted...

Is there any point in considering this discussion? You're clearly convinced any measure is justified so long as it 'helps contain' the outbreak while I'm clearly convinced that, while the vaccines are good and everyone should get them, the lockdowns, mandates, and hysteria have long since passed acceptable levels for this and it's almost certain neither of us are going to budge.

The point is to make clear your opinion is busted and not let you feel comfortable speaking it like it's a valid take.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The point is to make clear your opinion is busted and not let you feel comfortable speaking it like it's a valid take.

I could say the exact same about your opinion.

Unbridled9 posted...

I could say the exact same about your opinion.

Sure can, thing is you are in the minority, so you are the one that is invalidated.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Sure can, thing is you are in the minority, so you are the one that is invalidated.

Is that how validation works now a-days? Not logic or reason but mob rule? Whichever side speaks the loudest, holds the most votes, is the correct one? You see no difference between a mother keeping a sick child home and a cop kicking a non-sick child out simply for lacking the proper papers. Yet you would say you are correct just because you 'are the majority'? What will happen if that flips? If the people claim such an act is tyrannical and those who supported it are monsters? Would you then accept your new title in the belief that what you did was right despite being in the minority or would you abandon your cause so that, once again, you can hold the validation of the masses?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Sure can, thing is you are in the minority, so you are the one that is invalidated.

Maybe in your brainwashed fantasy world, but a majority of people are against vaccine mandates and a majority prefer personal choice.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/americans-reached-tipping-point-national-163000498.html

Regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates, overwhelmingly, 53% prefer personal choice to 37% who want government mandates.

I've got my shots but the whole "you must take the shot to get your life back" that's being imposed sounds like something a totalitarian regime would do

OhhhJa posted...

I've got my shots but the whole "you must take the shot to get your life back" that's being imposed sounds like something a totalitarian regime would do

Honestly, if anything, this whole discussion has strengthened my belief that these mandates must be opposed at all costs. To see someone stand up for the abuse of a child, to agree with the notion that a persons life should be utterly ruined, all in the name of a phantasmal goal, is utterly unconscionable in my mind.

Unbridled9 posted...

Is that how validation works now a-days?

That is how validation has ALWAYS worked in human society.

Unbridled9 posted...

Not logic or reason but mob rule?

We have logic, you demonstrate that you don't bend to that.

Unbridled9 posted...

Yet you would say you are correct just because you 'are the majority'?

No, you are to be ridiculed and mocked because we are the majority, and you remain the minority because you are wrong and cannot convince people otherwise.

Unbridled9 posted...

What will happen if that flips?

Not going to, your argument is deeply flawed and you have no defense of it.

Unbridled9 posted...

Would you then accept your new title in the belief that what you did was right despite being in the minority or would you abandon your cause so that, once again, you can hold the validation of the masses?

I have my stance because I rely on the facts, what makes my stance the majority is also what makes it correct. Had you chosen to use your head, you wouldn't have the stance you have.

MartianManchild posted...

Maybe in your brainwashed fantasy world, but a majority of people are against vaccine mandates and a majority prefer personal choice.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/americans-reached-tipping-point-national-163000498.html

Americans, the world's source of dumbass shit. You guys act like all your water comes from Flint, MI.

Unbridled9 posted...

Honestly, if anything, this whole discussion has strengthened my belief that these mandates must be opposed at all costs.

And this is why you are to be mocked, you go in the face of reality to make your stance.

That is how validation has ALWAYS worked in human society.

No. It does not, has not, and never could. Else there could be no new ideas or progress, especially ones that opposed what the general consensus was. Someone advocating for Heliocentrism over Geocentrism would be shouted down as 'invalid' and lose simply because the mass was against them and no amount of logic, science, or fact could change that. That you believe such a thing shows you are opposed to the very concept of logic in favor of dogmatic, fanatical, fervor. You are as much a friend to logic as water is to fire. A fanatic attacking his opponents as ignorant, vile, savages.

I have my stance because I rely on the facts, what makes my stance the majority is also what makes it correct. Had you chosen to use your head, you wouldn't have the stance you have.

So then would you stand by facts even if the majority turned against you? You said just now that validation comes from mass approval. Yet here you say you would stand by fact above all else. You are a hypocrite. Either you are willing to stand by the truth even when the masses say otherwise or you are willing to side with the masses even when the truth may be elsewhere. Both of these beliefs cannot be true at the same time.

And this is why you are to be mocked, you go in the face of reality to make your stance.

And you lack reality all together.

Unbridled9 posted...

You're clearly convinced any measure is justified so long as it 'helps contain' the outbreak

Not remotely. I've explicitly agreed that welding people into their homes goes too far. We're talking about saving lives, though, and not just the lives of the people that are refusing to play along (more often than not, out of misguided stubbornness more than any genuine objection, given the extent to which resisting vaccination on principle has become a matter of personal identity). That justifies quite a bit, provided the countermeasures don't cost more lives than they save.

Unbridled9 posted...

I'm clearly convinced that, while the vaccines are good and everyone should get them, the lockdowns, mandates, and hysteria have long since passed acceptable levels for this

We agree on the hysteria angle, but I don't think you should be conflating people that scream and assault people for missing masks with measured, pragmatic approaches to ensuring safety. I'm also not sure why you're so opposed to vaccine mandates. Even without making vague references to general workplace safety, many jobs (mostly in health care) already require their workers to stay up to date on vaccines for the safety of their clients, firing them if they refuse. This is nothing new, nor is it in any way unreasonable that those requirements would be extended to other fields when dealing with a disease that presents significant danger to everyone. Why is it that you're drawing the line at something that's already so acceptable?

SunWuKung420 posted...

More hate mongering rhetoric. Nobody deserves any of that especially given that the omicron variant has proven that the vaccine doesn't stop the vaccinated from spreading or getting ill from covid.

Cool story bro. Either get vaccinated or shut the fuck up.

I'm also not sure why you're so opposed to vaccine mandates.

Honestly, it's not that mandates exist that has me opposed to them. Something like the two week lockdown to 'slow the spread' (what a joke that turned out to be. We've, what, gone over that 50+ times by now?) or 'wear masks when doing stuff' was fine. I was fully behind things like, say, companies being punished for having workers with COVID come in instead of sending them home to rest. It's the over-step of the mandates that's caused me to oppose them. We now have companies being threatened to fire people if they aren't vaccinated (even if they are the only employee or don't interact with other people for whatever reasons), healthy people being treated like plague victims simply because they lack the vaccine, and a never-ending cycle of lockdowns, restrictions, and the like to reach a goal that simply can never BE reached even if everyone was behind it.

That many of these people will do things like say you can't have a Christmas get-together if there's more than five people or something and you still should be masking and everything during said get-together while, just a short while later Obama had, what was it, 60+ people get together, unmasked, for his birthday party? There's constantly things like a restaurant being shut down for 'health concerns' while, across the street, a movie set has a massive dining tent set up to service it's staff. There's a lot more to it, but I think you get my point.

There's a difference between all of us choosing to stay home, a universal agreement to do something in the belief it will help; and punishing people who do not comply with the destruction of their livelihood. Maybe if we were looking at something like smallpox, where catching it meant horrific disfigurement even if you survived (which is a huge if) and even one escaping victim could utterly destroy a nation; but we're not. You're both extremely likely to survive COVID and, when you do, you can basically go on with your life. I'm in no way going to dismiss the suffering you go through having dealt with some outright miserable experiences this year alone unrelated to COVID; but when we see things like the camps in Australia popping up, it's just gone way too far.

Unbridled9 posted...

We now have companies being threatened to fire people if they aren't vaccinated (even if they are the only employee or don't interact with other people for whatever reasons)

I'll agree that firing unvaccinated people that are working from home or otherwise don't need to be around others is unreasonable. That's just not beneficial.

Unbridled9 posted...

That many of these people will do things like say you can't have a Christmas get-together if there's more than five people or something and you still should be masking and everything during said get-together while, just a short while later Obama had, what was it, 60+ people get together, unmasked, for his birthday party? There's constantly things like a restaurant being shut down for 'health concerns' while, across the street, a movie set has a massive dining tent set up to service it's staff. There's a lot more to it, but I think you get my point.

Hypocrisy sucks, but it doesn't mean the hypocrites are wrong. Just that they're assholes.

That said, a dining tent differs significantly from an indoor restaurant in that it's outdoors and has better ventilation, which does a lot to help with the situation. Serving a defined subset of people is also generally safer than serving the public, since it's a lot easier to ensure all of those people are vaccinated, you know more about their daily lives and what potential exposures they have, you know whether or not you can trust that they've generally been safe about things, and if you do end up with a positive case, you can track everyone on staff that they've been around and isolate them to prevent a larger outbreak. It's not perfect, but the risks are a lot easier to manage than when you're dealing with a bunch of strangers every day.

Unbridled9 posted...

when we see things like the camps in Australia popping up,

People get really uppity about those, but I really don't see the problem. It's two weeks in a hotel. It'd be nice to be able to trust incoming travellers to quarantine just because they were asked nicely, but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that that hasn't been good enough. Those that can't accept the quarantine can simply not travel to Australia.

Unbridled9 posted...

You're both extremely likely to survive COVID and, when you do, you can basically go on with your life.

Except for all the people with lasting complications related to their infection

That said, a dining tent differs significantly from an indoor restaurant in that it's outdoors and has better ventilation, which does a lot to help with the situation

To the best of my knowledge the restaurant in question was outdoor dining only. Even if not they had been shot down without the option to offer outdoor dining (which would have been fully open-air) while the movie dining was in a tent. Even on a local level the nearby ZBA was horribly corrupt and granted variances to allow for outdoor dining based upon the personal whims of the chairman (as opposed to any legit legal structure) and even following his removal certain council members have spoken for, or against, the approval of such variances based upon their own personal desires instead of anything factual or legal.

From what I've seen that these rules help mitigate covid is more co-incidental than motivational. They're power-grabs being made with the justification of battling covid with the question of if they actually help being almost secondary.

This is why the hypocrisy is a major issue for me. If you're going to engage in such a massive over-reach of power, but then not subject yourself to the same rules, as well as use said over-reach to further your own, unrelated, goals... Then that you are battling COVID is completely secondary.

If someone legitimately believes that these lockdowns and mandates help and not only say, but actively do, subject themselves to the same rules that they wish to enact than I'll at least respect that they legitimately believe in the cause and ideology; which goes a long way. However, when I see them host massive award shows where they demand that the serving staff be masked while they go maskless and the people at home are being told they can't hold meetings, it tells me that they don't actually care one bit about the mandates, rules, or anything.

There is no faster way to lose an argument, the moral high ground, or anything else and ruin a cause than to be hypocritical about it. Because it says that you don't believe in the very rules, points, etc, that you are enacting and only care about applying them to others. That's why, as far as I'm concerned, there's no point in replying to Kyuubi. Because the moment he said that he stood by the facts, but that the masses were the validation he needed to prove he was right, he proved he didn't care one bit about the facts. All he cares about is repeating a party line for the approval of his group. If the facts so happen to align with what he says, that's good for him, but not what he really cares about. If he really did care about the facts, the truth, and firmly believed that the lockdowns and mandates were good for everyone, he'd be advocating for them even if the population was against them and he was in the minority. Not just the minority but the extreme minority. At the least then I could respect that he legitimately believes in his cause. Instead he comes off as someone who believes what he is told to believe by 'the masses' (likely just twitter and MSNBC). Hence why I say he has no reality. Because what is real is defined by whatever someone else says and will change the moment the narrative needs to shift.

People get really uppity about those, but I really don't see the problem. It's two weeks in a hotel. It'd be nice to be able to trust incoming travellers to quarantine just because they were asked nicely, but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that that hasn't been good enough. Those that can't accept the quarantine can simply not travel to Australia.

That's not what's going on, least not as I've heard it. Australian citizens who are unvaccinated are being forcefully detained in camps due to their status. People who try to escape are arrested. People who tested negative beforehand no less.

Anyways, I'm going to be gone for a while. If there's anything I can try to reply later.

Unbridled9 posted...

We now have companies being threatened to fire people if they aren't vaccinated

I don't see the issue. If they want a job, get the vaccine. It's not rocket science.

Did you know people can be fired from their job if they go into it drunk? Or if they fail a drug test because they do drugs? Why is it suddenly different if they don't want to be vaccinated?

Unbridled9 posted...

No. It does not, has not, and never could. Else there could be no new ideas or progress, especially ones that opposed what the general consensus was.

Not at all, you present your data and if it's good then the majority accepts it and it's now valid. See your idea always has been and always will be wrong so your wild ideas are not accepted by the majority, and thus it will never be valid.

Unbridled9 posted...

So then would you stand by facts even if the majority turned against you?

The fact it's demonstrably right makes it the majority opinion, so that's not an option.

Unbridled9 posted...

Is there any point in considering this discussion? You're clearly convinced any measure is justified so long as it 'helps contain' the outbreak while I'm clearly convinced that, while the vaccines are good and everyone should get them, the lockdowns, mandates, and hysteria have long since passed acceptable levels for this and it's almost certain neither of us are going to budge.

@Unbridled9

https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-how-have-we-gotten-here-mass-formation-psychosis-explained/

This explains his rationale.

Great read.

This fruitcake will probably be the next denier to die of covid. How many of these fools have to die before the rest wake up to reality?

joe Rogan seems like the kind of guy who farts in the tub then bites the bubbles.

peanutt121 posted...

This fruitcake will probably be the next denier to die of covid. How many of these fools have to die before the rest wake up to reality?

its not the joe Rogan type of morons I care about its the morons that are duped by him who are the poor sheep that are his victims. And then his victims spread the pestilence cause they follow his stupid.

zebatov posted...

@Unbridled9

https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-how-have-we-gotten-here-mass-formation-psychosis-explained/

This explains his rationale.

Ah yes, the opinion of the admin of a newspaper, that's a valid source. This explains your rationale.

Unbridled9 posted...

There is no faster way to lose an argument, the moral high ground, or anything else and ruin a cause than to be hypocritical about it.

Ruin a cause, yes, lose an argument, no, moral high ground, irrelevant (this is a practical discussion, not a moral one). Again, hypocrites aren't wrong, they're just assholes, and being assholes makes people not want to agree with anything they say while being assholes. That does indeed damage causes, but it doesn't mean that the espoused ideals they're personally ignoring aren't good ideas, and the extent to which people (mostly the right) have been desperately grasping to anything they can possibly use to paint those promoting countermeasures as hypocrites to justify not listening to them is blatant ad hominem.

Unbridled9 posted...

That's not what's going on, least not as I've heard it. Australian citizens who are unvaccinated are being forcefully detained in camps due to their status. People who try to escape are arrested. People who tested negative beforehand no less.

All I've heard of are the facilities for quarantining incoming travellers. Quarantining the unvaccinated without cause would indeed be much further than is reasonable.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Not at all, you present your data and if it's good then the majority accepts it and it's now valid.

I think you're grossly overestimating the intelligence (or at least the scientific literacy) of the average human. The majority opinion of laypersons means pretty much nothing as far as a given scientific conclusion's validity goes. Arguably, the majority opinion of scientists within the conclusion's field is meaningful, but even then its validity is less a matter of how many scientists agree with it (which would be blatant argumentum ad populum) and how robustly the scientific community has failed to refute it. The scientific method boils down to "maybe this is true, let's all try to disprove it and we'll accept it as being a more likely explanation than others if we can't."

Science doesn't actually give you true information. It just gives you information that nobody can prove isn't true. In practice, those are similar enough for laypersons to ignore the distinction, but it's a very important philosophical difference that needs to be considered in critically appraising any given scientific work. Most notably, if a published paper seems to be trying to prove their hypothesis right instead of trying and failing to prove it wrong, that's a glaring methodological problem that indicates there's probably quite a bit of bias in there.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Ah yes, the opinion of the admin of a newspaper, that's a valid source. This explains your rationale.

Yeah, I stopped reading when they suggested that we should all be happy about Omicron. So many people seem to think Omicron will be the end of the pandemic, but they don't realize that bypassing the vaccines means being infected with Omicron isn't going to provide meaningful immunity to the variants the vaccines do work on. We're getting a buttload of new cases (enough to overwhelm whatever benefit might have been realized from the lower hospitalization rate) and will have nothing to show for it once Omicron burns itself out except some comfort in the knowledge that we might not have to worry about Omicron again for a few months.

adjl posted...

I think you're grossly overestimating the intelligence (or at least the scientific literacy) of the average human. The majority opinion of laypersons means pretty much nothing as far as a given scientific conclusion's validity goes.

That's why I said "you present your data".

The scientists did not, they just went "We believe it because it goes with our research so you should believe us. What's our research? Oh no you're too stupid to get it, so I won't bother to explain, just trust my authority."

Fortunately the majority of people have enough scientific literacy or faith in authority to accept it without all the data given.

adjl posted...

even then its validity is less a matter of how many scientists agree with it (which would be blatant argumentum ad populum) and how robustly the scientific community has failed to refute it. The scientific method boils down to "maybe this is true, let's all try to disprove it and we'll accept it as being a more likely explanation than others if we can't."

Any scientist remotely competent enough to get the qualifications is aware that if they fail to refute it, it is the most accurate answer available at that time, it's bad science to go "I don't have sufficient data to refute the facts, but I choose to disagree despite that."

adjl posted...

Science doesn't actually give you true information. It just gives you information that nobody can prove isn't true. In practice, those are similar enough for laypersons to ignore the distinction, but it's a very important philosophical difference that needs to be considered in critically appraising any given scientific work. Most notably, if a published paper seems to be trying to prove their hypothesis right instead of trying and failing to prove it wrong, that's a glaring methodological problem that indicates there's probably quite a bit of bias in there.

That's what peer review is for, and peer review has shown nobody has a sufficient proof.

The distinction is not meaningful for public acceptance as the goal isn't to be as accurate as possible when you eventually make a conclusion, it's to have an answer at this moment that is as accurate as current data can discern, and change as and when new data appears.

zebatov posted...

https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-how-have-we-gotten-here-mass-formation-psychosis-explained/

The mass psychosis of society. I've been talking about this long before covid.

Conner4REAL posted...

its not the joe Rogan type of morons I care about its the morons that are duped by him who are the poor sheep that are his victims. And then his victims spread the pestilence cause they follow his stupid.

All I can say to that is it raises the intelligence level of humanity for the better, Darwinism at it's finest.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's why I said "you present your data".

Yeah, that doesn't always help. A very significant number of people actually become more certain of their position when you conclusively prove them wrong. I'm all for transparency and presenting all of the data behind a given conclusion, since that's just best practice when it comes to being honest, but you cannot treat the majority opinion of laypersons as an accurate assessment of a given scientific conclusion's validity, even with all relevant data being made available.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Any scientist remotely competent enough to get the qualifications is aware that if they fail to refute it, it is the most accurate answer available at that time, it's bad science to go "I don't have sufficient data to refute the facts, but I choose to disagree despite that."

Indeed, but there's still an important distinction to make between "I disagree with this" and "I'm not fully convinced of this yet." The former is no less an example of jumping to conclusions than "I agree with this" would be.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's what peer review is for, and peer review has shown nobody has a sufficient proof.

Not quite. Peer review doesn't mean that anybody has actually tried to prove it wrong, it just means that a bunch of peers have looked at the paper and approved of the methodology. Peer review frequently gets treated as the gold standard of credibility, but that is also an example of argumentum ad populum, especially given how deeply biased most journals' peer review process is against anything that violates the status quo (however robustly) and against negative results (which aren't exactly glamourous, but are nevertheless a vital part of assessing existing publications' validity). It's the best we've got, certainly, and something that's been peer reviewed is generally going to be more credible than something that hasn't (the more competent people look at something, the more likely any mistakes are going to be noticed), but peer review is not scientific rigour and should not be treated as such.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The distinction is not meaningful for public acceptance as the goal isn't to be as accurate as possible when you eventually make a conclusion, it's to have an answer at this moment that is as accurate as current data can discern, and change as and when new data appears.

Yes and no. The general public usually doesn't have to worry about waiting for a perfectly rigourous answer, but rushing into a conclusion for the sake of having an answer with no regard for how much data exists to support it still isn't a good idea. We've seen that with the pandemic: Many people accepted the early advice that masks were not beneficial outside of health care situations (where they primarily protected patients, no those wearing them), which turned out to be incorrect.

Now, most of the harm from that has not come from accepting the early conclusion, but instead from people that have refused to update their views to incorporate new information (often calling the CDC and whatnot hypocrites for changing their advice), so it's that closed-mindedness that deserves most of the blame and not the rush to adopt a conclusion as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, sometimes, it's better to just not conclude anything until more information is available. There are plenty of situations where doing the wrong thing immediately will cause more harm than doing nothing until you can be reasonably certain that you aren't doing the wrong thing.

Joe Rogan is a *******