SuckerApparently the definition of "more common" now means "always" to anti-vaxxers. It is "more common" that people will die from cancer, so don't get vaccinated or wear seat belts, right? It is "more common" for people to miss than hit when they shoot at people, so therefore the person lying face down with the bullet wound must have died "with" covid.
It is literally insane that these nut jobs can misrepresent what words mean from two sentences in a CDC report that specifically states that team sports increase the risk of transmission, strongly recommends that students get vaccinated and that unvaccinated wear mask at schools and explains with data why that is the case.
So what Australia (and New Zealand) attempted was something every scientist has long known to be unworkable in modern times and highly threatening even if it were workable. To be sure, this idea of virus suppression (where does it go?) tempted policy makers the world over. Trump tried something similar in February and March of 2020, and only later came to see the errors of his ways. As bad as the US response has been, we’ve been mercifully spared the fanatical ideology of “zero Covid.”
Not so in Australia. They blocked outward and inward travel. They broadcast all kinds of messages about staying away from people. They closed businesses. Governments monitored social media for anyone straying too far from their assigned area. When they decided to lock down, they went all in. A nation that prided itself on its good government suddenly found itself managed like a vast prison colony.
It’s become almost comical in how irrational it [the series of Covid restrictions] is. The idea that I need to wear a mask when I walk into a restaurant, wear a mask, as I sit down at my seat, I am told by the restaurant, that I should only remove it when I’m eating and drinking, but then I’m removing it and sitting in a packed restaurant and lots of other people eating and drinking… At some point down the line, I feel like we’ve lost sight of the science here, and it’s become a lot more about signalling what political tribe you’re a part of.Turns out the whole anti-vax movement is an evil plot by Howard Stern and Nancy Pelosi.
The idea is to trick Republicans into refusing the vaccine, thus giving Democrats a very slight edge in every swing district in the country. And you guys fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
Nolte: Howard Stern Proves Democrats Want Unvaccinated Trump Voters Dead
Do you want to know why I think Howard Stern is going full-monster with his mockery of three fellow human beings who died of the coronavirus? Because leftists like Stern and CNNLOL and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Fauci are deliberately looking to manipulate Trump supporters into not...www.breitbart.com
I think mini-EOTL was in on it, too.
Actually, in your case, it isn't the mask.It’s become almost comical in how irrational it [the series of Covid restrictions] is. The idea that I need to wear a mask when I walk into a restaurant, wear a mask, as I sit down at my seat, I am told by the restaurant, that I should only remove it when I’m eating and drinking, but then I’m removing it and sitting in a packed restaurant and lots of other people eating and drinking… At some point down the line, I feel like we’ve lost sight of the science here, and it’s become a lot more about signalling what political tribe you’re a part of.
Actually, in your case, it isn't the mask.
The restaurant should refuse to seat you indoors because you are not vaccinated. Unvaccinated people in high risk settings is a bad idea.
Enjoy your tiramisu outside.
Didn't Bruddah have it? If so, you are being very anti-science. If not, apologies.
If he did, when did he have it?
If dizzy can document a prior infection, then that should count.Didn't Bruddah have it? If so, you are being very anti-science. If not, apologies.
Fair.If dizzy can document a prior infection, then that should count.
This statement of the problem reveals a gap between the way many economists think of the problem, and how politicians think of it. It is generally assumed, in blackboard economics, that a strong Pareto improvement—everyone is better off, and no one is worse off—is always unobjectionable. More importantly, it is simply assumed that even a weak Pareto improvement—at least one person is better off, and no one is worse off—is always easily implemented as public policy in a democracy. It’s actually the definition of “efficiency,” and efficiency is the goal of public policy.
But that’s clearly not true. A weak Pareto improvement, say giving any available person a vaccine dose if that dose would otherwise be thrown away, is precisely what many people object to. The idea that a benefit is undeserved implies that it should not be awarded, even if the alternative is literally dumping the benefit down the sink. The idea that public policy should be concerned first and foremost with preventing those undeserved harms, and confiscating unearned benefits from others, is the central premise of the new rendering of social justice and political responsibility. Nutzenschmerz is the denial of weak Pareto improvements to all members of the society, based on the insistence on a fanatically strict notion of desert. Any undeserved benefit is unjust; any cost incurred in correcting injustice is justified by the emotional group-think of Nutzenschmerz.
Well, if we are going to play that game its the same as the vaccines unless you are mandating boosters for everyone. There's still scant evidence but there is some to suggest that the vaccination antibodies decline faster than natural immunity antibodies. The more relevant question is probably how badly did you get it.