Coronavirus

[zubenelgenubi]

Thousands of scientists urge end to ‘devastating’ lockdowns in Great Barrington Declaration

About 15,000 scientists and doctors worldwide have signed a newly created document urging an end to pandemic lockdowns, arguing that the policies aimed at curtailing the novel coronavirus have produced “devastating” effects on public health.

www.washingtontimes.com

More scientists signing on? Awesome! I wonder at what point the forced narrative media will be trapped by their "concensus" argument. I feel bad for the few scientists they've been referencing when they'll have to turn on them and end their careers.

 

[tonyexpress]

Thousands of scientists urge end to ‘devastating’ lockdowns in Great Barrington Declaration

About 15,000 scientists and doctors worldwide have signed a newly created document urging an end to pandemic lockdowns, arguing that the policies aimed at curtailing the novel coronavirus have produced “devastating” effects on public health.

www.washingtontimes.com

That picture with Gavin Newsom with a mask on, standing in what I assume is his own vineyard is priceless. What a

 

[zubenelgenubi]

no i watched some documentary of the financial crisis and they were dissing some of hte top professors because in part they have no morals. they were engaged in the shady activities that led to the 2008 financial crisis

By "engaged in", you mean they saw what was happening, knew they couldn't do anything to stop it, and found a way to profit. That's called being smart, not shady. But keep resenting the winners, I'm sure it'll work out for you one day. The ones who lack morals are the ones who demanded the government set policies that made it easier for people who couldn't afford a house to get a mortgage. That's what led to the financial crisis. The law of unintended consequences, and the path to hell being paved with good intentions.

 

[rickyb]

By "engaged in", you mean they saw what was happening, knew they couldn't do anything to stop it, and found a way to profit. That's called being smart, not shady. But keep resenting the winners, I'm sure it'll work out for you one day. The ones who lack morals are the ones who demanded the government set policies that made it easier for people who couldn't afford a house to get a mortgage. That's what led to the financial crisis. The law of unintended consequences, and the path to hell being paved with good intentions.

Profitting off immorality is wrong. I think they were part of the problem as they were also in govt. Wall st was to blame mostly i think.

 

[rickyb]

Herd immunity is not a goal. It is a force of nature. If we draw out the pandemic until a vaccine is available, more people would have been harmed. And even with a vaccine, the herd immunity will be reached. My prediction is herd immunity will be reached long before a safe, proven vaccine is available, negating the need for the vaccine.

And It's not the poor who are vulnerable to the disease, per se. Nice attempt at a dodge there, though. They are vulnerable to the effects of the lock downs. If you care about the poor, you need to support ending the lockdowns. You protect the elderly, who are the most vulnerable to the disease, by letting everyone else get about their lives, obtain herd immunity as quickly as possible, and devote resources to helping the vulnerable get through with minimal disruption. The way we are going now we are using and wasting far more resources trying to keep everyone locked up and developing a vaccine that will be useless by the time it is available.

Wasnt dodging about the poor. Also they probably have a hard time paying medical bills in usa.

I was talking to pops about it today and he thinks a vaccine is faster than herd immunity. Time will tell.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Wasnt dodging about the poor. Also they probably have a hard time paying medical bills in usa.

I was talking to pops about it today and he thinks a vaccine is faster than herd immunity. Time will tell.

Pops is assuming a viable vaccine will ever be created. We have been unsuccessful in the past with coronavirus vaccines, and should have learned from those lessons. The idea that we could develop a safe vaccine before the pandemic would have run its course is not based in any evidence at all.

I can guarantee you a coronavirus related fund to help the vulnerable stay safe, and the poor to pay covid related medical bills would have been cheaper than the "stimulus" they gave to everyone, which wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't locked down.

As for profiting off immorality, that concept has no meaning if morality is relative. What it really means is that you don't like that people made money off of a situation that hurt a lot of people. If they hadn't, then the only ones who would have profited would have been the ones who created the problem, or had the power to stop it and didn't. It's a hard sell claiming opportunism as immoral when just about everything anyone does is opportunistic. The ones smart enough to take advantage of a situation they didn't create and couldn't stop should not bear any blame at all.

 

[Wally]

Money talks as Hawaii is opening up to tourism. Even liberals cavewjen precious tax revenue dries up

 

[oldngray]

Money talks as Hawaii is opening up to tourism. Even liberals cavewjen precious tax revenue dries up

Tourism is by far Hawaii's biggest cash cow.

 

[Wally]

Tourism is by far Hawaii's biggest cash cow.

Nothing really has changed.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Money talks as Hawaii is opening up to tourism. Even liberals cavewjen precious tax revenue dries up

?

 

[Old Man Jingles]

?

cave in ?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Cave when, hope this helps.

 

[rickyb]

Pops is assuming a viable vaccine will ever be created. We have been unsuccessful in the past with coronavirus vaccines, and should have learned from those lessons. The idea that we could develop a safe vaccine before the pandemic would have run its course is not based in any evidence at all.

I can guarantee you a coronavirus related fund to help the vulnerable stay safe, and the poor to pay covid related medical bills would have been cheaper than the "stimulus" they gave to everyone, which wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't locked down.

As for profiting off immorality, that concept has no meaning if morality is relative. What it really means is that you don't like that people made money off of a situation that hurt a lot of people. If they hadn't, then the only ones who would have profited would have been the ones who created the problem, or had the power to stop it and didn't. It's a hard sell claiming opportunism as immoral when just about everything anyone does is opportunistic. The ones smart enough to take advantage of a situation they didn't create and couldn't stop should not bear any blame at all.

ive seen the timeline of vaccines in the past, including ones theyve never gotten vaccines for. yea i dunno man i havent heard enough about it recently.

what stimulus did american people get anyways? i thought it wasnt that much like one time payment of $1200.
we got $2000 a month since march 15 and that ended oct 3, and now they boosted welfare to the same. the french got 85% of their wage until summer 2021.

if them taking advantage of a bad situation to make money is adding to the problem, which i think it was if i recall, then they shouldnt do it. some people have more power than others, but we can all play our part. we all have moral responsibility over what we can influence. maybe its better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. im a huge believer in the golden rule, otherwise you are are hypocrite right?

i shape my life around making the world a better place not profits. maybe we are trending towards an opportunistic society.

chomsky thinks we have a built in conception of whats right. i noticed that with my dog too, when he plays hes careful not to attack dogs eyes or hes just careful with small dogs and tiny kids. chomsky talks about when countries go to war they say its always to defend themselves or spread democracy or save someone, or inequality is justified by trickling down to the poor etc.

why do you take the conservative positions you do? because you think its good for people right?

cornel west speaks of moral consistency. for example an american life is equally precious as an iranian life.

hedges says its better to fight for justice and fail, than to give up.

 

[Sportello]

The typical response when real science is provided. Carry on. smh

Libertarian drivel, not real science. smh

 

[rickyb]

Cave when, hope this helps.

just watched an interview with a conservative teacher george roberts i believe and cornel west, and towards teh beginning i think he said he read a MLK book cornel west recommended and he said morality is not relative, and he said if it was it would be somehow closely related to nihilism.

 

[refineryworker05]

It has been a sight to see many republican voters pretend dealing with a deadly virus is not about public health, but about culture war bs over wearing masks/social distancing and pretending that has something to do with freedom, government control, and communism

 

[rickyb]

if corona was made in a lab artificially this is classic jurassic park.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It has been a sight to see many republican voters pretend dealing with a deadly virus is not about public health, but about culture war bs over wearing masks/social distancing and pretending that has something to do with freedom, government control, and communism

You really don't understand why people take issue with the government overstepping its bounds? Especially with a virus that is only lethal to less than 1% of people who get it. I'm sorry that this is all too much for you to process.

 

[rickyb]

You really don't understand why people take issue with the government overstepping its bounds? Especially with a virus that is only lethal to less than 1% of people who get it. I'm sorry that this is all too much for you to process.

u can understand the govt thing and i sympathize with that, but the fact that its killed 210,000 americans and probably 300k or more by year end is an alarming development.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

u can understand the govt thing and i sympathize with that, but the fact that its killed 210,000 americans and probably 300k or more by year end is an alarming development.

Well, you adjusted it down from 400k by the end of the year, so that's a step in the right direction. Locking down healthy, low risk people is putting high risk people at more risk. When percentages don't sound as scary, you use raw numbers. Guess what. When your population is 331,000,000 you have a lot of people in poor health who are susceptible to new viruses. If we had targeted our efforts at protecting them, instead of a one-size-fits-all shotgun approach, we might have had a better outcome. But since our elected officials decided to use this as a reason to expand their power instead of protecting the vulnerable we have the results we do. Very sad.