U.S. to close..

[Yihang]

a little off topic but here is an outfit in the bay area trying to fight food waste by selling produce with cosmetic blemishes that would otherwise get thrown away.

I use to buy most of my groceries from them.

https://www.imperfectfoods.com/why-u...uit-imperfect1

[GordMay]

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is developing something called the "CommonPass," a way for travelers to confirm their COVID status without revealing detailed health information.
“This simple digital solution could streamline global travel and boost trade during COVID - here's how”
➥ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/...cy-commonpass/

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), an airline trade association that represents 290 airlines worldwide, is in the final stages of developing a digital COVID-19 vaccine passport for travellers (IATA Travel Pass).
“IATA Travel Pass Initiative”
➥ https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/travel-pass/


Canada:
“Can employers make the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory? The law isn't clear”
With vaccines set to arrive within days, talk has turned to mandatory immunization and 'vaccine passports'.
So far, most premiers have ruled out compelling all citizens to get a shot. Based on recent polling, a sizeable minority of Canadians — up to 18 per cent of those surveyed — have said they will refuse to be vaccinated and provinces aren't spoiling for a fight during a mass immunization campaign.
But in the absence of a provincial decree, some employers are now seeking legal opinions on whether they can demand that staff and customers be vaccinated before allowing them to enter their workplaces.
More ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/man...port-1.5836153

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by UFO

So a 1 in a Million chance of an issue - Hey who wants to be one in a million Or to be a tad more precise than approximate 1 in 698508 based on USA figures.

So your claim that 99.9% chance of survival from Covid means it's nothing to worry about, but a 99.9999% chance of not getting an adverse response from a vaccine is something to be very worried about. Odd perception of risks.

[GordMay]

“COVAX: Working for global equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines”
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3293924

[dwedeking2]

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I was in the army and was vaccinated for various things before being shipped overseas. Too be honest I haven't done much research on vaccinations and their side effects. My concern is more that this was done rapidly and big business/government has a tendency to screw up the first version. So, for a disease that doesn't really affect me medically (though has been a struggle financially) I'll not accept any risk until I see the reaction when it hits a larger test population and give it some time to see the results. With Covid there is low risk but still risk, but I'm willing to accept that for the upside of being able to provide for myself and live a life. Taking the vaccine has almost no upside for me and a level of risk, so I'll pass until I see the results.

Society is not at risk for Covid19, like we thought in February / March. Even left to run rampant (not that I'm suggesting that) it would not have caused an extinction event.

As I've stated previously, I supported some of the measures done in March and April when we had limited knowledge of treatment, infection rates and fatalities. We now know a lot more about target demographics, treatments and should be implementing more common sense / non-emotional reactions to this disease.

I consider the control of my own body to be a fundamental right. Not one given by any government but one inherent by my very existence. This is more important to me, more important than my own safety or the safety of society.

In the US, mask wearing has been done as a push from the government and not led by any businesses, especially small businesses. I support private property rights, and if a business requires one I see no issue on either wearing one or taking my business elsewhere (mostly I would just wear one). I do wear one when going into places such as a grocery store or big box store. I think it's a minor inconvenience for the limited time I'm there and is a "feel good" for those with concerns. I doubt the effectiveness of the act, but it makes some members of society feel better.

I am opposed to government mandates for something that is of limited value. Especially when it involves stopping stroller pushing soccer moms on the street and issuing citations as I witnesses last night in Key West. That is a society I do not wish to be part of.

[goboatingnow]

“ society not at risk”

Clearly you feel the 298,000 deaths so far in the US is acceptable !!!

[dwedeking2]

Nearly that many died each month in 2019 in the US. We've seen a 15 - 20% uptick in deaths overall for 2020. It is an issue, of that there is no doubt. Is it to the scale of completely shutting down society (and the harm that is caused by that), I would so no.

[goboatingnow]

Why would a small business “ push for masks “

Mask strategy is developed by public health strategy. It’s an partially effective aid to ensuring your mask prevents others from coming in contact with your air droplets.

It’s not a measure to protect you. It’s a measure that protects others from you.

That’s all.

It’s nothing to do with freedoms.

Arguing against masks is like arguing against seatbelts

[goboatingnow]

There is no “ fundemental “ rights , rights are ultimately a form of social agreement that you are allowed to act in a certain way. Over the centuries these views and the associated rights have changed as societies changed their views

Rights are often extended removed or revoked as circumstance prevails.

Nothing is inalienable , but of course paper never refused ink.

[dwedeking2]

Arguing against masks is like arguing against seatbelts

And I oppose seat belt mandates as well (not seat belt themselves, I used to wear mine all the time when I drove).

In regards to rights, we disagree.


My personal opinion is that life without freedoms isn't worth living. The thought of being owned chattel to society is abhorrent. But I support your right to disagree and live your life accordingly.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

And I oppose seat belt mandates (not seat belt themselves, I used to wear mine all the time when I drove).



In regards to rights, we disagree.

Of course we disagree, that the point.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by UFO

So have you signed up for your Jab then Mike? From what you are saying I would expect to see you be one of the first to get jabbed.

Of course. I'll get it as soon as my time comes up.

Originally Posted by UFO

Jeeze this is not Ebola or something worse - Its people pushing this sort of agenda that is going to create massive problems in regards to a dystopian future for our Grandchildren.

I never said anything about Ebola. That's childish hyperbole. It's certainly not that, but it is very serious. If you cannot understand that the mortality and morbidity rates of Covid-19 are VERY SERIOUS, then you are simply misinformed.

Originally Posted by UFO

You want to basically enforce through coercion a medical procedure that to some can have very bad to deadly side effects, let alone the unknown side effects that will spring up over the next few decades to protect a minuscule section of the population that are generally older than the average death rate of many countries where they die. This whole covid thing would eventually blow over and become just another nasty Flu year, yet you want to get the whole planet jabbed for eternity....

More echo-chamber baffle-gab. You are simply misinformed. Take the time to read some primary sources regarding the vaccine(s) development and approval process. There is no reason to suspect ANY of your fear-based comments. Yes, there is a risk of an unknown-unknown rearing its head. There's always a chance of 'something' happening.

The coercion is you folks insisting on spreading the disease because you refuse a simple public health measure. THAT is the coercive action.

You insist on your freedom, while refusing to take on the other side of the coin: acting responsibly. There are consequences to your actions, and freedom cuts both ways. One of the consequences of your irresponsible actions are likely be that you will find yourself limited in how you can interact with the rest of society.

It's your choice. You are free to act, but so are others.

Originally Posted by UFO

You really think creating a society where this happens is a good thing? Creating Fear of one another and creating state sponsored discrimination against people?

NO. I think your vision of society is a dystopia. A truly free society is one where people understand that rights come with responsibilities.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by UFO

So a 1 in a Million chance of an issue - Hey who wants to be one in a million

So... you think a vaccine risk of 1 in 1,000,000 is worth avoiding, but the 1 in 100 which is the Covid-19 mortality risk oft-quoted here, is nothing to worry about.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by UFO

What if we lived in a land with fairies and pixies? We do not live in 1918 so that's an irrelevant statement.

It's not an irrelevant statement. It is the basis of human thought and computation that we compare new things to old things to understand what the new thing is. If you have no idea what the old thing is, then it's like you have an unusual type of Alzheimer's, always living in the present, always making up things as you go along. And it shows.

When have I ever said let it rip and do nothing, so yet again another irrelevant statement.

Agreed. But you've not stated what measures should be done by whom and "how bad" things need to be before those measures ought to be instituted.

If you're going to be critical about something, at some point you should understand that the word critical implies a sieving, or sifting of a situation. What's important, what's not. And you're either using some maths to do that (numbers and stuff) or you're just going by your gut feeling/pixie dust quotient. So indeed what numbers? Or do you just make Kool Aid with your pixie dust that everyone else is supposed to drink? Fingers crossed?

I was talking about the enforcing of vaccinations through coercion and not any of the other measures - Those other measures have been discussed many many times in various threads. Like the full lockdown was a blanket approach the mass vaccination of everyone is another blanket approach, whereas vaccinations should be targeted for those in need and for those who work in environments where it is essential that they do not pass it on - health care etc.

You've offered no numbers or analysis that suggest that you're qualified to determine who should even be "targeted" (statistically) with vaccines, you say they shouldn't be forced on people, while you said they should be targeted. That's convoluted logic/cognitive dissonance stuff.

So if the people who do as you say, target the vaccines, determine that you're in the crosshairs...do you all of a sudden declare "no, I meant target the vaccines according to me feelings on the matter"?

The rest of us should have the freedom of choice without being coerced or mocked or segregated for our choice not to inject something which may or may not work and may or may not be harmful to us in the short and/or long term - If you believe that vaccines are harmless, then when you get yours take the standard indemnity letter with you that they're are 100% safe and try and get the Doctor or Company making them to sign it. If they would sign it then many more people would be happy to take it.

In the history of humanity fools have never been spare mockery for long. Consider that mockery is, again, not "Step 1" in dealing with obstinate people. It's like the last straw when trying to get obstinate people to change their ways. Indeed....there's always the 0.0001% chance that the 'fool' is really the only wise man around......but wise outliers do not tend to sing in the minority of opinion choir...not even standing out in that choir.

Otherwise, playing this victim card business ought to be reserved for real victims....and not wrapped up in a term like "freedom."

This particular virus to 99.9+% of the worlds populace is not fatal

Look, in 2002 someone got a Nobel for pointing out that people are fundamentally bad with with weighing statistics in their head (asymmetry present, this an introduction)....in the easiest of situations everyone calculates risks/benefits poorly. I suggest to you that this is like a "Earth is spherical or flat" deal of cognition, where....if you don't learn about how it works....you're in the Earth is flat camp when it comes to risk/benefit calculations. Not about Covid, but anywhere that you've got to compare old information vs forecasting perceived losses/gains.

But this, to some amount, requires education. And if you don't educate yourself with books on the subjects (statistics, maths) then you can't know what you can't see...which is why the question about 1918, etc. Now, if you do read about that stuff, you can learn how big corporations, etc, take advantage of people by exploiting their faulty risk/benefit system. If you don't, if one just keeps going by gut instinct (which is somewhat of a caveman faculty of decision making)...one ought to expect to be in for rude surprises from time to time when reality comes crashing down. I suppose if one is in the US they can resort to guns to keep reality away (de-evolution), but I hope the rest of the world can learn something from the US experience here.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

And I oppose seat belt mandates as well (not seat belt themselves, I used to wear mine all the time when I drove).
In regards to rights, we disagree.
My personal opinion is that life without freedoms isn't worth living. The thought of being owned chattel to society is abhorrent. But I support your right to disagree and live your life accordingly.

John Stuart Mill also believed that we have an absolute right to govern ourselves, and that this right should not be interfered with or restricted.

But, he also recognized that our actions often affect others.
I may have absolute liberty to do what I want with MYSELF, but what should we do, when doing what I want with myself, affects YOU in some way?
Ironic as it might seem to some, a value is not necessarily enhanced when maximized. It may be corrupted.
Push one person's rights too far, and the result is the emasculation of someone else's rights. Elevate rights to the status of an absolute, and the result is the destruction of other values. Expand the definition of rights to include all desirable ends, and the result is a diminution of interest in those rights that really matter.

George Will once said that the four most important words in politics are "up to a point." Lots of things are good "up to a point." But drawing the line, even acknowledging the need to draw one somewhere, is not an idea that registers well with those who have embraced extreme libertarianism.

Aristotle said it well: "Every man should be responsible to others, nor should any be allowed to do just as he pleases; for where absolute freedom is allowed there is nothing to restrain the evil which is inherent in man."

As Plato warned, "an excess of liberty will lead directly to tyranny."

Excerpted from:
“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill
(Chapter 4 - “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual”)

“... every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion though not by law. As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences ...”
More ➥ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sa...he-individual/