NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

Moderators: bisme37, Dirk, ken6199, Domejandro, KingDavid, zimpy27, jamaalstar21, Harry Garris, bwgood77, infinite11285

Cartuse
Pro Prospect
Posts: 887
And1: 1,007
Joined: Jul 06, 2015

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1681 » by Cartuse » Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:05 pm

art_tatum wrote:I mean you dont see how having a physical barrier between your face and someones droplets doesnt help? Or contact tracing?

Ofc the problem is people wearing the wrong masks / not sealing their nose and mouth making them almost useless (98% of people)

Or that bc there were so many cases (due to people not staying at home, or taking the right precautions, or wearing masks correctly) contract tracing became almost usesless.


This right here.

I can't really understand this type of reasoning. If a pulbic policy fails, shouldn't that fall on the public policy? What's the point of blaming the people? Shaming everyone into submission? That clearly doesn't work, and honestly it's a childish strategy. Why is there so much emphasis on blaming the failure of public policies on those who represent logically the resisting force which the policy is supposed to encounter.

Public policies are supposed to succeed, and not blame their failure on those who it was meant to turn around. That's institutionally immature.

When did the State's success become the responsibility of the people instead of the other way around?

Now we're constantly being reminded that individual freedom is incompatible with collective good, but it sure as hell is compatible with collective misery!

Idk, it sounds pretty biased to me...

Bottomline is if people disobey, maybe we're not dealing with a good public policy, but a rather crappy one. It doesn't matter if it's well intentioned. Parents can be well intentioned and spoil their kids and ruin their lives. They're still bad parents.

I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.
User avatar
Neutral 123
RealGM
Posts: 11,218
And1: 2,779
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
Location: Pandora

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1682 » by Neutral 123 » Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:12 pm

Cartuse wrote:
art_tatum wrote:I mean you dont see how having a physical barrier between your face and someones droplets doesnt help? Or contact tracing?

Ofc the problem is people wearing the wrong masks / not sealing their nose and mouth making them almost useless (98% of people)

Or that bc there were so many cases (due to people not staying at home, or taking the right precautions, or wearing masks correctly) contract tracing became almost usesless.


This right here.

I can't really understand this type of reasoning. If a pulbic policy fails, shouldn't that fall on the public policy? What's the point of blaming the people? Shaming everyone into submission? That clearly doesn't work, and honestly it's a childish strategy. Why is there so much emphasis on blaming the failure of public policies on those who represent logically the resisting force which the policy is supposed to encounter.

Public policies are supposed to succeed, and not blame their failure on those who it was meant to turn around. That's institutionally immature.

When did the State's success become the responsibility of the people instead of the other way around?

Now we're constantly being reminded that individual freedom is incompatible with collective good, but it sure as hell is compatible with collective misery!

Idk, it sounds pretty biased to me...

Bottomline is if people disobey, maybe we're not dealing with a good public policy, but a rather crappy one. It doesn't matter if it's well intentioned. Parents can be well intentioned and spoil their kids and ruin their lives. They're still bad parents.

I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.


So true. What a sad state of affairs.
.
michaelm
General Manager
Posts: 7,515
And1: 3,263
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1683 » by michaelm » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:00 am

FNQ wrote:
ZB9 wrote:
FNQ wrote:
Are you implying that the influenza virus is a coronavirus, or that the tests can’t tell the difference ?


"The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).

This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.

(Note that the exact figures depend on the test and lab in question, and that if a sample was already positive at a lower cycle threshold (e.g. 20), chances of infectiousness are much higher.)

Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to the New York Times: “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35.” According to the New York Times, up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a ct of 30."


https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/

Ok my last post in this thread. Dont worry i mean it this time.


Literally not what I asked. You implied that tests cant determine the difference between influenza and coronaviruses. This is demonstrably false.

What you are citing is the study, that was known almost a calendar year ago, that mass testing based on PCRs would give medically unreliable data, because the PCR is zoomed in on a particular area and can't differentiate between active coronavirus activity or damaged/deceased coronavirus activity. This is why once you get to a hospital they do not use PCR testing to fully determine if COVID is the cause in an individual. They use molecular testing.

This isn't presented by the SPR people because.. and I know this will shock you.. they've been discredited. They highly pushed HCQ, Ivermectin, and pushed the idea that masks made the spread worse. They made dubious claims about the science behind comparing the flu to COVID. Here's a nice write up on them:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/

Your last post in this thread was just like every other one: full of easily debunked nonsense. You aren't right, you haven't been right, and the fact that you keep coming back despite getting booted every other day is just mindblowing. But thank you for providing a platform so that a lot of this stuff can be debunked, the misinformation here has slowed considerably lately

Again, Australia must be on the other side of the charade. I have had about 35 Covid PCR tests, all of them negative, to go along with my obviously fake vaccination in a fake vaccination hub where a work colleague I have known for 30 years was one of the workers.
michaelm
General Manager
Posts: 7,515
And1: 3,263
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1684 » by michaelm » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:07 am

infinite11285 wrote:
FNQ wrote:
ZB9 wrote:
How accurate do you think it is in differentiating different corona viruses?


Are you implying that the influenza virus is a coronavirus, or that the tests can’t tell the difference ?


ZB9 is implying that patients who really had the flu were diagnosed with COVID to artificially inflate the numbers for the virus. It's (yet another) dumb COVID conspiracy theory.

xdrta+ wrote:
ZB9 wrote:Ok my last post in this thread. Dont worry i mean it this time.


:lol: Sure you do.


No, it really is their last post in this thread (for a long, long while).

Except we managed to have hardly any of either viral infection in Australia for more than 6 months. Anyone would think that isolation, masking, contact testing etc might actually work if you do them before the virus gets out of hand with community support from a community with less than 5% conspiracy theorists. It has actually worked in reverse here, a cafe which was targeted by antivaxxers for adhering to the partial restrictions involved with the early stages of the removal of restrictions got massive community support and people turning up from all over the place to buy coffees just because they had been targeted.

Banning him will probably be taken as a reinforcement of the conspiracy I fear.
User avatar
Neutral 123
RealGM
Posts: 11,218
And1: 2,779
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
Location: Pandora

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1685 » by Neutral 123 » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:14 am

michaelm wrote:
infinite11285 wrote:
FNQ wrote:
Are you implying that the influenza virus is a coronavirus, or that the tests can’t tell the difference ?


ZB9 is implying that patients who really had the flu were diagnosed with COVID to artificially inflate the numbers for the virus. It's (yet another) dumb COVID conspiracy theory.

xdrta+ wrote:
:lol: Sure you do.


No, it really is their last post in this thread (for a long, long while).

Except we managed to have hardly any of either viral infection in Australia for more than 6 months. Anyone would think that isolation, masking, contact testing etc might actiually work if you do them before the virus gets out of hand with community support from a community with less than 5% conspiracy theorists. It has actually worked in reverse here, a cafe which was targeted by antivaxxers for adaering to the partial restrictions involved with the early stages of the removal of restrictions got massive community support and peolpe turning up from all over the place to buy coffees just because they had been targeted.

Banninig him will probably be taken as a reinforcement of the conspiracy I fear.

Close. It will further REVEAL the real issue at play.
.
User avatar
FNQ
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 56,790
And1: 17,000
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
   

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1686 » by FNQ » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:20 am

michaelm wrote:
infinite11285 wrote:
FNQ wrote:
Are you implying that the influenza virus is a coronavirus, or that the tests can’t tell the difference ?


ZB9 is implying that patients who really had the flu were diagnosed with COVID to artificially inflate the numbers for the virus. It's (yet another) dumb COVID conspiracy theory.

xdrta+ wrote:
:lol: Sure you do.


No, it really is their last post in this thread (for a long, long while).

Except we managed to have hardly any of either viral infection in Australia for more than 6 months. Anyone would think that isolation, masking, contact testing etc might actiually work if you do them before the virus gets out of hand with community support from a community with less than 5% conspiracy theorists. It has actually worked in reverse here, a cafe which was targeted by antivaxxers for adaering to the partial restrictions involved with the early stages of the removal of restrictions got massive community support and peolpe turning up from all over the place to buy coffees just because they had been targeted.

Banninig him will probably be taken as a reinforcement of the conspiracy I fear.


An Anthony Fauci fart would be taken as reinforcement of the conspiracy.. and ironically it probably would understand COVID better than them too :dontknow:

Conspiracy theorists largest conspiracy theory is how they are always right but the shadow people always "prove" them wrong.. but there's no real value going down their rabbit hole. The target audience is people who are scared and mistrustful, but willing to learn
User avatar
FNQ
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 56,790
And1: 17,000
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
   

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1687 » by FNQ » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:28 am

Cartuse wrote:
I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.


Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?

The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...

We literally watched it work on places that had an extremely high seeded rate and a high vector rate..

And so now when we're seeing another spike and some places are using a much lighter form of what we saw last year, and the complaint is about that? I mean I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that, but the argument doesnt track because it can literally be applied to anything. Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless
User avatar
Neutral 123
RealGM
Posts: 11,218
And1: 2,779
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
Location: Pandora

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1688 » by Neutral 123 » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:39 am

FNQ wrote:
Cartuse wrote:
I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.


Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?

The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...

We literally watched it work on places that had an extremely high seeded rate and a high vector rate..

And so now when we're seeing another spike and some places are using a much lighter form of what we saw last year, and the complaint is about that? I mean I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that, but the argument doesnt track because it can literally be applied to anything. Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless

These are amazing and great recommendations. They are awful and evil mandates.
.
Cartuse
Pro Prospect
Posts: 887
And1: 1,007
Joined: Jul 06, 2015

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1689 » by Cartuse » Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:38 am

FNQ wrote:
Cartuse wrote:
I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.


Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?


No issue in the paternalistic approach. You just expanded on the definition. The emphasis was on the analogy of bad parenting for those with this point of view, regardless of how I feel about it.

FNQ wrote:The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...

People's participation in public policy is passive. It's mostly the potential of their reaction and not much else. As for your assumption that stricter enforcement = better working I don't really know what method you use to predict the hypothetical reaction of the masses to stricter rule. In any case, there's nothing tangible about it so I can't say I agree or disagree.

FNQ wrote:Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless

I listened to my actual parents and societal pressures such as taboos for all of these. Laws were just an added extra that wasn't really necessary and that only became relevant after I grew up. By then my morals were already pretty much set and what the law says has no effect on them. I agree and/or have no problem with the vast majority of them. And of course I still play ball with laws that I disagree with, as long as they're not abusing my will to cooperate and play along. I know when to sacrifice my personal interest because the general interest is ALSO part of my personal interest if I want to have a peaceful life.

Laws didn't teach me anything. Life, social pressures and especially my family did.

I don't think that most people do what they think is right because that's what the authorities say. People don't act based on fear, they act based on conviction. We can REact with fear and hatred, but proaction always requires conviction and love for a thing or an ideal.

State law is threat, and as such it employs fear. It's ment to dissuade people who already have the predisposition to do what the law forbids. It's not meant to inspire anyone because it doesn't have the tools to inspire anyone. The inpsiration comes from what people love, or what people dream about. And that's what the law is born out of and with what it negotiates and struggles.

You can still choose to believe norms and regulations are at the base of moral behavior. I personally believe laws of conduct are more of a reflection of the people's morale.

FNQ wrote:I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that

I don't see myself as a Libertarian. I don't know if I'm one by your standards.

If by Libertarian you mean someone who doesn't want any power structure, then I'm not a Libertarian. I believe hierarchies are a very concrete and inescapable reality of life and institutions of power are a product of that reality. I believe the free market creates monopolies. But I'm still no fan of monopolies nor of a planned economy. Pretty heretic, right?

I also don't believe institutions are inherently corrupt by nature. I do believe they tend to corrupt, like any entity that seeks its own survival above all else. When the people that govern you prioritize their permanence in power above all else, the harmony between people and institution is lost. I don't know many people that would argue in favor of the political class prioritizing people's wellbeing above their own permanence in power. That much seems to be clear to most people. And that's all it takes for me to remove my faith from that system.

I don't envision a world of free roving individuals as much as I don't envision a one-brained humanity. Neither of those worlds promise any progress. And those seem to be the charicaturized extremes of this debate.
Isocleas2
Starter
Posts: 2,418
And1: 310
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Location: Whitewater, WI

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1690 » by Isocleas2 » Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:53 am

I'm personally glad the conspiracy nutjobs/anti-vaxxers are willing to lose their jobs for their convictions. More opportunities for those who embrace evidence based science and the crazies are identified and removed from positions they probably never were qualified to hold (because they're crazy).
#FreeChuckDiesel

#FreeNowak008
Marvin Martian
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,489
And1: 2,418
Joined: Aug 13, 2012

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1691 » by Marvin Martian » Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:28 am

Isocleas2 wrote:I'm personally glad the conspiracy nutjobs/anti-vaxxers are willing to lose their jobs for their convictions. More opportunities for those who embrace evidence based science and the crazies are identified and removed from positions they probably never were qualified to hold (because they're crazy).


There aren't that many anti vaxxers out there to begin with. Anti vax to me means saying things like the vaccine is poison, it will kill you and no one should take it and it should be banned. Basically spreading misinformation.

Saying that there is a high survival rate, I am in great shape and not in the vulnerable demographic, that there are still some unknowns out there and the situation is still developing, and therefore the vaccine should be a choice, is not anti vax. This is where most of the unvaccinated NBA players stand.
xdrta+
Head Coach
Posts: 6,030
And1: 4,292
Joined: Jun 18, 2018

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1692 » by xdrta+ » Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:16 am

Marvin Martian wrote:
Isocleas2 wrote:I'm personally glad the conspiracy nutjobs/anti-vaxxers are willing to lose their jobs for their convictions. More opportunities for those who embrace evidence based science and the crazies are identified and removed from positions they probably never were qualified to hold (because they're crazy).


There aren't that many anti vaxxers out there to begin with. Anti vax to me means saying things like the vaccine is poison, it will kill you and no one should take it and it should be banned. Basically spreading misinformation.

Saying that there is a high survival rate, I am in great shape and not in the vulnerable demographic, that there are still some unknowns out there and the situation is still developing, and therefore the vaccine should be a choice, is not anti vax. This is where most of the unvaccinated NBA players stand.


In spite of your word games, that makes you an anti-vaxxer.
michaelm
General Manager
Posts: 7,515
And1: 3,263
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1693 » by michaelm » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:34 pm

Cartuse wrote:
FNQ wrote:
Cartuse wrote:
I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.


Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?


No issue in the paternalistic approach. You just expanded on the definition. The emphasis was on the analogy of bad parenting for those with this point of view, regardless of how I feel about it.

FNQ wrote:The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...

People's participation in public policy is passive. It's mostly the potential of their reaction and not much else. As for your assumption that stricter enforcement = better working I don't really know what method you use to predict the hypothetical reaction of the masses to stricter rule. In any case, there's nothing tangible about it so I can't say I agree or disagree.

FNQ wrote:Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless

I listened to my actual parents and societal pressures such as taboos for all of these. Laws were just an added extra that wasn't really necessary and that only became relevant after I grew up. By then my morals were already pretty much set and what the law says has no effect on them. I agree and/or have no problem with the vast majority of them. And of course I still play ball with laws that I disagree with, as long as they're not abusing my will to cooperate and play along. I know when to sacrifice my personal interest because the general interest is ALSO part of my personal interest if I want to have a peaceful life.
Laws didn't teach me anything. Life, social pressures and especially my family did.

I don't think that most people do what they think is right because that's what the authorities say. People don't act based on fear, they act based on conviction. We can REact with fear and hatred, but proaction always requires conviction and love for a thing or an ideal.

State law is threat, and as such it employs fear. It's ment to dissuade people who already have the predisposition to do what the law forbids. It's not meant to inspire anyone because it doesn't have the tools to inspire anyone. The inpsiration comes from what people love, or what people dream about. And that's what the law is born out of and with what it negotiates and struggles.

You can still choose to believe norms and regulations are at the base of moral behavior. I personally believe laws of conduct are more of a reflection of the people's morale.

FNQ wrote:I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that

I don't see myself as a Libertarian. I don't know if I'm one by your standards.

If by Libertarian you mean someone who doesn't want any power structure, then I'm not a Libertarian. I believe hierarchies are a very concrete and inescapable reality of life and institutions of power are a product of that reality. I believe the free market creates monopolies. But I'm still no fan of monopolies nor of a planned economy. Pretty heretic, right?

I also don't believe institutions are inherently corrupt by nature. I do believe they tend to corrupt, like any entity that seeks its own survival above all else. When the people that govern you prioritize their permanence in power above all else, the harmony between people and institution is lost. I don't know many people that would argue in favor of the political class prioritizing people's wellbeing above their own permanence in power. That much seems to be clear to most people. And that's all it takes for me to remove my faith from that system.

I don't envision a world of free roving individuals as much as I don't envision a one-brained humanity. Neither of those worlds promise any progress. And those seem to be the charicaturized extremes of this debate.

I see it as more no brained humanity, with the current conspiracy theories about the Covid pandemic, and the willingness of people to base their life decisions on right wing conspiracy site twitter.

There was quite a deal of serfdom and of lives which were brutish and short before the last several hundred years of western civilisation which included much scientific including medical scientific progress which some of us have seen as positive, obviously naively.
michaelm
General Manager
Posts: 7,515
And1: 3,263
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1694 » by michaelm » Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:13 pm

KhalilS wrote:
FNQ wrote:
KhalilS wrote:
Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.


I feel like you just discovered what peer reviews are.

Research is discussed everywhere. Productive discussion comes from the most educated minds having differing beliefs based on repeatable data. The majority of twitter bickering is people with limited understanding, often recently acquired, trying to apply that information based on their limited purview. Worse, if these typically uneducated and incorrect views gain steam, experts then have to try and find a way to dumb down their life's study into a way that the general public can understand.

BTW he was dismissed in early 2020 for lamenting how there was no reliable data to use, and then used unreliable data to make his argument. He was ignored because his arguments did not stand up to any form of.. wait for it.. data-driven criticism!

He argued against lockdowns because he said we didn't know the true effect of the virus. This is true, in March 2020 we didn't know what we had. We didnt know if the lockdowns and safety precautions would work. They did. He compared COVID to seasonal influenza repeatedly. He was wrong.

He can still have a great history - I'm not really sure, I dont know or care - but he didnt get this right. Its not arrogant to point out that his takes were in the vast minority then, and turned out to be wrong.




:noway:

We have a control case for the lockdowns, it's called Sweden, and I have no idea how you can argue that Sweden faired worse than any of the other western countries that went full fascist mode, Sweden is in deficient mortality this spring and summer, while locked down countries are still deep into excess, when Denmark lifted their COVID restirctions, they praised Tegnell and the Swedish respone.
I get there can be difference of opinion, what I don't get this certainty you and the rest of lockdown/vaccine pushers have in face of very grim macro data.

Let's see on Covid Worldometer.

Sweden 1462 deaths /million.
Fascist Denmark 460/million.
More Fascist Australia 57/million.

So what Sweden did which was far from nothing did not work as well as Denmark, and involved considerable restrictions in any case which did contract their economy as has been said, just no outright lockdowns; plenty of people including me don't think lockdowns added much if anything to less onerous measures in any case. The guy who has run Sweden's response admitted they screwed up initially and did not protect their elderly particularly those in aged care adequately. I believe and hope they are on the right track going forward and have herd immunity, from both natural infection and vaccination, and will not need further restrictions; they are not antivaxxers btw.

The USA approach on the other hand which pretty much seems to have involved nihilism from 35% - 40% of the population has produced 2,212 deaths/million. If you do achieve herd immunity with a low death rate henceforth I rather suspect the sheep who got vaccinated will have substantially contributed.
The_Hater
RealGM
Posts: 85,260
And1: 39,803
Joined: May 23, 2001
     

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1695 » by The_Hater » Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:41 pm

ItsDanger wrote:
The_Hater wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:I'm just confirming. I already knew.


If you’re asking questions where you already know the answer, you’re either :

A: lying
B: wasting people’s time just to be a jerk

Tough choice you got there.

Or explaining it to others who don't know without being an **** about it. Something you could learn from.


Irony seems to be something that’s completely lost on you

This is what happens when somebody thinks they’re the smartest guy in the room and doesn’t realize they’re not even close. It doesn’t take a strong BS detector when we read your posts.
AthensBucks wrote:Lowry is done.
Nurse is below average at best.
Masai is overrated.
I dont get how so many people believe in the raptors,they have zero to chance to win it all.


April 14th, 2019.
Cartuse
Pro Prospect
Posts: 887
And1: 1,007
Joined: Jul 06, 2015

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1696 » by Cartuse » Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:20 pm

michaelm wrote:I see it as more no brained humanity, with the current conspiracy theories about the Covid pandemic, and the willingness of people to base their life decisions on right wing conspiracy site twitter.


So you think there are some people that, due to political manipulations which they're too stupid to see, cease all thinking and reasoning. Wow

It's easy for you to see how others lack the capacity to understand why you believe what you believe. You don't even consider the inferences and conclusions you draw as only your beliefs or opinions but also as the absolute reality. And some people don't have the proper training or knowledge to understand reality.

But at the same time, you don't even entertain the idea that you lack the capacity to understand why others believe what they believe. They don't get you, but you get them. Or worse, you don't have to get them at all. It's all good as long as they agree with you but when they don't, they're completely invalidated.

You pick a few examples of clearly deluded people to feed your conviction of righteousness and that's all there is to it. You don't even care to understand why such a big portion of the population is going through that process of delusion, let alone consider the possibility that we are ALL going through that same process. No, they must all be like those hand picked idiots.

You chose the easy path of just writing everything off as fear driven and politically motivated idiocy, or as you say "no brained humanity". Coincidentally that's the exact same thought process that many people have on the other side.

Instead of trying to better understand the "idiots" so that you can help rescue them from themselves, you're content with labelling them as a lost cause. It's not your job to turn them around, and that's ok. But stop pretending you care about understanding, when it's obvious you have made up your mind as much as they have. And if that wasn't enough, you see it as a political thing? It's all because of the evil right wing twitter and their complete control of people's minds? Is your analysis really that lazy? I thought you prided yourself in employing scientific reasoning. There's a lot of emotion based prejudice and stereotyping in there my friend.

You have an incredibly paternalistic view of people, and see them as moldable idiots unless they have a certain mindset that coincides with the one you have. In that case they stop being moldable idiots and become good citizens.

michaelm wrote:The USA approach on the other hand which pretty much seems to have involved nihilism from 35% - 40% of the population has produced 2,212 deaths/million.


For someone that's so data and science driven, you're certainly quick to assign blame and draw sweeping conclusions based on numbers and arguments that have no factual basis outside of your imagination and common sense opinion.

Do you understand what you're doing when you say that a portion of the population is to be seen as directly responsible for the deaths of thousands? Do you think for a second what kind of thinking and reasoning you're inviting in?

I honestly hope it's just a way for you to do catharsis and not much else, I really do.
Curmudgeon
RealGM
Posts: 33,353
And1: 15,741
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Location: Boston, MA

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1697 » by Curmudgeon » Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:31 pm

As a poster wisely said over on the Celtics forum, science is science. It doesn't care what you think. It doesn't care if you distrust the government or big pharma. It doesn't care about your personal liberty. The science is overwhelming that the vaccines work and that those who refuse to take them endanger themselves and others. End of story.

When asked to comment on Bishop Berkeley's 18th century theory that the material world doesn't really exist (and the corollary that Newtonian physics was incorrect), Dr. Johnson went over to a large rock and started beating his head against it until he started to bleed. "I refute it thus!" Johnson exclaimed.
"Numbers lie alot. Wins and losses don't lie." - Jerry West
"You are what your record says you are."- Bill Parcells
"Offense sells tickets. Defense wins games. Rebounding wins championships." Pat Summit
User avatar
ItsDanger
RealGM
Posts: 10,974
And1: 7,397
Joined: Nov 01, 2008

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1698 » by ItsDanger » Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:59 pm

The_Hater wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:
The_Hater wrote:
If you’re asking questions where you already know the answer, you’re either :

A: lying
B: wasting people’s time just to be a jerk

Tough choice you got there.

Or explaining it to others who don't know without being an **** about it. Something you could learn from.


Irony seems to be something that’s completely lost on you

This is what happens when somebody thinks they’re the smartest guy in the room and doesn’t realize they’re not even close. It doesn’t take a strong BS detector when we read your posts.

Irony? The sad part is none of you pointed out the likely legal technicalities caused by this mid stream approval. I'm sure the experts at FDA know what I mean.
Organization can be defined as an organized body of people with a particular purpose. Not random.
xdrta+
Head Coach
Posts: 6,030
And1: 4,292
Joined: Jun 18, 2018

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1699 » by xdrta+ » Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:10 pm

ItsDanger wrote:
The_Hater wrote:
ItsDanger wrote:Or explaining it to others who don't know without being an **** about it. Something you could learn from.


Irony seems to be something that’s completely lost on you

This is what happens when somebody thinks they’re the smartest guy in the room and doesn’t realize they’re not even close. It doesn’t take a strong BS detector when we read your posts.

Irony? The sad part is none of you pointed out the likely legal technicalities caused by this mid stream approval. I'm sure the experts at FDA know what I mean.


Nobody knows what you mean.
xdrta+
Head Coach
Posts: 6,030
And1: 4,292
Joined: Jun 18, 2018

Re: NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread 

Post#1700 » by xdrta+ » Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:24 pm

Announced today: In early January, everyone crossing U.S. land borders will be required to be fully vaccinated — whether coming for essential or non-essential reasons.

How will this affect Bradley Beal and is ilk coming back from playing in Toronto? Sounds like they'll just have to stay home (or stay in Canada.)

Return to The General Board