Covid-19 miscellany

[Shadowy Man]

Interesting. So the intelligent anti-vaxxers are actually outliers. That confirms to me that their stance is more likely to be taken as a result of personal egoism and desire to make themselves important, as they are the ones pushing the conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about that about the more intelligent sort of anti-vaxxers, even though I consider the anti-vaxx position difficult to support. Some of them may be doing as a way of owning the libs, for instance.

And that is an intelligent reason?

 

[lpetrich]

Interesting. So the intelligent anti-vaxxers are actually outliers. That confirms to me that their stance is more likely to be taken as a result of personal egoism and desire to make themselves important, as they are the ones pushing the conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about that about the more intelligent sort of anti-vaxxers, even though I consider the anti-vaxx position difficult to support. Some of them may be doing as a way of owning the libs, for instance.

And that is an intelligent reason?

It's a bad reason, yes, but one might wish that they would be more willing to reassess their anti-vaxx position rather than thinking about how best they can own the libs.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Interesting. So the intelligent anti-vaxxers are actually outliers. That confirms to me that their stance is more likely to be taken as a result of personal egoism and desire to make themselves important, as they are the ones pushing the conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about that about the more intelligent sort of anti-vaxxers, even though I consider the anti-vaxx position difficult to support. Some of them may be doing as a way of owning the libs, for instance.

And that is an intelligent reason?

It's a bad reason, yes, but one might wish that they would be more willing to reassess their anti-vaxx position rather than thinking about how best they can own the libs.

Actually, it may be more related than you think. "Owning the libs" is basically an expression of personal ego. Just take a look at all those politicians who are pushing their "conservative agenda". They wouldn't do that unless they thought it would add to their public visibility and increase their importance in the eyes of their constituents. The same is true of those doctors and scientists who are pushing back against the vaccine; they have found a way to make themselves highly visible and make money too. I don't think it actually has a single thing to do with what they actually know or believe.

 

[bilby]

It's fascinating to see the power of political tribalism and propaganda.

Here in Australia, people protesting against public health measures could, in principle, be assumed to have a genuine case, based on real concerns about government overreach and the possible long term political consequences of legislation passed in haste.

But if their concerns are that their state, or the commonwealth, might be making bad law, or impinging on their rights as citizens, then you have to wonder why so many of them are expressing those concerns by reference to a former President of a nation on the other side of the planet.

The US media and propaganda machine, particularly its Internet arms, is oblivious to the rest of the world; And so their attempts to manipulate US public opinion spill over, and we see morons marching through Brisbane nominally to protest against public health measures by the Queensland Government, carrying signs and banners in support of Donald Trump.

These fools aren't even aware that they're being inadvertently manipulated by the fallout from propaganda targeted at a different continent. All they know is that things are bad, and it's Biden's fault for stealing the Whitehouse from Trump. They might as well be blaming their disgruntlement on Brexit, or on the results of Peruvian soccer matches. But those things aren't being whipped up as a cause for protest on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, so their ire is directed at the utterly irrelevant Biden administration instead.

 

[crazyfingers]

Once again, I guess the US does not have a monopoly on stupid.

 

[TSwizzle]

The good people of Europe are starting to stand up to the authoritarians;

Violence today broke out in Vienna as 10,000 protesters - many from far-right groups - took to the streets to demonstrate against a new Covid-19 lockdown and mandatory vaccinations. Demonstrations against virus restrictions also took place in Switzerland, Croatia, Italy, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands and North Macedonia on Saturday, a day after Dutch police opened fire on protesters and seven people were injured in rioting that erupted in Rotterdam.

DailyMail

 

[bilby]

The good dumb people of Europe are starting to stand up to the authoritarians;

Violence today broke out in Vienna as 10,000 protesters - many from far-right groups - took to the streets to demonstrate against a new Covid-19 lockdown and mandatory vaccinations. Demonstrations against virus restrictions also took place in Switzerland, Croatia, Italy, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands and North Macedonia on Saturday, a day after Dutch police opened fire on protesters and seven people were injured in rioting that erupted in Rotterdam.

DailyMail

FTFY

 

[barbos]

Austria/Germany/Netherlands all have all time record daily infection rates and idiots are protesting.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Interesting. So the intelligent anti-vaxxers are actually outliers. That confirms to me that their stance is more likely to be taken as a result of personal egoism and desire to make themselves important, as they are the ones pushing the conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about that about the more intelligent sort of anti-vaxxers, even though I consider the anti-vaxx position difficult to support. Some of them may be doing as a way of owning the libs, for instance.

And that is an intelligent reason?

It's a bad reason, yes, but one might wish that they would be more willing to reassess their anti-vaxx position rather than thinking about how best they can own the libs.

Actually, it may be more related than you think. "Owning the libs" is basically an expression of personal ego. Just take a look at all those politicians who are pushing their "conservative agenda". They wouldn't do that unless they thought it would add to their public visibility and increase their importance in the eyes of their constituents. The same is true of those doctors and scientists who are pushing back against the vaccine; they have found a way to make themselves highly visible and make money too. I don't think it actually has a single thing to do with what they actually know or believe.

If you want to know what more intelligent people who reject vaccines believe, I would suggest reading their arguments. Some are just rattled because some of their freedoms are taken away in a way that interferes seriously with their lifestyle (which involves not using medicine for the most part, avoiding processed foods or other things when doable, etc.).

 

[bilby]

Interesting. So the intelligent anti-vaxxers are actually outliers. That confirms to me that their stance is more likely to be taken as a result of personal egoism and desire to make themselves important, as they are the ones pushing the conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about that about the more intelligent sort of anti-vaxxers, even though I consider the anti-vaxx position difficult to support. Some of them may be doing as a way of owning the libs, for instance.

And that is an intelligent reason?

It's a bad reason, yes, but one might wish that they would be more willing to reassess their anti-vaxx position rather than thinking about how best they can own the libs.

Actually, it may be more related than you think. "Owning the libs" is basically an expression of personal ego. Just take a look at all those politicians who are pushing their "conservative agenda". They wouldn't do that unless they thought it would add to their public visibility and increase their importance in the eyes of their constituents. The same is true of those doctors and scientists who are pushing back against the vaccine; they have found a way to make themselves highly visible and make money too. I don't think it actually has a single thing to do with what they actually know or believe.

If you want to know what more intelligent people who reject vaccines believe, I would suggest reading their arguments. Some are just rattled because some of their freedoms are taken away in a way that interferes seriously with their lifestyle (which involves not using medicine for the most part, avoiding processed foods or other things when doable, etc.).

Their freedoms are not as important as their health.

And even if they are stupid enough to believe that they are, their freedoms are most certainly not more important than my health.

People who engage in behaviours that are damaging to others are routinely restrained from doing so by society. That's pretty much the sole purpose of society in the first place.

I have zero sympathy for childish individualists who insist that they have the freedom to endanger others. Society has not only the right, but a duty to force such people to behave in a way that doesn't endanger others, or to deprive them of their liberty if tbey persist in their harmful behaviour. That applies equally to those who persist in refusing a vaccination against a deadly disease, as it does to those who persist in driving while drunk.

Fuck their lifestyle. My lifestyle requires that my family don't have their lives endangered by the counter-factual beliefs of spoiled middle class brats whose lives have been so effectively protected against disease that they have no concept of how dangerous it can be.

You can tell when someone is "more intelligent", by the fact that they do NOT reject vaccines. (Or clean water, or food safety standards, or traffic regulations, or any of the thousands of technological and social advances that enable us to live long, healthy, and pleasant lives).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Their freedoms are not as important as their health.

More important to whom? To them, they are - though they actually do not believe the exercise of freedom is bad for their health in this case.

Regardless, I was talking about the motivation. It's easy to make a caricature of one's opponents, but better to actually learn what they think, or just realize one does not know.

And even if they are stupid enough to believe that they are, their freedoms are most certainly not more important than my health.

Not to you. Whether the government should give more weight to one or the other is a matter to be assessed on a case by case basis. They're mistaken, but that does not mean that confining them is a proper course of action. By the way, as I mentioned in the previous post, the intelligent guy I have in mind is willing to get infected and isolated for 15 days if needed in order to get immunity and not be a risk to others. That too would be a loss of freedom, but one more bearable to him than a vaccine (he does not reject against vaccines specifically, but medicine in general, processed food, etc. )

People who engage in behaviours that are damaging to others are routinely restrained from doing so by society.

I'm not sure how that is related to my point about their motivation, but that depends on the behavior. People who do not wear face masks and do not vaccinate because of the flu pre-covid are not restrained. People who engage in behaviors like promoting Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Wokeism, or anti-nuclear activism are also not restrained (well, not in your country anyway), even though those are behaviors that are damaging to others.

That's pretty much the sole purpose of society in the first place.

Society does not have a purpose. Humans, like other monkeys, are social animals. Society just is.

I have zero sympathy for childish individualists who insist that they have the freedom to endanger others. Society has not only the right, but a duty to force such people to behave in a way that doesn't endanger others, or to deprive them of their liberty if tbey persist in their harmful behaviour. That applies equally to those who persist in refusing a vaccination against a deadly disease, as it does to those who persist in driving while drunk.

Well, the guy I mentioned is willing to get infected and isolated. But that aside, generally these people do not believe they are endangering others (yes, they are mistaken, but the motivation is different).

That aside, you say "Society has not only the right, but a duty to force such people to behave in a way that doesn't endanger others, or to deprive them of their liberty if tbey persist in their harmful behaviour. That applies equally to those who persist in refusing a vaccination against a deadly disease, as it does to those who persist in driving while drunk.".

How deadly?

The flu is a deadly disease: it kills many people. Covid is much deadlier. But again, where to draw the line? (at any rate, how about those willing to get infected and isolated to get immunity? )

Fuck their lifestyle. My lifestyle requires that my family don't have their lives endangered by the counter-factual beliefs of spoiled middle class brats whose lives have been so effectively protected against disease that they have no concept of how dangerous it can be.

But he is - and his family, so they are - willing to be infected. They just do not want vaccines. Or medicines. Or processed foods. Etc.

You can tell when someone is "more intelligent", by the fact that they do NOT reject vaccines.
(Or clean water, or food safety standards, or traffic regulations, or any of the thousands of technological and social advances that enable us to live long, healthy, and pleasant lives).[

You can't. There is some correlation for sure, but you can find a lot of highly intelligent people who believe that Jesus walked on water, raised the dead and resurrected. That's even more improbable than their claims about the vaccines, even if the latter are very improbable too. But you can tell he's smart enough to do philosophy reasonably well. That's considerably above average.

 

[TSwizzle]

Australia sees huge “anti-covid” protests.

Anti-COVID protests are underway in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. In Melbourne, demonstrators are converging on the steps of parliament and police are preparing for tensions to flare. The crowd in the CBD is huge as the streets are packed with people protesting the handling of the virus and the proposed pandemic legislation.

SkyNews


“Anti-covid” is a weird way of putting it but nevertheless, people all over the world are protesting government overreach.

 

[ZiprHead]

Australia sees huge “anti-covid” protests.

Anti-COVID protests are underway in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. In Melbourne, demonstrators are converging on the steps of parliament and police are preparing for tensions to flare. The crowd in the CBD is huge as the streets are packed with people protesting the handling of the virus and the proposed pandemic legislation.

SkyNews


“Anti-covid” is a weird way of putting it but nevertheless, people idiots all over the world are protesting government overreach.

FTFY

 

[Jarhyn]

Australia sees huge “anti-covid” protests.

Anti-COVID protests are underway in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. In Melbourne, demonstrators are converging on the steps of parliament and police are preparing for tensions to flare. The crowd in the CBD is huge as the streets are packed with people protesting the handling of the virus and the proposed pandemic legislation.

SkyNews


“Anti-covid” is a weird way of putting it but nevertheless, people idiots all over the world are protesting government overreach.

FTFY

Well, how else do you attack the movement against fascism except to paint social concern as fascism and fascism as "a big nothing-burger"?

It's classic DARVO

 

[TSwizzle]

Europe descended into a third day of violent carnage on Sunday as tens of thousands of people in Belgium took to the streets to protest against the return of strict lockdown rules aimed at curbing a rise in Covid infections. Nearly 40,000 people descended on the capital Brussels to protest against new anti-Covid measures banning the unvaccinated from entering restaurants and bars.

DailyMail

All this talk of banning the unvaccinated from public life has a very familiar ring to it.

 

[crazyfingers]

All this talk of banning the unvaccinated from public life has a very familiar ring to it.

Do you think that we should get rid of drunk driver laws and just let people drive drunk injuring and killing people?

 

[blastula]

The good dumb people of Europe are starting to stand up to the authoritarians;

Violence today broke out in Vienna as 10,000 protesters - many from far-right groups - took to the streets to demonstrate against a new Covid-19 lockdown and mandatory vaccinations. Demonstrations against virus restrictions also took place in Switzerland, Croatia, Italy, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands and North Macedonia on Saturday, a day after Dutch police opened fire on protesters and seven people were injured in rioting that erupted in Rotterdam.

DailyMail

FTFY

The dumb sociopaths.

Sociopathic traits linked to not wearing a mask or social distancing during pandemic: study

Researchers surveyed more than 1,500 adults in Brazil about their personalities and how well they adhered to Covid-19 prevention measures. Their findings point to a few psychological reasons why some people don't wear face masks, maintain social distance and practice hand hygiene.

www.cnbc.com

 

[TomC]

Europe descended into a third day of violent carnage on Sunday as tens of thousands of people in Belgium took to the streets to protest against the return of strict lockdown rules aimed at curbing a rise in Covid infections. Nearly 40,000 people descended on the capital Brussels to protest against new anti-Covid measures banning the unvaccinated from entering restaurants and bars.

DailyMail

All this talk of banning the unvaccinated from public life has a very familiar ring to it.

The internet is a big place. It's possible that someone, somewhere, advocates for this. But I don't know about any, of any importance.

Requiring people to choose between anti-social behaviour( like remaining unvaccinated) and being part of society( like going to bars and concerts) is not banning the unvaccinated from public life. It's unvaccinated people choosing something and then having consequences.

People who freely choose to remain unvaccinated are making a choice. But then, they can't also choose to mingle.

Pretending to be victims is another choice.
It's very much like people who choose to drink are making a choice. Choosing to drive afterwards doesn't make them a victim of the judiciary or police. Their freedom is not being infringed upon, in any rational way. We, the rest of society, want people who feel free to choose both drinking and driving to suffer enough consequences to dampen that antisocial behaviour.
I don't care that someone decides that they have to drive because they're too drunk to walk home.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

The dumb sociopaths.

Sociopathic traits linked to not wearing a mask or social distancing during pandemic: study

Researchers surveyed more than 1,500 adults in Brazil about their personalities and how well they adhered to Covid-19 prevention measures. Their findings point to a few psychological reasons why some people don't wear face masks, maintain social distance and practice hand hygiene.

www.cnbc.com

Or as Kevin Sorbo once replied to “Is your freedom more important than my safety?!”

I don’t know you, my lunch is more important to me than you are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That aside, you say "Society has not only the right, but a duty to force such people to behave in a way that doesn't endanger others, or to deprive them of their liberty if tbey persist in their harmful behaviour. That applies equally to those who persist in refusing a vaccination against a deadly disease, as it does to those who persist in driving while drunk.".

How deadly?

The flu is a deadly disease: it kills many people. Covid is much deadlier. But again, where to draw the line? (at any rate, how about those willing to get infected and isolated to get immunity? )

1) Flu is not a serious threat to a healthy person. They conduct medical studies in which (young, healthy) people are deliberately infected with flu. That is considered acceptable medical practice because it poses basically zero risk of serious consequences to the test subjects.

2) We have already learned that getting infected doesn't produce immunity--you're immune to that version but it very well might not protect you from variants. The vaccine (other than the Chinese crap that's a killed-virus vaccine, provides about the same protection as prior infection--bad) provides better protection than prior infection.