Jump to content
RED

Max Dean to Penn State?

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, klehner said:

I'm not arguing:  I'm looking for examples.  You can't provide any, because the guidance from experts is not contradictory.

The biggest one right now is probably telling vaccinated people they should still wear masks in many instances (even when not required by the business).  I think that could be contributing to some of the hesitancy on the vaccine.   No, it's not 100% effective, but it's pretty dang close to it, so I get that they're being cautious, but they're probably being too cautious and thus likely giving the impression that they're not as confident in the effectiveness of the vaccine.

The CDC is also still recommending unvaccinated people to wear masks outdoors even when 6+ feet apart, which many "experts" disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

The biggest one right now is probably telling vaccinated people they should still wear masks in many instances (even when not required by the business).  I think that could be contributing to some of the hesitancy on the vaccine.   No, it's not 100% effective, but it's pretty dang close to it, so I get that they're being cautious, but they're probably being too cautious and thus likely giving the impression that they're not as confident in the effectiveness of the vaccine.

The CDC is also still recommending unvaccinated people to wear masks outdoors even when 6+ feet apart, which many "experts" disagree with.

Agree with this, and I'm kinda of the opinion that its not so much disagreeing with what is needed, but some doing a little overreach knowing if we set the bar here....we're really going to end up here.

For example, when I'm getting the family ready to leave at say.....7:30.  I'm not going to tell them we need to leave at 7:30, I'm going to tell them we need to leave at 7:10.  I know not all of them are going to be ready at the time I tell them they need to be, so I adjust so that I get the desired outcome....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, klehner said:

Yup.  Give me examples of experts giving contradictory guidance.

If examples of experts are CDC, Fauci, WHO.... hit the ol’ google button with any of 3 with search of contradictory, flip flop and Covid.

Enjoy the good reads... it’s not all Fox and The Hill either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, klehner said:

Yup.  Give me examples of experts giving contradictory guidance.

The problem with what you’re saying is that, at this point, the word “expert” is fundamentally broken, and any authority previously lent with same is largely to completely gone.

This is the case with many superlatives in the English language at this point.

 

Edited by Drew87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Drew87 said:

The problem with what you’re saying is that, at this point, the word “expert” is fundamentally broken, and any authority previously lent with same is largely to completely gone.

This is the case with many superlatives in the English language at this point.

 

There have been flip-flops. But that's not because Fauci et al are not experts. It's because this is a new disease and the scientist are learning more about it over time. As the knowledge changes, the advice changes. That's called learning. It's not a bad thing.

That said, I think that some of the advice is political in the sense that they want everyone to take precautions regardless of the level of risk. A health 25 year-old might take a chance at going unmasked indoors and either not get the virus or get it but with lesser symptoms. But they want everyone to mask up to reduce the overall risk and to send the message that we all have  stake in this. This idea is also sensible, but its anathema to folks who think they need only care about themselves. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

The translation is that I don't want to argue with someone whose mind is closed off.

Just clicked on this thread for the first time and I gotta say this is an incredible thing for this specific guy to say lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, NJDan said:

There have been flip-flops. But that's not because Fauci et al are not experts. It's because this is a new disease and the scientist are learning more about it over time. As the knowledge changes, the advice changes. That's called learning. It's not a bad thing.

That said, I think that some of the advice is political in the sense that they want everyone to take precautions regardless of the level of risk. A health 25 year-old might take a chance at going unmasked indoors and either not get the virus or get it but with lesser symptoms. But they want everyone to mask up to reduce the overall risk and to send the message that we all have  stake in this. This idea is also sensible, but its anathema to folks who think they need only care about themselves. 

 

Okay...here in lies a lot of the problems...statements like you made and others such as "your type" are what cause people to stop listening and quite trying to understand one's point of view and thus turning it into an argument.  Do you really think because someone thinks that their freedom and liberties along with their right to be able to make their own choices in terms of what risks they want to take means they "only care about themselves"???  Seriously??  Tell me which is more selfish...having the attitude that all people should be able to make their own decisions on what is right for themselves, or have the attitude "because I can't do something no one else should be able to either"??  Another example, I think smoking is a disgusting habit and have never done it, and I have asthma and it triggers it; however, if I know people are going to be smoking in an area that I know I can't get away from it, I don't go to that place...I don't expect all the smokers to stop smoking just because I don't like it or it could cause me to get sick.  Why...because it is their right to make that decision, as disgusting as it is, to smoke...and it is my right to make the decision to be around it or not, knowing what risk it causes me.  Again, tell me how me having that attitude constitutes the conclusion that I only care about myself??  In regards to this Covid thing...it is serious (to certain demographics)...however, because I feel that people should have a right to decide what risk are appropriate for themselves to take, is a far cry from "only caring about themselves"...and quite frankly it is the opposite of that.

And speaking of sensible...do I need to relist all the questions I asked that no one seems to want or be able to answer...you know why...because there is no sense about a lot of the "precautions" that "experts/politicians" have suggested.  And how long do we get to continue to use the "it's a new disease" thing when trying to rationalize stupid decisions that were made...and are continuing to make?  The data and what we know about the disease has been pretty consistent since the start of this whole thing.  It was obvious from the very beginning which demographics it impacted the worst, we know what the symptoms were from the very start, we knew how it was transmitted, etc.  Yet, we continue to make over the top regulations that very negatively impact the vast majority of our country, yet the bug is still going to be spread, people will still get it eventually, certain demographics (very minority) will continue to be hit very hard by it, and sensibility would tell you we can't stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Okay...here in lies a lot of the problems...statements like you made and others such as "your type" are what cause people to stop listening and quite trying to understand one's point of view and thus turning it into an argument.  Do you really think because someone thinks that their freedom and liberties along with their right to be able to make their own choices in terms of what risks they want to take means they "only care about themselves"???  Seriously??  Tell me which is more selfish...having the attitude that all people should be able to make their own decisions on what is right for themselves, or have the attitude "because I can't do something no one else should be able to either"??  Another example, I think smoking is a disgusting habit and have never done it, and I have asthma and it triggers it; however, if I know people are going to be smoking in an area that I know I can't get away from it, I don't go to that place...I don't expect all the smokers to stop smoking just because I don't like it or it could cause me to get sick.  Why...because it is their right to make that decision, as disgusting as it is, to smoke...and it is my right to make the decision to be around it or not, knowing what risk it causes me.  Again, tell me how me having that attitude constitutes the conclusion that I only care about myself??  In regards to this Covid thing...it is serious (to certain demographics)...however, because I feel that people should have a right to decide what risk are appropriate for themselves to take, is a far cry from "only caring about themselves"...and quite frankly it is the opposite of that.

And speaking of sensible...do I need to relist all the questions I asked that no one seems to want or be able to answer...you know why...because there is no sense about a lot of the "precautions" that "experts/politicians" have suggested.  And how long do we get to continue to use the "it's a new disease" thing when trying to rationalize stupid decisions that were made...and are continuing to make?  The data and what we know about the disease has been pretty consistent since the start of this whole thing.  It was obvious from the very beginning which demographics it impacted the worst, we know what the symptoms were from the very start, we knew how it was transmitted, etc.  Yet, we continue to make over the top regulations that very negatively impact the vast majority of our country, yet the bug is still going to be spread, people will still get it eventually, certain demographics (very minority) will continue to be hit very hard by it, and sensibility would tell you we can't stop it.

"Seriously??  Tell me which is more selfish...having the attitude that all people should be able to make their own decisions on what is right for themselves, or have the attitude "because I can't do something no one else should be able to either"??"

These are not the only options. Another option is: I will agree to refrain from conduct that could result in many folks getting sick even if it might not make me sick. Smoking is a good example. A lot of people like to smoke, but we tel them they cannot on airplanes, in restaurants etc. We do this not so much to protect smokers as they are allowed to smoke in other places, but to protect those who don't want to small their smoke (even if the danger of third party inhalation is much less).

 

Edited by NJDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Okay...here in lies a lot of the problems...statements like you made and others such as "your type" are what cause people to stop listening and quite trying to understand one's point of view and thus turning it into an argument.  Do you really think because someone thinks that their freedom and liberties along with their right to be able to make their own choices in terms of what risks they want to take means they "only care about themselves"???  Seriously??  Tell me which is more selfish...having the attitude that all people should be able to make their own decisions on what is right for themselves, or have the attitude "because I can't do something no one else should be able to either"??  Another example, I think smoking is a disgusting habit and have never done it, and I have asthma and it triggers it; however, if I know people are going to be smoking in an area that I know I can't get away from it, I don't go to that place...I don't expect all the smokers to stop smoking just because I don't like it or it could cause me to get sick.  Why...because it is their right to make that decision, as disgusting as it is, to smoke...and it is my right to make the decision to be around it or not, knowing what risk it causes me.  Again, tell me how me having that attitude constitutes the conclusion that I only care about myself??  In regards to this Covid thing...it is serious (to certain demographics)...however, because I feel that people should have a right to decide what risk are appropriate for themselves to take, is a far cry from "only caring about themselves"...and quite frankly it is the opposite of that.

And speaking of sensible...do I need to relist all the questions I asked that no one seems to want or be able to answer...you know why...because there is no sense about a lot of the "precautions" that "experts/politicians" have suggested.  And how long do we get to continue to use the "it's a new disease" thing when trying to rationalize stupid decisions that were made...and are continuing to make?  The data and what we know about the disease has been pretty consistent since the start of this whole thing.  It was obvious from the very beginning which demographics it impacted the worst, we know what the symptoms were from the very start, we knew how it was transmitted, etc.  Yet, we continue to make over the top regulations that very negatively impact the vast majority of our country, yet the bug is still going to be spread, people will still get it eventually, certain demographics (very minority) will continue to be hit very hard by it, and sensibility would tell you we can't stop it.

Agree with what you said about exercising my own rights and liberties, but you have to admit there have been a good number of people who have taken it way past rights and freedoms and straight into complete selfishness. How many times have you seen/heard someone say “your health is not my problem”. Well true, your health is not my problem, but if I have any level of human compassion, it is definitely a consideration. And I’m not talking about the people who want grandma to stay locked up 24–7, never spend time with their family, etc so I can go to work. I’m talking about the people who want grandma to stay locked up 24/7, never see their family, etc so that I don’t have to take on some minor conveniences. And then, try to argue about rights and what not when what they are talking about is not rights at all. Is it a natural born right in the constitution to go out partying at the bars on the weekend?  No, it absolutely is not. It is a privilege. A privilege that someone certainly has the right to participate in if they haven’t had that privelege stripped, but A privilege that someone with some human compassion would consider to put on hold. 
 

Can’t say i believe the smoker is a great analogy either. 1)Smoking is 100% a choice, infectious disease is not. 2). The obligation is not on the non-smoker to make space for the smoker to be able to smoke. Your rights end at the point they infringe upon mine, and you do not have the right to infect my medical condition with your choices. It’s is on the smoker to go to designated smoker areas where people who don’t want to be infected with the smoke don’t have to, it is on the smoker to make sure they’re choices are not impacting those around them negatively. But it is important to note, that being that it is a situation where your actions impact my health, smoking is regulated. 
 

Lastly, the part about the data and information, known symptoms, etc that you say have basically been exactly the same since the get go....I’m sorry but that’s just not accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJDan said:

There have been flip-flops. But that's not because Fauci et al are not experts. It's because this is a new disease and the scientist are learning more about it over time. As the knowledge changes, the advice changes. That's called learning. It's not a bad thing.

That said, I think that some of the advice is political in the sense that they want everyone to take precautions regardless of the level of risk. A health 25 year-old might take a chance at going unmasked indoors and either not get the virus or get it but with lesser symptoms. But they want everyone to mask up to reduce the overall risk and to send the message that we all have  stake in this. This idea is also sensible, but its anathema to folks who think they need only care about themselves. 

 

This. I don't understand why this isnt apparent to some folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NJDan said:

"Seriously??  Tell me which is more selfish...having the attitude that all people should be able to make their own decisions on what is right for themselves, or have the attitude "because I can't do something no one else should be able to either"??"

These are not the only options. Another option is: I will agree to refrain from conduct that could result in many folks getting sick even if it might not make me sick. Smoking is a good example. A lot of people like to smoke, but we tel them they cannot on airplanes, in restaurants etc. We do this not so much to protect smokers as they are allowed to smoke in other places, but to protect those who don't want to small their smoke (even if the danger of third party inhalation is much less).

 

If you are sick or afraid, stay indoors.  

If you are healthy and unafraid, go out and live your life.  

I imagine there were more than a few guys that didn't want to leave the Higgins boats during the amphibious landings on D Day.  

Almost all did, however.

Back then, freedom meant a lot.

Edited by TheOhioState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheOhioState said:

If you are sick or afraid, stay indoors.  

If you are healthy and unafraid, go out and live your life.  

I imagine there were more than a few guys that didn't want to leave the Higgins boats during the amphibious landings on D Day.  

Almost all did, however.

Back then, freedom meant a lot.

I think freedom still does mean a lot. I think where it gets cloudy is where people believe freedom means “I can do whatever the hell I want, consequences to others don’t matter because it’s my life”, when that is simply just not the case. That is not at all what freedom is. 
 

 I’m not talking about just this particular virus, I’m talking about a general mindset. But then again, a general mindset that then influences ones decisions and actions during a worldwide pandemic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TheOhioState said:

If you are sick or afraid, stay indoors.  

If you are healthy and unafraid, go out and live your life.  

I imagine there were more than a few guys that didn't want to leave the Higgins boats during the amphibious landings on D Day.  

Almost all did, however.

Back then, freedom meant a lot.

My wife always asks me who I'm talking to on here. There are times when it's hard to explain.

Edited by jackwebster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

The biggest one right now is probably telling vaccinated people they should still wear masks in many instances (even when not required by the business).  I think that could be contributing to some of the hesitancy on the vaccine.   No, it's not 100% effective, but it's pretty dang close to it, so I get that they're being cautious, but they're probably being too cautious and thus likely giving the impression that they're not as confident in the effectiveness of the vaccine.

The CDC is also still recommending unvaccinated people to wear masks outdoors even when 6+ feet apart, which many "experts" disagree with.

Still looking for that contradictory guidance.  Unless you are saying that the CDC contradicts the "guidance" from keyboard warriors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 9insoft said:

If examples of experts are CDC, Fauci, WHO.... hit the ol’ google button with any of 3 with search of contradictory, flip flop and Covid.

Enjoy the good reads... it’s not all Fox and The Hill either.

Still looking for *contradictions*.  So-called flip-flops are not contradictions:  that's how science works as new knowledge is gained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Agree with what you said about exercising my own rights and liberties, but you have to admit there have been a good number of people who have taken it way past rights and freedoms and straight into complete selfishness. How many times have you seen/heard someone say “your health is not my problem”. Well true, your health is not my problem, but if I have any level of human compassion, it is definitely a consideration. And I’m not talking about the people who want grandma to stay locked up 24–7, never spend time with their family, etc so I can go to work. I’m talking about the people who want grandma to stay locked up 24/7, never see their family, etc so that I don’t have to take on some minor conveniences. And then, try to argue about rights and what not when what they are talking about is not rights at all. Is it a natural born right in the constitution to go out partying at the bars on the weekend?  No, it absolutely is not. It is a privilege. A privilege that someone certainly has the right to participate in if they haven’t had that privelege stripped, but A privilege that someone with some human compassion would consider to put on hold. 
 

Can’t say i believe the smoker is a great analogy either. 1)Smoking is 100% a choice, infectious disease is not. 2). The obligation is not on the non-smoker to make space for the smoker to be able to smoke. Your rights end at the point they infringe upon mine, and you do not have the right to infect my medical condition with your choices. It’s is on the smoker to go to designated smoker areas where people who don’t want to be infected with the smoke don’t have to, it is on the smoker to make sure they’re choices are not impacting those around them negatively. But it is important to note, that being that it is a situation where your actions impact my health, smoking is regulated. 
 

Lastly, the part about the data and information, known symptoms, etc that you say have basically been exactly the same since the get go....I’m sorry but that’s just not accurate. 

 

1 hour ago, NJDan said:

There have been flip-flops. But that's not because Fauci et al are not experts. It's because this is a new disease and the scientist are learning more about it over time. As the knowledge changes, the advice changes. That's called learning. It's not a bad thing.

That said, I think that some of the advice is political in the sense that they want everyone to take precautions regardless of the level of risk. A health 25 year-old might take a chance at going unmasked indoors and either not get the virus or get it but with lesser symptoms. But they want everyone to mask up to reduce the overall risk and to send the message that we all have  stake in this. This idea is also sensible, but its anathema to folks who think they need only care about themselves. 

 

I’m quoting you both just bc you are both putting concerted thought into this.

So, to get this out if the way, COVID is bad.

The thing that I find most distressing about the situation is that the nation as a whole has not been able to get onside for something universally acknowledged as bad and undesirable.  There is mutual distrust in a way I certainly have never seen in my lifetime, and it is evident in the the way different parties regard the fabric of our nation, and in current discourse(though thankfully it continues in some places like, of all places, here).  This is not a new problem, however, and personally all I see on 99% of programming consists of divisive pieces meant to drive fear, because fear is a good business to be in.  Almost completely gone are the “love thy neighbor” messages of not too long ago.

Hate to say it, but our economy currently runs on fear as much as anything else, it is hands down the #1 marketing strategy used for anything and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dman115 said:

Okay...here in lies a lot of the problems...statements like you made and others such as "your type" are what cause people to stop listening and quite trying to understand one's point of view and thus turning it into an argument.  Do you really think because someone thinks that their freedom and liberties along with their right to be able to make their own choices in terms of what risks they want to take means they "only care about themselves"???  Seriously??  Tell me which is more selfish...having the attitude that all people should be able to make their own decisions on what is right for themselves, or have the attitude "because I can't do something no one else should be able to either"??  Another example, I think smoking is a disgusting habit and have never done it, and I have asthma and it triggers it; however, if I know people are going to be smoking in an area that I know I can't get away from it, I don't go to that place...I don't expect all the smokers to stop smoking just because I don't like it or it could cause me to get sick.  Why...because it is their right to make that decision, as disgusting as it is, to smoke...and it is my right to make the decision to be around it or not, knowing what risk it causes me.  Again, tell me how me having that attitude constitutes the conclusion that I only care about myself??  In regards to this Covid thing...it is serious (to certain demographics)...however, because I feel that people should have a right to decide what risk are appropriate for themselves to take, is a far cry from "only caring about themselves"...and quite frankly it is the opposite of that.

And speaking of sensible...do I need to relist all the questions I asked that no one seems to want or be able to answer...you know why...because there is no sense about a lot of the "precautions" that "experts/politicians" have suggested.  And how long do we get to continue to use the "it's a new disease" thing when trying to rationalize stupid decisions that were made...and are continuing to make?  The data and what we know about the disease has been pretty consistent since the start of this whole thing.  It was obvious from the very beginning which demographics it impacted the worst, we know what the symptoms were from the very start, we knew how it was transmitted, etc.  Yet, we continue to make over the top regulations that very negatively impact the vast majority of our country, yet the bug is still going to be spread, people will still get it eventually, certain demographics (very minority) will continue to be hit very hard by it, and sensibility would tell you we can't stop it.

I'd say being asked to wear a mask to protect others is pretty minor as far as limitation of 'freedoms' goes.  The science is pretty clear.  Vaccines are not perfect but they work well in reducing serious illness.  Masks do prevent viral spread to some degree.  Yes, some groups are less at risk than other groups, however, those groups refusing to comply with really basic directives put a lot of other people at risk and the right thing to do would be to work together to get the situation under control, even if it means putting a mask on.  The faster we get the global population vaccinated the less likely we will be dealing with iterations of covid in years to come (though that ship has probably sailed).  Yes, guidance from the CDC has changed over time.  Partly this is due to politics unfortunately, partly this is due to a changing understanding of a 'novel' corona virus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...