Coronavirus conspiracy theory - let's get it straight

Skeeter

Well-known member
No, sorry, you don't have that right, no matter the circumstance. My health and wellbeing is none of your business. The only people who have access to that information are myself, my doctor, and those who I see fit to disclose it to. That doesn't include you.
Of course your health and well being is not the central concern. Your negligence and recklessness could be. Now, it appears that Omicron and its carriers do not carry the severity that would warrant strong freedom-reducing mandates that another variant could.

If there existed an airborne communicable disease that was devastating to the immune system similar to AIDS, you would doubtlessly agree that citizens should be compelled to take their status seriously. Failure to test ones self or consider symptoms carefully then would warrant civil and criminal liability.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Of course your health and well being is not the central concern. Your negligence and recklessness could be.
Sorry, the "shame game" does not work on people that understand the truth.
Now, it appears that Omicron and its carriers do not carry the severity that would warrant strong freedom-reducing mandates that another variant could.
Nothing warrants "strong freedom-reducing mandates".
If there existed an airborne communicable disease that was devastating to the immune system similar to AIDS, you would doubtlessly agree that citizens should be compelled to take their status seriously.
Fanciful games of what if's.
Failure to test ones self or consider symptoms carefully then would warrant civil and criminal liability.
No, it would not.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course your health and well being is not the central concern. Your negligence and recklessness could be. Now, it appears that Omicron and its carriers do not carry the severity that would warrant strong freedom-reducing mandates that another variant could.

If there existed an airborne communicable disease that was devastating to the immune system similar to AIDS, you would doubtlessly agree that citizens should be compelled to take their status seriously. Failure to test ones self or consider symptoms carefully then would warrant civil and criminal liability.
If society is so depraved (a majority of individuals in that society) as to be reckless and negligent about their own health to the point of knowingly killing other people on a mass scale, then it's too late for that society and it would be wise for said government to let itself die. Although you might find a handful of evil people that ignore their infections and actively try and spread them in order to hurt and kill people - like the homos did (I think it's still a thing with them but it hasn't been in the news lately) - the general population should never have a government policy against an infectious disease.

The reason for this is because there is no general line about when an infectious disease is deadly enough to do something about. Even a common cold can kill some people. So unless you can show me the line the government cannot cross, even if it isn't a perfect line with black on one side and white on the other, the government will have to just sit back and let it play out.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I think you are not a Christian, and correct me if I'm wrong, but since Christians are the only possible source of truth to run society including governmental policy I'll answer some of the Christian objections here and Skeeter can ignore this: God had the government quarantine people forcefully if they showed signs of active infection with certain infectious diseases. This is a great point and I would be OK if the government reduced their roll to acting only on symptomatic infections if a disease is "bad enough". However, the government has not done this in modern society against those diseases listed in the bible because those diseases are severe enough that people remove themselves from society in order to heal. The diseases specifically mentioned in the bible just don't spread fast enough for the government to have a roll.

The second objection is that the government can curb freedom (speech, assembly, self defense, etc.), up to and including complete control of every kind of movement of the entire population if there is an existential threat to the nation. The problem of course is that the common cold, even asymptomatically, is an existential threat to society not knowing the future. Arbitrary law is usually bad law.
 
Last edited:

Skeeter

Well-known member
If society is so depraved (a majority of individuals in that society) as to be reckless and negligent about their own health to the point of knowingly killing other people on a mass scale, then it's too late for that society and it would be wise for said government to let itself die.
It has been shown that a large portion of citizens have a callous disregard for their potential to be vectors of a disease with a severity that can overwhelm Emergency Departments. Intentionality exists in gradations: knowingly, recklessly, negligently. Denial prevents people from fully recognizing risky behavior. The government would do well to react against the pathology of its citizens. A republic involves representatives who can make informed decisions, sometimes unpopular ones for the greater good.
Although you might find a handful of evil people that ignore their infections and actively try and spread them in order to hurt and kill people - like the homos did (I think it's still a thing with them but it hasn't been in the news lately) - the general population should never have a government policy against an infectious disease.

You and your camp are the current day homos. Some gay guys refused to believe AIDS was real or serious -- just like you, they denied the risk and complained about the burden. It was a government conspiracy to stop free love. They were safe to do as they please as long as they were healthy, did not use poppers or other drugs, etc. You are the group in denial of the risks. Right wing talk show hosts are the promiscuous ones spreading the disease and dying at higher rates
The reason for this is because there is no general line about when an infectious disease is deadly enough to do something about. Even a common cold can kill some people. So unless you can show me the line the government cannot cross,
True. If my scenario of an airborne AIDS were coming to fruition, we should all acknowledge that extreme measures would be justified instead of saying that such measures would never be appropriate. The question of where to draw the line is the most important question. The level of restriction needs to make sense, and the level of convenience must be considered. Masking up and getting a vaccine in my mind is very convenient. If the government fails to put the nation on shut down when a virus is dangerous enough would be a greater tragedy than temporary over-reactions.
 
Last edited:

ffreeloader

Well-known member
It has been shown that a large portion of citizens have a callous disregard for their potential to be vectors of a disease with a severity that can overwhelm Emergency Departments. Intentionality exists in gradations: knowingly, recklessly, negligently. Denial prevents people from fully recognizing risky behavior. The government would do well to react against the pathology of its citizens. A republic involves representatives who can make informed decisions, sometimes unpopular ones for the greater good.


You and your camp are the current day homos. Some gay guys refused to believe AIDS was real or serious -- just like you, they denied the risk and complained about the burden. It was a government conspiracy to stop free love. They were safe to do as they please as long as they were healthy, did not use poppers or other drugs, etc. You are the group in denial of the risks. Right wing talk show hosts are the promiscuous ones spreading the disease and dying at higher rates

True. If my scenario of an airborne AIDS were coming to fruition, we should all acknowledge that extreme measures would be justified instead of saying that such measures would never be appropriate. The question of where to draw the line is the most important question. The level of restriction needs to make sense, and the level of convenience must be considered. Masking up and getting a vaccine in my mind is very convenient. If the government fails to put the nation on shut down when a virus is dangerous enough would be a greater tragedy than temporary over-reactions.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Interesting, 57% hospitalized with covid were vaccinated in a population that is 67% vaccinated? This is proof that vaccines do not make things worse.

It does suggest that vaccination is not that effective against omicron and that omicron is less serious overall. Data from more than one county is necessary to make firm conclusions.

What was your point?
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Interesting, 57% hospitalized with covid were vaccinated in a population that is 67% vaccinated? This is proof that vaccines do not make things worse.

It does suggest that vaccination is not that effective against omicron and that omicron is less serious overall. Data from more than one county is necessary to make firm conclusions.

What was your point?
You won't understand the point of this link either.

 

Skeeter

Well-known member
You won't understand the point of this link either.

I think I understand you more. You just read headlines and if it seems to support your view, you post it without trying to gain a deeper understanding.

Here, you post a claim that supports your contention even less than your previous offering. Ninety percent of UK citizens are vaccinated. When two groups set for comparison have vastly different sizes, you must weight things to be able to apply an accurate interpretation. The more people that are vaccinated with an imperfect vaccine, the higher the number of vaccinated people who are hospitalized there will be. Sixty-eight percent of those hospitalized were vaccinated. If the vaccine did nothing, we would expect 90 percent of deaths to be among the vaccinated. This data supports the idea that the vaccine is protective.
 
Last edited:

Skeeter

Well-known member
In case you were is suspense: Age as well as sample size needs to be controlled to make sound conclusions. There is a confound between age and vaccination status. As you must know, being older confers a greater risk of mortality and being older prompts an increase in the likelihood of being vaccinated.
 

marke

Well-known member
Of course your health and well being is not the central concern. Your negligence and recklessness could be. Now, it appears that Omicron and its carriers do not carry the severity that would warrant strong freedom-reducing mandates that another variant could.

If there existed an airborne communicable disease that was devastating to the immune system similar to AIDS, you would doubtlessly agree that citizens should be compelled to take their status seriously. Failure to test ones self or consider symptoms carefully then would warrant civil and criminal liability.
No effort has ever been made by the US government to publicly identify those with AIDS for the protection of the general public. Why? Because the leftists and swamp creature liberals and weasels do not dare upset homosexuals by violating their privacy the way the lefties violate the privacy and freedoms of patriotic Americans with their stupid mandates based upon misunderstandings of science and medicine.
 

marke

Well-known member
It has been shown that a large portion of citizens have a callous disregard for their potential to be vectors of a disease with a severity that can overwhelm Emergency Departments. Intentionality exists in gradations: knowingly, recklessly, negligently. Denial prevents people from fully recognizing risky behavior. The government would do well to react against the pathology of its citizens. A republic involves representatives who can make informed decisions, sometimes unpopular ones for the greater good.
It has been clearly demonstrated that leftist government officials continue to believe and propagate the lie that covid vaccines prevent infections from covid.
 

marke

Well-known member
You and your camp are the current day homos. Some gay guys refused to believe AIDS was real or serious -- just like you, they denied the risk and complained about the burden. It was a government conspiracy to stop free love. They were safe to do as they please as long as they were healthy, did not use poppers or other drugs, etc. You are the group in denial of the risks. Right wing talk show hosts are the promiscuous ones spreading the disease and dying at higher rates
Those who commit sexual perversions do so in rebellion against God and against their own health. If the government really believed quarantining sick people was necessary to protect healthy people then the government would have been quarantining those with AIDS for everyone's benefit. However, like business and economy shutdowns, such drastic measures only make matters worse, so people should stop hiding in their bathrooms from diseases and live openly with all people freely acknowledging that sickness and death will always be a threat to the living, but go on living anyway.
 
Top