tadmjones

Not to quibble for the sake of quibbling, but you do see the arguments both for and against are here based on collectivist morales? "life on Earth" "Earth's valuable.." "Hey Hank, I'll trade you Dagny for that metal" "Um ok deal, If you don't mind , what do you plan to do with it?"

I think every century is crucial in determining an 'aggregate' level of freedom on Earth. Post industrial revolution and with the emerging digital revolution and the technologies that come from them are what allows for more freedom to be gained and defended. If off planet colonization ever happens it will most likely have to come from, be seeded by , collective action. The North American colonization was precipitated by wealthy stable regimes working to exploit fertile frontiers. The societies of individuals that recognized their advantage and relative power to break away from their former regimes created the opportunity for freedom to expand. The amount of consumable capital that will need to be expended in developing frontiers in highly 'in'-fertile frontiers boogles the mind , no ?

From what I gathered from the link , the cladding would need to be centimeters thick(?) , that'd be a heck of a suit, no ? And it seemed there are certain properties of the radiation that create secondary particles(?) that are dependent on angles of incidence and shape. I think all and all the engineering should incorporate the value of human creature comfort as foremost , it's a long ride

I wonder if given the parameters of solar activity and its interplay with galactic radiation and the varying benefits of differences of thickness of the theoretic cladding , if there won’t be engineering in mind of interchangeable ‘cladding’ systems. ’Tow’ some extra cladding and apply when needed and then shed when it is more beneficial for thinner cladding. As obviously necessary as radiation protection is needed, isn’t still the largest hurdle to over come a means of food production or hauling capacity ? I think I’ve seen mentioned that radiation protection will be presumably ‘figured out and engineered’ well before the food issue.

Not in the same camp Because he’s Jewish?

When in Rome..

Re the definition of requirement in this thread. There is no governmental right to forced injection , but in the guise of public health ,participation can be dependent on having received a specific inoculation. Eg enrollment in public/govt schools. Though I believe there would also be a concomitant rationale for exemptions and or accommodations. In addition, I do not think the Wuflu raises to a level that warrants these measures, I’m commenting on the discussion centered on the abstract principles of the OP. Like Rand I think quarantining of actively infected/contagious is a rational safety response , but forced injection is the obliteration of autonomy.

In the article the doctor also claims in the 'height' of the pandemic her hospital was basically empty, the reason I posted the article link was in reference to her resigning.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-er-doctor-resigns-over-mandatory-vaccines-and-falsehoods/

Fair enough, consider me in the first camp. I think given proper consideration of the populations’ risk of/ from disease, requirements for inoculation would/could be a rational response. ‘Public’ safety and health would be an overriding concern , based on the idea that unnecessary risk can/should be curtailed. I’m not convinced the current slate of covid vaccines are provably as save and effective ‘enough’ to be considered necessarily safe so that their requirement , itself, isn’t , itself, an unnecessary risk , the thing the principle is trying to avoid.

What exactly are the ‘sides’?

The number of hospitals and available beds has been trending downward for decades while population has been trending upward. The US, Canada , and the UK have larger populations and lower hospital bed capacity now then they had since the 70's. It's become way easier to 'overload' the shrinking capacity. A curious counterintuitive fact was that in 1975 in the US there were ~1.4 million beds that were ~72% utilized, while in 2015 there were~991k beds at ~69% utilization rate , with a population increase that seems to indicate way better well care ?

The point was they first picked the wrong strain for manufacture and inadvertently used live virus , and there was a second fuck up when they switched to an attenuated virus in an oral preparation. The digestive system reanimated the virus and those exposed to fecal matter, like parents changing diapers were infected . It is an example that the time it takes to know beyond hypothesis takes the time it takes. If these novel vaccines are effective enough to be worth the inherent risk all the better, no one can claim that is true now , to say nothing of the beginning of last year . Didnt the New England Journal of Medicine just have to admit they lied when they reported the vaccines were safe for pregnant women ? Were pregnant women part of the test cohort ? Given the relative and seemingly limited protection from infection conferred by this generation of covid vaccines , they are feeling more and more therapeutic which places them even further outside the realm of the OP. The anti-anti vaxxers argument presupposes the dubious idea of zero or near zero covid. The most reasonable estimation is that most people will be infected. Theses particular vaccines are not the only treatments to show some promise and efficacy in symptom relief and slowing of the progression of disease.

One of Malone's major points is that the mass application of a novel vaccine should be treated more judiciously and that it is worrisome that the medical/scientific community seems to be blanking out(in the o'ist sense) on the fact that this roll out is unprecedented as far as historic norms and not allowing any criticisms to that fact get much 'airtime'. The first roll outs of the polio vax were disastrous, technicalities with the preparations lead to infections caused by the vaccines.

That Atlantic article basically admits he did 'invent' the/a technique to introduce rna into cells ( the basics of the mRNA vaccine platform) and then criticizes him for allegedly not acknowledging others' contributions to the field. So he shouldn't bitch that few give him credit and only when pressed ? It's pure ad hominem and brought to you be the people who are actively discreditting him Facebook and a major commercial medical enterprise. Not an objective source.