Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by tadmjones

  1. I am questioning the integrity of the institutions that are making policy decisions and abrogating the protection of individual rights.
  2. In the context of the current plague, whence the 'facts'? What institutions can be relied on to provide and disseminate all relevant factual data? By what metrics can/do we judge reliable , in this unprecedented context ?
  3. Negligence implies a knowledge of contextual facts. The public at large relies on health officials for the appropriate facts and contexts , ideally to use that knowledge to guide their presumably appropriate actions. But no one should be exempt from evaluating the ‘knowledge’ presented . Blindly following the dictums of health officials doesn’t inoculate one against possible poor outcomes. The public at large will bear the consequences of our own negligence by abiding the lockdowns and mandates.
  4. I was originally responding the term 'unwarranted skepticism'. I inferred that term pointed to a reason for vaccine hesitancy would be found in people who do not understand ' Science', generally. I commented on the study because it speaks to hesitancy among PhDs. I didn't say anything about the general population.
  5. From the linked article debunking my assertion : "On July 26 2021, Carnegie Mellon University issued a press release about the research, reiterating the findings about vaccine hesitancy in PhDs in a contextually accurate fashion: A study conducted by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh has found that vaccine hesitancy has decreased among US adults by one-third between January and May 2021. While tentative people are concerned about COVID-19 vaccine safety and potential side effects, those with stronger views tend to distrust the government. […] The largest decrease in hesitancy between January and May [2021] by education group was in those with a high school education or less. Hesitancy held constant in the most educated group (those with a PhD); by May PhD’s were the most hesitant group [among the vaccine hesitant]. While vaccine hesitancy decreased across virtually all racial groups, Black people and Pacific Islanders had the largest decreases, joining Hispanics and Asians at having lower vaccine hesitancy than white people in May [2021]." ?
  6. Unwarranted? It feels like you wanted to say duped. A Carnegie Mellon study recently found that grouped by education level the highest group level of vaccine hesitancy was among those holding PhDs , would that group correlate with the least trusting or knowledgeable of scientific research?
  7. So an “I and me” t-shirt on casual Fridays , is totally out of the question? Disengagement as far as is feasible is probably the best course.
  8. Is it considered , generally, a good medical practice to use leaky vaccines during an outbreak ? If the experimental trials are effective it will have been because of luck not sound reasoning. Not sayin' luck aint good , but fear, desperation and manipulation were the mothers of these inventions.
  9. There’s a lot of speculation that use of mRNA tech that targets an isolated aspect of the whole virus instead of the historic practice of inoculation with the whole virus especially during a pandemic isn’t a valid medical practice. The reasoning as I understand it says that the risk to variant forcing out ways the benefit of disease prevention provided by a ‘leaky’ vaccine. At least with a disease with the mortality rates sarscovid19 possesses. The actions may be necessitated if we were in a similar situation of a novel infection akin to Ebola.
  10. What would constitute evidence against a misleading report ? Do you mean I need to analyze the data surrounding all deaths in the US since late 2019 or find a report from an institution that has access to reliable data , in order to assert that the health authorities are disseminating false or misleading information ? Those authorities explicitly said they are counting death with a positive test (and in some cases suspected infection is enough to list as positive)the same as death caused by disease in the tallies. I believe this was done purposely to skew the public’s impression of the relative lethality of the virus. You said you didn’t think it was true that they treated positive tests irrespective of cause as a covid death in the tally , do still believe that is true ? Mask up and get the jab or the virus will kill you just like over six hundred thousand of your countrymen!
  11. I'd grant a relative simplicity. Do you think 'most people' believe that 600k+ died from covid , in the US ? Is that belief , to whatever degree it exists, a conclusion based on misleading reports ?
  12. Honestly I wasn’t expected a debate either , as I thought it was common knowledge. https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-are-covid-19-deaths-counted-it-s-complicated This article describes the way I have always considered deaths were counted. I remember seeing Dr. Birx say it explicitly at a briefing , I believe this article mentions that briefing.
  13. People who died and had a positive test for covid were listed as a covid death. No one ever said that wasn’t SOP here in the States. You assumed the tally was kept otherwise ? Based on what ? The total US death count includes those that died with covid , I doubt will may ever get a number that reflects accurately those who died from covid.
  14. Are they still counting with as being the same thing as from ? If they are what does that mean about any statistical significance between being vaccinated or not ? Have they refined the totals to autopsied victims only ?
  15. "very greatly reducing the risk to recipient" not just a reduction , but a very great reduction? Based on what ?
  16. The Cuban government censors speech that goes against the party line. How is that different from what Twitterbook does in the US? Anti government -agenda , anti power structure speech is in both cases throttled , muzzled. I’d say they are of the same kind , but the reach , the degree varies given different internal conditions. The government in the US is making plans to further their reach by asking for regulation of SMS messaging. The only place a trajectory of this sort leads is a place where ‘everything’ is censorship.
  17. I tried to edit post to include the phrase “ under current jurisprudence” I do agree Coke can do as Coke pleases in a free market , as long as their actions do not violate individual rights. Given the level of government influence in today’s ‘market’ , big tech , for lack of a better term, has been given the ability to operate with a different hand . The idea of a public market has not been evenly followed. But such is the nature of political pull and why it is so toxic to the idea of a rational society.
  18. So Coca-Cola could and should be allowed to ban the use of its product to homosexuals or whites ?
  19. Good question, DC v. Heller means , currently, SCOTUS holds that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in individuals , but allows for constitutional regulation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment I haven't looked too deeply into the various legal arguments and legal theory surrounding the Amendment, but I wager it has to do with the 'commas' and wording "..necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed" . But to me, it 'feels' like, the intent was to allow for militias as a government function of the individual states ( as protection against federalized encroachment and to secure themselves against possible actions from other free states) , and including the right of individuals to own fire arms, because of the use of the words 'free state' and subsequently the use of the word 'people'. The phrase 'shall not be infringed' implies they viewed possession of fire arms as a 'natural' right.
  20. I’ve also always assumed the intent of the phrasing meant the militias would be funded by the separate states. Was there ever a period where the states had a tradition of militia as regular intrastate function? Ive never looked into that aspect of US military history, but again assumed the practice was common mostly from reflecting on the naming of units in say Civil War histories.
×
×
  • Create New...