Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. 25 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

    Getting to where most people didn't have to worry much about COVID-19 and could go back to normal.

    If you're concerned, maybe you should inquire with the retailers and the local health department.  Ask detailed questions.

     

    Are saying that the jabs function was only to ameliorate worry ?

    That safety and effectiveness were secondary or non-relevant concerns? That EUA's were granted in order to quell panic?

  2. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

      The biggest reason vaccines have not accomplished as much as hoped is that a lot of people haven't gotten vaccinated.

     

     

    What was the hoped for accomplishment?

    and as an aside , does anyone think the local CVS, Rite Aid Walmart jab clinic followed the rather precise storage and handling specifications of the Pfizer formulations? I have my doubts on the abilities of my local Rite Aid employees and I question if the facility has the proper equipment in good working order to be up to the task. I bet there is probably a significant failure rate given the mass distribution, which I would count as a plus.

  3. 34 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

    To clarify, I don't mean all of life on Earth would suffer. I mean that to the extent resources from Earth are transferred to the Mars colony, those are resources unavailable for supporting life on Earth. It might not be the most important concern, but some thought should be given to the propriety of sending Earth's valuable materials on a potentially one-way journey to Mars.

    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?"

     

  4. 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 ?

  5. On 10/15/2021 at 8:42 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

    To save mass, instead of cladding the entire ship with the idea humans should be able to run around essentially naked  everywhere inside... designate only a small percentage of ship for "relaxation" areas (where people can wear jammies and slippers) and the rest of the ship requires full protection of specially designed radiation (but not pressurized) suits.

    Of course sensitive electrical and other equipment will need proper shielding... and the greenhouse/chicken coup as well.

    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 :)

  6. 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.

  7. 49 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

    Tad, you'll have to elaborate on this.

    I just can't imaging a scenario where the government EVER has the right to put a gun to your head and inject something in your body without your consent.

    I can imagine a person being forced to stay at home but not the injection.

    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.

  8. 19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

    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. 

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

  9. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

    The side that thinks that vaccines should be required to at least some extent in at least some cases and the side that thinks they should never be required.  Some people might want to draw the line differently; perhaps it would be better to say that there are more than two sides.

    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. 

  10. 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 ?

  11. 3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

    Which isn't the case here. This is a red herring, trying to introduce skepticism for all people who want a vaccine simply based on how one time more than half a century ago a vaccine preparation wasn't done properly. 

    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.

  12. 12 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

    Polio, btw, was an essential preventive measure made by parents - only - on behalf of their child. It was never meant to stop the spread, the rationalization for having kids vaccinated now.

    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. 

  13. 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.

  14. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

    What about them?

    Without getting into a discussion of specific treatments, should any attention be applied to the top down pressures that have not allowed physicians the freedom to treat their individual patients?

    If it can be shown that political pressure has affected the ability for physicians to exercise and apply their practice on individual cases , could that be described as an initiation of force upon the general public propagated by the government?

    The algorithms are showing me that there are many doctors that are frustrated by what they perceive as a top down effort to basically ‘send the patients home , until they turn blue and need acute care’ , they complain their ability to relieve symptom suffering and strategies that may decrease disease progression are being thwarted. 

×
×
  • Create New...