Doug Morris

One distinction we need to draw is between risk that is within the norm and risk that goes beyond the norm. COVID-19 is serious enough that the risk of it goes beyond the norm, at least to some extent. To me, the key issue is creating unnecessary risk.

You are blowing off the question of how dangerous the germs are. Does this mean we should not have laws against drunk or reckless driving or reckless use of guns or explosives?

You introduced the word "imminent" into this thread. Please explain what you were talking about when you said this.

Please explain what you're talking about. You seem to be saying that something has to be abnormal in order to be about to happen. Please clarify. Please state what definition of "imminent" you are using.

From the web: im·mi·nent /ˈimənənt/ Learn to pronounce adjective adjective: imminent 1. about to happen. "they were in imminent danger of being swept away" 2. ARCHAIC overhanging. You don't seem to be using either of these definitions. Please state your definition.

If there is a possibility of germs being spread now, isn't that pretty imminent? Maybe you should explain further how you are drawing and applying the distinction. As long as we have the current situation in which most people don't understand the principles involved and there is a lot of pressure-group warfare, we will have this problem with all issues. Better understanding of the fundamental principles allows for a better approach to the technicalities of applying them to any particular situation. My primary concern in these discussions has been to try to clarify the fundamental principles. But I have also responded to some comments about the technicalities.

Are you sure that this is what you meant to say? The laws against drunk driving are aimed at the endangering, not the intoxication. They do not apply to someone who gets drunk but doesn't drive. If someone has liquor poured down their throat against their will, so that they have to swallow or drown, and they become intoxicated thereby, it should still be illegal for them to drive. It is right to forbid someone to drive who has lost their ability to drive safely because of effects of old age, even though aging is not a volitional act.

So you want a guarantee. Might that be too stringent a requirement? I don't know what you consider to be the alleged health benefit. What I am saying is that if staying unvaccinated creates too much risk, this justifies the mandate. It is legitimate to outlaw drunk driving because it creates too much risk, even though any given instance of drunk driving may not do harm, and even though people will still die in traffic accidents due to other causes.

Tadmjones is the one who introduced the word "meaningful" into this discussion (in adverb form) and therefore is the one who should define it. The CDC director's statement makes clear that she is taking the word "prevention" to mean reducing risk to the point where the risk can be ignored. I took tadmjones's phrase " to meaningfully slow transmission" to mean slowing transmission to an extent that makes the slowing worthwhile, which is clearly different from reducing risk to the point where the risk can be ignored. Until your post, this thread had been about vaccination, not lockdowns.

tadmjones, Again, you are conflating prevention with meaningful slowing.

Here is a study that contradicts you. Vaccinated people with breakthrough COVID infections had ... https://newsroom.ucla.edu › releases › vaccinated-work...

Does this take into account the distinction between shedding infectious viruses and shedding non-infectious viral remnants?

Does this take into account the severity of the disease?

This proves that vaccines do not completely stop transmission. It proves nothing about whether vaccines work to meaningfully slow transmission. You seem to be assuming that COVID-19 vaccines are "0 %", which is certainly not true. If real time tests are sufficiently available, it would make sense to use them in addition or instead.

This should be considered insider trading. But I gather that insider trading laws are considered to apply mainly to officers of companies. Government officials are in effect overbosses of companies, but I don't think the law recognizes that.