Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:It Is Not 'Self-Interest' to Take Illness Lightly

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

https://gbdeclaration.org/

This was the policy to follow from early, I think. As contrasted with what has been named the "pseudo-science" of their fellow scientists who *somehow* commanded the world's Covid policies, these co-signers are concerned with the complete health of people. Even when only mentioning in passing, the economic disaster and psychological concerns (not to forget human sacrifices) which were so predictable, their case is strong. Including those, it has to be invincible.

Dedicate all individual (and only a little governmental) efforts and resources to protecting the vulnerable, oneself where necessary, and/or those close to one. Everyone else must be left alone to get on with their lives and not worry about the spread.

Maybe the GBD will be vindicated in future, preparing for the next pandemic. "Follow the science" has been the pandemic buzzword, justifying all manner of wrongs. Right, but whose "science"?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Defiant Michigan UP cafe owner told to shut down after serving indoor diners Since November, bars and restaurants in Michigan have been limited to carry-out service or outdoor dining in an effort

This graph may be out of date, it is certain those percentages have fallen further - but what it illustrates is just who are being sacrificed to whom. I.e.: The top half to the bottom half of people.

Interacting with people in public without any symptoms of disease or infection isn’t dangerous to the public. The masks worn by the majority of the public have little or no medical efficacy. The

Not necessarily. For one, if you don't even get sick, then you would be less likely to spread it. If no one gets it, it really doesn't matter how the immunity is spread, or if anyone develops immunity. It becomes a balance of the illness severity. It's pretty dangerous to just do natural herd immunity, especially with something like the flu or covid (the spread itself being exaggerated or not, it is dangerous to get it). Vaccines are probably the safest and best way to develop herd immunity. So even if the duration of danger is longer, that doesn't mean the degree of danger is equally as high the whole time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the main objective and strategy, alone, herd immunity is flawed while effectual when coupled with vaccination. Here's a simple review (good enough, but badly mistaken I think with the recommendations which accept the common wisdom for targeting and protecting ALL of the population, willy-nilly, from transmission): https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808

Where it says dramatically that "millions could die" it presumes that those very same millions - evidently, nearly all the susceptible, elderly, etc.etc.-  will NOT be specially and individually protected nor self-protecting. This is a harmful and invalid presumption based upon, I believe, the scientists' proclivity for perceiving human societies as "hive activity" or anthills. And each unit having a duty to others. There's no getting around that many will die, have died, but their mass approach to protection/suppression I am sure has been far more fatal, while extending the virus' lifespan. More could have been saved, were the responsibility returned completely to individuals and off 'society'.

Skepticism (philosophical), determinism and avoidance of free will, have proven limiting to the scientists' methodology.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

This is a harmful and invalid presumption based upon, I believe, the scientists' proclivity for perceiving human societies as "hive activity" or anthills.

I don't think so.

I mean, it is true that herd immunity is a concept that deals with an entire population, and doesn't have to do with the individual level. All this means is that we can't generalize to individual members of the population. A problem only comes in if you explicitly ignore what can change on an individual level. Still, herd immunity is not about behavior since it focuses on strictly how many people need to be immune for the population to be effectively immune, so that is only a problem of application. 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

which accept the common wisdom for targeting and protecting ALL of the population, willy-nilly, from transmission)

But that's what herd immunity is: all of the population. And this is a good thing, because that illness is essentially eradicated. I don't think the concept has any problems. 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

but their mass approach to protection/suppression I am sure has been far more fatal, while extending the virus' lifespan.

I don't see how, at least not the deaths from the virus itself (secondary deaths as a consequence of the public response to the virus, probably).  Not that it justifies the lockdowns, but the more you do to suppress an illness, the fewer people die, at least if hospitals are less strained. As I said before, natural herd immunity is dangerous, and really only vaccines would matter in the long run to safely attain herd immunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think so.

I mean, it is true that herd immunity is a concept that deals with an entire population, and doesn't have to do with the individual level. All this means is that we can't generalize to individual members of the population. A problem only comes in if you explicitly ignore what can change on an individual level. Still, herd immunity is not about behavior since it focuses on strictly how many people need to be immune for the population to be effectively immune, so that is only a problem of application. 

But that's what herd immunity is: all of the population. And this is a good thing, because that illness is essentially eradicated. I don't think the concept has any problems. 

 

You misunderstood me, it is their recommendations (distancing,masking, etc.) I criticize, for "all the population". Almost my mantra here, has been the targeted self-protection and protection of the susceptible group - not an intervention for and by the healthy rest. Look after your grandma and I'll look after mine, shortly.

Community immunity conversely, is a 'natural intervention', so to speak, for all the population.

Quite simply, do you think that with existing methods, the mass of population and government controls advised by scientists have been (or would have been) any more effective at saving lives, than those vulnerable individuals, informed of their risk, and doing it for themselves? In a contest between collective acts vs. individual self-interest, I know whom I will bet on.

I am sure the self-responsible method could not have done any WORSE for fatalities- at the very least. More, that the additional, long-term catastrophic damages to all people I've been on about would have been largely avoided.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Quite simply, do you think that with existing methods, the mass of population and government controls advised by scientists have been (or would have been) any more effective at saving lives, than those vulnerable individuals, informed of their risk, and doing it for themselves?

Well, this is a really nebulous statement. Many methods I do not think have been appropriate or would work well in the long run in terms of overall well-being of a society or individuals. Advocating using masks and social distancing (within reason, like avoiding very large gatherings) I think is very important and good, as I've been saying. Vulnerable individuals of course should be especially adamant about their own health and precautions, but there's nothing wrong with asking "hey, could you help out a little bit?" 

I mean, of course you can prevent everything in the world by forcing people to stay inside, but we both know the horrible results of that. It's just unfortunate that I would guess that most scientists are utilitarians in terms of politics. But I also think that most scientists compartmentalize ethics and epistemology. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Well, this is a really nebulous statement. Many methods I do not think have been appropriate or would work well in the long run in terms of overall well-being of a society or individuals. Advocating using masks and social distancing (within reason, like avoiding very large gatherings) I think is very important and good, as I've been saying. Vulnerable individuals of course should be especially adamant about their own health and precautions, but there's nothing wrong with asking "hey, could you help out a little bit?" 

I mean, of course you can prevent everything in the world by forcing people to stay inside, but we both know the horrible results of that. It's just unfortunate that I would guess that most scientists are utilitarians in terms of politics. But I also think that most scientists compartmentalize ethics and epistemology. 

A question, wasn't a statement. Stripped down - would there have been more lives lost or less, if left to our own devices? (left alone from governments and others' insistence in society to make our choices?)

Very much boils down to responsibility. In a nutshell, if everybody is responsible for all others then nobody is responsible for anyone.

I guess we are more or less agreed about lockdowns, but I maintain that these 'soft' precautions - It's not relevant here if from good will or when acted upon by social duty - are continuing the harm to life in general ("man's life").

And according to some scientists, there are few signs that social distancing or masking is effective and may be counter-effective. I will leave that in doubt not knowing enough.

True, one can and should "help out a little bit", and ¬more¬ respect others' wishes or property rights - BUT, the fact remains, anyone with poor health (etc.) who risks going out in public must accept they take the risk and not impose these measures on others. Or, never venture out at all.

(Some may be surprised at how many elderly are equally adamant about carrying on their active lives with no fear, as they always lived, are not allowing family members to cosset them and firm in informing any younger people they must *not* be considerate towards them but to go on with their lives. If that happens and I die, so be it, they imply or say. I think those you know of, hear of or simply see out and about conducting their lives, by these convictions, are highly rational men and women by objective standards).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Asymptomatic transmission "very rare". One cause of the hysteria seemingly eliminated. One isn't showing and feeling the effects of infection, one hardly ever passes it on.

https://t.co/P2pbrZbVTn?amp=1

J. Tucker's articles are always top rate, I wish I had his latest at hand earlier.. A brilliant thinker and who knows the material. He authored a book "Liberty Or Lock Down" in 2020, also. Looks hugely wide-ranging while obviously written in a short period.

https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_QHJAEbJGH1QXK&asin=B08K7QFNK4&tag=kpembed-20&amazonDeviceType=A2CLFWBIMVSE9N&from=Bookcard&preview=newtab

Chapter One. "The Choice: An Epistemic Crisis"

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

There is no right against having something fall on you.  There is a right against someone negligently creating risk that something will fall on you.

The same for disease.

"Negligently", in that person x strayed a little too close to person y; or whose mask slipped, momentarily, and he sneezed; or that he hadn't sanitized correctly? This negligence would have every court in the country flooded with cases.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, whYNOT said:
23 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

 

"Negligently", in that person x strayed a little too close to person y; or whose mask slipped, momentarily, and he sneezed; or that he hadn't sanitized correctly?

These examples might not be serious enough to warrant action.  We need to use good judgment about this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Epidemiologists have had to learn about Covid-19 on the fly, starting from zero.  I read someplace someone saying that Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove making her statement "as late as June" indicated that this learning took time.  Epidemiologists have had several more months to learn.  What have they been saying more recently?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Epidemiologists have had to learn about Covid-19 on the fly, starting from zero. 

There's no excuse. Why "starting from zero"? Why so slow to catch up? Why did they have to learn/re-learn what is Virology 101 for students?

And why was there such emphasis placed on Covid being "nothing like the common flu"? What then - a Zombie attack from Outer Space?

This came today in an e-mail. A reminder of the sensible self-interest people and doctors applied once upon a time. http://click.messages.webmd.com/?qs=1e882df2352d1c6165eaa64683344b0b7a40c4d66d8954ec4af3b3bf2a73cd9aa6a2d760c5563f0a6c3a545f31d895327c87341dfceef5a8

Note the similarities, see some differences and some degrees of difference. These are ... viruses. The epidemiologists, by default, rushed us into international over-reaction. By design, the media did the rest to make us compliant.

Simply, by AR in TRM: "The physical sciences are still ruled by some remnants of a rational epistemology (which is rapidly being destroyed) but the humanities have been virtually abandoned ... to mysticism".

The anti-conceptual mentality pervading today must result in corrupted science, and "the humanities" are there ahead of them, embedded in mysticism.

Wishing everyone a merry Christmas!

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

From early on, there were some comparisons to SARS and MERS. Two days after the genome sequence of the virus was released, a vaccine was postulated. 

The pandemic underlying the pandemic, i.e., the altruistic pandemic fueling the CoViD-19 pandemic, already has an alternative morality available. 

Truly, a most rational gift offered to mankind. 

Merry Christmas!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Each virus is different.

The same WebMD site your link led me to contains this:

Is COVID-19 worse than the flu?

Unlike the flu, a lot of people aren’t immune to the coronavirus because it’s so new. If you do catch it, the virus triggers your body to make things called antibodies. Researchers are looking at whether they give you protection against catching it again.

The coronavirus also appears to cause higher rates of severe illness and death than the flu. But the symptoms themselves can vary widely from person to person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

the altruistic pandemic fueling the CoViD-19 pandemic

The altruistic pandemic is contaminating and complicating responses to the CoViD-19 pandemic.

The altruistic pandemic is not fueling the CoViD-19 pandemic.  The virus is driving the pandemic.  Fuel is provided by people not taking the pandemic seriously and by people not knowing how to react to the altruistic element in the response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...