Is it possible to be highly conscious but against covid lockdowns + mandatory masks?

[Preety_India]

19 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Yes, masks are helpful and can be used for relatively long periods of time, they don't cause much problem.

I never understand what the big fuss is about wearing a mask. They are acting like someone's telling them to wear a space suit. 

 

[Fran11]

10 minutes ago, commie said:

Influenza immunity is so widespread almost everyone has some. It's not a binary thing. Current vaccines don't do the same thing as a natural infection and you get innate immunity too. Look it up.

TB isn't even a virus. So far as I know, treatment remains straightforward.

A lot of people still die from those diseases.

Innate immunity is innate non-specific immunity, not because of natural infections.

I know TB is a bacteria, but it enters by airpaths, that's why masks are relevant, even more so because it's bigger and we have specific highly effective masks.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[commie]

4 minutes ago, Member said:

Psycho or not, it SUCKS and cannot be a highly conscious trait.

The effect sucks but is it ONE trait? Have you read about Altemeyer's experiments with screening players in a strategy game? Remove the people with one of the traits from the pool of player and the outcome changes dramatically... or so he claims.

[commie]

3 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

A lot of people still die from those diseases.

The numbers aren't comparable and health care systems don't get overwhelmed from those so people don't die from many other diseases and accidents as a domino effect.

Also, as someone pointed out, we simply understand the long-term risks better.

There's no legit comparison, except perhaps in locales which have been hit very hard.

[Preety_India]

5 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Well, here in Sweden no one is wearing masks and everything is open and pretty much like normal. And we are doing pretty good at the moment.

So lucky. 

 

[Fran11]

24 minutes ago, commie said:

The numbers aren't comparable and health care systems don't get overwhelmed from those so people don't die from many other diseases and accidents as a domino effect.

Also, as someone pointed out, we simply understand the long-term risks better.

There's no legit comparison, except perhaps in locales which have been hit very hard.

Look man, the main point about that example was not to discuss this.

But to point out that if society was really simplistically about the cliche of "saving lives at all costs", that would include regulations that most people would consider ridiculous and excessively restrictive, like:

Prohibiting fast foot and sugared drinks, prohibiting alcohol and all drugs, prohibiting some extreme sports, strictly regulating motorized transportation, lockdowns every winter, etc , etc

Many lives could be saved by restricting everything to death, still we dont do this.

It's always a balance beetween reducing risks on one hand and not being overly restrictive in the other.

This is always the case with or without covid.

So let's not think in binary cliches like lockdowns yes/no, and be more nuanced about this.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Consept]

23 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Prohibiting fast foot and sugared drinks, prohibiting alcohol and all drugs, prohibiting some extreme sports, strictly regulating motorized transportation, lockdowns every winter, etc , etc

I get your point but i think mostly these examples are ones that people can freely choose and the risks both long term and short term are known, should also note that government would probably ban sugar or tax it highly but would get a lot of pushback from people who claim they want the freedom to choose, so its always a balancing act between 'freedom' and safety. We live in a world someone can drink bleach get sick and sue the company that sold them the bleach, thats why we have 'dont drink bleach' on bleach bottles lol. The government is always in a damned if you do, damned if you dont position because if they put up safety regulations people see it as taking away freedom, if they dont people want to know why they just let whatever happen when they couldve regulated it. Seat belts are a great example, when they first came out people did not want to use them and complained in a similar way to the mask wearing, nanny state etc, but obviously seat belts do and have saved lives. 

With Covid, we dont know the long term effects, many people who had it months ago are still reporting effects from it, so it would make sense to take a better safe than sorry approach at least temporarily.  

[Fran11]

9 minutes ago, Consept said:

With Covid, we dont know the long term effects, many people who had it months ago are still reporting effects from it, so it would make sense to take a better safe than sorry approach at least temporarily.  

Yeah of course, I agree.

I'm just trying to pull people away from simplistic polariaztions.

The question is not lockdowns yes/no, but for how long should it go and how strict should it be. Which like it has already been stated, it greatly depends on the country.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[nistake]

I'm very surprised by the replies in this thread given the fact that this is supposed to be a "high-consciousness" forum.

[Jodistrict]

1 hour ago, Mikael89 said:

Well, here in Sweden no one is wearing masks and everything is open and pretty much like normal. And we are doing pretty good at the moment.

Sweden is the only country even trying to take a holistic approach, with their conscious effort to have every person in society change their behavior to support a reasonable collective  solution which is sustainable over a long period of time.  Lockdowns are for the short term.   There are no statistics gathered on the deaths  and suffering caused by long-term lockdowns – depression, suicides, the increase in poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc.  People are punished for seeking human connection, a natural healthy impulse.    The full brutality of long-term  lockdowns is hidden from view, so it can be promoted as a “compassionate” approach.   Not having all the information doesn’t allow policies which balance all the interests. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Jodistrict

[commie]

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

So let's not think in binary cliches like lockdowns yes/no, and be more nuanced about this.

This would require talking about actual measures instead of the word "lockdown" which has evidently become an empty political pinata.

As to saving lives, people were already hating me for advocating for strict regulation of motorized transportation, food and such before I even knew what an equation was.

28 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Sweden is the only country even trying to take a holistic approach

Basically every sane country which isn't an island has been doing this for at least 4 months now. The Swedes did it too soon, is all.

I have no idea what this "lockdown" boogeyman you're talking about is. There was a long holiday this spring if you weren't an essential worker. I wasn't able to try shoes on in a shop before buying and that was basically the extent of the inconvenience. I'd take worn shoes over having to go to the office of course but the great thing about it was the reduced traffic and pollution.

[Fran11]

23 minutes ago, commie said:

This would require talking about actual measures 

Yes, that's the point I'm trying to make.

23 minutes ago, commie said:

As to saving lives, people were already hating me for advocating for strict regulation of motorized transportation, food and such before I even knew what an equation was.

Actually I'm open about discussing some of those possiblities. I'm sure something positive could be achieved with better regulation if we balance things properly and not go overboard.

But surely you must have a limit too, I don't think you wanna stay locked for life in an empty room with people bringing you food for the sake of safety 

That's the point.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[commie]

You want to discuss how to reduce pollution and cruelty, for instance by taxing gas up to 20USD a gallon? A bit off-topic perhaps.

10 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

But surely you must have a limit too, I don't think you wanna stay locked for life in an empty room with people bringing you food for the sake of safety 

That's the point.

You are describing being jailed. Obviously I have a problem with jails.

Or since it's a corona thread, you might be describing being hospitalized instead. Yeah, it would suck being disabled after a stroke because the doctors were overwhelmed... which is precisely what these "lockdowns" would prevent.

Edited September 29, 2020 by commie

[hoodrow trillson]

1 hour ago, nistake said:

I'm very surprised by the replies in this thread given the fact that this is supposed to be a "high-consciousness" forum.

This.

[Fran11]

4 minutes ago, commie said:

Or since it's a corona thread, you might be describing being hospitalized instead. Yeah, it would suck being disabled after a stroke because the doctors were overwhelmed... which is precisely what these "lockdowns" would prevent.

Ok you're right, guess we have no alternative but to go all in with lenghty and strict lockdowns ignoring all other problems but the virus then... 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fran11

[commie]

What is a "lenghty and strict lockdown"? What on Earth could the point possibly be?

A couple of posts ago you said you wanted to discuss actual measures and now you're back to silly strawmen.

[Fran11]

19 minutes ago, commie said:

What is a "lenghty and strict lockdown"? What on Earth could the point possibly be?

A couple of posts ago you said you wanted to discuss actual measures and now you're back to silly strawmen.

The six-month lockdown has damaged my brain, be more comprehensive please.

[No Self]

'Risk management' is a term we used when I worked for a tramways company many years back. If no trams were run, there would be no pedestrian knockdowns and no fatalities, but at a cost of lacking transport for communities. If a lax attitude were taken towards safety, then there would be many fatalities. The middle ground involves maximising safety, running the service and accepting that some deaths are unfortunately inevitable; this is not classified as 'murder'. This is the inevitable process when all the variables are accounted for.

COVID is full of unknowns, including long-term effects (though this applies to any rushed vaccines, too). All that is known is that it is highly contagious. We are having to make up the rules as we go, and inevitably there will be clumsiness over the first several months. Due to Dunning-Kruger, however, it only takes internet users users a few minutes to proclaim themselves experts on any given topic, hence all the strong opinions when truly robust facts are few and far between.

Quality discussion will be imperative to find the right balance in the future, taking into account the extreme consequences of neglecting safety, or for that matter of focusing on the virus to the exclusion of everything else. Social media fake news is antithetical to quality discussion and should be called out.

Here in Australia at least, there is still no evidence of increased suicides, though experts believe that that increase will happen at some point, while there has been an increase in 'self-harm'. 

[Member]

12 hours ago, nistake said:

I'm very surprised by the replies in this thread given the fact that this is supposed to be a "high-consciousness" forum.

Yes, it is very high consciousness to say "imunocompromised people will have a nasty fate anyway, so I don't want to wear masks and stop coughing in front of people because only young people should live and have fun" or "Depriving kids of a year or more of their childhood" when most kids are obsessed with video games and internet lmao...

Edited September 30, 2020 by Member

[lmfao]

@Yarco to answer the question, yes. 

Why should anyone invest their energy into creating prejudices about who or who cannot be high consciousness, it's petty gatekeeping. 

As for those economic things you were talking about. I guess the policy should be different for every country.

I'm not gonna assume what covid means economically. I don't know. All I can say is that it'll probably end up being the case everyone handles it differently. I'm no economist, what do I know. 

I think that in certain countries it might be impossible or not beneficial for the government to impose a lockdown which actually works. I know that in Pakistan for example, those motherfuckers ain't ever gonna comply with an effective lockdown. 

 

Kids missing out on school for a year? .... bitch please, they're given a respite before slavery resumes. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by lmfao