lax4ever

Except vaccination is a prime argument for not having masks. Especially since we are at a point where it is reasonable to assume that anyone who wants a vaccine has gotten one and the remainder are on the fence or are choosing not to get one (at least in the US). Thus, the argument for wearing masks (to protect people) is no longer relevant because those who have not gotten the vaccination have accepted the risk of the disease and have decided they are protected enough. EDIT: This acceptance indicates that there is no longer a need to wear masks as a form of protection.

That is quite the jump. Here we were talking about the absurdity of putting unvaccinated people on a no-fly list but put it into perspective against the state violently suppressing it's people in the name of disease prevention and you can can definitely see that they are both absurd.

This right here. The vaccine's should never have been marketed as being able to stop infection. Given the history of previous coronaviruses it makes no sense that a vaccine would suddenly be able to stop people from getting infected by the disease. The vaccine's only strength is in decreasing the severity of symptoms. This can lead to less infection since there will be fewer people who hit the threshold for a transmissible viral load (without going in to the deep end on infectious vs non-infectious viral loads), but does not stop infection entirely.

Before we pull the panic trigger, based on the justice.gov link you provided (because I cannot read German nor do I feel like putting it through a translator) all Protonmail appears to have provided was the registration date of the account in question. The defendant apparently emailed himself his passwords to several accounts including the offending Protonmail account.

The establishment of safety implies long term testing, something that was never done on humans. The 2017 trials of the rabies vaccine was a phase I trial and you cannot gather long term testing data in 3 years. That, along with some influenza testing later on, was the extent of the testing of mRNA vaccine tech. I'm just saying that before we outright dismiss a potentially viable solution because it hasn't been testing on humans let's look at the larger picture.

I wonder if we have any other medical tech currently in use that was only ever tested on animals but happened to receive an emergency use authorization on humans.

You actually did take in to account the nearness of the year of Jubilee when buying or selling. The Year of Jubilee was more in the realm of property bought and sold between the Jewish people. Specifically that of productive land, family land, and indentured fellow Israelites. What you are looking for is mentioned in the Bible in Leviticus chapter 25.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25&ve...

The responsibility for making a fair purchase/sale was actually on both parties (buyer and seller). This is conjunction with the sale of property actually being considered the right of receiving the profits the sale of the goods the property produced would have prevented pretty much all short term purchasing. A landowner would not give up their land post seeding and prior to harvest because they have already invested in it, and a purchaser is not going to purchase land after a harvest in the year before the Year of Jubilee because there is no way for them to make a profit while still keeping the land.

EDIT: That being said, there isn't really a comparison here because the leaders of the Jewish people would never had made these kind of loans to the general populace and then expect other members general populace to pay for them.

Based on the data from Worldometers, Hawaii is running a CFR (ratio of confirmed cases to fatalities) of 1.4% per capita which is low but not as low as say Utah, Nebraska, Wisconsin, others which remain below the US national CFR average of 1.8%. Frankly, that Hawaii did this the way it did is a scary abuse of power in my mind. As an opposite example, the UK which had and still maintains restrictions and lockdowns that are greater than the US maintains a CFR of 2.7%. If you are going to quarantine, quarantine the most vulnerable populations (if they want to be quarantined. Personally, my grandfather refuses to quarantine at all since that reduces his ability to be around his family). It seems inadvisable to quarantine a low risk population, especially as we are starting to see speculation of the negative impact lockdowns have had to the general immune response of the body to other diseases.

There were plenty of instances of state leadership (not sure if you are in the US or not) asking people to stay in their homes and not go out or meet with people. This is message from the Wisconsin governor when he signed the Executive Order for staying at home:

https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/articles/governor-tony-...

And here's the actual order https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EO094-COVIDRecommenda...

It actually calls out staying as close to home as possible and not even travelling to a second home if someone owned it.

Couple quick points here:

1)I'm no mathematician or statistician, but as I understand it the IFR also counts an estimate of those presumed to have had an asymptomatic case. A published study earlier this month estimates that the reported number of non-hospitalized cases between February and September of 2020 accounts for 1 out of every 7 cases of reported infection because of reasons like the symptoms weren't typical or didn't appear at all, amongst others. I don't know if that puts the IFR as low as they are saying, but it's still pretty low.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1010/6000389

2) The lockdowns have not shown any statistical data to the effect of controlling the transmission of the disease. As an aside, they actually have some support that they may have created a negative impact overall as people were forced to reside with family members who contracted and passed on the disease. There are plenty of anecdotal pieces of evidence on both sides of the argument on the subject of lockdowns. That in and of itself should be an indicator for caution and moderation when calling for unilateral action.

3) Even if one subscribes to the idea that the lockdowns did have a positive effect in controlling the rate of infection, the lockdowns were never billed as protecting the vulnerable. That was masking. The lockdowns were billed as an effort to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed. Sure, while there were hotspots and times of higher activity, I have not personally come across data that shows that these hospitals were ever in danger of being over-whelmed. However, I have personally seen examples of people who have lost their jobs in the medical industry because the shift to a laser focus on COVID-19 caused someone to lose their job due to lack of the necessary funding.

I don't know that any numbers are really going to add up for quite some time. I do think that the imposition of unilateral action like lockdowns was a terrible idea and the cost of doing so will continue to show itself over the next several years. Data will continue to change and be updated just like it is for all major medical events. It appears to me that perhaps the best course of action is making recommendations to people and letting them chose their own path. The history of this country and trying to impose something by force is not exactly stellar.

That isn't even taking in to consideration the material cost of constructing that many solar panels. We would likely deplete the available supply, or come very close to, of minerals needed to manufacture those panels. And we would need to do so about every 15-20 years based on current panel efficiency.

This is not standard advice for anyone looking to buy a home. Any loan officer or broker advising this is doing their job incredibly poorly.

While I imagine there will be outliers, and those outliers will likely be the featured media stories because bad news sells better, I would imagine the majority of those who are behind on their rent have worked with their landlords to come to some sort of agreement. The vast majority of landlords know that without renters you aren't paying for that property you purchased as an investment, and they know that hard times have fallen on quite a few people. The bigger impact of this eviction moratorium has been the number of people who felt empowered to take on landlords and just stop paying even if they could since there was no legal avenue for them to do anything about it and then go about trashing the place. There are quite a few stories about that taking place. Again, these are likely the outliers but those are the what get the clicks. For every single mother of two who would be evicted there is an example of a renter who stopped paying and trashed the property of a landlord who was struggling just as much, if not more, to get by. There are always two sides to every coin, and a federal solution for something like this will likely only make matters worse overall.

I have to agree with you. You cannot sue a state government just because you got in an accident in the middle of a snowstorm because you were driving too fast for the weather and lost control of the car, even though the speed limit signs might permit you to drive that speed. There has to be a reasonable assumption call here, and no reasonable person can say that going that kind of speed on a residential roadway is reasonable. In addition, there is a reasonable suspicion that this kid may have been driving the car illegally if he was 17 and just with his friends.

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/teen-driver/yr-frst-lcns/... https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/teen-driver/yr-frst-lcns/...

If Jason Davis was driving under an instruction permit, he did not have anyone in the car to legally supervise him under Wisconsin law. If he was driving under a probationary license there was a possibility he was driving legally if he was past the 9 month requirement without it being extended, but if he was still in the initial 9 month period he had more passengers in the car than he was legally allowed to have. It is possible for him to have been outside the probationary period of the probationary drivers license, but that would require him to get his license some time between Jan and March of 2016 and then immediately get his probationary 6 months after that with all the requirements entailed, and I find that unlikely.

This seems to me to be a series of bad decisions made both by the teenager behind the wheel, and the parents for letting him do so.

You are definitely going to get a million different answers here, and I suspect that all of them will depend on the details of a particular situation or conflict. I don't believe there is a blanket statement that could be applied.

While I can appreciate where you are coming from, countering a terrorist attack typically has something that we don't have with COVID and that is information. The world was introduced and expected to react to this disease without any sort of "tactical" knowledge. Even if you include the other four variants of coronavirus, the availability of information can still be considered sorely lacking. Discounting government-provided information, even medical sources had a harder time providing a consensus on how the disease was transmitted during the first few months. That the larger questions like why we have such a large population that appears to be asymptomatic remains unanswered while we are still being pushed to "one-size-fits-all" remedy (and a remedy that appears to only be there to debase the severity of symptoms) doesn't help. Unfortunately, we need information, and information is going to take time. The long term arguments for health side effects are on both sides of the coin here.