A COVID discussion

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

The mask wearing becomes political when the federal government begins to mandate that people wear them, no questions asked. The thing is the U.S. is very big on this thing called "individual rights" and "liberties". Or at least has been for the longest time, since its inception. Lately it's been slowly stripped away from people. So people who value and cherish these things tend to get their feathers ruffled when the government begins to issue these mandates for "our own good". Because of course we don't know any better. I personally was sick with COVID this past December. Coughed, sneezed, had headaches, lost taste and smell - tested positive. I went through the usual quarantine period and everything returned back to normal. No idea where I got it from though. I wore masks when in public because we HAVE to. Still, I got it somehow. Go figure. Mask didn't seem to do me any good.

Bottom line is the government tells us to wear them and we do, no questions asked. But why? We had the Swine flu, we had the Spanish flu, other pandemics - no one was required to wear masks. Thousands of lives were lost as recently as 2009 but we barely heard anything about it. No one was wearing masks that's for sure. Now, put on your mask or else. What happened to individual liberties? Don't we have choices about how to live our lives?

But imagine this scenario. Tomorrow you wake up in the morning and the government tells you that mask-wearing will now be mandatory forever. It's in your future, your kids' future, their kids' future. Now, I'm sure some folks will be "good little soldiers" and won't question or oppose this, falling in line because it's for "our own good". But there is NO WAY I'm ok with this! Seriously? So I lived half my life without a mask on my face but now you're telling me that for the rest of my life I have to have this thing on my face???? It's the new normal?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!! I'll take my chances with the virus, thank you very much. I don't think this is acceptable and I would imagine most rational people would agree with this. We and our ancestors went through who knows what terrible pandemics over past centuries (and millions died too) but somehow we didn't hide our pretty faces from anyone. It's human nature to expose your mouth and nose and not hide them behind a piece of cloth, restricting your breathing. Imagine future generations of family photos, everyone in face masks. It's not even funny. I find the idea pretty frightening. But believe it or not, such a thing could happen. All it takes is the government handing out these "mandates" and folks falling in line like sheep without questioning or thinking rationally what the implications are for future generations.

Bottom line is WE THE PEOPLE should make our own decisions about these things. That's what separates us from Soviet Russia where Ivan keeps prisoners in bamboo cages and shoots them in legs for stepping out of line.

Mandates? We ain't got no mandates! We don't need no mandates! We don't need no stinking mandates!

Hey Ivan, I think we’re going to disagree a lot based on your arguments. I will also say that if you don’t want to debate the topic with me, you certainly have that choice. I understand, but I enjoy reading and analyzing arguments such as the paragraphs you wrote above.

I’ll start by saying that there are an incredible number of things we Americans with all of our liberties routinely concede to as part of living in our society. I’m thinking of laws about wearing seatbelts, a minimum drinking age above adulthood, helmet laws in various states, public smoking laws, vaccinating children to enroll in public schools, etc... In each of these cases the public good has been prioritized ahead of individual rights and those laws have been created by elected officials selected by WE THE PEOPLE. The constitution established a republic, NOT a direct democracy. If enough people don’t agree with the law then they will vote out the lawmakers.

No individual rights are absolute and those who think they are have oversimplified things. You may not agree with every law, and neither do I, but they were created under our federal republic’s system. In the end we all have a choice to follow the laws or not. State police aren’t physically forcing compliance as happens in totalitarian systems like Soviet Russia. We have a choice, but certain choices may carry a consequence. If you don’t wear your seatbelt you can be ticketed. If you don’t vaccinate your child, you’ll need to find a non-public school that accepts that or home school them. If you don’t wear a mask currently you may not be allowed inside someone’s business. Those who complain that their rights are being taken away are in reality complaining about having the right to behave in any way they want, but without consequence. That doesn’t exist in any society. Someone’s personal rights only extend until they infringe on someone else’s rights. If someone can’t play nice with others in the sandbox, they may be asked to go play somewhere else by themselves.

Lastly, I would argue that many more Americans have rights today than in decades past or at our nation’s founding. The argument that we as a nation have fewer rights today than in the past neglects some pretty basic facts like half the population, women, have voting rights now, or Native Americans have full citizenship now, or that male voting rights don’t require the ownership of land or that enslavement is unconstitutional now. The only amendment to our constitution that has limited individual rights is Prohibition, the majority of the rest, since the Bill of Rights have expanded our rights, not limited them. Laws that violate those amendments can be struck down by the court. The courts have ruled repeatedly over the decades regarding public health versus individual rights and have squarely sided with the public welfare.

Yep we certainly have our disagreements about a whole slew of things. But I would argue that things like having a driver's license and insurance to own and drive a vehicle are pretty much PART AND PARCEL of the whole thing. No too much infringing on individual liberties there if you ask me. Same with seat belt wearing, which isn't even strictly enforced anyway. I wear it for safety reasons (it doesn't bother me, never has) and I imagine most do nowadays because of the annoying beeping in modern cars if you don't. But there are ways of getting around it. Ultimately it's your choice.

But back to my scenario - if the government said that mask-wearing is now mandatory for decades to come how would you feel? Would you comply? Would you rebel? Would you say "hold on, there's gotta be another way"? Or do we just accept it as the new normal? I say we don't. I say our individual rights and comforts are at stake. My face doesn't want to be covered by cloth for the rest of my life in church, at picnics, at barbecues, at Thanksgiving dinner, in stores and malls, or just strolling through the city. I want to be able to breathe in that fresh Hawaiian air when I'm out sightseeing with other people. I don't want to look at my baby in the crib with a little mask on his face. I don't want him to recognize "daddy" for the first time while I'm wearing a mask. That's not the image of "mommy" or "daddy" that I want him to have. In other words I want things to return to normal, to the way they used to be. Otherwise I feel my personal freedom is being taken away from me.

[Mad Kudu Buck]

I find the term "new normal" to be offensive and unacceptable. People in power have decided to permanently change what you've always considered to be normal to something else - and then label it as "normal". There is only normal and abnormal. They want you to think of an abnormal situation as normal. You should always question anyone who uses this offensive term.

Judging by what various people in power have said (and videos with direct quotes are available), we will NEVER get back to normal. Why is this? Shouldn't things get back to normal when their goal of vaccinating everyone on the planet is achieved? (a goal that was made LONG BEFORE COVID EXISTED - once again, as seen in direct quotes by Bill Gates and others) No, we have a "new normal" and must remain vigilant about the next one. (...which WILL come - they will see to that)

Did travelling ever get back to normal after Sept. 11? Supposedly, the "War on Terror" (War OF Terror) was supposed to do something. Actually, it did do something, but not what they told us it was supposed to do. It achieved objectives planned long before Sept. 11 - and we have a "new normal" when travelling.

I could go on and on... but once again, this is the John Hillerman thread.

[Pahonu]

The mask wearing becomes political when the federal government begins to mandate that people wear them, no questions asked. The thing is the U.S. is very big on this thing called "individual rights" and "liberties". Or at least has been for the longest time, since its inception. Lately it's been slowly stripped away from people. So people who value and cherish these things tend to get their feathers ruffled when the government begins to issue these mandates for "our own good". Because of course we don't know any better. I personally was sick with COVID this past December. Coughed, sneezed, had headaches, lost taste and smell - tested positive. I went through the usual quarantine period and everything returned back to normal. No idea where I got it from though. I wore masks when in public because we HAVE to. Still, I got it somehow. Go figure. Mask didn't seem to do me any good.

Bottom line is the government tells us to wear them and we do, no questions asked. But why? We had the Swine flu, we had the Spanish flu, other pandemics - no one was required to wear masks. Thousands of lives were lost as recently as 2009 but we barely heard anything about it. No one was wearing masks that's for sure. Now, put on your mask or else. What happened to individual liberties? Don't we have choices about how to live our lives?

But imagine this scenario. Tomorrow you wake up in the morning and the government tells you that mask-wearing will now be mandatory forever. It's in your future, your kids' future, their kids' future. Now, I'm sure some folks will be "good little soldiers" and won't question or oppose this, falling in line because it's for "our own good". But there is NO WAY I'm ok with this! Seriously? So I lived half my life without a mask on my face but now you're telling me that for the rest of my life I have to have this thing on my face???? It's the new normal?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!! I'll take my chances with the virus, thank you very much. I don't think this is acceptable and I would imagine most rational people would agree with this. We and our ancestors went through who knows what terrible pandemics over past centuries (and millions died too) but somehow we didn't hide our pretty faces from anyone. It's human nature to expose your mouth and nose and not hide them behind a piece of cloth, restricting your breathing. Imagine future generations of family photos, everyone in face masks. It's not even funny. I find the idea pretty frightening. But believe it or not, such a thing could happen. All it takes is the government handing out these "mandates" and folks falling in line like sheep without questioning or thinking rationally what the implications are for future generations.

Bottom line is WE THE PEOPLE should make our own decisions about these things. That's what separates us from Soviet Russia where Ivan keeps prisoners in bamboo cages and shoots them in legs for stepping out of line.

Mandates? We ain't got no mandates! We don't need no mandates! We don't need no stinking mandates!

Hey Ivan, I think we’re going to disagree a lot based on your arguments. I will also say that if you don’t want to debate the topic with me, you certainly have that choice. I understand, but I enjoy reading and analyzing arguments such as the paragraphs you wrote above.

I’ll start by saying that there are an incredible number of things we Americans with all of our liberties routinely concede to as part of living in our society. I’m thinking of laws about wearing seatbelts, a minimum drinking age above adulthood, helmet laws in various states, public smoking laws, vaccinating children to enroll in public schools, etc... In each of these cases the public good has been prioritized ahead of individual rights and those laws have been created by elected officials selected by WE THE PEOPLE. The constitution established a republic, NOT a direct democracy. If enough people don’t agree with the law then they will vote out the lawmakers.

No individual rights are absolute and those who think they are have oversimplified things. You may not agree with every law, and neither do I, but they were created under our federal republic’s system. In the end we all have a choice to follow the laws or not. State police aren’t physically forcing compliance as happens in totalitarian systems like Soviet Russia. We have a choice, but certain choices may carry a consequence. If you don’t wear your seatbelt you can be ticketed. If you don’t vaccinate your child, you’ll need to find a non-public school that accepts that or home school them. If you don’t wear a mask currently you may not be allowed inside someone’s business. Those who complain that their rights are being taken away are in reality complaining about having the right to behave in any way they want, but without consequence. That doesn’t exist in any society. Someone’s personal rights only extend until they infringe on someone else’s rights. If someone can’t play nice with others in the sandbox, they may be asked to go play somewhere else by themselves.

Lastly, I would argue that many more Americans have rights today than in decades past or at our nation’s founding. The argument that we as a nation have fewer rights today than in the past neglects some pretty basic facts like half the population, women, have voting rights now, or Native Americans have full citizenship now, or that male voting rights don’t require the ownership of land or that enslavement is unconstitutional now. The only amendment to our constitution that has limited individual rights is Prohibition, the majority of the rest, since the Bill of Rights have expanded our rights, not limited them. Laws that violate those amendments can be struck down by the court. The courts have ruled repeatedly over the decades regarding public health versus individual rights and have squarely sided with the public welfare.

Yep we certainly have our disagreements about a whole slew of things. But I would argue that things like having a driver's license and insurance to own and drive a vehicle are pretty much PART AND PARCEL of the whole thing. No too much infringing on individual liberties there if you ask me. Same with seat belt wearing, which isn't even strictly enforced anyway. I wear it for safety reasons (it doesn't bother me, never has) and I imagine most do nowadays because of the annoying beeping in modern cars if you don't. But there are ways of getting around it. Ultimately it's your choice.

But back to my scenario - if the government said that mask-wearing is now mandatory for decades to come how would you feel? Would you comply? Would you rebel? Would you say "hold on, there's gotta be another way"? Or do we just accept it as the new normal? I say we don't. I say our individual rights and comforts are at stake. My face doesn't want to be covered by cloth for the rest of my life in church, at picnics, at barbecues, at Thanksgiving dinner, in stores and malls, or just strolling through the city. I want to be able to breathe in that fresh Hawaiian air when I'm out sightseeing with other people. I don't want to look at my baby in the crib with a little mask on his face. I don't want him to recognize "daddy" for the first time while I'm wearing a mask. That's not the image of "mommy" or "daddy" that I want him to have. In other words I want things to return to normal, to the way they used to be. Otherwise I feel my personal freedom is being taken away from me.

To the first part, we seem to agree these personal liberties have limits. Where to place the limit is the magical question. I’m old enough to recall the pushback on mandatory seatbelt laws. Many were angry feeling it should be their choice. Many still believed it was safer to be thrown clear in an accident or that seatbelts would cause more deaths if people got trapped in fires or water. This clearly isn’t born out by decades of evidence since then. At the time though, that was the line in the sand for those individuals. That was a personal freedom they didn’t want to give up. It doesn’t cross the line for you or me but it did for them at that moment. I also understand that masks are more bothersome and intrusive than seatbelts. It’s not a perfect analogy, but there’s something to be learned there. On a personal note, my wife and I both wore masks in public spaces before they were even mandated in our state. We had an elderly neighbor couple we had known for over twenty years die of Covid very early on. So that may answer some of your scenario questions as to my choices.

To the second part, we can debate scenarios endlessly, but I find it to be highly unlikely that it will come to pass as you describe. There is a key flaw in the argument you make. You ask would I follow or would I rebel and particularly would I not ask isn’t there another way? The key here is that there is another way, we are searching for those solutions. That’s precisely what the entire vaccination program is. Our government is spending billions of dollars on these solutions. Masks and social distancing and quarantining are unsustainable both economically and socially. They are not meant to be the solution forever as you posit in your scenario. They are not as effective as a vaccine anyway. These were meant to be an interim step until we could understand and come up with other ways of dealing with this pandemic, hopefully saving lives until then. Not to be overly grim, but even if we failed to come up with a vaccine, which was a real possibility, ultimately the virus would wane as heard immunity developed. That sadly would have meant many more deaths, perhaps millions as in the 1918-1919 pandemic when such medical solutions didn’t exist. So in the end, the idea that such masks mandates for this pandemic would be forever, isn’t really very relevant.

Can I pose a scenario to you that I think was more possible? Public health officials have had to consider something like this in their preparedness planning. Imagine that the search for a vaccine proved fruitless to this point, and new therapeutics weren’t reducing morbidity like they have been. The numbers of deaths and virus related problems continued to rise and new variants kept appearing leading to friends and loved ones you know dying. If we were told by epidemiologists that the only way we were going to get past this was via heard immunity, would you not take precautions? Remember, in heard immunity as much as 20% or more of the population won’t get sick before the spread rapidly declines for lack of hosts. Tragically, this scenario could very well occur with future pandemics.

[Pahonu]

I find the term "new normal" to be offensive and unacceptable. People in power have decided to permanently change what you've always considered to be normal to something else - and then label it as "normal". There is only normal and abnormal. They want you to think of an abnormal situation as normal. You should always question anyone who uses this offensive term.

Judging by what various people in power have said (and videos with direct quotes are available), we will NEVER get back to normal. Why is this? Shouldn't things get back to normal when their goal of vaccinating everyone on the planet is achieved? (a goal that was made LONG BEFORE COVID EXISTED - once again, as seen in direct quotes by Bill Gates and others) No, we have a "new normal" and must remain vigilant about the next one. (...which WILL come - they will see to that)

Did travelling ever get back to normal after Sept. 11? Supposedly, the "War on Terror" (War OF Terror) was supposed to do something. Actually, it did do something, but not what they told us it was supposed to do. It achieved objectives planned long before Sept. 11 - and we have a "new normal" when travelling.

I could go on and on... but once again, this is the John Hillerman thread.

The term is perhaps a cliche now, but things are constantly changing so defining normal gets a bit tricky. It’s a very personal thing for people, but people are all different. Perhaps something is normal to you in a certain place and time, but give it some time or go to another place and it’s probably no longer the norm. We live on opposite sides of the continent so I’m sure some things that are pretty normal to you (like icebergs in your yard in the winter!) are completely foreign to me. The word “exotic” we so often use to describe our favorite pi’s island home, simply means it’s not normal for us. Hawaiian residents wouldn’t typically feel the same way.

To use your air travel example, the events of 9/11 weren’t the first shakeup to airline travel rules. Recall the number of airline hijackings from the 70’s and into the 80’s. These type of events are rare now because of metal detectors and other types of screening developed in response. This became, sorry I’m going to say it , the new normal for the airline industry. Do you know that some airlines initially resisted because they thought the inconvenience would lower the number of passengers? The number of passengers continued to grow and most of them stepped through the metal detector without giving it a thought.

I would also add that a friend of mine who routinely flew to Israel back in the 90’s described to me then, long before 9/11, how much more screening and scrutiny passengers received at the airport than here in the US. That was their normal. I think normal and abnormal is perhaps more of a spectrum than just two groups with a line between them. If there is a line then it would seem kind of arbitrary and is constantly moving. Isn’t it a line from Magnum pi? “The only constant in life is change.” I swear that’s actually in an episode!

Lastly, I believe Bill Gates was referring to evidence of the increasing likelihood of future global pandemics based on increased global travel and trade. Truly global pandemics were unheard of prior to the last century or two. They remained regional due to less travel and contact among smaller overall populations.

[ENSHealy]

I believe this is where Linda Richman would say...talk amongst yourselves.

[Pahonu]

I believe this is where Linda Richman would say...talk amongst yourselves.

You forgot to give a topic!

The chickpea is neither a chick nor a pea... discuss.

[Mad Kudu Buck]

Since this is a John Hillerman thread, I prefer to use a Higgins reference:

[Pahonu]

Since this is a John Hillerman thread, I prefer to use a Higgins reference:

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Can I pose a scenario to you that I think was more possible? Public health officials have had to consider something like this in their preparedness planning. Imagine that the search for a vaccine proved fruitless to this point, and new therapeutics weren’t reducing morbidity like they have been. The numbers of deaths and virus related problems continued to rise and new variants kept appearing leading to friends and loved ones you know dying. If we were told by epidemiologists that the only way we were going to get past this was via heard immunity, would you not take precautions? Remember, in heard immunity as much as 20% or more of the population won’t get sick before the spread rapidly declines for lack of hosts. Tragically, this scenario could very well occur with future pandemics.

Well, I suppose if people start dropping dead like flies all around me then I won't have a choice. But that's the thing. The number of deaths in our present "pandemic" is extremely low when you look at the population as a whole. Yet the media plays it up as if EVERY OTHER PERSON is either hospitalized or dying. No one talks about flu deaths each year or car accident deaths. We just accept that as "normal". Those are some pretty large numbers as well. But even in the case of COVID the threat is mostly to the elderly, yet EVERYONE must wear a mask. So if things stay as they are right now and the government mandates mask-wearing forever yes I would have a problem with that.

My point is that many people just follow orders blindly. Case in point - my wife and I were in DC in the fall and we were walking around the Capitol grounds outside and other places where there were very few passersby. Yet people were passing us and giving us these wild-eyed stares as if we just stepped off a flying saucer. You see - we weren't wearing masks and they all were. Outside!! I mean you have a jogger jogging in a mask. Seriously? Dude, take that thing off and breathe. That's what we're thinking. Yet they look at us as if we just broke the law or something. Maybe things are different in DC but I don't know any laws where masks are required outdoors. But folks are brain-washed into mask-wearing because "masks save lives". One person who passed us even made an angry comment at us telling us to wear masks. New normal, right? We told her to mind her own business. She can sleep with her mask on if she likes. But that's the problem. It's sheep mentality. We're told to panic and wear masks. If we don't we die. If you step out of line you're looked at like an enemy of the state or simply someone who just "doesn't get it". No, missy, I get it. I just choose not to wear it. You can wear it if you want. I don't have to.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I find the term "new normal" to be offensive and unacceptable. People in power have decided to permanently change what you've always considered to be normal to something else - and then label it as "normal". There is only normal and abnormal. They want you to think of an abnormal situation as normal. You should always question anyone who uses this offensive term.

Judging by what various people in power have said (and videos with direct quotes are available), we will NEVER get back to normal. Why is this? Shouldn't things get back to normal when their goal of vaccinating everyone on the planet is achieved? (a goal that was made LONG BEFORE COVID EXISTED - once again, as seen in direct quotes by Bill Gates and others) No, we have a "new normal" and must remain vigilant about the next one. (...which WILL come - they will see to that)

Did travelling ever get back to normal after Sept. 11? Supposedly, the "War on Terror" (War OF Terror) was supposed to do something. Actually, it did do something, but not what they told us it was supposed to do. It achieved objectives planned long before Sept. 11 - and we have a "new normal" when travelling.

I could go on and on... but once again, this is the John Hillerman thread.

Agreed completely, Buck! Up until very recently gay marriage was considered abnormal. In fact such a thing didn't exist. Marriage was always between a man and a woman. But now it's "normal". We're smarter now, don't you know?? Our ancestors were stupid. We know everything! But wait, now you can be a dude and identify as a woman. You can get a sex-change operation too. These things just a decade or so ago were considered deviant behavior, a mental disorder. But now it's "normal". In fact you get a pat on the back for being brave, bold, etc. There used to be standards that people tried to live up to. Right was right, wrong was wrong. Not anymore. Anything goes. Who are you to say what's normal? Pretty soon a pedophile's rights will be protected because "love is love". Who are you to tell him he's not normal in who he's drawn to? I'm not even kidding. This is definitely coming, in my lifetime for sure. I've seen too many crazy things happen to naively say "nah, that won't happen". You get this alphabet soup of LGBTQ and whatever other letters they want to throw in. And it's called "progress" and "normal" and they mention it in the same breath as voting rights or end to slavery. As if it's all the same. Not even close. Common sense should tell us that owning humans as if they were livestock is WRONG and not normal. Same with a guy who wants to be a girl. This is WRONG and NOT normal. The person needs help, not an endorsement of his abnormal behavior. Imagine you came down with some severe illness. Human nature is to be healthy, not sick. No one wants to be sick. So you go to a doctor and tell him about your illness and instead of him offering ways to treat you he pats you on the back and says "Great job, there's nothing wrong with you. What you're feeling is perfectly normal. Just accept it. I'm glad you came to tell me about your condition. That was very brave of you". It truly is bizarre! But we're in a TWILIGHT ZONE where abnormal things are being labeled as normal, and vice versa.

[Mad Kudu Buck]

My point is that many people just follow orders blindly. Case in point - my wife and I were in DC in the fall and we were walking around the Capitol grounds outside and other places where there were very few passersby. Yet people were passing us and giving us these wild-eyed stares as if we just stepped off a flying saucer. You see - we weren't wearing masks and they all were. Outside!! I mean you have a jogger jogging in a mask. Seriously? Dude, take that thing off and breathe. That's what we're thinking. Yet they look at us as if we just broke the law or something. Maybe things are different in DC but I don't know any laws where masks are required outdoors. But folks are brain-washed into mask-wearing because "masks save lives". One person who passed us even made an angry comment at us telling us to wear masks. New normal, right? We told her to mind her own business. She can sleep with her mask on if she likes. But that's the problem. It's sheep mentality. We're told to panic and wear masks. If we don't we die. If you step out of line you're looked at like an enemy of the state or simply someone who just "doesn't get it". No, missy, I get it. I just choose not to wear it. You can wear it if you want. I don't have to.

This is a technique that has been used with increasing frequency. If you are a tiny group of people trying to control a vastly larger population, the most efficient way is to get the people to police each other using peer pressure. You use controlled media to repeatedly drill the message - over and over again - regardless of logic or scientific merit, then censor any dissenting opinion. The brainwashed masses will then exert pressure over each other to conform to the accepted line. Anyone who deviates and questions any aspect of the accepted line will be labelled a "nutcase", "crackpot conspiracy theorist", "anti-whatever-ist" - without the point of the question being refuted logically.

Scientific reasoning is about ALWAYS accepting the facts, whatever they are - not just accepting facts that follow political objectives or accepted lines and ignoring everything else. It should be COMPLETELY VALID to question ANYTHING. If you can't question something, then you should question WHY you can't question it. Invariably, it is because there is an agenda and the people behind the agenda don't want dissenting opinions or delays to their plan.

I'm not saying that any moron with no qualifications can spout any nonsense and people must listen. I'm saying that actual qualified scientists who present logical well-researched scientific arguments should at least be heard and their data discussed without banning them instantly from every public outlet available. (as has happened to anyone questioning Covid responses recently)

(But... once again, this is the John Hillerman thread. All these non-John Hillerman posts should be put into another thread if we want to continue on this side topic. )

[Pahonu]

Can I pose a scenario to you that I think was more possible? Public health officials have had to consider something like this in their preparedness planning. Imagine that the search for a vaccine proved fruitless to this point, and new therapeutics weren’t reducing morbidity like they have been. The numbers of deaths and virus related problems continued to rise and new variants kept appearing leading to friends and loved ones you know dying. If we were told by epidemiologists that the only way we were going to get past this was via heard immunity, would you not take precautions? Remember, in heard immunity as much as 20% or more of the population won’t get sick before the spread rapidly declines for lack of hosts. Tragically, this scenario could very well occur with future pandemics.

Well, I suppose if people start dropping dead like flies all around me then I won't have a choice. But that's the thing. The number of deaths in our present "pandemic" is extremely low when you look at the population as a whole. Yet the media plays it up as if EVERY OTHER PERSON is either hospitalized or dying. No one talks about flu deaths each year or car accident deaths. We just accept that as "normal". Those are some pretty large numbers as well. But even in the case of COVID the threat is mostly to the elderly, yet EVERYONE must wear a mask. So if things stay as they are right now and the government mandates mask-wearing forever yes I would have a problem with that.

My point is that many people just follow orders blindly. Case in point - my wife and I were in DC in the fall and we were walking around the Capitol grounds outside and other places where there were very few passersby. Yet people were passing us and giving us these wild-eyed stares as if we just stepped off a flying saucer. You see - we weren't wearing masks and they all were. Outside!! I mean you have a jogger jogging in a mask. Seriously? Dude, take that thing off and breathe. That's what we're thinking. Yet they look at us as if we just broke the law or something. Maybe things are different in DC but I don't know any laws where masks are required outdoors. But folks are brain-washed into mask-wearing because "masks save lives". One person who passed us even made an angry comment at us telling us to wear masks. New normal, right? We told her to mind her own business. She can sleep with her mask on if she likes. But that's the problem. It's sheep mentality. We're told to panic and wear masks. If we don't we die. If you step out of line you're looked at like an enemy of the state or simply someone who just "doesn't get it". No, missy, I get it. I just choose not to wear it. You can wear it if you want. I don't have to.

I don’t disagree that yearly flu deaths are a pretty large number. Actually, many people weren’t aware of the number of yearly flu deaths until this pandemic. However, while many continue to use this as an argument, the numbers aren’t even close. CDC data in the last 30 plus years or so show a range of about 12-60,000 flu deaths per year, with an average near 40,000. In about 10 months Covid has killed over 400,000. That’s more than 10x that number. It’s just not a reasonable comparison when your talking exponential differences. There’s a wide range between dropping like flies and average flu mortality. If the number of pandemic deaths is exponentially larger then it seems the response shouldn’t be to treat it like the flu, as many have argued, but have a bigger response. Bigger problems need bigger solutions.

I also agree that lots of Americans are following the rules, blindly or like sheep as you commented, but there is always a part of society that are rule followers. I’ve been teaching for over 25 years and seen every kind of student. Some of them are rule followers. They do it because they were told to, but in my experience with a few thousand students, they are only a part of the group. I can’t put a number on it, but it’s nowhere close to half. Many want to know the reason why and then they decide it makes sense. Some question further and may not go along, and a small number will never agree even to their own detriment sometimes. Why do I bring this up? Your argument seems to be partially based on the idea that the vast majority of people simply follow blindly. Unless all those high school and college kids I’ve worked with turned into totally different people, most are not blindly following orders. They have thought about where and when and if they will wear masks. Many of them may have decided differently than you, but that does not make them sheep, as you suggest.

Some states and cities have indeed required masks outside during certain periods of the pandemic, if social distancing isn’t possible. I’m not sure where you live, but I live in a pretty densely populated area of Long Beach CA on a marina. When I’m out on my sailboat or kayak, I am almost by definition socially distanced and don’t wear a mask. I have seen a few on the water with masks but not many. I understand. It’s their choice. Of course a few large groups on some boats are clearly not socially distanced or masked, but I digress.

When I walk around my complex, using the hallways and elevators and parking structure, it’s not possible to socially distance, so I wear a mask from my front door to my van. I typically run into a half a dozen people or more and they’re almost always masked too, because we can’t social distance. The sidewalks in the marina are often crowded too, with no possible way to distance. We have a few elderly neighbors also and I definitely don’t want to be the cause if they become ill. We have already lost two close neighbors as I mentioned on this forum.

If you live in different circumstances, you wouldn’t need to do that, from your back door to your garage for example. Different circumstances require different responses, but I still argue that the majority of people are making their decisions based on their own circumstances not blindly following. So when you were in DC, I’m going to guess that some of the responses you were getting are based on the fact that you were in a pretty crowded city, and most people have decided to wear masks so you were the outlier. Plus it is possible you actually were violating the law, but I can’t say that for certain without more information.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

This is a technique that has been used with increasing frequency. If you are a tiny group of people trying to control a vastly larger population, the most efficient way is to get the people to police each other using peer pressure. You use controlled media to repeatedly drill the message - over and over again - regardless of logic or scientific merit, then censor any dissenting opinion. The brainwashed masses will then exert pressure over each other to conform to the accepted line. Anyone who deviates and questions any aspect of the accepted line will be labelled a "nutcase", "crackpot conspiracy theorist", "anti-whatever-ist" - without the point of the question being refuted logically.

Absolutely!! It's like peer pressure when you're a kid in school. Everyone is wearing these new "cool" sneakers that's all the rage and if you're wearing those old last year ones you're ridiculed. But wait, wasn't everyone wearing those old ones last year and everything was cool? Two years ago if you were walking around with a mask on your face you would have gotten some odd looks. Today if you're not wearing it you get odd looks. Some day our children will look at old photos of us and be in shock that we didn't have masks on our faces. Again, it doesn't take much for something to be become the new normal. Handshakes, hugs, kisses - will those be things of the past? Like I said, people avoided us in DC like we had the plague. Simply because we didn't have our masks on. OUTSIDE!! EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THEIRS ON!! I don't get it. As time goes on we become more and more mechanical and less human towards each other. This spirit of fear is not what built this great nation of ours.

I'm not saying that any moron with no qualifications can spout any nonsense and people must listen. I'm saying that actual qualified scientists who present logical well-researched scientific arguments should at least be heard and their data discussed without banning them instantly from every public outlet available. (as has happened to anyone questioning Covid responses recently)

Did you ever see this? https://gbdeclaration.org/

I only came across it not too long ago and I certainly didn't hear about it from any news outlet, that's for sure. Question - why not? It's not the ramblings of some drunk in some alley. These are professionals - disease epidemiologists and public health scientists. Why aren't their opinions considered or even mentioned anywhere?

[Pahonu]

My point is that many people just follow orders blindly. Case in point - my wife and I were in DC in the fall and we were walking around the Capitol grounds outside and other places where there were very few passersby. Yet people were passing us and giving us these wild-eyed stares as if we just stepped off a flying saucer. You see - we weren't wearing masks and they all were. Outside!! I mean you have a jogger jogging in a mask. Seriously? Dude, take that thing off and breathe. That's what we're thinking. Yet they look at us as if we just broke the law or something. Maybe things are different in DC but I don't know any laws where masks are required outdoors. But folks are brain-washed into mask-wearing because "masks save lives". One person who passed us even made an angry comment at us telling us to wear masks. New normal, right? We told her to mind her own business. She can sleep with her mask on if she likes. But that's the problem. It's sheep mentality. We're told to panic and wear masks. If we don't we die. If you step out of line you're looked at like an enemy of the state or simply someone who just "doesn't get it". No, missy, I get it. I just choose not to wear it. You can wear it if you want. I don't have to.

This is a technique that has been used with increasing frequency. If you are a tiny group of people trying to control a vastly larger population, the most efficient way is to get the people to police each other using peer pressure. You use controlled media to repeatedly drill the message - over and over again - regardless of logic or scientific merit, then censor any dissenting opinion. The brainwashed masses will then exert pressure over each other to conform to the accepted line. Anyone who deviates and questions any aspect of the accepted line will be labelled a "nutcase", "crackpot conspiracy theorist", "anti-whatever-ist" - without the point of the question being refuted logically.

Scientific reasoning is about ALWAYS accepting the facts, whatever they are - not just accepting facts that follow political objectives or accepted lines and ignoring everything else. It should be COMPLETELY VALID to question ANYTHING. If you can't question something, then you should question WHY you can't question it. Invariably, it is because there is an agenda and the people behind the agenda don't want dissenting opinions or delays to their plan.

I'm not saying that any moron with no qualifications can spout any nonsense and people must listen. I'm saying that actual qualified scientists who present logical well-researched scientific arguments should at least be heard and their data discussed without banning them instantly from every public outlet available. (as has happened to anyone questioning Covid responses recently)

(But... once again, this is the John Hillerman thread. All these non-John Hillerman posts should be put into another thread if we want to continue on this side topic. )

You said you didn’t want to weigh in again and then you did. I’m on board with a new thread also, in deference to John Hillerman.

My simple argument to your comments is your assumption that the masses of people haven’t given any consideration to their choices about this pandemic. If you see my argument above, I argue that it is a highly flawed assumption. There also seems to be an underlying sentiment in this argument used by many, that they see the truth and others are somehow blind to it. Certainly our society has a levels of intelligence and education level, but the assumption that most don’t have enough of either to have their own thoughts on this pandemics seems presumptuous at the very least.

[Pahonu]

This is a technique that has been used with increasing frequency. If you are a tiny group of people trying to control a vastly larger population, the most efficient way is to get the people to police each other using peer pressure. You use controlled media to repeatedly drill the message - over and over again - regardless of logic or scientific merit, then censor any dissenting opinion. The brainwashed masses will then exert pressure over each other to conform to the accepted line. Anyone who deviates and questions any aspect of the accepted line will be labelled a "nutcase", "crackpot conspiracy theorist", "anti-whatever-ist" - without the point of the question being refuted logically.

Absolutely!! It's like peer pressure when you're a kid in school. Everyone is wearing these new "cool" sneakers that's all the rage and if you're wearing those old last year ones you're ridiculed. But wait, wasn't everyone wearing those old ones last year and everything was cool? Two years ago if you were walking around with a mask on your face you would have gotten some odd looks. Today if you're not wearing it you get odd looks. Some day our children will look at old photos of us and be in shock that we didn't have masks on our faces. Again, it doesn't take much for something to be become the new normal. Handshakes, hugs, kisses - will those be things of the past? Like I said, people avoided us in DC like we had the plague. Simply because we didn't have our masks on. OUTSIDE!! EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THEIRS ON!! I don't get it. As time goes on we become more and more mechanical and less human towards each other. This spirit of fear is not what built this great nation of ours.

I'm not saying that any moron with no qualifications can spout any nonsense and people must listen. I'm saying that actual qualified scientists who present logical well-researched scientific arguments should at least be heard and their data discussed without banning them instantly from every public outlet available. (as has happened to anyone questioning Covid responses recently)

Did you ever see this? https://gbdeclaration.org/

I only came across it not too long ago and I certainly didn't hear about it from any news outlet, that's for sure. Question - why not? It's not the ramblings of some drunk in some alley. These are professionals - disease epidemiologists and public health scientists. Why aren't their opinions considered or even mentioned anywhere?

The Great Barrington Declaration was released last fall and is based on the idea of targeted or focused protection. I watched reporting on CNN about it during my winter break and did some follow up research of my own. It has been reviewed by the health organizations of nations around the globe and found to be theoretically possible but not practically possible in real world settings. It has also been criticized by the majority of epidemiologists as ethically questionable. You may only have recently come across it but it is not a secret and not particularly new.