Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Hobohunter]

But instead, you've tried to tie this into someone knowing if they have Covid or not and how that somehow changes the risk to others. The bottom line, which I've said many times, is that if doesn't matter is someone knows or not if they have Covid because if they have it and either know it or don't know it, then they still pose a risk to others around them. No matter what you say, that fact will always hold true.

No, dude, I've been saying the scenarios aren't analogous because in the case of the drunk driver they get to the point of risking others knowingly (they drink alcohol) and the Covid person not so much. That's what I've been saying. I haven't at any point said that a person unknowingly spreading covid poses less of a risk than someone who knows they have it, I've said they can spread it without knowing, and a drunk driver cannot get drunk without knowing it. That's what I've been saying. I think you've been reading what I've written but absorbed a different, non-existent argument out of it.

Sponsored

 

[Hobohunter]

Sure she knew she was drinking ... BUT she did not know she was a danger to others - that's the rub. If she did, she would not be driving. You don't believe that? You think she actually knew she was a danger to herself and everyone on the street but decided to drive anyway?

I do think she made the choice to drive knowing she was putting people at risk, even drunk it's not a mystery how alcohol affects people.

There's a big difference and why you can't connect the dots. If you go back to what started this whole debate, you specifically asked me to give an example where someone could hurt or kill someone without knowing that they could (analogous to someone with Covid that didn't know they had it).

Yes, and you haven't provided that example. The drunk driver can't get to the point of risking others without knowing they've had alcohol, a Covid person can get to the point of risking others without knowing they've got Covid.

My two examples are exactly that situation. It doesn't matter if they knew they drank, or knew they fired a gun. If they put themselves or others in danger without actually realizing it then they are putting people in danger without knowing so ... simple as that.

I've never said the danger to other people would be different if they knew what they were doing was risky. I've said those analogies are poor for Covid since you can't do either scenario unkowingly, and you can with Covid. Try as you might you can't unknowingly shoot a gun, and you can't unknowingly get drunk and drive. You can unknowingly spread Covid.

But instead, you've tried to tie this into someone knowing if they have Covid or not and how that somehow changes the risk to others. The bottom line, which I've said many times, is that if doesn't matter is someone knows or not if they have Covid because if they have it and either know it or don't know it, then they still pose a risk to others around them. No matter what you say, that fact will always hold true.

You are interpreting what I've said wrong.

I think you're not really picking up on what I'm saying, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
(answers in bold in the quote)

 

[CJJon]

No, dude, I've been saying the scenarios aren't analogous because in the case of the drunk driver they get to the point of risking others knowingly (they drink alcohol) and the Covid person not so much. That's what I've been saying. I haven't at any point said that a person unknowingly spreading covid poses less of a risk than someone who knows they have it, I've said they can spread it without knowing, and a drunk driver cannot get drunk without knowing it. That's what I've been saying. I think you've been reading what I've written but absorbed a different, non-existent argument out of it.

You nailed it. Risk to others. You know your unvaccinated self is more dangerous to others in close quarters, right? So, ergo - you are assuming a risk by not getting vaccinated. Whether that is reasonable or not really isn't up to personal choice. You don't get to make that call when your behavior endangers others.

It matters not then if you get infected unknowingly and spread virus before you are symptomatic. You already assumed the risk by not getting vaccinated. Your way is a cop out.

 

[GT Pony]

No, dude, I've been saying the scenarios aren't analogous because in the case of the drunk driver they get to the point of risking others knowingly (they drink alcohol) and the Covid person not so much. That's what I've been saying.

Do you really think that every drunk on the road actually really knows that they are a big risk to themselves and everyone on the road - regardless if they know they had been drinking? Yes or No?

Do you think they would actually still drive if they knew they were that inebriated and a risk to everyone?

You make it sound like every person who knowingly drinks absolutely knows they are being a risk to everyone on the road, and that for some reason that must make them less dangerous or give them some kind of "pass" to do so.

If someone with Covid walked around shedding and infecting everybody around them should the also be given a "pass" because they didn't know they had Covid? What do you think is a good way to try and verify if they have Covid or not before they work around all their co-workers?

And again my point all along in either case is that it doesn't actually matter if they know or not what they are doing, and that can't be used as any kind of excuse because in both cases they are both a risk to other people regardless if they know it or not. Do you agree with that? If not why?

I haven't at any point said that a person unknowingly spreading covid poses less of a risk than someone who knows they have it, I've said they can spread it without knowing, and a drunk driver cannot get drunk without knowing it. That's what I've been saying. I think you've been reading what I've written but absorbed a different, non-existent argument out of it.

Of course someone that drinks knows they are drinking and a person shooting a gun knows they are shooting a gun. That's NOT the argument. The argument is even if they know they are drinking or shoot a gun recklessly, that they may NOT know that what they are doing is actually putting other people at risk - that's my argument and always has been. Do you agree with that? If not, why?

BTW - do not drink and shoot either.

A person knows when they shoot a gun, and a person shooting a gun recklessly is still a risk to other people regardless if they know it or not.

A person knows when they drink, and a person driving drunk is still a risk to other people regardless if they know it or not.

A person may not know they have Covid, and a person infected with Covid is still a risk to other people around them regardless if they know it or not. If they know or not does not change anything. How should it be verified if they have Covid or not?

A person may actually know they have Covid, and still walk around because they really don't care about anyone ... the super infringers in society.

In your last post above you said: " I do think she made the choice to drive knowing she was putting people at risk, even drunk it's not a mystery how alcohol affects people. "

I disagree ... she didn't even understand or know why she was being pulled over. She had no idea she was so out of it, and thought she could drive just fine not knowing just how much of a risk she was on the road.

You said: " Yes, and you haven't provided that example. The drunk driver can't get to the point of risking others without knowing they've had alcohol, a Covid person can get to the point of risking others without knowing they've got Covid. "

Yes, and that's why they want to test unvaccinated people or anyone who shows any symptoms at all - because it's been proven they are way more likely to catch it and bring it into the workplace. Does it really matter if they know if they have Covid or not if either case causes risk to other people. Somehow you don't seem to think that is the case. Otherwise, I really don't know why we are going in circles. Agree to disagree and move on is my suggestion.

 

[Hobohunter]

Do you really think that every drunk on the road actually really knows that they are a big risk to themselves and everyone on the road - regardless if they know they had been drinking? Yes or No?

Do you think they would actually still drive if they knew they were that inebriated and a risk to everyone?

You make it sound like every person who knowingly drinks absolutely knows they are being a risk to everyone on the road, and that for some reason that must make them less dangerous or give them some kind of "pass" to do so.

If someone with Covid walked around shedding and infecting everybody around them should the also be given a "pass" because they didn't know they had Covid? What do you think is a good way to try and verify if they have Covid or not before they work around all their co-workers?

And again my point all along in either case is that it doesn't actually matter if they know or not what they are dong, and that can't be used as any kind of excuse because in both cases they are both a risk to other people regardless if they know it or not. Do you agree with that? If not why?



Of course someone that drinks knows they are drinking and a person shooting a gun knows they are shooting a gun. That's NOT the argument. The argument is even if they know they are drinking or shoot a gun recklessly, that they may NOT know that what they are doing is actually putting other people at risk - that's my argument and always has been. Do you agree with that? If not, why?

A person knows when they shoot a gun, and person shooting a gun recklessly is still a risk to other people regardless if they know it or not.

A person knows when they drink, and a person driving drunk is still a risk to other people regardless if they know it or not.

A person may not know they have Covid, and a person infected with Covid is still a risk to other people regardless if they know it or not. If they know or not does not change anything. How do suppose they should verify if they have it or not?

A person may actually know they have Covid, and still walk around because they really don't care about anyone ... the super infringers in society.

In your last post above you said: " I do think she made the choice to drive knowing she was putting people at risk, even drunk it's not a mystery how alcohol affects people. "

I disagree ... she didn't even understand or know why she was being pulled over. She had no idea she was so out of it, and thought she could drive just fine not knowing just how much of a risk she was on the road.

You said: " Yes, and you haven't provided that example. The drunk driver can't get to the point of risking others without knowing they've had alcohol, a Covid person can get to the point of risking others without knowing they've got Covid. "

Yes, and that's why they want to test unvaccinated people or anyone who shows any symptoms at all - because it's been proven they are way more likely to catch it and bring it into the workplace. Does it really matter is they know if they have it or not is either case causes risk to other people. Somehow you don't seem to think that is the case. Otherwise, I really don't know why we are going in circles. Agree to disagree and move on is my suggestion.

You still, apparently, aren't reading what I wrote. I have never said it's more acceptable for a Covid person to spread Covid if they don't know they have it. I've said the ability to know you are actively being a risk to others is a crucial difference between the Covid risk mitigation we've been talking about, and scenarios like the drunk driver or the irresponsible shooter. You keep assuming I'm saying the risk is OK. I haven't said that. You've assumed it.

 

[Hobohunter]

You nailed it. Risk to others. You know your unvaccinated self is more dangerous to others in close quarters, right? So, ergo - you are assuming a risk by not getting vaccinated. Whether that is reasonable or not really isn't up to personal choice. You don't get to make that call when your behavior endangers others.

It matters not then if you get infected unknowingly and spread virus before you are symptomatic. You already assumed the risk by not getting vaccinated. Your way is a cop out.

I mostly agree with this. You do assume a risk by not being vaccinated, but you do get to make that call. We make that call every day, else we'd all have to drive the safest, and smallest vehicles rather than whatever we want.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.

 

[GT Pony]

You still, apparently, aren't reading what I wrote. I have never said it's more acceptable for a Covid person to spread Covid if they don't know they have it. I've said the ability to know you are actively being a risk to others is a crucial difference between the Covid risk mitigation we've been talking about, and scenarios like the drunk driver or the irresponsible shooter. You keep assuming I'm saying the risk is OK. I haven't said that. You've assumed it.

Let's try to unravel this mess. Let's nail down these two points.

You originally asked me way back to give an example where a person can do something and not actually know that they could pose a risk to other people - correct?

Here is your quote that started the whole debate.

Can you point out a rule, regulation, or law unrelated to COVID that mitigates a risk that someone is unaware they could be causing?

My viewpoint is that it's very clear that inebriated people or someone shooting a gun recklessly may have absolutely no idea that they are a risk other people. If they did realize that, then they would not act in those ways. People kill other people every day by doing stupid things without actually knowing they are a danger to someone else. And there are plenty of rules, regulations and laws created to help mitigate that very thing. Just like there are mandates for people to social distance, wear masks and get vaccinated to reduce the risk of Covid spreading from one person to another. That's what keeps this virus going, and it likes to mutate and becoming stronger because of the spreading.

You seem to believe that since someone knows they are doing the physical act of drinking or shooting a gun, regardless if they know it could cause harm or not to other people, that it's not the same thing as someone walking around with Covid and causing risk to other people just because they didn't know they had Covid - correct?

Is a person just as risky to others around them regardless if they know or don't know they are infected? Does them knowing or not that they have Covid change the level of risk?

 

[GT Pony]

I mostly agree with this. You do assume a risk by not being vaccinated, but you do get to make that call. We make that call every day, else we'd all have to drive the safest, and smallest vehicles rather than whatever we want.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.

Yes, you assume the risk - that's your choice ... but on the other hand you won't be making the call to do whatever you want at certain activities like work, etc that could cause risk to other people. For some reason you seem to think that shouldn't be the case.

 

[GT Pony]

"99 Percent of COVID Cases in the U.S. Have This in Common, CDC Says"

https://bestlifeonline.com/news-covid-cases-us-delta/

 

[GT Pony]

Interesting read about break-through infections.

https://khn.org/news/article/first-...-covid-case-health-reporter-hindsight-advice/

 

[GT Pony]

Massive numbers of new COVID-19 infections, not vaccines, are the main driver of new variants.

https://www.salon.com/2021/09/20/ma...-are-the-main-driver-of-new-variants_partner/

 

[Hobohunter]

Let's try to unravel this mess. Let's nail down these two points.

You originally asked me way back to give an example where a person can do something and not actually know that they could pose a risk to other people - correct?

Here is your quote that started the whole debate.


My viewpoint is that it's very clear that inebriated people or someone shooting a gun recklessly may have absolutely no idea that they are a risk other people. If they did realize that, then they would not act in those ways. People kill other people every day by doing stupid things without actually knowing they are a danger to someone else. And there are plenty of rules, regulations and laws created to help mitigate that very thing. Just like there are mandates for people to social distance, wear masks and get vaccinated to reduce the risk of Covid spreading from one person to another. That's what keeps this virus going, and it likes to mutate and becoming stronger because of the spreading.

You seem to believe that since someone knows they are doing the physical act of drinking or shooting a gun, regardless if they know it could cause harm or not to other people, that it's not the same thing as someone walking around with Covid and causing risk to other people just because they didn't know they had Covid - correct?

Is a person just as risky to others around them regardless if they know or don't know they are infected? Does them knowing or not that they have Covid change the level of risk?

All I've been saying is that those two scenarios are different from the Covid scenario. You can go from healthy to infected and spreading Covid without your knowledge. You can't go from sober to driving drunk without your knowledge. You can't shoot a gun unknowingly.
I do think the situations are different. The drunk driver will know they've put alcohol into their bodies, the irresponsible shooter will know they've got a gun in their hand. The Covid person won't know, and won't have the innate ability to know. That's what I've been saying. That's why I asked you if the drunk driver can simply be near drunk people and find out they're drunk later. Obviously not, they need to actively drink.
You seem to think that your examples are similar to Covid because they put people at risk. I think they are not because the way they put people at risk are different. Your examples all use people who have done something that caused risk to others. You don't have to do anything to cause a Covid risk to others, you simply have to have been exposed. And, unlike alcohol or firearms, you won't have an innate ability to know it's happened before you're causing risk.
I haven't ever said the level of risk changes whether you know you have Covid or nort, merely that your examples are not similar to Covid because you can't get to the point of your examples unknowingly.

 

[Hobohunter]

Yes, you assume the risk - that's your choice ... but on the other hand you won't be making the call to do whatever you want at certain activities like work, etc that could cause risk to other people. For some reason you seem to think that shouldn't be the case.

My beef is that the only people at risk are unvaccinated, and have already made their own assumption of risk. Why supersede their assumption of risk, when they are the population at risk?
I'm not really sure why you think my stance on this means I think I should be making the call to do whatever I want at work. I haven't said anywhere that no restrictions should be in place. I think some are reasonable. I don't, however, feel that just because some restrictions make sense, or are reasonable that anything goes and we should just add more and more restrictions.

 

[ICU812]

Some countries require polio and/or smallpox vaccinations to enter. Several also require meningitis vaccinations. As for schools (colleges), here's one example: http://international.ua.edu/isss/future-new-students/required-immunizations/

AGAIN, no one has to carry a card listing what vax they have got and when, EVER. Yes parents have to prove the child got the shots before starting school at age 5, but anytime you move the new school /town don't ask for proof, nor has any event, nor any college, nor any employer.
As seen as we have hippa laws , employers don't have access to this data, unless they ask for it, and 95% of them never do.
YET this one it is, WHY.
Want to go to a live show, need to show your card or be tested in the last 48-72 hours. Want to travel, have to show your covid vax card , want to work need to show your covid vax card. ONLY this virus is requiring this. none of the other viruses that we have gotten shots for as kids or later in life, have you needed to show you have got the vax, or be tested within so many hours of an event, travel.
Why the push for this, when those that DID get the poke, are still getting covid.
I tested + last year in the spring, lasted 2 weeks or so, got the shots, And in June 2021 had covid AGAIN.
It was just as bad the 2nd time as the first. This whole thing is a farce.

 

[GT Pony]

All I've been saying is that those two scenarios are different from the Covid scenario. You can go from healthy to infected and spreading Covid without your knowledge. You can't go from sober to driving drunk without your knowledge. You can't shoot a gun unknowingly.
I do think the situations are different. The drunk driver will know they've put alcohol into their bodies, the irresponsible shooter will know they've got a gun in their hand. The Covid person won't know, and won't have the innate ability to know. That's what I've been saying. That's why I asked you if the drunk driver can simply be near drunk people and find out they're drunk later. Obviously not, they need to actively drink.

Like I've said a dozen times ... it doesn't matter if the person infected with Covid knows or not. The risk result is the same, and this whole discussion of tying to equate all the examples is obviously becoming futile because you can't understand the bottom line.

But no matter what you say or think, you will never convince me that drunk drivers or people irresponsibly shooting guns always know 100% what they are doing and often put other people at risk just like someone walking around unaware they have Covid doesn't know they are a risk to others. The end result is the same ... they are putting other people at risk regardless if they know or not that they are putting anyone at risk. And if they DID know, then they are simply a-holes that don't care about other people.

You seem to think that your examples are similar to Covid because they put people at risk. I think they are not because the way they put people at risk are different.

True or false. Regardless if anyone, no matter what they are doing, is putting other people at risk does it really matter if they know or not. If they don't know then they are unaware but still causing risk. If they do know, then they are just a-holes that don't care about potentially hurting or killing other people ... they only care about themselves.

Your examples all use people who have done something that caused risk to others. You don't have to do anything to cause a Covid risk to others, you simply have to have been exposed. And, unlike alcohol or firearms, you won't have an innate ability to know it's happened before you're causing risk.
I haven't ever said the level of risk changes whether you know you have Covid or nort, merely that your examples are not similar to Covid because you can't get to the point of your examples unknowingly.

See above. It doesn't matter ... you're just on a continued strawman argument. It doesn't matter if the person with Covid knows or not ... they are still a risk to others around them. Just because they "didn't know" doesn't change anything, and doesn't give them a pass. So I really don't know why you keep arguing your strawman argument.

True or False - A drunk driver is a risk to other people.

True of False - A person shooting a gun irresponsibly is a risk to other people.

True or False - A person infected with Covid and among a group of people is a risk to other people.

Why would a person infected with Covid be looked at any differently if they knew they were infected or not infected? The risk factor is exactly the same regardless if they know they have Covid or not. And if they DO know then they better take the appropriate actions to not become a risk to others. If they don't take action ... then they are either very stupid or just plain a-holes ... just like anyone else doing something knowingly that might cause harm or death to other people.

Sponsored