Why should I concern myself if others get sick?

Honestly I would choose the society who does not care. Because then I would be truly free. Could do whatever I want and be self reliant, if we take the concept to an extreme. The society that cares, if taken to the extreme, becomes a nanny state.

Dan Kahneman wrote:

I wonder why our medical experts can't see what you see. You know so much more the Fauci and his fellow epistemologists.

New York has stopped covid due to widespread use of masks and social distancing.

They are not anywhere near the saturation point. Well under 1% of the population is infected with covid.

You are wrong and your ideas are harmful.

1%. Thats a bold statement since even the antibody tests performed in April, which have shown to drastically undercount actual infections, showed over 20%.

I wonder why New York was the only US metro that did not experience a bump in cases after the "protests." Maybe because almost everyone there who can get it has had it.

Also to a certain extent if everyone acts in their own self interest then society will improve. But that is a little Rand-ish.

lethalitykitty wrote:

Honestly I would choose the society who does not care. Because then I would be truly free. Could do whatever I want and be self reliant, if we take the concept to an extreme. The society that cares, if taken to the extreme, becomes a nanny state.[/quote]

I think you'd find yourself most satisfied in a society where a lot of people care, even if most don't. That way, you stay below the nanny state line, but still have a large number of people sacrificing their own self-interest because it makes them feel good while you go about your business. It gives you a margin for error... if your self-reliant vigilance slips, there's a lower chance that you'd meet with negative consequence. This was what the world was before government social programs became the norm. People went about their business, donated to charities if they felt empathy/sympathy, and depended on charities if they were unable to rely on themselves for a period of time.

It is someone who is much smarter than you or I pet theory. His name is Michael Levitt and he has earned a nobel prize for his intellect, get back to us when you have one of those.

And it is not meant to be taken at super small size but generally should work for a size population like Italy or Sweden. The exact number will be impacted by factors such as demographic and what level of success you have at protecting the most vulnerable. Sweden did great compared to most, New York got negative pts. But it has proven very accurate across a population size of about 10-20 million.

People should start listening to him more as he has been right on most points from the start. The mainstream media has blackballed him since they did not like his message.

The virus is not even close to what the fear mongers such as yourself said initially and you've constantly deflected and twisted narratives to not admit you were incorrect. If we were to go back and look at posts from many of the fear mongers they have not aged well. Just this week I've had people responding to me that Sweden's was headed for disaster but the spread was slowed due to their July holiday month, hilarious. Or that the science behind T-cells was not sound and it was the latest republican conspiracy to protect Trump.

lethalitykitty wrote:

Why should other people care if they get me sick or if I get them sick? Should they not take care of themselves? If this is the case I want the rest of the country to lose weight and exercise. Sure it is a burden to them but so is what we are doing for them.

The difference is that if others don't exercise they just kill themselves. If they spread disease because they didn't practice social distancing then they kill other people. Yes, of course, we could all fend for ourselves and abide by our personal freedom. You could use that freedom to walk around without a mask, sure, and every grocery and drug store could use their personal freedom to deny you food and medicine, but where does that leave all of us. Unless you are willing to grow your own food and live off the grid, then you have to make some sacrifices to participate in society.

Yep, that's fare that you prefer a life without grocery stores, shops, hospitals etc. Everyone fends for themselves and goes around bartering and/or stealing stuff from each other. I'd prefer civilization but to each their own.

If taken to an extreme. And yes I would think it would be enjoyable. But if not taken to an extreme then the non caring society will still do well. People will run businesses to better their position. Doctors will still exist because people are interested or wanting to be able to make more money. In essence... capitalism.

But I understand that some are afraid and need the safety net. Some people are just not strong.

Actually not true. If they do not exercise they do effect Society and others negatively. Again the people at higher risk have to take personal responsibility for putting themselves in a position to catch the disease. I don’t want to catch aids so I don’t have sex with risky partners or if I do I wear protection. I don’t want corona so I don’t got to public places. Or if I do I wear protection. You assume all businesses would turn “non maskers” away. I think there would be just as many businesses catering to non mask people. Why? Because they can make money.

JumpsDoctor wrote:

lethalitykitty wrote:

Too much? How much would any of you pay to have a summer in your prime years again? Why do the many bow to the needs of the few?

Yes, too much. As in, there are still things you shouldn't do, like get too close to people you don't already live in close proximity to, go to indoor bars, etc. But going to the gym, outdoor dining, the beach, or doing other social activities is fine as long as you mask up when you're near other people. I hate the masks! Truly. But it's pretty whiney of people to be so against them when it's just a fact that they are effective. So live your life, lethalitykitty, but do so responsibly and with a shred of compassion.

You mean, effective at protecting you from a virus that can't kill you even if you contracted it? Why wear the mask in the first place.

Why should other people care? Empathy, and/or the Golden Rule.

Would you care if you personally became sick?

Would you care to avoid inhaling cigarette smoke from someone else smoking in some public indoor room you were in? Would you care to not be struck by a bullet if someone you did not know was randomly shooting a gun inside a room you were in?

People give up numerous potential personal freedoms to live as part of a society and/or culture. Some potential individual freedoms are not permitted for the greater good of the whole.

It is a burden to pay taxes, but we do it because those funds support the society as a whole.

You can do all sorts of things in the privacy of your own home that are unacceptable to do in public.

You will face consequences if you have any type of sex with anyone or anything in a public space, especially if you are within 6 feet of other people not involved in the act.

And I support efforts by everyone to maintain a healthy weight and get some exercise. We are starting to see some societal regulations working toward that goal.

see

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr060227

1) Lombardy: 10 million people, 1670 deaths/million

2) Madrid: 6million people, 1270 deaths/ million

3) Sweden: 10 million people

4) New Jersey: 8 million people

I think you are just cherry picking, dude. It's clear that several large areas have more than doubled your threshold WITH strict social distancing.

Also:

Looooooooool. I knew you got it from somewhere. Levitt has been downplaying the virus since the start. Didn't he say Israel was going to have under 10 deaths or something? He has consistently whiffed on his death/case predictions. I'm not sure he's really been right about anything? Maybe China's curve? Doesn't really fit with his 'lockdowns are bad' message, though.

Levitt did seminal work on biomolecular structure prediction and simulation. He is very smart but clearly this is not his area of expertise. Remember when Pauling, one of the all time chemical geniuses, got fixated on vitamin C?

For some reason this board is filled with people who have downplayed the virus from the start. A lot of people have died. We have gone thru separate waves in the USA, but people still like to squint at the data and act like it's all really no big deal.

I suspect much of this is just political fanboyism. You're a GOP guy and you'll only accept data that confirms your position.

The fact is, if the federal gov't had taken a hard-line stance on this from the start, we would all be praising them. We could be better than Europe right now, but half the country decided that all the scientists were lying, doctors were corrupt, and "like a miracle, one day it will all disappear."

Golden rule do unto others. I don’t care what they do so I wish the same treatment. If I personally become sick then that is part of the risk I take on myself for going into a public setting. If I want to avoid the cigarette smoke I walk away or ask them to leave. If someone randomly shoots in a room I shoot back. You assume everyone is helpless and needs to be taken care of. Take some personal responsibility and some action. And yes we as a society make agreements to be part of that society. But we in America have never agreed for what is happening right now. This is not a societal norm. And our actions show as a society what we want and do agree upon. Most want to be free to do as they please. So let them. And you are free to stay home or put on a mask.

I said people not exercising affects others negatively [so by "not true" you meant you agree with me there, thanks]. I just said they don't literally increase your likelihood of death.

Anyways, yes, it may be true that some stores choose not to let you in and others do. But of course, if a store doesn't let you in, you'd be ok with that, because it is their personal choice. Again to each their own.

T cell immunity is the way to go! New evidence shows memory T cells from coronavirus infection lasts for several years:

Sweden has got the right idea - you build up immunity from exposure. Social distancing and face coverings here in the U.S. isn't going to solve the problem and will only prevent any type of herd immunity. The virus isn't going to leave and magically disappear. And Fauci is now saying any vaccine may not be ready until the summer of 2021 - and it may not be that effective (or safe).

Sweden has got jump on everyone with herd immunity. Just look at how crazy things are in France, Germany & Spain with exploding cases - and Spain even did a Wuhan-style lockdown! ?

Problem is, just because you don’t care about others it doesn’t mean everyone in the world thinks the same way.

For business to operate they have the responsibility to follow the rule from government and make sure their customer feels safe. For average people wearing a mask isn’t an issue because they understand the circumstance and know how to respect their surroundings.

I’m sure you can’t ask the same question in front of family who lost their family from Covid.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Dan Kahneman wrote:

I wonder why our medical experts can't see what you see. You know so much more the Fauci and his fellow epistemologists.

New York has stopped covid due to widespread use of masks and social distancing.

They are not anywhere near the saturation point. Well under 1% of the population is infected with covid.

You are wrong and your ideas are harmful.

1%. Thats a bold statement since even the antibody tests performed in April, which have shown to drastically undercount actual infections, showed over 20%.

I wonder why New York was the only US metro that did not experience a bump in cases after the "protests." Maybe because almost everyone there who can get it has had it.

Other states that are not being smart with safe practices are at 14% and some much higher. New York is well under 1% that is real and that is fact. You can't rationalize and deny its validity because it doesn't fit your narrative.

And why do you think you can see things Fauci and the other epistemologists can't see. Are you the type who who go to three different doctors telling you that you have cancer but you explaining that you studied the test results and that you know you don't have it and don't need any treatments?

It sounds like you would. That's dangerous.

Oh I get it, you're saying their current positive test rate is under 1%. That proves my point, they are so low because they have herd immunity. Positivity rate is irrelevant without context in where you are in the spread. The states with higher positivity have much lower deaths per population.

I do not think I know more about viral infections that Fauci. That would be absurd, he's spent his life studying viruses. But I also believe he is a political, big pharma pawn trying to walk a line that does not make him a good source of information. You can't always trust smart knowledgeable people to be completely honest, especially public figures. I consult family and friends who are in the medical community or my personal physician when I need medical advice and I trust them. I'm less trusting of a government employee who lives 3000 miles away from me.

You ask a cigarette smoker to leave? How can you deny his right to smoke? He has no obligation to care about your health.