Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Psychologist, Anthropologist, Historian, etc... You can tell yourself you're an expert until you are blue in the face but that won't change the fact you have no formal education, credentials, or degrees in any of those fields. And I'm doubting any work experience but perhaps. So that would make you nothing more than an "internet armchair expert" in those subjects.
None because highway bridges are not what mechanical engineers design. That would be a civil engineer and there is no way an employer and public agency would allow someone without a degree to design one nor would they be able to. Again likely no one designs skyscrapers without a degree/training or at least some sort of license.
False equivalency would be comparing formal education/training in specific types of science to mastering musical instruments that children can do.
Intelligent if they did based on what? Your opinion? Because you're not an expert in the subject.
Your entire protest here is vacuous. The whole point of comparing musicianship with medical science and engineering is exactly what you say: there is no equivalency. Which is true of studying behavior, psychology, anthropology, and history — compared to medicine and epidemiology. I don’t have any degree and don’t need one to converse intelligibly and responsibly in my arenas … you and others here DO need degrees in medical science to draw many of the kinds of conclusions being proposed in many of these posts.
Many contributors here can and do exchange interesting information and questions. Linked articles reporting on various studies and developments are food for thought. At the same time there are a handful of entirely unqualified posters who persist in drawing scientific conclusions out of speciously assembled scattershot - often ideologically based. THAT’s the difference.
“Intelligent based on what” … ? … based on a-priori bases. Such as:
* there can be no transmission where there is no contact *
* there can be no misinformation where people aren’t regurgitating unqualified information *
Your entire protest here is vacuous. The whole point of comparing musicianship with medical science and engineering is exactly what you say: there is no equivalency. Which is true of studying behavior, psychology, anthropology, and history — compared to medicine and epidemiology. I don’t have any degree and don’t need one to converse intelligibly and responsibly in my arenas … you and others here DO need degrees in medical science to draw many of the kinds of conclusions being proposed in many of these posts.
Many contributors here can and do exchange interesting information and questions. Linked articles reporting on various studies and developments are food for thought. At the same time there are a handful of entirely unqualified posters who persist in drawing scientific conclusions out of speciously assembled scattershot - often ideologically based. THAT’s the difference.
“Intelligent based on what” … ? … based on a-priori bases. Such as:
* there can be no transmission where there is no contact *
* there can be no misinformation where people aren’t regurgitating unqualified information *
So you can't study and learn about medicine and epidemiology without a degree? How is it any different than learning about behavior, psychology, anthropology, and history without a degree? Of course you don't have to have a degree to converse intelligently but you're still not a qualified expert and nothing more than an "internet arm chair" expert on those subjects.
You're not qualified or an expert on behavior, psychology, anthropology, and history either yet here you are giving what you believe is your "expert" opinion. Same difference.
And what about the detrimental effects of having no contact with anyone? Unless you're old or immunocompromised, obese, etc.. that could have a much worse result than COVID. The fact that one doesn't seem to take that into account shows that they lack the expertise to give such advice yet here you are doing the same exact thing everyone else on here does.
One of the reasons were having this conversation is the same reason Ive been critical of many public health experts: nobody is taking into account the psychological and sociological needs of people.
My last comment was directed at CA4Now pointing to Dr. Walensky and Dr. Gandhi as experts he/she looks to. I agree those are qualified experts but they actually disagree with a lot. The advice they give can be contradictory. I admittedly prefer Dr. Gandhi simply because she does try and do a good job of incorporating psychological needs into her advise. But that again shows my bias.
In the end, we were never going to manage this in one way and it doomed many of us. But the way things are now, we just have to go on our own paths and figure it out. I have no intention of social distancing or reducing contact, but Im also previously infected and vaccinated. Because of that I calculate I have very little risk on my own and very little risk to anyone else. We just have to figure it out on our own now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
The part of your comment in bold above starts true enough, and I concur with your opening: “we're all hapless blowhards with obvious lack of factual basis.”. But I’d point out that debating opinion meaningfully still calls for “factual basis” … which, in this Covid business, is still forming without having reached the degree of consensus that can be considered truly authoritative.
As to the weather in St Petersburg? I dunno. Pretty much all of the former half-dozen or eight sources I used to query here about that - have been cut from the roles. Seems others in a position to evaluate found their weather reports to be deliberate misinformation.
Covid has been so politicized it’s nearly impossible to make the difference between what is up and what is down. I’m just asking why an individual needs to be vaccinated to protect those who are already vaccinated and why can’t the lead expert on this virus ever have a straight answer? Also, this lead expert believes mild covid infections are not acceptable? Is he suggesting we need to get covid cases down to zero. Is that even possible? Is there any scientist or expert who expects zero covid cases? When I hear there needs to be zero covid cases, I can’t help but believe we are separating from the science and going into something else.
And taking this further, consider two scenarios: (1) where a given person doesn't wear his mask, and as a result, 100 nameless and faceless persons die. (2) the mask is worn, and said persons live. Scenario (2) is more altruistic and inarguably better for public health. But I'd argue that (1) is more personally fulfilling for, well, the person in question. With that mindset, it's possible to accept the prevailing consensus among the majority of health-experts, in terms of what theoretically ought to be done; but nevertheless to personally behave in the opposite way.
I generally have a high opinion of Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx and most "mainstream" health experts. I don't believe that they are charlatans, hypocrits or nefarious manipulators, or spokespersons for some sinister "elitist" agenda. I accept both their sincerity and their competence to give credible advice. But I don't want to follow their advice, as a matter of personal values.
I dont consider Dr. Fauci or Birx charlatans, hypocrites, or manipulators, its just that they will focus solely on the physical health aspect of the pandemic because that is their job. They dont focus on the other aspects like the economy or the psychological impacts on people.
I do take some issue with the idea that, if you dont wear a mask, youre basically killing people. Im not doubting the effectiveness of them, but viruses just do what they do. In the entirety of history, weve been passing germs to one another. Whenever a new one comes along, we react more severely since our immune systems arent used to it.
I dont consider Dr. Fauci or Birx charlatans, hypocrites, or manipulators, its just that they will focus solely on the physical health aspect of the pandemic because that is their job. They dont focus on the other aspects like the economy or the psychological impacts on people.
I do take some issue with the idea that, if you dont wear a mask, youre basically killing people. Im not doubting the effectiveness of them, but viruses just do what they do. In the entirety of history, weve been passing germs to one another. Whenever a new one comes along, we react more severely since our immune systems arent used to it.
Agreed. Just as a roofing contractor will keep carping about the importance of new shingles and clean gutters and proper attic-ventilation, while ignoring other aspects of the house... or a car-mechanic will needle us about frequent oil-changes and rotating tires and so on, ignoring the fact that we might be driving a beater and hence not care - so too, medical professionals will emphasize the medical side of things.
We laugh at politicians, and rightly so. But a good politician, if such a thing exists, would juxtapose and balance competing concerns. A bad politician will over-emphasize one side, above others. The result is a slanted and extreme response. This doesn't make the politician a crook or an ignoramus; but it does make him or her one-sided. Indeed, leaders in any capacity, public or private, should excel at sub-optimal solutions. These are solutiions that aren't great in any one or another individual aspects, but are the least-worst among all aspect cumulatively.
What we've seen in most countries and most jurisdictions in this pandemic, is an over-emphasis on the health-side, and under emphasis on things like economics or kids' educations... not to mention individual rights. We have to realize that if more businesses will be fully open, and more commerce happens, and more social interaction and so on, then yes, more people are going to sicken and more people are going to die. Maybe vastly more. We can't just recoil from this fact, pronouncing it to be unacceptable. But if we base our decisions on the medical advice, then that's precisely what's going to happen.
As to the mask-issue, where I get particularly irritated is in situations where everyone is fully vaccinated and this fact is already known. An example is a workplace, an office or lab environment, where we have a small number of people, and always the same people, and all are vaccinated. But nevertheless there's still a 100% mask mandate. This seems to me like a gross misapprehension of risk. But the policy pervades, not even for health-reasons, but because the employer fears law-suits.
Until the vaccines are better, especially in months-long efficacy, and given to a large majority of the population, masks will be needed. End of discussion.
Until the vaccines are better, especially in months-long efficacy, and given to a large majority of the population, masks will be needed. End of discussion.
If the vaccine is protecting the vast majority of people from being hospitalized and dying there really isn't a need for them, especially in people that aren't that susceptible to the virus to begin with. If you want to continue to wear one by all means continue to do so but others shouldn't be forced to, especially in places that require proof of vaccine in some counties like gyms.
Until the vaccines are better, especially in months-long efficacy, and given to a large majority of the population, masks will be needed. End of discussion.
Lmao. If you want to wear a mask, knock yourself out and wear one. I won’t wear a mask. I’m vaccinated and also have natural immunity which Nick Karl, a bio-chemist from Pfizer has stated natural immunity is better than the Pfizer vaccine. Also, there is zero evidence that a masks reduces the risk of infection. There is none. Look at LA county and Orange County California. Both counties have similar vaccination rates, but Orange County does not have a indoor mask mandate where LA county does. Know what was found? Orange had a lower case rate where the hospitalization rate was identical. Mask mandates is fake science. It is not science, but rather something else.
Last edited by Nyfinestbxtf; 10-05-2021 at 05:14 PM..
Until the vaccines are better, especially in months-long efficacy, and given to a large majority of the population, masks will be needed. End of discussion.
"Masks will be needed", by what criterion? And to achieve what objective?
And on what basis, does one party in the debate, peremptorily announce an "end of discussion"... as if the alternative were to have been so foolish, as to not even merit... further discussion?
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 10-05-2021 at 06:10 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
