To put it more bluntly, how many people are you willing to see die to uphold your right not to wear a mask?
5 Likes
And the question on the other side is:
How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice in hopes of people being safer?
I prefer to let each person make that determination for himself.
We should obey the laws. If the benefits of the restrictions are not sufficiently compelling to enact the restrictions into law, then it is the judgment of society that those safety procedures are voluntary.
Deflection. Are you willing to answer the question or not?
Simple math is nice, but it is simple. And simple terms can be misleading.
The mortality rate āconsensusā is not that clear. Do you know the difference between āinfection fatality rateā and ācase fatality rate?ā
Here is something:
I think almost everyone, myself included, is willing to give up some freedoms for the good of society. Donāt you?
Different people draw the line between keeping and giving up freedoms at different points. That is the way it should be. Donāt you agree?
Or should we all be forced to your preferences?
Itās not a hard question to answer. Actions speak louder than words. Do you wear a mask when you go to the store, or do you refuse out of principle? Not hard.
Answer my questions in post 325 and I will answer yours.
- Of course I do. My guiding principle is to follow Christ, though I fail just as often as not.
- Of course I agree. I willingly give up freedoms that I have in Christ for the sake of others.
- Preferences arenāt a matter of life and death. Donāt trivialize the matter.
Now, simple question. Do you wear a mask when you go out in public, e.g. to the grocery store?
So you are not going to answer the third question?
Perhaps you need to sleep on it and see if you can decide an answer.
Please accept my apologies for the brusque comment.
True story: Two minutes after I submitted, I thought better of that statement and pulled out my phone to delete it before anyone could take offense. At that very moment, my wife said she had something really important to talk about and would I please put my phone away. Thatās why it was still up when you came here.
But I will remove it forthwith.
I am not worried about my credibility. I am not making fundamental math errors.
From the viewpoint of epidemiology, if you are not recovered or currently infected with the virus, you are susceptible. And if you are asymptomatic but spreading the virus to others, you are most certainly infectious! Whether you get symptoms or not has no effect on the disease model.
You are quoting me out of context. Here is what I actually said:
Big difference. I was assuming an order of magnitude difference between official case totals and actual infection rates to set an approximate upper bound.
The approximation shows that regardless of whether the herd immunity threshold is 29% or 74%, both Michigan and Georgia are so far away from it as to render your appeal to the HIT untenable.
If I were to use official case counts, the R segment would be less than 1% in both states, rather than approximately 4-5%.
Since you are now making appeals to unknown unknowns, I will go on to my research on Twitter data.
Have a good day, Vance.
Chris
I answered all three. Pitiful that you refuse to state a simple fact. When you go out in public, do you wear a mask? You can answer in one second. Your own memory convicts you. No sleeping required. The jig is up.
1 Like
Sure. A very clear line for me us where someoneās insouciant behavior can cause severe illness or death.
Thatās why I support drunk driving laws and seat belt laws.
Do you think the rationale for my line is sensible? Is it a good line for a Christian to support?
Best,
Chris
EDIT: what I perhaps did not express clearly enough is this:
My boundary line is where someoneās insouciant behavior can cause severe illness or death to someone else.
Thank you for your comments and the apology. Much appreciated.
My comment on the āsusceptibleā population is unaffected by the extended context, as we donāt know if everyone is susceptible to the disease. Those data are not available.
Maybe I did not make that clear.
You did not answer the this question.
It is not appropriate that you claim you did.
āShould we all be forced to your preferencesā was the question.
Your response, which was not an answer, was āPreferences arenāt a matter of life and death. Donāt trivialize the matter.ā
That is neither positive nor negative.
That is not an answer.
Chris, I think more lives could be saved if we outlawed obesity and cigarettes. And outlawing football would certainly reduce injuries.
So it is a matter of degree, and I donāt think everyone should be held to an individualās preferences.
Of course we should obey the laws.
Hereās another reason why I donāt need to sleep on it: My daughter is a hairstylist. Will you sit down in her station and refuse to wear a mask?
The rubber meets the road sooner or later. Iām pretty sure that everyone who has participated in this thread would be willing to answer my question. Iāll tag them all and ask them to reply if you want to take a poll. Are you willing to answer?
Will you sit in my daughterās chair for a haircut and refuse to wear a mask?
1 Like
As I said, I will answer you when you answer me.
You have not yet answered.
āShould we all be forced to your preferencesā was the question.
It is not a difficult question, but it seems to be very difficult for you to admit that your preferences should not be forced on everyone.
I was going to criticize your judgment of Jefferson on the basis of owning slaves with a comparison to Schindler in Nazi Germany. But the more research I did into the topic of the slavery in the constitutional convention, the more complicated the whole thing was shown to be. There is little doubt that even those in the constitutional convention who were opposed to slavery were nevertheless still pretty racist and most put their own political and financial interests far ahead of the well-being of those enslaved. It therefore looks to me that a comparison with Schindler is a poor fit. So the most I can say is that owning slaves in a society where this is an institution is not sufficient reason for condemnation. One really has to take a closer look. Unfortunately in the case of Jefferson, a closer look gives us a rather mixed bag on the issue of slavery.
I think this thread ran its course. If anyone wants a summary of the 339 posts, here it is:
And no answer. But a question in return:
1 Like