COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-12-2021, 08:00 PM
metswon69

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambovenzi

There is no anti-intellectualism or false dichotomy there no matter how badly you try to wish it into existence.
Its an astute observation and comparison that makes you uncomfortable.
A devastating double standard and immorality revealed and put on display.

Like all inconvenient ideas in your path, it must be dismissed.

Advocating second class treatment for a majority of black Americans while claiming voter ID is RACIST because it might disproportionately effect minorities is a position too difficult to openly hold and defend.

The impulse to look away from the true nature of what you have been vociferously supporting is understandable.

People aren't being excluded by race. They are being excluded by choice. White, Asian, Black, Latino, etc. Anyone who decides not to be vaccinated, will have to abide by those set of provisions in front of them. The vaccine has been abundant for all races in the US so its not a matter of accessibility either.

Restrictive voter laws are directed at minority communities, specifically when blacks are 3 times more likely to not have current government issued voter ID than whites. Its not just voter ID either. Its limiting polling places in minority neighborhoods, its "exact match" voter laws, restricting mail in votes, etc. Many of those things are being taken out minority communities hands without their knowledge or choice in the matter.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/artic...ening-near-you

Keep telling yourself its not a false dichotomy though. Maybe if you sprinkle fairy dust on it, perhaps it blossoms into something that isn't complete ignorance. You know? Unlike most of the stuff you've presented in this thread.
08-12-2021, 08:03 PM
valade16

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambovenzi

I subscribe to the abolition of government.

That is not a particularly relevant attempt to turn it on me.

Do you support using government force to treat a heavy majority of black people like second class citizens while complaining about voter ID being racist to bludgeon your political opponents?.

So you’re not a Libertarian, you’re an Anarchist? Even Libertarians believe in some form of government.
08-12-2021, 08:04 PM
valade16

I think a primary difference is some of the voter ID laws are specifically targeted at black people whereas vaccine mandates are not.
08-12-2021, 08:05 PM
natepro

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambovenzi

Comparing two things you don't like me comparing is not a false dichotomy.

This looks like special pleading

Does a proposed campaign to offer vaccines to black people that don't want them justify treating them like second class citizens?

Any concerns about disproportionate effects of such a heinous policy go out the window on this one but not on voter ID why exactly?

What is the perceived false dichotomy? Can you elaborate?

Thankfully, I didn't say it was.

No, it doesn't treat them like second class citizens. Obviously. I'm not sure why I have to waste time even saying any of this.

I can easily demonstrate the need for pandemic mitigation measures; can you demonstrate the need for voter ID?
08-12-2021, 08:14 PM
cambovenzi

Quote:

Originally Posted by metswon69

Its a false dichotomy. People aren't being excluded by race. They are being excluded by choice. White, Asian, Black, Latino, etc. Anyone who decides not to be vaccinated, will have to abide by those set of provisions in front of them. The vaccine has been abundant for all races in the US so its not a matter of accessibility, much like voter restrictions are either.

Restrictive voter laws is specifically directed at minority communities, specifically when blacks are 3 times more likely to not have current government issued voter ID. Its not just voter ID either. Its limiting polling places in minority neighborhoods, its "exact match" voter laws, restricting mail in votes, etc. Many of those things are being taken out minority communities hands without their knowledge or choice in the matter.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/artic...ening-near-you

Keep telling yourself its not a false dichotomy though. Maybe if you sprinkle fairy dust on it, perhaps it blossoms into something that isn't complete ignorance. You know unlike most of the stuff you've presented in this thread.

This really doesn't fit the definition of false dichotomy at all, even if your reasoning was sound.
Thats just not what that term means.
You shouldn't have copied nate's homework. He got the answer wrong.

People aren't being excluded by race with voter ID either.
It would apply to the entire area.

Voter ID laws are NOT just targeted at minority communities, nor are the claims of racism limited to implementations of 'minority-majority' communities.

Its the disproportionate effects on black people that are perceived to be racist.
These disproportionate effects exist under both scenarios.
Thus the glaring and damning double standard.

If anything there are far worse real world implications of using government to treat black people like garbage than there is from requiring voter ID.

'But i REALLY REALLY think voter ID and voter integrity laws are racist' points are not doing the heavy lifting you think they are. They are further proving my point.
08-12-2021, 08:15 PM
metswon69

Quote:

Originally Posted by natepro

Thankfully, I didn't say it was.

No, it doesn't treat them like second class citizens. Obviously. I'm not sure why I have to waste time even saying any of this.

I can easily demonstrate the need for pandemic mitigation measures; can you demonstrate the need for voter ID?

If the argument is that's it discriminatory and exclusionary, yeah. That said, Brewers has never been one for context when comparing things. We've had enough arguments. One of these things are being wrongfully filtered off because Republicans are worried about the growing number of leftist voters and the other is trying to prevent millions of people from dying. That would be like pretending the means in which certain states are trying to use voter ID as a way to swing elections isn't racist.
08-12-2021, 08:17 PM
cambovenzi

Quote:

Originally Posted by natepro

Thankfully, I didn't say it was.

No, it doesn't treat them like second class citizens. Obviously. I'm not sure why I have to waste time even saying any of this.

I can easily demonstrate the need for pandemic mitigation measures; can you demonstrate the need for voter ID?

You claimed false dichotomy multiple times without just cause or explanation.

The government banning people from Restaurants, Gyms, and other venues is not treating them like second class citizens? Come on now. Lets get real.

Thinking you are justified in treating a majority of black people like second class citizens does nothing to refute the point.
08-12-2021, 08:17 PM
dbroncos78087

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

You need to show identification to get a vaccine vaccine. What if you don’t have an ID on you? Should they not be allowed to get the shot then?

And

Please tell me how one is racist but not the other

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most places are loosening that thankfully. But a lot of that is that is due to age requirements to get the vaccine.
08-12-2021, 08:18 PM
cambovenzi

I've got them dead to rights on this now and its rather enjoyable.

False dichotomy!!! Objection!!
08-12-2021, 08:29 PM
metswon69

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambovenzi

This really doesn't fit the definition of false dichotomy at all, even if your reasoning was sound.
Thats just not what that term means.
You shouldn't have copied nate's homework. He got the answer wrong.

People aren't being excluded by race with voter ID either.
It would apply to the entire area.

Voter ID laws are NOT just targeted at minority communities, nor are the claims of racism limited to implementations of 'minority-majority' communities.

Its the disproportionate effects on black people that are perceived to be racist.
These disproportionate effects exist under both scenarios.
Thus the glaring and damning double standard.

If anything there are far worse real world implications of using government to treat black people like garbage than there is from requiring voter ID.

'But i REALLY REALLY think voter ID and voter integrity laws are racist' points are not doing the heavy lifting you think they are. They are further proving my point.

There's no perceiving it to be racist. The measures are racist. The fact that disproportionately affect minorities and why are instituted is based in racism.

Treating black people like garbage or everyone who chooses not to get the vaccine like garbage? Sorry, if I'm not buying your bleeding heart all of a sudden. At the end of the day, that element of this has nothing to do with race. You will be excluded irrespective of race/gender/height/weight/etc because you aren't vaccinated. I'm not arguing exclusion though. I'm arguing the choices people have not to be. It doesn't change the fact that requiring voter ID and having vaccination cards have two distinctively different purposes.
08-12-2021, 08:31 PM
valade16

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambovenzi

I've got them dead to rights on this now and its rather enjoyable.

False dichotomy!!! Objection!!

Except some of the restrictive voter laws were specifically targeted towards black people, whereas (to my knowledge) no vaccine mandates have been.

That’s a pretty big distinction.
08-12-2021, 08:33 PM
metswon69

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Most places are loosening that thankfully. But a lot of that is that is due to age requirements to get the vaccine.

You don't need a government issued ID to get the vaccine either.

https://globalcleveland.org/acceptab...ne-recipients/

http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov...ppointment.pdf

https://coronavirus-download.utah.go...uestion-ID.pdf

And they certainly aren't creating more restrictions with ID to get the vaccine. To vote, however...
08-12-2021, 08:43 PM
cambovenzi

Quote:

Originally Posted by metswon69

There's no perceiving it to be racist. The measures are racist. The fact that disproportionately affect minorities and why are instituted is based in racism.

Treating black people like garbage or everyone who chooses not to get the vaccine like garbage? Sorry, if I'm not buying your bleeding heart all of a sudden. At the end of the day, that element of this has nothing to do with race. You will be excluded irrespective of race/gender/height/weight/etc because you aren't vaccinated. I'm not arguing exclusion though. I'm arguing the choices people have not to be. It doesn't change the fact that requiring voter ID and having vaccination cards have two distinctively different purposes.

You choosing to think poorly of me is not an argument against my points.

I successfully pointed out an odious double standard.
Falsely alleging that its a false dichotomy doesn't change that.
Attacking me doesn't change that.

I am very much against using government force to prevent black people from going to restaurants.
I'm the bad guy tho, right?

A majority of black people have not been vaccinated.
Government edicts that exclude people from society based on vaccine status will definitely grossly disproportionately effect black people. That is not in question.
That is the criteria you used to indict voter ID and other measures.
Now you are trying to shapeshift because you are seeing the problem and realizing I was right.

If anything excluding them from restaurants and gyms and various other aspects of public life is far worse than not being allowed to vote if you don't pick up an ID.
08-12-2021, 09:00 PM
metswon69

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambovenzi

You choosing to think poorly of me is not an argument against my points.

I successfully pointed out an odious double standard.
Falsely alleging that its a false dichotomy doesn't change that.
Attacking me doesn't change that.

I am very much against using government force to prevent black people from going to restaurants.
I'm the bad guy tho, right?

A majority of black people have not been vaccinated.
Government edicts that exclude people from society based on vaccine status will definitely grossly disproportionately effect black people. That is not in question.
That is the criteria you used to indict voter ID and other measures.
Now you are trying to shapeshift because you are seeing the problem and realizing I was right.

If anything excluding them from restaurants and gyms and various other aspects of public life is far worse than not being allowed to vote if you don't pick up an ID.

I'm not attacking you. I'm questioning your interest.

And that's those black people's choice. They aren't being excluded any differently than their racial counterparts. This is one of those few times in American existence where there's a level playing field. There are so many vaccines they are throwing them away and the information is readily available anywhere you look. The same can not be said for voter ID laws or many other basic things that are separated by accessibility, quality, etc and those things just happening to be determined by what neighborhood you live in.

You're making this singularly a black issue though. Its not just black people who can't go to your restaurant, its anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated. Does that make you a bad person? I mean that depends on if you give a **** about yourself, your other customers, your family, etc. Do you want to put them in danger all over an uninformed choice of others?

And its not fair to suggest that its just as simple as picking up an ID. If it was, we wouldn't be pressing the issue on why voter ID laws are racist. As much as you love to tell me how multi layered getting the vaccination is, well different variables can be just as much in terms of obtaining identification. Not just identification but identification that passes more and more restrictive measures meant for people not to vote.
08-12-2021, 09:19 PM
natepro

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambovenzi

At no point in time did I ever claim masks categorically dont do anything at all to reduce spread. That does NOT refute my actual position.

I have never claimed all masks are completely ineffective.

And yet again, no one said you did. You said "particularly effective," and they demonstrably are. Retreating to this straw man over and over again does not change that.

Quote:

Your studies do not discern between N-95 and garbage masks and include studies of a small number of people who went to a salon, while ignoring half of the people who didn't test.

This is demonstrably not true. The second study listed in the link I provided studied exactly that difference, in fact:

Quote:

We used a cough aerosol simulator with a pliable skin headform to propel small aerosol particles (0 to 7 µm) into different face coverings. An N95 respirator blocked 99% (standard deviation (SD) 0.3%) of the cough aerosol, a medical grade procedure mask blocked 59% (SD 6.9%), a 3-ply cotton cloth face mask blocked 51% (SD 7.7%), and a polyester neck gaiter blocked 47% (SD 7.5%) as a single layer and 60% (SD 7.2%) when folded into a double layer. In contrast, the face shield blocked 2% (SD 15.3%) of the cough aerosol. Our results suggest that face masks and neck gaiters are preferable to face shields as source control devices for cough aerosols.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...6.2020.1862409

Quote:

Conveniently I already had an article up discussing that study:

You didn't provide a link here, so I had to find it myself. It seems to be this article from Jeffery H Anderson, whoever that is. Aside from apparently not knowing how to read numbers:

"Its numbers show that more people under the age of 18 died of influenza during the 2018–19 flu season—a season of “moderate severity” that lasted eight months—than have died of Covid-19 across more than 18 months."

I legitimately have no idea what he's talking about here. That link tells us that there were "34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 influenza season.

His second link, under "died of Covid-19" both here and in the article, show that all deaths from COVID as of 8/11, the same date as his article, are over 610,000. This is... not even close. Anyone that has paid any attention in the last year should know that anything less than 34,000 COVID deaths over the last year and a half is not even close, given that we were over 500,000 in January when Trump left office. It's such a baffling passage overall.

Moving on, we get to what seems to be his overarching point: the lack of "randomized controlled trials."

Quote:

It’s striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials. RCTs are uniformly regarded as the gold standard in medical research...

There's a problem with this right off the bat: it's unethical to do a randomized controlled trial that would result in participants being exposed to something harmful. That's why virtually every study you see on mask wearing is either a cohort study or done with dummy heads in simulated conditions. I don't see anywhere that he takes the ethics of this into account, but perhaps I missed it.

There also seems to be no accounting for the differences in the ways COVID and the flu spread - namely the longer possible time between infection and onset of symptoms, and the potential for asymptomic cases that still spread the virus to other people, both reasons why the flu's R0's is lower than COVID's (and even more so with the Delta variant) - that also effect the efficacy of masks. Flu spreads less because the onset of symptoms is quicker, and so people don't tend to go out when they have the flu. A week or more of not knowing you're infected with COVID means you either mask up, or you're spreading it with no idea that you're infected.

Quote:

You have already admitted to me that non-n95 masks are not nearly as effective.
Tons of cdc guys say the same thing and have criticized the effectiveness of non-n95 masks.
That all bolsters my point immensely.

You say this as if it was a thing anyone, anywhere, ever, claimed. It is not. Saying I "admitted" it to you is like saying I "admitted" that the sun was a star.

Yet again: "Not nearly as effective" is not the same thing as "not effective." They are demonstrably effective.

Quote:

This is not a seriously disputed topic, but you want to act as though studies showing any masks are effective at all somehow disproves my obviously correct point about random masks not being particularly effective.
I would like you to make a good faith effort to interpret my points fairly and consider what I am saying instead of this combative and dismissive mindset.

You like to hide behind "particularly," which is effectively meaningless. There's no standard here for "particularly," and you've provided none. And, hey, well done to you on that. It allows you to dismiss anything as "not particularly effective" and who can say otherwise when there's no useful definition for what that is?

Anyway, not wearing masks makes things measurably, noticeably, significantly worse. We've seen this in real-world conditions all over the world, over and over again for the last year and a half.

Quote:

You are trying to split some kind of hairs here.
Dismissing it because you cant understand it because its in German is not fundamentally different and doesn't make it valid. Looks like we are just not going to agree on this and im tired of talking about german.

Jeg deler ikke hår. Hvis jeg ikke kan læse en undersøgelse, hvordan kan jeg så acceptere, at det endda handler om, hvad de siger, at det er, langt mindre er det en god undersøgelse, der understøtter det? Dette burde ikke være svært at forstå.

Quote:

Right you admit that after I responded to several of your points you said you weren't going to respond unless I answered every last one. (despite you conveniently choosing to avoid many of my points over and over and go on and on about references of one article instead)

Yes I said I was fine with ending the correspondence at that point and that was totally valid.

I have no idea what I'm supposed to be admitting here, but you seem to use that word randomly so this is not terribly surprising.

Quote:

You dont appear to understand my points there. Let me try to explain.
The issue is not that I think you didn't answer the question.

The issue is I simply asked you a legitimate question and you are prancing around as if you are Tito Ortiz after winning an MMA fight.
It wasn't an example of you proving me wrong as it would be if I had stated all studies necessarily apply to children or something like that.

'They cannot' is false.

You are conflating the fact that some research cannot necessarily be 'simply generalized or extrapolated to infants' with categorically dismissing reasoned inferences that can and DO apply to children, like realizing that obviously some of these effects of masks apply to them too.

as I said:
'Some of them certainly can be reasonably applied.
There is no good reason to assume kids magically aren't effected by the known qualities of masks and mouth coverings.'

Surely you agree kids are effected by the known qualities of masks and mouth coverings.

I am having no trouble understanding, the issue is your continued insistence on applying studies done on adults in situations and with masks that do not apply to children in schools. It's as simple as that, I don't really give a **** what you proclaimed with no reason behind it other than you said so. It is yet another thing that is simply meaningless.

Quote:

This is from your own study:

"Wearing a mask can become uncomfortable, particularly for long periods in warm environments, and covering the nose and mouth may inhibit verbal and nonverbal communication, particularly for children and deaf individuals."

That is exactly the type of thing I was getting at.

It's weird the way you didn't finish that paragraph here. I wonder why that is? Just an oversight, I'm sure.

"However, children aged 7 to 13 years have been shown to be able to make accurate inferences about the emotions of others with partially covered faces, and the US Food and Drug Administration recently approved a transparent surgical mask that may be useful in such circumstances. Concerns about reduced oxygen saturation and carbon dioxide retention when wearing a mask have not been supported by available data."

Quote:

Prohibitively difficult vs difficult+uncomfortable are very different things.
At no point in time have I said its prohibitively difficult for kids to wear masks.
But you keep slipping in clauses like that or bringing up aliens and the like.

Excellent, then they can wear them and there's nothing left here to discuss. Glad we were able to solve this.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page