Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Revoltingest]

Excerpted from the above link is something
particularly interesting to us codgers....
It is also important to consider the ages of those who are dying. People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID. (Being older is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID because the immune system weakens with age.) So when you separate the age groups, it becomes even clearer that vaccination reduces the risk of death. And because immune protection from vaccination wanes with time, and because some older people do not mount a good immune response to the primary series, being boosted reduces that risk even further.

 

[Unfettered]

So then you agree that Typhoid Mary needed to be stopped, right?
Even though she believed she had the right to infect others?

I don't know that she believed she had a right to infect others. It has been a long time since I read the account. I seem to recall that she didn't believe she was the spreader. At the same time, if memory serves, she changed her name and moved around a lot during that time. I can't remember if she ever disclosed why. At a certain point, though, that all became moot.

The critical question is about when due process had been done sufficiently to result in a just judgment against her, assuming she didn't willingly change her circumstances to prevent further infections. As it was, she did not do the latter, and so just use of force was required to mitigate against her infringing on anyone else's rights. IE, society could no longer trust her to be free to exercise her rights without infringing on others, and her own rights suffered a contraction.

Yes, you in fact did.
When you said "No human has the right to sacrifice another, so it's fine for those who do so to be held accountable."[post#569]

Correct, I said "those who DO so"... "HELD accountable." IE, act committed, justice invoked. Can you hold someone accountable for an act they haven't yet committed?

I did not post about preventing action.

What, exactly, do you considered "due process"?
In other words, in your opinion, what would be the proper "due process" in stopping Typhoid Mary from infecting others?

Due process requires either some potentially criminal act having already been done by the subject, or probable cause being established by someone else. At that point, due process will vary a bit, based on the circumstances.

Would you not consider Typhoid Mary's spreading the disease a harmful act?
Or is it perhaps only harmful if she was intentionally spreading it?
If she does not believe she is spreading it, does that exempt her from being stopped from spreading it?

Clearly it was harmful, and it was harmful regardless of her consciousness of spreading it. And once it is known she is spreading it, clearly something must be done. Exactly what...will depend on the results of due process and how she responds to it.

Yet the world is just plump full of attempting to prevent people from doing harmful things.
Are you opposed to all of it?

No, I am only opposed to the prevention that constitutes a violation of a person's rights.

 

[Unfettered]

I suppose that everything can be political.
Calling it that seems of no value.
Addressing specific issues is useful.

As soon as a thing involves one person imposing his opinion on the personal decisions of another, yes, it becomes political. So yes, anything can be political. As it pertains to the concept of public health, it was clear that I was not talking about the concept, but the issue of its politicization, which means it was a useful, or at least valid, object of discussion:

"public health"...a political contrivance used to infringe the rights of human beings.

Some people do need to be compelled to
do things they dislike, eg, Typhoid Mary.
......Unless you believe that such people
shouldn't be restricted in any way by
anyone?

Clearly we're talking about something far weightier then what a person likes or doesn't like; we're discussing human rights. If Mary has infected people already with a deadly disease and will likely do so again unless some change occurs, at that point it doesn't matter whether or not she likes making some change, she does have to. Of course, not just anything can be imposed on her; the thing must be just, per the circumstances.

So no, when contraction of a person's rights is just under the law, I don't believe that the person should escape whatever restriction on his rights is appropriate.

 

[Unfettered]

Excerpted from the above link is something
particularly interesting to us codgers....
It is also important to consider the ages of those who are dying. People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID. (Being older is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID because the immune system weakens with age.) So when you separate the age groups, it becomes even clearer that vaccination reduces the risk of death. And because immune protection from vaccination wanes with time, and because some older people do not mount a good immune response to the primary series, being boosted reduces that risk even further.

I appreciate the mortality tables, and am as aware as anyone out there of who was/is most at risk. I have never told anyone that they should not get the vaccine, or wear a mask, etc. Each person is responsible to get educated and make his own judgments. I prejudice no one's decisions with my own understanding. I do, however, justly speak up when our rights are in the vice or on the chopping block without cause.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate the mortality tables, and am as aware as anyone out there of who was/is most at risk. I have never told anyone that they should not get the vaccine, or wear a mask, etc. Each person is responsible to get educated and make his own judgments. I prejudice no one's decisions with my own understanding. I do, however, justly speak up when our rights are in the vice or on the chopping block without cause.

And you still don't get it.

You do not wear a mask to protect yourself. A person wears it to protect others. Why is this so hard to understand? This is a sneaky disease and a person can be contagious and not know it for up to a week before they show symptoms. That is one of the reasons that it spread so quickly.

Before we move on to vaccines do you understand this? During a time of pandemic it is the "healthy" that are a risk to others.

 

[Revoltingest]

I appreciate the mortality tables, and am as aware as anyone out there of who was/is most at risk. I have never told anyone that they should not get the vaccine, or wear a mask, etc. Each person is responsible to get educated and make his own judgments. I prejudice no one's decisions with my own understanding. I do, however, justly speak up when our rights are in the vice or on the chopping block without cause.

To post that the vaccines are highly dangerous with
incomplete & misleading information, while not
mentioning the actuality of Covid 19's much greater
danger will have the effect of discouraging vaccination.

Many people believe that as long as they're stating
facts, that they're doing the right thing. But they
should consider the effects of the impression they
create by omitting salient other facts.

A friend did this the other day. He was advocating
using Ivermectin to treat Covid 19 infections. His
fact is that Ivermectin is "FDA approved".
That is indeed a fact. It's approved for parasitic
worm infections, but not for treating Covid 19.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've known some who advocated Ivermectin
because they fear side effects of Covid 19
vaccines.
They should know the potential side effects
of Ivermectin.....

1. Worsening severity risk of Covid 19.
2. Difficulty in moving
3. muscle pain or stiffness
4. pain in the joints
5. swollen, painful, or tender lymph glands in the armpit

Less common​

1. Black, tarry stools
2. bloating or swelling of the face, arms, hands, lower legs, or feet
3. chest pain
4. chills
5. cold sweats
6. cough
7. dizziness or lightheadedness
8. dizziness, faintness, or lightheadedness when getting up from lying or sitting position
9. eye or eyelid irritation, pain, redness, or swelling
10. fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat or pulse
11. feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings
12. fever
13. painful or difficult urination
14. rapid weight gain
15. sensation of spinning
16. shakiness in the legs, arms, hands, or feet
17. sore throat
18. sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
19. swollen glands
20. tingling of the hands or feet
21. trembling or shaking of the hands or feet
22. trouble breathing
23. unusual bleeding or bruising
24. unusual sleepiness
25. unusual tiredness or weakness
26. unusual weight gain or loss

Rare​

1. Agitation
2. back pain
3. bloody eye
4. blurred vision
5. change in consciousness
6. confusion
7. decreased awareness or responsiveness
8. difficulty in standing or walking
9. hallucinations
10. headache
11. irritability
12. loss of bladder control
13. loss of bowel control
14. loss of consciousness
15. mood or mental changes
16. redness of the eye
17. seizures
18. stiff neck
19. unusual dullness or feeling of sluggishness
20. vomiting

Incidence not known​

1. Blistering, peeling, or loosening of the skin
2. burning, dry, or itching eyes
3. change in consciousness
4. confusion about identity, place, and time
5. dark urine
6. diarrhea
7. discharge, excessive tearing
8. light-colored stools
9. loss of consciousness
10. red skin lesion often with a purple center
11. sensitivity of the eye to light
12. swelling of the eyelids
13. tearing
14. upper right abdominal or stomach pain
15. yellow eyes and skin

 

[Unfettered]

To post that the vaccines are highly dangerous with
incomplete & misleading information, while not
mentioning the actuality of Covid 19's much greater
danger will have the effect of discouraging vaccination.

Many people believe that as long as they're stating
facts, that they're doing the right thing. But they
should consider the effects of the impression they
create by omitting salient other facts.

A friend did this the other day. He was advocating
using Ivermectin to treat Covid 19 infections. His
fact is that Ivermectin is "FDA approved".
That is indeed a fact. It's approved for parasitic
worm infections, but not for treating Covid 19.

Medical counseling, recommendations, decisions and treatments are private matters. If what is wanted is for these to be provided only by licensed, experienced, medical professionals, they must not become matters of public policy. Should they become a public policy matter, then the public has an obligation to engage in the discussion, as that is the duty of citizenship in a democratic society. Don't want public input? Don't make it a public matter (speaking generally here, not directly to you).

With your post, then, you have invited public discussion about your assertions, because this is a public forum and that what it exists for. If you really meant what you posted, then I don't think it was wise to post here, because now you cannot control what others will say in response. Do you really want to make the questions of vaccine danger, COVID-19 danger, vaccination effectiveness and Ivermectin use a public discussion here? If no, you may want to consider deleting your posts. Otherwise you may get a flood of information being posted here that you would rather others not be exposed to, because it is possible that there are those who do not agree with your opinion. And that flood will have come because you opened the floodgates.

Food for thought.

 

[Revoltingest]

Medical counseling, recommendations, decisions and treatments are private matters. If what is wanted is for these to be provided only by licensed, experienced, medical professionals, they must not become matters of public policy. Should they become a public policy matter, then the public has an obligation to engage in the discussion, as that is the duty of citizenship in a democratic society. Don't want public input? Don't make it a public matter (speaking generally here, not directly to you).

The behavior of licensed health care professionals
is indeed a matter of public policy. They have a
duty to not cause harm, eg, advocating Ivermectin
for treating Covid 19.

With your post, then, you have invited public discussion about your assertions, because this is a public forum and that what it exists for. If you really meant what you posted, then I don't think it was wise to post here, because now you cannot control what others will say in response.

I expect no control over what others post.

Do you really want to make the questions of vaccine danger, COVID-19 danger, vaccination effectiveness and Ivermectin use a public discussion here?

RF staff have rules about Covid 19 posts.

If no, you may want to consider deleting your posts.

Not happening.

Otherwise you may get a flood of information being posted here that you would rather others not be exposed to, because it is possible that there are those who do not agree with your opinion. And that flood will have come because you opened the floodgates.

Food for thought.

That's a really strange concern.

 

[Little Dragon]

I don't think this was a fire in the movie theater...

Controlling all questions and medical viewpoints that are contrary to the "status quo" is thought control and totalitarianism. There is a reason they fear freedom of speech. There is a reason why people don't like freedom of speech. Your voice may be next if you don't agree with the government.

Control is sometimes necessary to employ. Especially in emergency situations. When more important matters have to be considered and on balance, determining what is for the greater good. Unfortunately, the average person, is not in any position to judge whether a vaccine is a benefit or not. Given they're lay people, not experts, they have not studied the subjects of virology and many others nor been tested on this knowledge by academic accreditation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I prejudice no one's decisions with my own understanding. I do, however, justly speak up when our rights are in the vice or on the chopping block without cause.

Your rights end where your nose begins. You have no right to spread a contagious disease that easily spreads to others.

 

[Unfettered]

The behavior of licensed health care professionals
is indeed a matter of public policy.

When the behavior of licensed health care professionals constitutes and infringement of the rights of others, I agree.

They have a
duty to not cause harm, eg, advocating Ivermectin
for treating Covid 19.

I know of licensed health care professionals who have prescribed Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 and are still licensed and still practicing. Should I call the police? The district attorney? I've never been in this situation before (having knowledge of a crime where the suspect is unknown to authorities).

I expect no control over what others post.

Understood.

RF staff have rules about Covid 19 posts.

Yes, that's not uncommon.

Not happening.

Sure. It was a suggestion only, prompted by your concern. And it was conditional, of course. Sounds like you're not concerned.

That's a really strange concern.

Again, it was prompted by your apparent concern over people not being given bad information. If you're not concerned about it, all good.

 

[Unfettered]

Control is sometimes necessary to employ. Especially in emergency situations. When more important matters have to be considered and on balance, determining what is for the greater good.

When citizens who were repressed during times of panic win post-panic lawsuits for damages done to them by the repression, what does that say about the lawfulness of the repression? I am talking specifically about losses due to discrimination for non-compliance with vaccine mandates, etc.

 

[metis]

If a person doesn't believe that wearing a mask makes a difference, he's practicing his religion when he doesn't wear one—he's not acting to injure others.

My religion teaches "do no harm" to innocent others, but my driving force of this is the science, common sense, and basic "do no harm" decency.

 

[McBell]

When citizens who were repressed during times of panic win post-panic lawsuits for damages done to them by the repression, what does that say about the lawfulness of the repression? I am talking specifically abo alsut losses due to discrimination for non-compliance with vaccine mandates, etc.

Examples?
Mainly, examples of lawsuits that were won due to discrimination for non-compliance with COVID-19 vaccine mandates, etc.

 

[Unfettered]

Just search "vaccine mandate lawsuits" and there will be many to peruse.

Here's one though: Healthcare Workers to Receive $10.3M Over Vaccine Mandates

 

[McBell]

Just search "vaccine mandate lawsuits" and there will be many to peruse.

You made the claim.
It is on you to support it.

Here's one though: Healthcare Workers to Receive $10.3M Over Vaccine Mandates

So this first of its kind settlement (which has yet to be finalized) is all you got?

 

[Unfettered]

My religion teaches "do no harm" to innocent others, but my driving force of this is the science, common sense, and basic "do no harm" decency.

If you choose to subordinate judgment to the pronouncements of others that is your right. Is it wrong for me to keep my judgment process in house?

 

[Unfettered]

You made the claim.
It is on you to support it.


So this first of its kind settlement (which has yet to be finalized) is all you got?

What I offered is sufficient. If you don't want to look, you don't have to.

 

[McBell]

What I offered is sufficient. If you don't want to look, you don't have to.

You made the claim of lawsuits lost, which you have as yet to present even one.