
Dahobbs
-
Posts
17879 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Dahobbs
-
-
Just now, BabaYaga said:
For children, completely and utterly unnecessary. They are statistically safer from COVID that taking over the counter pain meds. For the vulnerable. Protect and target the vulnerable. To mandate the everyone MUST do this or do that to carry on with their lives is akin to E.Germany stops to "show your papers".
This virus kills the fat and the old. So protect the fat and the old. For most everyone else, mandates like this are insane.
Your assumptions are unsupported. First, the virus kills more than the fat and old. For instance, it kills the relatively healthy middle age adult at a much higher rate than the flu. Second, the cost of the virus is not limited only to the death toll. And your proposal of "protect and target the vulnerable" isn't a proposal at all. The question is how to do that. In particular, how do you protect those people that cannot get a vaccine? Our answer for other diseases has usually been to have a high level of vaccination in the population so that those individuals aren't likely to be exposed to it. That's why we require vaccinations for many of those childhood ailments. So, my question to you, why should covid be different? Its cost is surely greater than or equal to things like chickenpox and measles. So why treat it differently?
-
2
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Deej said:
One word: bidet.
You shouldn't hydrate from those.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Neither do you apparently with this idea that I'm somehow against all those laws mentioned. The point you missed was utilizing the logic that "if it saves just one life (net grater than zero)" as the driver for enacting it can have massive, negative implications and unintended side effects that far outweigh the initial intentions of the original bill.
I honestly can't tell what thought you're trying to convey in the bolded portion. I don't think I've ever said anything about "if it saves just one life" as a justification for a law. That standard is impossible and impractical.
At any rate, I never assumed you were against all those laws. Frankly, I figured you would be in favor of a number of them. My only question is why a law requiring covid vaccination for participation in certain (undetermined at this point) activities would be objectionable. What makes it different from those laws that you do approve of? This is a sincere question; I want to know what properties of a covid vaccination requirement (of any scope) would make it objectionable to you.
-
7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
You're the one that brought up other laws. I'm just trying to understand the nature of your disagreement. Is this a libertarian stand against any regulation of private conduct or is there something particular to vaccines or this vaccine that is objectionable?
P.S you still don't know what a strawman argument is.
-
1
-
-
Just now, BabaYaga said:
The famous phrase used as a driver for all great and lasting regulations
So, out of curiosity, what kinds of laws are you ok with?
- Requiring seatbelts to be worn?
- Requiring seatbelts/airbags to be installed by the manufacturer?
- Speed limits?
- Vaccinations (e.g., measles) to attend schools?
- Restricting access to certain types of medical care?
- Restricting freedom to associate?
- Zoning restrictions?
- Requiring a license to drive?
- Requiring a license to vote?
Is there any principle or principles behind your beliefs? Why is requiring vaccination a no go for you? What distinguishes it from the numerous other restrictions placed on us by society? Or are all such restrictions wrong in your view?
-
1
-
18 minutes ago, utee94 said:
I'm not really onboard with the idea of a vaccine passport, but I'll also underscore your first point by saying COVID-19 has killed over 3 million in just about a year, despite the most massive isolation/shut-down efforts in history. I can't even imagine what the death toll would have been, had the entire globe done nothing.
Note-- I'm not saying it ever would have come to that, eventually as the hospitals and morgues filled to overflowing and the trees were full of bodies, people would have self-isolated without any government mandates whatsoever.
Yeah, I understand and I don't know that air travel restrictions would be the most effective way to increase vaccine participation or to lower risk to those unable (different than unwilling) to get vaccines. I was really just spit balling things that could be done, not necessarily things that should be done. I do think it generally makes sense to require vaccination for certain activities in order to boost vaccination rates and protect others. But I also think it is important to be selective and not over regulate.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
I was always told having to carry a document to verify your status was racist. Who knew....
Your analogy is as simplistic as it is irrelevant. We've already heard about abortion. By all means, see if you can shoehorn in unions. May as well get all your talking points out in one place.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:
Public schooling is required because those viruses are especially deadly to children. This one is not. Statistically it has a mortality rate of zero. A hospitalization rate not much higher. We also now know children are not significant transmission vectors. So tell me again the point? The flu kills kids. It wrecks them. We don't do anything even remotely close to these steps to protect them. So what exactly is the rationale here?
I didn't say to require it for public schooling as to covid. That would make no sense as it would be pointless and impossible right now. I was giving an example of a similar restriction.
-
9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
So here we circle back to the vaccine passport. So we don't allow people with updated immunization records that are up to date fly now?
I assume you meant without. That isnt currently a requirement for other illnesses. As I said, the context you see it right now is public schooling. There may be other examples, I haven't researched the full panoply of health regulations across the country. My only suggestion here is that should require covid vaccinations for some aspects of public life and I provided flying as a possible example. Ideally, any such regulation would be targeted to things that are more likely to result in spread AND that requiring vaccination would likely increase our vaccination rates.
-
1
-
-
Just now, BabaYaga said:
So you are going on record of requiring, via the threat of punishment, mandatory vaccination for everyone?
I don't think any regulation can be a blanket requirement. As I said, there has to at least be an exception for those that cannot get the vaccine for medical reasons. And I wouldn't be in favor of a fine or jail time or anything like that. But, I think it would be reasonable to make it a prerequisite for participating in certain aspects of public life (e.g., air travel). We do the same thing for public schools and vaccinations for common childhood ailments. It is a carrot and stick approach. I think you need both to some extent.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:
And if you never leave the house, you have nothing to worry about. Everyone that can, should.
I've been vaccinated, I give zero fucks about what everyone else does now. Mask/no mask/vax/no vax. Zero. Fucks. Given.
Right, other people not getting vaccinated doesn't directly effect you anymore. But not everyone has that option. The question was why should we require people to get vaccinated. The answer is that because it isn't just about personal safety, but also protecting the vulnerable that cannot get vaccinated. We want them to be able to participate in society as well. And the way we do that is by getting everyone else vaccinated. I'm not sure why that is controversial. It is the same way we approach vaccinations for other contagious diseases.
-
4
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:
Not if you get vaccinated.
If you get vaccinated you protect yourself AND the other people you come into contact with. If you don't get vaccinated, you put yourself at risk AND the other people you come into contact with, including those that cannot get vaccinated. We aim for high vaccination rates for other diseases to protect those that can't get vaccinated. Everyone that can, should.
-
4
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:
I... uh... I... woah. My brain hurts now. What is RVM?
-
54 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:
The article had good information from various sources on the obstacles to developing a vaccine quickly. It wasn't so much a prediction as a list of obstacles and how we can overcome them ("But if there was any time to fast-track a vaccine, it is now. So Times Opinion asked vaccine experts how we could condense the timeline and get a vaccine in the next few months instead of years. Here’s how we might achieve the impossible."). If you click all the options to accelerate the timeline, you get vaccine availability in February 2021, which isn't all that off from when there was actual availability. If anything, I would think we'd be celebrating the accomplishment of navigating all of those obstacles and the little bit of luck that helped us through.
It would also be a mistake to assume that just because an event happened (developing a vaccine quickly) that it was always likely to happen. If you purchase a lottery ticket, it would be correct to say that you have a close to 0% chance to win the jackpot. And, even if you happen to end up winning, it doesn't change the fact that your statistical chances of winning were incredibly low.
-
27 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:
You think he’s wearing a mask to convince those who aren’t wearing a mask(the simple rubes) to wear one?
I’m sorry, but that isn’t going to work on a single simple rube who hasn’t worn a mask for the past 14 months. But what might work is for them to see a 78 year old man who is fully vaccinated return to normal life. Or at least return to the part of life the CDC says is ok. “Hey, it’s just a shot, and the POTUS took it and now he doesn’t worry about Covid.”
Or it can be “Hey, look the POTUS got the shot and he’s still scared of Covid. Wonder what the CDC is telling him that they aren’t telling us? Why would I go get a shot that my my rube friends tell me is dangerous if isn’t even going to allow me to get back to normal?”
I figured the message was that wearing a mask isn't a big deal and doesn't have to disrupt normal life. But, I agree that offering the carrot of a normal life with the vaccine would normally be an effective message. But the "rubes" you are describing aren't going to listen to Biden no matter what as he isn't the President, so it doesn't really matter.
-
1 hour ago, XYZ said:
Every post of yours is a variation of “I can’t understand how anybody could possibly think differently than me”.
? Do you think schools should open even if the virus mutates and becomes deadly to children? Or would it be prudent to change our actions in that unlikely event? I simply don't get the concern about acknowledging what we don't know. And I absolutely believe that schools should open unless something drastic changes.
I'll add, I absolutely understand how people may think differently than me on many subjects. They may have different priorities. And I recognize that there is often room for reasonable disagreement. But, I also believe that some thinking is objectively unreasonable.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
17 minutes ago, Message Board User said:JFC. White House already hedging on all schools reopening.
That seems like an appropriately cautious statement. If things continue like that are, we are good to go. If a new and aggressive variant arises, we may have to reevaluate. I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.
-
9
-
1
-
3 hours ago, troph said:
He’s talking reg season.
I know. I just wanted to emphasize that we did beat them the two most critical times. That last game was quite memorable.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Fletch said:
And this. It’s baseball. Shit happens
Shit our 05 team got swept by Baylor and lost 2 of 3 to Kansas
Not quite, there were two notable exceptions.
-
20 minutes ago, ScooterHTX said:
Anyone have any experience adding on to an older pier and beam house in the heights or anywhere else?
Just purchased an older place in Norhill Heights. Decent sq. Footage for now, but curious about the potential for the future. It’s an oversized lot, so even with the addition, the home would still have a good yard.
I know construction pricing is through the roof right now, but curious on past experiences / costs?
Would look to add larger family room down stairs, move laundry room / create a mud room, then add 2 bedrooms and 1-2 bathrooms above the family room and garage.
Anyone have experience dealing with historical associations? Have heard they can be a problem on approving plans, but just walking around the neighborhood, multiple homes have expanded beyond what the guidelines say are allowed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll dm you.
-
15 minutes ago, MoJames said:
And certified from the dealer suggests they did some 50 point inspection?
I don't know about that, but you do typically get an extension on the manufacturer's warranty. And if there are issues that arise soon after the purchase, the dealer has to address them. Carvana and Vroom will not. But I don't think there is anything wrong with purchasing through Carvana and Vroom. Just answering your question.
-
2
-
-
31 minutes ago, MoJames said:
And is anyone noticing any unforeseen issues with working with a group like Vroom or Carvana?
Delivery time/day isn't always when they say it will be. You'll have to flexible there. Other than that, your typical used car issues when not purchasing certified from the dealer.
-
1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:
I’m vaxed. I don’t care. If it’s really that much of a worry then let’s just not let anyone come in from overseas. Hell- let’s just not run airplanes at all anymore. Because that dude that just got off the plane from Bangladesh is going to an Uber, and then a hotel, then out to dinner and a movie and a rub and tug and he’s not wearing a mask to any of those places nor is anyone else. There’s nothing magical about an airplane that makes it worse than any restaurant or bar or theater out there and I don’t see anyone arguing wear masks there forever.
For fucks sake- it’s stupid at some point in time very close to now. As stupid as taking my shoes and belt and whatever else passes for post 9/11 safety theater at the airport.
Or, and hear me out here, maybe just have people wear masks. Seriously, what is the big deal? Do you fart in them before putting them on?
-
4 hours ago, justhookit said:
Yes. The cabin air is exchanged, completely, every 90 seconds. Good lord. You might have missed my edit I don’t really care about this. But if they want to require masks going forward for the next 20 years I don’t have a problem with it. A quick google shows that at least a few of the studies conducted by the AIRLINES and the govt. assumed that the passengers were WEARING MASKS. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2020/10/15/coronavirus-study-finds-jetliners-safer-than-operating-rooms/3665469001/
I am pretty sure I got hand foot and mouth from a flight back from Vegas. I noticed the guy in the seat next to me had some serious facial scarring or breakout going and tried to just ignore it. A few days later I started breaking out in hives at work and figured out I had hand foot and mouth. That fucking sucked. I don't know that masks would have prevented transmission, but I wish I had one on that flight (I really wish that guy had worn them if he knew he was flying sick). And as a result I'm totally onboard with wearing masks on flights going forward.
Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away
in Cloak Room
Posted
I was specifically referring to medical reasons. Every vaccine that I'm aware of has a segment of the population that cannot take it. Part of the reason we require vaccinations for other ailments is to protect those people. Again, why should Covid be treated differently than either measles or chickenpox in that regard? Or is it your opinion that requiring vaccinations for those ailments is wrong too?
Note: my comparison to measles and chickenpox is not meant to suggest that we should require vaccination in the same way or for the same activities (i.e., school). It is merely a reference to the broader principle of requiring vaccination in association with certain activities.