Forums >Health and Nutrition>The COVID-19 Wild West Thread
b) I'm painting with a very broad brush here, but there's historically a political sector that has more confidence in the government as a force for good, and a political sector that has less confidence and believes that government is a necessary evil that needs to be limited.
All (a-e) were good observations. You can also classify our society into pro-choice and pro-life sectors. The first sector believes that individual autonomy is paramount. The second sector believes that the right to life of each human is paramount, even if protecting it means that the rights of others are limited.
It seems that the second sector should have an easier time accepting the steps needed to fight COVID-19-- make sacrifices of personal convenience and give up some freedoms in order to protect the most vulnerable. Again, painting with a broad brush, it hasn't played out that way.
By contrast, the first sector appears to be more accommodating. I wonder if they will learn from the COVID-19 experience.
I guess in 2-3 weeks we will know more about what happens when large crowds gather, which will likely impact if races happen or not. In the coverage from Baltimore, I saw a lot of people wearing masks, but also a number of people wearing them incorrectly or taking them off to talk to the person next to them
All (a-e) were good observations. You can also classify our society into pro-choice and pro-life sectors. The first sector believes that individual autonomy is paramount. The second sector believes that the right to life of each human is paramount, even if protecting it means that the rights of others are limited. By contrast, the first sector appears to be more accommodating. I wonder if they will learn from the COVID-19 experience.
I've never thought of the second sector as seeing the right to life of each human as paramount. For starters, their policies are nearly always the ones that are worse for the right to life of the population between the ages 0-120. In some occasions they will fight for the right to live of somebody near death or wanting to die, but even that is more overwhelmed by their kill them off policies. Even in the population of -1 to 0, most will go about getting abortions for themselves or the person they impregnated if it suits them or just let somebody else deal with their mess via adoption.
To me I've always seen it more like the Prisoner's dilemma. One side wants to do what is right for society as a whole, even if it is worse for them personally. Does that make them great people? Not necessarily, they just gain happiness and avoid guilt by doing what is better for society as a whole. The other side that does what is best for them selfishly...does make them bad people? Not necessarily either, they just don't have the same guilt by their actions hurting other. I'd certainly prefer the people around me to be in the former group though. A well functioning government operates like the former group...what we have in the USA now is the extreme opposite...a very small group of people putting their own interests above millions...if they could get away with it they will absolutely kill off millions of people to make a dollar.
5k- 18:55 (2018) 10K- 39:04 (2017) Marathon- 3:00:10 (2018)
I think that your impression of the pro-life side is based on faulty facts. I'm not sure which policies you have in mind, but I am guessing that you are mixing up goals and implementation. Perhaps you believe that a universal health care system is the only way to get quality healthcare to the greatest number of people. If so, you may (wrongly) believe that a person who does not support universal healthcare must not share your ultimate goal and therefore doesn't care about the heath of others. But they may have the same goal (i.e., getting quality heath care to the most people), just a different opinion as to the best way to achieve that goal.
Your assertion that "most [i.e., more than 50%] will go about getting abortions for themselves or the person they impregnated" appears to be inaccurate. About one in four pregnancies ends in abortion. In order for your statement to be correct, the abortion rate among pro-lifers would have to far exceed that of pro-choicers. Can you please provide some evidence that supports your claim?
I note that you did not dispute my assertion that the pro-choice side places self-autonomy over another's right to life.
Prince of Fatness
Ah, so not only Covid but we get to chat over abortion too. This will go well.
Not at it at all.
Discussion of topics in which the interested people involved have rigid, inflexible opinions is always fun! Can we save that for the Thanksgiving table?
Meanwhile, did anyone else read the article about CV19 attacking the cardiovascular system? Everything lines up, but like I said, we don't know much because there is a lack of data on everything. But, we have an interest in this being correct, because as aerobic athletes we have a more robust vascular system.
https://elemental.medium.com/coronavirus-may-be-a-blood-vessel-disease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
I look forward to seeing minds being changed before our very eyes.
Dave
Good Bad & The Monkey
I think this is a fascinating hypothesis, and it does indeed allow everything to line up. Occam's razor. As a doc, I have wondered about microvascular inflammation / thrombosis as a core etiology for some time now. Interesting to see new supporting evidence come forward.
CV19 attacking the cardiovascular system? Everything lines up
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Fine.Black Lives Matter.
This is true.
Black Lives Matter.
Without remembering much from college biology, I wondered about this virus causing different symptoms and problems depending on where it takes root, like the herpes virus (shingles, fever blister, other sores...).
Ok, a sincere question. Because I do not understand something really really important, looks like. Sacramento King's announcer Grant Napear in his tweet said this: "ALL LIVES MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!". As a result he was fired from the basketball team and from the radio. I really apologize if I sound like an incompetent person, but what did he say wrong? I honestly do not understand.
paces PRs - 5K - 5:48 / 10K - 6:05 / HM - 6:14 / FM - 6:26 per mile
Are we there, yet?
I'll speculate that it was because he said it in relation to a situation where it is obvious that some lives, namely those of POC, are not equal, showing a lack of understanding and sensitivity to the situation.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
First, he wasn't fired, he was placed on administrative leave and then he chose to resign. So, maybe the question should be, if the statement was so innocent why did he resign?
Ray
Ok, my bad - he was ONLY fired from the radio. Also, people could "resign" for different reason - one of them would be to get something in return? Just speculating - because I have no idea why...