Lockdown Part 2
11-09-2020 | 05:53 AM
#191
Gets Weekdays Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
From: Economy Minus
“Listening to the science,” is a great political slogan. But actual science means you observe and hypothesize. “Science,” when used in the vernacular of our politicians and media, constantly changes, yet the policies (ie, temporary lockdowns don’t work to eradicate viruses), don’t change until it’s politically expedient to change them.
Point is, while the “scientific method” has proven imperative in human progress, “science,” especially when twisted into a verb by politicians and the media, is far from perfect and should never be used as a reason to justify policy.
Point is, while the “scientific method” has proven imperative in human progress, “science,” especially when twisted into a verb by politicians and the media, is far from perfect and should never be used as a reason to justify policy.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...sed-sound-data
Here are some REAL scientists asked to retract a paper on masking for these reasons: (2) wearing a cloth mask or face covering is better than doing nothing, (3) the article is being used by individuals and groups to support non-mask wearing where mandated and (4) there are now many modeling studies suggesting that cloth masks or face coverings could be effective at flattening the curve and preventing many cases of infection.
Those don't seem like very scientific reasons. Can anyone really say we are not suppressing opposing scientific views because they are not politically convenient?
As for your brilliant retorts to my post, furlough fun, you missed the point - yes, in the past science was suppressed by religion. Today it is by politics. What is the difference?
11-09-2020 | 06:08 AM
#192
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/coro...pandemic-.html
Ugh. If he follows Europe and issues a national shutdown, we are proper boned.
Ugh. If he follows Europe and issues a national shutdown, we are proper boned.
11-09-2020 | 06:23 AM
#193
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,906
Likes: 0
From: Here and there
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/coro...pandemic-.html
Ugh. If he follows Europe and issues a national shutdown, we are proper boned.
Ugh. If he follows Europe and issues a national shutdown, we are proper boned.
No President can shut the entire country down. I don’t know why people keep saying he can. He will not solely because he would personally own the economic fallout that follows. The Europeans may not care about their economies, but Americans almost always vote with their wallets first.
11-09-2020 | 02:05 PM
#194
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
Biden’s advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel (Rahm’s brother), on COVID has an interesting past. In 2014, he wrote an article that stated, in his opinion, living past 75 was morally problematic. Between him and Cuomo, killing off the elderly is our future. Cuomo now thinks the vaccine is unfortunately here now, not on Jan 21.
11-09-2020 | 02:16 PM
#195
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 249
Likes: 48
Biden’s advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel (Rahm’s brother), on COVID has an interesting past. In 2014, he wrote an article that stated, in his opinion, living past 75 was morally problematic. Between him and Cuomo, killing off the elderly is our future. Cuomo now thinks the vaccine is unfortunately here now, not on Jan 21.
"I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
He is simply saying that even though people live longer, there's a tradeoff with a much reduced quality of life after the age of 75. ever been to a nursing home? he's not wrong about that point. he also makes clear this is about what he wants, not any form of policy that he wants to impose on others. he even says he doesn't support assisted suicide.
this reminds me of the hysterics about Obama's death panels. did that ever happen? Nope, and no one has said that they want to kill the elderly. not sure why people seek out controversy where there is none, and I think most people are sick of vapid fear-mongering
11-09-2020 | 03:10 PM
#196
Speed, Power, Accuracy
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 10
From: PIC
that's a laughable characterization of his view. here's the article being referenced: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-at-75/379329/
"I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
He is simply saying that even though people live longer, there's a tradeoff with a much reduced quality of life after the age of 75. ever been to a nursing home? he's not wrong about that point. he also makes clear this is about what he wants, not any form of policy that he wants to impose on others. he even says he doesn't support assisted suicide.
this reminds me of the hysterics about Obama's death panels. did that ever happen? Nope, and no one has said that they want to kill the elderly. not sure why people seek out controversy where there is none, and I think most people are sick of vapid fear-mongering
"I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
He is simply saying that even though people live longer, there's a tradeoff with a much reduced quality of life after the age of 75. ever been to a nursing home? he's not wrong about that point. he also makes clear this is about what he wants, not any form of policy that he wants to impose on others. he even says he doesn't support assisted suicide.
this reminds me of the hysterics about Obama's death panels. did that ever happen? Nope, and no one has said that they want to kill the elderly. not sure why people seek out controversy where there is none, and I think most people are sick of vapid fear-mongering
As of July 1 this year, my company has 30 pilots over the age of 75 (including 4 over the age of 80) on the seniority list and almost 300 over the age of 65. If Rudy's catering hasn't killed them off, Nothing will.
11-09-2020 | 04:22 PM
#197
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
that's a laughable characterization of his view. here's the article being referenced: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-at-75/379329/
"I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
He is simply saying that even though people live longer, there's a tradeoff with a much reduced quality of life after the age of 75. ever been to a nursing home? he's not wrong about that point. he also makes clear this is about what he wants, not any form of policy that he wants to impose on others. he even says he doesn't support assisted suicide.
this reminds me of the hysterics about Obama's death panels. did that ever happen? Nope, and no one has said that they want to kill the elderly. not sure why people seek out controversy where there is none, and I think most people are sick of vapid fear-mongering
"I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
He is simply saying that even though people live longer, there's a tradeoff with a much reduced quality of life after the age of 75. ever been to a nursing home? he's not wrong about that point. he also makes clear this is about what he wants, not any form of policy that he wants to impose on others. he even says he doesn't support assisted suicide.
this reminds me of the hysterics about Obama's death panels. did that ever happen? Nope, and no one has said that they want to kill the elderly. not sure why people seek out controversy where there is none, and I think most people are sick of vapid fear-mongering
Saying 75 is pretty good age to stop sounds like a recommendation to me. What about Biden at ,78, then?
11-09-2020 | 08:27 PM
#198
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 249
Likes: 48
What happened in NY, NJ, and PA wasn’t laughable or fear-monger8ng when the governors committed the next thing to manslaughter sending the elderly with COVID back to long term care. I wouldn’t trust my fate to Emmanuel or Cuomo.
Saying 75 is pretty good age to stop sounds like a recommendation to me. What about Biden at ,78, then?
Saying 75 is pretty good age to stop sounds like a recommendation to me. What about Biden at ,78, then?
Not sure if you're willfully misinterpreting the article to fuel your partisan outrage, but it was about HIS PERSONAL VIEW on why HE doesn't want to live past 75. So, no, if you read the article, you would know it wasn't a recommendation at all.
11-09-2020 | 08:36 PM
#199
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
What happened in NY, NJ, and PA wasn’t laughable or fear-monger8ng when the governors committed the next thing to manslaughter sending the elderly with COVID back to long term care. I wouldn’t trust my fate to Emmanuel or Cuomo.
Saying 75 is pretty good age to stop sounds like a recommendation to me. What about Biden at ,78, then?
Saying 75 is pretty good age to stop sounds like a recommendation to me. What about Biden at ,78, then?
Furloughfuntime, I can appreciate the sentiment of not panicking and the initial part of the quote had a strong I statement....but.....I think galaxy flyer is right too, the second sentence shifts towards his general take of the broad American health mentality plus the quote does end with
“ I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
That sounds less like a personal wish and a more broad view of life, and I don’t think that’s a good look given his position.
11-09-2020 | 09:02 PM
#200
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
From: Pilot
This is so devoid of any relevant context that I'm reluctant to even respond. The fact that you had to reach back to views from several centuries ago, propagated by institutions that were not bound by the scientific method as we know it today, in order to justify hyperbolic and superstitious skepticism against scientists today is at once pathetic, hilarious, and sad. The scientific method as we would know it is first recognizable in the 18th/19th centuries. Every example you cite comes from before that time, and is thus a ridiculous comparison without contextualizing the examples you cite. You did not, and I don't think you could if you tried, because this is a patently ridiculous argument.
Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.
The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.
Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.
Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.
The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.
Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.
While science is certainly better at understanding the world than most religion I’d argue problematic bias and political agendas that undermine the scientific method are much more pervasive than you indicate. All too often science mimics the religious dogma it is so critical of.
Peer review is significantly flawed. It is largely an undefined process based on trust, which ironically in of itself is highly unscientific. The belief that peer review is effective is a hypothesis which has yet to be tested.
How ironic.
https://www.biospace.com/article/the...one-about-it-/
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/360.full
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/986508...ience-problems
“I believe in science” is a safe space for new age fundamentalists. Science is about observation, experiments, facts and theories. Belief has nothing to do with it.
Science all too often is used to promote a badge of tribal identity (just like religion). Often, science is now used to bypass any meaningful discussion, rolling problems AND solutions to those problems into one pre-packaged socially acceptable, ideological deal.
No thanks. Proclaiming a belief in current consensus is not science.
Last edited by AntiPeter; 11-09-2020 at 09:24 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
