The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Is Oxygen a Human Right?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Most Americans do not see a federal mandate to wear masks as a violation of their civil liberties:

The American Civil Liberties Union presumably sides with that majority. The right to fresh air is not a right at all, and it has nothing to do with personal liberty. Recirculated carbon dioxide is perfectly functional, thank you very much. Vegans photosynthesize it and so should you!

It is common for re-openers to point out that Covid restrictions hurt the poor the most. While the six-figure professionals are able to work from home, the waiters and shopkeepers are not. The voiceless poor are dying, literally, for things to return to normal, they say. Seems plausible, but it doesn’t manifest itself here. Quite the opposite, in fact.

One potential obstacle in the drive to tie mandated vaccinations–if a mask mandate is fine, what’s wrong with a forced vaccine?–to something like a resumption of normal life in the US is our neurosis over “disparate impact”. If the Costco greeter turns away people who aren’t current on their Covid shots, what happens when community activists start noticing that it is black and brown people who are disproportionately denied entry? When The Science creates an immunization apartheid state, what happens to The Science?

If uneducated white men are the most intransigent, though, the vaccine mandate will be viewed as a smashing success by the powers that be. It looks like that will turn out to be the case.

 
• Category: Economics, Ideology, Science • Tags: Coronavirus, Health, Polling, Science 
Hide 102 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It would be easier for the anti-maskers to lose weight. I understand that it’s difficult enough to breathe without a mask, and even more of a struggle with one, but in the long run, your health will be much improved by taking the opportunity to get rid of all that fat.

    One potential obstacle in the drive to tie mandated vaccinations–if a mask mandate is fine, what’s wrong with a forced vaccine?–to something like a resumption of normal life in the US is our neurosis over “disparate impact”. If the Costco greeter turns away people who aren’t current on their Covid shots, what happens when community activists start noticing that it is black and brown people who are disproportionately denied entry? When The Science creates an immunization apartheid state, what happens to The Science?

    Well, I guess all the immigration from the third world is a good thing after all. Let’s import even more so that we white people can act assimilate to their behaviors!

  2. One potential obstacle in the drive to tie mandated vaccinations–if a mask mandate is fine, what’s wrong with a forced vaccine?–to something like a resumption of normal life in the US is our neurosis over “disparate impact”. If the Costco greeter turns away people who aren’t current on their Covid shots, what happens when community activists start noticing that it is black and brown people who are disproportionately denied entry? When The Science creates an immunization apartheid state, what happens to The Science?

    If uneducated white men are the most intransigent, though, the vaccine mandate will be viewed as a smashing success by the powers that be. It looks like that will turn out to be the case.

    Time to start pushing memes about Bill Gates testing microchips on Africans, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, etc

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    That's basically where we're going. Just look at the progress of 9/11 conspiracy theories demonstrated by this cartoon, later modified:

    https://alexanderturok.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/march-of-the-stupid.jpg

    It seems inevitable as the fraction of the stupid and lazy that doesn't qualify for affirmative action moves from the Left to the Right.

  3. Women shouldn’t be voting. If that had to be mandated via Constitutional amendment, we know the Founders didn’t plan on it. As for mandatory mask wearing, they’d have laughed you out of the meeting hall for even thinking such a thing could ever be thought of in the future.

    I had a talk with the school “resource officer”, meaning cop, today, after a tattle-tale Limey broad told him I’d said some bad words in front of the kids regarding the masks (and stuck my kid’s mask in the bushes to get rid of it). The guy was decent enough, as I thought he agreed with me that the whole thing going on, in elementary school especially, is pretty stupid. Even so, it was “that’s what the school district wants, so we gotta just …” “How much of this stuff are we going to let go on, though?” is what I asked him, and his answer was a non-answer. There aren’t many real Americans left. Our bar would hit the top.

    They can’t even play tag during recess! We will have another temporary escape from stupidity tomorrow at the park.

    It’s a sick country, and that has nothing to do with any bug out of the Orient.

    • Agree: Realist, Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Insouciant
    @Achmed E. Newman

    from the horse's mouth: vaccine is basically meaningless in terms of replacing masking:


    [Tal Zaks, Israeli-educated] chief medical officer at Moderna, says that vaccine trial results only show that they prevent people from getting sick — not necessarily that recipients won't still be able to transmit the virus
    Nov 24, 2020,
    https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-chief-medical-officer-vaccines-interview-2020-11


    Zaks said, "When we start the deployment of this vaccine we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission."
    "I think it's important that we don't change behavior solely on the basis of vaccination," he said.
     
    In other words, (onerous, untested and possibly dangerous but likely to be mandated) vaccination is not a replacement for (onerous, unproven and possibly unhealthy but mandated) masking but an addition to the toolkit of the tyrants.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @SFG
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry, I agree with you on a lot of other stuff, but the Founders most definitely wouldn't have had a problem with mask laws. If anything they would have thought they were common sense, given how much more familiar infectious disease was in their era--smallpox and yellow fever were about ten times as deadly as coronavirus.

    Washington mandated smallpox inoculation for all members of the Continental Army (still controversial at the time as it carried a significant mortality rate, though lower than smallpox) . Jefferson supported the cowpox vaccine. Massachusetts applied quarantine regulations in 1647 to stop yellow fever. Understanding of public health was obviously at a very low level back then (look up some of Ben Rush's treatments for yellow fever), but relatively draconian laws were often supported because everyone understood disease can spread from person to person very quickly.

    Not everything is Red Team, Blue Team. If anything this is going to selectively kill the older populations that represent much of residual America. Keep Grandma alive to vote GOP in 2024--wear a mask!

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Achmed E. Newman

  4. Unfortunately, I think the majority is correct here in the purely technical sense. A mask mandate would not violate any constitutionally protected liberties insofar as I understand the matter. That doesn’t mean that I agree with it or think it’s a good idea. I don’t.

    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional. They took this to mean that I was either a Democrat, or in favor of the ACA, or generally well disposed towards the welfare state. In fact I am none of those things; I was just trying to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution does not mean what they think it means, and it does not protect what they think it protects.

    It was not “activist judges” who created the leftward drift of American jurisprudence. The constitution, being the Masonic product of a rationalist age, is entirely compatible with it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I don’t disagree with you on this, but if we were going by technicalities, there wouldn’t be monstrosities such as Roe vs. Wade. And we would actually have real federalism and the 10th amendment to the Constitution wouldn’t be trashed a s routine.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Wyatt

    , @Jtgw
    @Intelligent Dasein

    What’s remarkable is how even staunch federalists like Ron Paul have cheered on activist federal judges overturning state restrictions, like in Pennsylvania. Not too surprising once you realize all these ideologies are really proxies for ethnic and cultural rivalries, ie rural Appalachian Pennsylvanians don’t want to be told what to do by city slickers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Fine then; let’s just acknowledge what’s actually going on, split the damn state already and let each community make its own policies and control its borders. Then the Appalachians can be free to die from the virus if they wish and the cities don’t have to let them in.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Per/Norway

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You're right, but so is Twinkie. It's been at least half a century (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act), and maybe more like a century (New Deal, Federal Reserve Act), since the judiciary treated the Constitution as if it means what it says it means. Since then, the new "Constitution" is whatever interested parties can get five black robes to write a Jesuitical opinion saying it is. Given this new reality where the Constitution is whatever five of nine bureaucrats in DC (at least three of whom are firmly opposed to the actual Constitution as written) say it is, anyone and everyone is justified (heh) in staking claim to any right as "Constitutional". After all, if a few pages of DC casuistry are all that stand between you and your new "Constitutional right", why shouldn't you try to claim it while you can, before someone else's newly minted "right" gets in the way of yours?

    This isn't the reality I would have preferred, but it is how it is now. One can pontificate about originalism from the sidelines while others rewire the legal system against you, or one can dive in and make the rewiring correspond to something you prefer, maybe to the actual Constitution.

    , @Liberty Mike
    @Intelligent Dasein

    ID:

    (1) the 9th amendment.

    (2) No power was granted to Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    (3) By creating the federal union, the states relinquished the power to interfere with a citizen's exercise of his rights and privileges enjoyed by the whole nation. Naturally, this includes a governor's emergency powers.

    (4) States do not have "plenary" power to impose upon its citizens whatever a temporary majority ordains.

    Replies: @Rich, @Intelligent Dasein

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Intelligent Dasein


    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional.
     
    Roberts is a straightforward, cautious, decent, old-fashioned judge. He has been the best, most trustworthy chief justice the U.S. has had in a long time.

    Right-of-center Americans will miss him when he's gone.

    Power-hungry Leftists that praise the chief justice usually praise him for the wrong reasons, but the chief justice can hardly be blamed for that, any more than he can be blamed for enacting the ACA.

    Regarding the ACA: in 2012, Republicans made the chief justice a scapegoat for the Republicans' own incoherence regarding health-care policy. The ACA was bad legislation but the primary reason Republican congressmen hated it so much was that it exposed the Republicans' longstanding useless (and maybe corrupt) bumbling in the matter. They wanted Roberts to cover their shame. They needed a favorable decision from the court to save face.

    They didn't get the face-saving decision. They've never forgiven Roberts for that.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  5. I would like to refer back to a few threads ago, where Rosie and Twinkie were arguing. Rosie’s boilerplate radical feminist demands that men exist for no reason other than to produce resources that fat feminists like Rosie can consume were unoriginal. In fact, among all ideologies, the claims of radical feminists are the dumbest and most easily debunked. Even Twinkie was able to crush her premises by weight of sheer logic, and was unaffected by her shaming language that would seem dumb if uttered by a 12 year old boy, but somehow does not give an elderly woman pause.

    Here are some resources that deftly crush the premise that Rosie was arguing from (i.e., that men should exist only for the benefit of women, even if there is nothing in it for the man).

    ‘The Fear of Dying Alone’ :
    https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/07/06/fear-dying-alone/

    This means that if you get traditionally married in your 20’s, 30’s, or 40’s with the intention of not dying alone 40 to 70 years later when you’re 90 fucking years old, that means you are literally being stupid. Yes. Stupid. You are stupid if you think the odds are high that the traditional, monogamous, Western wife you have right now at age 35 (or whatever) will still be your wife 55 years later when you’re 90.

    Plus, the entire Better Bachelor channel, with 250,000 subscribers despite having started as late as 2019, has tons of videos that crush Rosie’s logic in seconds :
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BetterBachelor/videos

    Twinkie obviously won under the measure that a civilized society values, which is logic. Rosie may think she won, because womens’ understanding of argumentation is that the winner of the argument is the one who feels less bad after the argument. This, of course, is a level of thinking no more advanced than what existed in 50,000 BC, so does not hold in modern society.

    What is noteworthy is that while 50% of white women still vote Republican, almost no white women are present in White Tr*shionalist communities, other than the occasional aged fag hag like Rosie and Alden. Putting aside what this says about the ‘men’ in this ideology, such females are always radical feminists, since that is in fact the counterpart ideology, that those defective females follow. A couple of those cross into the male tent of their ideology/race from time to time, but only in very small numbers, since being a fag hag is the absolute lowest status level a woman can reside in.

    Don’t get me wrong, though. Rosie and Alden have been invaluable in corroborating that WNs are overwhelmingly gay. This fact is not mutually exclusive with their own status as fag hags of the White Tr*shionalist community.

    • Agree: JohnPlywood
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Thomm

    That blog promotes "open marriage," i.e. cuckoldry, no thanks. I'm inherently suspicious of any kind of PUA because so many of them are Trump cultists, though not Roosh or Roissy, to their credit.

    Rosie is ok. She's not a radical feminist, she's a tradcon. Actual monogamy worked fairly well through most of human history; the issue is that there are many sluts who decide at age 38 that they need to be married so they suddenly, so they go to church and then say "put a ring on it, your bible commands you to!" The whole of modern feminism depends on the assumption that when women do decide they are "ready for marriage" there will be a man standing by to provide it. Thus, tradcons, including Rosie, often act as the feminists' useful idiots by applying traditional pro-marriage sentiment against men wary of marrying the sluts. But they aren't feminists themselves and they aren't the primary problem.

    Replies: @SFG

  6. Blacks won’t go for getting vaccinations. Ten what?

  7. @Intelligent Dasein
    Unfortunately, I think the majority is correct here in the purely technical sense. A mask mandate would not violate any constitutionally protected liberties insofar as I understand the matter. That doesn't mean that I agree with it or think it's a good idea. I don't.

    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts' decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional. They took this to mean that I was either a Democrat, or in favor of the ACA, or generally well disposed towards the welfare state. In fact I am none of those things; I was just trying to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution does not mean what they think it means, and it does not protect what they think it protects.

    It was not "activist judges" who created the leftward drift of American jurisprudence. The constitution, being the Masonic product of a rationalist age, is entirely compatible with it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jtgw, @Almost Missouri, @Liberty Mike, @V. K. Ovelund

    I don’t disagree with you on this, but if we were going by technicalities, there wouldn’t be monstrosities such as Roe vs. Wade. And we would actually have real federalism and the 10th amendment to the Constitution wouldn’t be trashed a s routine.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Twinkie

    Thank you, Twinkie. I didn't know if it'd do a damn bit of good to mention Amendment X again in these times, with even real Conservatives not caring about it.

    Assuming Amendment X were blown off yet again, any national mandate would be suspect under Amendment IV grounds anyway. I will not comply no matter what. Diaper-wearing Joe Biden may have made his decision - now let him enforce it.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

    , @Wyatt
    @Twinkie

    Not many people point out the absurdities of Obamacare either. Congress made it illegal to not have health insurance and stiffed people who couldn't afford it with a $700 fine. All they did was criminalize normal poor people to pay for redistribution to primarily blacks and hispanics. Congress may have given federal agencies the power to issue fines, but I've yet to find the clause in the Constitution to actually levy them. And what's wrong with the 10th Amendment being used to shut this stupid horseshit down?

  8. The mask rule actually hits the poor whites much more, and this is particularly visible in Europe

    Enforcing the mask rule requires a particularly intrusive style of policing … which is received in Europe as a direct assault on migrant-heritage communities, and there is a fair amount of group violence against police that results if police try to enforce the rules in such places

    Migrant-heritage people already tend to hang out much more together in the streets, the maintainance of street community life being one of their virtues … so police doing something against foreign-heritage people in cities, will tend to quickly gather a crowd, often hostile

    So the unspoken result, is that police aren’t bothering to create a large pile of trouble for themselves, and tend to leave the migrant communities alone, mask or no mask

    Whereas there is less chance of negative consequance for police, in imposing fines on disobedient white people

    • Replies: @Technite78
    @brabantian

    Yes, this.

    Mandates, curfews, business closures, etc. disproportionally affect law-abiding citizens, and are particularly ineffective against groups that are chronically scofflaws. They make people feel like "something is being done", while in reality it has very little effect on reducing the spread of the virus.

    Unfortunately, that's what we're stuck with. When it's in most people's short term self-interest to ignore reality, reality will be ignored.

    , @Jtgw
    @brabantian

    How much of the latest wave in the US and Europe is to do with incorrigible black and brown people refusing to follow the law? Deplorable minds want to know.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Pop Warner, @Audacious Epigone

  9. How long before we start burning non-maskers for their dark magic that makes it possible for them to live without a mask?

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @The Alarmist

    I expect the festivities will begin any day now.

  10. I personally find it incredible that the Government now is allowed to determine how many people from your own family you are allowed to see in your own house, and no one bats an eyelash.

    Government should not determine ANYTHING related to your personal or health behaviour.

    Absolutist monarchies were freer that the current “Democratic” progressive rulers by decree.

    And this goes beyond the fake “Covid”, it’s a new paradigm:

    https://d-dean.medium.com/biosecurity-and-politics-giorgio-agamben-396f9ab3b6f4

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    Absolutist monarchies were freer that the current “Democratic” progressive rulers by decree.
     
    Autocracies always end up being freer than democracies. Democracy leads inevitably to totalitarianism. Usually soft totalitarianism, but totalitarianism nonetheless.

    Autocracies don't give a damn what people do or say as long as they're not trying to overthrow the government.
  11. @brabantian
    The mask rule actually hits the poor whites much more, and this is particularly visible in Europe

    Enforcing the mask rule requires a particularly intrusive style of policing ... which is received in Europe as a direct assault on migrant-heritage communities, and there is a fair amount of group violence against police that results if police try to enforce the rules in such places

    Migrant-heritage people already tend to hang out much more together in the streets, the maintainance of street community life being one of their virtues ... so police doing something against foreign-heritage people in cities, will tend to quickly gather a crowd, often hostile

    So the unspoken result, is that police aren't bothering to create a large pile of trouble for themselves, and tend to leave the migrant communities alone, mask or no mask

    Whereas there is less chance of negative consequance for police, in imposing fines on disobedient white people

    Replies: @Technite78, @Jtgw

    Yes, this.

    Mandates, curfews, business closures, etc. disproportionally affect law-abiding citizens, and are particularly ineffective against groups that are chronically scofflaws. They make people feel like “something is being done”, while in reality it has very little effect on reducing the spread of the virus.

    Unfortunately, that’s what we’re stuck with. When it’s in most people’s short term self-interest to ignore reality, reality will be ignored.

  12. @Intelligent Dasein
    Unfortunately, I think the majority is correct here in the purely technical sense. A mask mandate would not violate any constitutionally protected liberties insofar as I understand the matter. That doesn't mean that I agree with it or think it's a good idea. I don't.

    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts' decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional. They took this to mean that I was either a Democrat, or in favor of the ACA, or generally well disposed towards the welfare state. In fact I am none of those things; I was just trying to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution does not mean what they think it means, and it does not protect what they think it protects.

    It was not "activist judges" who created the leftward drift of American jurisprudence. The constitution, being the Masonic product of a rationalist age, is entirely compatible with it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jtgw, @Almost Missouri, @Liberty Mike, @V. K. Ovelund

    What’s remarkable is how even staunch federalists like Ron Paul have cheered on activist federal judges overturning state restrictions, like in Pennsylvania. Not too surprising once you realize all these ideologies are really proxies for ethnic and cultural rivalries, ie rural Appalachian Pennsylvanians don’t want to be told what to do by city slickers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Fine then; let’s just acknowledge what’s actually going on, split the damn state already and let each community make its own policies and control its borders. Then the Appalachians can be free to die from the virus if they wish and the cities don’t have to let them in.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    @Jtgw

    Perhaps you misapprehend federalism.

    It is not rooted in the proposition that a state has the power to burden the exercise of privileges and immunities enjoyed by all of the citizens of the United States.

    Rather, federalism is designed to protect individual liberty and private property by (1) using the federal government, particularly activist judges, to rebuke states which overstep their bounds, and (2) using state governments, particularly activist judges, to keep the feds in place.

    Ron Paul is being entirely consistent.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    , @Per/Norway
    @Jtgw

    i guess your cities produce ALL their foodstuffs internally so those pesky non believers in government and their hostility against you covidian cult members are not needed.
    You are low iq high emotion and YOU are one off the reasons the US now is a third world 🍌republic🤷‍♂️
    That people like you manage to tie your shoes and breathe is beyond my ability to understand, i do however understand how people like you managed to destroy civilization.

    Replies: @Jtgw

  13. @brabantian
    The mask rule actually hits the poor whites much more, and this is particularly visible in Europe

    Enforcing the mask rule requires a particularly intrusive style of policing ... which is received in Europe as a direct assault on migrant-heritage communities, and there is a fair amount of group violence against police that results if police try to enforce the rules in such places

    Migrant-heritage people already tend to hang out much more together in the streets, the maintainance of street community life being one of their virtues ... so police doing something against foreign-heritage people in cities, will tend to quickly gather a crowd, often hostile

    So the unspoken result, is that police aren't bothering to create a large pile of trouble for themselves, and tend to leave the migrant communities alone, mask or no mask

    Whereas there is less chance of negative consequance for police, in imposing fines on disobedient white people

    Replies: @Technite78, @Jtgw

    How much of the latest wave in the US and Europe is to do with incorrigible black and brown people refusing to follow the law? Deplorable minds want to know.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Jtgw

    FaceDiaper mandates are not "law".

    Replies: @Jtgw

    , @Pop Warner
    @Jtgw

    When the stories of hospitals in El Paso reaching capacity started streaming out I wondered if the small white population there was behind it all.

    Replies: @anon

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Jtgw

    The higher number of cases in the US seems to have to do primarily with higher PCR tests and more of them. It is remarkable how it is impossible tell by looking at graphs of Covid deaths and hospitalizations by state and/or by country what preventative measures--if any--said states and/or countries have taken to allegedly control the disease. South Dakota has done much better than California. These mandates are madness.

  14. Interesting how the left wing media deliberately dismissed concerns about Covid in January and February when the Trump administration had the opportunity to close the borders and suppress the virus. Once it established itself in the US the only rational way to control it is through mass suspension of personal liberties. Question is whether this was deliberate conspiracy as part of Great Reset agenda or just the neoliberal elite being stupid again (Brad Griffins theory). Does seem that the restrictions have given not only government but also big tech companies huge competitive advantages, so make of that what you will.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Jtgw

    Probably just stupidity, but evil people have a way of using their own blunders to exploit weaker people. With cynical and inept rulers who just want to enrich themselves, every pretext, no matter how just (like ppreventing death from disease), eventually finds its way back to punishing the nation and rewarding their oppressors.

    Largely the western world has gotten almost all the worst aspects of shutting down public life with very little of the theoretical benefit. With no lockdowns (a very bad option) there's more death but also more normal life, with an early heavy lockdown and international travel moratorium (a simple yet ideologically impossible option for our exploitational elites) the virus might have been basically eradicated by now, but with a short term end to public life. But they opted for the middle path, of long-term devastation to public life and local business, and little health benefit (barring significant vaccination of the population, the same number of people, probably around 66% certainly will get the virus).

  15. @Twinkie
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I don’t disagree with you on this, but if we were going by technicalities, there wouldn’t be monstrosities such as Roe vs. Wade. And we would actually have real federalism and the 10th amendment to the Constitution wouldn’t be trashed a s routine.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Wyatt

    Thank you, Twinkie. I didn’t know if it’d do a damn bit of good to mention Amendment X again in these times, with even real Conservatives not caring about it.

    Assuming Amendment X were blown off yet again, any national mandate would be suspect under Amendment IV grounds anyway. I will not comply no matter what. Diaper-wearing Joe Biden may have made his decision – now let him enforce it.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why do you fall for such non-sense?

    Of course, you have a constitutional right to breathe unobstructed by diapering mandates. The right is rooted in the 9th Amendment along with the fact that there is no grant of power given Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  16. anonymous[158] • Disclaimer says:

    There are probably lots of subtle contradictions impeding dumb analogies for forced vaccination. A prior, bigger obstacle is that the law stipulates that these emergency experimental vaccines cannot be mandated.

    Policymakers come out and say their plan is to coerce vaccination by having private entities make your rights conditional on proof of vaccination. That includes your common law rights to assembly, to travel freely in your country, to leave and return to your country, and even your access to food at retail stores.

    This of course is state failure to protect your rights, which is prohibited by the continuity of obligations principle. While public health can justify tightly-restricted human rights derogations, freedom from mass medical experimentation is not derogable. So human rights law can help answer these normative questions, if people actually look at what it says.

  17. @Intelligent Dasein
    Unfortunately, I think the majority is correct here in the purely technical sense. A mask mandate would not violate any constitutionally protected liberties insofar as I understand the matter. That doesn't mean that I agree with it or think it's a good idea. I don't.

    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts' decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional. They took this to mean that I was either a Democrat, or in favor of the ACA, or generally well disposed towards the welfare state. In fact I am none of those things; I was just trying to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution does not mean what they think it means, and it does not protect what they think it protects.

    It was not "activist judges" who created the leftward drift of American jurisprudence. The constitution, being the Masonic product of a rationalist age, is entirely compatible with it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jtgw, @Almost Missouri, @Liberty Mike, @V. K. Ovelund

    You’re right, but so is Twinkie. It’s been at least half a century (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act), and maybe more like a century (New Deal, Federal Reserve Act), since the judiciary treated the Constitution as if it means what it says it means. Since then, the new “Constitution” is whatever interested parties can get five black robes to write a Jesuitical opinion saying it is. Given this new reality where the Constitution is whatever five of nine bureaucrats in DC (at least three of whom are firmly opposed to the actual Constitution as written) say it is, anyone and everyone is justified (heh) in staking claim to any right as “Constitutional”. After all, if a few pages of DC casuistry are all that stand between you and your new “Constitutional right”, why shouldn’t you try to claim it while you can, before someone else’s newly minted “right” gets in the way of yours?

    This isn’t the reality I would have preferred, but it is how it is now. One can pontificate about originalism from the sidelines while others rewire the legal system against you, or one can dive in and make the rewiring correspond to something you prefer, maybe to the actual Constitution.

  18. The American Civil Liberties Union presumably sides with that majority. The right to fresh air is not a right at all, and it has nothing to do with personal liberty. Recirculated carbon dioxide is perfectly functional, thank you very much. Vegans photosynthesize it and so should you!

    Oh good grief, AE.

    The debate as to whether a mask mandate is a violation of an individual right seems to me resolved – predicated on the effectiveness of masks primarily against spread from the wearer – in consideration that in a more deadly pandemic there would be no debate. Thus it’s a judgement call of elected officials in evaluation of the public health concern. People may of course criticize the judgement all they want, and officers are held accountable in their leadership in public regard and elections, but the decent thing to do – apart from a circumstance of popular revolt against obvious over-reactive mandates – is to just follow the mandates in solidarity with the general public.

    More generally, individual rights are somewhat provisional: any society facing a genuine major emergency, such as famine, plague or war, will of necessity consent to their government taking up authoritarian powers relevant to the emergency.

  19. @Twinkie
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I don’t disagree with you on this, but if we were going by technicalities, there wouldn’t be monstrosities such as Roe vs. Wade. And we would actually have real federalism and the 10th amendment to the Constitution wouldn’t be trashed a s routine.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Wyatt

    Not many people point out the absurdities of Obamacare either. Congress made it illegal to not have health insurance and stiffed people who couldn’t afford it with a $700 fine. All they did was criminalize normal poor people to pay for redistribution to primarily blacks and hispanics. Congress may have given federal agencies the power to issue fines, but I’ve yet to find the clause in the Constitution to actually levy them. And what’s wrong with the 10th Amendment being used to shut this stupid horseshit down?

  20. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    One potential obstacle in the drive to tie mandated vaccinations–if a mask mandate is fine, what’s wrong with a forced vaccine?–to something like a resumption of normal life in the US is our neurosis over “disparate impact”. If the Costco greeter turns away people who aren’t current on their Covid shots, what happens when community activists start noticing that it is black and brown people who are disproportionately denied entry? When The Science creates an immunization apartheid state, what happens to The Science?

    If uneducated white men are the most intransigent, though, the vaccine mandate will be viewed as a smashing success by the powers that be. It looks like that will turn out to be the case.
     
    Time to start pushing memes about Bill Gates testing microchips on Africans, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, etc

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    That’s basically where we’re going. Just look at the progress of 9/11 conspiracy theories demonstrated by this cartoon, later modified:

    It seems inevitable as the fraction of the stupid and lazy that doesn’t qualify for affirmative action moves from the Left to the Right.

  21. There’s a lot of anger over liberty violation here, what would you guys think of my liberty restoration plan?

    https://alexanderturok.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/corona-my-liberty-restoration-plan/

  22. @Jtgw
    Interesting how the left wing media deliberately dismissed concerns about Covid in January and February when the Trump administration had the opportunity to close the borders and suppress the virus. Once it established itself in the US the only rational way to control it is through mass suspension of personal liberties. Question is whether this was deliberate conspiracy as part of Great Reset agenda or just the neoliberal elite being stupid again (Brad Griffins theory). Does seem that the restrictions have given not only government but also big tech companies huge competitive advantages, so make of that what you will.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Probably just stupidity, but evil people have a way of using their own blunders to exploit weaker people. With cynical and inept rulers who just want to enrich themselves, every pretext, no matter how just (like ppreventing death from disease), eventually finds its way back to punishing the nation and rewarding their oppressors.

    Largely the western world has gotten almost all the worst aspects of shutting down public life with very little of the theoretical benefit. With no lockdowns (a very bad option) there’s more death but also more normal life, with an early heavy lockdown and international travel moratorium (a simple yet ideologically impossible option for our exploitational elites) the virus might have been basically eradicated by now, but with a short term end to public life. But they opted for the middle path, of long-term devastation to public life and local business, and little health benefit (barring significant vaccination of the population, the same number of people, probably around 66% certainly will get the virus).

    • Agree: Jtgw
  23. Mass culling of minks to protect the COVID-19 vaccines: is it rational

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520301682

    Abstract

    The Danish Government announced the culling of 17 million minks in rearing after the report of mink-specific mutations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in humans. The rationale behind this decision is that these mutations might negatively impact the deployment of anti-coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. Is it a precautionary attitude or a panic-driven overreaction?

    “First they came for the minks, but I was not a mink; then they came for …”

  24. The most important function of natural selection is quality control, for natural selection to work properly people must be free to make choices. In most current human societies, threats have been largely eliminated, the only selection criteria is how many offspring one can bang out. When breeding rate is the only trait being selected for you get creatures such as the Dodo (or its human equivalent)

    People should have the right to choose between risking an experimental vaccine or taking their chances with the virus, if one of those choices proves to be fatal then so be it. Personally I will take my chances with the virus, my immune system is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution and has served me well for many decades.

    I have no issues with compulsory mask wearing in confined spaces in unavoidable public places such as shops and public transport, they may not protect the wearer worth a damn but they do at least reduce the quantity of aerosols emitted by the infected. Natural selection must be based on your own choices, not someone else’s.

  25. Most Americans do not see a federal mandate to wear masks as a violation of their civil liberties:

    This does not surprise intelligent Americans. Most Americans are dumb as a rope…that is why this country is on the shit slide to hell.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Realist


    This does not surprise intelligent Americans. Most Americans are dumb as a rope…that is why this country is on the shit slide to hell.
     
    Amen.

    The average Ameritard can barely make it through the checkout line anymore.

    Replies: @Realist

  26. It’s obviously not a violation.
    The State making you wear a mask against your will isn’t at all different from the State obliging you wear CLOTHES against your will. The only subtlety is that there’re better counter-arguments regarding not wearing CLOTHES.

    In fact, people who wanted to be nude in public got their cases to the Supreme Court (twice (!), if I’m not mistaken), and they got rejected. (Fortunately, I’d say.)

    Silly conservatives don’t realise that if they make “the State CAN’T make me wear a mask” into a right, the ramifications, it follows, are “the State has no authority over what I do or don’t wear” – hence, nudists (who are, broadly, left-wingers) would be sooo PLEASED with the Right’s (once again!) lack of forethought.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    You make some good points...one can also point out that the states force you to get liability insurance before they allow you to drive a car on the streets.

    This is not a slam dunk discussion. I don't know where the right balance lies when it comes to concerns for the health of the community versus individual rights, frankly. I don't know if we'll ever find the right balance because of the variables at play for a nation so large; reliability of data, politicization of the situation, variances of the deadliness of the disease and vectors, regional attitudes, etc.

    I mean, if there is an outbreak of an extremely deadly virus in a specific town (I'm talking a real, credible threat), can you quarantine that town and not let people in or out? I think you would get different answers based on which region you asked.

    Peace.

    , @Alexander Turok
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Most of these people are just less honest versions of liberals who believe in a "living constitution," whereby it's obvious that the constitution's protections only ever apply to the ingroup and never the outgroup.

    , @Vergissmeinnicht
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    An even better example than nudists would be… feminists who want to be topless in public – do these conservatives realise that if they indeed make "the State CAN'T me wear a mask, or anything!" into a 'right' they are inadvertently helping Free-the-Nipple feminists?

    Or porn actors having to wear condoms. Remember that? I recall LA wanted to make its porn actors wear condoms. It didn't happen, after all. I guess they figured the Porn Industry would just move to another city or state and LA would lose a lot of money because of it…
    The point is NOT if it's a good idea to make porn actors wear condoms or, by the same token, make people wear masks in this particular situation we're in. (Frankly, I dunno!) The point is if the State can make you wear clothes – or, by the same token, masks.
    Imagine if America was a 'real' country, y'know, like it used to be¹… that is, you can trust your politicians because everyone's in the same boat and, out of the blue, unfortunately, a TRULY catastrophic pandemic emerges – would you still be against masks?
    (In the example above, perhaps having the people wear masks was a mistake – mistake or not, one thing's certain: in that 'real' country scenario above, the unfortunate mistakes made were in GOOD-FAITH!)
    I really CAN'T think of any argument against the State being the authority over whether you're gonna wear clothes in public or, alternatively, masks in public which are NOT 'thin' Right-Libertarian arguments… (which is a BS ideology, BTW.)

    Frankly, that the State can indeed make you wear a mask during a designated pandemic against your will, seems pretty obvious to me – for me, it's HARDER to find reasons the State can make you wear clothes in public! Apparently, in some European countries you can go completely nude in public! (Or, at least, in certain areas.) (No, I ain't talking about 'nude beaches'; d'oh, those ya'll can find even in 'Murica.)
    I know… this is, of course, a race-dependent issue: it's well-known the burqa is an evolutionary adaptation for in-group cooperation – if your woman is clothed there's no danger other men would find her attractive, hence you won't be cuckolded.
    However, I am NOT talking about 'normal' people, like Arabs, I'm indeed talking about W.E.I.R.D. people (read: White people)!

    1. Admittedly, my 'real-country' scenario above is too idyllic – it's always important to be sceptic of the Gov't. Not trusting your Gov't blindly literally fights corruption and what-not.

  27. @Jtgw
    @Intelligent Dasein

    What’s remarkable is how even staunch federalists like Ron Paul have cheered on activist federal judges overturning state restrictions, like in Pennsylvania. Not too surprising once you realize all these ideologies are really proxies for ethnic and cultural rivalries, ie rural Appalachian Pennsylvanians don’t want to be told what to do by city slickers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Fine then; let’s just acknowledge what’s actually going on, split the damn state already and let each community make its own policies and control its borders. Then the Appalachians can be free to die from the virus if they wish and the cities don’t have to let them in.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Per/Norway

    Perhaps you misapprehend federalism.

    It is not rooted in the proposition that a state has the power to burden the exercise of privileges and immunities enjoyed by all of the citizens of the United States.

    Rather, federalism is designed to protect individual liberty and private property by (1) using the federal government, particularly activist judges, to rebuke states which overstep their bounds, and (2) using state governments, particularly activist judges, to keep the feds in place.

    Ron Paul is being entirely consistent.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Liberty Mike

    That sounds nice until you realize people have widely different conceptions of individual rights and obligations and should be reflected in political pluralism. When you encourage judicial activism and centralization in one area it tends to bite you in the ass later.

  28. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Twinkie

    Thank you, Twinkie. I didn't know if it'd do a damn bit of good to mention Amendment X again in these times, with even real Conservatives not caring about it.

    Assuming Amendment X were blown off yet again, any national mandate would be suspect under Amendment IV grounds anyway. I will not comply no matter what. Diaper-wearing Joe Biden may have made his decision - now let him enforce it.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

    Why do you fall for such non-sense?

    Of course, you have a constitutional right to breathe unobstructed by diapering mandates. The right is rooted in the 9th Amendment along with the fact that there is no grant of power given Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Liberty Mike

    Mike, your last sentence is pretty much an Amendment X issue. Of course, there is no such power given. The States and the people reserve the powers not granted in the Constitution to the Fed, but I'm pretty sure every one of their constitutions do not allow for Governors doing anything of this sort for longer than what an "emergency" is defined as, which is month or so.

    I'm not sure why you are arguing with me, or did you mean to reply to someone else? We're on the same side on this.

  29. @Intelligent Dasein
    Unfortunately, I think the majority is correct here in the purely technical sense. A mask mandate would not violate any constitutionally protected liberties insofar as I understand the matter. That doesn't mean that I agree with it or think it's a good idea. I don't.

    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts' decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional. They took this to mean that I was either a Democrat, or in favor of the ACA, or generally well disposed towards the welfare state. In fact I am none of those things; I was just trying to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution does not mean what they think it means, and it does not protect what they think it protects.

    It was not "activist judges" who created the leftward drift of American jurisprudence. The constitution, being the Masonic product of a rationalist age, is entirely compatible with it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jtgw, @Almost Missouri, @Liberty Mike, @V. K. Ovelund

    ID:

    (1) the 9th amendment.

    (2) No power was granted to Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    (3) By creating the federal union, the states relinquished the power to interfere with a citizen’s exercise of his rights and privileges enjoyed by the whole nation. Naturally, this includes a governor’s emergency powers.

    (4) States do not have “plenary” power to impose upon its citizens whatever a temporary majority ordains.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @Liberty Mike

    You're right, Mike, but the Constitution also doesn't give the feds the right to forcefully integrate schools or lunch counters, or to force states to allow abortion or homosexual "marriage", but our tyrants in black robes have made it say whatever they want it to say. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, we are a banana republic.

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @Liberty Mike


    (2) No power was granted to Congress to mandate face-diapers.
     
    The general realpolitik principle here is that governments, howsoever legally constituted, are always extended broad latitude to govern in the de facto sense. "The government has the right to govern," if you prefer.

    This means two things: 1) Any effective system of checks and balances must be rooted in contending centers of actual power and not in a mere theoretical framework; and 2) The character and quality of the men in power matters a great deal. Regardless of the written constitution, the government you actually get will be the expression of the will of the man at the top modulo the wills of others with the power to limit him.
  30. @Jtgw
    @brabantian

    How much of the latest wave in the US and Europe is to do with incorrigible black and brown people refusing to follow the law? Deplorable minds want to know.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Pop Warner, @Audacious Epigone

    FaceDiaper mandates are not “law”.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Adam Smith

    Private covenant communities would absolutely have mandate to require masks or anything else useful in controlling a pandemic. The idea we each have an inalienable right to impose costs on others is retarded.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

  31. @Vergissmeinnicht
    It's obviously not a violation.
    The State making you wear a mask against your will isn't at all different from the State obliging you wear CLOTHES against your will. The only subtlety is that there're better counter-arguments regarding not wearing CLOTHES.

    In fact, people who wanted to be nude in public got their cases to the Supreme Court (twice (!), if I'm not mistaken), and they got rejected. (Fortunately, I'd say.)

    Silly conservatives don't realise that if they make "the State CAN'T make me wear a mask" into a right, the ramifications, it follows, are "the State has no authority over what I do or don't wear" – hence, nudists (who are, broadly, left-wingers) would be sooo PLEASED with the Right's (once again!) lack of forethought.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexander Turok, @Vergissmeinnicht

    You make some good points…one can also point out that the states force you to get liability insurance before they allow you to drive a car on the streets.

    This is not a slam dunk discussion. I don’t know where the right balance lies when it comes to concerns for the health of the community versus individual rights, frankly. I don’t know if we’ll ever find the right balance because of the variables at play for a nation so large; reliability of data, politicization of the situation, variances of the deadliness of the disease and vectors, regional attitudes, etc.

    I mean, if there is an outbreak of an extremely deadly virus in a specific town (I’m talking a real, credible threat), can you quarantine that town and not let people in or out? I think you would get different answers based on which region you asked.

    Peace.

  32. @Liberty Mike
    @Intelligent Dasein

    ID:

    (1) the 9th amendment.

    (2) No power was granted to Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    (3) By creating the federal union, the states relinquished the power to interfere with a citizen's exercise of his rights and privileges enjoyed by the whole nation. Naturally, this includes a governor's emergency powers.

    (4) States do not have "plenary" power to impose upon its citizens whatever a temporary majority ordains.

    Replies: @Rich, @Intelligent Dasein

    You’re right, Mike, but the Constitution also doesn’t give the feds the right to forcefully integrate schools or lunch counters, or to force states to allow abortion or homosexual “marriage”, but our tyrants in black robes have made it say whatever they want it to say. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, we are a banana republic.

  33. Question for Audacious Epigone or whoever else regarding a post from a couple weeks ago:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/category/ideology/2020/11/11/

    I am wondering if anybody has had success extracting the percentage of Biden-voting Asians who view BLM unfavorably? I suspect the figure will be similar to the Hispanic one, but would like to see for sure.

  34. Actually I answered my own question. I was able to reverse engineer from the exit polls the percent of Asian/Other (can’t separate them) that view BLM unfavorably from the CNN link in the post. 25% is the answer:

    So they are halfway between Biden-voting Whites and Biden-voting Hispanics.

  35. Previous data was wrong, apologies. This one is correct:

    Original message read:

    “Actually I answered my own question. I was able to reverse engineer from the exit polls the percent of Asian/Other (can’t separate them) that view BLM unfavorably from the CNN link in the post. 25% is the answer:

    So they are halfway between Biden-voting Whites and Biden-voting Hispanics.”

    In reality Biden-voting Asian/Other are closer to Biden-voting Whites than Biden-voting Hispanics.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @33rht86

    Did fewer than 50% of Asian/other vote for Biden? They voted for Biden at a lower rate than white college graduates? Where is the source for the data?

  36. @Vergissmeinnicht
    It's obviously not a violation.
    The State making you wear a mask against your will isn't at all different from the State obliging you wear CLOTHES against your will. The only subtlety is that there're better counter-arguments regarding not wearing CLOTHES.

    In fact, people who wanted to be nude in public got their cases to the Supreme Court (twice (!), if I'm not mistaken), and they got rejected. (Fortunately, I'd say.)

    Silly conservatives don't realise that if they make "the State CAN'T make me wear a mask" into a right, the ramifications, it follows, are "the State has no authority over what I do or don't wear" – hence, nudists (who are, broadly, left-wingers) would be sooo PLEASED with the Right's (once again!) lack of forethought.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexander Turok, @Vergissmeinnicht

    Most of these people are just less honest versions of liberals who believe in a “living constitution,” whereby it’s obvious that the constitution’s protections only ever apply to the ingroup and never the outgroup.

  37. @Adam Smith
    @Jtgw

    FaceDiaper mandates are not "law".

    Replies: @Jtgw

    Private covenant communities would absolutely have mandate to require masks or anything else useful in controlling a pandemic. The idea we each have an inalienable right to impose costs on others is retarded.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Jtgw

    A covenant is a contract that sets up a homeowners association or other such entity. I seriously doubt any real estate covenant contract includes language that gives the homeowners association power over a tenant's healthcare or any so called "mandate to require masks or anything else useful in controlling a pandemic". Oddly enough, most real estate covenants are unenforceable.


    The idea we each have an inalienable right to impose costs on others is retarded.
     
    I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot rightfully impose costs or duties on you, anymore than you can rightfully impose costs or duties on me. How you handle your healthcare is none of my damn business. I expect the same courtesy.

    The idea that a mass hypnosis, mass hysteria event gives "government" or anyone else permission to abrogate our inalienable rights is retarded.

    I hope you have a nice evening.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jtgw

  38. It really hit me today, surrounded by masked morons, how absurd this all is. This has been going on for NINE MONTHS now. There are no bodies piled up in the street, no mass graves. If not for the hysteria, nobody would know there was supposedly a plague. Will it EVER END? I’m a very patient man, but enough is enough.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Catdog

    Agree!

    Panicfest and the resulting mass hysteria is getting really, really old.

    If the most sinister of viruses even remotely lived up to the media hype, grocery store cashiers all across the land would be dropping like flies. No one would be debating whether or not this is the plague and the numbers would not be so obviously fraudulent.

    If the pro-panicers, facediaperers and gesundheitsführers have their way we'll all be living in dystopia forever.

    Enough is enough.

  39. @Liberty Mike
    @Jtgw

    Perhaps you misapprehend federalism.

    It is not rooted in the proposition that a state has the power to burden the exercise of privileges and immunities enjoyed by all of the citizens of the United States.

    Rather, federalism is designed to protect individual liberty and private property by (1) using the federal government, particularly activist judges, to rebuke states which overstep their bounds, and (2) using state governments, particularly activist judges, to keep the feds in place.

    Ron Paul is being entirely consistent.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    That sounds nice until you realize people have widely different conceptions of individual rights and obligations and should be reflected in political pluralism. When you encourage judicial activism and centralization in one area it tends to bite you in the ass later.

  40. @Jtgw
    @Intelligent Dasein

    What’s remarkable is how even staunch federalists like Ron Paul have cheered on activist federal judges overturning state restrictions, like in Pennsylvania. Not too surprising once you realize all these ideologies are really proxies for ethnic and cultural rivalries, ie rural Appalachian Pennsylvanians don’t want to be told what to do by city slickers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Fine then; let’s just acknowledge what’s actually going on, split the damn state already and let each community make its own policies and control its borders. Then the Appalachians can be free to die from the virus if they wish and the cities don’t have to let them in.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Per/Norway

    i guess your cities produce ALL their foodstuffs internally so those pesky non believers in government and their hostility against you covidian cult members are not needed.
    You are low iq high emotion and YOU are one off the reasons the US now is a third world 🍌republic🤷‍♂️
    That people like you manage to tie your shoes and breathe is beyond my ability to understand, i do however understand how people like you managed to destroy civilization.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Per/Norway

    I’m really starting to appreciate how both sides are full of idiots. Covid denial vs HBD denial.

  41. Working class doesn’t want to be forced to choose between Covid and starvation. Talking about the right to go to work and get sick is tone deaf.

  42. @Intelligent Dasein
    Unfortunately, I think the majority is correct here in the purely technical sense. A mask mandate would not violate any constitutionally protected liberties insofar as I understand the matter. That doesn't mean that I agree with it or think it's a good idea. I don't.

    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts' decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional. They took this to mean that I was either a Democrat, or in favor of the ACA, or generally well disposed towards the welfare state. In fact I am none of those things; I was just trying to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution does not mean what they think it means, and it does not protect what they think it protects.

    It was not "activist judges" who created the leftward drift of American jurisprudence. The constitution, being the Masonic product of a rationalist age, is entirely compatible with it.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jtgw, @Almost Missouri, @Liberty Mike, @V. K. Ovelund

    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional.

    Roberts is a straightforward, cautious, decent, old-fashioned judge. He has been the best, most trustworthy chief justice the U.S. has had in a long time.

    Right-of-center Americans will miss him when he’s gone.

    [MORE]

    Power-hungry Leftists that praise the chief justice usually praise him for the wrong reasons, but the chief justice can hardly be blamed for that, any more than he can be blamed for enacting the ACA.

    Regarding the ACA: in 2012, Republicans made the chief justice a scapegoat for the Republicans’ own incoherence regarding health-care policy. The ACA was bad legislation but the primary reason Republican congressmen hated it so much was that it exposed the Republicans’ longstanding useless (and maybe corrupt) bumbling in the matter. They wanted Roberts to cover their shame. They needed a favorable decision from the court to save face.

    They didn’t get the face-saving decision. They’ve never forgiven Roberts for that.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Judge Roberts was bought off like a $50 Vegas prostitute back in '09 on the Obamacare ruling. "It's a tax, if that helps. If it doesn't, no, it's not a tax." The ACA was clearly not Constitution, just based on Amendment X alone.

    As I remember very clearly, the votes were against this government-run health care crap until people kept folding in the Senate, and when we thought the Supreme Court would rule based on the Constitution, Roberts cucked out. No, I don't trust this guy, Dr. Ovelund, sorry.

  43. Roberts is a straightforward, cautious, decent, old-fashioned judge. He has been the best, most trustworthy chief justice the U.S. has had in a long time.

    Right-of-center Americans will miss him when he’s gone.

    I have to disagree. Roberts is not really left or right. He has a very eclectic “detached judicial philosophy” that is not particularly grounded in the U.S. Constitution.

    Obama said the ACA penalty was not a tax. So did Schumer. So did Pelosi. So did essentially every other Democrat. Detached Roberts ignored what Democrats said to pass the bill and looked only at what they wrote. So, the Roberts ACA decision was essentially, “Obama Lied & You Chumps Bought It”.

    Roberts total absence of context presents an extremely high risk proposition. His flawed philosophy could easily lead to unintended consequences from drafting errors in lengthy pieces of legislation.

    PEACE 😇

  44. @Jtgw
    @Adam Smith

    Private covenant communities would absolutely have mandate to require masks or anything else useful in controlling a pandemic. The idea we each have an inalienable right to impose costs on others is retarded.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    A covenant is a contract that sets up a homeowners association or other such entity. I seriously doubt any real estate covenant contract includes language that gives the homeowners association power over a tenant’s healthcare or any so called “mandate to require masks or anything else useful in controlling a pandemic”. Oddly enough, most real estate covenants are unenforceable.

    The idea we each have an inalienable right to impose costs on others is retarded.

    I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot rightfully impose costs or duties on you, anymore than you can rightfully impose costs or duties on me. How you handle your healthcare is none of my damn business. I expect the same courtesy.

    The idea that a mass hypnosis, mass hysteria event gives “government” or anyone else permission to abrogate our inalienable rights is retarded.

    I hope you have a nice evening.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Adam Smith


    A covenant is a contract that sets up a homeowners association or other such entity
     
    That's all you know, but that's not all they can be. Read David Friedman.

    Oddly enough, most real estate covenants are unenforceable.
     
    It's not odd, it's what you should predict. Covenant communities would replace many of the functions of government, so governments act to prevent them from forming. Actual libertarianism would mean the wild west in only some areas. In others, there'd be covenant communities which impose various restrictions on the people in their borders. People would be free to choose the type of community that best suited them. You like to smoke weed? There'd be a community for you. Want to raise your kids in a neighborhood free of weed? You can do that too, by buying land in a covenant community where to buy in you must agree that if they find weed on you your property will be forfeited. Again, you should read David Friedman.
    , @Jtgw
    @Adam Smith

    I thought it was mass hysteria until I saw that all cause mortality was higher this year by 300k over previous years. This is real.

    Replies: @Talha, @Cloudbuster, @Adam Smith

  45. @Catdog
    It really hit me today, surrounded by masked morons, how absurd this all is. This has been going on for NINE MONTHS now. There are no bodies piled up in the street, no mass graves. If not for the hysteria, nobody would know there was supposedly a plague. Will it EVER END? I'm a very patient man, but enough is enough.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    Agree!

    Panicfest and the resulting mass hysteria is getting really, really old.

    If the most sinister of viruses even remotely lived up to the media hype, grocery store cashiers all across the land would be dropping like flies. No one would be debating whether or not this is the plague and the numbers would not be so obviously fraudulent.

    If the pro-panicers, facediaperers and gesundheitsführers have their way we’ll all be living in dystopia forever.

    Enough is enough.

  46. Anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    I would like to refer back to a few threads ago, where Rosie and Twinkie were arguing. Rosie's boilerplate radical feminist demands that men exist for no reason other than to produce resources that fat feminists like Rosie can consume were unoriginal. In fact, among all ideologies, the claims of radical feminists are the dumbest and most easily debunked. Even Twinkie was able to crush her premises by weight of sheer logic, and was unaffected by her shaming language that would seem dumb if uttered by a 12 year old boy, but somehow does not give an elderly woman pause.

    Here are some resources that deftly crush the premise that Rosie was arguing from (i.e., that men should exist only for the benefit of women, even if there is nothing in it for the man).

    'The Fear of Dying Alone' :
    https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/07/06/fear-dying-alone/

    This means that if you get traditionally married in your 20’s, 30’s, or 40’s with the intention of not dying alone 40 to 70 years later when you’re 90 fucking years old, that means you are literally being stupid. Yes. Stupid. You are stupid if you think the odds are high that the traditional, monogamous, Western wife you have right now at age 35 (or whatever) will still be your wife 55 years later when you’re 90.

     

    Plus, the entire Better Bachelor channel, with 250,000 subscribers despite having started as late as 2019, has tons of videos that crush Rosie's logic in seconds :
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BetterBachelor/videos

    Twinkie obviously won under the measure that a civilized society values, which is logic. Rosie may think she won, because womens' understanding of argumentation is that the winner of the argument is the one who feels less bad after the argument. This, of course, is a level of thinking no more advanced than what existed in 50,000 BC, so does not hold in modern society.


    What is noteworthy is that while 50% of white women still vote Republican, almost no white women are present in White Tr*shionalist communities, other than the occasional aged fag hag like Rosie and Alden. Putting aside what this says about the 'men' in this ideology, such females are always radical feminists, since that is in fact the counterpart ideology, that those defective females follow. A couple of those cross into the male tent of their ideology/race from time to time, but only in very small numbers, since being a fag hag is the absolute lowest status level a woman can reside in.

    Don't get me wrong, though. Rosie and Alden have been invaluable in corroborating that WNs are overwhelmingly gay. This fact is not mutually exclusive with their own status as fag hags of the White Tr*shionalist community.

    https://youtu.be/MD53hwAN5DY

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That blog promotes “open marriage,” i.e. cuckoldry, no thanks. I’m inherently suspicious of any kind of PUA because so many of them are Trump cultists, though not Roosh or Roissy, to their credit.

    Rosie is ok. She’s not a radical feminist, she’s a tradcon. Actual monogamy worked fairly well through most of human history; the issue is that there are many sluts who decide at age 38 that they need to be married so they suddenly, so they go to church and then say “put a ring on it, your bible commands you to!” The whole of modern feminism depends on the assumption that when women do decide they are “ready for marriage” there will be a man standing by to provide it. Thus, tradcons, including Rosie, often act as the feminists’ useful idiots by applying traditional pro-marriage sentiment against men wary of marrying the sluts. But they aren’t feminists themselves and they aren’t the primary problem.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Anonymous

    The problem is that marriage is a bad deal for men these days--the equivalent of loading a revolver with three bullets, spinning it, and aiming it at your savings.

    The downstream problems (the only ones making kids are the ones irresponsible enough to not save or use protection) include dysgenics, population decline, and broken families where kids have no role model.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  47. Anonymous[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adam Smith
    @Jtgw

    A covenant is a contract that sets up a homeowners association or other such entity. I seriously doubt any real estate covenant contract includes language that gives the homeowners association power over a tenant's healthcare or any so called "mandate to require masks or anything else useful in controlling a pandemic". Oddly enough, most real estate covenants are unenforceable.


    The idea we each have an inalienable right to impose costs on others is retarded.
     
    I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot rightfully impose costs or duties on you, anymore than you can rightfully impose costs or duties on me. How you handle your healthcare is none of my damn business. I expect the same courtesy.

    The idea that a mass hypnosis, mass hysteria event gives "government" or anyone else permission to abrogate our inalienable rights is retarded.

    I hope you have a nice evening.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jtgw

    A covenant is a contract that sets up a homeowners association or other such entity

    That’s all you know, but that’s not all they can be. Read David Friedman.

    Oddly enough, most real estate covenants are unenforceable.

    It’s not odd, it’s what you should predict. Covenant communities would replace many of the functions of government, so governments act to prevent them from forming. Actual libertarianism would mean the wild west in only some areas. In others, there’d be covenant communities which impose various restrictions on the people in their borders. People would be free to choose the type of community that best suited them. You like to smoke weed? There’d be a community for you. Want to raise your kids in a neighborhood free of weed? You can do that too, by buying land in a covenant community where to buy in you must agree that if they find weed on you your property will be forfeited. Again, you should read David Friedman.

  48. @Liberty Mike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why do you fall for such non-sense?

    Of course, you have a constitutional right to breathe unobstructed by diapering mandates. The right is rooted in the 9th Amendment along with the fact that there is no grant of power given Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Mike, your last sentence is pretty much an Amendment X issue. Of course, there is no such power given. The States and the people reserve the powers not granted in the Constitution to the Fed, but I’m pretty sure every one of their constitutions do not allow for Governors doing anything of this sort for longer than what an “emergency” is defined as, which is month or so.

    I’m not sure why you are arguing with me, or did you mean to reply to someone else? We’re on the same side on this.

  49. @Vergissmeinnicht
    It's obviously not a violation.
    The State making you wear a mask against your will isn't at all different from the State obliging you wear CLOTHES against your will. The only subtlety is that there're better counter-arguments regarding not wearing CLOTHES.

    In fact, people who wanted to be nude in public got their cases to the Supreme Court (twice (!), if I'm not mistaken), and they got rejected. (Fortunately, I'd say.)

    Silly conservatives don't realise that if they make "the State CAN'T make me wear a mask" into a right, the ramifications, it follows, are "the State has no authority over what I do or don't wear" – hence, nudists (who are, broadly, left-wingers) would be sooo PLEASED with the Right's (once again!) lack of forethought.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexander Turok, @Vergissmeinnicht

    An even better example than nudists would be… feminists who want to be topless in public – do these conservatives realise that if they indeed make “the State CAN’T me wear a mask, or anything!” into a ‘right’ they are inadvertently helping Free-the-Nipple feminists?

    Or porn actors having to wear condoms. Remember that? I recall LA wanted to make its porn actors wear condoms. It didn’t happen, after all. I guess they figured the Porn Industry would just move to another city or state and LA would lose a lot of money because of it…
    The point is NOT if it’s a good idea to make porn actors wear condoms or, by the same token, make people wear masks in this particular situation we’re in. (Frankly, I dunno!) The point is if the State can make you wear clothes – or, by the same token, masks.
    Imagine if America was a ‘real’ country, y’know, like it used to be¹… that is, you can trust your politicians because everyone’s in the same boat and, out of the blue, unfortunately, a TRULY catastrophic pandemic emerges – would you still be against masks?
    (In the example above, perhaps having the people wear masks was a mistake – mistake or not, one thing’s certain: in that ‘real’ country scenario above, the unfortunate mistakes made were in GOOD-FAITH!)
    I really CAN’T think of any argument against the State being the authority over whether you’re gonna wear clothes in public or, alternatively, masks in public which are NOT ‘thin’ Right-Libertarian arguments… (which is a BS ideology, BTW.)

    Frankly, that the State can indeed make you wear a mask during a designated pandemic against your will, seems pretty obvious to me – for me, it’s HARDER to find reasons the State can make you wear clothes in public! Apparently, in some European countries you can go completely nude in public! (Or, at least, in certain areas.) (No, I ain’t talking about ‘nude beaches’; d’oh, those ya’ll can find even in ‘Murica.)
    I know… this is, of course, a race-dependent issue: it’s well-known the burqa is an evolutionary adaptation for in-group cooperation – if your woman is clothed there’s no danger other men would find her attractive, hence you won’t be cuckolded.
    However, I am NOT talking about ‘normal’ people, like Arabs, I’m indeed talking about W.E.I.R.D. people (read: White people)!

    1. Admittedly, my ‘real-country’ scenario above is too idyllic – it’s always important to be sceptic of the Gov’t. Not trusting your Gov’t blindly literally fights corruption and what-not.

    • Disagree: Cloudbuster
  50. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Intelligent Dasein


    I ran into the same problem many years ago when discussing Obamacare. That, too, was a highly politicized issue and I was at great pains to explain to so-called conservatives that I agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ decision that the ACA was not technically unconstitutional.
     
    Roberts is a straightforward, cautious, decent, old-fashioned judge. He has been the best, most trustworthy chief justice the U.S. has had in a long time.

    Right-of-center Americans will miss him when he's gone.

    Power-hungry Leftists that praise the chief justice usually praise him for the wrong reasons, but the chief justice can hardly be blamed for that, any more than he can be blamed for enacting the ACA.

    Regarding the ACA: in 2012, Republicans made the chief justice a scapegoat for the Republicans' own incoherence regarding health-care policy. The ACA was bad legislation but the primary reason Republican congressmen hated it so much was that it exposed the Republicans' longstanding useless (and maybe corrupt) bumbling in the matter. They wanted Roberts to cover their shame. They needed a favorable decision from the court to save face.

    They didn't get the face-saving decision. They've never forgiven Roberts for that.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Judge Roberts was bought off like a $50 Vegas prostitute back in ’09 on the Obamacare ruling. “It’s a tax, if that helps. If it doesn’t, no, it’s not a tax.” The ACA was clearly not Constitution, just based on Amendment X alone.

    As I remember very clearly, the votes were against this government-run health care crap until people kept folding in the Senate, and when we thought the Supreme Court would rule based on the Constitution, Roberts cucked out. No, I don’t trust this guy, Dr. Ovelund, sorry.

  51. @Dumbo
    I personally find it incredible that the Government now is allowed to determine how many people from your own family you are allowed to see in your own house, and no one bats an eyelash.

    Government should not determine ANYTHING related to your personal or health behaviour.

    Absolutist monarchies were freer that the current "Democratic" progressive rulers by decree.

    And this goes beyond the fake "Covid", it's a new paradigm:

    https://d-dean.medium.com/biosecurity-and-politics-giorgio-agamben-396f9ab3b6f4

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Absolutist monarchies were freer that the current “Democratic” progressive rulers by decree.

    Autocracies always end up being freer than democracies. Democracy leads inevitably to totalitarianism. Usually soft totalitarianism, but totalitarianism nonetheless.

    Autocracies don’t give a damn what people do or say as long as they’re not trying to overthrow the government.

  52. @Realist

    Most Americans do not see a federal mandate to wear masks as a violation of their civil liberties:
     
    This does not surprise intelligent Americans. Most Americans are dumb as a rope...that is why this country is on the shit slide to hell.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    This does not surprise intelligent Americans. Most Americans are dumb as a rope…that is why this country is on the shit slide to hell.

    Amen.

    The average Ameritard can barely make it through the checkout line anymore.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Yes, this country is in deep crap.

  53. @Per/Norway
    @Jtgw

    i guess your cities produce ALL their foodstuffs internally so those pesky non believers in government and their hostility against you covidian cult members are not needed.
    You are low iq high emotion and YOU are one off the reasons the US now is a third world 🍌republic🤷‍♂️
    That people like you manage to tie your shoes and breathe is beyond my ability to understand, i do however understand how people like you managed to destroy civilization.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    I’m really starting to appreciate how both sides are full of idiots. Covid denial vs HBD denial.

  54. @Adam Smith
    @Jtgw

    A covenant is a contract that sets up a homeowners association or other such entity. I seriously doubt any real estate covenant contract includes language that gives the homeowners association power over a tenant's healthcare or any so called "mandate to require masks or anything else useful in controlling a pandemic". Oddly enough, most real estate covenants are unenforceable.


    The idea we each have an inalienable right to impose costs on others is retarded.
     
    I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot rightfully impose costs or duties on you, anymore than you can rightfully impose costs or duties on me. How you handle your healthcare is none of my damn business. I expect the same courtesy.

    The idea that a mass hypnosis, mass hysteria event gives "government" or anyone else permission to abrogate our inalienable rights is retarded.

    I hope you have a nice evening.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jtgw

    I thought it was mass hysteria until I saw that all cause mortality was higher this year by 300k over previous years. This is real.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Jtgw

    I can tell you right now that anecdotally, I was witness to something that also showed that something is amiss causing an above normal amount of deaths. I had to bury my father this year in a Muslim cemetery. On the same day he was being buried, an elderly man had also died. I talked with his family, they weren't allowed to wash his body and shroud it due to Covid.

    Every time I came to stay with my mother, we went to the grave to recite prayers. I watched as newer graves were being dug up and more people being buried.

    Now, my cousin is part of the local burial committee so she has to do all the coordination for the burials. They all come through the mosque because the funeral prayer is read over them in a congregation - it is an obligatory prayer on the community. She said that many of the dead this year had Covid and plenty of bodies were not given the proper burial rights due to those circumstances - mostly elderly. And there was a period of three months around May to July where they were having sometimes three or four burials per week.

    When I last went in late October, I counted out the graves from 2019 (they have dates labeled on the headstones and were all buried in a line facing Makkah, in simple rows like this one in the UK):
    https://i0.wp.com/roadsandkingdoms.com/uploads/2014/10/15457782169_51d4f9ec7d_k.jpg

    Then I compared with those from 2020 (which had not yet run its course) and already the count was up around 20% from last year and there were a couple of months left to go. My guess is, based on the pace of the burials, the year will end with an increase of 30%+ from last year. Even if we assume some of these were false positives with regard to Covid, something was obviously causing a significantly higher death count - at least in the sample community where I made my observations - than the previous year.

    Peace.

    , @Cloudbuster
    @Jtgw

    This is not the first nor will it be the last year with a large number of excess deaths. Such is the nature of life. It doesn't necessarily follow that mass abrogations of civil liberties are justified by excess deaths.

    The destruction of the world economy and the US economy in particular is grossly disproportionate to the threat. The destruction has been overwhelmingly targeted at small businesses and their employees. Mask mandates are the least of it, they are just a visible symbol of a government that thinks we are but pawns to move around the board or sacrifice as it chooses.

    It is also a bit hypocritical, since in living memory most of our governments have deliberately sent more young men to die in pursuit of their interests -- far more "years of life" lost -- than have died from this fairly mild pandemic. Government only cares about your life when they don't profit from expending it.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @JohnPlywood

    , @Adam Smith
    @Jtgw

    I disagree. There is no need for the Great CoronaPanic of 2020.
    The CoronaScare is a giant fraud and a crime against humanity.

    https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/blog/crimes-against-humanity-the-german-corona-investigation/

    Corona viruses are real, but not the cause of all this stupidity or the planned reset of the global economy.

    There is a real mass hysteria that has been caused by media and "government". I believe we are witnessing a global mass hypnosis event conducted by the global ruling class.

    The testing is horribly flawed and being used to manufacture all the scary numbers.

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/

    Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer, said that half or even “almost all” of the tests for COVID are false positives...


    In an interview Dr. Yeadon was asked:

    “we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six people in a meeting…all based on, what may well be, completely fake data on this coronavirus?”

    Dr. Yeadon answered with a simple “yes.”
     
    Of those excess deaths perhaps half are from deaths of despair. Surely some excess death has been caused by people avoiding the hospital or other urgent medical care.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-deaths-suicide-drugs-alcohol-depression-unemployment-2020-8

    As per the cdc only 66% of the excess deaths this year involved the most sinister of viruses...

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

    Even the cdc admits that only 6% of the "corona deaths" were from the corona virus alone. The vast majority of the "corona deaths" involved elderly people with serious pre-existing conditions and comorbidities.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    This whole thing is a giant crime against humanity conducted by the global overlords. Everything about the so called coronavirus scare is fraudulent. It is the pretense being used to advance their agenda.

    http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-scam-has-been-confirmed-Dsalud-November-2020.pdf

    I hope you have a great day Jtgw.

  55. @Jtgw
    @Adam Smith

    I thought it was mass hysteria until I saw that all cause mortality was higher this year by 300k over previous years. This is real.

    Replies: @Talha, @Cloudbuster, @Adam Smith

    I can tell you right now that anecdotally, I was witness to something that also showed that something is amiss causing an above normal amount of deaths. I had to bury my father this year in a Muslim cemetery. On the same day he was being buried, an elderly man had also died. I talked with his family, they weren’t allowed to wash his body and shroud it due to Covid.

    Every time I came to stay with my mother, we went to the grave to recite prayers. I watched as newer graves were being dug up and more people being buried.

    Now, my cousin is part of the local burial committee so she has to do all the coordination for the burials. They all come through the mosque because the funeral prayer is read over them in a congregation – it is an obligatory prayer on the community. She said that many of the dead this year had Covid and plenty of bodies were not given the proper burial rights due to those circumstances – mostly elderly. And there was a period of three months around May to July where they were having sometimes three or four burials per week.

    When I last went in late October, I counted out the graves from 2019 (they have dates labeled on the headstones and were all buried in a line facing Makkah, in simple rows like this one in the UK):

    Then I compared with those from 2020 (which had not yet run its course) and already the count was up around 20% from last year and there were a couple of months left to go. My guess is, based on the pace of the burials, the year will end with an increase of 30%+ from last year. Even if we assume some of these were false positives with regard to Covid, something was obviously causing a significantly higher death count – at least in the sample community where I made my observations – than the previous year.

    Peace.

  56. @33rht86
    Previous data was wrong, apologies. This one is correct:

    https://i.imgur.com/Ep3V35D.png

    Original message read:

    "Actually I answered my own question. I was able to reverse engineer from the exit polls the percent of Asian/Other (can’t separate them) that view BLM unfavorably from the CNN link in the post. 25% is the answer:



    So they are halfway between Biden-voting Whites and Biden-voting Hispanics."

    In reality Biden-voting Asian/Other are closer to Biden-voting Whites than Biden-voting Hispanics.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Did fewer than 50% of Asian/other vote for Biden? They voted for Biden at a lower rate than white college graduates? Where is the source for the data?

  57. About the whole mask situation… To me, the politicization of the mask-wearing is an indication that the traditional American civic norms have eroded badly. In a better America, the federal government would never legally impose such a broad mandate, yet Americans would – out of common decency and concern for their fellow citizens – voluntarily wear masks amidst a pandemic. What we have today is the opposite.

  58. @Liberty Mike
    @Intelligent Dasein

    ID:

    (1) the 9th amendment.

    (2) No power was granted to Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    (3) By creating the federal union, the states relinquished the power to interfere with a citizen's exercise of his rights and privileges enjoyed by the whole nation. Naturally, this includes a governor's emergency powers.

    (4) States do not have "plenary" power to impose upon its citizens whatever a temporary majority ordains.

    Replies: @Rich, @Intelligent Dasein

    (2) No power was granted to Congress to mandate face-diapers.

    The general realpolitik principle here is that governments, howsoever legally constituted, are always extended broad latitude to govern in the de facto sense. “The government has the right to govern,” if you prefer.

    This means two things: 1) Any effective system of checks and balances must be rooted in contending centers of actual power and not in a mere theoretical framework; and 2) The character and quality of the men in power matters a great deal. Regardless of the written constitution, the government you actually get will be the expression of the will of the man at the top modulo the wills of others with the power to limit him.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  59. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Realist


    This does not surprise intelligent Americans. Most Americans are dumb as a rope…that is why this country is on the shit slide to hell.
     
    Amen.

    The average Ameritard can barely make it through the checkout line anymore.

    Replies: @Realist

    Yes, this country is in deep crap.

  60. Anti-mask laws are legal, so why not mask laws? As far as constitutional mandate, it is consistent with the police power which allows for quarantines, restrictions on movement, etc.

  61. Mask mandates are obviously unconstitutional at the federal level, because there’s no grant of power to allow Congress to legislate on such a thing. However, there are potentially 50 different answers regarding whether mask mandates are constitutional at the state level. It depends what the state constitution says.

    However, there is also the common law argument. This is relevant to the idea that mandating a mask is no different than mandating that you wear clothes. People have traditional norms developed over hundreds or even thousands of years. Wearing clothes is a cultural norm in the West. Going about with one’s face covered is not. A government that is subject to its citizens cannot legitimately violate the cultural norms of a vast number of its citizens. In that respect, demanding that people cover their faces is no different than suddenly demanding everyone go around nude.

    Government is intended to serve the will of the people and protect the norms of their society, not to bully the people into abandoning long-held norms.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Cloudbuster

    In times of national emergency when your action or inaction my threaten lives of others mandating wearing masks is no different that mandating blackouts during a war and many other measures that government has a right to impose on general population.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @JR Ewing

  62. @Jtgw
    @Adam Smith

    I thought it was mass hysteria until I saw that all cause mortality was higher this year by 300k over previous years. This is real.

    Replies: @Talha, @Cloudbuster, @Adam Smith

    This is not the first nor will it be the last year with a large number of excess deaths. Such is the nature of life. It doesn’t necessarily follow that mass abrogations of civil liberties are justified by excess deaths.

    The destruction of the world economy and the US economy in particular is grossly disproportionate to the threat. The destruction has been overwhelmingly targeted at small businesses and their employees. Mask mandates are the least of it, they are just a visible symbol of a government that thinks we are but pawns to move around the board or sacrifice as it chooses.

    It is also a bit hypocritical, since in living memory most of our governments have deliberately sent more young men to die in pursuit of their interests — far more “years of life” lost — than have died from this fairly mild pandemic. Government only cares about your life when they don’t profit from expending it.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @Cloudbuster

    Not only is this not the first year with excess deaths, it happens to be a year following one in which the CDC registered NO excess deaths for the whole year.

    2019 was a light year for flu and other respiratory ailments - the CDC even says so - and there is an argument to be made that many of the excess deaths in 2020 are just postponements from 2019 that are finally catching up.

    Literally, people living on borrowed time.

    Also agree 100% that the remedy has been disproportionate to the threat. I don't deny that covid is real or a threat to certain vulnerable people. I deny that the the threat is as bad as they want us to think it is. (And compel us to proclaim our concurrence with through the silly mask laws)

    , @JohnPlywood
    @Cloudbuster

    The USA will experience its largest annual decline in life expectency in 100 years because of covid. Bucking a century-long trend in improvement.


    Something has gone horribly wrong in America. Its people are not working properly like they used to. And people like you are the problem. If Americans can't find a clean way to make money without a loan, while hundreds of thousands of people are dying and millions are losing reproductive function, then the small business fad is officially over. Screw your taco stands and your petting zoos.

  63. @The Alarmist
    How long before we start burning non-maskers for their dark magic that makes it possible for them to live without a mask?

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    I expect the festivities will begin any day now.

  64. @Jtgw
    @brabantian

    How much of the latest wave in the US and Europe is to do with incorrigible black and brown people refusing to follow the law? Deplorable minds want to know.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Pop Warner, @Audacious Epigone

    When the stories of hospitals in El Paso reaching capacity started streaming out I wondered if the small white population there was behind it all.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Pop Warner

    Apparently there are a lot of people with Type II diabetes in that area. The Chinese noticed back in January that hypertension aka high blood pressure was also a risk factor. The two comorbidities are often related.

    A quick search turned this up from May.

    https://kvia.com/health/2020/05/23/hypertension-diabetes-are-top-underlying-contributors-to-el-pasos-covid-19-deaths/

    BTW, Pop, u r retard.

  65. We can’t forget the obligatory Sweet.

  66. @Achmed E. Newman
    Women shouldn't be voting. If that had to be mandated via Constitutional amendment, we know the Founders didn't plan on it. As for mandatory mask wearing, they'd have laughed you out of the meeting hall for even thinking such a thing could ever be thought of in the future.

    I had a talk with the school "resource officer", meaning cop, today, after a tattle-tale Limey broad told him I'd said some bad words in front of the kids regarding the masks (and stuck my kid's mask in the bushes to get rid of it). The guy was decent enough, as I thought he agreed with me that the whole thing going on, in elementary school especially, is pretty stupid. Even so, it was "that's what the school district wants, so we gotta just ..." "How much of this stuff are we going to let go on, though?" is what I asked him, and his answer was a non-answer. There aren't many real Americans left. Our bar would hit the top.

    They can't even play tag during recess! We will have another temporary escape from stupidity tomorrow at the park.

    It's a sick country, and that has nothing to do with any bug out of the Orient.

    Replies: @Insouciant, @SFG

    from the horse’s mouth: vaccine is basically meaningless in terms of replacing masking:

    [Tal Zaks, Israeli-educated] chief medical officer at Moderna, says that vaccine trial results only show that they prevent people from getting sick — not necessarily that recipients won’t still be able to transmit the virus
    Nov 24, 2020,
    https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-chief-medical-officer-vaccines-interview-2020-11

    Zaks said, “When we start the deployment of this vaccine we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.”
    “I think it’s important that we don’t change behavior solely on the basis of vaccination,” he said.

    In other words, (onerous, untested and possibly dangerous but likely to be mandated) vaccination is not a replacement for (onerous, unproven and possibly unhealthy but mandated) masking but an addition to the toolkit of the tyrants.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Insouciant

    Also, no thanks for your effect on my mood!

    Have a good Thanksgiving, Insouciant.

  67. According to a study the esteemed “Dr.” Fauci conducted approximately 4 years ago,the major cause of deaths during the “1918 flu pandemic” was bacterial pneumonia, NOT influenza.
    The common denominator was the (forced) wearing of masks.
    Sound familiar?
    Look for an uptick in respiratory illnesses in the coming months due to mask-wearing. The study is available on the internet…

  68. @Achmed E. Newman
    Women shouldn't be voting. If that had to be mandated via Constitutional amendment, we know the Founders didn't plan on it. As for mandatory mask wearing, they'd have laughed you out of the meeting hall for even thinking such a thing could ever be thought of in the future.

    I had a talk with the school "resource officer", meaning cop, today, after a tattle-tale Limey broad told him I'd said some bad words in front of the kids regarding the masks (and stuck my kid's mask in the bushes to get rid of it). The guy was decent enough, as I thought he agreed with me that the whole thing going on, in elementary school especially, is pretty stupid. Even so, it was "that's what the school district wants, so we gotta just ..." "How much of this stuff are we going to let go on, though?" is what I asked him, and his answer was a non-answer. There aren't many real Americans left. Our bar would hit the top.

    They can't even play tag during recess! We will have another temporary escape from stupidity tomorrow at the park.

    It's a sick country, and that has nothing to do with any bug out of the Orient.

    Replies: @Insouciant, @SFG

    Sorry, I agree with you on a lot of other stuff, but the Founders most definitely wouldn’t have had a problem with mask laws. If anything they would have thought they were common sense, given how much more familiar infectious disease was in their era–smallpox and yellow fever were about ten times as deadly as coronavirus.

    Washington mandated smallpox inoculation for all members of the Continental Army (still controversial at the time as it carried a significant mortality rate, though lower than smallpox) . Jefferson supported the cowpox vaccine. Massachusetts applied quarantine regulations in 1647 to stop yellow fever. Understanding of public health was obviously at a very low level back then (look up some of Ben Rush’s treatments for yellow fever), but relatively draconian laws were often supported because everyone understood disease can spread from person to person very quickly.

    Not everything is Red Team, Blue Team. If anything this is going to selectively kill the older populations that represent much of residual America. Keep Grandma alive to vote GOP in 2024–wear a mask!

    • Thanks: Jtgw
    • Replies: @JR Ewing
    @SFG

    Forced vaccination in the army makes sense.

    Until 2020, quarantine meant that SICK people were isolated. The Massachusetts quarantine you reference was not a presumption that healthy citizens were sick and didn't know it. It was an attempt to prevent sick people from entering the state. It wasn't about locking healthy people in their homes.

    I'm sure that the founders would have been fine with forcing symptomatic sick people to wear masks, but they most certainly would not have agreed with the presumption of guilt unknown illness that underlies much of the tyranny today.

    In other words it's fine to protect healthy people from the sick. It's not OK to presume everyone is potentially sick and treat them as if they were. That kind of hyperbolic suspicion is not consistent with the first, fourth, or fifth amendments.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @SFG

    Oil tycoon JR Ewing answered the same way I would have (thanks, JR), but let me reply to your last paragraph, SFG.

    a) We just wore masks at Grandma's, so it's funny you mentioned that. I asked her if she wanted us to come at all. We don't want her to go to the hospital for ANY reason at her age, so yes, we wore them when inside and not eating (then she wanted us all at the table at ~ 3 ft. distances, but never mind...)

    Here's my point: That was OUR choice, not the State Governor's "emergency authoritah" choice. He can go f_k himself - saw a sign normally for traffic warnings saying "City ABC requires masking". All of us, even the wife, laughed at that BS.

    Oh, and Grandma did not vote for Trump. (!!) She is a smart woman in general, but she goes to a certain church still with a bunch of flaming lefties.

    .

    b) The only Red team / Blue team aspect of this was the use of this PanicFest to defeat Trump. (I know, it's not over.) Otherwise, they are on the same page regarding Totalitarianism. So, that's not what I'm getting at, SFG.

  69. @Anonymous
    @Thomm

    That blog promotes "open marriage," i.e. cuckoldry, no thanks. I'm inherently suspicious of any kind of PUA because so many of them are Trump cultists, though not Roosh or Roissy, to their credit.

    Rosie is ok. She's not a radical feminist, she's a tradcon. Actual monogamy worked fairly well through most of human history; the issue is that there are many sluts who decide at age 38 that they need to be married so they suddenly, so they go to church and then say "put a ring on it, your bible commands you to!" The whole of modern feminism depends on the assumption that when women do decide they are "ready for marriage" there will be a man standing by to provide it. Thus, tradcons, including Rosie, often act as the feminists' useful idiots by applying traditional pro-marriage sentiment against men wary of marrying the sluts. But they aren't feminists themselves and they aren't the primary problem.

    Replies: @SFG

    The problem is that marriage is a bad deal for men these days–the equivalent of loading a revolver with three bullets, spinning it, and aiming it at your savings.

    The downstream problems (the only ones making kids are the ones irresponsible enough to not save or use protection) include dysgenics, population decline, and broken families where kids have no role model.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @SFG

    Yeah, we usually agree, as with this one. Thanks.

    Rosie is only a traditional Conservative if she can submit to her husband when she's fine with that, not when she doesn't agree with what he'd like her to do*. She told me this multiple times. For guys, this won't do, and that fits right in with your point about how big a gamble marriage is for a man in the Western world. ]

    .

    * So, in other words, she's not a conservative.

    Replies: @anon

  70. I’ve been saying all this time that the mask mandate violates my freedom of speech and my freedom of conscience.

    I do not agree with the local government that this is the WORST THING EVAR and I don’t care to perpetuate the atmosphere of panic and anxiety that floats over this masked society.

    By forcing me to wear the mask, the government is compelling me to express their message of fear and crisis.

    People joke that without the mask mandate, we would forget there’s a pandemic, but that’s exactly the point. The mask mandate artificially extends the life of the crisis. That’s political speech and I do not wish to spread it or even give the insinuation that I agree with it.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  71. @SFG
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry, I agree with you on a lot of other stuff, but the Founders most definitely wouldn't have had a problem with mask laws. If anything they would have thought they were common sense, given how much more familiar infectious disease was in their era--smallpox and yellow fever were about ten times as deadly as coronavirus.

    Washington mandated smallpox inoculation for all members of the Continental Army (still controversial at the time as it carried a significant mortality rate, though lower than smallpox) . Jefferson supported the cowpox vaccine. Massachusetts applied quarantine regulations in 1647 to stop yellow fever. Understanding of public health was obviously at a very low level back then (look up some of Ben Rush's treatments for yellow fever), but relatively draconian laws were often supported because everyone understood disease can spread from person to person very quickly.

    Not everything is Red Team, Blue Team. If anything this is going to selectively kill the older populations that represent much of residual America. Keep Grandma alive to vote GOP in 2024--wear a mask!

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Achmed E. Newman

    Forced vaccination in the army makes sense.

    Until 2020, quarantine meant that SICK people were isolated. The Massachusetts quarantine you reference was not a presumption that healthy citizens were sick and didn’t know it. It was an attempt to prevent sick people from entering the state. It wasn’t about locking healthy people in their homes.

    I’m sure that the founders would have been fine with forcing symptomatic sick people to wear masks, but they most certainly would not have agreed with the presumption of guilt unknown illness that underlies much of the tyranny today.

    In other words it’s fine to protect healthy people from the sick. It’s not OK to presume everyone is potentially sick and treat them as if they were. That kind of hyperbolic suspicion is not consistent with the first, fourth, or fifth amendments.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  72. @Cloudbuster
    @Jtgw

    This is not the first nor will it be the last year with a large number of excess deaths. Such is the nature of life. It doesn't necessarily follow that mass abrogations of civil liberties are justified by excess deaths.

    The destruction of the world economy and the US economy in particular is grossly disproportionate to the threat. The destruction has been overwhelmingly targeted at small businesses and their employees. Mask mandates are the least of it, they are just a visible symbol of a government that thinks we are but pawns to move around the board or sacrifice as it chooses.

    It is also a bit hypocritical, since in living memory most of our governments have deliberately sent more young men to die in pursuit of their interests -- far more "years of life" lost -- than have died from this fairly mild pandemic. Government only cares about your life when they don't profit from expending it.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @JohnPlywood

    Not only is this not the first year with excess deaths, it happens to be a year following one in which the CDC registered NO excess deaths for the whole year.

    2019 was a light year for flu and other respiratory ailments – the CDC even says so – and there is an argument to be made that many of the excess deaths in 2020 are just postponements from 2019 that are finally catching up.

    Literally, people living on borrowed time.

    Also agree 100% that the remedy has been disproportionate to the threat. I don’t deny that covid is real or a threat to certain vulnerable people. I deny that the the threat is as bad as they want us to think it is. (And compel us to proclaim our concurrence with through the silly mask laws)

  73. anon[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pop Warner
    @Jtgw

    When the stories of hospitals in El Paso reaching capacity started streaming out I wondered if the small white population there was behind it all.

    Replies: @anon

    Apparently there are a lot of people with Type II diabetes in that area. The Chinese noticed back in January that hypertension aka high blood pressure was also a risk factor. The two comorbidities are often related.

    A quick search turned this up from May.

    https://kvia.com/health/2020/05/23/hypertension-diabetes-are-top-underlying-contributors-to-el-pasos-covid-19-deaths/

    BTW, Pop, u r retard.

  74. @Insouciant
    @Achmed E. Newman

    from the horse's mouth: vaccine is basically meaningless in terms of replacing masking:


    [Tal Zaks, Israeli-educated] chief medical officer at Moderna, says that vaccine trial results only show that they prevent people from getting sick — not necessarily that recipients won't still be able to transmit the virus
    Nov 24, 2020,
    https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-chief-medical-officer-vaccines-interview-2020-11


    Zaks said, "When we start the deployment of this vaccine we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission."
    "I think it's important that we don't change behavior solely on the basis of vaccination," he said.
     
    In other words, (onerous, untested and possibly dangerous but likely to be mandated) vaccination is not a replacement for (onerous, unproven and possibly unhealthy but mandated) masking but an addition to the toolkit of the tyrants.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Also, no thanks for your effect on my mood!

    Have a good Thanksgiving, Insouciant.

  75. @SFG
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry, I agree with you on a lot of other stuff, but the Founders most definitely wouldn't have had a problem with mask laws. If anything they would have thought they were common sense, given how much more familiar infectious disease was in their era--smallpox and yellow fever were about ten times as deadly as coronavirus.

    Washington mandated smallpox inoculation for all members of the Continental Army (still controversial at the time as it carried a significant mortality rate, though lower than smallpox) . Jefferson supported the cowpox vaccine. Massachusetts applied quarantine regulations in 1647 to stop yellow fever. Understanding of public health was obviously at a very low level back then (look up some of Ben Rush's treatments for yellow fever), but relatively draconian laws were often supported because everyone understood disease can spread from person to person very quickly.

    Not everything is Red Team, Blue Team. If anything this is going to selectively kill the older populations that represent much of residual America. Keep Grandma alive to vote GOP in 2024--wear a mask!

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @Achmed E. Newman

    Oil tycoon JR Ewing answered the same way I would have (thanks, JR), but let me reply to your last paragraph, SFG.

    a) We just wore masks at Grandma’s, so it’s funny you mentioned that. I asked her if she wanted us to come at all. We don’t want her to go to the hospital for ANY reason at her age, so yes, we wore them when inside and not eating (then she wanted us all at the table at ~ 3 ft. distances, but never mind…)

    Here’s my point: That was OUR choice, not the State Governor’s “emergency authoritah” choice. He can go f_k himself – saw a sign normally for traffic warnings saying “City ABC requires masking”. All of us, even the wife, laughed at that BS.

    Oh, and Grandma did not vote for Trump. (!!) She is a smart woman in general, but she goes to a certain church still with a bunch of flaming lefties.

    .

    b) The only Red team / Blue team aspect of this was the use of this PanicFest to defeat Trump. (I know, it’s not over.) Otherwise, they are on the same page regarding Totalitarianism. So, that’s not what I’m getting at, SFG.

  76. @SFG
    @Anonymous

    The problem is that marriage is a bad deal for men these days--the equivalent of loading a revolver with three bullets, spinning it, and aiming it at your savings.

    The downstream problems (the only ones making kids are the ones irresponsible enough to not save or use protection) include dysgenics, population decline, and broken families where kids have no role model.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Yeah, we usually agree, as with this one. Thanks.

    Rosie is only a traditional Conservative if she can submit to her husband when she’s fine with that, not when she doesn’t agree with what he’d like her to do*. She told me this multiple times. For guys, this won’t do, and that fits right in with your point about how big a gamble marriage is for a man in the Western world. ]

    .

    * So, in other words, she’s not a conservative.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Achmed E. Newman


    * So, in other words, she’s not a conservative.


    Sure, she's no true Scotswoman, dude.

    lol.

  77. @Cloudbuster
    @Jtgw

    This is not the first nor will it be the last year with a large number of excess deaths. Such is the nature of life. It doesn't necessarily follow that mass abrogations of civil liberties are justified by excess deaths.

    The destruction of the world economy and the US economy in particular is grossly disproportionate to the threat. The destruction has been overwhelmingly targeted at small businesses and their employees. Mask mandates are the least of it, they are just a visible symbol of a government that thinks we are but pawns to move around the board or sacrifice as it chooses.

    It is also a bit hypocritical, since in living memory most of our governments have deliberately sent more young men to die in pursuit of their interests -- far more "years of life" lost -- than have died from this fairly mild pandemic. Government only cares about your life when they don't profit from expending it.

    Replies: @JR Ewing, @JohnPlywood

    The USA will experience its largest annual decline in life expectency in 100 years because of covid. Bucking a century-long trend in improvement.

    Something has gone horribly wrong in America. Its people are not working properly like they used to. And people like you are the problem. If Americans can’t find a clean way to make money without a loan, while hundreds of thousands of people are dying and millions are losing reproductive function, then the small business fad is officially over. Screw your taco stands and your petting zoos.

  78. @Achmed E. Newman
    @SFG

    Yeah, we usually agree, as with this one. Thanks.

    Rosie is only a traditional Conservative if she can submit to her husband when she's fine with that, not when she doesn't agree with what he'd like her to do*. She told me this multiple times. For guys, this won't do, and that fits right in with your point about how big a gamble marriage is for a man in the Western world. ]

    .

    * So, in other words, she's not a conservative.

    Replies: @anon


    * So, in other words, she’s not a conservative.

    Sure, she’s no true Scotswoman, dude.

    lol.

  79. @Cloudbuster
    Mask mandates are obviously unconstitutional at the federal level, because there's no grant of power to allow Congress to legislate on such a thing. However, there are potentially 50 different answers regarding whether mask mandates are constitutional at the state level. It depends what the state constitution says.

    However, there is also the common law argument. This is relevant to the idea that mandating a mask is no different than mandating that you wear clothes. People have traditional norms developed over hundreds or even thousands of years. Wearing clothes is a cultural norm in the West. Going about with one's face covered is not. A government that is subject to its citizens cannot legitimately violate the cultural norms of a vast number of its citizens. In that respect, demanding that people cover their faces is no different than suddenly demanding everyone go around nude.

    Government is intended to serve the will of the people and protect the norms of their society, not to bully the people into abandoning long-held norms.

    Replies: @utu

    In times of national emergency when your action or inaction my threaten lives of others mandating wearing masks is no different that mandating blackouts during a war and many other measures that government has a right to impose on general population.

    • Agree: JohnPlywood
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @utu


    In times of national emergency when your action or inaction my threaten lives of others mandating wearing masks is no different that mandating blackouts during a war and many other measures that government has a right to impose on general population.
     
    But people will resist petty tyranny.

    What was needed was a state that had already earned its citizens' trust, so that when the crisis came—but for a few cranks scattered among the citizenry—the state would enjoy its citizens' voluntary support and coöperation. Instead, from coast to coast, the 21st-century U.S. has granted petty authority to petty busybodies in petty posts, who abuse the petty authority to make themselves pettily important. Such a U.S. has done the very opposite of earning its citizens' trust.

    You are right, but the state has only itself to blame for the present resistance.

    Replies: @utu

    , @JR Ewing
    @utu

    Probably so, but the state has the obligation not to squander that authority when it realizes that the Japanese air raids bodies piled in the streets aren't actually coming as was feared.

    Replies: @utu

  80. @utu
    @Cloudbuster

    In times of national emergency when your action or inaction my threaten lives of others mandating wearing masks is no different that mandating blackouts during a war and many other measures that government has a right to impose on general population.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @JR Ewing

    In times of national emergency when your action or inaction my threaten lives of others mandating wearing masks is no different that mandating blackouts during a war and many other measures that government has a right to impose on general population.

    But people will resist petty tyranny.

    What was needed was a state that had already earned its citizens’ trust, so that when the crisis came—but for a few cranks scattered among the citizenry—the state would enjoy its citizens’ voluntary support and coöperation. Instead, from coast to coast, the 21st-century U.S. has granted petty authority to petty busybodies in petty posts, who abuse the petty authority to make themselves pettily important. Such a U.S. has done the very opposite of earning its citizens’ trust.

    You are right, but the state has only itself to blame for the present resistance.

    • Replies: @utu
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I think you are ranting. In your short comment you have used 'petty' and 'pettily' seven times.

    In late 19th century a campaign against spitting was launched in America and Europe after the discovery of the cause of tuberculosis by Robert Koch.


    "New York City became the first American metropolis to ban spitting on sidewalks, the floors in public buildings, and on public transit, giving officials the ability to slap wayward spitters with a fine or a jail sentence. Over the next 15 years, almost 150 other U.S. cities followed suit and banned public spitting"

    "The New York City health department and private groups like the National Tuberculosis Association, the Women’s Health Protective Association, and the Brooklyn Anti-Tuberculosis Committee generated anti-spitting slogans such as "Spitting Is Dangerous, Indecent, and Against the Law," "Beware the Careless Spitter," and "No Spit, No Consumption." They made posters decrying spitting (among other unhealthy habits) and reminding people of the ban. Members of the public were encouraged to confront defiant spitters, or, at the very least, give them the stink eye. "

    "New York City officials followed through on the threat of punitive action for errant spitters. More than 2500 people were arrested under the statute between 1896 and 1910, though most only received a small fine—on average, less than $1 (in 1896, that was the equivalent of about $30 today)"
     
    The campaign was successful in the long run. Public spitting is no longer acceptable in the Western world unlike in China.

    What's with all the spitting?
    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g294211-i642-k5305825-o10-What_s_with_all_the_spitting-China.html
    "Just returned from first visit to Beijing and Shanghai. Couldn't walk around for more than 5 minutes without hearing a local horking up phlegm and spitting it wherever they happened to be. Once I was standing next to a police officer in a subway station who spit into the trash can, but everyone else just didn't care where they spit."

    Chinese Crack Down on Public Spitting
    http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/64853.htm
     
    Whether the campaign against the spitting in 19th/20th century contributed to reducing tarnsmision of TB we do not know. But we must agree it was a good thing, though I am sure many libertarians would oppose it and consider it as another example of government petty tyranny.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  81. @utu
    @Cloudbuster

    In times of national emergency when your action or inaction my threaten lives of others mandating wearing masks is no different that mandating blackouts during a war and many other measures that government has a right to impose on general population.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @JR Ewing

    Probably so, but the state has the obligation not to squander that authority when it realizes that the Japanese air raids bodies piled in the streets aren’t actually coming as was feared.

    • Replies: @utu
    @JR Ewing

    The state (in the US, UK or Netherlands) has squandered its authority when its public officials in CDC spoke against masks during the early phase of the pandemic. CDC even published a meta study paper in April to back up their position or rather cover up their back. Not until August and September CDC and WHO began to speak with one voice in a favor of masks:



    CDC director Robert Redfield said face masks may be more effective than a vaccine in preventing individual coronavirus infections”
    https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-masks-better-than-vaccines-at-stopping-coronavirus-2020-9

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-europe-who-masks-could-prevent-coronavirus-lockdowns-school-closures-dont-work/
    The World Health Organization's senior official in Europe said Thursday that blanket national lockdowns to curb the spread of COVID-19 wouldn't be necessary if governments could convince their citizens to wear masks.
     
    Why CDC and WHO were spreading disinformation and dragging their feet about masking? Most likely explanation is that CDC and WHO are in the pocket of Big Pharma that does not want general public use effective countermeasure that are not drugs or vaccines. This long standing anti-mask approach is a part of paradigm arrived at by the medical community, health organizations and the Big Pharma.

    Is it possible that some anti-mask voices are form Big Pharma shills? Are libertarians by getting on the anti-mask bandwagon ending up being the useful idiots for Big Pharma? Yes and yes!

    We may blame CDC and Big Pharma for the confusion about masks and the reason why media did not come down hard on anti-masking sentiments as it should have had. A lot of disinformation was spread about masking so most people still do not understand that masking works through universal masking reducing the reproductive number R0 and it is not in contradiction with that individuals wearing masks get infected while surrounded by unmasked population as in the recent Danish study that again provided fuel to the anti-masking (Big Pharma) argument.

    Clarification about the universal masking vs. individual masking
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/chinese-gdp-in-2050-the-debate/#comment-4295040

    Replies: @Jtgw

  82. @Jtgw
    @Adam Smith

    I thought it was mass hysteria until I saw that all cause mortality was higher this year by 300k over previous years. This is real.

    Replies: @Talha, @Cloudbuster, @Adam Smith

    I disagree. There is no need for the Great CoronaPanic of 2020.
    The CoronaScare is a giant fraud and a crime against humanity.

    https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/blog/crimes-against-humanity-the-german-corona-investigation/

    Corona viruses are real, but not the cause of all this stupidity or the planned reset of the global economy.

    There is a real mass hysteria that has been caused by media and “government”. I believe we are witnessing a global mass hypnosis event conducted by the global ruling class.

    The testing is horribly flawed and being used to manufacture all the scary numbers.

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/

    Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer, said that half or even “almost all” of the tests for COVID are false positives…

    In an interview Dr. Yeadon was asked:

    “we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six people in a meeting…all based on, what may well be, completely fake data on this coronavirus?”

    Dr. Yeadon answered with a simple “yes.”

    Of those excess deaths perhaps half are from deaths of despair. Surely some excess death has been caused by people avoiding the hospital or other urgent medical care.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-deaths-suicide-drugs-alcohol-depression-unemployment-2020-8

    As per the cdc only 66% of the excess deaths this year involved the most sinister of viruses…

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

    Even the cdc admits that only 6% of the “corona deaths” were from the corona virus alone. The vast majority of the “corona deaths” involved elderly people with serious pre-existing conditions and comorbidities.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    This whole thing is a giant crime against humanity conducted by the global overlords. Everything about the so called coronavirus scare is fraudulent. It is the pretense being used to advance their agenda.

    http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-scam-has-been-confirmed-Dsalud-November-2020.pdf

    I hope you have a great day Jtgw.

  83. There are opportunities for both over counting and undercounting Covid deaths. So it’s possible that the proportion of excess deaths attributable to Covid is overestimated, but also possible it’s underestimated. I don’t think experts agree how much goes in each bin, but certainly the claim that only 6% of deaths caused by virus alone doesn’t make the threat exaggerated. We know the elderly and those with preexisting conditions are vulnerable, but the amount of excess deaths shows that many more died this year than would have without the virus.

    Excess deaths of despair might be due to policy but might be due to fear of virus. It’s obvious without the restrictions the virus would still be spreading and sowing fear in the population. Impossible to say how much the lockdowns (mild as they were) really caused more deaths than would have occurred otherwise.

    Best you can say is the excess deaths prove the government response was incompetent in some way. I have shown enough reasons why the problem was not that they decided to act; action was necessary. But certainly what they did was insufficient to control the virus and quite possibly counterproductive. Why don’t we look at countries that did succeed in suppressing the pandemic?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Jtgw


    Why don’t we look at countries that did succeed in suppressing the pandemic?
     
    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship (although I'm sure there are people here who think Australia is a communist dictatorship).

    It seems like the countries that approached the virus as a public health problem did just fine. Countries that turned it into a political issue seem to have made a mess of things.

    Who could have predicted that accusing people who wear masks of being communists and accusing people who don't wear masks of being Nazis would be counter-productive? Who could have predicted that governments that saw the virus as an opportunity for political point-scoring would have failed to deal with the problem effectively?

    Replies: @anon, @Jtgw

  84. @Jtgw
    There are opportunities for both over counting and undercounting Covid deaths. So it’s possible that the proportion of excess deaths attributable to Covid is overestimated, but also possible it’s underestimated. I don’t think experts agree how much goes in each bin, but certainly the claim that only 6% of deaths caused by virus alone doesn’t make the threat exaggerated. We know the elderly and those with preexisting conditions are vulnerable, but the amount of excess deaths shows that many more died this year than would have without the virus.

    Excess deaths of despair might be due to policy but might be due to fear of virus. It’s obvious without the restrictions the virus would still be spreading and sowing fear in the population. Impossible to say how much the lockdowns (mild as they were) really caused more deaths than would have occurred otherwise.

    Best you can say is the excess deaths prove the government response was incompetent in some way. I have shown enough reasons why the problem was not that they decided to act; action was necessary. But certainly what they did was insufficient to control the virus and quite possibly counterproductive. Why don’t we look at countries that did succeed in suppressing the pandemic?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Why don’t we look at countries that did succeed in suppressing the pandemic?

    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship (although I’m sure there are people here who think Australia is a communist dictatorship).

    It seems like the countries that approached the virus as a public health problem did just fine. Countries that turned it into a political issue seem to have made a mess of things.

    Who could have predicted that accusing people who wear masks of being communists and accusing people who don’t wear masks of being Nazis would be counter-productive? Who could have predicted that governments that saw the virus as an opportunity for political point-scoring would have failed to deal with the problem effectively?

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship

    Victoria not part of Oz anymore? When did that happen?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Jtgw
    @dfordoom

    Agreed. I’ve been able to approach this issue with a clearer head after I quit social media a month ago and stopped hanging out with partisans and ideologues.

    About Australia, I heard stories of very tough lockdowns in some places like Melbourne, but sounds like that’s the exception?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  85. @dfordoom
    @Jtgw


    Why don’t we look at countries that did succeed in suppressing the pandemic?
     
    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship (although I'm sure there are people here who think Australia is a communist dictatorship).

    It seems like the countries that approached the virus as a public health problem did just fine. Countries that turned it into a political issue seem to have made a mess of things.

    Who could have predicted that accusing people who wear masks of being communists and accusing people who don't wear masks of being Nazis would be counter-productive? Who could have predicted that governments that saw the virus as an opportunity for political point-scoring would have failed to deal with the problem effectively?

    Replies: @anon, @Jtgw

    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship

    Victoria not part of Oz anymore? When did that happen?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anon



    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship
     
    Victoria not part of Oz anymore? When did that happen?
     
    A while back. Victoria is different. Is the whole of the US just like California?

    Victoria is heavily into virtue-signalling. Partly it's because Melbourne is such an awful place and they've always been jealous of Sydney. Melbournites over-compensate by imagining that they're more arty and intellectual and much more moral. It's still an awful city with an atrocious climate. And that really upsets them.

    As has been said many times the only good thing about Melbourne is the road leading to Sydney.

    Replies: @anon

  86. @dfordoom
    @Jtgw


    Why don’t we look at countries that did succeed in suppressing the pandemic?
     
    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship (although I'm sure there are people here who think Australia is a communist dictatorship).

    It seems like the countries that approached the virus as a public health problem did just fine. Countries that turned it into a political issue seem to have made a mess of things.

    Who could have predicted that accusing people who wear masks of being communists and accusing people who don't wear masks of being Nazis would be counter-productive? Who could have predicted that governments that saw the virus as an opportunity for political point-scoring would have failed to deal with the problem effectively?

    Replies: @anon, @Jtgw

    Agreed. I’ve been able to approach this issue with a clearer head after I quit social media a month ago and stopped hanging out with partisans and ideologues.

    About Australia, I heard stories of very tough lockdowns in some places like Melbourne, but sounds like that’s the exception?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Jtgw


    About Australia, I heard stories of very tough lockdowns in some places like Melbourne, but sounds like that’s the exception?
     
    We've only had very mild lockdowns in the part of Australia in which I live. Pretty much unnoticeable. Small businesses have remained open. No compulsory mask-wearing. Social distancing, but it's not really enforced (except in medical practices). Hand sanitiser available in stores but nobody actually cares if you use it or not.

    Victoria is a weird place to start with. They're very very ideological in Victoria. And very authoritarian. But that's Victoria. They're very holier-than-thou.

    Replies: @Jtgw

  87. @Jtgw
    @dfordoom

    Agreed. I’ve been able to approach this issue with a clearer head after I quit social media a month ago and stopped hanging out with partisans and ideologues.

    About Australia, I heard stories of very tough lockdowns in some places like Melbourne, but sounds like that’s the exception?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    About Australia, I heard stories of very tough lockdowns in some places like Melbourne, but sounds like that’s the exception?

    We’ve only had very mild lockdowns in the part of Australia in which I live. Pretty much unnoticeable. Small businesses have remained open. No compulsory mask-wearing. Social distancing, but it’s not really enforced (except in medical practices). Hand sanitiser available in stores but nobody actually cares if you use it or not.

    Victoria is a weird place to start with. They’re very very ideological in Victoria. And very authoritarian. But that’s Victoria. They’re very holier-than-thou.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @dfordoom

    So how did Australia manage outside Victoria? I feel in the US the only choices presented are a) do nothing at all, or b) national lockdown and mask mandate until everyone is forced to vaccinate. Ideology and partisanship prevents any sensible middle ground.

    Replies: @anon

  88. @anon
    @dfordoom

    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship

    Victoria not part of Oz anymore? When did that happen?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship

    Victoria not part of Oz anymore? When did that happen?

    A while back. Victoria is different. Is the whole of the US just like California?

    Victoria is heavily into virtue-signalling. Partly it’s because Melbourne is such an awful place and they’ve always been jealous of Sydney. Melbournites over-compensate by imagining that they’re more arty and intellectual and much more moral. It’s still an awful city with an atrocious climate. And that really upsets them.

    As has been said many times the only good thing about Melbourne is the road leading to Sydney.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    A while back. Victoria is different.

    It's not an independent country, it's part of Australia, and there's unchallenged vid of Vic cops arresting people for ludicrous charges. Rather like some sort of dictatorship, in fact.

    Which, please note, you just assured us was not happening in Australia.

    So either some of that stuff is happening in Australia, or Victoria isn't part of Australia, or you are yet again engaging in near-brain-dead trolling. Which is most likely?

    Is the whole of the US just like California?

    Non sequitur .California is still part of the US. Stuff that happens in California thus happens in the US.

    Troll smarter. Not harder.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  89. @V. K. Ovelund
    @utu


    In times of national emergency when your action or inaction my threaten lives of others mandating wearing masks is no different that mandating blackouts during a war and many other measures that government has a right to impose on general population.
     
    But people will resist petty tyranny.

    What was needed was a state that had already earned its citizens' trust, so that when the crisis came—but for a few cranks scattered among the citizenry—the state would enjoy its citizens' voluntary support and coöperation. Instead, from coast to coast, the 21st-century U.S. has granted petty authority to petty busybodies in petty posts, who abuse the petty authority to make themselves pettily important. Such a U.S. has done the very opposite of earning its citizens' trust.

    You are right, but the state has only itself to blame for the present resistance.

    Replies: @utu

    I think you are ranting. In your short comment you have used ‘petty’ and ‘pettily’ seven times.

    In late 19th century a campaign against spitting was launched in America and Europe after the discovery of the cause of tuberculosis by Robert Koch.

    “New York City became the first American metropolis to ban spitting on sidewalks, the floors in public buildings, and on public transit, giving officials the ability to slap wayward spitters with a fine or a jail sentence. Over the next 15 years, almost 150 other U.S. cities followed suit and banned public spitting”

    “The New York City health department and private groups like the National Tuberculosis Association, the Women’s Health Protective Association, and the Brooklyn Anti-Tuberculosis Committee generated anti-spitting slogans such as “Spitting Is Dangerous, Indecent, and Against the Law,” “Beware the Careless Spitter,” and “No Spit, No Consumption.” They made posters decrying spitting (among other unhealthy habits) and reminding people of the ban. Members of the public were encouraged to confront defiant spitters, or, at the very least, give them the stink eye. ”

    “New York City officials followed through on the threat of punitive action for errant spitters. More than 2500 people were arrested under the statute between 1896 and 1910, though most only received a small fine—on average, less than $1 (in 1896, that was the equivalent of about $30 today)”

    The campaign was successful in the long run. Public spitting is no longer acceptable in the Western world unlike in China.

    What’s with all the spitting?
    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g294211-i642-k5305825-o10-What_s_with_all_the_spitting-China.html
    “Just returned from first visit to Beijing and Shanghai. Couldn’t walk around for more than 5 minutes without hearing a local horking up phlegm and spitting it wherever they happened to be. Once I was standing next to a police officer in a subway station who spit into the trash can, but everyone else just didn’t care where they spit.”

    Chinese Crack Down on Public Spitting
    http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/64853.htm

    Whether the campaign against the spitting in 19th/20th century contributed to reducing tarnsmision of TB we do not know. But we must agree it was a good thing, though I am sure many libertarians would oppose it and consider it as another example of government petty tyranny.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @utu


    Whether the campaign against the spitting in 19th/20th century contributed to reducing tarnsmision of TB we do not know. But we must agree it was a good thing ...
     
    Yes, probably, as far as I know.

    ... though I am sure many libertarians would oppose it and consider it as another example of government petty tyranny.
     
    I'm the guy that affirms the illiberal proposition. You're the guy that teaches me how complex financial systems work. Are you sure that you have not confused me today with someone else?

    I think you are ranting.
     
    If so, pardon. Is the following better? I favor a moderately paternalistic state. However, like any other pater, if the state does not wish its paternalism to be flouted, then the state ought to have comported itself in a manner that sustains its citizens' trust.

    Replies: @utu

  90. @JR Ewing
    @utu

    Probably so, but the state has the obligation not to squander that authority when it realizes that the Japanese air raids bodies piled in the streets aren't actually coming as was feared.

    Replies: @utu

    The state (in the US, UK or Netherlands) has squandered its authority when its public officials in CDC spoke against masks during the early phase of the pandemic. CDC even published a meta study paper in April to back up their position or rather cover up their back. Not until August and September CDC and WHO began to speak with one voice in a favor of masks:

    CDC director Robert Redfield said face masks may be more effective than a vaccine in preventing individual coronavirus infections”
    https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-masks-better-than-vaccines-at-stopping-coronavirus-2020-9

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-europe-who-masks-could-prevent-coronavirus-lockdowns-school-closures-dont-work/
    The World Health Organization’s senior official in Europe said Thursday that blanket national lockdowns to curb the spread of COVID-19 wouldn’t be necessary if governments could convince their citizens to wear masks.

    Why CDC and WHO were spreading disinformation and dragging their feet about masking? Most likely explanation is that CDC and WHO are in the pocket of Big Pharma that does not want general public use effective countermeasure that are not drugs or vaccines. This long standing anti-mask approach is a part of paradigm arrived at by the medical community, health organizations and the Big Pharma.

    Is it possible that some anti-mask voices are form Big Pharma shills? Are libertarians by getting on the anti-mask bandwagon ending up being the useful idiots for Big Pharma? Yes and yes!

    We may blame CDC and Big Pharma for the confusion about masks and the reason why media did not come down hard on anti-masking sentiments as it should have had. A lot of disinformation was spread about masking so most people still do not understand that masking works through universal masking reducing the reproductive number R0 and it is not in contradiction with that individuals wearing masks get infected while surrounded by unmasked population as in the recent Danish study that again provided fuel to the anti-masking (Big Pharma) argument.

    Clarification about the universal masking vs. individual masking
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/chinese-gdp-in-2050-the-debate/#comment-4295040

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @utu

    If CDC in pocket of Big Pharma, and Big Pharma doesn’t like masks, why did they ever change their position at all? I remember Scott Alexander writing about the history of this policy; it goes back to the 2009 swine flu I believe. Anti mask was the received wisdom by most world health authorities outside East Asia up till this year.

    But I agree stupid to make it partisan, but inevitable when trust in government so low. All else equal I think it’s good people don’t trust their government but can occasionally backfire when government happens to get it right.

    Replies: @utu

  91. anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @anon



    Australia managed to suppress it without turning into a communist dictatorship
     
    Victoria not part of Oz anymore? When did that happen?
     
    A while back. Victoria is different. Is the whole of the US just like California?

    Victoria is heavily into virtue-signalling. Partly it's because Melbourne is such an awful place and they've always been jealous of Sydney. Melbournites over-compensate by imagining that they're more arty and intellectual and much more moral. It's still an awful city with an atrocious climate. And that really upsets them.

    As has been said many times the only good thing about Melbourne is the road leading to Sydney.

    Replies: @anon

    A while back. Victoria is different.

    It’s not an independent country, it’s part of Australia, and there’s unchallenged vid of Vic cops arresting people for ludicrous charges. Rather like some sort of dictatorship, in fact.

    Which, please note, you just assured us was not happening in Australia.

    So either some of that stuff is happening in Australia, or Victoria isn’t part of Australia, or you are yet again engaging in near-brain-dead trolling. Which is most likely?

    Is the whole of the US just like California?

    Non sequitur .California is still part of the US. Stuff that happens in California thus happens in the US.

    Troll smarter. Not harder.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anon


    Which, please note, you just assured us was not happening in Australia.
     
    As much as I despise Victoria, it's not quite a communist dictatorship. They haven't rounded up thousands of people and sent them to the GULAGs. They're not lining people up against the wall and shooting them. And the ridiculously strict lockdowns have ended, rather than leading to permanent communist dictatorship.

    And as much as some people dislike draconian lockdowns they do in fact work. Victoria is now COVID-free.

    The rest of Australia is a long long way from being a communist dictatorship and we're pretty much COVID-free as well.

    Replies: @anon

  92. @utu
    @JR Ewing

    The state (in the US, UK or Netherlands) has squandered its authority when its public officials in CDC spoke against masks during the early phase of the pandemic. CDC even published a meta study paper in April to back up their position or rather cover up their back. Not until August and September CDC and WHO began to speak with one voice in a favor of masks:



    CDC director Robert Redfield said face masks may be more effective than a vaccine in preventing individual coronavirus infections”
    https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-masks-better-than-vaccines-at-stopping-coronavirus-2020-9

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-europe-who-masks-could-prevent-coronavirus-lockdowns-school-closures-dont-work/
    The World Health Organization's senior official in Europe said Thursday that blanket national lockdowns to curb the spread of COVID-19 wouldn't be necessary if governments could convince their citizens to wear masks.
     
    Why CDC and WHO were spreading disinformation and dragging their feet about masking? Most likely explanation is that CDC and WHO are in the pocket of Big Pharma that does not want general public use effective countermeasure that are not drugs or vaccines. This long standing anti-mask approach is a part of paradigm arrived at by the medical community, health organizations and the Big Pharma.

    Is it possible that some anti-mask voices are form Big Pharma shills? Are libertarians by getting on the anti-mask bandwagon ending up being the useful idiots for Big Pharma? Yes and yes!

    We may blame CDC and Big Pharma for the confusion about masks and the reason why media did not come down hard on anti-masking sentiments as it should have had. A lot of disinformation was spread about masking so most people still do not understand that masking works through universal masking reducing the reproductive number R0 and it is not in contradiction with that individuals wearing masks get infected while surrounded by unmasked population as in the recent Danish study that again provided fuel to the anti-masking (Big Pharma) argument.

    Clarification about the universal masking vs. individual masking
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/chinese-gdp-in-2050-the-debate/#comment-4295040

    Replies: @Jtgw

    If CDC in pocket of Big Pharma, and Big Pharma doesn’t like masks, why did they ever change their position at all? I remember Scott Alexander writing about the history of this policy; it goes back to the 2009 swine flu I believe. Anti mask was the received wisdom by most world health authorities outside East Asia up till this year.

    But I agree stupid to make it partisan, but inevitable when trust in government so low. All else equal I think it’s good people don’t trust their government but can occasionally backfire when government happens to get it right.

    • Thanks: utu
    • Replies: @utu
    @Jtgw

    I believe that Big Pharma interests play a big role in attitudes and policies of world health organizations. To confuse the understanding about mask is very easy. It suffices to emphasize the individual protection. Then indeed a mask which is imperfect does not protect you 100% so studies of mask effectiveness are so designed to show that a masked individual among the non-masked population eventually gets infected. This is the case was with the recent Danish study. To make a study that masks when universally worn (let say by 80% of population) can reduce R0 to well below one would be much harder, so we must rely on epidemiological studies and theoretical modeling.

    I remember Scott Adams bringing up the Prisoner Dilemma in the context of masking:


    The Prisoner’s Dilemma, as played by two very dumb libertarians who keep ending up on defect-defect. There’s a much better outcome available if they could figure out the coordination, but coordination is hard. From a god’s-eye-view, we can agree that cooperate-cooperate is a better outcome than defect-defect, but neither prisoner within the system can make it happen. – Scott Alexander
     
    This brings us to libertarians and people with libertarian mental habits. Here are some Unz commenters who often show signs of intelligence yet they are incapable of transcending their ideological and characterological biases:

    Mr. Anon: No, public policy should be to not assume powers that the government does not and ought not to have. It does not have the right to tell people to wear masks just because it makes you feel better.
     

    Mike Tre: I reject your framing that wearing a mask is the gentlemanly thing to do. It’s not. It’s mindless, ineffective virtue signaling for the masses.
     

    Kratoklastes: Going outside without a mask is what I do now. It’s what I have done all my life. It’s what I will continue to do. That’s because I’m numerate, and I’m not an 80 year old with chronic lung or heart disease.
     

    Just ‘Sayin’…: The vast majority of those dying of Covid-19 are net drains on the economy. They’re deadwood, pensioners sucking up resources that later generations will be paying for. Every such life lost is actually cost beneficial.
     
    "why did [CDC, WHO] ever change their position at all" - Preponderance of evidence. Pressures by people of good will.

    Replies: @Jtgw

  93. @utu
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I think you are ranting. In your short comment you have used 'petty' and 'pettily' seven times.

    In late 19th century a campaign against spitting was launched in America and Europe after the discovery of the cause of tuberculosis by Robert Koch.


    "New York City became the first American metropolis to ban spitting on sidewalks, the floors in public buildings, and on public transit, giving officials the ability to slap wayward spitters with a fine or a jail sentence. Over the next 15 years, almost 150 other U.S. cities followed suit and banned public spitting"

    "The New York City health department and private groups like the National Tuberculosis Association, the Women’s Health Protective Association, and the Brooklyn Anti-Tuberculosis Committee generated anti-spitting slogans such as "Spitting Is Dangerous, Indecent, and Against the Law," "Beware the Careless Spitter," and "No Spit, No Consumption." They made posters decrying spitting (among other unhealthy habits) and reminding people of the ban. Members of the public were encouraged to confront defiant spitters, or, at the very least, give them the stink eye. "

    "New York City officials followed through on the threat of punitive action for errant spitters. More than 2500 people were arrested under the statute between 1896 and 1910, though most only received a small fine—on average, less than $1 (in 1896, that was the equivalent of about $30 today)"
     
    The campaign was successful in the long run. Public spitting is no longer acceptable in the Western world unlike in China.

    What's with all the spitting?
    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g294211-i642-k5305825-o10-What_s_with_all_the_spitting-China.html
    "Just returned from first visit to Beijing and Shanghai. Couldn't walk around for more than 5 minutes without hearing a local horking up phlegm and spitting it wherever they happened to be. Once I was standing next to a police officer in a subway station who spit into the trash can, but everyone else just didn't care where they spit."

    Chinese Crack Down on Public Spitting
    http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/64853.htm
     
    Whether the campaign against the spitting in 19th/20th century contributed to reducing tarnsmision of TB we do not know. But we must agree it was a good thing, though I am sure many libertarians would oppose it and consider it as another example of government petty tyranny.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Whether the campaign against the spitting in 19th/20th century contributed to reducing tarnsmision of TB we do not know. But we must agree it was a good thing …

    Yes, probably, as far as I know.

    … though I am sure many libertarians would oppose it and consider it as another example of government petty tyranny.

    I’m the guy that affirms the illiberal proposition. You’re the guy that teaches me how complex financial systems work. Are you sure that you have not confused me today with someone else?

    I think you are ranting.

    If so, pardon. Is the following better? I favor a moderately paternalistic state. However, like any other pater, if the state does not wish its paternalism to be flouted, then the state ought to have comported itself in a manner that sustains its citizens’ trust.

    • Replies: @utu
    @V. K. Ovelund

    However, like any other pater, if the state does not wish its paternalism to be flouted, then the state ought to have comported itself in a manner that sustains its citizens’ trust.

    With this you will not dig yourself out form the hole you dug. Regardless of trust or mistrust you are expected to judge decisions of government on their merit. But you rather go on ranting 'petty', 'petty'....

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  94. @anon
    @dfordoom

    A while back. Victoria is different.

    It's not an independent country, it's part of Australia, and there's unchallenged vid of Vic cops arresting people for ludicrous charges. Rather like some sort of dictatorship, in fact.

    Which, please note, you just assured us was not happening in Australia.

    So either some of that stuff is happening in Australia, or Victoria isn't part of Australia, or you are yet again engaging in near-brain-dead trolling. Which is most likely?

    Is the whole of the US just like California?

    Non sequitur .California is still part of the US. Stuff that happens in California thus happens in the US.

    Troll smarter. Not harder.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Which, please note, you just assured us was not happening in Australia.

    As much as I despise Victoria, it’s not quite a communist dictatorship. They haven’t rounded up thousands of people and sent them to the GULAGs. They’re not lining people up against the wall and shooting them. And the ridiculously strict lockdowns have ended, rather than leading to permanent communist dictatorship.

    And as much as some people dislike draconian lockdowns they do in fact work. Victoria is now COVID-free.

    The rest of Australia is a long long way from being a communist dictatorship and we’re pretty much COVID-free as well.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    Your portable goalposts are beginning to wear grooves in the ground.

    Troll smarter, not harder.

  95. @Jtgw
    @utu

    If CDC in pocket of Big Pharma, and Big Pharma doesn’t like masks, why did they ever change their position at all? I remember Scott Alexander writing about the history of this policy; it goes back to the 2009 swine flu I believe. Anti mask was the received wisdom by most world health authorities outside East Asia up till this year.

    But I agree stupid to make it partisan, but inevitable when trust in government so low. All else equal I think it’s good people don’t trust their government but can occasionally backfire when government happens to get it right.

    Replies: @utu

    I believe that Big Pharma interests play a big role in attitudes and policies of world health organizations. To confuse the understanding about mask is very easy. It suffices to emphasize the individual protection. Then indeed a mask which is imperfect does not protect you 100% so studies of mask effectiveness are so designed to show that a masked individual among the non-masked population eventually gets infected. This is the case was with the recent Danish study. To make a study that masks when universally worn (let say by 80% of population) can reduce R0 to well below one would be much harder, so we must rely on epidemiological studies and theoretical modeling.

    I remember Scott Adams bringing up the Prisoner Dilemma in the context of masking:

    The Prisoner’s Dilemma, as played by two very dumb libertarians who keep ending up on defect-defect. There’s a much better outcome available if they could figure out the coordination, but coordination is hard. From a god’s-eye-view, we can agree that cooperate-cooperate is a better outcome than defect-defect, but neither prisoner within the system can make it happen. – Scott Alexander

    This brings us to libertarians and people with libertarian mental habits. Here are some Unz commenters who often show signs of intelligence yet they are incapable of transcending their ideological and characterological biases:

    Mr. Anon: No, public policy should be to not assume powers that the government does not and ought not to have. It does not have the right to tell people to wear masks just because it makes you feel better.

    Mike Tre: I reject your framing that wearing a mask is the gentlemanly thing to do. It’s not. It’s mindless, ineffective virtue signaling for the masses.

    Kratoklastes: Going outside without a mask is what I do now. It’s what I have done all my life. It’s what I will continue to do. That’s because I’m numerate, and I’m not an 80 year old with chronic lung or heart disease.

    Just ‘Sayin’…: The vast majority of those dying of Covid-19 are net drains on the economy. They’re deadwood, pensioners sucking up resources that later generations will be paying for. Every such life lost is actually cost beneficial.

    “why did [CDC, WHO] ever change their position at all” – Preponderance of evidence. Pressures by people of good will.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @utu

    The smartest libertarians like Hans Hoppe understand the problem and the necessity for some kind of communal hierarchy. But I’ve seen otherwise based and right wing libertarians retreat to these bad intellectual habits when it comes to Covid. It’s partly understandable because it is the hated State that is imposing these restrictions, but they should know better than to resort to modal libertarian arguments like “no one has a right to a germ free environment”. Sure in a state of nature that might be so but on public property commonly owned by the taxpaying citizens the government has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the residents. For the same reason in a state of nature everyone has freedom of movement but on taxpayer owned property the government has a responsibility to control the borders and keep out parasites and troublemakers.

    I think we should be outraged by the extended lockdowns and mask mandates because they were only necessary due to a grotesque failure to respond to the threat in a timely fashion, a failure exacerbated by the liberal media and liberal politicians everywhere. We could have been Taiwan and shut this down back in January or February. But denying the threat just discredits the cause.

  96. @V. K. Ovelund
    @utu


    Whether the campaign against the spitting in 19th/20th century contributed to reducing tarnsmision of TB we do not know. But we must agree it was a good thing ...
     
    Yes, probably, as far as I know.

    ... though I am sure many libertarians would oppose it and consider it as another example of government petty tyranny.
     
    I'm the guy that affirms the illiberal proposition. You're the guy that teaches me how complex financial systems work. Are you sure that you have not confused me today with someone else?

    I think you are ranting.
     
    If so, pardon. Is the following better? I favor a moderately paternalistic state. However, like any other pater, if the state does not wish its paternalism to be flouted, then the state ought to have comported itself in a manner that sustains its citizens' trust.

    Replies: @utu

    However, like any other pater, if the state does not wish its paternalism to be flouted, then the state ought to have comported itself in a manner that sustains its citizens’ trust.

    With this you will not dig yourself out form the hole you dug. Regardless of trust or mistrust you are expected to judge decisions of government on their merit. But you rather go on ranting ‘petty’, ‘petty’….

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @utu


    With this you will not dig yourself out from the hole you dug.
     
    Good grief, @utu, my old blogging friend. I gather that you've had a bad day.

    You're a good man, but this is a blog's comment column. It is not an installment to the Federalist Papers, nor a solemn engraving in the temple's stone wall at Karnak. You can afford to relax a little here. If I happen to express a thought suboptimally from time to time, it will be all right.

    Should you and I happen to meet face to face, I think that you will find that I am wearing a mask; but if I forget just please remind me, okay?
  97. @utu
    @V. K. Ovelund

    However, like any other pater, if the state does not wish its paternalism to be flouted, then the state ought to have comported itself in a manner that sustains its citizens’ trust.

    With this you will not dig yourself out form the hole you dug. Regardless of trust or mistrust you are expected to judge decisions of government on their merit. But you rather go on ranting 'petty', 'petty'....

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    With this you will not dig yourself out from the hole you dug.

    Good grief, , my old blogging friend. I gather that you’ve had a bad day.

    You’re a good man, but this is a blog’s comment column. It is not an installment to the Federalist Papers, nor a solemn engraving in the temple’s stone wall at Karnak. You can afford to relax a little here. If I happen to express a thought suboptimally from time to time, it will be all right.

    Should you and I happen to meet face to face, I think that you will find that I am wearing a mask; but if I forget just please remind me, okay?

  98. @dfordoom
    @Jtgw


    About Australia, I heard stories of very tough lockdowns in some places like Melbourne, but sounds like that’s the exception?
     
    We've only had very mild lockdowns in the part of Australia in which I live. Pretty much unnoticeable. Small businesses have remained open. No compulsory mask-wearing. Social distancing, but it's not really enforced (except in medical practices). Hand sanitiser available in stores but nobody actually cares if you use it or not.

    Victoria is a weird place to start with. They're very very ideological in Victoria. And very authoritarian. But that's Victoria. They're very holier-than-thou.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    So how did Australia manage outside Victoria? I feel in the US the only choices presented are a) do nothing at all, or b) national lockdown and mask mandate until everyone is forced to vaccinate. Ideology and partisanship prevents any sensible middle ground.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jtgw

    I feel in the US the only choices presented are a) do nothing at all, or b) national lockdown and mask mandate until everyone is forced to vaccinate.

    Your feelings are not relevant to reality. They aren't even related to reality.

  99. @dfordoom
    @anon


    Which, please note, you just assured us was not happening in Australia.
     
    As much as I despise Victoria, it's not quite a communist dictatorship. They haven't rounded up thousands of people and sent them to the GULAGs. They're not lining people up against the wall and shooting them. And the ridiculously strict lockdowns have ended, rather than leading to permanent communist dictatorship.

    And as much as some people dislike draconian lockdowns they do in fact work. Victoria is now COVID-free.

    The rest of Australia is a long long way from being a communist dictatorship and we're pretty much COVID-free as well.

    Replies: @anon

    Your portable goalposts are beginning to wear grooves in the ground.

    Troll smarter, not harder.

  100. @utu
    @Jtgw

    I believe that Big Pharma interests play a big role in attitudes and policies of world health organizations. To confuse the understanding about mask is very easy. It suffices to emphasize the individual protection. Then indeed a mask which is imperfect does not protect you 100% so studies of mask effectiveness are so designed to show that a masked individual among the non-masked population eventually gets infected. This is the case was with the recent Danish study. To make a study that masks when universally worn (let say by 80% of population) can reduce R0 to well below one would be much harder, so we must rely on epidemiological studies and theoretical modeling.

    I remember Scott Adams bringing up the Prisoner Dilemma in the context of masking:


    The Prisoner’s Dilemma, as played by two very dumb libertarians who keep ending up on defect-defect. There’s a much better outcome available if they could figure out the coordination, but coordination is hard. From a god’s-eye-view, we can agree that cooperate-cooperate is a better outcome than defect-defect, but neither prisoner within the system can make it happen. – Scott Alexander
     
    This brings us to libertarians and people with libertarian mental habits. Here are some Unz commenters who often show signs of intelligence yet they are incapable of transcending their ideological and characterological biases:

    Mr. Anon: No, public policy should be to not assume powers that the government does not and ought not to have. It does not have the right to tell people to wear masks just because it makes you feel better.
     

    Mike Tre: I reject your framing that wearing a mask is the gentlemanly thing to do. It’s not. It’s mindless, ineffective virtue signaling for the masses.
     

    Kratoklastes: Going outside without a mask is what I do now. It’s what I have done all my life. It’s what I will continue to do. That’s because I’m numerate, and I’m not an 80 year old with chronic lung or heart disease.
     

    Just ‘Sayin’…: The vast majority of those dying of Covid-19 are net drains on the economy. They’re deadwood, pensioners sucking up resources that later generations will be paying for. Every such life lost is actually cost beneficial.
     
    "why did [CDC, WHO] ever change their position at all" - Preponderance of evidence. Pressures by people of good will.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    The smartest libertarians like Hans Hoppe understand the problem and the necessity for some kind of communal hierarchy. But I’ve seen otherwise based and right wing libertarians retreat to these bad intellectual habits when it comes to Covid. It’s partly understandable because it is the hated State that is imposing these restrictions, but they should know better than to resort to modal libertarian arguments like “no one has a right to a germ free environment”. Sure in a state of nature that might be so but on public property commonly owned by the taxpaying citizens the government has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the residents. For the same reason in a state of nature everyone has freedom of movement but on taxpayer owned property the government has a responsibility to control the borders and keep out parasites and troublemakers.

    I think we should be outraged by the extended lockdowns and mask mandates because they were only necessary due to a grotesque failure to respond to the threat in a timely fashion, a failure exacerbated by the liberal media and liberal politicians everywhere. We could have been Taiwan and shut this down back in January or February. But denying the threat just discredits the cause.

  101. @Jtgw
    @dfordoom

    So how did Australia manage outside Victoria? I feel in the US the only choices presented are a) do nothing at all, or b) national lockdown and mask mandate until everyone is forced to vaccinate. Ideology and partisanship prevents any sensible middle ground.

    Replies: @anon

    I feel in the US the only choices presented are a) do nothing at all, or b) national lockdown and mask mandate until everyone is forced to vaccinate.

    Your feelings are not relevant to reality. They aren’t even related to reality.

    • Troll: V. K. Ovelund
  102. @Jtgw
    @brabantian

    How much of the latest wave in the US and Europe is to do with incorrigible black and brown people refusing to follow the law? Deplorable minds want to know.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Pop Warner, @Audacious Epigone

    The higher number of cases in the US seems to have to do primarily with higher PCR tests and more of them. It is remarkable how it is impossible tell by looking at graphs of Covid deaths and hospitalizations by state and/or by country what preventative measures–if any–said states and/or countries have taken to allegedly control the disease. South Dakota has done much better than California. These mandates are madness.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS