Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,558 Posts
Gas mask and air filters ....They have been the hardest to find in all of this ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,558 Posts
What I have learned, mostly? I have overestimated the intelligence of the average citizen - again.
Yep .. Was at the post office this morning ..women had mask on but pulled down so her nose etc was not covered :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,854 Posts
That petty tyrants can be pretty quick to jump on situation to exercise unreasonable power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
I learned that our society is incredibly and blindingly addicted to the concept of safety. Our lives have become so long, and so good, that there isn't a single major leader in administration, healthcare, politics, or economics who has the testicular fortitude to say that everything has a price, including human life, and that to some extent we must be willing to pay it in order to continue living. The modern "if it only saves one life" approach, when taken to its logical conclusion, is the foundation of the "zeroth law" predicament of Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot" series - that any harmful action can be justified under the pretense of safety and that enslaving the humanity is the only way to "save" it.

I would give a lot to hear someone come out and openly say it: "This is going to cost X lives, and that may be worth it". Because under my current situation, our leader say that destroying our way of life and economy is worth it because of potentially saving a certain number of lives. But when this particular crisis is over, what happens when we consider a threat to X/2 lives. What about X/4. What about X/10 or X/100. We have tens of thousands of people die of the flu every year. Are their lives worth less than those who die of COVID-19? Then why shouldn't we continue the shutdown for them? What about other diseases? What about personal choices? Half a million people a year die because of smoking and its related disease (may be more than that ultimately). Why should they be allowed to continue doing something so harmful? If you take the current government's approach, there is no reason why SWAT can't come to their house and confiscate the cigarettes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
I learned that our society is incredibly and blindingly addicted to the concept of safety. Our lives have become so long, and so good, that there isn't a single major leader in administration, healthcare, politics, or economics who has the testicular fortitude to say that everything has a price, including human life, and that to some extent we must be willing to pay it in order to continue living. The modern "if it only saves one life" approach, when taken to its logical conclusion, is the foundation of the "zeroth law" predicament of Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot" series - that any harmful action can be justified under the pretense of safety and that enslaving the humanity is the only way to "save" it.
Ditto this. If I never hear the word "safety" again, it will be too soon. I wouldn't mind hearing the word "freedom" though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,854 Posts
I learned that our society is incredibly and blindingly addicted to the concept of safety. Our lives have become so long, and so good, that there isn't a single major leader in administration, healthcare, politics, or economics who has the testicular fortitude to say that everything has a price, including human life, and that to some extent we must be willing to pay it in order to continue living. The modern "if it only saves one life" approach, when taken to its logical conclusion, is the foundation of the "zeroth law" predicament of Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot" series - that any harmful action can be justified under the pretense of safety and that enslaving the humanity is the only way to "save" it.

I would give a lot to hear someone come out and openly say it: "This is going to cost X lives, and that may be worth it". Because under my current situation, our leader say that destroying our way of life and economy is worth it because of potentially saving a certain number of lives. But when this particular crisis is over, what happens when we consider a threat to X/2 lives. What about X/4. What about X/10 or X/100. We have tens of thousands of people die of the flu every year. Are their lives worth less than those who die of COVID-19? Then why shouldn't we continue the shutdown for them? What about other diseases? What about personal choices? Half a million people a year die because of smoking and its related disease (may be more than that ultimately). Why should they be allowed to continue doing something so harmful? If you take the current government's approach, there is no reason why SWAT can't come to their house and confiscate the cigarettes.
What never gets figured into the "if this saves just nnn lives..." is the lives and lifespans that it will cost.

Is it not true that suicides are up?
How many lives will be shortened by the stresses people have undergone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
What never gets figured into the "if this saves just nnn lives..." is the lives and lifespans that it will cost.

Is it not true that suicides are up?
How many lives will be shortened by the stresses people have undergone?
Those are numbers the so called experts that so many are listening to will never ever tell us. If there is 2 more suicides due to conditions caused by the hysteria to every one death saved by the draconian measures that have been imposed it will not matter to so many people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
802 Posts
I must point out that this is the first time in human history that healthy people were placed in quarantine conditions by government order.

Quarantine is a very old approach to dealing with communicable diseases, dating back hundreds of years. Up until now the quarantine order applied only to those known to be infected, therefore dangerous to the community. This new approach is troublesome at best, and at worst is little more than arbitrary house arrest without any effort toward due process of law. The ramifications for individual liberties and civil rights are genuinely huge for future generations.

It is gratifying to now know that 99.7% of the people you knew and dealt with prior to this event will be around to enjoy life in the future. Personally, I do not know of a single family or person who has had to deal with the disease, but we have all been forced to deal with a devastating shut-down of our economy and weeks of breathless reporting of gloom and doom for all humanity.

I am not unsympathetic to those who have become ill, or died, or lost loved ones. But it now appears that the tool chosen for this application was a sledge hammer instead of a more appropriate fly swatter.

Of course, the fact that this is an election year could not possibly have any effect on the response, or the mainstream media coverage. Yeah, right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
I must point out that this is the first time in human history that healthy people were placed in quarantine conditions by government order.
I believe that is not correct. Quarantine, as opposed to isolation, is by definition, only for healthy people who may have been exposed to a disease. If they are not healthy it becomes isolation.

"In human history" as you phrased it, the practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required by the government to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing, whether anyone on the ship had symptoms or not. The word quarantine was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which means 40 days.

In the US, government mandated quarantine of healthy people was used during a colera outbreak in 1892 and extensively during Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-19. Since the Public Health Act of 1944, quarantines of healthy people have been routinely ordered for cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fevers (such as Marburg, Ebola, and Congo-Crimean), and severe acute respiratory syndromes.

During the Ebola outbreak, a nurse, Kaci Hickox, was was quarantined against her will by Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey after returning home from treating Ebola patients in West Africa. Her only symptom was a slightly elevated temperature. She tested negative for the disease...twice, but Christie would not let her go. She got a lawyer to get her out of quarantine in NJ and returned to her home in Maine, where health officials there said if she did not voluntarily quarantine for 21 days, the state government would force her to. She was healthy. She never developed Ebola. BTW, despite the high statistical death rate for Ebola, only two people in the US ever died from it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
802 Posts
I believe that is not correct. Quarantine, as opposed to isolation, is by definition, only for healthy people who may have been exposed to a disease. If they are not healthy it becomes isolation.

"In human history" as you phrased it, the practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required by the government to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing, whether anyone on the ship had symptoms or not. The word quarantine was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which means 40 days.

In the US, government mandated quarantine of healthy people was used during a colera outbreak in 1892 and extensively during Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-19. Since the Public Health Act of 1944, quarantines of healthy people have been routinely ordered for cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fevers (such as Marburg, Ebola, and Congo-Crimean), and severe acute respiratory syndromes.

During the Ebola outbreak, a nurse, Kaci Hickox, was was quarantined against her will by Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey after returning home from treating Ebola patients in West Africa. She had no symptoms and had tested negative for the disease...twice. She got a lawyer to get out of quarantine in NJ and returned to her home in Maine, where health officials there said if she did not voluntarily quarantine for 21 days, the state government would force her to. She was healthy. She never developed Ebola. BTW, despite the high statistical death rate for Ebola, only two people in the US ever died from it.
Very informative post. Thank you.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top