4 ms·

>perhaps insisting on a public registry of those known to have had traffic citations, so those people can be denied services at restaurants etc... Speeding isn

by tw04 5y ago

>perhaps insisting on a public registry of those known to have had traffic citations, so those people can be denied services at restaurants etc... Speeding isn't infectious. If you get a traffic ticket I don't magically start getting them if we sit next to each other at a restaurant. "These people" are tired of "my opinion is just as valid as your science", and I don't blame them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xyzzy21 5y ago
More people die (and have major medical/quality of life impacts) from car driving than do die from COVID by an order of magnitude. If we want to solve problems most efficiency, it must be by selecting causes in Pareto ranked order thus cars should come before COVID regardless.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  completely agree! right now there's news headlines about how terrible the 2021 Sturgis Motorcycle Rally (locally relevant to me) was as a "superspreader" event, because people are getting positive PCR tests after the fact. however, there's been 0 covid deaths resulting from the 2021 Rally, while there was the usual single-digit (4 this time) traffic deaths. (when you take into account the sheer number of attendees and the sheer amount of drugs and alcohol consumed during the event, this is actually a shockingly low number!)
- stopping 5y ago
  This is not true. Using the U.S. as an example, there have been over 70,000 COVID deaths since April (previous 5 months). Yearly auto accident deaths typically are between 30,000 and 40,000. COVID has killed twice as many people in less than half the time, even during a period of widely available vaccines.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The fallacy is that auto accidents are neither tremendously infectious nor adaptive. Covid-19 is both. Even with the relatively limited consequence of automobile accidents, societies collectively take numerous measures to reduce risks, from highway engineering, traffic laws, and safety equipment to requiring individuals to participate in specific practices --- wearing seatbelts, using child safety seats, and not driving whilst impaired, amongst them.
h2odragon 5y ago
"These people are wrong, so they should be silenced" ... would you say that's a fair summation of your position? Have you never been wrong? How did you correct your error? Was some form of communication involved? Wouldn't you like others to have that chance too, of correcting an error? Has the "settled science" not been found to have nuances and complications that might be worthy of further discussion? I personally have been saved from likely severe injury by seatbelts. I require passengers in my car to wear them, (absent real reason not to). I still don't think the government has any right to mandate their use nor fine people for failing to wear them. I cannot imagine what positive use would be served by attempting to silence debate on the issue. Negative results of such dogmatic approaches are well documented and often repeated.
- tw04 5y ago
  >"These people are wrong, so they should be silenced" ... would you say that's a fair summation of your position? These people are intentionally spreading lies to the detriment of society as a whole. Allowing the lies to spread increases their location in search results and starts giving people who are technically illiterate a misguided belief that because it's on a popular site or shows up high in a search ranking that somehow makes the lies more likely to be truth. I've seen it first hand via a friends younger sister who has gone off the deep end and points to "reddit wouldn't allow something like this if it weren't true" when providing such facts as: vaccines have mercury in them so that the government can control your mind through electromagnetism. >Have you never been wrong? How did you correct your error? Was some form of communication involved? Wouldn't you like others to have that chance too, of correcting an error? The people in question have had over a year to have their incorrect beliefs corrected and are still regurgitating provably false statements. It's well past the point of "they just didn't have access to the proper information". >Has the "settled science" not been found to have nuances and complications that might be worthy of further discussion? The people in question aren't talking nuance. The people in question are claiming viruses don't exist, that science has fabricated it all. What discussion are you planning on having with someone who denies basic reality? There's no nuance to "viruses exist". >I personally have been saved from likely severe injury by seatbelts. I require passengers in my car to wear them, (absent real reason not to). I still don't think the government has any right to mandate their use nor fine people for failing to wear them. I cannot imagine what positive use would be served by attempting to silence debate on the issue. Negative results of such dogmatic approaches are well documented and often repeated. "The government" isn't some faceless beast, it is made up of representatives that you and I elect. The majority of people felt that a seat belt law was appropriate, so we have one. If you don't like it, try to convince your fellow citizens to vote for people who are willing to get rid of it. Or if you have the financial means to do so, move to another country in which the majority of the population aligns closer with your belief system if this one doesn't. As for not being able to imagine what positive results could come from silencing debate: there's no debate occurring. There's a subset of folks who refuse to believe subject matter experts and cast aside any scientific study as fake. You're trying to bring logic and reason to a table at which they aren't just unwanted, they are actively ignored.

by tw04 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xyzzy21 5y ago

More people die (and have major medical/quality of life impacts) from car driving than do die from COVID by an order of magnitude. If we want to solve problems most efficiency, it must be by selecting causes in Pareto ranked order thus cars should come before COVID regardless.

adamrezich 5y ago
completely agree! right now there's news headlines about how terrible the 2021 Sturgis Motorcycle Rally (locally relevant to me) was as a "superspreader" event, because people are getting positive PCR tests after the fact. however, there's been 0 covid deaths resulting from the 2021 Rally, while there was the usual single-digit (4 this time) traffic deaths. (when you take into account the sheer number of attendees and the sheer amount of drugs and alcohol consumed during the event, this is actually a shockingly low number!)
stopping 5y ago
This is not true. Using the U.S. as an example, there have been over 70,000 COVID deaths since April (previous 5 months). Yearly auto accident deaths typically are between 30,000 and 40,000. COVID has killed twice as many people in less than half the time, even during a period of widely available vaccines.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The fallacy is that auto accidents are neither tremendously infectious nor adaptive. Covid-19 is both. Even with the relatively limited consequence of automobile accidents, societies collectively take numerous measures to reduce risks, from highway engineering, traffic laws, and safety equipment to requiring individuals to participate in specific practices --- wearing seatbelts, using child safety seats, and not driving whilst impaired, amongst them.

h2odragon 5y ago

"These people are wrong, so they should be silenced" ... would you say that's a fair summation of your position? Have you never been wrong? How did you correct your error? Was some form of communication involved? Wouldn't you like others to have that chance too, of correcting an error? Has the "settled science" not been found to have nuances and complications that might be worthy of further discussion? I personally have been saved from likely severe injury by seatbelts. I require passengers in my car to wear them, (absent real reason not to). I still don't think the government has any right to mandate their use nor fine people for failing to wear them. I cannot imagine what positive use would be served by attempting to silence debate on the issue. Negative results of such dogmatic approaches are well documented and often repeated.

tw04 5y ago
>"These people are wrong, so they should be silenced" ... would you say that's a fair summation of your position? These people are intentionally spreading lies to the detriment of society as a whole. Allowing the lies to spread increases their location in search results and starts giving people who are technically illiterate a misguided belief that because it's on a popular site or shows up high in a search ranking that somehow makes the lies more likely to be truth. I've seen it first hand via a friends younger sister who has gone off the deep end and points to "reddit wouldn't allow something like this if it weren't true" when providing such facts as: vaccines have mercury in them so that the government can control your mind through electromagnetism. >Have you never been wrong? How did you correct your error? Was some form of communication involved? Wouldn't you like others to have that chance too, of correcting an error? The people in question have had over a year to have their incorrect beliefs corrected and are still regurgitating provably false statements. It's well past the point of "they just didn't have access to the proper information". >Has the "settled science" not been found to have nuances and complications that might be worthy of further discussion? The people in question aren't talking nuance. The people in question are claiming viruses don't exist, that science has fabricated it all. What discussion are you planning on having with someone who denies basic reality? There's no nuance to "viruses exist". >I personally have been saved from likely severe injury by seatbelts. I require passengers in my car to wear them, (absent real reason not to). I still don't think the government has any right to mandate their use nor fine people for failing to wear them. I cannot imagine what positive use would be served by attempting to silence debate on the issue. Negative results of such dogmatic approaches are well documented and often repeated. "The government" isn't some faceless beast, it is made up of representatives that you and I elect. The majority of people felt that a seat belt law was appropriate, so we have one. If you don't like it, try to convince your fellow citizens to vote for people who are willing to get rid of it. Or if you have the financial means to do so, move to another country in which the majority of the population aligns closer with your belief system if this one doesn't. As for not being able to imagine what positive results could come from silencing debate: there's no debate occurring. There's a subset of folks who refuse to believe subject matter experts and cast aside any scientific study as fake. You're trying to bring logic and reason to a table at which they aren't just unwanted, they are actively ignored.