Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

350 Excellent

About dave2013

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alabama, USA

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

About Me

  • About Me
    Flight simulation enthusiast since 1984.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can live with forced quarantine, because it is necessary to protect public health, and because it is a temporary condition. Forced vaccination on the other hand bothers me. I'm conflicted a bit here because on the one hand I understand that it may be necessary for public health reasons, but it also violates a person's civil rights. Does the govt. have the right to force us to put something in our bodies that we don't want, even if it is beneficial for us and is for the public good? I think it will depend on a couple things: 1. Is Covid-19 severe enough and such a danger to public health that *everyone* must be vaccinated? 2. Is the vaccine absolutely safe? Number 2 is a real concern because vaccines, as beneficial as they are, do carry some risk. I have read reports about people having awful side effects from vaccines, and Congress will likely pass legislation granting the vaccine developers immunity from lawsuits, so no recourse if something goes horribly wrong. These Covid-19 vaccines are also being developed on an expedited schedule, and for good reason, but does rushing their development compromise their safety? Personally, I try to avoid taking pharmaceuticals at all costs. I eat a nutritious diet most of the time and take herbal remedies if I have a problem. I have never taken the Influenza vaccine and haven't caught the Flu in over 11 years. The only reason I caught it then is because I was on an international flight and started getting symptoms several days after arriving back home. I hope I'm not forced to take a Covid-19 vaccine. Dave
  2. Aside from the snide and crass remark about this thread being full of "conspiracy theory crackpots", I can understand that some contributors to this thread have gotten frustrated and decided to just give up. I guess you have to ask yourself the question "what is my goal here?". If your goal is to get everyone to agree with you then I can guarantee that you will be disappointed. If, however, your goal is to use facts, logic, and reasoning in debating an issue and in so doing try to come up with solutions, then I think you will be rewarded in the end. Heck, you might even learn something. We will never agree on everything, but we can usually find some common ground on almost any issue. I've learned a lot by reading the posts and contributing here. I've even altered my position a bit in some cases thanks to well-informed arguments made by some here. Like Alan has stated, I think that many of us are actually closer in our opinions related to Covid-19 than we think. Unfortunately, any debate can get corrupted by the injection of politics, biases, personal attacks, labeling, etc. I've done it myself by labeling some comments here "propaganda". It really can't be helped because we all have biases and personal beliefs that influence our thinking on many issues and our overall worldview. If we're aware of that fact, however, we can overcome it, or at least minimize it, by making a conscious effort to be open-minded, logical, and reasoned in our discourse. We must also realize that we all have different backgrounds and experiences which influence how we see things, and try to put ourselves into the other person's shoes sometimes. Dave
  3. Forgot to mention: I wonder what percentage of those 3% and 8% of Covid-19 ICU patients under 64 have underlying health problems like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, etc? Need more data. Dave
  4. Government cannot backstop the entire economy. It can only provide some temporary assistance to cushion the fall a bit so to speak. All those big govt. programs didn't really end the Great Depression. They certainly helped, though, and we got a lot of good infrastructure out of them. We should be doing something like that now instead of just borrowing and printing money and handing it out to everybody. That's extremely short-term thinking. There is no intention of ever paying off the debt. Values have changed since before the 1970s with regard to debt. Plus, there's no real benefit to paying it off if you can just borrow money at artificially low interest rates forever and keep the debt to GDP ratio about the same due to chronic inflation. Dave
  5. OK. Well, it's not 10% for everyone under 60. It's about 3% for those aged 20-44, and 8% for ages 45-54, and again 8% for ages 55-64. I used the average of the upper and lower bounds of the range. Even if you only used the upper bound numbers it would still be less than 10% for most people under 60. Having said that, the numbers are higher than I would have thought. Like I said before, I'm 50 and in pretty good health, but I'd rather not catch Covid-19. I agree with all of your recommendations, by the way. I would also include mandated sanitation and hygiene requirements for all establishments. My only concern deals with testing and tracing. I worry that in order to improve our ability to conduct testing and tracing, we will lose our privacy and be required to have location monitoring and some sort of verification that we've been tested, and that without these we lose our right to travel, to enter some establishments, go to work, etc. This could really happen. I suppose one could say it's necessary to prevent another large-scale outbreak and the subsequent awful consequences, but it's scary nonetheless to be monitored like that and give the govt. even more surveillance powers. Dave
  6. I couldn't agree more. Just yesterday I was on a 4-lane 65mph speed limit highway and there was a lady who kept slowing down and speeding up, so she would pass me and then a few minutes later I would have to pass her over and over. We came to a stoplight and when the light turned green she just sat there for almost 10 seconds until I tapped the horn. I passed her slowly on purpose and sure enough she was texting. The penalties for this should be much more severe than they are. It's almost tantamount to driving under the influence. Dave
  7. Do you know the percentage of those under 60 years of age that have long term effects from Covid-19? If it's more than a few percent then I might have to alter my position a bit. Where are you getting your figure that 10% of those under 60 who contract Covid-19 need icu care? I'm reading reports from all over the country that the hospitals are practically empty. These are eyewitness reports from not only the public but doctors and nurses as well. Lastly, what is your solution? What do you recommend? It's easy to criticize and poke holes in everyone else's opinions and suggestions. Put your cards on the table. Dave
  8. Yes, and I should clarify my position. I personally don't advocate forcing anyone to stay home, except for someone we know for a fact is infected, so we treat and quarantine them temporarily. What I mean is that if we must have restrictions, which again I don't advocate, then at least have effective, fact-based ones, which would have to focus on the elderly, sick, and known infected. Dave
  9. I would argue that automobile accidents are in many ways similar to an infectious disease. I can "catch" an automobile accident from anyone, anytime, anywhere. All it takes is for a single person to have one second of inattentiveness or recklessness, either the other driver or me, and I can die or be paralyzed for life. If I take certain preventative/protective measures like wearing a seat belt, driving a car with anti-lock brakes, air bags, collision avoidance, etc, and practice defensive driving then I can greatly reduce my chances of having an accident and/or being killed or paralyzed. The same goes for an infection, i.e. a single infected person can pass the virus to me through a moment of inattentiveness or recklessness either on their part or mine. If I and others take the proper preventative/protective measures then I can greatly reduce my chances of contracting the disease. Dave
  10. For the most part I agree with you. You bring up some good points, but some of your arguments, or the ones you cite, are mostly academic and not based in reality. You point to a study that had we shut down earlier then we could have prevented deaths. Aside from the fact that this is common sense, the very nature of these types of outbreaks is that we don't ever react quickly enough because our knowledge and information are limited - we aren't omniscient. To make matters worse, I believe, based on a lot of evidence, that at least one govt. knew how severe this virus was but failed to inform the rest of the world quickly enough. Everyone is at risk from this virus. The question is: how much risk? If our goal is to reduce the risk to zero, or near zero, then we might as well give up on life altogether because one cannot live without incurring some amount of risk. We had the shutdowns and lockdowns to buy time to prepare. We've encouraged, and in some cases mandated, preventative/protective measures like social distancing, wearing masks, sanitizing, etc. to slow the spread of the virus. We've ramped up testing nationwide to find out how many are infected and who is infected. This must continue and increase so that we can quickly isolate and quarantine those infected. We've ramped up development of treatments and have had some promising results. We've ramped up vaccine development on an unprecedented scale. As a civilization we're doing all we can within reason to combat the virus, prevent its spread, and save as many lives as we can *reasonably* save. And that's where a lot of the disagreement lies I think, i.e. what is "reasonable"? How far should we go to save X number of lives? At what point does the cure become worse than the disease? My contention is that we should focus primarily on protecting the elderly and sick. If that means engaging in age discrimination and mandating that they stay home, or have highly restricted travel, then so be it. If it means the kids and grand kids can't visit for a year, then so be it. Some people are going to die from this no matter what we do, and we just have to accept that. Imposing harsh restrictions on the 95% of the population who have an extremely low chance of dying from this is not a good long-term solution. Will a lot of people get sick? Probably. Just like millions of people get sick from colds, flu, and other infections every single year. The long-term solution is awareness and education so that people will naturally and voluntarily take the proven, reasonable measures to protect themselves and others, not stay home all the time and fear going out. This has to become a habit. Effective treatments and vaccines will be the ultimate solution. Dave
  11. I know that Crichton was a writer, and a pretty good one. Whatever you personally may think of him, his quote is nevertheless valid IMO. You have your opinions and I have mine. Dave
  12. A couple quotes just to remind people that we must remain vigilant not only of Covid-19, but other things as well: *********************************************************************************** "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin *********************************************************************************** “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” - Michael Crichton ************************************************************************************ Dave
  13. If you look at the Sweden map of Covid-19 cases it is evident that in the low population density parts of the country there are very few cases. You can't just look at the average population density. It is common sense that the number of cases, and thus deaths, will be much larger in major metropolitan areas, not small towns and rural areas. These areas should be treated differently. No need for one-size-fits-all national shutdowns and restrictions. I generally agree with you that country to country comparisons cannot be completely valid without a lot of adjustments for demographics, culture, climate, housing, etc. Dave
  14. Here's another Covid-19 deaths by age graph for Italy: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/ 96% of Covid-19 deaths are persons over 60 years of age. Only 1.5% are under 50 years of age. Dave
  • Create New...