Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

[Gabriel]

Science or politics?

Risk management.

[3WE]

An acquaintance died from breast cancer this month. Apparently she delayed (or was delayed) in seeing a doctor during the initial 10 day (errr, 10 month) lockdown to flatten the curve…and this delay (the actual full lockdown) likely allowed it to metastasize past being removable.

Meanwhile, the majority of affected people dealt with a nasty, old-fashioned flu incidence.

Science or politics?

[3WE]

And I'm not alone. A lot of people aren't compelled to move with the herd.

The herd of a bazillion viruses? Edit: A bazillion VARIETIES of viruses or a bazillion (mutating) individuals WITHIN a variant?

[Evan]

Yes, "we" know you'll never move on.

And I'm not alone. A lot of people aren't compelled to move with the herd.

But git along little doggies. It's your misfortune and none of my own.

[ATLcrew]

I'd rather avoid it by accepting minor inconveniences until long-Covid is betfer understood and becomes more treatable.

Yes, "we" know you'll never move on.

[Evan]

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/...edium=news_tab

Move on, everyone. Even the mighty CDC says so. Incidentally, they're now recommending exactly what Sweden (for one) has been doing all along.

It is entirely political now. It's about what people are willing to accept:

"What the CDC is, in my opinion, trying to do, they are trying to still be relevant, and maybe when they say something, people will listen to them instead of being completely 180 degrees away from what behavior is anyway," Chin-Hong said.

Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, agrees that the new guidance shows that the CDC is trying to meet people where they are.

"I think that this is a point where you actually have to sort of get real and start giving people tools they can use to do something or not. Because otherwise, people will just will not take you seriously," Hanage said.

However:

When the Covid community level is high -- as it currently is in 41% of counties -- the CDC continues to recommend that everyone wear high-quality masks indoors. High-risk people should also wear quality masks when the community level is medium, as it now is in 39% of counties.

So, no, not move on everyone.

And, since Covid isn't going anywhere, those counties that 'move on' will likely return to high levels where the CDC recommends masks.

The best hope still lies in the BA.1/BA.4/BA.5 vaccines that Pfizer and Moderna are expecting to release in October or November. They are showing 8-10-fold increases in neutralizing antibodies against Omicron variants.

And no mention of long-Covid, the larger concern now. The possibility exists that there is no 'moving on'. It might even turn out that Covid is a retrovirus living forever in the host and causing lifelong problems. I'd rather avoid it by accepting minor inconveniences until long-Covid is betfer understood and becomes more treatable.

[ATLcrew]

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/...edium=news_tab

Move on, everyone. Even the mighty CDC says so. Incidentally, they're now recommending exactly what Sweden (for one) has been doing all along.

[Gabriel]

if you think the constitution protects rights that are not clearly enumerated in said document, travel to DC and tell the US supreme court they are clueless.

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Examples:
Right to be treated innocent until proven guilty
Right to a Fair Trial
Right to a Jury of Your Peers
Right to Vote
Right to Travel
Right to Marriage (including homosexual and interracial but also heterosexual same-race)
Right to Privacy
Right to interrupt pregnancy (it was considered a constitutional right until a couple of month ago)

All of these rights have been, in one way or another, have been recognized as constitutionally protected by the supreme court and yes, they have reversed their opinion in the last case, even AGAINST THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

unless of course you haven't been following the most talked about decision in decades.

... which was based on the opinion that the right to interrupt pregnancy was not rooted in American culture or traditions, NOT that it is not spelled in the Constitution.

on the tax issue, the states are free to tax or not tax. the federal govt has its own tax and the constitution requires citizens to pay said taxes. but you go ahead and try to not pay taxes. let us know how that works out for you.

Re-read what I wrote. I was talking about Federal tax and I was not talking about not paying the taxes that you have to pay by law: I was talking about a majority of the people, leaving in a minority of states, to want to tailor the tax LAW so they don't have to pay taxes. Because majority.

But let me give you a less hypothetical example: 80% of the people, including well above 50% of Republicans, want more gun controls including a rise in age, delayed and universal background checks, and other measures. But the NRA is too powerful and an important source of political funding.

the electoral college was put in place to protect the money class from the working class.

Kinda exactly my point.

[TeeVee]

Well, that's why in a democratic republic (like USA is supposed to be) there are constitutional and legal provisions, including rights that are acknowledged to be constitutionally protected even if they are not listed in the bill of rights, to avoid what happens when 2 wolves and a sheep vote what to have for dinner.



That is the most naïve and unreal version of democracy that I have ever heard. What if the people of the 10 states that account for 51% of the population "speak" that they will be free from federal income tax and that the other 40 states have to make up for that with increased tax? Spoiler: Not even the president is elected by the majority.

And let me be clear: Once again, I am not talking of COVID, masks or your opinion thereof. I am talking about the surprisingly weak (and wrong) arguments that you use to try to defend your opinions.

you clearly misunderstand your adopted country's laws, including the constitution. if you think the constitution protects rights that are not clearly enumerated in said document, travel to DC and tell the US supreme court they are clueless. unless of course you haven't been following the most talked about decision in decades.

on the tax issue, the states are free to tax or not tax. the federal govt has its own tax and the constitution requires citizens to pay said taxes. but you go ahead and try to not pay taxes. let us know how that works out for you.

the electoral college was put in place to protect the money class from the working class. read some non-public school US history and learn how bourgeoisie our "founding fathers" really were. save that ridiculous dated and frankly shitty idea, majority does rule, if only in an indirect way for some matters. but dont you worry, when your elected officials go south on you, you can always vote them out.

good god you folks are disillusioned. on the one hand you want the law to protect you, while at the same time, cursing the govt and system for actually following the law because you dont like the results. oh well.

follow that greener grass, let us know how it works out.

p.s. funny how air rage, unruly pax, turnarounds and emergency landings due to the foregoing have magically disappeared from the news these last few months....

[TeeVee]

Oh, how I carry on...



Of course I'm right.



No, it's quite relevant, but it's also quite futile, because we live in a self-absorbed delusion.

So, carry on.

doors are open. feel free to leave anytime. i hear singapore has policies you like, plus they have a fantastic airline...

[Gabriel]

in a democracy, the minority always loses. it's just math.

Well, that's why in a democratic republic (like USA is supposed to be) there are constitutional and legal provisions, including rights that are acknowledged to be constitutionally protected even if they are not listed in the bill of rights, to avoid what happens when 2 wolves and a sheep vote what to have for dinner.

i know youre gonna carry-on about how the mask protects more than the wearer, and you may be right. it's irrelevant. the majority have spoken and we live in a democracy.

That is the most naïve and unreal version of democracy that I have ever heard. What if the people of the 10 states that account for 51% of the population "speak" that they will be free from federal income tax and that the other 40 states have to make up for that with increased tax? Spoiler: Not even the president is elected by the majority.

And let me be clear: Once again, I am not talking of COVID, masks or your opinion thereof. I am talking about the surprisingly weak (and wrong) arguments that you use to try to defend your opinions.

[Evan]

i know youre gonna carry-on about how the mask protects more than the wearer...

Oh, how I carry on...

and you may be right.

Of course I'm right.

it's irrelevant.

No, it's quite relevant, but it's also quite futile, because we live in a self-absorbed delusion.

So, carry on.

[3WE]

***jettisoning aerosol.***

You really need to go on a bike ride.

[TeeVee]

But this is an aviation safety forum, not a train safety forum.

he says in a thread he started that was basically about a flight turning around because of an anti-masker.

in any event with freedom comes freedom AND the bill. when a people exercise their freedom in a way that causes harm, it is they that have to pay. in a democracy, the minority always loses. it's just math.

pointing to somewhat oppressive govts like singapore is a bad tactic. singapore canes people for chewing gum. and while japan is fairly democratic, their culture is vastly different. suicide is common to avoid embarrassment. cultural pressures are enormous. but if that kind of thing appeals to you, i'm sure you could find a way to live there.

i look at this the same way i look at helmet laws and seat belt laws. if you dont use them, you stand a good chance of losing your life. it should be your choice and not a way for the govt to make money in the form of fines for not caring about yourself. funny, you can smoke 23 packs of cigarettes per day and that is legal...

i know youre gonna carry-on about how the mask protects more than the wearer, and you may be right. it's irrelevant. the majority have spoken and we live in a democracy.

[Evan]

Do you find the government’s inconsistency curious? Widespread regulation of business and masks, and now, very few mandates?

Well, first no mandates, then train wreck, then mandates, then political backlash (and populist fervor), then Freedoms®, then another train wreck, now they've stepped back out of it. It's our train wreck now. With freedom comes responsibility, or train wrecks.

But this is an aviation safety forum, not a train safety forum.