Messages

1

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: May 26, 2022, 11:02:54 AM »

Remember most conservatives are now black and white view point people. If you are not able to get rid of school shooting totally, then do nothing. You have to end all abortion.  You have to eliminate all fraud from elections. There is no grey area or working towards a goal. Their way 100% or you are un American.

The irony of you accusing "most" conservatives of holding non-absolute points of view is kind of funny.

2

General Comments / Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

« on: May 26, 2022, 10:57:38 AM »

#banAR15 is as generically useless as #thoughtsandprayers

The AR happens to be one of the most popular semi-auto rifles, but "banning ARs" wouldn't do anything. Banning semi-automatic rifles would first need a clear definition of what semi-automatic means, and I've never seen anyone knowledgeable actually attempt to do this.

Anyone proposing laws or regulations that clearly wouldn't prevent these kinds of shooting incidents - or worse, spouting "stricter gun laws" (as if that means anything) isn't part of an adult conversation.

The US has a unique multi-variate problem. Lots of guns, tons of mind-altering meds being prescribed to children early and often, and dysfunctional social media acting like a magnifier. Those three elements have created thousands of bombs waiting to blow.

3

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 03, 2022, 04:30:53 PM »

Might not be in line with the prevailing pro-choice lexicon, but I do appreciate Biden's honesty here.

"The idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard,"

4

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

« on: May 03, 2022, 10:50:40 AM »

It's interesting to me that the conservative reaction is anger against this being leaked, rather than jubilation that so many unborn lives will be saved.

How would this save so many unborn lives? Wouldn't this just defer to individual states and still be legal anyway?

5

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: April 21, 2022, 01:24:51 PM »

Those that listen to Bill moving over to the camp of 'well we just going to have to live with it to bad for those that die, nothing we can do'. Any personal sacrifice, even simple wearing of masks on airplanes to much to ask. The exercise of 'freedom' = Frack the other person, as long as I'm good.

No. You can talk in absolutes like "any personal sacrifice is too much" if it makes you feel better. The world is full to the brim with risks and associated trade-offs that people aren't aligned on - many that affect others beyond themselves. This is merely a disagreement on one particular category.

Positioning masks as some kind of holy cause doesn't make it any more, or less, than that.

6

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: March 24, 2022, 12:48:23 PM »

Then why do you care about the definition of woman? Some kind of esoteric linguistic issue?

For the same reason that if I wanted to present myself as native Japanese, and believed it down to my bones, you should not be compelled to agree with me. I wouldn't expect you to be an a$#hole about it, but you should not be expected to agree that "Yes Scott, of course you were born in Japan, it's your choice!"

7

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: March 24, 2022, 12:23:34 PM »

I didn't bother with the chromosome argument, because the people making that argument don't understand genetics and in any event, they are using it to deny that people should be able to define their gender and force them into compliance.

You keep getting this wrong. I'm fine with people defining their own gender. Or defining their species. Don't care.

8

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: March 24, 2022, 10:16:00 AM »

So indeed, the definition IS ambiguous, since that choice is available along with the traditional definition of the word.

Only because we've made it so. The answer should be relatively simple and entirely objective. A woman is a human with two X chromosomes. Not really tricky at all, but we also live in a time where objectivity bows to feelings and perception on a daily basis.

Put another way, if we're collectively agreeing that "woman" means whatever it needs to for the beholder, it means nothing.

I'm so sorry that the world is moving on without you, it must be jarring. It's okay though, you can live in the idyllic world of the 1950s and watch June Cleaver fulfill the role of traditional housewife.

At the end of the day, this isn't linguistics. Even if we made up entirely new words that only meant gender identity you'd be equally upset that dudes are wearing dresses.

Lol, you seem to be interpreting my response as something I'm struggling with. The opposite is true.

It's a cognitive dissonance tell that your response to my very objective and clear definition (those with two X chromosomes) is centered around 50's stereotypes and clothing choices.

As if my definition of the word woman is somehow at odds with being perfectly fine with a dude wearing a dress. Is that all you've got?

9

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: March 24, 2022, 09:38:25 AM »

So indeed, the definition IS ambiguous, since that choice is available along with the traditional definition of the word.

Only because we've made it so. The answer should be relatively simple and entirely objective. A woman is a human with two X chromosomes. Not really tricky at all, but we also live in a time where objectivity bows to feelings and perception on a daily basis.

Put another way, if we're collectively agreeing that "woman" means whatever it needs to for the beholder, it means nothing.

10

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: March 23, 2022, 09:04:34 PM »

Agreed. Although I didn't do a great job representing my sex and colour from a spelling perspective with this thread title.

11

General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist

« on: March 23, 2022, 05:02:26 PM »

Luckily for you, my self-identified sex and colour (that one I don't think I can self-claim, but I suspect you might disagree?) took me out of the running before I had a chance.

12

General Comments / I'm not a bioligist

« on: March 23, 2022, 03:36:44 PM »

So a supreme court justice nominee just said they could not define what a woman is because "I'm not a biologist."

Shouldn't that response in itself be disqualifying? How can one rule on women's rights issues or other laws pertaining to women if they are incapable of articulating what one is?

13

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: March 20, 2022, 02:53:55 PM »

The story wasn't "falsely discredited" - it was rightfully considered unlikely given the totality of circumstances.

The pretzel you're twisting yourself into to defend the fact that reporting on it was literally banned is astounding.

It does mean though that the lack of evidence means we should be skeptical of any content claimed to originate from the laptop without thorough vetting and third party verification.

As a default-skeptic, I agree. Should "skepticism" include banning information and a cabal of 50 so-called intel experts officially saying they think a story is likely false BEFORE it's vetted?

I was skeptical of the Trump pee tape but noticed a distinct absence of media banning or committee-signed declarations saying it was likely false. Why is that?

14

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 18, 2022, 09:10:45 PM »

Already at 30M views.

Yeah, but only because you linked to it here.

You’d be surprised at the reach the 6 of us have. I personally have at least a dozen people that see what I retweet. I think.

15

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 18, 2022, 03:22:04 PM »

Compelling message from Arnold to the Russian people. Already at 30M views.

https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1504426844199669762

16

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: March 18, 2022, 01:38:33 PM »

It was always acknowledged that the laptop, even if it were a Russian set-up, might have some or many, or even the majority of emails on it as legitimate. 

Lol. It was acknowledged by the public that it was likely legitimate, but the opposite was true according to approved/sanctioned social media.

Remember the 50 intel "experts" that signed a document stating that "our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case..."? I'm sure if Trump jr's laptop had been found, the exact same skepticism and media bans would have been enacted. /s

Luckily the election was concluded just in time for the public to see the intel "experts" opinions, but not any news outlets trying to explore the story further. Because they were banned for spreading "misinformation". In this case, misinformation = information, true or not, that would be directly harmful to our intended outcomes. Nothing was to going to get in the way of Trump being ousted.

17

General Comments / Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich

« on: March 17, 2022, 07:42:21 PM »

Yeah I get it’s not super uncommon.

Honestly, my biggest concern is that Jussie's attacker is now back on the streets.

18

General Comments / Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich

« on: March 17, 2022, 12:43:23 PM »

And just like that, he's out of jail. His attorneys said jail would not be good for his health and that apparently sufficed for the appeals committee.

19

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 17, 2022, 12:33:52 PM »

Putin may have lost his mind. Literally. His own speech video, translated.

"The collective west...is focused on the destruction of Russia"

https://twitter.com/just_whatever/status/1504144895501557762

20

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: March 17, 2022, 12:20:36 PM »

So the NYT is positioning the Hunter Biden laptop story as legit and real. Hopefully twitter and the other social media outlets ban the NYT for this and do NOT repeat the story. At least until the 2024 election is over so we don't spread any misinformation.

Sarcasm off. Twitter suspended a major newspaper’s account for a story everyone is now forced to acknowledge was true. That’s fine, right? We’ll just be moving on?

21

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 16, 2022, 05:45:59 PM »

I think if an athlete, actor, whatever is openly saying ambiguous (or worse) things about something as bad as what's happening in Ukraine there could definitely be a scenario where they are fired, punished, etc. I'm on board.

My problem lies with those who simply focus on doing their job and don't want to voice their political opinions at all, whether they're from Moscow or Missoula.

If you actively spout things that are supportive of bad actions/actors, all bets are off. Maybe I'm in the minority but - in my opinion, if you choose not to comment on political issues, you should be neither punished nor compelled to speak.

22

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 16, 2022, 04:11:30 PM »

Let me know when these sanctions start being applied to anyone not residing in Russia.

Medvedev doesn't reside in Russia. He speaks fluent French, moved to France in 2018 and now resides permanently in Monaco.

Maybe a compromise: those who reside in Russia have to say the words they're given, but others just need to wear a ribbon.

23

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 16, 2022, 03:19:14 PM »

This is protesting and sanctioning the largest invasion of a peaceful democracy since WW2.

Your employer telling you that you can't work unless you publicly endorse a particular party line is not protesting.

And for the record, I don't care what the cause is. Forcing people to pledge political allegiance in order to do a non-political job is stupid and evil.

24

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 16, 2022, 03:13:49 PM »

When did American right become so pro Russia?

Right on cue! Those who disagree with forcing public displays of political support as a requirement for employment must be pro-Russia!

Your McCarthy impression is spot on. There could be many "parlour Bolsheviks" lurking in the sports and entertainment world. We should ferret them out ASAP. Especially those communist sympathizers on the American right!

25

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 16, 2022, 12:11:14 PM »

Son, if you want to keep working here you must be active and vocal in your support of [$cause]. We're gonna need to hear you say it. And a ribbon or t-shirt would also be nice touch.

I, for one, would like my employer to know that I fully support $cause[1] and have added a graphic to my twitter account to prove it. Again, I want to be on the record: $cause[1] has my full and active support.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-s-daniil-medvedev-faces-wimbledon-ban-unless-he-distances-himself-from-putin-9h6hfxxrm

26

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 13, 2022, 11:37:02 AM »

Coming soon: proof of Ukraine support in order to enter restaurants or fly.

27

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 11, 2022, 11:14:14 AM »

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-recital-society-cancels-performance-by-genius-russian-pianist

That's it. I'm demanding Amazon remove the following:

- all books by Tolstoy, Nabokov, Dostoyevsky and others I haven't thought of yet.
- all music/works of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky and I'm sure there are many more
- all Russian nesting dolls

I'm also boycotting all NHL teams that have Russian players and demanding they permanently suspend Alex Ovechkin. To send the right message of support.

28

General Comments / Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

« on: March 08, 2022, 04:38:04 PM »

The Tribunal is bought and paid for by Soros and Gates so you can't trust them.  There was no invasion.  It was all fake new paid for by Dominion.

Thier is a increasing number of people who believe that the war in Ukraine is fake. I wonder who could be pushing that narrative.

I think there are an increasing number of people who question damn near everything being pumped out of the media. The thinking ones, at least.

29

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: March 07, 2022, 06:34:38 PM »

Personally if I made the rules it would be illegal to use anything but legit footage as unsourced, and if you don't have any then a stock photo would have to include a big "STOCK PHOTO" label.

Yup, or DRAMATIZED FOR CLICKS and they can use whatever they want.

If we can force cigarette packages to show all manner of graphic health disclaimers we should be able to do the same for social media content.

30

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: March 07, 2022, 06:30:12 PM »

"Dramatizing" photos etc. is a firing offense at most newspapers and broadcast news.  And would violate the photo journalist code of ethics.

Love the sentiment but that ship sailed a looong time ago.

31

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: March 07, 2022, 05:46:44 PM »

The intent was benign, to better illustrate the truthful ideas, but it wasn't "real".

I realize this is akin to the on-the-ground hurricane weather reporter pretending to be barely able to stand as people walk unfettered in the background. Maybe it's just me but I'm against fabricating things (in this case dead bodies) and reporting it as fact regardless of intent. I do agree its value as propaganda is undeniable

Your documentary point is also good. I'd actually be ok if all twitter "news" reports carried the same "people and events portrayed in this content may have been dramatized" disclaimer that many documentaries have.

If you're going to say a victim of a war might stage something to reduce their enemies support? Yes, absolutely. Bodies have been moved to areas that make enemy bombing seem immoral, like body bags in front of a school. If you're going to make the accusation though, you had best do the diligence necessary to prove it.

What "proof" would suffice for you in this case? Proof that the body in the video wasn't simply the beginning of world war Z?

32

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: March 06, 2022, 02:45:28 PM »

In which the "reporter" recounts a horrible Ukrainian death count in front of rows of covered bodies, er, actors.

Welcome to the new news. I suspect there are hundreds of these kinds of reports for everyone that accidentally busts itself. We're f$%kd.

https://twitter.com/LouieKerr8/status/1500486894190215173

33

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 16, 2022, 10:08:24 AM »

This was an issue related to hospitalizations up to about a month ago when the reporting rules changed to "hospitalized For" from "Hospitalized With" so older statistics need to be looked at carefully. This is however independent of deaths from which have been accurately tracked for the most part despite claims from deniers.

Where are you seeing this new "for vs with" data? Most recent CDC is still showing "Hospital Admissions of Patients with confirmed covid-19...", which simply confirms TheDeamon's point above.

34

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 15, 2022, 04:03:12 PM »

I am Scott. If you don't like my flu comparison, how about a comparison to drowning? If you bring me data, I'll just wave it away with an assumption that it must be wrong. Is there any way to have a discussion with me in good faith? Try it and find out.

Impressive post. Devoid of literally any actual content but somehow still seems to reek of condescension.

I said I didn't have time to pull data, not that it must be wrong. But you knew that. The drowning stat is perfectly in line with my overall opinion on the public's covid risk assessment re: children, but you knew that too. I'm perfectly willing to engage with almost anyone but will likely ignore anything from you going forward unless there's something actually substantive in your posts.

@jc44:

Here's a report showing Leading Causes of Death in Children 5-11 Years of Age, NCHS, 2019 (slide 20). From Oct 2020 to Oct 2021 there had been 66 covid associated deaths for children 5-11 compared to 84 dying of flu in 2019. I realize it's hypocritical for me to lament "from covid" vs "with covid" so the same disclaimers and skepticism should be in place for the flu as well.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-COVID-Jefferson-508.pdf

35

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 15, 2022, 03:34:35 PM »

Meanwhile, Denmark has created a site addressing covid misinformation for its citizens. It's probably one of the more reasonable and responsible government responses I've seen.

https://en.ssi.dk/covid-19/typical-misinformation-regarding-danish-covid-numbers

36

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 15, 2022, 03:30:36 PM »

If you had said that the chances of a child dying of covid are really very small and people are really bad at assessing risk then I would have been forced to agree with you but you compared it to flu where, at best, your statement is debateable.

My original comment was

I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu

If you concede the flu part is debatable, then we're not really disagreeing at all.

37

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 15, 2022, 10:47:53 AM »

I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.

Can you find stats to back that up? My brief research suggests that in the last stats year flu caused 199 pediatric deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-deaths-reach-new-high.htm) and covid ~470 (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 table is over 2 years so /2) so whilst I can't account for all factors covid certainly doesn't seem to be less deadly than flu.

Don't have time to go data-hunting right now but I don't think it's that much of a mystery. This article was pre-omicron, which clearly is much milder.

About 3x as many children die from drowning than covid - maybe they're all just wearing the wrong kind of mask.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn

https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-risk-hospitalization-death

38

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 14, 2022, 08:40:15 PM »

weekly hospitalization by age

You can see that easily a third of hospitalizations are those under 50. Now, we can't know the severity but we can guess. "A lot" more 80 year olds are likely to need bigger intervention, while the 40 year old might just get bipap and observation for a day or two.

"Now, we can't know the severity..." - that's quite the understatement.

Do you know how the CDC actually tallies covid associated hospitalization data? I do. This is why when something like omicron is ripping through an entire population, its super informative to realize that a huge % of ALL hospitalizations (kids, teens, everyone) are now suddenly covid "associated".

39

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 14, 2022, 03:55:58 PM »

I'll grant you that characterizing "a lot" is subjective and open to wide interpretation.

This is probably it. If we assume that many tens of millions of younger, healthier people have been exposed/positive, and a tiny percentage of them have had bad outcomes then saying "a lot of healthier people who survive" is highly subjective vs relative/objective.

Maybe my reflex is to push back too frequently on these things, but I've been hyper-sensitive to misrepresentation of data since a highly respected heart surgeon I knew told me to my face that "most of the people" in real trouble in the ERs in New York back in the early days of the pandemic were healthy young teenagers and adults. At the time I didn't know better (he certainly didn't either) and believed him.

I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.

40

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 14, 2022, 01:12:53 PM »

The problem is staying fixed on deaths, and not paying attention to hospitalizations. A lot of the younger, healthier people who survive do so with weeks in ICU, dialysis, intubation, bed sores, etc.

Part of my challenge in responding to comments like this is that we clearly have different definitions of words like "younger and healthier", "a lot", and "survive".

41

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 14, 2022, 01:08:39 PM »

Is a lockdown worth it if it saves X 80-year-old lives but sends 100 times more 30-year-old people into a psychological tailspin?

No such equation tradeoffs were ever seriously deliberated, at least not in the mainstream. We had scientists and epidemiological experts recommending what they thought were the best recommendations to meet their single end goal - the lowest viral transmission possible. Good leaders don't just hand the mic and policy to single-dimension experts with something that has global, multi-dimensional ramifications.

We're now in a place where you can have older adults drinking it up at bars and packed arenas without concern, but 5 year old kids need to keep struggling with masks.

Indefensible.   

42

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: February 11, 2022, 04:55:29 PM »

Point taken, gentlemen.  I haven't listen to Joe Rogan.  I haven't heard his measured and thoughtful responses to his guests and callers.  I am being unfair to him based on very limited information and the reputation he has earned among some people.

Thanks.

Could you do me a favor to help me understand something, though.  Could you explain the context of the recording of his response to a caller that I mentioned before, staring at about 11:26.  Why was he so rude to this caller?

I'm not even sure where that's from, sounds like it's a super old recording but I'll give it a shot. It sounds like a younger, immature and far less measured version of Rogan treating a calller (?) like a heckler in a comedy club. That's not to say she was a heckler - and there's no real defense that I can think of. I'm sure he'd probably cringe if he heard it himself now.

As I said earlier, in the hundreds of hours I've listened to him I've only seen him go off once like that, and it was him confronting Carlos Mencina on stage and accusing him of stealing other people's jokes, which is what Mencina had actually done. 99% of the time he's calm and let's his guests talk without much interruption at all.

What I really enjoy is he doesn't let things necesarily just slide, and because it's long format he has the time to dig into every nuance he wants to. I recall him spending 15 minutes literally pinning Ben Shapiro down on why he thought being gay was a sin. It was polite but it was obvious Joe wanted Shapiro to be clear on just what he did and didn't approve of re: homosexuality, as his views are polar opposite to what Rogan believes.

43

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: February 11, 2022, 02:53:05 PM »

And while I haven't listened to his show, I've heard enough...

aaaand scene.

44

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 11, 2022, 12:14:11 PM »

You should be worried about both, plus the next variant. Constantly.

45

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 10, 2022, 07:37:50 PM »

But others get it because it was essentially unavoidable and just a numbers game (some % will get it, period end of story).

Why are you so selfish? Why are you trying to kill my grandmother?

46

General Comments / Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation

« on: February 10, 2022, 07:34:06 PM »

I wonder what kind of montage could be captured if we poured over ten thousand hours of your conversations. Or mine. Spotless? Never once saying something truly and utterly offensive, shouting someone down or spouting nonsense? Or would there be, I dunno, a super solid montage of you/me being stupid and/or rude?

I've probably seen/listened to hundreds (out of the thousands) of his podcasts and if he's considered a "rhetorical bully" we're all doomed.

47

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 10, 2022, 07:30:00 PM »

People think they dodged a bullet with light covid but they don't realize that the bullet is still inside them lodged right in their heart. It's a small bullet though, well actually millions of microscopic bullets they don't know are there until it's too late.

I know you think you feel fine, that you're recovered. Hell, you may even run a marathon. But heed me FOOL - do you not know that you could die from the Covid Ghost Bullet lodged deep in your heart? Listen to my warning and, well, just listen to it. For death awaits you.

48

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 10, 2022, 07:21:58 PM »

"I've seen enough cases of people scrambling to mask up and/or avoid unmasked people in such a way that it seems obvious their primary concern isn't protecting others."

Of course, a better way even than wearing a mask to protect others from you giving them covid is to not get it in the first place and avoiding unmasked people is a good first step toward avoiding getting covid

How far and how long do you want to take it? Covid has psychologically broken a lot of people. I hope for your sake that this whole thing hasn't broken you.

49

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 10, 2022, 06:54:41 PM »

I can mention the several cases I'm aware of involving someone getting covid, and being much more scared that they got it (it finally happened TO ME!!!) than concerned about the severity of their symptoms.

Well...yeah, that has been the most common reaction I've seen with tightly-wound low-risk people "getting it".

"It's probably because they're worried about spreading it to others!". Maybe. Or maybe their lizard brain latched on to the daily death tickers and ignored the data. Letting go is hard when your limbic system has been whipped into a frenzy for a couple of years.

50

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 10, 2022, 06:48:00 PM »

- Wearing a mask protects others from you
- verses thinking that wearing a mask protects you from others. 

Put another way my concern is for you and or my concern is for myself. I suspect that if the focus is on the latter the anxiety level would be different then if focused on former.

I've seen enough cases of people scrambling to mask up and/or avoid unmasked people in such a way that it seems obvious their primary concern isn't protecting others. Can't read minds, but body language and behavior are usually pretty good indicators of whether something is coming from a place of altruism vs self-preservation.