Maddy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:25 pm
You just can't make this shit up.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health (PDH) released new guidelines recently that warn residents against attending orgies during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) plandemic – not necessarily because the sex part is risky, mind you, but because some attendees might not be wearing a mask.
* * *
If you simply cannot help yourself and have to attend an orgy in Pennsylvania – or as the PDH puts it, “if you attend a large gathering where you might end up having sex – the public health agency advises that you limit the number of partners and try to identify “a consistent sex partner.”
No matter who you have sex with during the plandemic, always wear “a face covering,” the PDH says, and “avoid kissing.” Unless you wash your hands both before and after sex, the PDH also advises that sex party attendees do not touch their eyes, nose, or mouth.
Citizen Free Press didn't take too many liberties, it seems like the press release really was talking about orgies without saying orgy. I thought it was funny that the press release couldn't bring itself to mention OnlyFans by name. And what, they didn't think of recommending romance novels? They totally left the ladies high and dry!
In all seriousness, orgies have become a major issue in Pennsylvania over the last year so it makes sense they're trying to get a hand in it. On it. Handle on it.
Except that the original source spells out, VERBATIM, what appears in the article I posted. Interestingly, it also dispenses a few other choices pieces of advice, including--and this is said to apply specifically to mitigating the transmission of CoVid--the advice to have sex only with "people you trust." Sound like something we heard 40 years ago, when the CDC was struggling for a way to reconcile the then-deadly threat of HIV with the purportedly fundamental right of gay men to have sex?
Note that in the very same article, we are reminded near the end that "Individuals living with HIV are encouraged to achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load to prevent transmitting HIV to their sex partners." One would be led to conclude that sex partners (at least those involved in the most inherently risky pursuits) are responsible enough to decide for themselves--first, whether, in fact, they pose a risk to others, and, second, whether the risk they pose to others is an acceptable one.
Maddy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:13 am
Sound like something we heard 40 years ago, when the CDC was struggling for a way to reconcile the then-deadly threat of HIV with the purportedly fundamental right of gay men to have sex?
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:50 pm
The original question stands. Has anyone on this forum been that extreme in their views on lockdowns? I don’t recall anyone.
I'll answer that. No, I haven't seen anyone that extreme in their views and I've been following this thread since the start. Didn't quite get that one myself. That's not to say that there haven't been differences of opinion.
Regarding the Ivor Cummins videos (all of which I have watched with great interest), I have a hard time believing that restricting people's interactions has NO effect on virus transmission. That would seem to be very much dependent on being exposed to a carrier, length of exposure and ventilation. And if all the restrictions on movement have the effect of just pushing the inevitable deaths a bit into the future, well that will turn out to have been a great idea if the vaccines are actually effective. And, yes, only a great idea if we are only counting virus deaths and not all the other excess death that these restrictions cause.
Lastly, I think it's only natural that we humans see stuff through the lens of our own experience. Our family business has been almost entirely shut down since March due to the restrictions on social interactions. We are probably out at least $60,000 and counting in lost income, and this is ongoing and will be a drag on future income even if things were to go back to 100% normal starting today. From a selfish point of view we hate living like this but I can't say that all the measures governments have taken are wrong.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:50 pm
The original question stands. Has anyone on this forum been that extreme in their views on lockdowns? I don’t recall anyone.
I'll answer that. No, I haven't seen anyone that extreme in their views and I've been following this thread since the start. Didn't quite get that one myself. That's not to say that there haven't been differences of opinion.
Regarding the Ivor Cummins videos (all of which I have watched with great interest), I have a hard time believing that restricting people's interactions has NO effect on virus transmission. That would seem to be very much dependent on being exposed to a carrier, length of exposure and ventilation. And if all the restrictions on movement have the effect of just pushing the inevitable deaths a bit into the future, well that will turn out to have been a great idea if the vaccines are actually effective. And, yes, only a great idea if we are only counting virus deaths and not all the other excess death that these restrictions cause.
Lastly, I think it's only natural that we humans see stuff through the lens of our own experience. Our family business has been almost entirely shut down since March due to the restrictions on social interactions. We are probably out at least $60,000 and counting in lost income, and this is ongoing and will be a drag on future income even if things were to go back to 100% normal starting today. From a selfish point of view we hate living like this but I can't say that all the measures governments have taken are wrong.
Sorry about your business Barrett, I hope you guys make it through and get back to normal soon.
As to your other points, it all goes back to Covid stuff being too black and white. On the one hand, governments have definitely overreached on what they've done. On the other hand mask wearing was made a much larger point of contention/liberty/freedom than it needed to be.
Except that the original source spells out, VERBATIM, what appears in the article I posted. Interestingly, it also dispenses a few other choices pieces of advice, including--and this is said to apply specifically to mitigating the transmission of CoVid--the advice to have sex only with "people you trust." Sound like something we heard 40 years ago, when the CDC was struggling for a way to reconcile the then-deadly threat of HIV with the purportedly fundamental right of gay men to have sex?
Note that in the very same article, we are reminded near the end that "Individuals living with HIV are encouraged to achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load to prevent transmitting HIV to their sex partners." One would be led to conclude that sex partners (at least those involved in the most inherently risky pursuits) are responsible enough to decide for themselves--first, whether, in fact, they pose a risk to others, and, second, whether the risk they pose to others is an acceptable one.
Sound like a double standard?
Sure it does. Why they though they had to put this out in the first place is questionable.
I especially like "You are your safest sex partner." Cool.
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:35 pm
Didn't you say you thought that your neighbors who were having a party should have been punished?
EDIT no, sorry about that Corto, that was dualstow saying they should be fined.
Yep, that was me. I suppose I was among the most extreme. I’ve stopped caring whether someone wears a mask in the street. People seem to be wearing them in stores where required. Good enough.
I am against the way restaurants are being driven out of business. Maybe all the Stuart Varney I watched at my parents’ is rubbing off, but I think people should be able to choose whether or not to dine out and take risks.
The party thing is kind of moot. It’s not going to be enforced.
I thought I was going to have to fly in January and I was concerned about that, but it looks like I probably won’t.
Yes - did you catch that WSJ article reporting that restaurant meals were responsible for something like 1.5% of COVID cases (excuse me, I meant "positive tests") in NYC? It is so sad to see the NYC restaurant industry completely destroyed for that puny possible benefit.
How did we get from the mindset of "if you get sick, just suck it up and keep on working and functioning!" that we had just one year ago, to "omg getting sick is absolutely unacceptable and we would rather destroy our economy and society than risk that!". The danger here is that the latter will become the new normal, and any illness or outbreak whatsoever is now going to prompt government-imposed lockdowns, mandatory remote work, cancelling large-scale events etc. I'm very much in favor of people who are sick staying home and working remotely instead of coming in to infect everyone around them, but when there's no logic or science behind the large-scale ongoing economic & social disruption, you know that as long as this new attitude continues, there's simply no way it can ever end. It'll stop when the attitude changes, and not before.
Maybe that's what the vaccines will accomplish. The one thing you can be sure of is that they won't eliminate COVID, but perhaps that's not necessary to use them to stop the madness.
This is only the beginning of the madness WiseOne. The people who think governments solve problems will insist the government "do" more and more. As long as the government "does something" about the flu, the flu will only get worse. Just wait for the next flu.
We are going to look back at 2020 as the good times I'm afraid.
Or maybe Trump stays in and calls a halt to all this BS.
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:35 pm
Didn't you say you thought that your neighbors who were having a party should have been punished?
EDIT no, sorry about that Corto, that was dualstow saying they should be fined.
Yep, that was me. I suppose I was among the most extreme. I’ve stopped caring whether someone wears a mask in the street. People seem to be wearing them in stores where required. Good enough.
I am against the way restaurants are being driven out of business. Maybe all the Stuart Varney I watched at my parents’ is rubbing off, but I think people should be able to choose whether or not to dine out and take risks.
The party thing is kind of moot. It’s not going to be enforced.
I thought I was going to have to fly in January and I was concerned about that, but it looks like I probably won’t.
On the other side of this. If the restaurants could have weathered this without being put out of business.....but they were allowed to stay open when maybe they should not have....where does that put the employees who are now expected to work there but don't feel at all safe there and by refusing to work now risk being fired....note the premise behind this is that the employees would, at some point, have a restaurant toc come back to. Plus, if they restaurant was closed they'd be entitled to unemployment which I do not think they would be if they decided they did not want to work under what they considered unsafe conditions.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:35 pm
Didn't you say you thought that your neighbors who were having a party should have been punished?
EDIT no, sorry about that Corto, that was dualstow saying they should be fined.
Yep, that was me. I suppose I was among the most extreme. I’ve stopped caring whether someone wears a mask in the street. People seem to be wearing them in stores where required. Good enough.
I am against the way restaurants are being driven out of business. Maybe all the Stuart Varney I watched at my parents’ is rubbing off, but I think people should be able to choose whether or not to dine out and take risks.
The party thing is kind of moot. It’s not going to be enforced.
I thought I was going to have to fly in January and I was concerned about that, but it looks like I probably won’t.
On the other side of this. If the restaurants could have weathered this without being put out of business.....but they were allowed to stay open when maybe they should not have....where does that put the employees who are now expected to work there but don't feel at all safe there and by refusing to work now risk being fired....note the premise behind this is that the employees would, at some point, have a restaurant toc come back to. Plus, if they restaurant was closed they'd be entitled to unemployment which I do not think they would be if they decided they did not want to work under what they considered unsafe conditions.
Vinny
Vinny, this entire paragraph is ludicrous. YOU ARE AWARE HOW RESTAURANTS MAKE MONEY?
-the restaurants could have weathered this without being put out of business. HOW?
-where does that put the employees who are now expected to work there but don't feel at all safe there and by refusing to work now risk being fired. THEN STAY HOME, AND LET OTHERS WORK.
-note the premise behind this is that the employees would, at some point, have a restaurant to come back to. NOT WHEN IT GOES OUT OF BUSINESS
-if the restaurant was closed they'd be entitled to unemployment NOT FOREVER, BUT THERE WOULD BE NO JOB SINCE THE RESTAURANT IS BANKRUPT. ALSO, EXTRA FEDERAL BENEFITS MADE IT MORE LUCRATIVE TO STAY HOME AND COLLECT. AND MAYBE PRETEND TO BE AFRAID TO RETURN.
Do you think the mega-chain, corporate restaurants are going to go out of business? You cut out my "if". "If the restaurants could have...". Therefore those restaurants would be in the same position as other businesses that closed or had much reduced business but were able to still stay alive. They stay home and they have no job and no unemployment. No guarantees that others will be found to work. Again, you left out my "if". That was a major, major proviso in all that I stated. That those restaurants would NOT be put out of business. I did clearly state that proviso twice in my paragraph. Yes, the way unemployment was set up was a big disincentive to go back to work. That was a case of the Democrats getting their way.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
I think Pugchief and I are on the same page. I’m not worried about a large chain losing a few stores here or there. They’ll come back. I’m thinking of Mom and Pop restaurants and very small groups.
Vinny, I think what you said applies more to meatpacking facilities where workers are forced to work in unsafe conditions or not at all.
Small-time restaurants are doing what they can for their employees and for as long as they can.
dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:46 pm
I think Pugchief and I are on the same page. I’m not worried about a large chain losing a few stores here or there. They’ll come back. I’m thinking of Mom and Pop restaurants and very small groups.
Vinny, I think what you said applies more to meatpacking facilities where workers are forced to work in unsafe conditions or not at all.
Small-time restaurants are doing what they can for their employees and for as long as they can.
Yep.
IDK about y'all, but if all that's left is chain restaurants when the dust settles, I will continue to not eat out. 99% of my restaurant spending is at small, privately owned restaurants and bars.
Yes, I really don't see the appeal of giant chain restaurants. Local chains I'm okay with.
dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:46 pm
Vinny, I think what you said applies more to meatpacking facilities where workers are forced to work in unsafe conditions or not at all.
I'm on the same page as you guys too, except for this: no one is "forced" to work. They can always quit and find another job if they don't like the conditions.
The meatpacking plants are kind of a special case though. They used to have much better pay and working conditions, because they needed to provide that in order to attract and keep workers. Then along came millions of illegal immigrants who were willing to take lower pay and crappy working conditions. And guess what happened.
The real solution to this is mandatory E-verify - which I would classify as an important facet of New Republican Populism. I don't know why Trump gave up on that. It was a key part of his 2016 platform.
By the way, as far as COVID..."unsafe" working conditions are more about theater than science. A friend of mine laughs at those plastic shields that are going up everywhere, for example. Because that's not how air works.
dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:46 pm
Vinny, I think what you said applies more to meatpacking facilities where workers are forced to work in unsafe conditions or not at all.
I'm on the same page as you guys too, except for this: no one is "forced" to work. They can always quit and find another job if they don't like the conditions.
The meatpacking plants are kind of a special case though. They used to have much better pay and working conditions, because they needed to provide that in order to attract and keep workers. Then along came millions of illegal immigrants who were willing to take lower pay and crappy working conditions. And guess what happened.
...
Isn’t that weird? One would think the conditions would be getting better. I think things are moving in the direction of more mechanization. Machines won’t slip and cut themselves, won’t get drowsy, won’t get covid.
A lot of the lower level restaurant work is, of course, pretty transient.
dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:46 pm
I think Pugchief and I are on the same page. I’m not worried about a large chain losing a few stores here or there. They’ll come back. I’m thinking of Mom and Pop restaurants and very small groups.
Vinny, I think what you said applies more to meatpacking facilities where workers are forced to work in unsafe conditions or not at all.
Small-time restaurants are doing what they can for their employees and for as long as they can.
Yep.
IDK about y'all, but if all that's left is chain restaurants when the dust settles, I will continue to not eat out. 99% of my restaurant spending is at small, privately owned restaurants and bars.
Subway is one of my favorites because I can order something extremely healthy and when I am quite hungry I can have something in my hands quite quickly.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:46 am
Subway is one of my favorites because I can order something extremely healthy and when I am quite hungry I can have something in my hands quite quickly.
Not picking on you, Vinny, but the last few times I went to Subway I felt like I was filling up on bread and some shady ingredients that had been sitting around for hours. Did they do a system-wide makeover?
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:46 am
Subway is one of my favorites because I can order something extremely healthy and when I am quite hungry I can have something in my hands quite quickly.
Not picking on you, Vinny, but the last few times I went to Subway I felt like I was filling up on bread and some shady ingredients that had been sitting around for hours. Did they do a system-wide makeover?
The one I got to just had a complete renovation in the last few weeks.
I always order a spinach wrap, provolone cheese, all the available vegetables, pickles, brown mustard. Always tastes delicious and all the vegetables look fine. Probably the most unhealthy item in there is the wrap.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:46 am
Subway is one of my favorites because I can order something extremely healthy and when I am quite hungry I can have something in my hands quite quickly.
Not picking on you, Vinny, but the last few times I went to Subway I felt like I was filling up on bread and some shady ingredients that had been sitting around for hours. Did they do a system-wide makeover?
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:46 am
Subway is one of my favorites because I can order something extremely healthy and when I am quite hungry I can have something in my hands quite quickly.
Not picking on you, Vinny, but the last few times I went to Subway I felt like I was filling up on bread and some shady ingredients that had been sitting around for hours. Did they do a system-wide makeover?
I miss the seafood sub, extra mayo.
I grew up in Rhode island - "The Ocean State". Therefore plenty of seafood regularly available. Yet I never ate any seafood aside from tuna in a can (which I do not believe were available in the Rhode Island oceans).
To this day I have never tasted crab or lobster. My sister and mother would eat it at our kitchen table. I was too reviled from the idea of dismembering a creature in front of me and eating it.
I did, though, take home some non-eating crabs from the beach and had them as pets for I do not know for how long. Even as an elementary school kid I would have rather have had those crabs and lobsters as pets than ever contemplate eating them.
It took until my late 20s before I fully realized that all those chicken wings and chicken legs I had loved to eat were real animals just like those crabs and lobsters. As soon as that connection was finally made I became a vegetarian on the spot and stopped eating the chicken I'd been eating.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:18 pm
It took until my late 20s before I fully realized that all those chicken wings and chicken legs I had loved to eat were real animals just like those crabs and lobsters. As soon as that connection was finally made I became a vegetarian on the spot and stopped eating the chicken I'd been eating.
