Obi-Wan Nihilo just wrote:It's really a shame that you can't grasp the nuance of my position.
Are you sure I can't - and even in the face of your unclear and seemingly paradoxical statements? Regardless, if I am at all confused, I'd respectfully suggest that has more to do with how you express your position than my abilities to comprehend it. Case in point - and just looking at your last two posts:-
Obi-Wan Nihilo only two posts ago wrote:"Social distancing" was called for. I never said a word against it. My position was misinterpreted several times, and I've clarified repeatedly that I take no issue with social distancing.
...immediately followed by...
Obi-Wan Nihilo just wrote:Even the bullshit government mandates and illegal restrictions on liberties count as social distancing.
First you state that you "take no issue" with social distancing... then in your very next post, you state that "bullshit" government measures form part of social distancing... ergo logic would state that you "take no issue" with "bullshit" government measures. Except I'm aware that is not your position. Paradox much?
So the first quoted statement is flatly incorrect - or at best hugely misleading, because you
absolutely do take issue with some elements of current social distancing, as you have just clarified thus:
Obi-Wan Nihilo just wrote:I agree with some, disagree with others.
You further muddied your position in stating as follows:-
Obi-Wan Nihilo only two posts ago wrote:As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do, and that this virus was never going to kill as many people as initially thought.
So looking at the first bolded half of that quote immediately above, from your own words, it's only reasonable to presume that you consider "social distancing doing what it was meant to do" as a good thing. Presumably with the caveat that, despite this presumably desirable outcome, you violently object to a significant part of the measures used to achieve said presumably desirable outcome. Or perhaps you don't think the outcome of social distancing with sole respect to the suppression of infection rates is desirable?
Additionally, with regard to the second half of above quote, you fail to allow for its dependency on the first half of your statement, the possibility that
the core reason for the reduced severity of this virus (in terms of growth rates of infection, current numbers of infection cases, current numbers of hospitalisations and current numbers of deaths, when viewed against initial predictions) is precisely
because of social distancing...
including those social distancing measures with which you so vehemently disagree.
It would be at least as reasonable for that last quoted statement to be reworded as follows:-
As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do and therefore that this virus is not going to kill as many people as initially thought.
And before you start off looking to pick holes in that italicised revision, the central crux of my own position remains thus:-
Slower rate of infection = lower numbers requiring hospitalisation at any one time = adequate available resources and treatment for those hospitalised = lower overall deaths.
As I stated upthread (and as I'm sure you agree with), nobody can possibly know whether merely voluntary and thus non liberty-infringing social distancing would have produced the same alleviating effects - because that's just one potential outcome of a route that was simply not taken and thus inevitably a hypothetical.
So despite the unfortunate lack of clarity in how you express your position and its "nuance", I'm confident I've got my head around it. And as you know, I don't agree with it.
Completely separately, the suggestion now starting to be floated that COVID-19 was accidentally released into the community by a disease study lab in Hunan province is interesting. Of course, we're all aware of alluring nature of the conspiracy theories, we all should also be aware of the very human desire to identify both a cause and someone to blame, plus we're all (quite rightfully) hugely pissed at the CPC on a number of fronts.. not least because of the continuing dissimulation and disinformation its spouting about COVID-19 and its actual effects within the PRC.
Having said that, this suggested source seems at least as likely as the lso-called "wet markets" in Wuhan that Beijing was very quick to point the finger at...
I see Trump's taken a healthy swing at the WHO. I get why, but what with Trump being Trump, I hope he manages to lay out the case for doing so in rational, dispassionate, evidenced and easily followable manner.