Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

Now the Arizona Gov orders bars, nightclubs, gyms, theaters, and water parks closed for 30 days.

IRT your initial post questioning people who say no need for masks:

First, I will acknowledge that the evidence, in general, supports the idea that wearing a mask reduces the spread of SARS-CoV-2. My central points is what if the majority of folks who are getting infected don't experience significant symptoms or disease burden? Do we shutter businesses if that is the case or do we let them operate knowing that serious public health consequences are doubtful? If disease burden with C-19 is low it makes no sense to shut down economies to prevent it's spread - that is a common refrain coming from informed quarters and not from the crazies.

I think there are some legs to the idea that targeted masking, as it was described to me by this advocate of it, is more appropriate than the nuclear option of shuttering business, beaches and recreational facilities to allegedly reduce the spread of the virus. It looks good and is politically correct, fits the narrative and so forth. One has to ask, though, is the cost of doing that off-set by a benefit in reduced individual disease burden, burdens on hospital capacity reduced deaths and serious illness. I don't think we know the answer to that in absolute terms so, why do it if we don't? My gut tells me some people know it's not but the politically correct thing to do is mask and shutter.

There is an important distinction here involving two separate questions. Are masks effective or not in stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2? The evidence seems to support that they are. It's not the slam dunk people think it is and that I'm learning as I go over the evidence. Lots of variables - type, fit, proper wear, etc. One can protect others, if asymptomatic and unknowingly infected, by wearing a basic, mouth/nose covering. But on the receiving end, only N95 or equivalent masks, properly worn will prevent acquisition of the virus. You've seen how a single, unmasked person with a virus like influenza is easily spread to others who are also unmasked in a restaurant. This spread is reduced if all parties are wearing N95 masks ..... but they aren't and it is not logistically possible to achieve that endpoint.

The separate but loosely related question, given the questionable efficacy of masking, are masks and shuttering necessary mitigation measures to control viral spread and is the cost of doing that worth it? That is unknown at this point but assumptions are rampant that these measures are necessary? I'm listening to the case that it's stupid to mask the young, uninfected and shutter businesses. That is because doing so is mostly unknown and is based on flimsy evidence of it's efficacy considering cost/benefits.

[iam416]

I’ve long thought that a social media platform is the modern version of the public square. I’d definitely support legislation establishing that. Of course, these days we don’t need legislation if the Supreme Court decides that’s what’s the new law.

I think certain platforms that accomplish certain market domination are public fora. Whatever that threshold is, FB, Twitter and YT are way past it.

Anyway, they’re not public fora for now so anything suggesting that, e.g., dudes shouldn’t play women’s sports is censored. It’s the way of the Left. Fundamentally, it always has been. HOWEVER, there was a brief moment in time when the Left strongly defended the right to offend others — whether it was offensive music lyrics or Maplethorpe’s dick in a jar or burning the flag.

My, how times have changed. And Strangelove is ecstatic.

[AlabamAlum]

The public square is, well, public. YouRube (not a typo), Twitter, and FB’s servers and software isn’t. It would be hard for me to support that legislation. Your mileage obviously varies.

I think if they restrict enough people, other platforms take off. For example I hear Parler has had a huge surge.

[AlabamAlum]

So 100 protesters or so went through his gate onto private property and eventually destroyed his gate.

Good for NBC, because CNN painted them as fun-toting maniacs.

https://apple.news/Adl69mJmbQs6X0H_BzphSMQ

[AlabamAlum]

Makes me sad.

[iam416]

FB, Twitter and YT are free and open to the public. It costs nothing. They screen no one. You only need an internet connection. And that’s what they want. It’s users.

If they want to screen or charge then I’d change my mind.

But the goal of FB, Twitter and YT is to maximize their users so they are set up to be completely open to the public.

I understand the formalistic need for clear delineation. But, IMO, at least those 3 fora look, feel, and function as public fora.

[AlabamAlum]

Sure they want users. It’s still their platform, program, servers, and software. Not sure how I could justify essentially nationalizing it to wrest control of their property and make it into a virtual town square where they cannot restrict what they feel is counter to their interests. If a screening or nominal fee is ever made mandatory to maintain control, they would add one, unfortunately. Yeah, you and I won’t agree on that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

There are alternatives to all of the social media platforms. Gab and Parler and to some extent Reddit were all originally set up to give the lunatics a place to espouse their views after they'd been kicked off more mainstream sites. There they are free to praise pedophilia, declare their love of Hitler, and post scat pics to their hearts' content. They just can't command an audience or monetize their clicks to make a living off of shock content they way they used to. Which is what they really object to.

[CGVT]

I don't even know what Twitch is, but expect a Twitter storm tonight


Twitch has suspended Donald Trump's account

The Amazon-owned company says the President's channel broke its hateful conduct policies.


https://www.engadget.com/twitch-susp...P09wfXczym0g2Y

[lineygoblue]

standalone.jpg

[Jeff Buchanan]

The link below summarizes some of the recent research on how SARS-CoV-2 spreads. Researchers are trying to understand why some people infected with the virus are "super spreaders" while other's don't spread the virus at all. IOW, a low percentage of infected people account for a high percentage of all infections. The conclusion: it's less about variance in human biology in each infected individual, although this seems to play some role, and more about circumstance. The finding suggests if the circumstances or events responsible for clusters of high numbers of new infections, it would be possible to target such circumstances and events for stricter mitigation measures instead of shutting down whole sectors of a state's economy.

How does this work? Let's say you have a surge in new cases in your county and can trace most of these to a single restaurant or bar. You apply more mitigation measures to that place not to all restaurants and bars or to all of the county's businesses as in a wide spread lock-down.China imposed another brutal lock-down of the whole city of Wuhan in their most recent outbreak in that city when it was believed the outbreak centered around a market in one neighborhood. The lock-down was eased after two weeks but the psychological damage was already done. Reportedly, the residents of Wuhan remain wary of going out

This is an emerging hypothesis. It seems to me to be common sense but it's hard to take steps in another direction when the current narrative of taking bold, sweeping steps, like close everything, is the MO for local officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/how-...b2da6e075b25bf

[Hannibal]

I don't even know what Twitch is, but expect a Twitter storm tonight


Twitch has suspended Donald Trump's account

The Amazon-owned company says the President's channel broke its hateful conduct policies.


https://www.engadget.com/twitch-susp...P09wfXczym0g2Y.

Twitch is an on-line streaming service (about 95% video games) whose chief censorship officer is this severely mentally ill trans deer girl. Yes, you read that right. A trans deer girl. He/she/it identifies as a deer.

5ebdc75d72bc6.jpg

This is who Liberals like DSL think should have absolute power over what is acceptable in public discourse.

images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTeKGw5RtVuhJ-0l3vHxiKc0Ld0dz2wRxPNuQ&usqp=CAU.jpg

[iam416]

This is who Liberals like DSL think should have absolute power over what is acceptable in public discourse.

Correct.

[Hannibal]

I’ve long thought that a social media platform is the modern version of the public square. I’d definitely support legislation establishing that. Of course, these days we don’t need legislation if the Supreme Court decides that’s what’s the new law.

I think certain platforms that accomplish certain market domination are public fora. Whatever that threshold is, FB, Twitter and YT are way past it.

Anyway, they’re not public fora for now so anything suggesting that, e.g., dudes shouldn’t play women’s sports is censored. It’s the way of the Left. Fundamentally, it always has been. HOWEVER, there was a brief moment in time when the Left strongly defended the right to offend others — whether it was offensive music lyrics or Maplethorpe’s dick in a jar or burning the flag.

My, how times have changed. And Strangelove is ecstatic.

Give CGVT credit. He at least admits what he is. That level of intellectual honesty is largely unheard of on the Left. DSL, on the other hand, is hilariously trying to sell the notion that if you get banned from the public square and the radio airwaves, it's not censorship because you are still free to write in your diary.

[Hannibal]

Stefan Molyneaux backed up a lot of his videos on bitchute.

DSL, CGVT -- here is a link to his channel. Please point out to me which of his videos are "racist" or support Nazi or White Supremacist views.

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/JqEoP64bHDmk/

Take your time. I can wait.