1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    01 Nov '20 23:511 edit
    So you are ok with a normal number of deaths but not ok with a relatively small number of deaths, but more than normal.

    If people were not deficient in vitamin D, the death rates would be much lower.

    So there you go.

    I am ok with letting nature run its course and see people free to live their lives.

    You can desire a dominating government, but try not to force your views on me.
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    01 Nov '20 23:584 edits
    @eladar said
    So you are ok with a normal number of deaths but not ok with a relatively small number of deaths, but more than normal.

    If people were not deficient in vitamin D, the death rates would be much lower.

    So there you go.

    I am ok with letting nature run its course and see people free to live their lives.

    You can desire a dominating government, but try not to force your views on me.
    So you are ok with a normal number of deaths
    No. I say, with all else being equal, the lower the death rate the better.
    I am ok with letting nature run its course and see people free to live their lives.
    When letting nature run its course means letting nature kill people when we have a good way of preventing that, that isn't letting people free to live their lives but is just killing people via stupid inaction. A dead person isn't "free to live" his life. To continue to be "free to live" one's life, you have to remain alive.
    You can desire a dominating government
    I don't desire a dominating government in particular; just one that cares about human life.
    If a government is to be effective at doing anything, it first needs to exert at least some control over some people else it would be of no use to anyone.
  3. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    02 Nov '20 00:14
    @humy

    Your use of lower death rate is inconsistant and you are not being genuine.

    Sorry, evidently you are not open to an honest discussion on the topic.

    If you want fewer deaths, work to fortify your foods with Vitamin d.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    02 Nov '20 04:081 edit
    @Eladar
    You are so full of shyte it's a wonder you can't smell yourself.
    If you take 50 THOUSAND units of vitamin D AND selenium, if covid enters your lungs, YOU WILL MOST LIKELY GET COVID.

    Maybe a few percent of folks who follow that regimen may not but the majority of folks WILL get it despite your belief in D and Selenium.
  5. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    02 Nov '20 04:121 edit
    @sonhouse said
    @Eladar
    You are so full of shyte it's a wonder you can't smell yourself.
    If you take 50 THOUSAND units of vitamin D AND selenium, if covid enters your lungs, YOU WILL MOST LIKELY GET COVID.

    Maybe a few percent of folks who follow that regimen may not but the majority of folks WILL get it despite your belief in D and Selenium.
    When did I say people will not get Covid? I said it would be much less likely to lead to hospitalization and death. Vitamin D calms the reaction to covid, making it less lethal.

    Vitamin D supplementation would save lives.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    02 Nov '20 07:20
    @eladar said
    @humy

    If you want fewer deaths, work to fortify your foods with Vitamin d.
    Right.
    So why not do that AND wear face masks and do social distancing and partial lock down? Is there a reason you can give for thinking those things are mutually exclusive with using vit D? Why wouldn't doing ALL those things, rather than just use vid D, lower death rates even further?
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    02 Nov '20 13:301 edit
    @humy said
    Right.
    So why not do that AND wear face masks and do social distancing and partial lock down? Is there a reason you can give for thinking those things are mutually exclusive with using vit D? Why wouldn't doing ALL those things, rather than just use vid D, lower death rates even further?
    You can wear a mask, I do when I am working.

    Slowing the spread of the virus just makes the virus hang around longer. It also causes unemployment and isolation leading to mass depression.

    If it were simply wearing a mask while in public buildings that would be one thing, but it is not. To pretend otherwise is just foolish nonsense.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    02 Nov '20 15:502 edits
    @eladar said


    Slowing the spread of the virus just makes the virus hang around longer. It also causes unemployment and isolation leading to mass depression.

    If it were simply wearing a mask while in public buildings that would be one thing, but it is not.
    Not sure what you are implying here above but are you implying in the above that wearing masks outside leads to "causes unemployment and isolation " (and that "leading to mass depression" ) ? If so, how does wearing masks outside "causes unemployment and isolation"?
    I should also point out I and every other person I know of personally have not been 'depressed' by the lock down let alone 'depressed' by masks and have seen no evidence or reason to think wearing masks would lead to "mass depression". In fact, I have so far seen no good evidence of any outbreak of "mass depression" (by any or whatever cause).
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    02 Nov '20 16:031 edit
    @humy said
    Not sure what you are implying here above but are you implying in the above that wearing masks outside leads to "causes unemployment and isolation " (and that "leading to mass depression" ) ? If so, how does wearing masks outside "causes unemployment and isolation"?
    I should also point out I and every other person I know of personally have not been 'depressed' by the lock down ...[text shortened]... I have so far seen no good evidence of any outbreak of "mass depression" (by any or whatever cause).
    I am talking about shutting down socialization. Governments telling people they cannot go see relatives during the holidays and that people are not allowed to socialize in public.

    Masks not such a big deal in public buildings.

    As for depression...


    https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-international-news-lifestyle-business-europe-d4d4dc1ed055a187ea61f8e97804d9e6
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    02 Nov '20 18:126 edits
    @eladar said
    I am talking about shutting down socialization.
    people these days can usually socialize either on the phone or online via internet. Admittedly this isn't as good quality-wise as socializing face to face in physical close proximity but it is nevertheless socializing and with no lock down restrictions nor risk of spreading a deadly virus. At least that socialization isn't being shut down. I have already and safely communicated with my relatives online and I see nothing terrible about it.

    Which do you think is more important; The quality of someone's socialization or the reduction of the of spreading of a virus that can kill millions of people?
    Is it morally OK to carelessly kill someone just for the sake of personally giving yourself a better quality social life? -that certainly doesn't seem to me to be a noble and honorable sentiment.
    You can always just wait until the pandemic is over and then have a better quality social life rather than kill people to have a quality social life right now. In the mean time you can socialize online which isn't as great but it would do just fine.
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    02 Nov '20 18:261 edit
    @humy said
    people these days can usually socialize either on the phone or online via internet. Admittedly this isn't as good quality-wise as socializing face to face in physical close proximity but it is nevertheless socializing and with no lock down restrictions nor risk of spreading a deadly virus. At least that socialization isn't being shut down. I have already and safely communicated ...[text shortened]... right now. In the mean time you can socialize online which isn't as great but it would do just fine.
    You may be able to function in a virtual life, others do not. Nor should be forced into a virtual life by the government based on fears of a virus that is no threat to society.

    The government should not be in the whose life matters game. This virus will not go away until it has run its course.

    But we digress. Vitamin D and the death rates plummet.
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    02 Nov '20 18:291 edit
    @eladar said
    You may be able to function in a virtual life
    communicating with real people over the net isn't virtual reality.
    Is it morally OK to carelessly kill someone just for the sake of personally giving yourself a better quality social life?
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    02 Nov '20 18:30
    If nobody was vitamin D deficient the hospitalization rate would be nearly one third what it is today based on the Spanish study.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    02 Nov '20 18:313 edits
    @eladar said
    If nobody was vitamin D deficient the hospitalization rate would be nearly one third what it is today based on the Spanish study.
    if we keep slowing its spread it will become more like one hundredth what it is today.
    I think one hundredth is better than just one third.
    Why not do BOTH i.e. take vit D and wear face masks + lock down etc?
  15. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    02 Nov '20 18:34
    @humy said
    if we keep slowing its spread it will become more like one hundredth what it is today.
    I think one hundredth is better than just one third.
    Why not do BOTH take vit D and face masks and lock down etc?
    Lol
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree