ex-President Trump

I mean these people force 0 behavior on individuals with HIV but ban children (even non infected ones to be clear) from eating ice cream indoor during a particularly nasty cold epidemic for which everyone who wants can already be vaccinated if the children themselves aren't vaccinated so, it's impossible to find any coherence in their methods.

In mine, the HIV positive attempts murder if he doesn't disclose the positivity to a sexual partner, mass murder if he tries to donate blood, but otherwise we are ok the way we are more or less.

And the kid can always eat ice cream.

I'm hoping you just haven't thought this through completely.

There are lots of politicians out there who don't make a lot of money; I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case for a large majority, as city councilors and others of the lesser known elected officials should outnumber the federal and state politicians. If it becomes a regular thing for politicians to have to contend with protests at their homes, what will the future of local politics look like? Who's going to run for office under those conditions? I'd suggest that the more difficult you make the job, the more it weeds out those who want to run to make a positive impact on their community, and leaves those who want the job because they believe the personal benefits outweigh the negatives.

All that said, I'm not suggesting there should be some kind of blanket ban on being able to peacefully protest in front of someone's home. But it becoming commonplace wouldn't be a good thing, IMO. And it would sure suck for people who didn't choose to live next door.

I don't think Sklansky has ever even acknowledged chez' existence, which makes his sycophancy even more sad.

Yes this is obvious for most people (and for the law of most countries as well).

It's not a crime to have unprotected sex because of the chance you are positive of a STD (because the statistical approach is considered obscene by enough people in that case, as for me it is in all cases), but it can be a crime to do so if you have knowledge of being positive.

bobo, how are you, how have you been, I've been low key worried about you?

HIV isn't a death sentence but it is criminal to recklessly infect somone . Same with most things.

Even if it weren't, I cant see any incoherence with imposing lockdowns in times of pandemic.

What is a protest in front of home btw? We don't have them in Italy basically, never heard of any except around Berlusconi villa when he governed, but that's like 500+ meters from the actual home so it was all ok. (And of course near our equivalent of 10th d. street or the white house, that's normal).

What does it block exactly when you protest nearby a residential complex or a group of small suburban homes? How is the privacy of family members, neighbors protected?

Italy and France have more protests than the USA but we basically almost never protest in front of actual houses, who's the monster who wants to create problems to children, spouses and neighbors of someone he dislikes?

HIV isn't a complete death sentence anymore but it was a while ago.

I wasn't talking about lockdowns, I was talking about the vaccine mandate for 5 years old to eat an ice cream indoor after everyone who wanted, could have been vaccinated already.

NYC , Chicago and other places didn't allow the kid to eat ice cream indoor if not vaccinated, because the vaccine worked so well that everyone who wanted was protected so if you didn't get it you put them at risk (?????)

LOL. Ok nobody was 0% to have any effects from covid but a hell of a lot of people had approximately the same risk from covid of dying or being seriously injured as one hour of flying in a plane or driving a car. So we are talking about minimal risks that most people are ok with taking by taking very few if any measures to lower that risk.

There are people out there who have very minimal contact with others and those that they do have contact with are not old or sick. What about the guy who works in a small company that does landscaping everyday after work he sits at home and watches TV until he falls asleep.

If you don't think these people exists you may actually be one of them? Do you work and then go home and cruise 2+2 all night (nothing wrong with this - I'm just trying to come up with how you think there are not people out there who have very little contact with others)?

Being contagious or not is not really relevant. Do you want daddy govt to step in any time someone does something reckless (like build a pool deeper than 2.5 feet deep, drive a car over 25 MPH on the highway, owns knives that are sharp or makes hotdogs with buns) that increases the likelihood of someone else getting hurt or dying? People are dying because others are being reckless - why do you only care if it includes something that is contagious?

i think i know where are sweet summer child chez law got confused

false positives in hiv testing are a common talking point by the freakanomics/gladwell/talib crew

where they "blow your mind" by showing that despite that they are 99% accurate, if you test positive and don't shoot drugs, work as a sex worker, or engage is regular unprotected anal sex with anonymous partners, the likelihood of a false positive is significantly greater than the chance of actually having aids because for people who don't do those things above, their rate of having HIV is significantly lower than the rate of false positives

hence why, when you test positive for HIV doctors do not consider it legitimate until a second test is taken to confirm the results - in chezlaws world it would requite 20 consecutive positive tests apparently

i think our chezboy took this and then through some mandela effect twisted it into "false positives are so common they happen all the time" and now at this point he's too scared to admit he got it wrong and will rather pretend like the data is so obvious he doesn't need to produce it

Same thing with vaccine mandates.

Controlling a pandemic is about the fact that it's a pandemic with potentially deveaating consequences for the whole system and society. That simpy doens't apply just to some individual being reckless or murderous.

I think chez has in mind something like DIY rapid tests checking (say) some enzyme, a specific brand might structurally mis-measure something else that 1% of people have as positivity, so if you retake the same test you don't fix the problem.

But for anything serious that's not how we test. We sample blood or something else, then we run it through machines depending what we need to check.

If you resample and change machine (say, even change lab) basically all co-dependent false positive risk disappears

Hello? After vaccination arrived there was nothing potentially devastating for the whole system and society at all
At most there were people who decided to keep risking their death more than others.

Nothing systemic, let them risk death more, it's their body, their right to choose.

But it was *vaccinated people* who wanted others to vaccinate, that's kinda a religious insane cult, you got the jab you are safe the **** you want from others lol

Monkeypox was highly contagious but the gorgon crowd for some reason didn't even want to lockdown gay clubs.

To be clear, I didn't want to lockdown gay clubs for monkeypox, I am saying that's how we should always react to any contagious disease, with no state violence, no mandate to anyone about anything.

That really proven their complete bad faith wrt COVID though

Generally you're going to need a different type of test as well.

Depends on the reason for the false positive but repeating the same test will only resolve some causes of false positive even in the lab.

Left leaners in the US protested in front of the houses of our highest judges (supreme court justices) in hopes that it would intimidate/threaten them to change their minds on political issues. One guy was arrested in front of one of their houses with a suitcase with a gun, zip ties, knives, etc. and he admitted he was there to hurt or kill a judge.

Then why did you say the BLM events were prohibited?

You're going to need to show your math on that one. And "death or seriously injured" does not cover all negative outcomes of a covid infection.

I so wish that this only affected people stupid enough to do zero risk mitigation. If so, I would heartily agree with you.

No there aren't. And the risk is raising virus prevalence in the community overall. When you infect someone with what you call "very little risk" they then infect 5+ other people etc. It baffles me how horribly you guys struggle with basic concepts like this.

Very little does not equal zero. And it would take zero for you to have a point. So you don't. Move on.

And this is why you get laughed at.

Do you think charging poor families $200 per person for noncompliance is less draconian than telling them they can't eat in a restaurant for awhile?

We laugh about my nieces coming back from college with Covid and ruining Christmas one year. We met halfway and talked to each other in our cars in a parking lot. If we followed blahblahs advice, I guess the alternative would be us making fun of them for killing their grandparents.

In my scenario, the infected person knows he is infected.

Actually it is already like that.
You just uses limits that the government and the people do not care about .

His logical inflexibly applies in all circumstances. That was my point. I'm not arguing about the wisdom of COVID lockdowns specifically. As usual, I'm arguing that Luciom is letting his pseudo-intellectual fantasies about utopian societies override common sense, especially when confronted with edge case scenarios.