Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4608137" data-attributes="member: 63706">It&#039;s in the data. Of course it depends on workplace set ups, people who work indoors in close quarters with poor ventilation are probably at similar risk of spread. But familial clusters have been driving the numbers of secondary infection, that fact has gone largely ignored when setting policy, which is the main reason I point it out. The fact is that it is unlikely any action would have changed the outcome. The belief in the government&#039;s ability to ward off a force of nature like a highly infectious pathogen is a pathological thought process that is easily exploited by authoritarians to assume and consolidate more power. That is something you ought to be wary of, based on your previous comments about the centralization of power. (That is what confuses me about you. You claim to want decentralized power, anarchy, but present solutions to problems that require a strong, centralized government.)Of course we can&#039;t trust any of the numbers anyway, because of the faulty testing and methodology. This fact can only be attributed to extreme incompetence of the supposed experts, or intentional, malicious action. Maybe it&#039;s unreasonable to suspect conspiracy, but experts would have to be really incompetent to bungle up this bad. And how would such incompetent people get into positions of authority to begin with? It&#039;s hard to say for sure one way or the other, but it is unreasonable to completely rule out intentional maliciousness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4608137, member: 63706"] It's in the data. Of course it depends on workplace set ups, people who work indoors in close quarters with poor ventilation are probably at similar risk of spread. But familial clusters have been driving the numbers of secondary infection, that fact has gone largely ignored when setting policy, which is the main reason I point it out. The fact is that it is unlikely [I]any[/I] action would have changed the outcome. The belief in the government's ability to ward off a force of nature like a highly infectious pathogen is a pathological thought process that is easily exploited by authoritarians to assume and consolidate more power. That is something you ought to be wary of, based on your previous comments about the centralization of power. (That is what confuses me about you. You claim to want decentralized power, anarchy, but present solutions to problems that require a strong, centralized government.) Of course we can't trust any of the numbers anyway, because of the faulty testing and methodology. This fact can only be attributed to extreme incompetence of the supposed experts, or intentional, malicious action. Maybe it's unreasonable to suspect conspiracy, but experts would have to be [I]really[/I] incompetent to bungle up this bad. And how would such incompetent people get into positions of authority to begin with? It's hard to say for sure one way or the other, but it is unreasonable to completely rule out intentional maliciousness. [/QUOTE]

Verification