01 Nov 20
1 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.
01 Nov 20
4 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 deathsNo. 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 governmentI 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.
02 Nov 20
1 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.
02 Nov 20
1 edit
@sonhouse saidWhen 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.
@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.
Vitamin D supplementation would save lives.
02 Nov 20
@eladar saidRight.
@humy
If you want fewer deaths, work to fortify your foods with Vitamin d.
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?
02 Nov 20
1 edit
@humy saidYou can wear a mask, I do when I am working.
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?
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.
02 Nov 20
2 edits
@eladar saidNot 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"?
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.
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).
02 Nov 20
1 edit
@humy saidI 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.
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).
Masks not such a big deal in public buildings.
As for depression...
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-international-news-lifestyle-business-europe-d4d4dc1ed055a187ea61f8e97804d9e6
02 Nov 20
6 edits
@eladar saidpeople 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.
I am talking about shutting down socialization.
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.
02 Nov 20
1 edit
@humy saidYou 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.
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.
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.
02 Nov 20
3 edits
@eladar saidif we keep slowing its spread it will become more like one hundredth what it is today.
If nobody was vitamin D deficient the hospitalization rate would be nearly one third what it is today based on the Spanish study.
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?