COVID-19/20/21/22 Discussion (NOW COVID-23?)

So can someone explain the NFL policy to me for Covid.

If a player is vaccinated and gets covid, they don’t have to quarantine for 10 days?
If a player who is not vaccinated gets covid, they have to quarantine for 10 days?

If this is the case, what’s the difference? Vaccinated people for sure passing covid around to others. Everyone should have the same quarantine time frame regardless because these shots are not keeping covid from spreading.

You do realize how slippery a slope that is right? What unhealthy thing do you ban next? Alcohol? Fast food? Meat in general? The minute you start banning/taxing because “your unhealthy choices make healthcare more expensive” it snowballs in a hurry. I tore my rotator cuff skiing last year. Surgery/recovery was about $30k and cost me $100 for the surgery and a bunch of $5 copays for the PT after. Maybe we don’t pay for injuries sustained doing “dangerous” activities too?

1 Like

I’m all for freedom to do whatever the hell people want to do as long as it doesn’t harm others.

But I’m also for having consequences of choosing to do things that harm yourself and society not being responsible for that burden.

Skiing is a healthy activity as it’s exercise. Hell, my health benefits card pays for my Sunday night season pass at Holiday Valley because it’s exercise.
New Zealand has a plan to phase out all sales of Cigarettes in the next decade. Start now, each year age to smoke cigarettes gets older and older until one year, it’s no longer able to be purchased.
Fast food though not healthy still has some benefits as we need to eat something. Cigarettes though, is there a single benefit from smoking?

I have zero trust in the government, and for good reason. The second they’re done with cigarettes they will use that same argument for why alcohol needs to go. There is no benefit, so many die because of liver disease, heart disease, drunk driving etc etc. Next would be meat. If you don’t realize it never ends when you allow a government to decide what you should and shouldn’t be allowed to do in a free society “if it saves just one life” you really need to look again at what has happened in the last 25 years.

Even saying skiing is healthy is a cop out. Are you honestly going to tell me you can’t POSSIBLY see one of these nanny state nut jobs saying, “Sure it’s healthy, but it’s risky. You can use a piece of exercise equipment and get all the health benefit with none of the risk. Plus we don’t waste all those resources for snow making, ski lifts etc etc”. You don’t think they’d do that, especially if you empower them to the point that they were allowed to eliminate other vices “for the good of the people”? Sorry, nope. I’m fine with paying the tax of having to deal with people making poor and risky decisions for the freedom to make my own poor and risky decisions.

Here’s a novel idea… instead of banning things because of their cost to healthcare, how about we get our ridiculous costs for healthcare under control. Let’s work on why a surgery that the cutting part was about 40 minutes and my total time in the building was about 2.5 hours cost $30k if you really want to benefit society. That’s $12000 per hour.

2 Likes

shrink govt and remove interventionism.

not everyone wants to live into their 90’s in a care home run by the state. I’d prefer to go out on-fire in my early 60’s. live fast, die young. already have conditioned my kids that this is how i’m going to roll. don’t cry, daddy had a wicked time.

3 Likes

So I should start an illegal cig moffia in New Zealand, check. Making things illegal is so stupid, then you just get scumbags selling them to kids laced the drugs. Cool

Its good to inform people of the issues associated with their choices, but I am in no way in favor of allowing the government to ban things. Hell, I think all drugs should be legal. If you use them however, and it ruins your work, ruins your health that is your responsibility. I’m ok with your health insurance charging $100 a month more for smokers, but I’m also ok with them charging you $200 a month more because your fat, or $50 a month more because you do extreme sports which have a much higher chance of injury.

Then you’ll see some pure capitalism, only the wealthy can ski (kinda that way already so who cares lol).

I would definitely be ok with a $50 a month surcharge that resulted in less people skiing and no lift lines. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Right haha its all so crazy.

You’re spot on with the exercise comparison. You 100% can use an elliptical and avoid all the risk. Obviously not nearly the same thing but hey.

Also you’re surgery hourly cost is nutty. I realize you need to pay for the doctor, the building and the drugs, but come on. I wish I could find the chart to post it here, but healthcare costs since Medicare started have gone up exponentially. Once you get the government involved everything goes to hell.

So someone drag racing at Lancaster (totally legal) has an accident and goes to the hospital. Should they pay out of pocket or be denied care? Careful what you ask for because under that lens no one would be allowed to leave the house.

1 Like

I had lots of replies for all these comments. But fat shamed.
I might not be able to finish my lunch Pizza now.

1 Like

Fat shaming myself is always what makes me get my weight back down. I find it effective.

2 Likes

I find that beer helps with shame.

As for the slippery slope of personal freedom regulation and punitive punishments.

I believe yall should need to submit to prior approval and taxation if you choose to live a life with your own homes, cars, hobbies, and even families. A new govt agency is also going to be required. It will be mandatory HOA style management. ATF/IRS will report to this new agency.

How else can the Govt insure my mental health while I sit in my govt. apartment all day with my govt. funded hot pocket addiction.

:smiley:

1 Like

Solent green, or is it red that is best?

For those of us who went through the PPP process this is wild.

Population tracking in Canada:

Lyon warned that PHAC “uses the same kinds of ‘reassuring’ language as national security agencies use, for instance not mentioning possibilities for re-identifying data that has been ‘de-identified.’”

But wait! We can’t track minorities!

Deploying surveillance tools for public health purposes also raises to the issue of equity, Martin French, an associate professor of Concordia University focusing on surveillance, privacy and social justice, noted in an email.
“There are populations that could experience an intensification of tracking that could have harmful (rather than beneficial) repercussions.”

I saved this link last year but only just found and read it now… even weirder or more prescient after the fact:

.06% mortality rate…but we’re pushing jabs like people are dropping 8 out of 10.

1 Like

more needles will solve this.

and Ontario:

boosters solve everything!!!

ooops… 21 of 33 triple-jabbed test positive. maybe a 4th?

annnd…

Vaccination regret prikspijt makes Dutch word of the year

Prikspijt, a new word for regretting getting a vaccination, has been voted Dutch word of the year after a social media campaign, reports dictionary maker Van Dale…Van Dale defines prikspijt as ‘a feeling of regret someone has about having been vaccinated against any infectious disease’…

2 Likes