Coronavirus

[Gone]

19 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Welcome back! I thought you were coming on to tell us that the number of people in hospital with Covid is unfortunately nearly the same as back in April.

I think you have lost track of these tax posts. It had nothing to do with protecting the vulnerable. It was so people like nurses could earn more money rather than just a few claps in the street.

And is your 42% tax and NI just on earnings over 37k, or are you volunteering to pay the higher rate on all earnings? If so, fair play.

I agree they deserve a pay rise 

[Archied]

10 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Welcome back! I thought you were coming on to tell us that the number of people in hospital with Covid is unfortunately nearly the same as back in April.

I think you have lost track of these tax posts. It had nothing to do with protecting the vulnerable. It was so people like nurses could earn more money rather than just a few claps in the street.

And is your 42% tax and NI just on earnings over 37k, or are you volunteering to pay the higher rate on all earnings? If so, fair play.

Wonder if the likes of Eddie and others would think it may be worth pensioners with very good bank balance ,large property equity, very good pensions look at being taxed or voluntarily putting chunk of it back into the pot to help those keeping them safe who are losing they’re business s, possibly losing they’re homes , or the young losing they’re futures , perhaps not , perhaps those struggling to see it totaly the Albert ,Eddie and others way are just selfish drunks desperate to get in the pub?????,

before the guff , it’s a valid question, what are those being protected and demanding to be protected from the selfish prepared to put back in if able?

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

My assumption was wrong I apologise 

Difference between liking to work and needing to work

[ariotofmyown]

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

What you are saying is that you're a literal sceptic. You question whether medicines are needed, so you don't take them. Sceptic seems to be seen as a bit of an odious tag these days, and in some ways for good reasons, but it is a valid description of what you've expressed on here. 

As to the question about a mandate, given the number of lives and livelihoods lost, I would support a mandate. Either you care about those who are suffering through this, and are going to get that vaccine as soon as you are capable, or you're prolonging this. At the end of the day, if you don't care about those suffering, but are concerned about the risks to yourself, fine, don't get it, and protest a mandate. All power to you, but that is ultimately what you're up against. 

Interesting points on sceptics and how it has become an odious tag these days. The below is what wikipedia says about scepticism. I don't think @G STAR RAM is a sceptic under this definition as he seems to be rejecting science in favour of his own beliefs.

Interesting to read this definition too whilst thinking about the wider issue of conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxers. Rather than being sceptics who need evidence to believe in things, they are people who will believe in anything and require no facts, or at least no facts proved by anything approaching a scientific method.  Are these beliefs replacing religion now?

Whilst religions are far from perfect, at least they have something positive at their core, even though they have often been corrupted. Conspiracy theories offer nothing positive except rewards for those who peddle them. Something that religions are quite good at too.

 

"Scepticism is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma.

Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology. More informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic, such as politics, religion, or pseudoscience. It is often applied within restricted domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), theism (skepticism about the existence of God), or the supernatural.

Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. Radical forms of philosophical skepticism deny that knowledge or rational belief is possible and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms of philosophical skepticism claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about nonempirical matters, such as whether God exists, whether human beings have free will, or whether there is an afterlife.

Skepticism has also inspired a number of contemporary social movements. Religious skepticism advocates for doubt concerning basic religious principles, such as immortality, providence, and revelation.

Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them."

[G STAR RAM]

27 minutes ago, Albert said:

What you are saying is that you're a literal sceptic. You question whether medicines are needed, so you don't take them. Sceptic seems to be seen as a bit of an odious tag these days, and in some ways for good reasons, but it is a valid description of what you've expressed on here. 

As to the question about a mandate, given the number of lives and livelihoods lost, I would support a mandate. Either you care about those who are suffering through this, and are going to get that vaccine as soon as you are capable, or you're prolonging this. At the end of the day, if you don't care about those suffering, but are concerned about the risks to yourself, fine, don't get it, and protest a mandate. All power to you, but that is ultimately what you're up against. 

No, Im not a sceptic. Some people need medicine, me I prefer to go the natural route. Im sure at some point in my life I will have an illness that I cant fight naturally and require medication.

Previously mentioned that I was on medication until I read about the side effects. I came off it and have been fine ever since. I wonder how often doctors prescribe medication that is not really needed.

You say a vaccine is needed but this goes against everything else that you have spent the last few months trying to convince us.

[ariotofmyown]

7 minutes ago, Archied said:

Wonder if the likes of Eddie and others would think it may be worth pensioners with very good bank balance ,large property equity, very good pensions look at being taxed or voluntarily putting chunk of it back into the pot to help those keeping them safe who are losing they’re business s, possibly losing they’re homes , or the young losing they’re futures , perhaps not , perhaps those struggling to see it totaly the Albert ,Eddie and others way are just selfish drunks desperate to get in the pub?????,

before the guff , it’s a valid question, what are those being protected and demanding to be protected from the selfish prepared to put back in if able?

Sounds like a great idea. Increase tax on wealthy pensioners in able to help the young, to help small businesses to survive. Sounds great.

I imagine any politician who seriously suggested that would be pretty much assassinated. Remember when Red Ed Milliband's dead father was smeared because Ed suggested caps on energy bills?

[Albert]

21 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Interesting points on sceptics and how it has become an odious tag these days. The below is what wikipedia says about scepticism. I don't think @G STAR RAM is a sceptic under this definition as he seems to be rejecting science in favour of his own beliefs.

Interesting to read this definition too whilst thinking about the wider issue of conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxers. Rather than being sceptics who need evidence to believe in things, they are people who will believe in anything and require no facts, or at least no facts proved by anything approaching a scientific method.  Are these beliefs replacing religion now?

Whilst religions are far from perfect, at least they have something positive at their core, even though they have often been corrupted. Conspiracy theories offer nothing positive except rewards for those who peddle them. Something that religions are quite good at too.

 

"Scepticism is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma.

Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology. More informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic, such as politics, religion, or pseudoscience. It is often applied within restricted domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), theism (skepticism about the existence of God), or the supernatural.

Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. Radical forms of philosophical skepticism deny that knowledge or rational belief is possible and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms of philosophical skepticism claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about nonempirical matters, such as whether God exists, whether human beings have free will, or whether there is an afterlife.

Skepticism has also inspired a number of contemporary social movements. Religious skepticism advocates for doubt concerning basic religious principles, such as immortality, providence, and revelation.

Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them."

There is some depth and breadth to how the term can be defined, but the central idea is to question a commonly held understanding, which is covered in the above. That said, based on their next post:

 

21 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, Im not a sceptic. Some people need medicine, me I prefer to go the natural route. Im sure at some point in my life I will have an illness that I cant fight naturally and require medication.

Previously mentioned that I was on medication until I read about the side effects. I came off it and have been fine ever since. I wonder how often doctors prescribe medication that is not really needed.

You say a vaccine is needed but this goes against everything else that you have spent the last few months trying to convince us.

I think my point here needs to be somewhat clarified. I'm not saying that they question the validity of modern as a whole, but rather, they seem to be sceptical of its utility for healthy people, and whether the rate of use of medicine is justified. They are indeed questioning that in the posts, including this one here. 

As to this last line suggesting that claiming a vaccine is needed 'goes against everything else that [I] have spent the last few months trying to convince [you all]', I don't really see how, and would be interested to know how this conclusion has been reached. 

45 minutes ago, Archied said:

Same old same old , you either do as Albert tells you or your a granny killer 

Maybe read my posts. I also said you're ruining livelihoods and destroying the economy with such decisions. 

40 minutes ago, Archied said:

You don’t when suits you , now your back choosing what you believe as your influence ,presenting it as fact and building your argument and insults from there

When haven't I explained my position? I would be interested to know examples. I am happy to explain further. 

Also, what insults? If you're offended by labels such as 'antivaxer', maybe don't post antivaxer content. 

[Albert]

35 minutes ago, Archied said:

Wonder if the likes of Eddie and others would think it may be worth pensioners with very good bank balance ,large property equity, very good pensions look at being taxed or voluntarily putting chunk of it back into the pot to help those keeping them safe who are losing they’re business s, possibly losing they’re homes , or the young losing they’re futures , perhaps not , perhaps those struggling to see it totaly the Albert ,Eddie and others way are just selfish drunks desperate to get in the pub?????,

before the guff , it’s a valid question, what are those being protected and demanding to be protected from the selfish prepared to put back in if able?

As someone who is a solid 4 decades away from retirement, even I find the notion of taxing property equity, etc, of pensioners as a poor idea. The entire notion that generation lived by is that they paid their fair share through their working lives, and wouldn't have future governments coming to rob their retirement. 

Equally, this notion that it's just one sector of society being protected is baffling, and simply doesn't line up with reality. There are people in the at risk category across age ranges, and income brackets, and while younger people tend to be less at risk, the risk is still very much there. The concerns around long term impacts are also very real. 

The UK does have a lot of questions to answer around how the NHS is funded, slowly starving the beast while complaining about inefficiency only goes so far. That's a debate for others though, and but I suspect will become an important question once this is all over. 

[Archied]

21 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Sounds like a great idea. Increase tax on wealthy pensioners in able to help the young, to help small businesses to survive. Sounds great.

I imagine any politician who seriously suggested that would be pretty much assassinated. Remember when Red Ed Milliband's dead father was smeared because Ed suggested caps on energy bills?

I do think it’s a fair question, it’s become far too easy to throw the selfish granny killer tag around when in truth the cost to and effects of this varies wildly from person to person ,household to household , the divide and rule around this has been the saddest thing to take root( planted?) since the initial in it together feel at the start ,, hence the question to Albert of how close to zero is the number acceptable IN HIS OPINION after he threw the quote out but declined to answer and rather just palmed it of on medical experts , I realise some are not prepared to speak hypothetically or opinion wise when it the opens them up to the accusations they throw out to others

the young have in the main been demonised unfairly in my view as have others who question anything off the official line of the chosen experts

[Archied]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

There is some depth and breadth to how the term can be defined, but the central idea is to question a commonly held understanding, which is covered in the above. That said, based on their next post:

 

I think my point here needs to be somewhat clarified. I'm not saying that they question the validity of modern as a whole, but rather, they seem to be sceptical of its utility for healthy people, and whether the rate of use of medicine is justified. They are indeed questioning that in the posts, including this one here. 

As to this last line suggesting that claiming a vaccine is needed 'goes against everything else that [I] have spent the last few months trying to convince [you all]', I don't really see how, and would be interested to know how this conclusion has been reached. 

Maybe read my posts. I also said you're ruining livelihoods and destroying the economy with such decisions. 

When haven't I explained my position? I would be interested to know examples. I am happy to explain further. 

Also, what insults? If you're offended by labels such as 'antivaxer', maybe don't post antivaxer content. 

There you go deciding what is anti Vaxer content ,, easy to feel you win an argument if you self righteously decide what’s right from the start , 

as stated I am happy for anybody to want the vaccine and won’t argue they shouldn’t , I personally for my own reasons will not unless forced or my position changes with time ,,, that’s posting antivax content? ,,, nope but you will then question my personal choice in the hope I post antivax content?????

[Archied]

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

As someone who is a solid 4 decades away from retirement, even I find the notion of taxing property equity, etc, of pensioners as a poor idea. The entire notion that generation lived by is that they paid their fair share through their working lives, and wouldn't have future governments coming to rob their retirement. 

Equally, this notion that it's just one sector of society being protected is baffling, and simply doesn't line up with reality. There are people in the at risk category across age ranges, and income brackets, and while younger people tend to be less at risk, the risk is still very much there. The concerns around long term impacts are also very real. 

The UK does have a lot of questions to answer around how the NHS is funded, slowly starving the beast while complaining about inefficiency only goes so far. That's a debate for others though, and but I suspect will become an important question once this is all over. 

Wow , just WOW ,, has the world not changed , has the goalposts not moved , are we not ( supposedly ) in a pandemic that threatens the world but we are robbing those that have reached pension age if we then expect them to find things have massively changed and they need to face the same financial disaster as the rest of the world ??????, average death age 82 

[Albert]

12 minutes ago, Archied said:

Wow , just WOW ,, has the world not changed , has the goalposts not moved , are we not ( supposedly ) in a pandemic that threatens the world but we are robbing those that have reached pension age if we then expect them to find things have massively changed and they need to face the same financial disaster as the rest of the world ??????, average death age 82 

Things have changed, but to rob people of their retirements to pay would be a backwards step, particularly when the big issue in the Western World with taxation is that large corporations pay virtually none. 

Not sure why you're bringing up life expectancy to be honest. 

17 minutes ago, Archied said:

There you go deciding what is anti Vaxer content ,, easy to feel you win an argument if you self righteously decide what’s right from the start , 

Content that espouses antivaxer views is indeed antivaxer content. Again, if you feel insulted by the label, maybe try not pushing those views and posting that kind of content. 

17 minutes ago, Archied said:

as stated I am happy for anybody to want the vaccine and won’t argue they shouldn’t , I personally for my own reasons will not unless forced or my position changes with time ,,, that’s posting antivax content? ,,, nope but you will then question my personal choice in the hope I post antivax content?????

Maybe read some of your own posts at some point. 

[ariotofmyown]

30 minutes ago, Albert said:

There is some depth and breadth to how the term can be defined, but the central idea is to question a commonly held understanding, which is covered in the above.

I take the mean of sceptic to challenge a widely held 'beleif' rather than an 'understanding'.

I think there is enough evidence that vaccines are mostly a good thing for humankind, so to go against this is not sceptical.

I also think there is plenty of evidence that the way some medicines are used for profit is bad for humankind (ie opioid use in USA) and it's good to be sceptical here.

Being a sceptic is a good thing, although to your original point of the odious tag, it it can now be confused with cynicism, or the rejection of evidence for beliefs, the opposite of what is was originally.

Think the original means needs to be reclaimed.

[Archied]

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

Things have changed, but to rob people of their retirements to pay would be a backwards step, particularly when the big issue in the Western World with taxation is that large corporations pay virtually none. 

Not sure why you're bringing up life expectancy to be honest. 

Content that espouses antivaxer views is indeed antivaxer content. Again, if you feel insulted by the label, maybe try not pushing those views and posting that kind of content. 

Maybe read some of your own posts at some point. 

????? but ok to rob people of they’re futures and presents , we are either all in it together or not , just interested to see how much the selfish granny killer line would be thrown out by some were it costing them and what they can leave to they’re children the same  perhaps that acceptable number close to zero may be adjusted if they also were facing ruin , 

average death age is hugely relevant 

my stated stance on vaccine is neither anti or pro , i personally will not be taking it unless mandated or my personal opinion changes ,, is that posting antivax content?

[Archied]

24 minutes ago, Albert said:

Content that espouses antivaxer views is indeed antivaxer content. Again, if you feel insulted by the label, maybe try not pushing those views and posting that kind of content. 

Maybe read some of your own posts at some point. 

Being able to listen, read and adjust position is a positive I believe not a weakness and as such I realised that being drawn into arguments over possible concerns on THIS vaccine was not good ,not only in terms of playing people’s silly games but also and more importantly may dissuade someone / anyone from taking it who may want it and that’s not aright thing for me to do in my opinion 

[Albert]

14 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I take the mean of sceptic to challenge a widely held 'beleif' rather than an 'understanding'.

The point in the 'belief' is that sceptics tend to relegate widely held understandings to just being 'beliefs' or 'opinions'. That was the point the quotes you included were trying to get across. Going back to the first line that you quoted: 

Quote

Skepticism (American and Canadian English) or scepticism (British, Irish, and Australian English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma.[1][2]

What this is saying is that scepticism is questioning well established knowledge, and doing so in a way that asserts it to merely be a belief. That is, it's not questioning things that are merely beliefs, but rather, questioning well established ideas in a way that treats them as though they are not. 

That said, debating over wikipedia's wording is a poor way to discuss this.  

14 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I think there is enough evidence that vaccines are mostly a good thing for humankind, so to go against this is not sceptical.

This goes to the above, taking your definition I would agree. 

14 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I also think there is plenty of evidence that the way some medicines are used for profit is bad for humankind (ie opioid use in USA) and it's good to be sceptical here.

No doubt on this point. The US in particular has had an issue here. You only have to think about the idea of ads for prescription medicines on TV to start to see the issue. 

14 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Being a sceptic is a good thing, although to your original point of the odious tag, it it can now be confused with cynicism, or the rejection of evidence for beliefs, the opposite of what is was originally.

Think the original means needs to be reclaimed.

Neither cynicism nor scepticism should be seen as a negative thing on their own. That said, cynicism is more about lack of trust in the motives of others. Ironically, the point about medicine in America is a cynical point, at least by the modern definition. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the original meaning' here. Classical scepticism is a philosophy about the concept that knowledge and certainty is a subjective matter, ie there is no definable 'true knowledge'. 

Ultimately though, we seem to take slightly different meanings from the term scepticism, which is only natural of course. In truth, I like your definition better. 

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

????? but ok to rob people of they’re futures and presents , we are either all in it together or not , just interested to see how much the selfish granny killer line would be thrown out by some were it costing them and what they can leave to they’re children the same  perhaps that acceptable number close to zero may be adjusted if they also were facing ruin , 

It's interesting that you can both be an antivaxer, not committed to getting it when it is made available to you, and complain about people being robbed of 'they're [sic] futures and presents'. 

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

average death age is hugely relevant 

Howso? 

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

my stated stance on vaccine is neither anti or pro , i personally will not be taking it unless mandated or my personal opinion changes ,, is that posting antivax content?

Re the bolded text, this implies that you're anti-vaccination, by definition. 

[Albert]

10 minutes ago, Archied said:

Being able to listen, read and adjust position is a positive I believe not a weakness and as such I realised that being drawn into arguments over possible concerns on THIS vaccine was not good ,not only in terms of playing people’s silly games but also and more importantly may dissuade someone / anyone from taking it who may want it and that’s not aright thing for me to do in my opinion 

When did I say that adjusting your position based on new evidence isn't a virtue? 

[G STAR RAM]

36 minutes ago, Albert said:

...particularly when the big issue in the Western World with taxation is that large corporations pay virtually none. 

Is this a fact?

[Archied]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

The point in the 'belief' is that sceptics tend to relegate widely held understandings to just being 'beliefs' or 'opinions'. That was the point the quotes you included were trying to get across. Going back to the first line that you quoted: 

What this is saying is that scepticism is questioning well established knowledge, and doing so in a way that asserts it to merely be a belief. That is, it's not questioning things that are merely beliefs, but rather, questioning well established ideas in a way that treats them as though they are not. 

That said, debating over wikipedia's wording is a poor way to discuss this.  

This goes to the above, taking your definition I would agree. 

No doubt on this point. The US in particular has had an issue here. You only have to think about the idea of ads for prescription medicines on TV to start to see the issue. 

Neither cynicism nor scepticism should be seen as a negative thing on their own. That said, cynicism is more about lack of trust in the motives of others. Ironically, the point about medicine in America is a cynical point, at least by the modern definition. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the original meaning' here. Classical scepticism is a philosophy about the concept that knowledge and certainty is a subjective matter, ie there is no definable 'true knowledge'. 

Ultimately though, we seem to take slightly different meanings from the term scepticism, which is only natural of course. In truth, I like your definition better. 

It's interesting that you can both be an antivaxer, not committed to getting it when it is made available to you, and complain about people being robbed of 'they're [sic] futures and presents'. 

Howso? 

Re the bolded text, this implies that you're anti-vaccination, by definition. 

No , you imply that , I said THIS vaccine , had others ,my children had vaccines too ,,, if we are going down the dogged route again what number close to zero in YOUR OPINION is acceptable in the question you were not as dogged in answering?????

[Albert]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Is this a fact?

Are you suggesting that companies paying effective tax rates of 0% on billions of income across various countries in the Western World is not happening, or that it's not a problem?