Jump to content

Comparing Corona Virus Success Stories with Abysmal Failures


Alex_Krycek
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Meanwhile, in Canada you see uptick in signal whenever such mandates are lifted. Behavioural responses are critical in a pandemic.

But nowhere near the US, where almost 40% of the population was influenced, and continues to be influenced, by that idiot with orange hair, who used to be your head of Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MigL said:

It specifically mentions country level response...

Correct. it specifically mentions country level response, which can include government, individual, private, public, etc.

Quote

...not individual/personal level.

It also mentions the "general public".

 

But nowhere does it say: 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

This is specifically about Government

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Did you, or did your Government, influence the American response to the pandemic ?

I think it is pretty clear that in America our results are heavily influenced by personal response to the pandemic.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But nowhere near the US, where almost 40% of the population was influenced, and continues to be influenced, by that idiot with orange hair, who used to be your head of Government.

When Trump recently promoted the vaccine he was booed then attacked on right wing media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MigL said:

But nowhere near the US, where almost 40% of the population was influenced, and continues to be influenced, by that idiot with orange hair, who used to be your head of Government.

Well, not mine, but that is exactly it. How the public act is a complex confluence of internal factors and includes but is not exclusively based on government responses. As you may have noticed, the USA did not suddenly became sane after the government switched. 

In contrast, the Trump administration likely did cater to anti-vaccination folks so much in part because they wanted to cater to their base.

After all, pretty much the whole top of the GOP were first in line to get the vaccine, while questioning their effectiveness in front of their voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MigL said:

The problem is, no universal public health-care system is likely to survive the adoption of blameworthiness as a triage principle. The vast majority of us who wind up in the hospital, below a certain age at least, will likely regret having done something, or not having done the opposite, in order to avoid that outcome. There are people who think downhill skiing and cycling to work are so dangerous that they ought to come with special health-care premiums. We do not want those people influencing health-care policy. And it’s worth noting how quickly Legault’s logic could lead to denying health care outright to the reckless, unwise and unvaccinated."

To me that sounds a lot like ideological waffling. If the issue is laid out as a health order and non-compliance is fined I do not see how blameworthiness is a principle. One could argue whether one should have health orders or regulations at all, as one would put blame on those who violate those orders. But that would seem a bit silly. I also do not see how fines for lack of vaccination lead to denial of health care. Folks have been fined for breaking various rules and I do not see vaccination as something fundamentally different from that perspective.

Another example would be drug abuse. It is a behaviour that is under penalty, yet in Canadian law there are provisions that ensure that folks requiring medical treatment because of drug abuse are actually treated like everyone else. So while clearly drug abusers are blamed for their behaviour (and criminally persecuted, no less), the health care system survived it. As such it does look like another case of slippery slope fallacy.

It is not to say that penalties for vaccinations may be a great solution and there might be better ways. I just find these specific arguments not very convincing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

After all, pretty much the whole top of the GOP were first in line to get the vaccine, while questioning their effectiveness in front of their voters.

Worse, they were cheerleading the vaccine when Trump pushed project warp speed to get it out sooner, then the moment Biden “won” the election they started poo pooing it. Now most try to walk a tightrope and say they support the vaccine but are against mandates. Maybe they’ll eventually progress to where progressives began. That’s what usually happens anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 12:22 AM, iNow said:

They  didn’t underestimate death rates in the US so much as they underestimated idiocy, ignorance, and intransigence.

Much like car accidents still kill people despite the introduction of seatbelts. Obviously, seatbelts don’t work and shouldn’t be worn at all. That’s just common sense right there.

We should also get rid of airbags and crumple zones and stop lights while we’re at it. If it’s not perfect, it’s not needed… that’s what I always say. 🙄 ;) 

More people are killed wearing seatbelts than not...yet somehow we don't hear that argument despite the obvious why.

On 1/12/2022 at 1:10 PM, MigL said:

It's starting to happen in Canada.
Not content with educating people ( or evidently, doing a really bad job at it ), Canadian Governments are vilifying unvaccinated people.
This is especially true of the Quebec provincial government

Chris Selley: Quebec's anti-vax tax could lead us to some very dark places (msn.com)

and the federal Liberal government of J Trudeau

Tasha Kheiriddin: The unvaccinated must be deterred from harming others (msn.com)

I would assume the next group of people that will be taxed for 'stressing' the universal ( ? ) health care system, will be smokers, drinkers, overweight people, drug users, malnourished people, etc.
Exactly the people who are disadvantaged/uneducated, and immigrants or indigenous. The same people who can least afford the extra taxation.

I have always said ideologies are a dangerous thing.

It's like they have no concept of human nature. I've had friends that were against vaccination that despite still being against it came around and got one...it wouldn't have taken much more for them to dig in their heels.

Another, avid golfer, was barred from playing golf at his Club. I can understand the argument for barring him from the clubhouse, but barring him from the course is vaccine coercion IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

More people are killed wearing seatbelts than not...yet somehow we don't hear that argument despite the obvious why.

I mean there were arguments that seatbelts were unsafe and similar things in the past:

Quote

While there was already clear evidence seat belts saved lives, these measures faced stiff opposition. A Gallup poll from July 1984 showed that 65% of Americans opposed mandatory belt laws, according to the Los Angeles Times.

In a survey one year later, drivers said they thought the restraints were "ineffective, inconvenient, and uncomfortable."

Some argued — incorrectly — that it was safer to be thrown clear from a wreck than trapped inside one.

"In this country, saving freedom is more important than trying to regulate lives through legislation," wrote one staunch opponent in a 1987 Chicago Tribune editorial.

The auto industry actually supported seat-belt requirements, mainly to circumvent legislation that would have mandated airbags.

https://www.businessinsider.com/when-americans-went-to-war-against-seat-belts-2020-5

At this point I am almost convinced that in human history there are no original discussions left anymore. We just keep rehashing old things and convince ourselves that somehow we are making progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I mean there were arguments that seatbelts were unsafe and similar things in the past:

https://www.businessinsider.com/when-americans-went-to-war-against-seat-belts-2020-5

At this point I am almost convinced that in human history there are no original discussions left anymore. We just keep rehashing old things and convince ourselves that somehow we are making progress.

I do remember the "thrown clear" argument...complete with factual anecdotal evidence. So maybe we just need time and maybe some of the right type of "air bags" to convince everyone.

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

At this point I am almost convinced that in human history there are no original discussions left anymore. We just keep rehashing old things and convince ourselves that somehow we are making progress.

You can probably include most of human prehistory in that thought...but more information and science at least tends to win.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You can probably include most of human prehistory in that thought...but more information and science at least tends to win.

One can only hope. This pandemic has been a bit disillusioning. I suspect I should focus on the positive parts, but it is hard to see things opportunities to do something to slip through one's fingers over and over and seeing no willingness to change the approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 7:32 AM, CharonY said:

 

Moreover tax burden have gone up and down over the long term, when accounting for inflation. See below a plot of tax burden in Canada, which clearly refutes the always increases parts.

 

Fig-4_FI-report.png

"Burden" and you have a point. Clearly refutes the "always increases"...not so much...though maybe a different graph is needed to display that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"Burden" and you have a point. Clearly refutes the "always increases"...not so much...though maybe a different graph is needed to display that.

Could you clarify that? To me a claim of "always increases" would indicate that values only go up. If there are periods where it decreases it would invalidate that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Could you clarify that? To me a claim of "always increases" would indicate that values only go up. If there are periods where it decreases it would invalidate that claim.

You can argue otherwise, but I don't believe the slight dip circa 1992 clearly refutes MigL's generalization that taxes always go up. But even if you think it does, your graph doesn't show it.

 

image.png.628ce5087a80eaa6d603224cd40e30e3.png

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You can argue otherwise

Your graph lacks labels on the axes or even a source to go find out. Are we looking at revenues? Rates? Number of people paying? Online submissions? Other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the graph there were actually three periods when taxes went down. The clearly did not refer to the amount of reduction, but the fact that reductions happened.

There are also economic reasons why taxes go up in certain countries in certain periods which is not caused by governmental desires to increase taxes:

Quote

But Boothe’s primary concern was that the study didn’t touch on the amount and quality of public services that we get for our taxes.

Press Progress pointed out there was no medicare, Canada Pension Plan, or Guaranteed Income Supplement (Old Age Security pension) back in 1961.

“If people wanted to go back to 1961 health care, I guess we could have a lot lower taxes, but I personally wouldn’t want to receive the care that they gave in 1961,” added Boothe. “It’s really hard to measure exactly the improvement or the increase in the public services that we receive for our taxes, but it doesn’t mean you can just ignore it.”

CCPA emphasized the share of income going towards taxes rose quickly in the 1960s and between 1976-1985, but has “hovered around 45 per cent ever since.”

The Fraser report also presented the finding that Canadians spend more on taxes than they spend on food, shelter and clothing combined in a negative light, according to University of British Columbia professor David Duff. But he says it’s a sign of progress that more money goes to taxes to pay for things like health care and higher education.

“Lesser-developed countries spend a lot on food, shelter and clothing; more developed economies spend more money—we spend more money—on these other things which are luxury goods for poorly-developed countries,” said Duff.

I am not sure what the graph you posted means. It appears that income is rising faster than taxes since the 2000s whereas taxes where much higher and rose more sharply with income until the 70s/80s? (by eyeballing it)?

Also, it looks like the values are not inflation-adjusted, so basically any non-normalized monetary plot would go up over the years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In the graph there were actually three periods when taxes went down. The clearly did not refer to the amount of reduction, but the fact that reductions happened.

There are also economic reasons why taxes go up in certain countries in certain periods which is not caused by governmental desires to increase taxes:

I am not sure what the graph you posted means. It appears that income is rising faster than taxes since the 2000s whereas taxes where much higher and rose more sharply with income until the 70s/80s? (by eyeballing it)?

Also, it looks like the values are not inflation-adjusted, so basically any non-normalized monetary plot would go up over the years. 

They did not. The graph shows three periods where it went down, fairly substantially, relative to cash income. That doesn't mean it went down.

My point was that it, clearly, doesn't clearly refute MigL's generalization that taxes "always go up".

Your graph...again...makes a good point with regard to the tax burden...but doesn't clearly refute what you claim it does.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"Burden" and you have a point. Clearly refutes the "always increases"...not so much...though maybe a different graph is needed to display that.

 

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your graph lacks labels on the axes or even a source to go find out. Are we looking at revenues? Rates? Number of people paying? Online submissions? Other?

Here is an article that actually contains both graphs. While I don't see it stated I recognize "my graph" to be based on taxes in Canadian Dollars not adjusted for inflation.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3691159/canada-taxes-incomes-fraser-institute/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.