Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

I guess I could see that argument, but it feels a lot of like driving everywhere out of a fear of flying, though (750x more fatalities driving per passenger-mile than flying).

John Madden famously traveled only by land rather than flying. He said that he was claustrophibic which resulted in panic attacks on planes. Some people also question whether a plane crash involving the Cal Poly football team in 1960 (Madden graduated from Cal Poly in 1958 and knew many of the passengers on the plane) was a factor. Ultimately he traveled on the Madden Cruiser (luxury motor coach) which allowed him to see the country and traveling with him on it became something of an event. I think views/positions are often based on a number of different things. People may not even know the true basis for their own views and definitely look to one or another (or one not even relevant) if it makes them feel better or is better received. And ultimately with different views on different matters, there are different views about how black/white the world is. Doesn't make one view or the other necessarily better.

A lot of views aren't even choices, they're learned and accepted without question. Boys play with cars and girls wear dresses because someone told you that was the order of the world. You never chose that. (Few people actually choose their religion either... they may choose to accept it, but few comparison shop among the options.)

No doubt a lot of what you will be is determined at birth (from the stand point of genetics and the people with whom you will (or won't) spend the first 18 or so years of your life in very formative years). Ultimately, you can't change the hand you are dealt only the way you play it.

I comparisson shopped for religions a while back. Found it was much easier to accept the faults/limitations of the one you were born into than it was one you are selecting.

Interesting. I found it was easier to not subscribe to any of them.

No religion is without its faults. If you are looking for the perfect religion you will never find it.

I was raised Catholic (Ok, a Chreaster). After marrying a lovely Greek woman and having two kids baptized and raised in the Orthodox faith, I made the decision to convert. There were a lot of similarities to Catholicism, but also I really liked the priest at our church. There are plenty of things that I don't agree with in the church but there's far more good than bad.

I am an adult convert to Christianity (Presbyterian which is a mainline protestant denomination) having had zero exposure in my upbringing. Also shopped LDS and Methodism. How people interact with each other and those "outside" tends to be a much bigger factor than theology or style.

GoBucks89 said:

People may not even know the true basis for their own views and definitely look to one or another (or one not even relevant) if it makes them feel better or is better received. And ultimately with different views on different matters, there are different views about how black/white the world is. Doesn't make one view or the other necessarily better.

I think I'm with you until that last line. In some cases, regardless of basis, origin, or influence, some views are just worse than others because they are wrong. If John Madden drives everywhere because he doesn't like flying, that's fine. If he drives everywhere because it's safer than flying, that is a bad view.

Well, it's an illogical view at least. But is it more illogical than having faith in something you can't prove? I tend to rate things more on the potential for harm to others, which is why I often circle back to the idea of responsible freedom... like getting vaccinated not just for yourself, but others.

One of the diagnostic criteria for a phobia is the understanding that the behavior it leads to is irrational.

That's not a "bad view", it just is what it is.

ApolloAndy said:

If John Madden drives everywhere because he doesn't like flying, that's fine. If he drives everywhere because it's safer than flying, that is a bad view.

Finally, I think our difference in approach has clicked for me. And if you really dig back through the thread, we've danced around this a few times. So here goes...

For me, this doesn't matter because the end result is the same.

What if someone gets vaccinated for completely erroneous, misguided and entirely, objectively false reasons?

Are they wrong or are we just glad they got the jab?

I think it's totally possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons and vice versa.

It doesn't matter if Madden doesn't like flying or thinks driving is dangerous. He's on the bus either way. If he can be on there for "right" reasons, it's completely irrelevant that he's there for a "wrong" one.

Replace flying with vaccines, does it still jive? John Madden doesn’t get vaccinated because he doesn’t like vaccines, so that’s ok. But if John Madden doesn’t get vaccinated because he believes vaccines are the more dangerous option, he’s wrong?

Note I have no idea of John Madden’s vaccine views. I just didn’t want to substitute too many parts.

Yeah. This may actually be getting to the root of the difference.

First off, I think it's important to make a distinction between choices that affect others and choices that don't. Madden riding in a bus mostly doesn't affect me or others. Madden not getting a shot does.

But I 100% think the motivation and reasoning for a decision is a large factor (maybe the vast majority?) in the value of the decision or at least my judgement of it (which, I acknowledge isn't worth a hill of beans). I think getting the vaccines for the wrong reasons is wrong e.g. Covid is only caused by college student in warm climates and I'm touring such a place this weekend. Not morally wrong in this case because the net result is positive for the people around, but a flawed decision. I have umpteen times more sympathy (still not a whole lot) for people who are afraid of getting the vaccine for some vague amorphous concern about long term side effects (not 100% disprovable) than for those that believe it will magnetize you or allow the govt to control your brain or cites VAERS to show it's dangerous. I still think the former has a very strong counter argument (the threat of Covid in the present is much greater than the possibility of vaccine side effects in the future), but I can relate to that line of thinking.

I am very much a process guy and I spend a lot of time reflecting on my own thought process and critiquing how I make decisions and why I listen to the people to etc. I normally do an exercise to count things I disagree with the "party line" about (whether politics, religion, society, etc.) I always try to find a Republican candidate in a local election to vote for. I always want to make sure I'm voting for the right reasons and thinking critically and not just doing "Rah! Rah! Blue rules! Red sucks!" And I have some judgement for people who vote blue just because "Blue!"

Maybe this is a dumb way to go about life, because frankly I invest an inordinate amount of energy feeling bad about many of the choices I make because "I should be doing better." I compare myself a lot to the MLK's, Desmond Tutus, and Mother Teresas. I am totally willing to admit hypocrisy and accept judgement on a lot of aspects of my life for not making choices like those people would make. But I'm pretty sure I would feel even worse if I just tried to go through life without thinking critically about the choices I make and how they affect people around me and why I make them.

I can kind of relate to that. I tend to be very outcome driven, which is a symptom of going from maker to manager professionally, I think. Literally my job is to minimize risk, reduce unknowns and get people moving toward the same outcome. (I think this negatively impacts my own sense of self-worth when it isn't going well, but that's a topic for my therapist.) When I have a few dozen people in my charge, coming up with the structure and plan to reach outcomes is not all that hard, and those that aren't onboard you can figure out what to do with them. Alas, I can't do this for society. When people don't get vaccinated, they're impeding the outcome of "the team" and it frustrates me. That they do so for bat**** crazy reasons is even more frustrating.

Seems to fit well with discussion we have been having here over almost 2 years:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/omicron-end-of-pa...ic/621089/

Looks like some areas of the world are already ramping up to the 4th shot/booster. Seems like it will just end up turning into every 6 months for as long as this goes on.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-study-finds-fourt...022-01-04/

Leading UK vaccine scientist says we can't vaccinate everyone on the planet every 4-6 months.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10366875/Leading-Oxford-va...nable.html

I think it will come down to how omicron or the next variant turns out in terms of severity. Wealthy countries can vaccinate their people every six months if they're willing to do it.

Which poses an interesting ethical question. The United States has been inconsistent when it comes to foreign aid...and generally only has provided it when there was a vested interest. Therefore, Africa and third world nation's are often overlooked...frankly because it is easy to overlook them without recourse.

Now it seems that what happens (or doesn't happen) in one country has a direct impact to the United States when it comes to vaccinations. We could get 100% of the US vaccinated but if only 25% of the world is vaccinated then something like this will never go away.

I know we are shipping vaccines out...but the industrialized world may need to take a more active role in this.

Seems to me that it makes more sense trying to get first and second doses into willing arms in countries too poor to have access to vaccines a plenty than it is to putting 4, 5, 6... doses in arms of those in rich countries who are at little risk. Though other people don't see it that way (including some people who are in the "we all need to sacrifice for others" camp).

I know it's not "scientifically correct" to call it on Omicron, but I've been in the "not at all worried about the severity, actually believe this could be the mutation we need to push past this finally" camp for quite a while now.

With that said...

In Omicron Hot Spots, Hospitals Fill Up, but I.C.U.s May Not

But in Omicron hot spots from New York to Florida to Texas, a smaller proportion of those patients are landing in intensive care units or requiring mechanical ventilation, doctors said. And many — roughly 50 to 65 percent of admissions in some New York hospitals — show up at the hospital for other ailments and then test positive for the virus.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” said Dr. Rahul Sharma, emergency physician in chief for NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell hospital. But the severity of the disease looks different from previous waves, he said. “We’re not sending as many patients to the I.C.U., we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged.”

Which echoes the Fauci article I shared a little bit back. People in hospitals have COVID, but they aren't there for COVID and those that are aren't seeing nearly the same severity.