Pool Tournaments During COVID Pandemic

[ShootingArts]

We take the temp of every kid that comes in school. Those fancy forehead scanners. I have yet to have one read over 97.0. Sometimes I will take it at their wrist just to change things up. Still haven't had anyone approach a "normal" 98.6. Every kid wears a mask. Every kid gets their temp. taken. We have had a bunch of positive cases. Not one was caught at the door with a thermometer. "Science" abounds.

I read recently that normal is now a degree lower, 97.6 I believe.

Just quirks, when I was young even well into young adulthood, my normal temperature was 96.8 and my pulse was fifty.

Hu

 

[Get_A_Grip]

"Realist News" does not present "evidence."

It presents conspiracy theories and gives survivalists stuff to fantasize about.

Lou Figueroa

He's reading the article I posted a link to. The article includes the facts which you are conveniently ignoring based on who is reading the article and the facts. Ridiculous.



_______

 

[Get_A_Grip]

A video from a pretty smart Christian guy who analyzes scientific papers on the virus and vaccines. A new paper suggests that the COVID 19 (single strand RNA) virus is permanently modifying a person's DNA.

Therefore, he suggests that the only way the mRNA vaccines could work effectively, is if they also modify a person's DNA.
_______

 

[jsp]

Well you know dude, we could stop drunk driving. Easy. Not one other innocent person has to die from DD. First, we ban alcohol. Then just to be extra safe, we MANDATE that ALL cars be retrofitted with Interlock ignitions so that in order to start, you have to blow into a breathalyzer and prove you are not drunk.

How far are YOU willing to go in order to stop drunk driving. It can be done. Just a few more government mandates and lost freedoms. A minor inconvenience, a small price to pay, right?

There are already laws against drunk driving.

The point is that it is not "presumptuous" to expect others not drink and drive. Likewise, it is not presumptuous to expect others to stay home while sick, or to expect others to the very easy things to reduce the chances of other people getting sick.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

A big part of the equation on how to properly react to the virus, mask wearing, and the vaccine, is knowing the big picture of the true origin of the virus, who created it, how it was released, and if release of the virus is part of a bigger plan or strategy.

I realize that most people want to believe that the virus is just nature doing its thing. But what if it's not?


_______

 

[jokrswylde]

There are already laws against drunk driving.

The point is that it is not "presumptuous" to expect others not drink and drive. Likewise, it is not presumptuous to expect others to stay home while sick, or to expect others to the very easy things to reduce the chances of other people getting sick.

The definition of presumptuous is taking things for granted or being overconfident. (https://www.yourdictionary.com/presumptuous)

I really don't know how else to explain that if you have a belief that everyone should behave the way YOU expect them to, you are being overconfident and/or taking things for granted. It is literally the definition of presumptuous.

For example, it would be presumptuous for me to assume every car will stop at a crosswalk. I don't know about you, but I don't step into the street until that car has stopped or is barely rolling. I tell my 16 year old, don't be presumptuous. Assume every other driver sucks at driving and is drunk.

So yes, it is absolutely presumptuous to believe that everyone who is sick is staying home.

 

[jsp]

The definition of presumptuous is taking things for granted or being overconfident. (https://www.yourdictionary.com/presumptuous)

I really don't know how else to explain that if you have a belief that everyone should behave the way YOU expect them to, you are being overconfident and/or taking things for granted. It is literally the definition of presumptuous.

For example, it would be presumptuous for me to assume every car will stop at a crosswalk. I don't know about you, but I don't step into the street until that car has stopped or is barely rolling. I tell my 16 year old, don't be presumptuous. Assume every other driver sucks at driving and is drunk.

So yes, it is absolutely presumptuous to believe that everyone who is sick is staying home.

The "should" that you're inserting is confusing. I believe every car should stop for pedestrians at a crosswalk. But I don't expect every car will do that.

I believe everyone who is sick should stay home. But I don't expect everyone who is sick stays home.

So maybe I just misinterpreted what you said initially.

 

[gerryf]

98.6 may be the average internal body temperature.

But a remote reading thermometer is:
a. reading skin temperature
b. reading radiant temperature.

The instructions for therapists etc., make it clear what they're looking for. I would have thought schools would be clear as well.

In my community, many of the school kids found to have covid were detected by elevated temperature as well as the usual symptoms.

 

[skogstokig]

i'm three or four weeks off pool and will continue until the second wave is over. bought meself a new carving knife, been taking up whittling as a hobby to substitute pool. snooker on the tv helps too.

pool is an addiction as well as a sport. my friends who are pool junkies with a stronger drive than i have, they keep on playing. unless the government restricts it, they will play. i can't blame them like some people do here, i think doing that is not seeing the full picture

 

[surlytempo]

There are two persuasions of people, with two different basic fundamental value systems, and these fundamental value systems guide how you see the world, shape all of your beliefs and positions, and almost perfectly correlate with and predict which of the two major political parties your beliefs will be most aligned with.

There are those that believe that when rights and desires come into conflict, almost without exception the rights of people should always supersede and take precedence over the desires of people, even in cases when it is the right of one or a few against the desires of many. They do not feel it is ever acceptable to screw one guy to help the next. Rights reign supreme.

Then there are those people that feel that their desires should always supersede and take precedence over even the “rights” of others. While they almost never have the self awareness to realize it, in essence they essentially believe that there is no such thing as rights, because as soon as someone’s rights conflict with their desires they no longer see those rights as being a right, hence there really is no such things as absolute or inalienable or inherent rights in their minds when it comes down to it. The only "rights" they will ever recognize and honor are the ones that do not conflict with their current desires. They make judgments about who they would like to give help or benefit to and in what ways, and then those desires are always going to reign supreme and have importance above all else including anybody else’s rights. They find it both necessary and perfectly acceptable to screw one guy in order to help the next guy or themselves. Their desires are what always reigns supreme.

I can only speak from the perspective of the former (so those from the latter persuasion are likely to see things differently), the persuasion I happen to belong to, because it is the only perspective that is moral and logical and I cannot find any way to justify having positions or a value system that is not both moral and logical. Anyway, rights always win out over desires no matter how strong or justified you feel your desire is, so that generally makes things fairly easy to sort out (as long as you are careful not to falsely see desires as “rights” which is very tough trap not to fall into for many people because of bias born out of natural desire to act in self interest, aka selfishness).

Where things get complicated is when the actual rights of various people are in conflict and there is no way to fully enforce all of their rights at once. Fortunately it is actually pretty rare that this happens. When it does a good rule of thumb is that a person’s rights end at that point where they would start to infringe on somebody else’s rights. Even that can have exceptions though, and those are the cases where you have to make judgment calls about which rights are more important than other rights, how many people are affected in what ways depending on which rights get violated how much etc, and in these cases often a compromise of sorts where everybody’s rights get violated a bit is the best solution.

So the question with this whole covid and mask thing is, who has what rights, and which things are just people’s desires as opposed to actual rights even if they are really strong or desperate desires? If there are no conflicting rights to be found in the issue then it makes forming the correct positions much easier because all rights will always supersede all desires regardless of what the desires are. If there are conflicting rights though, then judgments and probably compromises that everybody will be unhappy with will have to be made (and that everybody is equally unhappy with it is one of the best ways to know that a compromise or deal is a good and fair one).

People generally have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with somebody else’s rights. You know, that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing. People have an inherent right to choose whether or not they want to wear a mask. On the flip side, I also think people have a right to not have their lives put into potential danger by the actions of others. Kind of like how we don’t allow drunk driving to use an example given by someone else earlier, and pretty much everybody agrees not allowing drunk driving is a reasonable thing and you never hear a “if you don’t want to risk a drunk driver harming you then stay home but I have a right to drive drunk” argument. And both of those things seem like actual rights to me as opposed to desires.

So now we have one of those rare cases where actual rights and not just desires are in conflict. So the next logical argument, following in the “your rights end where mine begin” vein is, “well your right to choose not to wear a mask ends as soon as you are around others because now you are infringing on my right to not have my life put in the way of potential harm against my wishes”. But a valid argument back is that masks aren’t even proven to be very effective, or have a largely unknown effectiveness at best. Maybe if masks where incredibly effective they would have a good argument, but if masks aren’t even all the effective then that argument carries little weight. Problem is we really don’t know if they help a little or a ton or somewhere in between, and do you really have a right to violate somebody else’s right to choose whether or not they wear a mask, in pursuit of your right not to be put in the way of undue potential harm, if you don’t really know for sure how much it is helping or if it were only helping a little?

I don’t have all the answers here but what seems reasonably clear to me is a couple of things. First, those that are very strongly on either side of the issue are conveniently ignoring the rights of others based on their own biases and self interest and selfishness. Second, it seems likely to me that a compromise that neither side is going to be happy with is probably the most fair and just solution as is often the case when you get into conflicting rights. The question is just what that compromise should look like, but we are never going to be able to get there until we can all at least start acknowledging and valuing the rights of “the other side” because both sides do indeed seem to have valid rights that are being jeopardized and that are deserving of respect.

Maybe the compromise would look something like this. Masks required in “involuntary” and highest risk places, and not required in “voluntary” places or lowest risk places. Involuntary places would be things like the DMV, your work, the grocery store, pharmacy, etc, places you don’t have much choice but to have to go, and high risk being places like nursing homes etc. And voluntary places would be pool halls, bars, restaurants, social gatherings, the pool supplies store, etc, basically any place you would go to more out of desire than necessity, and low risk being schools, anything outdoors, etc. Everybody from both sides would hate it which means it is probably a good compromise, yet it would also actually have some focused common sense effectiveness as opposed to being just for show as a large number of current policies are. Pretty hard for the “I have a right not to wear a mask” crowd to complain about not being able to put people at risk in places those people have no choice but to have to go, and pretty hard for the “I have a right not to have my health jeopardized by non-mask wearers” crowd to complain about getting covid in voluntary places like the bar that they don't have to go to and are voluntarily accepting the risk if they do.

this is inaccurate, or a very lay opinion. there was a lawyer from r/billiards who made a post about what your actual "rights" are in the event of an epidemic.



Quoting from https://www.reddit.com/r/billiards/comments/k7l6dg/_/gev6bo3

 

[HNTFSH]

We take the temp of every kid that comes in school. Those fancy forehead scanners. I have yet to have one read over 97.0. Sometimes I will take it at their wrist just to change things up. Still haven't had anyone approach a "normal" 98.6. Every kid wears a mask. Every kid gets their temp. taken. We have had a bunch of positive cases. Not one was caught at the door with a thermometer. "Science" abounds.

 

[PoolPlayer4]

Well you know dude, we could stop drunk driving. Easy. Not one other innocent person has to die from DD. First, we ban alcohol. Then just to be extra safe, we MANDATE that ALL cars be retrofitted with Interlock ignitions so that in order to start, you have to blow into a breathalyzer and prove you are not drunk.

How far are YOU willing to go in order to stop drunk driving. It can be done. Just a few more government mandates and lost freedoms. A minor inconvenience, a small price to pay, right?

That comparison makes no sense. We haven't banned breathing, or retrofitted your face for a cloth covering, or made you undertake a barrage of tests before you can go out of the house. It's a health emergency costing hundreds of thousands of American lives needlessly. Stop acting like a whining snowflake and just put on the mask. It saves lives and is a minor inconvenience.

 

[jalapus logan]

Let it be known that this is a post in this thread.

 

[HNTFSH]

That comparison makes no sense. We haven't banned breathing, or retrofitted your face for a cloth covering, or made you undertake a barrage of tests before you can go out of the house. It's a health emergency costing hundreds of thousands of American lives needlessly. Stop acting like a whining snowflake and just put on the mask. It saves lives and is a minor inconvenience.

And something we will all get eventually.

 

[philly]

And something we will all get eventually.

Sure trying not to.
It takes effort and sacrifice.

 

[HNTFSH]

Sure trying not to.
It takes effort and sacrifice.

You won't have a choice.

 

[livemusic]

You won't have a choice.

Why, what do you know? I never have caught any of the other pandemic bugs.

 

[PoolPlayer4]

And something we will all get eventually.

If you mean over the next 100 years, possibly. By then, hopefully, the science will progress and it will be more akin to the flu.

If you mean in the next 6 to 12 months before the population is vaccinated, that would likely mean millions of Americans dead. Let's agree, at least, that some minimal action such as a mask wearing and social distancing is a small price to pay to avoid that outcome.

 

[jokrswylde]

That comparison makes no sense. We haven't banned breathing, or retrofitted your face for a cloth covering, or made you undertake a barrage of tests before you can go out of the house. It's a health emergency costing hundreds of thousands of American lives needlessly. Stop acting like a whining snowflake and just put on the mask. It saves lives and is a minor inconvenience.

Mind your business. Stay home and wear your mask. Much safer for you that way.

 

[MitchAlsup]

This is incorrect more than 7000 a day die.

United States Deaths Clock

The figure illustrates people that didn't have to die, not the ones who have to die.