Soaring Contest and Coronavirus

Does that freedom of choice extend to choosing what risks you expose
others to?

Apologies for contributing to thread drift, etc., but that's an interesting
(to me, anyway) philosophic question. And an important one. The United States
exists because of people who considered philosophical questions important,
with contributors ranging from Founding Fathers to grunt militia and
(ultimately) nameless/faceless individuals (in the historical sense) who voted
in favor of accepting the choice to begin a *national* experiment of a
form-of-government and nation based upon the rule of law, with the highest law
of the land being the - proposed - Constitution which they were being asked to
consider and vote upon.

History - and common sense - give the short-form answer to the above question
as, "YES!" Consider the simple act of driving one's vehicle. Unavoidably
you're exposing others to the risks inherent to your
driving-style/age/sense-of-personal-responsibility (e.g. drinking)/etc. And
then there's soaring, with the reality of landouts, etc...

In principle, the "freedom of choice" question is no different than
considering "Kung Flu questions."

For evidence principle is important in the history of the USA, one need look
no further than the Declaration of Independence (essentially a statement based
entirely on principle) and the Constitution (the fundamental legal
codification of said principles).

This nation's "proper final recourse" for civilly disagreeing with others who
hold differing views on specific issues of principle is - for better or worse
- civil lawsuits. Hugely imperfect, but there you go. So - and such - is life.

Flame suit on...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

How's this for flames, Bob?

BRAVO!

On 4/19/2020 9:22 AM, Bob Whelan wrote:
Does that freedom of choice extend to choosing what risks you expose
others to?

Apologies for contributing to thread drift, etc., but that's an
interesting (to me, anyway) philosophic question. And an important
one. The United States exists because of people who considered
philosophical questions important, with contributors ranging from
Founding Fathers to grunt militia and (ultimately) nameless/faceless
individuals (in the historical sense) who voted in favor of accepting
the choice to begin a *national* experiment of a form-of-government
and nation based upon the rule of law, with the highest law of the
land being the - proposed - Constitution which they were being asked
to consider and vote upon.

History - and common sense - give the short-form answer to the above
question as, "YES!" Consider the simple act of driving one's vehicle.
Unavoidably you're exposing others to the risks inherent to your
driving-style/age/sense-of-personal-responsibility (e.g.
drinking)/etc. And then there's soaring, with the reality of landouts,
etc...

In principle, the "freedom of choice" question is no different than
considering "Kung Flu questions."

For evidence principle is important in the history of the USA, one
need look no further than the Declaration of Independence (essentially
a statement based entirely on principle) and the Constitution (the
fundamental legal codification of said principles).

This nation's "proper final recourse" for civilly disagreeing with
others who hold differing views on specific issues of principle is -
for better or worse - civil lawsuits. Hugely imperfect, but there you
go. So - and such - is life.

Flame suit on...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


--
Dan, 5J

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:22:19 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
Does that freedom of choice extend to choosing what risks you expose
others to?

Apologies for contributing to thread drift, etc., but that's an interesting
(to me, anyway) philosophic question. And an important one. The United States
exists because of people who considered philosophical questions important,
with contributors ranging from Founding Fathers to grunt militia and
(ultimately) nameless/faceless individuals (in the historical sense) who voted
in favor of accepting the choice to begin a *national* experiment of a
form-of-government and nation based upon the rule of law, with the highest law
of the land being the - proposed - Constitution which they were being asked to
consider and vote upon.

History - and common sense - give the short-form answer to the above question
as, "YES!" Consider the simple act of driving one's vehicle. Unavoidably
you're exposing others to the risks inherent to your
driving-style/age/sense-of-personal-responsibility (e.g. drinking)/etc. And
then there's soaring, with the reality of landouts, etc...

In principle, the "freedom of choice" question is no different than
considering "Kung Flu questions."

For evidence principle is important in the history of the USA, one need look
no further than the Declaration of Independence (essentially a statement based
entirely on principle) and the Constitution (the fundamental legal
codification of said principles).

This nation's "proper final recourse" for civilly disagreeing with others who
hold differing views on specific issues of principle is - for better or worse
- civil lawsuits. Hugely imperfect, but there you go. So - and such - is life.

Flame suit on...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

The most recent data suggest that people are contagious 3 days before symptoms. So it is a little like driving your car not knowing if the brakes work. You are exposing others to a risk you yourself do not comprehend.

I like freedom of choice too, but the answers are not so simple.

Thread drift? If to have contests the country first needs to find a way to live with the virus, then this is a broad thread. If 1918 is any indicator, this thing will be over once nearly everybody has been infected.

For Seniors, there were no confirmed cases within 100 miles. Given what we are now hearing about asymptomatic transfer, it seems likely that there were unconfirmed cases at the WalMart and maybe on the field. Given the quantity and ages of the folks, 'dodging the bullet' seems more that just luck. There might be a lesson there of more general use.

Kudos to Rich and crew for an outstanding job of providing the tools to have a safe contest in what turned out to be a more challenging than expected environment. Even with the spotlight of Monday Morning Quarterback discussion, they did a great job. But I think that is only half the story. Each contestant also thoughtfully chose to be there and chose to use the tools wisely. The story seems a mix of top down rules and bottom up personal responsibility, both thoughtfully applied. To use only a part of the mix is fighting the virus with a hand behind your back. Instead of talking about freedom of choice versus a population based epidemiological response we need to figure out how to use both in concert.

From what I'm seeing here at the big box store, I don't think this will work with the instincts we have in the general public today. Why did it work at Seniors? One difference is that the group has a safety culture that is accustomed to managing risk individually in addition to having it managed for them. Another is that there was good leadership to nudge folks in a safe direction.

Country wide leadership seems in short supply, but locally I'm seeing signs of encouragement in small business folks figuring out how to proceed with their lives while keeping the virus at bay. We need to figure out how encourage this in the general population.

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 9:49:44 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:22:19 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
Does that freedom of choice extend to choosing what risks you expose
others to?

Apologies for contributing to thread drift, etc., but that's an interesting
(to me, anyway) philosophic question. And an important one. The United States
exists because of people who considered philosophical questions important,
with contributors ranging from Founding Fathers to grunt militia and
(ultimately) nameless/faceless individuals (in the historical sense) who voted
in favor of accepting the choice to begin a *national* experiment of a
form-of-government and nation based upon the rule of law, with the highest law
of the land being the - proposed - Constitution which they were being asked to
consider and vote upon.

History - and common sense - give the short-form answer to the above question
as, "YES!" Consider the simple act of driving one's vehicle. Unavoidably
you're exposing others to the risks inherent to your
driving-style/age/sense-of-personal-responsibility (e.g. drinking)/etc. And
then there's soaring, with the reality of landouts, etc...

In principle, the "freedom of choice" question is no different than
considering "Kung Flu questions."

For evidence principle is important in the history of the USA, one need look
no further than the Declaration of Independence (essentially a statement based
entirely on principle) and the Constitution (the fundamental legal
codification of said principles).

This nation's "proper final recourse" for civilly disagreeing with others who
hold differing views on specific issues of principle is - for better or worse
- civil lawsuits. Hugely imperfect, but there you go. So - and such - is life.

Flame suit on...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

The most recent data suggest that people are contagious 3 days before symptoms. So it is a little like driving your car not knowing if the brakes work. You are exposing others to a risk you yourself do not comprehend.

I like freedom of choice too, but the answers are not so simple.

I actually have a gliding story about brakes. I was landing my Nimbus 4T, all 1131 pounds empty, with a quartering headwind of about 12 knots, for only the second time. Mt previous two gliders were AS birds with the brake at the end of the spoiler pull. The AS gliders have a handle on the stick which is the trim. SH birds have the brake on the stick. As I was rolling out I didn't seem to be getting much braking no matter how hard of squeezed the stick brake or the spoilers, the quartering head wind had turned the big Nimbus to head directly at what we called skid row (6, 1-26's tied down).. It was too late to ground loop it and the gentleman working on his glider at skid row, just gave me a friendly wave, apparently not noticing the terror in my eyes. Fortunately a very young and spry Garret Willat tucked under the wing of the moving Nimbus grabbed ahold of the vertical and got the bird stopped about two feet from making a dent throughout skid row. And I am sorry gentleman, a gliding themed post seems out of place on RAS now, please forgive my natural tendencies.