I'm curious to know where the data interception is taking place. It's not clear from the article if it's coming from a common HTTPS library, device-level network watcher, or network-watching at the ISP level.

DNS hijacking isn't really an issue with Firefox, since it does DoH.

There are plenty of other mentalities. If you've ever used KDB or R's tidyverse, you know of better approaches for handling data. Yes, KDB/Q has awful syntax, but the process is good.

Roths are a problem if they exacerbate an illegal activity.

You don't get to avoid taxes just because you don't don't plan on using some services.

All we have to do to encourage vaccinations is to remove subsidized Covid-19 treatment if you aren't vaccinated. The premium for getting social subsidizing is that you get the vaccine.

No, but your argument is that when there is an ounce of prevention available for something that causes a lot of deaths then treatment should not receive federal support.

My argument is that if you don't get the vaccine, you don't get support. You still get treatment support if you get the vaccine.

Getting the vaccine is the free premium you pay for social insurance covering your treatment. To suggest otherwise is to implicitly say that society should cover your house burning down or your auto collision bills if you declined to sign up for free insurance. It's simply not how insurance works in any other context.

The federal government doesn't cover your medical bills in any other context except Medicare/Medicaid. Covid-19 is being treated differently by the spending bills, and society has the right to make rules about treatment.

The social contract: pay the premium of getting the vaccine and we'll cover any expenses of treatment.

Why not make the vaccine available for free and tell smokers that if they don't get the vaccine their medical costs will not be covered for those receiving publicly funded health care - private insurance companies can of course do as they please?

Society has a greater interest in reducing the spread of Covid-19 because of negative externalities of infecting others.

And you do realize that the vaccine hesitancy is strongest among marginalized groups who will feel and be even more marginalized after you do this.

Party affiliation is the strongest predictor of vaccine rejection, not margialized groups.

https://today.yougov.com/topic...

Sounds like a conservative wet dream.

Actually, the opposite. Conservatives are implicitly desiring premium-free insurance. Given that US conservatives are the ones not getting vaccinated, they're also implicitly the ones asking the government to cover their expenses if they contract covid-19 and need treatment. On the other hand liberals are paying the premium by getting the vaccine.

Everyone wants insurance, and that's fine. It's just some are willing to pay the premium.

I believe the cost of treatment protocol worked out by 3rd world back in Spring 2020 was about $10 per packet. given out when someone tested positive. 4 12mg doses of off patent med plus some general vitamins/minerals for general immune system health. Might be up to $20 depending on local currency exchange vs US dollar. Granted, you had to get tested early or cost might double/triple as more off patent meds would have to be added for severe cases. Doesn't sound too expensive for most first world citizens.

If treatment was so cheap, we wouldn't have had so many people on ventilators, needing oxygen, or using ICU beds, or dying.

Those vaccines aren't being mass produced and available to the public for free. They also don't have 90% efficacy rates like the Covid-19 vaccines. Also, society doesn't have as much incentive to make receiving those other vaccines a premium on covid-19 treatment insurance.

The Covid-19 vaccines are free premium with society for covid-19 treatment insurance. Society will pay your bills if you are vaccinated and still get sick. If you don't get vaccinated, society won't pay your bills.

It's like asking society to pay to rebuild your home if it burns down and you consciously didn't buy home insurance. Except Covid-19 vaccines are free.

People still smoke, eat junky food, and inject themselves with unknown substances resulting in huge financial burdens from cancer, obesity, substance abuse.

Is there a vaccine for any of these?

ex, using drugs, eating lots of sugar, alcohol use, not sleeping properly, the list is endless...

My argument is for something that we have an effective ounce of prevention for that people are actively choosing to avoid, and that also caused 20%+ excess deaths. None of your examples come close to either criteria.

The same could be said for obesity, smoking, promiscuity, skiing, being a criminal, too little exercise and a lot of other issues resulting in increased health risks. Are you generally arguing that people should only receive federal support for medical conditions if they act according to government recommendations? Or is your argument only meant for life choices that you disagree with?

My argument is for something that we have an effective ounce of prevention for, and that also caused 20%+ excess deaths. None of your examples come close to either criteria.

All we have to do is to any federal support for treatment of Covid-19 if you aren't vaccinated. If you have to pay for your own treatment, suddenly the cost/benefit analysis changes.

You could even go the extra step and say private insurance isn't under any obligation to cover Covid-19 treatment.

Society should not be shouldering the cost of a pound of cure when an ounce of prevention is available.

All society has to do for people who don't want to get the vaccine is to say that if you don't get a vaccine and end up needing treatment, the federal government will not pay for any of it, and private insurance doesn't have to cover it either. That way you're free to not get the vaccine, but you have to shoulder the cost of your decision.

Society provides an effective ounce of prevention. If you don't want it, society won't pay for a pound of cure.