Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by alfablue View Post
    The core of his idea is that 1) old people are going to die in a higher rate, and that's ok because they are old:

    Which is kinda pathetic that old people are just ok to die relatively speaking.
    Logan's Run...
    Russell Jaslow
    [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
    U.S. College Hockey Online

    Comment


    • Originally posted by First Time, Long Time View Post

      I've answered this before...so you figure it out.
      Great response.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Swansong View Post
        Honest question. Why is this troll still here? They're so clearly not arguing in good faith. They joined here and seemed to have posted over 600 times in a few months in what, two specific threads?

        USCHO used to take out the trash, at least once in a while. Now I can't even find an obvious "report" function.
        What post are you having so much difficulty with?

        Look and the posts from any of the resident #TeamHysteria and please let me know who is open to “arguing in good faith.”

        Comment


        • The guy said he expects 170,000 deaths. Total. At the conclusion of the virus. He will be proven wrong in 2 weeks.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by alfablue View Post
            And here's one thing about it being ok for old people to die- if that's an honest answer- why in the world do we bother to keep them safe and alive in the first place? Why do we have nursing homes? Why do we have long term care? Why do people try to keep their parents and grandparents alive, or even spouses? By the argument that Covid is going after the old population, and that's acceptable- then you should be questioning why you are spending money on keeping old people alive in your life.

            Don't tell me that it's a loaded point- that's one of the KEY parts of that person's argument that lockdowns and harsh actions are not needed.
            Nursing Homes or long term care facilities are really interesting. They are a necessity when a person physically or mentally deteriorates to a point where they can't live alone, and either don't have someone to care for them, or their care is significant enough that an untrained family member really isn't capable of handling it.

            I'd really be curious how many people who live in nursing homes really want to be there. I suspect that number is fairly low.

            I would also be curious as to the number of people in their 80's or 90's who have executed health care directives or living wills, or signed do not resuscitate documents.

            None of that is to say that their lives are unimportant, or not worth protecting to the extent we can. But I think what he is saying is that most of these individuals are at the very end of their lives. If, as in Minnesota, 75% or more of the victims of this disease are such people, then when it comes time to evaluate the societal costs of our preventative measures, we really need to look at the extent to which those preventative measures contribute to other risk factors like poverty and suicide, and balance it against say the 25% of the people victimized by the disease who are not at the very end of their lives. If I'm 95 and have maybe months to live anyway, is it worth it to put millions on soup lines to make sure I get those last few months?
            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
              You mean Mr. "I Got China Right (if you believe their numbers)" is still living off that BS and is now tweaking his data even worse than before? At least now he is using Sweden as his "model" and not the other BS data point. I bet Stanford loves this guy giving these interviews....
              He is a living example of Nobel's disease. https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/0...irrationality/

              Not sure why a structural biologist fancies himself a epidemiologist.

              Originally posted by Handyman View Post
              I am going to go tell my 73 year old dad his life doesnt matter and if he dies no one should care.
              No ****. We could close down so many hospitals and save hundreds of billions a year if we just let people over the "average age of death" just succumb to whatever. It is like these morons have no understanding of what modern medicine even is.

              In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

              Originally posted by burd
              I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                Nursing Homes or long term care facilities are really interesting. They are a necessity when a person physically or mentally deteriorates to a point where they can't live alone, and either don't have someone to care for them, or their care is significant enough that an untrained family member really isn't capable of handling it.

                I'd really be curious how many people who live in nursing homes really want to be there. I suspect that number is fairly low.

                I would also be curious as to the number of people in their 80's or 90's who have executed health care directives or living wills, or signed do not resuscitate documents.

                None of that is to say that their lives are unimportant, or not worth protecting to the extent we can. But I think what he is saying is that most of these individuals are at the very end of their lives. If, as in Minnesota, 75% or more of the victims of this disease are such people, then when it comes time to evaluate the societal costs of our preventative measures, we really need to look at the extent to which those preventative measures contribute to other risk factors like poverty and suicide, and balance it against say the 25% of the people victimized by the disease who are not at the very end of their lives. If I'm 95 and have maybe months to live anyway, is it worth it to put millions on soup lines to make sure I get those last few months?
                Just because people may have come to terms with dying does not mean they want to die.

                But by accepting their deaths for the economy, that exactly says that their lives are unimportant.

                Let alone, the "soup lines" are temporary. Once this all goes away, everyone can work again. The faster we get through it, the faster we get back at it. I'm amused that everyone seems to think that the job losses are permanent- as if what they make isn't needed at all. Restaurants are wanted and needed- even if the owners change hands, we still will need cooks and servers and cleaners.

                Add to that- where a handful of people have more than enough money to fund the bottom 1/3 of the economy for 3-6 months quite easily. That's the segment that's mostly out of jobs. If not for greed, it would be easy to keep people safe and healthy and fed for the short time it takes to clear this out.

                Instead, we have somehow justified that people should be risking their lives to make a living. Or at least be risking the lives of their elderly friends and family for people to make a living. By "we" I don't mean me- I mean you. The idea that I should risk anything WRT health to make money for some other person is not something that I think is reasonable. It's why we have work safety laws, it's why we have air quality laws, it's why we have water quality laws, it's why we have building codes, it's why we have food safety laws, etc. Because companies have always chosen to make money than look out for either customers or employees.

                Funny that we keep finding people who are happy to sacrifice others for their own good.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jerphisch View Post
                  The guy said he expects 170,000 deaths. Total. At the conclusion of the virus. He will be proven wrong in 2 weeks.
                  Let me know when you are ready to discuss the models that were used and put on blast by the media.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                    Nursing Homes or long term care facilities are really interesting. They are a necessity when a person physically or mentally deteriorates to a point where they can't live alone, and either don't have someone to care for them, or their care is significant enough that an untrained family member really isn't capable of handling it.

                    I'd really be curious how many people who live in nursing homes really want to be there. I suspect that number is fairly low.

                    I would also be curious as to the number of people in their 80's or 90's who have executed health care directives or living wills, or signed do not resuscitate documents.

                    None of that is to say that their lives are unimportant, or not worth protecting to the extent we can. But I think what he is saying is that most of these individuals are at the very end of their lives. If, as in Minnesota, 75% or more of the victims of this disease are such people, then when it comes time to evaluate the societal costs of our preventative measures, we really need to look at the extent to which those preventative measures contribute to other risk factors like poverty and suicide, and balance it against say the 25% of the people victimized by the disease who are not at the very end of their lives. If I'm 95 and have maybe months to live anyway, is it worth it to put millions on soup lines to make sure I get those last few months?
                    You are really doubling down on being a heartless idiot, aren't you. Just some education...

                    Plenty of people derive meaning while in nursing homes. You also are conflating a lot of things. Many discharged patients from the hospital go to a nursing or long term care facility for further recover and rehab. Most return home. They are included in the death counts included in the LTC counts. Do they not deserve our compassion?

                    Health care directives and living wills are notoriously not helpful when coming to 95% of medical decisions by the way they are written. They are written by lawyers, not doctors. If you want your wishes to be respected, your HCPOA is the most important decision you can make. Have conversations early about what you want.

                    DNR does not mean do not treat. 99.99% of healthcare can be done with an active DNR. It literally only comes in play if your heart stops.

                    Good luck with your actual death panels you ****ing idiot.
                    In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

                    Originally posted by burd
                    I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post

                      He is a living example of Nobel's disease. https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/0...irrationality/

                      Not sure why a structural biologist fancies himself a epidemiologist.



                      No ****. We could close down so many hospitals and save hundreds of billions a year if we just let people over the "average age of death" just succumb to whatever. It is like these morons have no understanding of what modern medicine even is.
                      Who has said anything close to that?

                      You guys really do need some Sun and Fresh air, probably some human contact also.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by alfablue View Post

                        Instead, we have somehow justified that people should be risking their lives to make a living. Or at least be risking the lives of their elderly friends and family for people to make a living. By "we" I don't mean me- I mean you. The idea that I should risk anything WRT health to make money for some other person is not something that I think is reasonable. It's why we have work safety laws, it's why we have air quality laws, it's why we have water quality laws, it's why we have building codes, it's why we have food safety laws, etc. Because companies have always chosen to make money than look out for either customers or employees.

                        Funny that we keep finding people who are happy to sacrifice others for their own good.
                        To say nothing about the people who live with or are a caregiver for an immunocompromised friend or family member. I guess they should give up any ability to work too?

                        The idea that we shouldn't have locked down, to me, is absurd. Even the mastermind of Sweden's decision not to changed his tune - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-things-wrong
                        I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post

                          You are really doubling down on being a heartless idiot, aren't you. Just some education...

                          Plenty of people derive meaning while in nursing homes. You also are conflating a lot of things. Many discharged patients from the hospital go to a nursing or long term care facility for further recover and rehab. Most return home. They are included in the death counts included in the LTC counts. Do they not deserve our compassion?

                          Health care directives and living wills are notoriously not helpful when coming to 95% of medical decisions by the way they are written. They are written by lawyers, not doctors. If you want your wishes to be respected, your HCPOA is the most important decision you can make. Have conversations early about what you want.

                          DNR does not mean do not treat. 99.99% of healthcare can be done with an active DNR. It literally only comes in play if your heart stops.

                          Good luck with your actual death panels you ****ing idiot.
                          I'm avoiding any pile-ons, but this is correct. Many people - who live long lives after a hospital stay - require some amount of non-acute care facility stay. Inpatient rehab after a knee replacement. Or, in many cases of long-term COVID recovery, weeks and weeks of non-acute care as they regain strength and learn to do simple things like have a bowel movement on their own again.

                          And DNR/DNI (advanced care planning in general) is often there to help you live longer, not end your life. Real example time:

                          My mother, due to years of prednisone use, had bones made of ... well, they were super brittle. She signed a DNR/DNI order not because she was ready to die, but because if somehow she was found unresponsive, chest compressions would shatter her ribs and likely kill her.
                          I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
                            Health care directives and living wills are notoriously not helpful when coming to 95% of medical decisions by the way they are written. They are written by lawyers, not doctors. If you want your wishes to be respected, your HCPOA is the most important decision you can make. Have conversations early about what you want.
                            Under Minnesota law, a health care directive is a health care power of attorney.
                            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                            Comment


                            • Beyond not giving a crap about old people dying, another friendly reminder that dying is not the only outcome. I don't know if every state has the data available, but CO has some pretty good info on their site https://covid19.colorado.gov/data/case-data . The % of cases hospitalized by age is not so top heavy. Almost 11% of cases in the 40-49 age group are hospitalized (sure it's probably lower due to not all cases being diagnosed). It only goes up from there, and the longer this goes the more it sounds like there will likely be long term effects to those people. Even children are 3-5% of cases ending up hospitalized, so at least 1 kid per classroom when we send em back to learn. But I guess if they die early because they had a touch of COVID back in the day, it was just their time.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Handyman View Post

                                The problem some of us have is that he is doing exactly what he says others do...looking at specific data that seems to prove his point and ignoring any and all context or data that contradicts his point. He did it before too (he used the Cruise Ship to extrapolate what would happen in the US...and surprise surprise he was wrong) and in reality the only thing he has ever been right on was China. (which the article mentions) Random people on Twitter have been closer to correct about everything since April which is why this guy stopped being brought up until he gave this interview.

                                I give him credit on the mask thing, but again you cant use masks as a reason why we dont need a lockdown because half the country wont wear them. If we could get full buy in he would have a point...but we cant. As such his mentioning them is worthless. (and I am guessing he would be against mandatory masks for the same reason he is against everything else) I bet we could all rattle off a bunch of ways to mitigate...but if we cant trust the person next to us to do it then it is meaningless as an option.

                                The Right tried once already to use him as their "Lone Voice of Reason in the Wilderness" and it went nowhere. Now I guess at least he isnt using a Cruise Ship...he upgraded to Sweden. Cause the US and Sweden are so similar in population, economics, geography and health care.
                                I understand what you’re saying. I agree with most of it. I don’t even remotely agree with Levitt’s core argument that a lockdown wasn’t effective, and especially not with that older people’s lives are worth sacrificing compared to younger lives’ futures being sacrificed. All lives matter kind of goes out the window with that argument.
                                Anyways, I was giving Hovey the benefit of the doubt that he posted the article to show that someone who’s smart, though not necessarily in epidemiology, was arguing that lockdowns weren’t effective, like he does. Based on his last post, that benefit got a lot harder to justify.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X