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 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.
    You’re right. Looks like his original estimate was 220,000, and he revised it downwards. Whoops. My bad. More his though.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post


      None of that is to say that their lives are unimportant, or not worth protecting to the extent we can.
      And this is the key part to point out in what you posted. This country has not done anywhere near what could have been done "to the extent we can" to protect lives during this pandemic.

      There were things we could have done, like more forcefully and much earlier enacting stay-at-home measures. And once the mask supply began to come back online and more people were learning to make them at home, much more forcefully enacting mask-wearing mandates.

      These are simple things that had we as a nation done them, and more importantly the president and about a dozen governors led by example on those ideas, we would have prevented thousands of deaths. Some of those deaths would be 90 year old people who may have died subesquently. But who the fvck cares. We could have and we should have. But also some of those deaths would have been 60 year olds who lived another 10 years. Or 30 years. Some were 40 years old and in the middle of raising families. Some were 21 and getting ready to become taxpayers. Some were little children, and no little child should ever die because they caught a virus they didn't need to catch.

      Instead we live in a country where profits matter over everything else, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And we live in a country where a feeble-minded minority has chosen to believe game show hosts and carnival barkers and conspiracy spreading presidents instead of people who have devoted a lifetime of education, study and practice to the fields of medicine and epidemiology and we are held hostage by them.

      We need to find a way to eliminate the influence of 25% of the population. It is ridiculous that this minority can do the damage it is doing.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
        We need to find a way to eliminate the influence of 25% of the population. It is ridiculous that this minority can do the damage it is doing.
        Back in the day the dumbest 25% were divided between the parties.

        The trouble began when they all migrated to the Republican party. For the first time in American history we have a moron-majority major party. And in just 40 years it has nearly destroyed the entire country.
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        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?
          That would make sense...if it was proven that people under the age of 70 have no ill effects of the disease. Since we know that isnt true it doesnt really hold water.

          Again should my dad who is 73 with underlying conditions just accept his fate?

          And we didnt shut down anyways. This country is filled with whiny, selfish candyasses.
          "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
          -aparch

          "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
          -INCH

          Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
          -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

            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?
            Evaluating societal costs? Prioritizing preventative measures based on economic worth? If this isn’t the definition of a death panel I don’t know what is.




            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
              Back in the day the dumbest 25% were divided between the parties.

              The trouble began when they all migrated to the Republican party. For the first time in American history we have a moron-majority major party. And in just 40 years it has nearly destroyed the entire country.
              I dunno man there are as many "Non-Vaccine" Liberals pushing the hydroxychloroquinie BS these days as there are Trumpers. It is starting to get scary...
              "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
              -aparch

              "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
              -INCH

              Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
              -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TalonsUpPuckDown View Post

                Evaluating societal costs? Prioritizing preventative measures based on economic worth? If this isn’t the definition of a death panel I don’t know what is.



                And said the Dems are the hypocrites lol

                Comment


                • Originally posted by psych View Post

                  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.
                  From an academic standpoint I get what Stanford guy is trying to say...but in the real world he is just completely wrong. Even worse, he was proven wrong already and got so used to being the GOP darling he pivoted to another of their talking points and did it all over again. Lots of people are doing that...they just cant force their ego to shelter in place.
                  "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                  -aparch

                  "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                  -INCH

                  Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                  -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Handyman View Post

                    I dunno man there are as many "Non-Vaccine" Liberals pushing the hydroxychloroquinie BS these days as there are Trumpers. It is starting to get scary...
                    Really? Thankfully I've missed those people. I only see Trumpers doing that.
                    "If you leave ignorance and stupidity alone, ignorance and stupidity will think it's ok."
                    -Gallagher

                    R.I.P.
                    Grandpa G. ~ Feb 11, 1918-Oct. 6, 1999
                    Grandma ~ Jan 2004
                    Dad ~ Nov. 4, 1958-April 21, 2008
                    Grandpa S. ~ June 21, 1932-November 11, 2013

                    SCSU 2015-16 scoring by class through 40 games
                    Seniors: 210 points (71G, 139A) from 5 players
                    Juniors: 39 points (8G, 31A) from 4 players
                    Sophomores: 99 points (49G, 50A) from 5 players
                    Freshmen: 129 points (43G, 86A) from 8 players

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Handyman View Post

                      I dunno man there are as many "Non-Vaccine" Liberals pushing the hydroxychloroquinie BS these days as there are Trumpers.
                      No there aren't, the anti-vax liberals are down in the noise.

                      We do have the dumbest 25% POC because we have all POC. But since POC are only half the left only about 12% of the left is dumb.

                      If we can take power across the board we have an opportunity to disenfranchise stupid whites. The problem has been that by bribery, fear mongering, and cheating conservatives have managed to hold on to power long after their numbers should have made them electoral roadkill.

                      Hence their desperation to destroy democratic institutions. They know one man one vote means they will never win another election. There are a lot of stupid whites, but there aren't enough.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by psych View Post

                        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.
                        I didn't post the article, I commented on it.
                        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

                          From an academic standpoint I get what Stanford guy is trying to say...but in the real world he is just completely wrong. Even worse, he was proven wrong already and got so used to being the GOP darling he pivoted to another of their talking points and did it all over again. Lots of people are doing that...they just cant force their ego to shelter in place.
                          Meh it's pretty dumb even from an academic standpoint. It assumes that there is no possible mitigation for any of the economic harm being done, which is ridiculous. He does not seem to take in to account what the death toll would have been with no lockdowns, and if his position is that it would have been the same he's nuts.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Handyman View Post

                            That would make sense...if it was proven that people under the age of 70 have no ill effects of the disease. Since we know that isnt true it doesnt really hold water.

                            Again should my dad who is 73 with underlying conditions just accept his fate?

                            And we didnt shut down anyways. This country is filled with whiny, selfish candyasses.
                            With respect to your dad, he should do what my folks (both in their 80's) are doing. He should be careful. Wear a mask. Limit his time in public. Limit the number of people he visits, or that he allows to visit him. Probably all of the things he is doing.

                            With respect to the people under the age of 70, yes, there are people under 70 who get the disease, people who have terrible lingering effects from the disease, or who even die from the disease.

                            But, those numbers are significantly different than the risks to those over 70.

                            All I am saying is that you have to look at the actual number of those people and at least consider that as against the cost of the preventative measures.
                            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 jerphisch View Post

                              Meh it's pretty dumb even from an academic standpoint. It assumes that there is no possible mitigation for any of the economic harm being done, which is ridiculous. He does not seem to take in to account what the death toll would have been with no lockdowns, and if his position is that it would have been the same he's nuts.
                              Lockdowns were intended to make sure the HCS wasn’t overwhelmed. New York was the epicenter of the hardest hit in the world and they got through it.

                              No system is being overrun. Locking down the vast majority of a healthy society that doesn’t have a a virus is absurd.

                              And being infatuated with a “case count” as reason to lock down is more absurd.

                              You guys and your lockdowns. Bunch of quacks.
                              Last edited by Jeb2020; 08-04-2020, 01:50 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TalonsUpPuckDown View Post

                                Evaluating societal costs? Prioritizing preventative measures based on economic worth? If this isn’t the definition of a death panel I don’t know what is.



                                Don't we do this every day in this country, and all around the world?

                                We don't ban autos, we don't ban airplanes, we let people go out on fishing boats, we let people work on oil rigs. In doing so we know people will die as a consequence of our decisions. We don't want them to die. We try to take steps to minimize the chances of it happening.

                                We make those economic decisions all the time.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X