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

[SJHovey]

Q&A: Michael Levitt on why there shouldn’t be a lockdown, how he’s been tracking coronavirus

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/0...g-coronavirus/

I don't know who that guy is, or his background, but that guy is saying things that more people need to say and understand.


Edit: On second thought, is this the same guy that Handy hated because he talked about the data from the cruise ship?

[Swansong]

I only read a little of it, but it really drives me crazy when people say "well they had heart conditions so you shouldn't count them as COVID deaths".

Nonsense. People can live for years with all types of awful maladies. Add COVID to them, and dead. Rationalizing those deaths away like that is repugnant.

[bronconick]

He appears to think herd immunity is around 30%, and that's why China, South Korea and Italy improved, ignoring the draconian lockdown acts those three countries enforced. So he's kind of hit and miss.

He accurately predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, and when China would peak. On the other hand, in March 2020 he made severely wrong predictions that Israel would suffer no more than 10 COVID-19 deaths, as well as that the USA will have a much faster coronavirus recovery than expected.

[Jeb2020]

I only read a little of it, but it really drives me crazy when people say "well they had heart conditions so you shouldn't count them as COVID deaths".

Nonsense. People can live for years with all types of awful maladies. Add COVID to them, and dead. Rationalizing those deaths away like that is repugnant.

Who said rationalizing anything away? It’s called context. Context like, the average age of people dying with Covid is over the average life expectancy. Something like 7,000 people pass away every day in this country, day after day. Many are elderly and pass away from the last ailment they encounter, do they not matter as much as a “Covid death.”

When you have proper context you start making proper decisions and policies, like you know protecting people who are actually vulnerable to Covid.

Without it you get a bunch of nonsense.

Does what you said above not go for similar scenarios when someone passes away due to a illness they catch, non Covid? Or does only Covid matter?

[Jeb2020]

He appears to think herd immunity is around 30%, and that's why China, South Korea and Italy improved, ignoring the draconian lockdown acts those three countries enforced. So he's kind of hit and miss.

Where is that quote from?

He has plenty of material available I would look at quoting what he said about the US himself.

[Jeb2020]

I only read a little of it, but it really drives me crazy when people say "well they had heart conditions so you shouldn't count them as COVID deaths".

Nonsense. People can live for years with all types of awful maladies. Add COVID to them, and dead. Rationalizing those deaths away like that is repugnant.

Also, you mentioned reading a little bit and then you shared a quote which was really just one of your thoughts.

Why don’t you share the actual part that made you think that instead of trying to skew it.

[Jeb2020]

I don't know who that guy is, or his background, but that guy is saying things that more people need to say and understand.


Edit: On second thought, is this the same guy that Handy hated because he talked about the data from the cruise ship?

Levitt and John Ioannidis are two well respected people, that people should be open to listening to.

They are so well respected that you won’t hear them attacked but rather simply ignored.

[Kepler]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...56104794886144

My daughter is a school teacher in AZ. She could be forced back in October. We've already told her if she wants to Cespedes we'll support her for as long as she needs. So far her district has told Ducey to DIAF, and there are enough educated parents that they're behind them. In other districts in Phoenix many parents are Dumptards and the teachers are being marched to the wall.

No Republican should ever be elected, to any office, in any state, ever again.

[Jeb2020]

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

and 2) people die anyway, so what's the big deal:


All that does is justify the idea of the lockdown is too harmful to the economy because the deaths are just fine.

I don't see that as good argument what so ever.

For one thing, it totally ignores the impact of people just getting sick, and how that plays out in the labor force. For some reason, it's ok that hospitals are unusually full, and even though this is much harder on the body than the flu is- that's ok to him. Let alone the lingering effects we are seeing on bodies. Factories have had to close down because too many people got sick, and the effects last longer the flu (ignoring the deaths).

And it also ignores that the deaths are even preventable. Which South Korea clearly showed.

Money vs. deaths. It's pretty clear what side of that argument he comes on. Not something most people agree with. Not a good argument.

He stated facts.

Like a previous poster you read the article, created what you thought were the core points, which were your wording/thoughts and proceeded to debate them.

Try this actually debate what he said, not your skewed interpretation that you used to try to set yourself up for success.

You position is extremely weak.

It is tough for you to understand because you operate with little to no common sense and context with what is going on.

Not to mention the measures that you want to take don’t do anything in regards to stopping the virus. Especially when applied to the masses.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

He appears to think herd immunity is around 30%, and that's why China, South Korea and Italy improved, ignoring the draconian lockdown acts those three countries enforced. So he's kind of hit and miss.

We may not be able to reach herd immunity without one of those dodgy tracker vaccines that Soros and gates are pushing

[Jeb2020]

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.

Again, you go off on your own path as an attempt to set up your argument for success.

You read the article if you want to discuss it, address a particular topic by posting it. Then share your thoughts.

Your position gets weaker with each post when you debate your own skewed talking points.

[First Time, Long Time]

Again, you go off on your own path as an attempt to set up your argument for success.

You read the article if you want to discuss it, address a particular topic by posting it. Then share your thoughts.

Your position gets weaker with each post when you debate your own skewed talking points.

Are you talking to yourself again?
There's help for that.

[Jeb2020]

Are you talking to yourself again?
There's help for that.

As I thought you. Good job

Keep dreaming for another pointless lockdown, shutdown or stay at home whatever you call it.

[psych]

I don't know who that guy is, or his background, but that guy is saying things that more people need to say and understand.


Edit: On second thought, is this the same guy that Handy hated because he talked about the data from the cruise ship?

What exactly is he saying that people on here don’t understand? The only thing I could see being a disagreement is that lockdowns were unnecessary. He said social distancing, wearing masks, etc., are all necessary.
Now, he predicted 220,000 deaths instead of 20,000, but, even his analysis of herd immunity being the primary objective seems to be refuted by the article itself.

[Jeb2020]

I assume that was a reply to me- and my core point is keeping people alive is a good thing. That's not the first time I've been accused of being biased by just stating that keeping people alive is a good thing.

The whole idea that excuses can be made for people dying is pathetic- old, pre-existing, from a different (but triggered) reason- whatever.

Where in that article did it talk about, “keeping people alive is a good thing“ and dispute that.

please post the closest thing you can find from the article. Curious to read it.