aparch
Well-known member
This clip, and many more from the Axios interview, is blowing up my Twitter timeliness this morning.
That's not happening, and not going to happen. Plenty of restaurants are open around here- even with streets closed and lots of outdoor seating. And I still see that most are not running anywhere near their capacity. Stores are open, but not many people are going in. People are not spending money. Period.
Well that rules out the entire GOP.I think you guys are being way too hard on the man. He's old and infirm, as you will be someday if you are lucky enough to live that long. Instead of constantly harping about his infirmities, you should be respectful and help him find a place where he can both be safe and feel like he is respected and loved. This isn't 50 years ago; there are plenty of nice options out there, and many of them would even allow him to come and go, as long as he is accompanied by a responsible adult.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
Are you talking to yourself again?
There's help for that.
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?
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.