USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020
- Thread starter Handyman
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 3166
Guest
Ah yes. Jeb...the medical expert with no degree or work in it.
The man who should look in a mirror everytime he posts as all of his attacks on people are perfect descriptions of himself.
Board...where the hell are you to either fix ignore or ban this lying POS?
The man who should look in a mirror everytime he posts as all of his attacks on people are perfect descriptions of himself.
Board...where the hell are you to either fix ignore or ban this lying POS?
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
For any open-minded thinkers left in the Faculty Lounge (perhaps swansong?) ... BTW it's the 4th such outbreak in just over a century, and I lived through the last one ... here's something to ponder:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...owns-a-mistake
Were the lockdowns a mistake?
Michael Barone, Washington Examiner
Were the lockdowns a mistake? To that nagging question, the answer increasingly seems to be yes.
Certainly, they were a novelty. As novelist Lionel Shriver writes, “We’ve never before responded to a contagion by closing down whole countries.” As I noted in May, the 1957-58 Asian flu killed between 75,000 and 116,000 people in the United States, between 0.04% and 0.07% of the nation’s population then. The 1968-69 Hong Kong flu killed about 100,000, 0.05% of the population.
The current death toll of 185,000 is 0.055% of the current population. It will go higher, but it’s about the same magnitude as those two flu outbreaks and less deadly for those under 65. Yet, there were no statewide lockdowns, no massive school closings, no closed office buildings and factories, restaurants, and museums. No one even considered shutting down Woodstock.
Why are attitudes so different today? Perhaps we have greater confidence in the government’s effectiveness. If public policy can affect climate change, it can stamp out a virus.
Plus, we’re much more risk-averse. Children aren’t allowed to walk to school, jungle gyms have vanished from playgrounds, and college students are shielded from microaggressions. We have a “safetyism mindset”, as Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff write in The Coddling of the American Mind, under which “many aspects of students’ lives needed to be carefully regulated by adults, and it was far better to overreact to potential risks and threats than to underreact.”
So, the news of the coronavirus killing dozens and overloading hospitals in Bergamo, Italy, triggered a flight to safety and restriction. Many people stopped going to restaurants and shops even before the lockdowns were ordered in March and April. The exaggerated projections of some epidemiologists, with a professional interest in forecasting pandemics, triggered demands that governments act.
The legitimate fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed apparently explain the (in retrospect, deadly) orders of the governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan requiring elderly care facilities to admit coronavirus-infected patients. And the original purpose to “flatten the curve” segued into “stamp out the virus”.
But the apparent success in this venture by a few nations that enjoy some degree of geographic isolation (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand) could never be replicated in a continent-sized and globalized nation such as the U.S.
Governors imposing continued lockdowns claimed to be “following the science.” But they followed it in only one dimension — that of reducing the immediate number of COVID-19 cases. There was no care taken for other dimensions of life — for example, the lockdowns also prevented cancer screenings, heart attack treatments, and substance abuse counseling, whose absence resulted in a large but hard-to-estimate number of deaths. What Haidt and Lukianoff call “vindictive protectiveness” turned out to be not very protective after all.
Examples of "vindictive protectiveness" include the shaming of beachgoers (even though outdoor virus spread is minimal), the extension of school close-downs (even though few children get or transmit the infection), the closing down of gardening aisles in superstores, and the banning of church services (even when inevitably noisy and crowded demonstrations for politically favored causes are given the green light).
The new thinking on lockdowns, as Greg Ip reported in the Wall Street Journal last week, is that “they’re overly blunt and costly.” That supports President Trump’s mid-April statement that "a prolonged lockdown combined with a forced economic depression would inflict an immense and wide-ranging toll on public health.”
For many, that economic damage has been absolute or nearly so. Restaurants and small businesses have been closed forever, even before the last three months of “mostly peaceful” urban rioting. Losses have been concentrated on those with low incomes and little wealth, whereas the lockdowns have added tens of billions to the net worths of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
Attitudes on lockdowns are highly correlated with partisan politics. Democrats tend to be more risk-averse and want lockdowns continued until there’s a vaccine. Republicans are less risk-averse and want most restrictions lifted.
As a result, since governors and mayors make these decisions, it’s heavily Democratic central cities (New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco) whose civic fabric is being rent and cultural capital is left in ruins, with much less devastation in the exurbs and the countryside.
This fouling-your-own-nest extends to voting. Many more Democrats than Republicans want to vote by mail, even though the risk of voter error or non-counting of their vote is higher than for those, most of them Republicans, who want to vote in person.
The anti-lockdown blogger (and former New York Times reporter) Alex Berenson makes a powerful case that lockdowns delayed rather than prevented infections and that current plunging hospitalization and death rates suggest we’re approaching herd immunity, where the virus fades out for lack of new targets.
There are old lessons here, ready to be relearned. Governments can sometimes channel, but never entirely control, nature. There is no way to eliminate risk entirely. Attempts to reduce one risk may increase others. Amid uncertainty, people make mistakes. Like, maybe, the lockdowns.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...owns-a-mistake
Were the lockdowns a mistake?
Michael Barone, Washington Examiner
Were the lockdowns a mistake? To that nagging question, the answer increasingly seems to be yes.
Certainly, they were a novelty. As novelist Lionel Shriver writes, “We’ve never before responded to a contagion by closing down whole countries.” As I noted in May, the 1957-58 Asian flu killed between 75,000 and 116,000 people in the United States, between 0.04% and 0.07% of the nation’s population then. The 1968-69 Hong Kong flu killed about 100,000, 0.05% of the population.
The current death toll of 185,000 is 0.055% of the current population. It will go higher, but it’s about the same magnitude as those two flu outbreaks and less deadly for those under 65. Yet, there were no statewide lockdowns, no massive school closings, no closed office buildings and factories, restaurants, and museums. No one even considered shutting down Woodstock.
Why are attitudes so different today? Perhaps we have greater confidence in the government’s effectiveness. If public policy can affect climate change, it can stamp out a virus.
Plus, we’re much more risk-averse. Children aren’t allowed to walk to school, jungle gyms have vanished from playgrounds, and college students are shielded from microaggressions. We have a “safetyism mindset”, as Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff write in The Coddling of the American Mind, under which “many aspects of students’ lives needed to be carefully regulated by adults, and it was far better to overreact to potential risks and threats than to underreact.”
So, the news of the coronavirus killing dozens and overloading hospitals in Bergamo, Italy, triggered a flight to safety and restriction. Many people stopped going to restaurants and shops even before the lockdowns were ordered in March and April. The exaggerated projections of some epidemiologists, with a professional interest in forecasting pandemics, triggered demands that governments act.
The legitimate fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed apparently explain the (in retrospect, deadly) orders of the governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan requiring elderly care facilities to admit coronavirus-infected patients. And the original purpose to “flatten the curve” segued into “stamp out the virus”.
But the apparent success in this venture by a few nations that enjoy some degree of geographic isolation (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand) could never be replicated in a continent-sized and globalized nation such as the U.S.
Governors imposing continued lockdowns claimed to be “following the science.” But they followed it in only one dimension — that of reducing the immediate number of COVID-19 cases. There was no care taken for other dimensions of life — for example, the lockdowns also prevented cancer screenings, heart attack treatments, and substance abuse counseling, whose absence resulted in a large but hard-to-estimate number of deaths. What Haidt and Lukianoff call “vindictive protectiveness” turned out to be not very protective after all.
Examples of "vindictive protectiveness" include the shaming of beachgoers (even though outdoor virus spread is minimal), the extension of school close-downs (even though few children get or transmit the infection), the closing down of gardening aisles in superstores, and the banning of church services (even when inevitably noisy and crowded demonstrations for politically favored causes are given the green light).
The new thinking on lockdowns, as Greg Ip reported in the Wall Street Journal last week, is that “they’re overly blunt and costly.” That supports President Trump’s mid-April statement that "a prolonged lockdown combined with a forced economic depression would inflict an immense and wide-ranging toll on public health.”
For many, that economic damage has been absolute or nearly so. Restaurants and small businesses have been closed forever, even before the last three months of “mostly peaceful” urban rioting. Losses have been concentrated on those with low incomes and little wealth, whereas the lockdowns have added tens of billions to the net worths of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
Attitudes on lockdowns are highly correlated with partisan politics. Democrats tend to be more risk-averse and want lockdowns continued until there’s a vaccine. Republicans are less risk-averse and want most restrictions lifted.
As a result, since governors and mayors make these decisions, it’s heavily Democratic central cities (New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco) whose civic fabric is being rent and cultural capital is left in ruins, with much less devastation in the exurbs and the countryside.
This fouling-your-own-nest extends to voting. Many more Democrats than Republicans want to vote by mail, even though the risk of voter error or non-counting of their vote is higher than for those, most of them Republicans, who want to vote in person.
The anti-lockdown blogger (and former New York Times reporter) Alex Berenson makes a powerful case that lockdowns delayed rather than prevented infections and that current plunging hospitalization and death rates suggest we’re approaching herd immunity, where the virus fades out for lack of new targets.
There are old lessons here, ready to be relearned. Governments can sometimes channel, but never entirely control, nature. There is no way to eliminate risk entirely. Attempts to reduce one risk may increase others. Amid uncertainty, people make mistakes. Like, maybe, the lockdowns.
What would happen if one Country was using a PCR test with a CT of 30 while another was using a CT of 40?
In your opinion what should the CT be? Or does it not matter?
No, it's absolutely not the 4th such outbreak in a century. There's so much wrong with that article it's frightening, but I guess that's what I should expect from that rag. Second, when you bold that much it just looks like a ransom note. Stop it.
You are comparing death counts from COVID (which is far from over and has had far more of a response/reaction than any this dishonest article mention), which is only 6 months old in the US, to pandemic that lasted a couple of years. And we already have more deaths from COVID than any of them, even accounting for the significant undercounting issues.
Also, saying that no health maintenance took place in this time is a total fabrication. How do I know? Because I work in in healthcare. I've been managing the system our outpatient practices use. I talk to our clinical staff every day. I implemented telemedicine, allowing doctors to see their patients, allowing us to go fully remote for the first time in history so that those very same health maintenance issues could be treated. Yes, elective procedures were delayed, but counseling, cancer treatment and many other outpatient treatment absolutely happened. I have no idea what "heart attack treatments" means, but I'd wager that neither does the articles author. In fact, when I discussed getting our oncology departments set up with telemedicine, our chief oncologist said yes however they were still seeing patients in clinic, with precautions, and so long as safety was maintained she saw no reason to stop.
Calling Alex Berensen anything other than an anti-science zealot further disqualifies your thesis.
Do better. This article is nonsense.
You are comparing death counts from COVID (which is far from over and has had far more of a response/reaction than any this dishonest article mention), which is only 6 months old in the US, to pandemic that lasted a couple of years. And we already have more deaths from COVID than any of them, even accounting for the significant undercounting issues.
Also, saying that no health maintenance took place in this time is a total fabrication. How do I know? Because I work in in healthcare. I've been managing the system our outpatient practices use. I talk to our clinical staff every day. I implemented telemedicine, allowing doctors to see their patients, allowing us to go fully remote for the first time in history so that those very same health maintenance issues could be treated. Yes, elective procedures were delayed, but counseling, cancer treatment and many other outpatient treatment absolutely happened. I have no idea what "heart attack treatments" means, but I'd wager that neither does the articles author. In fact, when I discussed getting our oncology departments set up with telemedicine, our chief oncologist said yes however they were still seeing patients in clinic, with precautions, and so long as safety was maintained she saw no reason to stop.
Calling Alex Berensen anything other than an anti-science zealot further disqualifies your thesis.
Do better. This article is nonsense.
Last edited:
Why don't you share better info then? And under-counting? bah. People are being coded covid that had a positive test as many as 90 days prior to their death. How many people had a positive PCR test with a CT as high as 40 and were coded covid?
Do better yourself.
Its funny you take such issue with the information that was just presented. But not a peep when a Fascist like Andy Slavitt is repeatedly quoted on this board.
Here you go.
Lockdowns and Mask Mandates Do Not Lead to Reduced COVID Transmission Rates or Deaths, New Study Suggests
https://www.aier.org/article/lockdow...tudy-suggests/
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Thank you and WW and the other doctors for injecting some subject matter expertise into this discussion. One of the most troubling and dangerous aspects of the right is their ranting "my opinion equals your facts."
net presence
Active member
1820 and Chuck.....No answer to my question eh? No response to my points about why masks aren't working and the fact that deaths and hospitalizations aren't the only significant way to measure how serious this virus is. Shocking....
Issues with healthcare maintenance are well documented. To say that it is total fabrication is ignorance on your part. There were certainly issues to which we don't know the full magnitude to. And there is a good chance there will be continued consequences given the trends we are already seeing.
Cancer deaths are now skyrocketing above normal levels. These deaths are a direct result of the lockdowns. This is a human rights crime. People who could have been treated were denied care, because our government's hysteria. Source: CDC Weekly Deaths by Cause
Let me guess this will be another post that you don't have an adequate response to therefor requesting that I be banned.
net presence
Active member
1820....The article you linked to is in an economics magazine for Christ's sake. It's also rated pretty right of center -- shocking. And yes, I actually read the article. Sorry, not buying their premise. Please explain the significant successes of other countries that have mandated lockdowns and masks. Again, to be clear, if only 60% of the population is abiding by the mandates because the leader of the country tells the it's not a big deal if they don't follow them, then yeah, those mandates won't be nearly as effective.
"Not buying their premise," well by all means, that settles that. Way to articulate your point.
And why is it that your first form of debate is to attack the source? As if you are positioned to determine who is the appropriate authority and who is not. Your position is weak. You would be better off share which point you disagree with and why.
"please explain the significant successes of other countries" Could you be less vag? Which countries are you referring to?
I've already shared Peru's lockdown "success" and they had the strictest full on military lockdown and share a boarder with an Ocean. I've shown comparisons of States with strict mandates against those with few, yet the results and curves are similar. You can do the same all across Europe.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 3166
Guest
Seriously...what the hell happened to any moderation on here. We may as well be allowed to moderate ourselves if they'll do nothing.
This is actually a really good question.
Serious question: Why does Dr. Anthony Fauci, a division-level bureaucrat whose day job includes the word "allergy," think his brief now includes redesigning all of human society? And how monstrous must his ego have become for him to be willing to say so publicly?
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/sta...75946182963200
Serious question: Why does Dr. Anthony Fauci, a division-level bureaucrat whose day job includes the word "allergy," think his brief now includes redesigning all of human society? And how monstrous must his ego have become for him to be willing to say so publicly?
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/sta...75946182963200
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
(1) Spanish Flu (H1N1; 1918-1920) - 500 million infected, 17-50(!) million deaths worldwide
(2) Asian Flu (H2N2; 1956-1958) - 150 million infected, 1 million deaths worldwide
(3) Hong Kong Flu (H3N2; 1968-1969) - 100 million infected, 1+ million deaths worldwide
(4) Wuhan Flu/COVID-19 (H1N1; 2019-2020) - 27 million infected, 850,000 deaths worldwide
So yeah, that's four (4) similar outbreaks in a century. Did you experience the last one? I did.
It's funny, I used to think the whole "safe spaces" thing to describe sensitive sorts was overdone.
Emphasis on "used to". But in deference to your sensitivity, no bolding this time.
You gonna be OK, sunshine??
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
This may have been amusing once?? But as we all know, inside jokes just get better with repetition.
At least the guy with the Pretty Pony clip art was original. and could change things up ...
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Y'know ... it's cute but kinda sad sometimes, when the ones who think they're the center of universe, get this weird idea that they're deserving of the attention of the adults in the room. They're not clever enough to get the unspoken message, so they keep kicking and screaming for attention, and it just never seems to come. Heartbreaking that even his pals won't clue him in ... unless of course he has no real pals ... that would be even sadder ...
Last edited:
- Status