What's new
By:
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: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

Scarlet said:
Rah-veah. At least that's how I pronounce it.
Click to expand...

Ah, the dulcet tones of Mass. I grew up on Long Island and moved there. I spent the first 35 years of my life in the two worst-sounding human speech pools on Earth.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

One common thread among people who think we should be able to choose to go back to work or not is that they seem to think that it's just a personal risk they are taking by exposing themselves. (ignoring the whole Tom Sawyer thread of it being an honor to work for someone else, making them money....)

But we, as a society, constantly let people take personal risks. That's never, ever, been the issue.

The issue are the people who are not choosing to take a risk, because they don't know there is a risk. This isn't an individual who decides to drive drunk, and runs into a car, killing 4. This is an individual who infects 4, who then infect 16, 256..... (I don't know the actual data- just choosing 4) So instead of killing 4 due to a stupid decision, the number you kill can be a whole lot more.

It's interesting to hear people complain that this is some personal choice, when it's very much not one. This is totally a group choice. If you never interact with anyone else, then you can easily do your job. If you personally interact with other people, the branch reach out always needs to be considered. Seems like nobody wants to accept that this whole outbreak started with one person, and spreads because most people have no idea that they got infected, then all the people around them have no idea that they are at risk and perhaps even infected..... exponential growth.

This is the part that people like Brent (rube) just don't get. That it's a personal choice to take the risk or not, and that it's ok for others to spread things as long as he's safe.

One of the major problems with the total fear of the word socialism. And the want of "personal freedom" that is selfish over others- where it's ok to sacrifice people so that you can make money.

Anyway....
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

alfablue said:
One common thread among people who think we should be able to choose to go back to work or not is that they seem to think that it's just a personal risk they are taking by exposing themselves. (ignoring the whole Tom Sawyer thread of it being an honor to work for someone else, making them money....)

But we, as a society, constantly let people take personal risks. That's never, ever, been the issue.

The issue are the people who are not choosing to take a risk, because they don't know there is a risk. This isn't an individual who decides to drive drunk, and runs into a car, killing 4. This is an individual who infects 4, who then infect 16, 256..... (I don't know the actual data- just choosing 4) So instead of killing 4 due to a stupid decision, the number you kill can be a whole lot more.

It's interesting to hear people complain that this is some personal choice, when it's very much not one. This is totally a group choice. If you never interact with anyone else, then you can easily do your job. If you personally interact with other people, the branch reach out always needs to be considered. Seems like nobody wants to accept that this whole outbreak started with one person, and spreads because most people have no idea that they got infected, then all the people around them have no idea that they are at risk and perhaps even infected..... exponential growth.

This is the part that people like Brent (rube) just don't get. That it's a personal choice to take the risk or not, and that it's ok for others to spread things as long as he's safe.

One of the major problems with the total fear of the word socialism. And the want of "personal freedom" that is selfish over others- where it's ok to sacrifice people so that you can make money.

Anyway....
Click to expand...

Hold on there. I'm for opening businesses if they can open up SAFELY. The MN governor seems to agree. If an uptick happens, then dial it back to the previous level of shutdown.

I have stated, for example, that the MN State Fair should be cancelled because there is no way in hell that would be safe.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

I think that it would be best to stay closed for another month and very slowly start adding businesses that can attempt to open. Restaurants should be in the last group. I think Walz is doing it the right way and my guess is come May 4th he will extend but still loosen some restrictions. If we open up all at once it is a guaranteed second wave but a structured slow burn over the course of many weeks can mitigate a lot of that.

Honestly though there is no reason not to stay closed in May. Outside of Memorial Day and Mother's Day what are you missing? Schools are not going back to i person in most places and theater chains wont be opening up. You stay closed for the most part in May you have a shot to really hit the curve hard and open in June.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

alfablue said:
One common thread among people who think we should be able to choose to go back to work or not is that they seem to think that it's just a personal risk they are taking by exposing themselves. (ignoring the whole Tom Sawyer thread of it being an honor to work for someone else, making them money....)

But we, as a society, constantly let people take personal risks. That's never, ever, been the issue.

The issue are the people who are not choosing to take a risk, because they don't know there is a risk. This isn't an individual who decides to drive drunk, and runs into a car, killing 4. This is an individual who infects 4, who then infect 16, 256..... (I don't know the actual data- just choosing 4) So instead of killing 4 due to a stupid decision, the number you kill can be a whole lot more.

It's interesting to hear people complain that this is some personal choice, when it's very much not one. This is totally a group choice. If you never interact with anyone else, then you can easily do your job. If you personally interact with other people, the branch reach out always needs to be considered. Seems like nobody wants to accept that this whole outbreak started with one person, and spreads because most people have no idea that they got infected, then all the people around them have no idea that they are at risk and perhaps even infected..... exponential growth.

This is the part that people like Brent (rube) just don't get. That it's a personal choice to take the risk or not, and that it's ok for others to spread things as long as he's safe.

One of the major problems with the total fear of the word socialism. And the want of "personal freedom" that is selfish over others- where it's ok to sacrifice people so that you can make money.

Anyway....
Click to expand...

That's really it, isn't it? Such a great way to put it. Idiots, all of them. Well, maybe that's harsh. Naive is far more apt. Anyone who thinks it's somehow an honor to work for someone doesn't realize that if it comes down to it, you'll be thrown to the wolves if it's more useful to the employer. It's a simple bargain, "I give you X hours, you give my Y dollars." X = Y. If you start to throw honor and loyalty into that equation, you're doing it on YOUR side of the equation, not the company's. They don't value either as much as you might. So you're better off valuing them at zero and leveling the playing field.

Regarding the rest of your post, yeah, these people don't understand they signed the social contract with the rest of us. We're all in this together and if we aren't, then the idea of the social contract breaks down and we don't want to go there.

Great post, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

dxmnkd316 said:
I'm definitely missing something with these posts.
Click to expand...

basically, people pointing out that we've wiped entire cities off the face of the map in about six weeks.

A way to visualize the magnitude of this virus' effect.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

rufus said:
basically, people pointing out that we've wiped entire cities off the face of the map in about six weeks.

A way to visualize the magnitude of this virus' effect.
Click to expand...

Oh for ****'s sake do I feel particularly stupid right now.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

WaPo article following up on FT.com's graphs I posted earlier.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...covid-19-death-toll-undercounted/?arc404=true

In the early weeks of the coronavirus epidemic, the United States recorded an estimated 15,400 excess deaths, nearly two times as many as were publicly attributed to covid-19 at the time, according to an analysis of federal data conducted for The Washington Post by a research team led by the Yale School of Public Health.
Click to expand...

We could be looking at far, far greater numbers of deaths than are on the official counts.

Obvious caveats:
Early deaths are more likely to not be attributed
We've started to account for some of these deaths with "presumed" or "likely" cases
It includes people who didn't die of COVID but possibly died as a result of the epidemic

Edit:
Here's a juicy bit:
Some of Trump’s defenders have claimed that covid-19 death figures are inflated because they may include people who died with the disease but not of it.
Click to expand...
They might be right on the small side of things, but when you look at the total picture, it's far, far worse and we're obviously missing quite a few deaths directly from COVID.

Edit 2:
Preprint of the Yale paper this is based on: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20066431v1
 
Last edited:
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

Handyman said:
I think that it would be best to stay closed for another month and very slowly start adding businesses that can attempt to open. Restaurants should be in the last group. I think Walz is doing it the right way and my guess is come May 4th he will extend but still loosen some restrictions. If we open up all at once it is a guaranteed second wave but a structured slow burn over the course of many weeks can mitigate a lot of that.

Honestly though there is no reason not to stay closed in May. Outside of Memorial Day and Mother's Day what are you missing? Schools are not going back to i person in most places and theater chains wont be opening up. You stay closed for the most part in May you have a shot to really hit the curve hard and open in June.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Slow and steady. We cannot go full throttle on this.
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

While Coronavirus attacks the globe, there seems to be a rash of open window deaths taking place in Russia instead. Might need to look into securing those better...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Here is one more:<a href="https://t.co/EivO5KnwoA">https://t.co/EivO5KnwoA</a></p>— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1254824593115807747?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Covfefe-19: We Can Handle Slight Inconveniences. Part 8.

Bill Gates’s vision for life beyond the coronavirus

Without the testing, reopening is really a blind thing. I hate to be a broken record on this, but, where’s the testing prioritization? For most places, in late May, early June, we’ll have the case numbers down. So if you use that time to fix the testing, get the contact tracing going, then opening up will make sense. And that shouldn’t be some political thing. It should be a scientific thing.
Click to expand...

Except it is a political thing, because virtually every person who tends to vote for democratic candidates or considers themselves to be center or left of center BELIEVES the science. But if you are voting for republicans, you no longer believe in science. None of this should be political, but the vast number of idiots in this country have made it 100% political.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top