Red Mosquito

B wrote:My kids got A's last year. They're getting A's now. Only one has depression, and I'm pretty sure he was gonna have that anyhow.

It sucked. It wasn't a disaster.

macphisto wrote:I guess spike has already forgotten about the whole “Get the shots or you’re fucking fired…and you can’t eat in a restaurant” thing.

verb_to_trust wrote:You can't fly a BLM flag on your porch and have that take

verb_to_trust wrote:You can't fly a BLM flag on your porch and have that take

spike wrote:

macphisto wrote:I guess spike has already forgotten about the whole “Get the shots or you’re fucking fired…and you can’t eat in a restaurant” thing.

That’s how you keep everything open.

spike wrote:

macphisto wrote:I guess spike has already forgotten about the whole “Get the shots or you’re fucking fired…and you can’t eat in a restaurant” thing.

That’s how you keep everything open.

bart wrote:School closures were/are a disaster for most kids, is there really still a debate about that?

spike wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Bammer wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Damn i must be stupid to expect an intelligent conversation in this thread.

Only got a second here but the missing part of your question/post would be about separating those we know to be high risk from the rest (overwhelming majority) of the population and making decisions from there as far as stay at home orders, etc.

I must not be posing my question right, based on 4/5's post.

He was saying maybe the CDC isn't the best agency to control the restrictions/guidelines because they don't take into account social and economic impacts of the restrictions. Which could very well be true for this virus. But is there a line where social and economic impacts don't or shouldn't matter? If a virus had even a 10% fatality rate, I would think "high risk" would pretty much include everyone. So then, I ask, who would be best to be in charge of public restrictions/guidelines in that scenario? And if it would be the CDC, then what is the death rate cutoff for when all people will follow them vs. only 50% or whatever it was during COVID?

I think we should absolutely take what epidemiologists and infectious disease experts have to say extremely seriously. But we should also balance that with other concerns. It's not their fault but they have a natural tendency to take an overly narrow view when all of their training all of their focus all of their concern is to stop something like covid. This isn't specific to this topic btw, the Federal Reserve right now is going to go all in on fighting inflation because that's their covid. There are costs to those policies just like there are costs to the covid mitigation policies but in both cases the people acting in an official decision making capacity have an incentive to focus narrowly on their particular battle and therefore are prone to make (or promote) policies that might not actually pass a cost/benefit analysis if we really think about the costs and consequences both intended and unintended.

As far as an "even 10% fatality rate" I don't think the word "even" should be there. That would be catastrophic and it's hard to imagine the costs outweighing the benefits of even much stricter and more draconian measures in that case. So, I take your point but that's so far from the reality of this particular virus for the vast majority of people who aren't old or immunocompromised. So, to answer you directly: no, there's not a line where social and economic (largely the same thing) impacts don't matter. They always matter. But with a virus that lethal it's extremely likely that policies that I shudder to think of would be justified on a cost/benefit measurement.

I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

B wrote:School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

macphisto wrote:

spike wrote:

macphisto wrote:I guess spike has already forgotten about the whole “Get the shots or you’re fucking fired…and you can’t eat in a restaurant” thing.

That’s how you keep everything open.

No, it’s how you punish the noncompliant. The vaccinated can still catch and spread, so giving them special privileges is stupid. We’ve been over this…extensively.

verb_to_trust wrote:

spike wrote:

macphisto wrote:I guess spike has already forgotten about the whole “Get the shots or you’re fucking fired…and you can’t eat in a restaurant” thing.

That’s how you keep everything open.

What's booster uptake? Is it even 40 percent?

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Bammer wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Damn i must be stupid to expect an intelligent conversation in this thread.

Only got a second here but the missing part of your question/post would be about separating those we know to be high risk from the rest (overwhelming majority) of the population and making decisions from there as far as stay at home orders, etc.

I must not be posing my question right, based on 4/5's post.

He was saying maybe the CDC isn't the best agency to control the restrictions/guidelines because they don't take into account social and economic impacts of the restrictions. Which could very well be true for this virus. But is there a line where social and economic impacts don't or shouldn't matter? If a virus had even a 10% fatality rate, I would think "high risk" would pretty much include everyone. So then, I ask, who would be best to be in charge of public restrictions/guidelines in that scenario? And if it would be the CDC, then what is the death rate cutoff for when all people will follow them vs. only 50% or whatever it was during COVID?

I think we should absolutely take what epidemiologists and infectious disease experts have to say extremely seriously. But we should also balance that with other concerns. It's not their fault but they have a natural tendency to take an overly narrow view when all of their training all of their focus all of their concern is to stop something like covid. This isn't specific to this topic btw, the Federal Reserve right now is going to go all in on fighting inflation because that's their covid. There are costs to those policies just like there are costs to the covid mitigation policies but in both cases the people acting in an official decision making capacity have an incentive to focus narrowly on their particular battle and therefore are prone to make (or promote) policies that might not actually pass a cost/benefit analysis if we really think about the costs and consequences both intended and unintended.

As far as an "even 10% fatality rate" I don't think the word "even" should be there. That would be catastrophic and it's hard to imagine the costs outweighing the benefits of even much stricter and more draconian measures in that case. So, I take your point but that's so far from the reality of this particular virus for the vast majority of people who aren't old or immunocompromised. So, to answer you directly: no, there's not a line where social and economic (largely the same thing) impacts don't matter. They always matter. But with a virus that lethal it's extremely likely that policies that I shudder to think of would be justified on a cost/benefit measurement.

I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

Lol let’s interview people who fell on financial ruin because they lost their job/business in a restaurant, airline, hotel, cruise ship, you can just tell me when to stop.

spike wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

spike wrote:

macphisto wrote:I guess spike has already forgotten about the whole “Get the shots or you’re fucking fired…and you can’t eat in a restaurant” thing.

That’s how you keep everything open.

What's booster uptake? Is it even 40 percent?

The game changed on the virus severity side too. Nice try.