Red Mosquito

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:The death count, if anything, is being undercounted.

Based on what information? Everything I’ve seen indicates the opposite.

Take your pick; the revised totals of people who likely caught and died of COVID when it was spreading in the U.S. earlier than expected, massive numbers of nursing home deaths which included people who had not been tested for COVID (NYS alone had to increase their number of nursing home deaths during the crisis by nearly 2,000 just several days ago). During the pandemic, NYC was reporting approximately 200 to 215 deaths at home; typically, that number would be at 20 to 25. That's not from the Young Turks; that's the city's medical examiner. What changed?

Orpheus wrote:

PHATJ wrote: Not to mention the fact that they believe an astronomical amount of people have carried the virus without ever showing any symptoms. The death rates are actually minuscule compared to the scare tactic numbers they have successfully duped you into believing.

And as a side note, California (and probably many other liberal-Mecca states) have all but acknowledged that illegals have voted. Not only that, they are actively trying to pass legislation that allows illegals to vote in American elections.

1) That's the problem! You can carry it asymptomatically and pass it to vulnerable people! This is a mark FOR people taking this seriously, not against it!

2) Do you have a source for this? It's hard to take you seriously when your posts include things like this.

Vulnerable people should stay in quarantine. Is it the responsibility of the entire population to disrupt/abolish their entire life’s work in order to attempt to protect a relatively tiny percentage of population that could very well protect themselves just by staying secluded? This seems like a completely fragile argument to me. No one is (certainly I’m not) saying that high risk people should be forced into high risk situations. But for the healthy average person the risks are incredibly low. It makes zero sense to treat everyone the same in this situation.

PHATJ wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

PHATJ wrote: Not to mention the fact that they believe an astronomical amount of people have carried the virus without ever showing any symptoms. The death rates are actually minuscule compared to the scare tactic numbers they have successfully duped you into believing.

And as a side note, California (and probably many other liberal-Mecca states) have all but acknowledged that illegals have voted. Not only that, they are actively trying to pass legislation that allows illegals to vote in American elections.

1) That's the problem! You can carry it asymptomatically and pass it to vulnerable people! This is a mark FOR people taking this seriously, not against it!

2) Do you have a source for this? It's hard to take you seriously when your posts include things like this.

Vulnerable people should stay in quarantine. Is it the responsibility of the entire population to disrupt/abolish their entire life’s work in order to attempt to protect a relatively tiny percentage of population that could very well protect themselves just by staying secluded? This seems like a completely fragile argument to me. No one is (certainly I’m not) saying that high risk people should be forced into high risk situations. But for the healthy average person the risks are incredibly low. It makes zero sense to treat everyone the same in this situation.

But if the people that live with those people are still working/going to restaurants/living life as usual, they can bring it home to that vulnerable person. That's why it's not so simple and wide reaching.

As for the bold, we don't know everything about the virus yet. Even some of the young people getting it have had horrible problems recovering. Which is why it's irresponsible to say "it's just like the flu." We don't know everything about it yet.

PHATJ wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

PHATJ wrote: Not to mention the fact that they believe an astronomical amount of people have carried the virus without ever showing any symptoms. The death rates are actually minuscule compared to the scare tactic numbers they have successfully duped you into believing.

And as a side note, California (and probably many other liberal-Mecca states) have all but acknowledged that illegals have voted. Not only that, they are actively trying to pass legislation that allows illegals to vote in American elections.

1) That's the problem! You can carry it asymptomatically and pass it to vulnerable people! This is a mark FOR people taking this seriously, not against it!

2) Do you have a source for this? It's hard to take you seriously when your posts include things like this.

Vulnerable people should stay in quarantine. Is it the responsibility of the entire population to disrupt/abolish their entire life’s work in order to attempt to protect a relatively tiny percentage of population that could very well protect themselves just by staying secluded? This seems like a completely fragile argument to me. No one is (certainly I’m not) saying that high risk people should be forced into high risk situations. But for the healthy average person the risks are incredibly low. It makes zero sense to treat everyone the same in this situation.

Treating everyone the same is the only answer in this situation. When left to their own devices, all the knuckledraggers would be out everywhere exposing everyone. So yeah, if EVERYBODY is told to stay home, then maybe, just maybe, most people will.

How are you defining vulnerable people? Does that include people above a certain age, 50 or 60? High blood pressure, asthma, a weakened immune system, history of heart disease or cancer, diabetes? I've probably just described half the population; good luck starting an economy if the solution is everyone should go on their way except those people have to stay home.

The only way to do it is open the economy back up in such a way that keeps infections as manageable as possible, that allows for the opportunity to test and trace, while working towards a vaccine and more likely some type of therapeutic treatment in the interim that is found to be effective. And that means the country will have to change the way it does things while that is happening. We've had to do it in the past, albeit not to this degree in recent history. But take 9/11; that happened, and the entire country changed how it did certain things. Why is that such an absurd notion now?

tree_ wrote:The funny thing is, we're all just regurgitating info from our chosen sources of information. Who knows what's real? Nobody.

People adopting this worldview is literally misinformation’s highest ambition.

You can't protect everyone from everything. People don't even try. If they really wanted to, they'd lower the speed limit to 15 mph everywhere.

McParadigm wrote:

tree_ wrote:The funny thing is, we're all just regurgitating info from our chosen sources of information. Who knows what's real? Nobody.

People adopting this worldview is literally misinformation’s highest ambition.

Please give me a news source I can trust.

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:The death count, if anything, is being undercounted.

Based on what information? Everything I’ve seen indicates the opposite.

Take your pick; the revised totals of people who likely caught and died of COVID when it was spreading in the U.S. earlier than expected, massive numbers of nursing home deaths which included people who had not been tested for COVID (NYS alone had to increase their number of nursing home deaths during the crisis by nearly 2,000 just several days ago). During the pandemic, NYC was reporting approximately 200 to 215 deaths at home; typically, that number would be at 20 to 25. That's not from the Young Turks; that's the city's medical examiner. What changed?

What changed? Some people got sick and died. I also have read that suicide numbers have skyrocketed during the lockdown. I’m sure that contributed as well. I haven’t ever said that the virus wasn’t serious. I haven’t ever said people that are at risk should be forced to work, or leave their homes, or do anything. What I am advocating for is for healthy and low risk people to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit with as little government intrusion as absolutely possible. This is not an unreasonable request. It’s actually at the core of American principles.

You were asking why it was likely the deaths were being undercounted. Which is it? Are the deaths over-counted, or are they not but it's the price we're going to have to pay to offset what you see as bigger losses?

tree_ wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

tree_ wrote:The funny thing is, we're all just regurgitating info from our chosen sources of information. Who knows what's real? Nobody.

People adopting this worldview is literally misinformation’s highest ambition.

Please give me a news source I can trust.

Would you trust a professor of nursing and a nurse practitioner in the division of infectious diseases the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and medicine?

or would you prefer to bathe in Elon's musk for a little longer?

Self wrote:

tree_ wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

tree_ wrote:The funny thing is, we're all just regurgitating info from our chosen sources of information. Who knows what's real? Nobody.

People adopting this worldview is literally misinformation’s highest ambition.

Please give me a news source I can trust.

Would you trust a professor of nursing and a nurse practitioner in the division of infectious diseases the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and medicine?

It depends on who they voted for.

PHATJ wrote:It should also be mentioned that the practice of social distancing wasn’t designed to (and never promised to) slow mortality rates. It was designed to spread the effects of the virus over a longer period of time in order to not overwhelm hospitals. The total cases and total death numbers may be very similar to what they would’ve been without the shutdown, they will just happen over a longer period of time.

No, that's incorrect. Because if hospitals get overwhelmed and people can't get in when they need care, the death rate goes up from COVID patients and non-COVID patients who didn't get the life-saving treatment that they needed because there wasn't a bed in a hospital for them.

PHATJ: And what we are saying is that idea is misguided and will lead to a lot of death. That is also what the Healthcare community is saying. And that's why we have the lock down.

And if you aren't saying the virus isn't serious, why the infographs that suggest otherwis Seems to be a lot of backpedaling any time people post that shit and are called out on it. But you can't have your cake and it too in a pandemic. If you are actually taking it seriously, that shit is irresponsible.

Orpheus wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

PHATJ wrote: Not to mention the fact that they believe an astronomical amount of people have carried the virus without ever showing any symptoms. The death rates are actually minuscule compared to the scare tactic numbers they have successfully duped you into believing.

And as a side note, California (and probably many other liberal-Mecca states) have all but acknowledged that illegals have voted. Not only that, they are actively trying to pass legislation that allows illegals to vote in American elections.

1) That's the problem! You can carry it asymptomatically and pass it to vulnerable people! This is a mark FOR people taking this seriously, not against it!

2) Do you have a source for this? It's hard to take you seriously when your posts include things like this.

Vulnerable people should stay in quarantine. Is it the responsibility of the entire population to disrupt/abolish their entire life’s work in order to attempt to protect a relatively tiny percentage of population that could very well protect themselves just by staying secluded? This seems like a completely fragile argument to me. No one is (certainly I’m not) saying that high risk people should be forced into high risk situations. But for the healthy average person the risks are incredibly low. It makes zero sense to treat everyone the same in this situation.

But if the people that live with those people are still working/going to restaurants/living life as usual, they can bring it home to that vulnerable person. That's why it's not so simple and wide reaching.

As for the bold, we don't know everything about the virus yet. Even some of the young people getting it have had horrible problems recovering. Which is why it's irresponsible to say "it's just like the flu." We don't know everything about it yet.

I never claimed it was just like the flu. And I’ve also never said that anyone should be forced to go to work. Obviously that could include people that live with vulnerable or high risk individuals. But again, stripping me of my right to work so that some elderly man with cancer and pneumonia doesn’t catch COVID in his home, seems entirely irrational.

There are smart people making good arguments for every side of every argument. I don't know who to believe. I know nothing.

B wrote:

PHATJ wrote:It should also be mentioned that the practice of social distancing wasn’t designed to (and never promised to) slow mortality rates. It was designed to spread the effects of the virus over a longer period of time in order to not overwhelm hospitals. The total cases and total death numbers may be very similar to what they would’ve been without the shutdown, they will just happen over a longer period of time.

No, that's incorrect. Because if hospitals get overwhelmed and people can't get in when they need care, the death rate goes up from COVID patients and non-COVID patients who didn't get the life-saving treatment that they needed because there wasn't a bed in a hospital for them.

Wasn't the estimate 35 million if we did nothing?

tree_ wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

tree_ wrote:The funny thing is, we're all just regurgitating info from our chosen sources of information. Who knows what's real? Nobody.

People adopting this worldview is literally misinformation’s highest ambition.

Please give me a news source I can trust.

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:The death count, if anything, is being undercounted.

Based on what information? Everything I’ve seen indicates the opposite.

Take your pick; the revised totals of people who likely caught and died of COVID when it was spreading in the U.S. earlier than expected, massive numbers of nursing home deaths which included people who had not been tested for COVID (NYS alone had to increase their number of nursing home deaths during the crisis by nearly 2,000 just several days ago). During the pandemic, NYC was reporting approximately 200 to 215 deaths at home; typically, that number would be at 20 to 25. That's not from the Young Turks; that's the city's medical examiner. What changed?

What changed? Some people got sick and died. I also have read that suicide numbers have skyrocketed during the lockdown. I’m sure that contributed as well. I haven’t ever said that the virus wasn’t serious. I haven’t ever said people that are at risk should be forced to work, or leave their homes, or do anything. What I am advocating for is for healthy and low risk people to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit with as little government intrusion as absolutely possible. This is not an unreasonable request. It’s actually at the core of American principles.

There is no high risk or low risk. We are all at risk and we are all fucked by our governments horrible response to this situation. Wear it, bitch.