Red Mosquito

PHATJ wrote:

Peeps wrote:

hes running against himself?

Silly you. Confused as usual. Let me be more clear; Trump likes adult pussy, Biden is into molesting children.

tree_ wrote:

Rob wrote:No one is saying old people should die. Some people are saying the plan forward should be the one that puts older, less healthy people at more risk. There is a difference!

I believe a calculated risk would be on par to a 60mph speed limit.

As soon as we figure out how to let people off life's highway.



Also, Reade was not a minor, and Trump has basically groped his daughter on tv. Not sure about this new line of attack.

PHATJ wrote:

macphisto wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

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.

Shirley, you can't...



https://www.cleveland.com/coronavirus/2 ... -died.html

You racist, sexist, xenophobic, cis-gendered, white-privileged, oppressive, fuck head.

You forgot ageist!

PHATJ wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

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.

Would healthy and low risk include you?

Generally speaking, yes.

Yeah, the most important organ in your body just recently exploded. No big deal. Bring on the vid.

My heart is healthier now than when I was in my 20s. I’m not at an elevated risk at this point.

Describe your 20s heart health

Rob wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Rob wrote:No one is saying old people should die. Some people are saying the plan forward should be the one that puts older, less healthy people at more risk. There is a difference!

I believe a calculated risk would be on par to a 60mph speed limit.

As soon as we figure out how to let people off life's highway.

Aren't they delivering food? Is there no way to completely isolate vulnerable people?

Rob wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Rob wrote:No one is saying old people should die. Some people are saying the plan forward should be the one that puts older, less healthy people at more risk. There is a difference!

I believe a calculated risk would be on par to a 60mph speed limit.

As soon as we figure out how to let people off life's highway.



Also, Reade was not a minor, and Trump has basically groped his daughter on tv. Not sure about this new line of attack.

They both have wicked dementia! If the debates ever happen, they're gonna be so fucking lit!

I really would like to see someone explain how else we protect the over 60 crowd. People say we should, but never say how other than what we're doing now.

Hasn't anyone seen Bubble Boy?! Jake Gylenhall is in it ffs

Rob wrote:I really would like to see someone explain how else we protect the over 60 crowd. People say we should, but never say how other than what we're doing now.

My parents don't want protection. They won't even let me get groceries. My mom is very upset emotionally about the whole thing and has wondered aloud to me what the point of even being alive for her would be if she couldn't see her kids and grandkids.

tragabigzanda wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

tree_ wrote:WOW MD

more like.. isolate old people so i can FEED MY KIDS

It all about narrative, tree_. If they can’t make a comment with any intelligence, they just hurl insults and act like they know better than anybody else.

I was paraphrasing.

No, you were being a douche bag.

imagine being so angry that you lose it with literally one of the nicest, most even-keeled duded on the board

MD is usually very nice, but he was being unfair here.

Part of the problem now is that PHATJ is right in the sense that the lockdown is not a permanent solution; it's meant to be a temporary fix to artificially lower the infection rate in order to properly prepare for ways in which we can keep that infection rate at a lower, manageable level with as few deviations from normalcy as possible.

But that's not possible if the federal leadership is doing fuck-all on that front, leaving governors and states to offer ad hoc solutions with varying levels of success in response to an enemy that is biologically incapable of giving a shit about state borders. With proper preparation and effective leadership, we could have come out of a lockdown with a lower possibility of having to reinstitute them in the future. But I suppose that was asking too much.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Rob wrote:I really would like to see someone explain how else we protect the over 60 crowd. People say we should, but never say how other than what we're doing now.

My parents don't want protection. They won't even let me get groceries. My mom is very upset emotionally about the whole thing and has wondered aloud to me what the point of even being alive for her would be if she couldn't see her kids and grandkids.

OK, but does anyone have an idea on the millions of older (plus 60) people in general? What we're doing now provides them SOME protection. I read that ~20% of households are multi-generational. So everyone says we should protect them, but how? What's plan B for them? Shouldn't that be known before reopening?

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

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.

Would healthy and low risk include you?

Generally speaking, yes.

But with your prior cardiac history and your obesity (no, not calling you fat, just based on pics you've posted your BMI can't be below 30) and any other health issues you may have that we don't know about, you would definitely be square in the middle of high risk. Just like I am with my obesity and hypertension.

tragabigzanda wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

tree_ wrote:WOW MD

more like.. isolate old people so i can FEED MY KIDS

It all about narrative, tree_. If they can’t make a comment with any intelligence, they just hurl insults and act like they know better than anybody else.

I was paraphrasing.

No, you were being a douche bag.

imagine being so angry that you lose it with literally one of the nicest, most even-keeled duded on the board

I’m not angry, nor did I “lose it”. Imagine disliking someone’s politics so much that you completely ignore the original personal attack from said “nice guy” and then embellish the details of the response just to act superior again. Sad.

Rob wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Rob wrote:I really would like to see someone explain how else we protect the over 60 crowd. People say we should, but never say how other than what we're doing now.

My parents don't want protection. They won't even let me get groceries. My mom is very upset emotionally about the whole thing and has wondered aloud to me what the point of even being alive for her would be if she couldn't see her kids and grandkids.

OK, but does anyone have an idea on the millions of older (plus 60) people in general? What we're doing now provides them SOME protection. I read that ~20% of households are multi-generational. So everyone says we should protect them, but how? What's plan B for them? Shouldn't that be known before reopening?

The plan would have been to respond early and keep things in a zone where test and trace could even stand a chance of working. Now that it has gotten away from us there is no plan. When a governor says "okay, we can reopen, just be careful" the conclusion they have come to is "we failed, a lot of you are going to die, but nothing we can really do about it anymore"

Everyone is going to die. Let's just get our kicks before the whole shit house goes up in flames. Party at PHATJ's!

welp so much about ego minimizing