Jump to content

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, LTS said:

This is the real key and along the lines of what I mentioned months ago.  There are people who are at increased risk to this virus.  We don't necessarily know who is and who is not (although some people are definitely more readily identifiable).  

That said, we've accepted this behavior in the past with the other coronavirus outbreaks, with influenza, with other communicable diseases that posed a risk to others in society. Just like some people have a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, etc.  It's genetics (or in some cases self-induced) but it's also life.  We're not all equal and unfortunately some of the "weaker" people die.  Yes, some.  I know the response "How many is too many?  What is acceptable?"  You know what, I don't answer that question, Mother Nature does.  Not everyone can be saved.

Healthcare systems are not overrun at this point, so if a person contracts the virus and is treated but still dies, who do you blame?

And as always the question goes back to... how much should others be required to inhibit their behaviors to protect those who are at risk?  I'm not advocating any particular stance, I've been wearing a mask, avoiding contact, etc.  That's my decision, but I do have a hard time telling others how to live their lives without also looking at the guy eating fast food every day who barely has a job and thinking "This dude is a poster child for government healthcare which will be taxed out of my income.  Why can't he be responsible with his health?"  

Slippery slopes..

Does 200,000 dead (and probably many more) in six months, a disease becoming a leading cause of death almost overnight, not get your attention as something extraordinary?

Man, I wouldn't want to play poker against some of you guys.

Then again, we just learned the alpha male with the giant hands went running out of the office when someone sneezed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

"...be very careful around the vulnerable segments..." Around is the operative word. You want younger folks to distance themselves and (maybe) wear a mask when around grandma and grandpa, but that's not enough. Grandma and grandpa can't live on a deserted island. They deserve to live in the world, too. If they're sick, they have caretakers of various kinds in various settings. Covid will find them. They probably won't get it from their grandchildren, but from the person infected five people down the line.

Why is the cost of protecting the vulnerable (and lots of people who don't seem vulnerable but who can get very sick and suffer lasting effects) so "enormous"? The measures are practically free, in fact. OK, there are no bowling alleys or movie theaters open in some states. Bars and restaurants might have limited capacity. You can't get puked on at Bills Stadium. Oh, the horror. To do the right thing for a relatively short period of time. This country, sent back in time, wouldn't have made it past Valentine's Day 1943.

C'mon.  This isn't about not being able to attend hockey games or dine out.  Let's not pretend that millions of people out of work, the related increases in depression, addiction, family breakups, etc., millions more unable to obtain non-Covid-related medical care for months, the loss of close to a year of school for millions of kids, a huge reduction in GDP, huge reductions in tax revenues -- and thus much less money available for social programs, schools, government services, parks, trash removal, pensions, etc. -- isn't an enormous cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

C'mon.  This isn't about not being able to attend hockey games or dine out.  Let's not pretend that millions of people out of work, the related increases in depression, addiction, family breakups, etc., millions more unable to obtain non-Covid-related medical care for months, the loss of close to a year of school for millions of kids, a huge reduction in GDP, huge reductions in tax revenues -- and thus much less money available for social programs, schools, government services, parks, trash removal, pensions, etc. -- isn't an enormous cost. 

The economic "shutdown" (the vast majority of people kept their jobs) wasn't about protecting the vulnerable. It was early days, no one knew anything, the virus was exploding and there was a real risk that the health care system would be overrun. It didn't happen except maybe in a few big city hospitals, and we adjusted. Now people are being asked to wear masks, distance themselves, wash their hands and avoid crowds. Not a huge ask.

Is it your position that the economy is still shut down to try and save nana? And how do you propose going back to "normal" and not having an enormous second (or third) wave wipe out hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, the vulnerable and the not vulnerable?

The math is the problem here. What's .5% of 60% of 330,000,000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

The economic "shutdown" (the vast majority of people kept their jobs) wasn't about protecting the vulnerable. It was early days, no one knew anything, the virus was exploding and there was a real risk that the health care system would be overrun. It didn't happen except maybe in a few big city hospitals, and we adjusted. Now people are being asked to wear masks, distance themselves, wash their hands and avoid crowds. Not a huge ask.

Is it your position that the economy is still shut down to try and save nana? And how do you propose going back to "normal" and not having an enormous second (or third) wave wipe out hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, the vulnerable and the not vulnerable?

The math is the problem here. What's .5% of 60% of 330,000,000?

First bolded -- I agree that these items aren't a huge ask.  The problem is that this is far from a complete list.  Schools are not reopening in many parts of the country.  This imposes an enormous cost, both on the quality of the education and on the parents' ability to go to work.  Similarly, restaurants, hotels, theaters and similar establishments are closed or operating at fractional capacity, which results in millions of jobs staying vaporized.  Not to mention the thousands of companies that went bankrupt and won't be coming back.

2nd bolded -- again, the assumption assumes away the discussion.  Those numbers aren't even close to established.  Continental Europe has more than double the US population, and they have largely re-opened to a greater degree than we have.  Do you think they expect to incur millions of deaths in a 2nd wave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

First bolded -- I agree that these items aren't a huge ask.  The problem is that this is far from a complete list.  Schools are not reopening in many parts of the country.  This imposes an enormous cost, both on the quality of the education and on the parents' ability to go to work.  Similarly, restaurants, hotels, theaters and similar establishments are closed or operating at fractional capacity, which results in millions of jobs staying vaporized.  Not to mention the thousands of companies that went bankrupt and won't be coming back.

2nd bolded -- again, the assumption assumes away the discussion.  Those numbers aren't even close to established.  Continental Europe has more than double the US population, and they have largely re-opened to a greater degree than we have.  Do you think they expect to incur millions of deaths in a 2nd wave?

I don't know what Europe did, but I doubt it was a return to February "normal." I'm just throwing out some numbers to get us thinking about what doing nothing except hiding away the vulnerables would look like.

I scratch my head at how smart people can miss the obvious culprit in our economic and societal woes: the virus. Not the mitigation efforts. We get back to normal by cutting down the virus to very low levels, which is achievable, because other countries have done it. Then, and only then, can the economy fully come back. Rapid testing all over the place would help. It's still a pipe dream. They would get us through this period before a vaccine, anti-virals and other treatments, and know-how.

Until then, pretending that we can psych ourselves back to normal and no one who's not old and sick will be affected isn't a viable option. People can talk a good game, but most everybody is afraid. You can say, "It's over, we're back to normal," but people have to believe it. I'm still not going to a sit-down, inside restaurant.

Edited by PASabreFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nfreeman said:

And what behavior is "dangerous?"  And is it really "dangerous?"  I read a stat a few days ago to the effect that something like 26,000 college students have tested positive for the virus just this fall, with zero hospitalizations.  It seems increasingly clear that the virus poses essentially zero risk to those under age 40 who do not have major co-morbidity factors, and a very low risk to those under age 65 without major co-morbidity factors.

Sorry, but this is blatantly untrue.  While it is correct that healthy people and younger people are at far lesser risk, the idea that it's nothing or zero risk is misleading and wrong. 

Google it and you'll see.       For example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/

(and please to whoever, no nonsense about 'fake news" please. A dead person is a dead person, these are not made up or fictitious deaths for any agendas. the whole fake news thing is simply designed to obfuscate and obscure facts so that people stay in their chosen lanes by rejecting anything that doesn't support their pre-existing view)

The fact is that scientists and doctors are still learning about this thing and it has some odd behaviours/characteristics. For example, one of the things is that while the virus itself doesn't kill some people it somehow (they haven't figured out how yet) it confuses the body and sends it into overdrive so in a sense it overreacts in fighting it. Somewhat I suppose like a person with hayfever whose body overreacts to a foreign smell/pollen and goes into fits of sneezing to expel something that isn't actually harmful at all. In this case the person's own immune system goes into such a state of panic they end up dying by stroke, heart failure or other similar things due to the stressed out system. The good news on that research is that treatment options are better now as they have found in some patients cortical steroids help calm the immune system down and can lead to a recovery. Again I suppose (I'm no expert) like nasal sprays for allergies.  But, and this is the main thing, it does seem to affect different people in different ways and even some healthy young people can die from it.

So little things like wearing masks, distancing, keeping your social groups small, these are not that difficult and to not do them, well it's simply selfish and uncaring cause at this point we still simply don't know everything there is to know. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Sorry, but this is blatantly untrue.  While it is correct that healthy people and younger people are at far lesser risk, the idea that it's nothing or zero risk is misleading and wrong. 

Google it and you'll see.       For example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/

(and please to whoever, no nonsense about 'fake news" please. A dead person is a dead person, these are not made up or fictitious deaths for any agendas. the whole fake news thing is simply designed to obfuscate and obscure facts so that people stay in their chosen lanes by rejecting anything that doesn't support their pre-existing view)

The fact is that scientists and doctors are still learning about this thing and it has some odd behaviours/characteristics. For example, one of the things is that while the virus itself doesn't kill some people it somehow (they haven't figured out how yet) it confuses the body and sends it into overdrive so in a sense it overreacts in fighting it. Somewhat I suppose like a person with hayfever whose body overreacts to a foreign smell/pollen and goes into fits of sneezing to expel something that isn't actually harmful at all. In this case the person's own immune system goes into such a state of panic they end up dying by stroke, heart failure or other similar things due to the stressed out system. The good news on that research is that treatment options are better now as they have found in some patients cortical steroids help calm the immune system down and can lead to a recovery. Again I suppose (I'm no expert) like nasal sprays for allergies.  But, and this is the main thing, it does seem to affect different people in different ways and even some healthy young people can die from it.

So little things like wearing masks, distancing, keeping your social groups small, these are not that difficult and to not do them, well it's simply selfish and uncaring cause at this point we still simply don't know everything there is to know.

Dude.

I said "the virus poses essentially zero risk to those under age 40 who do not have major co-morbidity factors."

You responded by saying that my statement was "blatantly untrue."  In support of this assessment, you linked an article (from April 8!) that cites 759 deaths of people under age 50 -- although of course the article doesn't state the US population under age 50, which is about 215MM.  It also mentions that a study of about 350 people under age 50 who were hospitalized with the virus indicated that all but 7 of them had significant underlying conditions.

So you posted a highly outdated article that essentially proved my point.

It's not unreasonable to want to be cautious about the virus.  But how can we have an intelligent conversation about it, or anything else, if we don't bother to pay attention to what the other person is saying, or to the "evidence" that we are throwing pell-mell into the discussion?

Now, regardless of one's opinion of the Washington Post, certainly some unadorned and current data is useful: 

- The CDC recently stated that 94% of all deaths from the virus were by patients with an average of 2.6 significant other health conditions -- https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/94-of-americans-who-died-from-covid-19-had-contributing-conditions/

- Although many states don't report deaths by age group, NYS, which is #1 in total deaths and 2nd per capita, does, as does California (although neither reports the under-40 group -- NYS does under 45 and CA does under 35).  NYS has about 22.6 total deaths under age 45 per 100K population -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101932/coronavirus-covid19-cases-and-deaths-number-us-americans/

- Critically, that includes patients with major co-morbidities.  If the CDC is right, only 6% of those 22.6 deaths would've been by otherwise healthy people -- so about 1.356 healthy people under 45 per 100K -- so the average healthy New Yorker under 45 has about a 1 in 74,000 chance of dying from the virus.

- Similarly, California, which is #25 in per capita deaths, has had only 218 deaths under age 35 out of about 19MM people in that age range -- about 0.0011% of that group -- and again, that includes patients with major co-morbidities.  Apply the same calculations and you end up with a 1 in 1.45MM chance for the average healthy Californian under 35 to die from the virus.

As I said:  for otherwise healthy people under 40, the risk is negligible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,… co-morbidities. Apparently they don't really count and we shouldn't care about them?… or something.

They kinda seem like, "well, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that outfit."

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

As I said:  for otherwise healthy people under 40, the risk is negligible. 

"negligible" is a funny word that can set the line in different places but what you said earlier was "zero risk for under 40"    Zero risk was what I said was blatantly false.  There's no argument with anyone that the elderly, the infirm, people with diabetes etc. are at greater risk, that's a no brainer, but the idea that everyone else is safe is misleading and gives a false sense of security.  Another fact check example: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-19-underlying-idUSKBN22V2YQ

There's lots of examples. There was a young Uni kid in Montreal a few weeks back that was an athlete and perfectly healthy and he died to the shock and dismay of doctors. That was on the CBC tv news. They have no idea why last I heard. 

Further, in full agreement with SwampD, it's wrong to just dismiss co-morbidities. As a society, you're supposed to support and protect the vulnerable. That's what a caring society does. So, as I said above, ignoring doctor advocated rules, not wearing masks, etc. is simply selfish and shows a lack of concern for others. It is, in fact, the attitude that leads to the label of "the ugly Americans" globally that I'm sure you've heard of at some point in regards to travelling tourists and such. It's why the U.S. Canadian border remains closed and it's why there's a travel ban on Americans entering numerous countries. 

You know, the U.S. prides itself on it's patriotism. If you were at war you'd listen to your war experts, your generals. So why you don't listen to your disease experts, your doctors, just boggles the mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SwampD said:

So,… co-morbidities. Apparently they don't really count and we shouldn't care about them?… or something.

They kinda seem like, "well, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that outfit."

What a jump eh.... Many people simply choose to not take care of themselves, I literally saw a man walking on the sidewalk earlier with a mask on, by himself.... But a nice lit cigarette dangling out of the side of it, overweight and basically a ticking time bomb for anything viral/bacterial to take him out. Why the hell does this person care about Covid when he is clearly slowly killing himself daily. 

Now, Take this and multiply it by thousands and that's basically a day in the medical field in the United States. All of these people afraid of Covid but not the Coronary artery disease, diabetes, COPD, Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc that they worked themselves in to. Sure there are some unfortunate that have bad genetic luck and autoimmune disease and that is sad and unfortunate. But many don't care until something comes up such as Covid. You say they don't really count, and I say it's a case of a boy crying wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

You know, the U.S. prides itself on it's patriotism. If you were at war you'd listen to your war experts, your generals. So why you don't listen to your disease experts, your doctors, just boggles the mind. 

There is absolutley zero percent trust in those people, simple answer. Right or wrong, those in charge have lost the trust of much of the public. 

For the record, many Healthcare professionals share my stance on this, not all, but an overwhelming majority share similar thoughts as I. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

There is absolutley zero percent trust in those people, simple answer. Right or wrong, those in charge have lost the trust of much of the public. 

For the record, many Healthcare professionals share my stance on this, not all, but an overwhelming majority share similar thoughts as I. 

Is that because they've given bad information? Or because the agencies became politicized?

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

Is that because they've given bad information? Or because the agencies became politicized?

There's clearly more than just the medicine involved here, this isn't the thread to get into that. Some of the information has been haphazard at best. Some I understand, as it's a best hypothesis in an unknown territory, but some are just plain wrong. 

I can literally fly to south America with no safeguards in place, no quarantine, no testing, etc.... But if I drive to Virginia or Maryland I could get into serious trouble. Make sense of that. It just further convinces me that a lot of this is window dressing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

What a jump eh.... Many people simply choose to not take care of themselves, I literally saw a man walking on the sidewalk earlier with a mask on, by himself.... But a nice lit cigarette dangling out of the side of it, overweight and basically a ticking time bomb for anything viral/bacterial to take him out. Why the hell does this person care about Covid when he is clearly slowly killing himself daily. 

Now, Take this and multiply it by thousands and that's basically a day in the medical field in the United States. All of these people afraid of Covid but not the Coronary artery disease, diabetes, COPD, Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc that they worked themselves in to. Sure there are some unfortunate that have bad genetic luck and autoimmune disease and that is sad and unfortunate. But many don't care until something comes up such as Covid. You say they don't really count, and I say it's a case of a boy crying wolf.

Fair enough... yeh see enough of your example daily... so you are saying at least 50% of Americans have comorbidities and are at risk... sounds in the ball park from what I see.

Edited by North Buffalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

What a jump eh.... Many people simply choose to not take care of themselves, I literally saw a man walking on the sidewalk earlier with a mask on, by himself.... But a nice lit cigarette dangling out of the side of it, overweight and basically a ticking time bomb for anything viral/bacterial to take him out. Why the hell does this person care about Covid when he is clearly slowly killing himself daily. 

Now, Take this and multiply it by thousands and that's basically a day in the medical field in the United States. All of these people afraid of Covid but not the Coronary artery disease, diabetes, COPD, Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc that they worked themselves in to. Sure there are some unfortunate that have bad genetic luck and autoimmune disease and that is sad and unfortunate. But many don't care until something comes up such as Covid. You say they don't really count, and I say it's a case of a boy crying wolf.

Some people choose to ride motorcycles, too.

And those people that chose to get old,... selfish pricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Some people choose to ride motorcycles, too.

And those people that chose to get old,... selfish pricks.

I ride motorcycles and I know the risk, if I get injured, it's on me. 

If you want to live very unhealthy then it comes with risks, sorry, it's just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SwampD said:

So,… co-morbidities. Apparently they don't really count and we shouldn't care about them?… or something.

They kinda seem like, "well, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that outfit."

Who said we shouldn't care about them?

The point is that the steps society takes should be tailored towards the actual risks, and most younger people are at an extremely low risk.  As I said upthread, we need to be extra careful around those who are vulnerable.  That's substantially different from shutting everything down for everyone.

 

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

"negligible" is a funny word that can set the line in different places but what you said earlier was "zero risk for under 40"    Zero risk was what I said was blatantly false.  There's no argument with anyone that the elderly, the infirm, people with diabetes etc. are at greater risk, that's a no brainer, but the idea that everyone else is safe is misleading and gives a false sense of security.  Another fact check example: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-19-underlying-idUSKBN22V2YQ

There's lots of examples. There was a young Uni kid in Montreal a few weeks back that was an athlete and perfectly healthy and he died to the shock and dismay of doctors. That was on the CBC tv news. They have no idea why last I heard. 

Further, in full agreement with SwampD, it's wrong to just dismiss co-morbidities. As a society, you're supposed to support and protect the vulnerable. That's what a caring society does. So, as I said above, ignoring doctor advocated rules, not wearing masks, etc. is simply selfish and shows a lack of concern for others. It is, in fact, the attitude that leads to the label of "the ugly Americans" globally that I'm sure you've heard of at some point in regards to travelling tourists and such. It's why the U.S. Canadian border remains closed and it's why there's a travel ban on Americans entering numerous countries. 

You know, the U.S. prides itself on it's patriotism. If you were at war you'd listen to your war experts, your generals. So why you don't listen to your disease experts, your doctors, just boggles the mind. 

No.

What I said earlier was "essentially zero risk to those under age 40."  A one-in-1.45MM chance is essentially zero risk.

Again:  it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you aren't listening to the other side, or if you're going to misquote the other side in responding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I ride motorcycles and I know the risk, if I get injured, it's on me. 

If you want to live very unhealthy then it comes with risks, sorry, it's just the way it is.

But if you ride recklessly, you could kill me. Drunk driving laws are good, but they restrict personal freedom.

I don't have to breathe anyone's cigarette smoke in public. I shouldn't have to breathe anyone's Covid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Who said we shouldn't care about them?

The point is that the steps society takes should be tailored towards the actual risks, and most younger people are at an extremely low risk.  As I said upthread, we need to be extra careful around those who are vulnerable.  That's substantially different from shutting everything down for everyone.

The bolded seems like an enormous straw man.

Your suggested way of protecting the vulnerable is admirable but not realistic. The way to protect the vulnerable (which includes most Americans, I would think) is to drive Covid down as low as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Who said we shouldn't care about them?

The point is that the steps society takes should be tailored towards the actual risks, and most younger people are at an extremely low risk.  As I said upthread, we need to be extra careful around those who are vulnerable.  That's substantially different from shutting everything down for everyone.

 

No.

What I said earlier was "essentially zero risk to those under age 40."  A one-in-1.45MM chance is essentially zero risk.

Again:  it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you aren't listening to the other side, or if you're going to misquote the other side in responding.

Plenty of people.

Are we really already forgetting that when no steps were taken, they were finding bodies in cars because the funeral homes couldn’t keep up? If North Buffalo and Woody (whose view I find extremely myopic) are saying that 50% of Americans have co-morbidities, then that’s a lot of dead bodies in cars. And that would be a way bigger hit to our economy and way of life than a lockdown.

Edited by SwampD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuberculosis killed 1.5 million people in 2018, yet you don't see mainstream media harping on that, because, first world. How many people here have had first hand experience with patients dying from Tuberculosis? Anyone? Probably not.

This is not a very productive discussion and probably one I should forget about engaging in anymore, my views are myopic, cryptic, unpopular, whatever expression, etc. They may be harsh as well, but I'll own them.

I'm currently not able to go to other countries to help other people who are dying of disease(s) that they have 0% chance of preventing because of a disease here that mainly wouldn't be as bad if we weren't selfish, fat, pieces of American embodiment. 

I love philanthropy, I love working in places that need it. I'm sure I belong in another country and I hope one day that I'll make that happen, until then I'll be a bit bitter, annoyed and frankly upset about this whole situation. 

Through text, it probably comes off harsher than I would in person, a price to pay of the electronic age I suppose. I am probably done in this particular thread from this point on after tonight. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Does 200,000 dead (and probably many more) in six months, a disease becoming a leading cause of death almost overnight, not get your attention as something extraordinary?

Man, I wouldn't want to play poker against some of you guys.

Then again, we just learned the alpha male with the giant hands went running out of the office when someone sneezed.

Extraordinary?  yes, certainly.  In no way do I say the virus is not severe or irrelevant.  The question at hand is how at risk are people in society. Do I stop the guy from eating his 4th cheeseburger because he's 450lbs and can barely stand?  

People want to simplify the issue into what is "easy" and "avoidable" except it's absolutely not "easy" or "avoidable".  NYS, the best place on Earth to be safe from COVID (due to our incredibly low numbers) has allowed youth hockey to have non-competitive practices.  They cannot play games.  Seems logical.  Except they can go to out of state tournaments as long as that state is not on the list.

That's the kind of stupid at play here.  It's the kind of garbage that makes you wonder what's really at stake?  What's really being protected?  So, my kid (who was going to Cleveland next weekend until Ohio went back on the list) was going to go to Cleveland, and come back and then go to school. 

You'd argue that he should not.  He might carry it back from Cleveland, come to school, pass it to Susie, Susie might have someone in her family who is at risk.  Yes, that's possible. Is it probable?  No one knows.

11 hours ago, SwampD said:

So,… co-morbidities. Apparently they don't really count and we shouldn't care about them?… or something.

They kinda seem like, "well, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that outfit."

Says the guy who hates a goaltender for his mental health issues?

3 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

There's clearly more than just the medicine involved here, this isn't the thread to get into that. Some of the information has been haphazard at best. Some I understand, as it's a best hypothesis in an unknown territory, but some are just plain wrong. 

I can literally fly to south America with no safeguards in place, no quarantine, no testing, etc.... But if I drive to Virginia or Maryland I could get into serious trouble. Make sense of that. It just further convinces me that a lot of this is window dressing. 

Exactly.  What people also fail to take into account is that a virus that spreads widely and can cause death such as COVID-19 should have higher death rates early on.  Those most vulnerable are going to die and those who are not will survive.  As time goes on and the numbers/testing/whatever play out, the overall death rate has gone down.  Because a person who gets it and does not die will contribute to that.

42 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

But if you ride recklessly, you could kill me. Drunk driving laws are good, but they restrict personal freedom.

I don't have to breathe anyone's cigarette smoke in public. I shouldn't have to breathe anyone's Covid.

Smoking in public is not illegal.  Smoking in public places may be, depending on where you live and it may be illegal to do so close to an entrance.  That said, smoking bars are allowed, would you walk into one on your own free will?

You know people drive drunk all the time, do you choose to not go on the road?  

We all go out in society accepting risks.  Laws don't prevent everyone from doing something that could cause you harm.  Laws prevent people from texting and driving, but you still go on the road and one person ignoring that law could kill you.

Again, how much risk do you personally want to take on in your life?  You want everyone else to accommodate your level of risk.  Why do they have to do that?  Why are they not justified telling you to stay home if you don't want to be at risk?  What's the acceptable amount of risk?  That's the problem, it has been the problem, and will continue to be the problem.  You say it's obvious, they say it's obvious.  Clearly it's not obvious.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Tuberculosis killed 1.5 million people in 2018, yet you don't see mainstream media harping on that, because, first world. How many people here have had first hand experience with patients dying from Tuberculosis? Anyone? Probably not.

This is not a very productive discussion and probably one I should forget about engaging in anymore, my views are myopic, cryptic, unpopular, whatever expression, etc. They may be harsh as well, but I'll own them.

I'm currently not able to go to other countries to help other people who are dying of disease(s) that they have 0% chance of preventing because of a disease here that mainly wouldn't be as bad if we weren't selfish, fat, pieces of American embodiment. 

I love philanthropy, I love working in places that need it. I'm sure I belong in another country and I hope one day that I'll make that happen, until then I'll be a bit bitter, annoyed and frankly upset about this whole situation. 

Through text, it probably comes off harsher than I would in person, a price to pay of the electronic age I suppose. I am probably done in this particular thread from this point on after tonight. 

Thanks for this post. It makes it completely clear where your point of view comes from and it is completely understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...