Thought for the Day

[filghy2]

And certainly, from one perspective, it could easily be said that he handled the pandemic crisis poorly - although for myself I've maintained all along that it was more damaging to the USA to shut down the economy than it would have been to allow the virus to simply run its course and cull the weak, which pretty much happened anyway and would have happened despite our best efforts.

You're ignoring the obvious point that the USA is around the bottom 10 out of more than 200 countries in terms of death rates per capita. https://virusncov.com/ If there was nothing that could have been done to achieve a better outcome, how do you explain the fact that so many countries have done much better?

[filghy2]

It's also not true that countries have succeeded in controlling the virus only at the expense of their economies - in fact, the countries with lower virus numbers have generally done better economically.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy
https://theconversation.com/data-fro...chotomy-150533

[filghy2]

Nick tldr: there is no such thing as a fact and everything is reducible to opinion. Black is white, white is black, and there isn't any difference because it's all subjective and that's part of the game. Vice is virtue, Trump is good, but so is corruption. Also, here are a bunch of opinions, each one of which can be easily rebutted but the rebuttal is simply an expression of your bias.

The other element is that all degrees of wrongdoing are equivalent. If most people sometimes twist the truth, then a President who constantly tells outrageous lies is no worse. If most people sometimes bend rules to their own advantage, a President who puts himself above the law and tries to overturn an election is no worse. If most people are inclined to think less favourably of their opponents than their own side, a President who makes 'us versus them' hate-mongering his political credo (to the exclusion of any policy platform) is no worse.

I think you made this point before, but it used to be the right who criticised the left for moral relativism - the idea that there are no absolute rights or wrongs and it all depends on where you are coming from. Conservative values aren't what they used to be, it seems.

[broncofan]

The other element is that all degrees of wrongdoing are equivalent. If most people sometimes twist the truth, then a President who constantly tells outrageous lies is no worse. If most people sometimes bend rules to their own advantage, a President who puts himself above the law and tries to overturn an election is no worse. If most people are inclined to think less favourably of their opponents than their own side, a President who makes 'us versus them' hate-mongering his political credo (to the exclusion of any policy platform) is no worse.

Great point. If one is not perfect they are as bad as the worst offender. And since nobody is perfect, then the most egregious offender is no worse than anyone. And once they've used whataboutism to claim Trump's behavior hasn't been exceptional, those who think it is are left explaining all of the degrees of difference.

I can't put this in a category but I've often noticed when someone wants impunity for a person they support, they will require one single smoking gun to condemn them. If you have ten circumstances each highly suggestive of corrupt behavior they will not look at the combined probability. Or even consider what the combined effect of all of these instances says about the person's conduct in general.

It's not as much a Republican thing but a tactic I've noticed that is hard to break through because it challenges people's ability to hold all of the incriminating instances in their heads at the same time. It also means that if there's an occasional frivolous accusation by someone they can focus on that and pretend it's characteristic of every other complaint.

[Stavros]

It's nothing more than the usual ebb and flow of politics.

You have expressed this so what? view of politics before, but it begs the question -has anything changed, is the US still 'merely' dominated by a two-party system? Right now, it appears that the Republican Party is in such a deep crisis many of its long-standing supporters are leaving it while a new cohort of conspiracy-based and militia linked people are moving in -but this must means the GOP is not longer the 'Party of Lincoln' -indeed the 'newbies' probably detest Lincoln as an 'Imperial President'-, while the mere concept of Fiscal Resposibility that Eisenhower was associated with presents itself as somewhere between satire and ridicule. Add in the fact that even in 2016 Trump said he would accept the result of the election 'If I win' and the means by which he attempted to reject the actual vote in 2020 with all its attendant lies, violence and the -prior to 1812- unprecedented attack on the Capitol, and you can see that the US is in danger of moving away from what is left of a Consensual system -it may not be bi-partisan these days, but the two main parties have adhered to the view that there are three brances to American Government, not One, whereas Trump never seemed to even understand how a system of checks and balances work.

So on the one hand, you may be right, but on the other, it remains to be seen what damage Trump has done to the Republican Party and the American system, and that is without an assessment of the long term damage caused by domestic and foreign policy.

It is not just Liberals who are concerned at the direction that Trump is taking his party in, but many of the people who enabled him to do it four years ago. Incredible as it might sound, it is reported that Mitch McConnell thought Trump's inflamed rhetoric before and during the 6th of January was 'just buster', a stunning lapse of judgment which suggests McConnell deliberately ignored a lot fo what Trump said for four years, or just didn't care as long as he got the judges and tax cuts that were his priority. Sounds like someone saying of the driver of the car or the bus, 'he may be drunk, but he will get us there faster' -assuming there is no fatal collision on the way. But the drunk is still in the driver's seat, and there is little McConnell can do about it.

[Nick Danger]

If your previous over-confident predictions fail, why not make some new equally over-confident predictions. How many of your predictions in this thread proved to be correct? http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...trannies+trump

I'm not going to waste time addressing your points because it's all just a false equivalence game.

In my defense, Flighty, I can only say that I absolutely did NOT foresee the global pandemic or what my friends and I like to call the Retard Riots.

>says he's not going to waste time addressing my points
>proceeds to address my points over the course of three additional posts

If you'll recall, Flighty, I'm just fine with not addressing anyone's points. It'd just be the same old inflexible assholes rehashing the same old arguments. On both sides.

I will be very specific for you, though, regarding the pandemic and how I feel about it.

First of all, while simultaneously believing that masks do not help the problem, I also understand fully the benefit of the mask. Scenario: I have the virus, and I am wearing a mask. You do not have the virus and you pass in front of me as I cough or sneeze or simply exhale. The mask prevents the moist, virus-carrying particles exiting my mouth from reaching you and infecting you with the goddamn Covid.

But guess what? You're still going to get it. There's a good chance you've already HAD it.

Think of it like a cum shot, Flighty - if you're there, in front of the dick, and the cum starts flying, you're going to get some on you, no matter how you might try to avoid it. The only way to avoid the cum is to get away from the dick altogether, which in this analogy translates to complete isolation from the rest of the human race.

Some people have gone that route. For most people that isn't a viable option.

I personally am immune to the thing. So far I've been in direct contact with it 3 times I'm aware of, including nursing both my parents through it, so either I had it and was completely asymptomatic (making me a "super-carrier"), or I'm immune. Either way I've got no dog in this hunt.

Nonetheless I could have solved this whole problem had I been in charge of operations when it happened. The solution is so obvious that any well-heeled bureaucracy could accomplish it.

Each person would be responsible to decide whether or not he/she is at risk. Old people, frail people, lungers, etc., would be allowed to apply for assistance. If they do fall into an at-risk category, they'd be allowed to self-quarantine, and the taxpayers would kindly foot the bill for their sustenance until the pandemic has passed. At that point, they command their own destiny. If they stick to the program and don't leave their house, they'll be fine. Also, obviously, if people apply for quarantine who in fact do NOT fall into an at-risk category, sorry, denied, get back to working for a living. There'd be a lot of screening with my plan.

This way you've taken all your high-risk individuals and given them the tools they need to survive. And everyone else can just get back to business as usual. Sure, there'd be some deaths among the general population, people who should have applied for quarantine but didn't, out of pride or stupidity. But they'd be minimal, what you'd have more than anything would be a lot of people getting sick but then getting over it. And it would have been OVER by now.

I know, I know, Flighty, I'm a goddamn genius. The irony is, you don't even have to be a genius to be smarter than the government.

[broncofan]

First of all, while simultaneously believing that masks do not help the problem, I also understand fully the benefit of the mask. Scenario: I have the virus, and I am wearing a mask. You do not have the virus and you pass in front of me as I cough or sneeze or simply exhale. The mask prevents the moist, virus-carrying particles exiting my mouth from reaching you and infecting you with the goddamn Covid.

But guess what? You're still going to get it. There's a good chance you've already HAD it.

You know there are serological tests that people can get to see if they've had it? Detectable antibodies wane but there are people called epidemiologists who estimate the prevalence of infection and it is nowhere near inevitable that people get covid, even here.

There are also estimates about how common asymptomatic infection is that you can look up. I have not had covid and my mother who is recovering from cancer has not had it but she has survived to get her first shot of a covid vaccine. My father who has had a stroke has also not had covid. In fact, he had an antibody test a couple months after he was under the weather to see if he'd had covid, and he did not have have antibodies. But he has now survived to get a vaccine.

Your analogies are also completely misguided about how risk works. Even when risks aren't reduced to zero, decreasing risky activities like maskless rallies or congregating with hundreds of people indoors, will reduce one's chances of getting the virus. Anyhow, I have nothing against you but I wouldn't trust you to manage a parking lot.

Here is a link to some of the people who have died or gotten very sick from covid. Perhaps it will make you less glib about the subject or not. https://twitter.com/SusanSchutte2

And just random points that don't have to do with your overall argument but are not entirely logical: coming into contact with someone who has covid does not guarantee you get it. Even three people. It is not known what the infectious dose of the virus is or even whether these people were shedding a lot of virus. The amount of virus people with the disease shed is highly variable. If you had it and were a true asymptomatic it wouldn't make you a super-spreader. Asymptomatic people can spread the disease, but typically people who eventually develop symptoms spread it more readily. You also say that you might be immune. If you had it that's possible, but cross-immunity from other pathogens is unlikely to be completely protective. And immunity from covid wanes as antibody levels are not nearly as high after infection as they are after vaccination. While vaccine immunity will not last forever and might have variable protection against new variants, here are some key numbers so far https://twitter.com/ashishkjha/statu...79020878786561

[broncofan]

But guess what? You're still going to get it. There's a good chance you've already HAD it.

While I don't know filghy's exact latitude and longitude I would say this is extremely unlikely. I live in a county with 1000 new cases per million and so while I'm fairly certain I haven't gotten it I can't guarantee I won't. Curious how many new cases there were yesterday where filghy is from....

[Nick Danger]

You know there are serological tests that people can get to see if they've had it? Detectable antibodies wane but there are people called epidemiologists who estimate the prevalence of infection and it is nowhere near inevitable that people get covid, even here.

There are also estimates about how common asymptomatic infection is that you can look up. I have not had covid and my mother who is recovering from cancer has not had it but she has survived to get her first shot of a covid vaccine. My father who has had a stroke has also not had covid. In fact, he had an antibody test a couple months after he was under the weather to see if he'd had covid, and he did not have have antibodies. But he has now survived to get a vaccine.

Your analogies are also completely misguided about how risk works. Even when risks aren't reduced to zero, decreasing risky activities like maskless rallies or congregating with hundreds of people indoors, will reduce one's chances of getting the virus. Anyhow, I have nothing against you but I wouldn't trust you to manage a parking lot.

Here is a link to some of the people who have died or gotten very sick from covid. Perhaps it will make you less glib about the subject or not. https://twitter.com/SusanSchutte2

And just random points that don't have to do with your overall argument but are not entirely logical: coming into contact with someone who has covid does not guarantee you get it. Even three people. It is not known what the infectious dose of the virus is or even whether these people were shedding a lot of virus. The amount of virus people with the disease shed is highly variable. If you had it and were a true asymptomatic it wouldn't make you a super-spreader. Asymptomatic people can spread the disease, but typically people who eventually develop symptoms spread it more readily. You also say that you might be immune. If you had it that's possible, but cross-immunity from other pathogens is unlikely to be completely protective. And immunity from covid wanes as antibody levels are not nearly as high after infection as they are after vaccination. While vaccine immunity will not last forever and might have variable protection against new variants, here are some key numbers so far https://twitter.com/ashishkjha/statu...79020878786561

You know how my parents got it? Them either. They might come into contact with 3 people in a month if it's a heavy birthday month, otherwise they never leave the house. All their friends are dead. They're both borderline hypochondriacs who have been wearing masks, packing hand sanitizer, and skipping church since they first heard the word "pandemic."

But sure enough, about 3 months ago, I got the call - "We've both got the Covid!"

So that's MY perspective. I don't think people are escaping it, I think you're either disposed to getting it or you're not, and if you're disposed that way, you're going to get it unless you TRULY quarantine yourself, which most people can't. Again, all this mask stuff is just a virtue-signaling half-measure from a government whose hands are basically tied, IMO.

I'm not a doctor obviously. But I know what I see. I see a lot of people taking every recommended measure not to get the damn virus and getting it anyway. I see entire sectors of industry shut down and the economy suffering, all for no better purpose than prolonging the inevitable.

I'm sorry, Bronco, but I see this thing panning out exactly as it was always going to pan out - everyone who's going to get it is going to get it. And everyone who isn't, ain't. Frankly, that's not much less information than the entire medical community can provide you.

[broncofan]

You don't seem to understand how probabilities work. Someone can take lots of precautions and though they have a small percentage chance of getting it, if it's not zero they might get it. Someone can take lots of risks and not get it. When these behaviors are magnified across millions of people those who have more exposure to the virus get sick more often. Over time they increase the risk of even people who are being careful.

The fact that there's some randomness and efforts to suppress the virus are slightly porous is one reason it takes some time to get the virus under control (I can see you losing a hand in hold 'em poker with pocket aces and concluding pocket aces isn't really the best hand preflop). You seem to be ignoring not just what the medical community is saying, which is considerably more and different from what you say, but also empirical results from the rest of the world. It's not a surprise that the country that had a charlatan telling people things all epidemiologists disagreed with ended up having lots of viral spread.

You don't think it's possible anyone's escaping it? The highest estimate I've seen of the percent of the US population that has had covid is something like 88 million or 27%. Maybe there are higher estimates. That is with one of the worst public health efforts in the world. Most countries are probably around half of that and some a fraction of that. And btw, I saw a graph yesterday...countries that have completely suppressed the virus barely have excess deaths. In fact, excess deaths seem to correlate very well with deaths reported from covid in every country I've seen data from.

If you really don't want to read or think about this stuff, why not just defer to epidemiologists and virologists? Are they wrong occasionally? Yes. Are they more likely to be wrong than you? Definitely not. What they're not unanimous? Can you find their opinions sort of coalesce around certain commonly held views? Sure. Don't go with the outliers.

Edit: Just going by mortality rate from cruise ships where everyone is tested and other estimates of ifr, you can estimate number of infections based on number of deaths. I did it earlier and it would come out to roughly 64 million which is less than twenty percent of the US population.