Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, pawnman said:

The small changes would make a difference if ignorant assholes would stop making "I refuse to get vaccinated" their whole personality. 

You know why breakthrough infections are rare for measles? Because the vaccination rate is really close to 100%. You know why Covid continues to spread? Because we're nowhere near 100%.

Well, at least we now have concrete evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, pawnman said:

The small changes would make a difference if ignorant assholes would stop making "I refuse to get vaccinated" their whole personality. 

I can’t believe I’m going to weigh in on this topic at this point.  But, I’ve got time as I sit here dealing with my breakthrough case of COVID.  I’m vaccinated and I ended up in the ER.  It sucked.  

To me, this whole argument comes down to basic problem solving skills.  There has to be a starting point and some understanding based on common sense and predictability based on human nature.  My dad used to say “what, so what and now what”.  That approach isn’t based on emotion or fear.  It’s just a matter of fact approach to a problem.

One of the most basic things you would think policy makers would understand at the start is that not everyone will get the vaccine.  They just won’t.  And it doesn’t matter why.  There is absolutely no point in calling people “ignorant assholes” or threatening people with a “winter of death” or whatever the divisive language is. 

I understand moving the goal line.  That’s really all we’ve seen since this started.  But, I don’t understand moving the starting line.  

Edited by lloyd christmas
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're going to have to resign ourselves to living with Covid forever because people are simply unwilling to do anything to mitigate it.

People who happily do things to mitigate smaller risks balk at doing anything for Covid. Because somehow they've made Covid response a political issue instead of a public health issue.

It's sad that a bunch of whiny assholes are going to be able to hold the rest of the country hostage, but here we are.

At least you assholes won't be in yhe military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

I think we're going to have to resign ourselves to living with Covid forever because people are simply unwilling to do anything to mitigate it.

And this fits nicely into the article by Mike Rowe. Cynical politicians seeing leverage in every crisis somehow convinced you and a significant number of Americans that this virus would go away if we just did what they told us to.

 

Anyone with an even passing understanding of coronaviruses back in March of 2020 knew that this wasn't going to happen. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, there never was.

 

But, if you earnestly believe that there was a way to "erase" covid, it is suddenly much more understandable as to why you would be so openly hostile to anyone who disagrees with you.

 

But you're not going to find any reputable sources in the scientific community who even remotely suggested the possibility of covid going away. A lot of us just realized that fact much earlier than you did.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're going to have to resign ourselves to living with Covid forever because people are simply unwilling to do anything to mitigate it.
People who happily do things to mitigate smaller risks balk at doing anything for Covid. Because somehow they've made Covid response a political issue instead of a public health issue.
It's sad that a bunch of whiny assholes are going to be able to hold the rest of the country hostage, but here we are.
At least you assholes won't be in yhe military.

You would be living with covid whether people “did things to mitigate it” or not. Do you not understand this disease? It’s not polio, it’s like the flu. It will mutate and it will be around and it will keep killing people because the vaccines for it aren’t like MMR or Polio or name your static virus you won’t get with a proper vaccination. Quit being so thick with your religion of covid vaccination.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2021 at 5:14 PM, Negatory said:

Are you good with a 5-15% mortality risk for a highly contagious disease for those over the age of 70ish?

To be pedantic, because you are, this is what I said. Don’t misquote me when it’s literally the next sentence. We’ve been talking about those over 70 100% of the time, which I have consistently used 5-15% for.

14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is what you said. Yes. It's ok because the default is well above 1-2% already

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Negatory said:

To be pedantic, because you are, this is what I said. Don’t misquote me when it’s literally the next sentence. We’ve been talking about those over 70 100% of the time, which I have consistently used 5-15% for.

 

Those are two very different statements. You started your paragraph with "annual mortality." 5 to 15% mortality rate is for those who get it. Not for the entire population. Yet the 1% of everybody dying from it was very much referencing the entire elderly population. And VMFA was responding to the latter statistic, not the former, which is why I didn't waste time with the 15% statistic. It's not what we were talking about.

 

The 1% statistic is best compared to the 4% of the entire population over 70 that dies every year. 

 

The 5 to 15% statistic is best compared to other maladies that affect old people and how fatal they are. You might be surprised by just how fragile old people are, otherwise I'm not sure why you'd be bringing this up at all.

 

You already posted the actuarial tables, so I'm not exactly sure why I have to explain them to you. They demonstrate quite clearly that old people, unsurprisingly, die at very high numbers. 

 

They are going to continue to die from covid. And pneumonia. And the flu. And heart disease. And falling in the bathtub. I'm not "good with" any of those things, but I'm also not going to start pretending like mortality is something new and terrifying just because we have one more way to die added to the list.

 

Further, since your point is basically "are we going to do anything to protect the old people?!" The simple response is yes, we're going to develop a vaccine and make it free for everyone. And for the millionth time, since neither the vaccine nor the ridiculous cloth masks everybody is walking around in do anything to *meaningfully* affect the transmission of *this specific* disease, developing the vaccine and making it available is the best they're going to get. And like every generation before them and every generation that will follow, they'll just go on knowing that being old is a terminal condition.

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubling down? If your argument is those over 60 have a death rate of 4%, then sure. Is that your argument?

How can he possibly be referring to those over 60 - or how can that possibly be what we are talking about - when his literal quote was “The annual mortality of people over 70 is > 4%.”

Edited by Negatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we dismount from this semantics based argument where we are nitpicking words.

This is what matters. The estimated mortality for those of any age from COVID is higher than it is from normal causes for almost every age. Usually by a significant margin. And the hospitalization rate of almost every demographic is extremely significant. Even folks in their 30s olds are hospitalized at a 2-5% rate, with those in their 60s+ hitting 15-30%.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

Just saying that folks die anyways doesn't discount the fact that getting this disease will personally increase an individual's odds of dying by a significant factor, especially for older Americans. Are we really still arguing that? Excess deaths in America right now are estimated at about 1.0M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Negatory said:

How about we dismount from this semantics based argument where we are nitpicking words.

This is what matters. The estimated mortality for those of any age from COVID is higher than it is from normal causes for almost every age. Usually by a significant margin. And the hospitalization rate of almost every demographic is extremely significant. Even folks in their 30s olds are hospitalized at a 2-5% rate, with those in their 60s+ hitting 15-30%.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

Just saying that folks die anyways doesn't discount the fact that getting this disease will personally increase an individual's odds of dying by a significant factor, especially for older Americans. Are we really still arguing that? Excess deaths in America right now are estimated at about 1.0M.

It's not discounting anything. Jesus, you yourself laid out the best argument I've seen on this forum. There's simply nothing to be done. The vaccines are developed. They're not going to get any better. The therapeutics are developed, and those are getting better by the day, but they're already widely accessible. The disease is understood, and the public has been notified.

 

The only thing we could be doing differently right now is if every single person were forced to wear kn95 masks, properly fitted and regularly swapped out. I don't think that is possible. If you think the people who don't like masks are being intransigent now, just wait until you make them wear n95s, which actually do cause a fairly significant level of discomfort compared to the way humans have breathed for the last million years. And that would be until when? The hopes that a better vaccine is developed? We were infinitely lucky that the MRNA technology already existed, otherwise we'd still be waiting.

 

You clearly think this disease is a big deal. An entire segment of the population disagrees with you, including many who are most at risk. It doesn't matter which of you is correct, not even a little bit. Unless you can convince those people to be as concerned as you are, no amount of coercion is going to successfully result in the type of compliance required to make a meaningful impact on the transmission of this disease.

 

And what ended up happening? The people who think like you were unable to make a persuasive enough case, and so resorted to mandates. And in the most predictable way possible, those mandates have failed spectacularly, both in preventing/beating COVID, creating a whole new source of division in our country. And every time authorities resort to coercion and force in place of persuasion, this is what happens.

 

The excess deaths are going to come back down to normal after everybody who's particularly susceptible to it dies. That sucks, but it's also life. And it's especially life when we don't have any other options. 

 

All too often people, and especially liberal-minded people, develop policies that explicitly exclude human nature. This has been a case study in exactly that.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread could use some homegrown satire, if you can't take a joke--I feel sorry for you. 

----

Officials confused by unexpected religious accommodation requests

By Pseudonym

WASHINGTON – On deep background, defense officials shared with media outlets a mounting confusion and frustration between commanders and servicemembers sending up seemingly disingenuous religious accommodation requests to opt out of current COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

“I don’t want to put the department in a position to judge the validity of anyone’s sincerely held beliefs,” said General Max Power. “But to be candid, we are getting backchannel communications that are making us wonder if we are being deceived.”

The generalized concern has been repeated in various branches within the Department of Defense.

“We were all surprised when Lance Corporal Williams told the Master Guns he wasn’t taking the shot since fetal tissue was used in its development,” Said Capt Williams, 15th Infantry Regiment, MCRD Parris Island, SC. “My Marines were telling me all sorts of rumors, but basically they were calling him out.”

“Let’s be clear,” said Master Gunnery Sergeant Tatum. “Not only does Williams not have a moral concern about fetal tissue, he talked his last three girlfriends into abortions—I’m sorry to say that last point has gotten him the nickname ‘ace’ in the barracks”.

It’s not just the Marine Corps that are facing issues with members with seemingly incongruent values.

“Me and the Vice were puzzled when Major Smith told us his religious concern about the sanctity of life and told us ‘whoever sheds blood, shall their blood be shed’,” said Colonel Jazz Morison.  “Just the other day Smith was putting together his Air Medal package with an impressive EKIA count, not to mention his master’s paper at the Weapons Instructor Course was labeled ‘What to do when you accidentally strafe the Kabul Girl’s Checkers Club tournament’, which frankly is an oddly specific issue to be writing on—but shit, the investigation cleared him.”

In other branches some troops are noticing previously agnostic or atheist members are finding new beliefs in faith.

"So last year my supervisor was all insistent that we call the Christmas party a Holiday party, and was all like super woke’" said Staff Sgt Meyers on a twitter post.  "Fast forward to late November and we are all getting the shot, then this punk is wearing WWJD bracelets to work and demanding prayer breaks and telling me I should not reenlist so I can start a traditional family.”

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

You clearly think this disease is a big deal. An entire segment of the population disagrees with you, including many who are most at risk. It doesn't matter which of you is correct, not even a little bit. Unless you can convince those people to be as concerned as you are, no amount of coercion is going to successfully result in the type of compliance required to make a meaningful impact on the transmission of this disease.

This is where you're wrong, and it would be kind of hilarious if it wasn't just a reflection of the polarization of society. I actually do not think this virus is a big deal. Haven't for a few months now, especially with omicron. Check my posts. But that probably doesn't compute, as you probably only think of people on two sides. What I do think is a big deal is the pathetic way folks argue about the virus that only sows more division. The way the right - and folks on this forum, specifically - argues about COVID is super dumb in that it takes uninformed black and white stances or, a recent favorite, uses statistics in a totally inapplicable way. The "scientific" approach to any argument is clearly with the left, because the right doesn't even attempt to use data effectively.

Both sides have valid points. And both sides need to be communicated with in a way that isn't retarded, or else we aren't going to convince anyone of anything. That's why I played devil's advocate to a poorly constructed point. This forum loves to take indefensible black and white stances, and my only goal was to point out the absurdity. I am 100% sure that any solution to this pandemic that America as a whole can get on board with is in the middle. Just electing a new president in 2024 that says "fuck you" to half of America sure as fuck isn't going to help us be a better country.

Stupid arguments are the continuation of the status quo.

Edited by Negatory
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Negatory said:

The "scientific" approach to any argument is clearly with the left, because the right doesn't even attempt to use data effectively.

Huh? See this is where I think your fantasy of you as the grand moderate falls apart.

 

We knew in March of 2020 that this disease had no documented instances of outdoor spread. But it was overwhelming the left having a panic attack over beaches and parks being open. 

 

Study after study after study have shown masks to be ineffective (for COVID), unless you limit the study to properly fitted n95. And yet the left has clung to masks harder and even I thought was possible.

 

"The science" has shown no correlation between lockdown policies and spread. Between masking policies and spread. Yet what have the blue States done?

 

The only politician I can think of that looked at the research and crafted his policy accordingly was Ron DeSantis. Others might have, but they weren't vocal about it.

 

How about all those teachers unions, which are through and through on the left? There was zero scientific justification for closing schools and masking children.

 

I agree that the right usually does a terrible job of leveraging science, but only because everyone usually does a bad job. The left only uses science because it has become their replacement to religion as they established themselves as the anti-religious party. This has been further complicated by the scientific establishment becoming politicized, as we have seen with arbitrary study retractions, and God only knows what nonsense is going to come out about the gain of function research that our chief scientists lied openly about to cover the lab leak story. There is nothing scientific about the left, I think you just really want both sides to be at fault here, furthering your analysis of the middle being the way forward, but as far as the pandemic goes that's not the case. The right has fucked up a lot of things since I've been politically aware, but they were right about covid. 

 

Of course that doesn't account for the lunatics you've pointed out who have made scientifically preposterous claims about the disease and the vaccine, but that's another fun element of this new politicized world we live in. Both sides myopically focus on the craziest elements of their opposition and erroneous seek to portray them as some sort of representation of the average. 

 

And as the left continues in their new tactic of othering and villainizing anyone who dares think contrary to their agenda, people on the right will come up with new and inaccurate justifications for their actions. And they won't make sense, but they're not willing to tell you the real reason, "I just don't want to." Because somehow that now makes you a racist, or a bigot, or you want people to die.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Negatory said:

The way the right - and folks on this forum, specifically - argues about COVID is super dumb in that it takes uninformed black and white stances or, a recent favorite, uses statistics in a totally inapplicable way. The "scientific" approach to any argument is clearly with the left, because the right doesn't even attempt to use data effectively.

 

You're wrong - Find me one person on here who is black and white about the vaccine who is conservative - That is only on the left. I guarantee you anyone who is against the vaccine personally doesn't care if others want to take it. That's the difference. We want you to be able to make a personal decision because this vaccine is anything but proven. You and everyone on the left want everyone to be forced to take it regardless of their own individual research and responsibility. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

We knew in March of 2020 that this disease had no documented instances of outdoor spread.

Show me any proof of this. I think this is gonna be a tough one for you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - how do you make policy when you actually have so many unknowns?

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Study after study after study have shown masks to be ineffective (for COVID), unless you limit the study to properly fitted n95. And yet the left has clung to masks harder and even I thought was possible.

Cloth masks have been shown to be at least 20-30%+ effective with current terrible usage, increasing with N95s. I personally don't agree with using them, but it is a far cry for someone to try to say that they are wholly ineffective.

With that being said, based on the risks to emotional health/interpersonal relationships, I believe we should accept the increased spread that would come with unmasking. But that is a different argument than "mask don't work."

4 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

How about all those teachers unions, which are through and through on the left? There was zero scientific justification for closing schools and masking children.

There is 100% a scientific justification that isolation prevents spread. Don't see how that is unscientific. Sure, the kids may not die if they get COVID, but I don't see how you can argue that this wouldn't reduce spread to their families and therefore the rest of America.

9 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

There is nothing scientific about the left, I think you just really want both sides to be at fault here, furthering your analysis of the middle being the way forward, but as far as the pandemic goes that's not the case. The right has fucked up a lot of things since I've been politically aware, but they were right about covid. 

The middle is the way forward. Maybe this is the fundamental disagreement that we won't see eye-to-eye on. Compromise and understanding is the way forward. An America of 330M people, not just half on one side or the other, is the right way.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

You're wrong - Find me one person on here who is black and white about the vaccine who is conservative - That is only on the left. I guarantee you anyone who is against the vaccine personally doesn't care if others want to take it. That's the difference. We want you to be able to make a personal decision because this vaccine is anything but proven. You and everyone on the left want everyone to be forced to take it regardless of their own individual research and responsibility. 

We aren't arguing about a personal decision to get a vaccine. We're arguing about ethics of vaccine mandates. You are mad at pawnman, for example, because he believes that you, ethically, should be required to get the vaccine. You believe that vaccine mandates are wrong. And your reasoning, as just stated, was because it's "anything but proven." Which is entirely based off of feelings. Numerous studies show that the vaccine decreases hospitalization and death rates by an order of magnitude. And the only statistically significant scientifically proven side effect to this point is a mild increase in risk of myocarditis in males under the age of 30. Also, your comments about "individual research" are a copout to try to legitimize any idea, regardless of source or evidence to the contrary.

And I don't believe in blanket vaccine mandates, which, again, is hilarious in how you can't wrap your mind around that.

Edited by Negatory
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many ideas that are not just "I support mandates" or "I don't support mandates."

For example, I think that mandating vaccines for high risk populations - those at a 10%+ risk of being admitted to the hospital, based on age, gender, race, BMI, previous health conditions - could be in the interest of America.

If you don't like the idea of a mandate, then let's do it economically. Maybe we should increase taxes on society by a blanket 3% and then offer a grant to any high-risk person who gets vaccinated while offering the vaccine to everyone.

I talked about it at the beginning of the pandemic, but I was strongly in support of providing a temporary monthly unemployment allowance to those over the age of 60 or anyone who is provably high risk so that they could isolate if they choose. If they don't, then they go to the hospital and die on their own dime. The rest of society keeps working and chugging along. Once the vaccine came out, let it be a personal decision, for the most part, as to how much risk you wanted to accept from COVID. If you choose to not get vaccinated when you're high risk, then you do so at your own risk.

And to be clear, the only reason I don't support continued mandates is because everyone has been given the opportunity to protect themselves. I would not have supported no mandates or government intervention prior to about March this year. Do you see how this is a gray continuum that is different than mandates forever or no mandates ever?

Edited by Negatory
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omicron cases are exploding.  Folks can’t get tests.  Thousands of flights cancelled over the holidays.  The Biden administration has egg all over their face.  The CDC lowers quarantine guidance from 10 days to 5…   The timing is curious.  Perception matters.  

Edited by lloyd christmas
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Show me any proof of this.

Google it. Some of the earliest studies out of China showed single-digit cases of outdoor spread were in April. Prior to that all cases were indoors. It wasn't until the race riots in June that more cases of outdoor spread occurred, and even then a tiny fraction compared to indoor spread. This disease was spread in November 2019, not 2020. By the time it was an American crisis much was known.

 

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

how do you make policy when you actually have so many unknowns?

You don't. Because without a limiting principal, you always have the "what if" driving you to restrictions. Government's job was never to predict. But the very human desire for a pain free world pushes us to stopping hypothetical problems before they happen. The results are never pain free...

 

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Cloth masks have been shown to be at least 20-30%+ effective with current terrible usage, increasing with N95s. I personally don't agree with using them, but it is a far cry for someone to try to say that they are wholly ineffective.

"An effect" is not the same as "effective." They were not effective and preventing spikes, saving the hospitals, or "stopping the spread." Also, 20-30% is selective science. If you put the studies together you get around 17%, which as you pointed out previously, will not have a meaningful effect of a highly transmissible virus. 

 

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

There is 100% a scientific justification that isolation prevents spread. Don't see how that is unscientific. Sure, the kids may not die if they get COVID, but I don't see how you can argue that this wouldn't reduce spread to their families and therefore the rest of America.

This is also selective science. We have plenty of research showing why isolation is untenable. Humans just don't do it, and when they closed everything public, people just started meeting in groups at private residences, literally the worst environment for spread. There were also no spread differences noted between countries with differing school policies, indicating that schools were not vectors for spread. Sure, "scientifically" there's going to be some measurable difference, but as I said before, effect ≠ effective. Part of scientific studies is measuring effect, not just on a number but on an outcome. None of the studies indicated that school closures would have a meaningful effect, and Europe actually followed that science. Children didn't stop playing, they didn't start wearing N95 masks properly, and so they didn't stop spreading (insofar as children were spreading the disease, if at all). A scientific study on a hypothetical is sometimes neat, but it doesn't work for policy justification.

 

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Compromise and understanding is the way forward.

On that we agree, but the new definition of compromise from the left is you compromise your position to join mine.

 

You're guilty of the same breathless posturing. Are you ok with a 5-15% mortality rate? Yeah dude, I am. So lets compromise. States that aren't ok with it lock down. States that are can open up. 

 

The problem with compromise from a political standpoint is that we already have it built it. States' rights was designed specifically to allow for compromise. But the left wants everything dictated from the federal level. That's the antithesis of compromise. But California can't run their lockdown the way they want unless Texas locks down too. Yes... That's the compromise.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the few joys of this pandemic has been watching the pro mandate/lockdown far left bicker with the staunch anti-vax far right while not a single one of them realizes they're two sides of the same coin.. Both wildly misinterpreting the data to arrive at garbage conclusions. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...