-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas -
no need to blush - just look at all the typos in the rest of my message you quoted - I'm one of the worst (but I did go back and fix them up in the actual postOriginally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOhhh...
)
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19Comment
-
I never hav typoz.Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Postno need to blush - just look at all the typos in the rest of my message you quoted - I'm one of the worst (but I did go back and fix them up in the actual post)
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick DouglasComment
-
Miracles never cease.
NBC Nightly News actually called out Cuomo for forcing nursing homes and assisted care facilities to take contagious patients leading to a large number of deaths in such facilities. On Monday the network's senior legal and investigative correspondent exposed what Cuomo did and even pointed out something that I missed -- namely that he had also refused to give those facilities personal protective equipment (PPE) after forcing them to take in Chicom coronavirus-positive patients.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --TassmanComment
-
It's only a miracle to you and those like you who have this "MSM bad" POV. I have found the press calling out politicians across the board for anything that is newsworthy. That Trump happens to be the one doing the most outrageous things is not the fault of the MSM. Indeed, I frankly think they too often play into his hands by giving him all the media attention he wants. He is a savant when it comes to media - and he knows exactly how to weaponize it. If the MSM was truly "anti-Trump" instead of just "holding all politicians to account," they would be ignoring him and denying him the press he craves.Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick DouglasComment
-
Uhh... this is going to be a bit long, ox, I hope you can stay with me...
here's the conversation that led up to your post, with my notes added:
Originally posted by NorrinRadd
**NR says (twice) that he's in the high-risk group, but that, nonetheless, he is in favour of less restrictions. I.e. even at the possible danger to himself. Note the qualifier "ASAP" which charitably could be read to mean 'as soon as we can practically do it', or uncharitably as 'immediately, regardless of consequences'
Originally posted by oxmixmudd
** Whatever we do there are risks of different kinds.
The risks of deaths from the virus may seem more pressing, but that's in part because they're more emotionally powerful, and also because they're more easily quantifiable. We don't know just what the risks are from an over-long lockdown - but people are dying from the effects of lockdown - suicides or premature deaths of business owners, people made homeless or hopeless because jobless, flow-on health effects and damage to society - all these are results of a lockdown, and we just don't know how bad they are or will be.
Which means that we tend to place more value on what we can see and measure (people getting infected and dying), but doesn't mean that the other end of the equation (people hurt and dying from lockdown-related stress and economic issues) should be ignored. It's possible that in some circumstances the effects of extending a lockdown are worse than the effects of ending it. We don't know, ergo, it is unfair to atatck those who lean to the 'open up' end of the continuum, especially at the possible expense of their own lives.
IOW, we have an equation or a balance of
'X number of deaths from infection, if no lockdown' vs 'Y number of deaths from infection, if a lockdown, plus Z economic damage, plus S damage to health and society from stress and lost jobs, plus Q other negative effects (some of which we are assuming won't be a problem, like possible food shortages, collapse of some economic systems, etc)'
We can make educated guesses at X and Y, but no more than that, and we can't really quantify Z,S, or Q. They might be very small or very large.
Secondly, the case for a strict lockdown (ala New Zealand) vs less strict measures to some degree relies on the eventual endgame or solution to the pandemic. If the solution is a vaccine or a treatment and diagnosis system, or the virus mutating itself into a less virulent form, then a lockdown that minimises deaths from the virus has more value. But that is an IF.
If the solution is NOT a vaccine etc, but herd immunity, then a lockdown has less value (ala Sweden). That too is an IF. Reality is, we don't know what will happen. My take as of now is that the most likely outcomes are herd immunity; then mutation to less virulent form / virus drops off on it's own; then ( a lot less likely) a vaccine and lastly a diagnosis and treatment system.
Right now, we don't know what the total final death toll will be in ANY country, nor do we know the full final costs in every aspect of various lockdowns. Ergo we can't judge who is right and who is wrong - the 'game' is still being played, and we don't even know what quarter we're in or how many quarters there are.
Originally posted by NorrinRadd
** NR is saying that those who are still concerned can isolate / social distance / lockdown as they wish. He is not insisting that everyone leave lockdown. Secondly, he is asking for information - which is what we need to evaluate our equation / balance.
\Originally posted by oxmixmudd
** Ox, this is nothing but a personal attack, on the basis that you are right and he is wrong. But you don't know that (although you believe it). You can't give actual hard, fully supported numbers for all the variables in the equation above. No one can.
Not only that, but NR is precisely one of ".. the weakest among us." in this crisis. He is in a High Risk group. To accuse him of lacking compassion etc is frankly way over the top. You haven't argued the issue (maybe elsewhere??) and whatever the arguments, they can't be settled one way or the other right now - probably not for months or years yet.
I can understand NR's reaction.
With you so far.Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
On to your reply to me.
The highlighted is your opinion, I think it's possible / probable, but it is not certain, unless there is a complete removal of all restrictions regardless of what happens. Even then it may not eventuate. See Sweden, where something like 25% of Stockholm's population have apparently had the virus or been exposed, with no symptoms / no need for any treatment. A charitable reading of NR's posts above doesn't require his meaning is 'free for all'. You could ask him...Originally posted by oxmixmudd
Originally posted by oxmixmudd
This is way off the rails of anything NR said in the conversation above. You're off again about Trump - true or not, irrelevant to the conversation.
Read what I underlined. You are demonizing NR because he doesn't think like you do. Think about that. Please
Originally posted by oxmixmudd
And yet here you are exhibiting the very opposite of love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek. You accused someone whose life is at high risk from the virus of 'lacking compassion towards those at risk'. Wow, man. Just wow.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd
Yeah. And you're at least as big a part of it as anyone else. C'mon man....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...Comment
-
Trump is going for a low-knowledge, low-public information response to the epidemic. Data, guidance and materials are to be suppressed as much as possible in a bid to get back to normal. Hospitals will be accused of manufacturing fake news for the purpose of enriching themselves.Comment
-
You are entitled to your opinions max, and I am trying to profess them fairly as just what you see in the posts you reference.Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
There is background not included in those posts that I have in mind that add context beyond what you see in those posts, and you acknowledge that possibility. But I do not have the time to look it all up so as to provide that context to the reader of the posts you reference, nor would most people even be able to read through such a post.
I'll take time to read through your reply a few more times before I try to respond further, if I choose to respond further. The purpose being since it is a critique, and a strongly negative one -though it appears to be targetting being helpful rather than being destructive - it will take more than one reading to allow me time to process your words objectively.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19Comment
-
I appreciate the constructive response.Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Only part of my post above is a critique of you. I think that sometimes you come across as aggressive and emotional, and that's not an effective way to communicate your points. You're not the only poster, I do it too. But it gives an 'escape route' for people - they can blow your post off as being a 'hater', or TDS, or whatever. When you post calmly and fairly, I think it forces people to focus on what you are saying, not on how you are saying it. Adrift was really good at this.
Right now no-one knows exactly what the 'right' thing to do is with regards to the pandemic. We have some general ideas, and some approaches that seem to work, but there is a lot we don't know. We also need to remember that strategies must differ for different countries, and possibly even for different areas in a country, particularly one as large and varied as America.
What if there is no resolution except that enough people get the virus for a population to develop herd immunity? It may be an unlikely resolution, but it's certainly possible. I actually think this is the most likely outcome. (See my thread ) If this is the endgame, then strict lockdowns with high economic and social costs are much less valid as a strategy, since eventually everyone will need to be exposed to the virus.
or
What if the virus naturally mutates to a less virulent form over the next six months or so and then stops infecting people? Then a strategy of lockdown / isolation / elimination (like NZ) is the best one if it's practical for the country.
or
What if the resolution is a vaccine in 18 months from now, and we have repeated waves of infection / reinfection? Again the best strategy here might be different from the scenarios above.
The ONLY way we will know what was the best thing to do for a particular country / state /region is with hindsight. That's why I don't attack people with different views than mine - they might be right, and me wrong, nor do I judge or condemn country's approaches.
Right now, no one knows. The best anyone can do is (more or less) informed speculation.
It's like we're teams all playing games of American football against team Covid-19, but we don't know what quarter it is, nor how many quarters there will be. We might think 'We're winning, leading 17 - 6 with our ground game. Those dopes in that team over there, losing 13-10 with their passing game are idiots' ... But maybe there are 10 more quarters to go, and our team is going to be exhausted and injured by the end of the 5th quarter, and 'that team of idiots over there' is still quite fresh and ready to close out for the win....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...Comment
-
So my thought on this is fairly simple. While we do have to keep our minds open to future possibilities (obviously), we also have to sort them in terms of likelihood - to the best of our ability. I know of no instance of a coronavirus mutating to a less virulent strain. Even if it does, it will mean we have two strains: the more virulent one and the less virulent one. And if it can mutate to be less virulent, doesn't it follow that it can mutate to be more virulent as well? What we have, for now, is the virus we have, and I think that is what we should base our planning on.Originally posted by MaxVel View PostI appreciate the constructive response.
Only part of my post above is a critique of you. I think that sometimes you come across as aggressive and emotional, and that's not an effective way to communicate your points. You're not the only poster, I do it too. But it gives an 'escape route' for people - they can blow your post off as being a 'hater', or TDS, or whatever. When you post calmly and fairly, I think it forces people to focus on what you are saying, not on how you are saying it. Adrift was really good at this.
Right now no-one knows exactly what the 'right' thing to do is with regards to the pandemic. We have some general ideas, and some approaches that seem to work, but there is a lot we don't know. We also need to remember that strategies must differ for different countries, and possibly even for different areas in a country, particularly one as large and varied as America.
What if there is no resolution except that enough people get the virus for a population to develop herd immunity? It may be an unlikely resolution, but it's certainly possible. I actually think this is the most likely outcome. (See my thread ) If this is the endgame, then strict lockdowns with high economic and social costs are much less valid as a strategy, since eventually everyone will need to be exposed to the virus.
or
What if the virus naturally mutates to a less virulent form over the next six months or so and then stops infecting people? Then a strategy of lockdown / isolation / elimination (like NZ) is the best one if it's practical for the country.
or
What if the resolution is a vaccine in 18 months from now, and we have repeated waves of infection / reinfection? Again the best strategy here might be different from the scenarios above.
The ONLY way we will know what was the best thing to do for a particular country / state /region is with hindsight. That's why I don't attack people with different views than mine - they might be right, and me wrong, nor do I judge or condemn country's approaches.
Right now, no one knows. The best anyone can do is (more or less) informed speculation.
It's like we're teams all playing games of American football against team Covid-19, but we don't know what quarter it is, nor how many quarters there will be. We might think 'We're winning, leading 17 - 6 with our ground game. Those dopes in that team over there, losing 13-10 with their passing game are idiots' ... But maybe there are 10 more quarters to go, and our team is going to be exhausted and injured by the end of the 5th quarter, and 'that team of idiots over there' is still quite fresh and ready to close out for the win.
The only way to deal with a virus, ultimately, is to achieve herd immunity. That can be done by people being sick and recovering, or it can be done with a vaccine, or with a combination of the two. We know that the mortality of this particular bug is significantly higher than a seasonal flu, and most numbers hover around an order of magnitude more deadly. That means "being sick and surviving" as a path is going to translate to a lot of death, especially among the older, poorer, and weaker of our population. We have already seen that minorities are hit harder than Caucasians. So, IMO, we need to do everything we can to protect these populations until we have a vaccine to help us achieve herd immunity, estimated for this bug to be around 60%.
And it's important to note: herd immunity will not protect these populations. Herd immunity is simply the point at which a virus has a R0 (R-naught) factor at or below 1. That means that any infected person is, at most, infecting one other person (essentially replacing themselves). That number is important because it means that, while the virus is still moving through the community, the number of active cases is not growing - which is part of the definition of a pandemic. But as long as the virus exists and there is no vaccine, these populations will be vulnerable with horrendously high death rates (as high as 14% for the elderly).
To me, that means our best course of action is 1) continued social distancing practices, 2) broad-based testing to determine who is immune (and thus could safely return to work), and 3) careful, select re-opening of businesses with new practices in place and careful monitoring for any sign of the virus re-surging.
In other words, I think we need to follow the science. And I agree this is not a one-size-fits-all for the world, for any given country, or even for a state. Here in Vermont, what needs to happen in Huntington is likely much different from what has to happen in downtown Burlington. And Vermont will have different needs from NYC or Wyoming. While we need guidelines from the experts at the top, we also need some degree of local autonomy to make decisions that map to the local needs. I tend to advocate for management by outcomes. The primary outcome that should be at the heart of the decision making is control of virus spread to minimize loss of life.
I'll put "life" above "money" and "economy" every day of the week.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick DouglasComment
-
-
Much as I would love this to be true...https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5466940186Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/polit...rnd/index.htmlThe ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick DouglasComment
-
Fake news.Originally posted by little_monkey View Post"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; OrthodoxyComment
-
I'd add that Fox News went live in October of 1996. By 1998, it was on its way to becoming the right-wing media outlet that it has since become, but it did not have enough of a following to warrant anything like what Trump is reported to have said in that quote - strongly suggesting that it is someone from the modern era putting a modern perspective into Trump's mouth retroactively.Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
Of course, some will object to that because Fox News is so well known as a "neutral" outlet. Maybe their "honest self-assessment" will help them with that.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick DouglasComment
-
Lesson: always be on the lookout for 'confirmation bias'Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19Comment
Tweet
| Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5 responses
36 views
0 likes
|
by Ronson
Today, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
26 responses
194 views
0 likes
|
by seanD
Today, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
98 responses
408 views
0 likes
|
|
|||
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 06:52 AM
|
|||
|
23 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
by seanD
05-03-2024, 02:49 PM
|
Comment