Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

[Jake]

 

[jwinslow]

No, when they changed the entire narrative is when they lost everyone equipped with rational thought. The Rowdy Roddy Piper school of politics, “Just when they think they know the answers, I change the questions!” Classic Piper!! Worked great in the WWF, so might as well give it a shot in politics!

When was that exactly?

It's neat and very constructive that no one rational can think differently than your side. That's very fair and bodes very well for your hypothetical chances of your plan being accepted by the country as a whole.

Many here have said people will only put up with something for so long. That's an irrational, emotional response that is common to the best majority of us. It's not based on efficacy.

Your solution placates some but not all of the most defiant demographics in this thing. It still takes away freedoms, and it does not stop the spread. The most vulnerable were already secluded, your plan just ensures it spreads a lot more to the rest.

Who exactly is vulnerable? Are you quarantining every weaker person? How about the huge droves of obese Americans, which are known to be susceptible? At some point corners will be cut to appease citizens, and that will in turn infuriate other citizens who want more protection.

How long are the vulnerable quarantined? Until the vaccine is proven and takes root in 7-18 months? What about the refusal to take the vaccine, which will be substantial?

And what does this quarantine look like? Are they stuck in their homes unable to work? Who is footing those medical bills if/when they lose their jobs and thus insurance? Or are we having to socialize America to support them?

You described it as preparing for a tornado. That's a one time event, and you can track where it goes. This risk is always there, from an invisible tornado that you don't understand at all.

And as you fly by the seat of your pants, and make impossible decisions with less than enough data, you're going to have to update policies to contradict old, obsolete and potentially hazardous policies. And the minute you do this, which is the right thing to do, you further alienate the hurting, frightened, angry masses looking for someone to blame to make this something they can define and understand.

And in the end, it's all based around a choice. An inconsistent, compromise made to save some things over another. It will not be fair. It will not be broadly accepted by almost all. It will pick one bad outcome over another and expect the suffering public to be understanding and rational in the face of a crisis.

 

[heisman]

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Big Mama sitting on the towel and Captain Backfat with the backwards hat on better pray they don't get it because they look like exactly the kind of younger people who would kack out from it.

 

[heisman]

When was that exactly?

It's neat and very constructive that no one rational can think differently than your side. That's very fair and bodes very well for your imaginary chances of your plan being accepted by the country as a whole.

Many here have said people will only put up with something for so long. That's an irrational, emotional response that is common to the best majority of us. It's not based on efficacy, but personal experience and enjoyment.

Your solution placates some but not all of the most defiant demographics in this thing. It still takes away freedoms, and it does not stop the spread. The most vulnerable were already secluded, your plan just ensures it spreads a lot more to the rest.

Who exactly is vulnerable? Are you quarantining every weaker person? How about the huge droves of obese Americans, which are known to be susceptible? At some point corners will be cut to appease citizens, and that will in turn infuriate other citizens who want more protection.

How long are the vulnerable quarantined? Until the vaccine is proven and takes root in 7-18 months? What about the refusal to take the vaccine, which will be substantial?

And what does this quarantine look like? Are they stuck in their homes unable to work? Who is footing those medical bills if/when they lose their jobs and thus insurance? Or are we having to socialize America to support them?

You described it as preparing for a tornado. That's a one time event, and you can track where it goes. This risk is always there, from an invisible tornado that you don't understand at all.

And as you fly by the seat of your pants, and make impossible decisions with less than enough data, you're going to have to update policies to contradict old, obsolete and potentially hazardous policies. And the minute you do this, which is the right thing to do, you further alienate the hurting, frightened, angry masses looking for someone to blame to make this something they can define and understand.

And in the end, it's all based around a choice. An inconsistent, compromise made to save some things over another. It will not be fair. It will not be broadly accepted by almost all. It will pick one bad outcome over another and expect the suffering public to be understanding and rational in the face of a crisis.

C’mon Josh, you know I’m not capable of reading that many words!

Everything you’ve stated has been visited on the entire population. Why not only visit it on the vulnerable population?

Also, give me the data, and let me decide. Don’t give me two sets of spun political data and then punish me unequally based on the political party running the show. I am better at making my own risk assessments, and so are you, over some government official who has never done jack shit for either one of us.

 

[jwinslow]

C’mon Josh, you know I’m not capable of reading that many words!

Everything you’ve stated has been visited on the entire population. Why not only visit it on the vulnerable population?

who is the vulnerable population?

Also, give me the data, and let me decide.

Don’t give me two sets of spun political data and then punish me unequally based on the political party running the show. I am better at making my own risk assessments, and so are you, over some government official who has never done jack shit for either one of us.

there is no reliable data. There is very incomplete data that requires dangerous guesswork if your motives are pure, which they never are in Washington.

I can decide what risk I'd like to take for myself (whether or not I'm truly rational or fully informed is another matter). We are poor at making judgments about how much our choices impact others.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

When was that exactly?

It's neat and very constructive that no one rational can think differently than your side. That's very fair and bodes very well for your hypothetical chances of your plan being accepted by the country as a whole.

Many here have said people will only put up with something for so long. That's an irrational, emotional response that is common to the best majority of us. It's not based on efficacy.

Your solution placates some but not all of the most defiant demographics in this thing. It still takes away freedoms, and it does not stop the spread. The most vulnerable were already secluded, your plan just ensures it spreads a lot more to the rest.

Who exactly is vulnerable? Are you quarantining every weaker person? How about the huge droves of obese Americans, which are known to be susceptible? At some point corners will be cut to appease citizens, and that will in turn infuriate other citizens who want more protection.

How long are the vulnerable quarantined? Until the vaccine is proven and takes root in 7-18 months? What about the refusal to take the vaccine, which will be substantial?

And what does this quarantine look like? Are they stuck in their homes unable to work? Who is footing those medical bills if/when they lose their jobs and thus insurance? Or are we having to socialize America to support them?

You described it as preparing for a tornado. That's a one time event, and you can track where it goes. This risk is always there, from an invisible tornado that you don't understand at all.

And as you fly by the seat of your pants, and make impossible decisions with less than enough data, you're going to have to update policies to contradict old, obsolete and potentially hazardous policies. And the minute you do this, which is the right thing to do, you further alienate the hurting, frightened, angry masses looking for someone to blame to make this something they can define and understand.

And in the end, it's all based around a choice. An inconsistent, compromise made to save some things over another. It will not be fair. It will not be broadly accepted by almost all. It will pick one bad outcome over another and expect the suffering public to be understanding and rational in the face of a crisis.

WAY TL;DR

Do you not recall the ‘flatten the curve’ mantra and do you not see the mantra being different now? Regardless of how flat the curve is (narrator’s voice: ‘and it is pretty flat these days...’), the goal posts were moved right as the ball was being snapped.

Moving the goal posts being the right thing to do or not, you all have to admit the narrative has changed.

The changing of narrative is where they lost people.

You are more than free to pick a side on what the right thing to do is. Frankly, I think you are all (both sides) pissing into the wind on that. But I find it troubling that a group of people who are generally a level bunch cannot look back and see how the story has changed over time.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Captain Backfat

 

[jwinslow]

WAY TL;DR

Do you not recall the ‘flatten the curve’ mantra and do you not see the mantra being different now? Regardless of how flat the curve is (narrator’s voice: ‘and it is pretty flat these days...’), the goal posts were moved right as the ball was being snapped.

I think we thought it would be a lot worse, except those who never actually believed it in the first place .

I think it was pretty clear from the start that the shutdown was going to be longer than the originally announced period. Because the response would be more severe if they knew from day one that it was a 2+ month shutdown.

Moving the goal posts being the right thing to do or not, you all have to admit the narrative has changed.

The changing of narrative is where they lost people.

The people who have personally changed their own narrative many times. All of us did that.

You are more than free to pick a side on what the right thing to do is. Frankly, I think you are all (both sides) pissing into the wind on that. But I find it troubling that a group of people who are generally a level bunch cannot look back and see how the story has changed over time.

Your unsettling analogy was my primary point here. There is no plan where it does not blow up in your face.

 

[heisman]

who is the vulnerable population?
.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Who exactly is vulnerable? Are you quarantining every weaker person? How about the huge droves of obese Americans, which are known to be susceptible? At some point corners will be cut to appease citizens, and that will in turn infuriate other citizens who want more protection.

We have four months of data covering over 1.4M cases and almost 100,000 deaths...we know exactly who are the most vulnerable and can rack and stack categories from "if you get it, you're pretty much fucked" down to "you can mainline the virus and still be fine".

How long are the vulnerable quarantined? Until the vaccine is proven and takes root in 7-18 months? What about the refusal to take the vaccine, which will be substantial?

Those in the more vulnerable group (elderly with preexisting conditions) are essentially either going to have to face permanent quarantine (which assisted living and nursing home essentially are) or say "fuck it, I'll roll the dice" and take the still relatively-low chance of actually contracting it.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

I think we thought it would be a lot worse, except those who never actually believed it in the first place .

I think it was pretty clear from the start that the shutdown was going to be longer than the originally announced period. Because the response would be more severe if they knew from day one that it was a 2+ month shutdown.
The people who have personally changed their own narrative many times. All of us did that.
Your unsettling analogy was my primary point here. There is no plan where it does not blow up in your face.

Exactly, the fact that there has been no coherent plan is undermining any planning, good/bad, right or wrong.

I tend to agree with @Taosman, in spirit, when he suggested that people are stupid. Not only is the general American populous stupid, but they are intolerant and impatient. A lack of a clear and coherent strategy that can be effectively communicated is success’ worst enemy right now.

Those who are struggling to pay rent are looking back to the ‘flatten the curve’ talk and asking themselves, ‘we’ve done that, now when can I go earn a paycheck?’

I don’t have the answers, but I can understand the position that those folks have. For damn sure, I sympathize, and I sure as fuck am not going to wave the ‘save grandma’ flag in their faces, even if I think it’s the right thing to do.

 

[jwinslow]

We have four months of data covering over 1.4M cases and almost 100,000 deaths...we know exactly who are the most vulnerable and can rack and stack categories from "if you get it, you're pretty much fucked" down to "you can mainline the virus and still be fine".

with a shutdown country, and a large portion of it with limited testing to prevent learning just how many more endured it (the kind of guesswork that gets included in the flu death comparisons).

Like many other phases of this awful thing, we are just now getting the first sets of data to better analyze the situation, but that means the general trends are not very comparable because the activity and testing was very different 4 weeks ago. We are starting to see a little bit of data from some of the not really sheltering at home any more activity, but it'll be weeks before we find out the very first results of the defiance like in the Ozarks. And then how that spreads to everyone else (possibly being cautious ) who are out more and more likely to interact with those who don't think this is a real thing

We have both extremes when it comes to counting, from some states including any probable cases to other states still not reporting specifics about nursing home deaths (patients and residents alike) until about a week ago.

Those in the more vulnerable group (elderly with preexisting conditions) are essentially either going to have to face permanent quarantine (which assisted living and nursing home essentially are) or say "fuck it, I'll roll the dice" and take the still relatively-low chance of actually contracting it.

What about the vulnerable with comorbidities that aren't at an age range with death right around the corner?

 

[jwinslow]

View attachment 25794

So are all of them getting locked up? How about the middle age squishy guys like me, who try to float between 200-210 but were closer to 230 with the shutdown and are now legally obese?

Can you even lock us up?

some of the policy reversals, like the face masks, are because people refuse to obey. So you could start out trying to restrict the most overweight, but what happens when they defy those orders?

Now even the people who preferred your plan are mad at you, because your policy and goal posts are moving again.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

So are all of them getting locked up? How about the middle age squishy guys like me, who try to float between 200-210 but were closer to 230 with the shutdown and are now legally obese?

I was 232 last summer, got down to 195 about four months ago on a strict diet, and now am back around 210 (at 6' even and age 63) and have a-fib. I'm pretty sure you're in no worse shape than I am, and I don't worry about getting the virus.