Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#75,376
#75,376
rjd970 said:
I’m going to and will continue to maintain (it’s actually factual at this point) that Covid by itself is not killing as many people as your tweets and the fear peddlers would love for us to believe.

The death certificates are labeling Covid along with other causes. By itself, it isnt near as deadly. End of story. The tweets and fear pushing is past moronic at this point.
Click to expand...

I think this is true of most viruses.

Also, when the associated causes of death are respiratory distress or pneumonia, then those associated factors are due to COVID almost all the time. So, it isn't relevant to kind of put those in the "well they had other issues" bucket. Which is part of the problem with the 6% CDC figure.
 
#75,377
#75,377
TennTradition said:
Well if we're looking to point fingers, this perspective becomes more relevant. It isn't the non-mask wearer's fault that you are fat and at-risk.

However, from a public health perspective and managing THIS pandemic, the why or how becomes less meaningful than the what (is the situation we face).
Click to expand...
Nope. Nobody should be shocked if they lead an unhealthy lifestyle and wind up in a high risk group due to their own action/inaction and susceptible to a highly negative outcome due to COVID and we damn sure shouldn’t destroy the economy to accommodate their lack of ownership of their own health situation. I completely reject any “well it’s too bad we are here because we didn’t handle our own situation but now you have to accommodate us” rationalization. If they don’t give a damn about their own health why should I?
 
#75,378
#75,378
NorthDallas40 said:
Nope. Nobody should be shocked if they lead an unhealthy lifestyle and wind up in a high risk group due to their own action/inaction and susceptible to a highly negative outcome due to COVID and we damn sure shouldn’t destroy the economy to accommodate their lack of ownership of their own health situation. I completely reject any “well it’s too bad we are here because we didn’t handle our own situation but now you have to accommodate us” rationalization. If they don’t give a damn about their own health why should I?
Click to expand...

No one is saying they are shocked.

I'm sure many of these people actually agree with you.

The decision comes down to whether or not allowing the virus to run unchecked through these populations causes more harm than trying to stop it (which is also a function of how you try to stop it). Morals aside, if these people would continue to be positive contributions to the economy if not for the virus, then a government is incentivized to keep them alive as long as that cost does not exceed their contributions. From that perspective - their health decisions are irrelevant. Whether the virus kills 2% of all people regardless of health or whether the virus kills 10% of a 20% subset of the population that made bad health choices is irrelevant to that decision making process if these two groups (the 2% of all vs. the 10% of the 20%) have similar contributions to society. However, we know they don't. If 65% truly would have died this year anyway, there's not a big societal issue in letting them die.

But, we governments aren't usually free to make decisions with all morality aside. So then the question becomes regardless of why the people who are at risk are at risk, is the government accepting of the idea that there should be no public health effort to safe-guard them. That becomes a tough sell to many.
 
#75,379
#75,379
TennTradition said:
I think this is true of most viruses.

Also, when the associated causes of death are respiratory distress or pneumonia, then those associated factors are due to COVID almost all the time. So, it isn't relevant to kind of put those in the "well they had other issues" bucket. Which is part of the problem with the 6% CDC figure.
Click to expand...

Right but this is true if any one of 100 other things that can kill somebody who is at risk, right? What makes Covid so special? Why take these extraordinary measures for Covid? I have seen no numbers that suggest this thing has a lethality we should lie awake at night worrying about.

I don’t see why any of this justifies anybody pushing the fear agenda for this one thing.
 
#75,380
#75,380
rjd970 said:
Right but this is true if any one of 100 other things that can kill somebody who is at risk, right? What makes Covid so special? Why take these extraordinary measures for Covid? I have seen no numbers that suggest this thing has a lethality we should lie awake at night worrying about.

I don’t see why any of this justifies anybody pushing the fear agenda for this one thing.
Click to expand...

I think that if COVID had shown up with a notarized letter saying he only kills 0.4% (insert small number here) of the infected population, that cross-reactive T cell reaction might even make that effective number lower due to people that get COVID but don't really get COVID, and that children and younger healthy people have much lower relative risk vs. flu, then I don't think we do most of this. I think that there are people who should be speaking about it that are afraid to.....and that is where politicization (not just here in the US by never-Trumpers) matters. In general the personal risk is much too high for these folks to say some of this out loud, I think. To ask these questions. It isn't like there is a secret answer and they have it but won't give it. I just mean there needs to be open dialogue, discussion, etc. with this context - and in our climate it just doesn't seem we are capable of having it.

With that said - while 0.4% of infected might die (whatever that number is), it SEEMS that a much higher fraction are having long-lasting complications. So that does become another factor to consider. This can be about more than just preventing the next death. Public health extends beyond preventing deaths. I'd like to see much this data out in the open, discussed like adults, so that we can better understand these risks. Problem is it takes time to observe it, understand it, and report it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#75,382
#75,382
TennTradition said:
No one is saying they are shocked.

I'm sure many of these people actually agree with you.

The decision comes down to whether or not allowing the virus to run unchecked through these populations causes more harm than trying to stop it (which is also a function of how you try to stop it). Morals aside, if these people would continue to be positive contributions to the economy if not for the virus, then a government is incentivized to keep them alive as long as that cost does not exceed their contributions. From that perspective - their health decisions are irrelevant. Whether the virus kills 2% of all people regardless of health or whether the virus kills 10% of a 20% subset of the population that made bad health choices is irrelevant to that decision making process if these two groups (the 2% of all vs. the 10% of the 20%) have similar contributions to society. However, we know they don't. If 65% truly would have died this year anyway, there's not a big societal issue in letting them die.

But, we governments aren't usually free to make decisions with all morality aside. So then the question becomes regardless of why the people who are at risk are at risk, is the government accepting of the idea that there should be no public health effort to safe-guard them. That becomes a tough sell to many.
Click to expand...
We simply disagree on the government’s role here. It isn’t the government’s responsibility to intervene on an individual’s behalf if they won’t act on their own. I don’t expect the government to be an obstacle but no I don’t expect them to be responsible either.

However when the government directly interferes in a citizens income capacity in an adverse way I do believe the have some exposure. Like shutting the damn country down and paying people to stay home. It was and still is stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and Y9 Vol
#75,383
#75,383
lawgator1 said:
Shampoo-gate seems awfully weak. I think people are pretty wise to what went on there.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 3rd in line to potus and top secret clearance holder claimed to be tricked into violating rules she pushed for by a cosmetology school grad with a Nest cam. Why would anyone find that concerning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, SlipKidVol, kiddiedoc and 5 others
#75,384
#75,384
NorthDallas40 said:
We simply disagree on the government’s role here. It isn’t the government’s responsibility to intervene on an individual’s behalf if they won’t act on their own. I don’t expect the government to be an obstacle but no I don’t expect them to be responsible either.

However when the government directly interferes in a citizens income capacity in an adverse way I do believe the have some exposure. Like shutting the damn country down and paying people to stay home. It was and still is stupid.
Click to expand...

I think you are right when you say we have different views on the role of government. My views are still evolving - but I often settle on viewpoints that are different than yours here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and NorthDallas40
#75,385
#75,385
lawgator1 said:
Shampoo-gate seems awfully weak. I think people are pretty wise to what went on there.
Click to expand...
Uh she told a peon she wanted her hair did. Peon schedules with a hairdresser. Hairdresser doesnt ask questions and goes where he normally works. Its caught on camera. Pelosi broke the rules she helped write.

Nothing complicated about it.
 
#75,387
#75,387
TennTradition said:
I think you are right when you say we have different views on the role of government. My views are still evolving - but I often settle on viewpoints that are different than yours here.
Click to expand...
And that’s fine. I respect your right to your own viewpoint even if I don’t agree with it. You’re not wrong for you we just disagree. I’m ok with that. Cheers.

I simply believe our government is too large and inserts itself in many areas where it has no business in being there. This COVID crap and states shutting down is a classic example. And it was broken in implementation. The STATES chose to shut down so they see responsible for making their citizens whole as far as I’m concerned. Not the Feds. The Feds role was to protect the Republic at the sovereign borders. Keep people from bringing this mess to roost here and bring citizens home who are at risk but keep them isolated. Enable and assist the states in executing their plans to protect their citizens. But NOT to assume the economic viability of every damn citizen in the country. That is ridiculous
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and McDad
#75,389
#75,389
TennTradition said:
I think you are right when you say we have different views on the role of government. My views are still evolving - but I often settle on viewpoints that are different than yours here.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with respect and courtesy are not allowed here, sir. Shame on you for treating others that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, TennTradition and NorthDallas40
#75,392
#75,392
McDad said:
Disagreeing with respect and courtesy are not allowed here, sir. Shame on you for treating others that way.
Click to expand...
I saw a meme earlier where it had Nancy claiming her hair was a setup and she had Donald trumps hair..... it was good work by someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#75,394
#75,394
Tyler Durden said:
Well I think in March it was about saving grandma and it still is today. Difference being we now know how to live our lives without killing grandma where as in March we didn't. All people need to do is wear a dang mask for the most part.
Click to expand...

Really? So if we just wear a mask no grandmas will die? No other respiratory illness will take them out? Wow. Who knew face diapers would save all grandmas?
 
#75,396
#75,396
I know this pandemic has been used as a cudgel to promote universal health care, implying that "free" healthcare could in some way alleviate this event. The fact of the matter is that healthcare can diagnose and treat certain things, but healthcare should not be used as a backstop to prop up awful lifestyle choices. Free healthcare isn't going to stop you from getting diabetes, HBP, high cholesterol, obesity, etc. Our nation as a whole starts off with a terrible raw material and then blames the factory for the outcomes. A healthier population would have much less need for healthcare, and would allow our healthcare system to focus on those that really need help- ER patients, cancer, genetic disorders, etc. The lazy answer of course is muh healthcare, but it isn't going to produce the magical outcomes people seem to tout. All the free healthcare you can stomach isn't going to help you much if you eat McDonald's every day and never exercise. I'm hopeful this pandemic serves as a wakeup call to the massive number of Americans who are one bad illness away from death or incapacitation due to easily preventable chronic conditions. Perhaps being forced to cook more will change how much people eat out and allow more control of what goes into their bodies. Maybe the walks around the neighborhood will continue even when sports and other activities are back. But I suspect this will have little impact and people will resume their normal awful habits pretty quickly.
 
#75,398
#75,398
chef3531 said:
How convenient that they "may" have a vaccine around election time. I'll be so glad when 2020 is over
Click to expand...

I lean right, but it’s pretty transparent that Trump wants a vaccine before Nov 1st for obvious reason which don’t include the health and well being of Americans first.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top