Jump to content
rebelfd

New Virus Discovered in China

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Aaron_Hacker said:

700 geriatric RT2’s who only had a few years left to live anyway is a small price to pay for four more years


Im kidding, obviously... but the old people that want all of the young people locked down indefinitely do not have some moral high ground.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aaron_Hacker said:


Im kidding, obviously... but the old people that want all of the young people locked down indefinitely do not have some moral high ground.  

I agree to some extent. The old people that choose to go to his rallies get what they get and will have to deal with it. 
 

my problem has always been trump having them and encouraging his old cult members to come and die. Also the people they go home and infect which none of them seem to give a fuck about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Aaron_Hacker said:


Im kidding, obviously... but the old people that want all of the young people locked down indefinitely do not have some moral high ground.  

 

Nobody is asking for lockdowns. I think enough evidence exists where that's no longer necessary however, as a society we have to all be on the same page. Masking up, social distancing, washing your hands and taking positive steps (like Merv filters in stores, restaurants, offices etc) are positive steps that should do the job. 

 

If we haven't learned what works by now, this never ends. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a daily number of new cases that would necessitate lockdowns though Hacker?  We currently at 100K, will probably be 200K in 2 weeks given current growth.  Hospitals will be overrun, deaths over 2K a day... at what point are lockdowns necessary in your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Leet8s said:

Is there a daily number of new cases that would necessitate lockdowns though Hacker?  We currently at 100K, will probably be 200K in 2 weeks given current growth.  Hospitals will be overrun, deaths over 2K a day... at what point are lockdowns necessary in your opinion?

Who knows man. Im on the side of getting thus virus in check. But we are now asking restaurants that shut down and just reopened to shut down again with no help. Which means most just wont make it through a winter. We have fucked this thing up so bad its now a terrible catch 22. 
 

i dont think Biden getting elected suddenly makes dumb people social distance and wear masks so another lockdown might just be inevitable at some point. 

Edited by aupoker1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, aupoker1 said:

I agree to some extent. The old people that choose to go to his rallies get what they get and will have to deal with it. 
 

my problem has always been trump having them and encouraging his old cult members to come and die. Also the people they go home and infect which none of them seem to give a fuck about. 


you can complain while he’s chilling in the White House because he has a motivated base that’s going to show up and vote for him. 
 

I doubt Joes empty parking lots is going to work as far as getting people out to vote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leet8s said:

Is there a daily number of new cases that would necessitate lockdowns though Hacker?  We currently at 100K, will probably be 200K in 2 weeks given current growth.  Hospitals will be overrun, deaths over 2K a day... at what point are lockdowns necessary in your opinion?


Im not saying this is facts because I don’t know but aren’t a lot of these cases more young people or people with no symptoms? I’m just going by our states numbers. At the peak early on we had almost 2,000 hospitalized.  Now we have a bit over 325 Not trying to downplay anything.  Just stating facts.  This was the update yesterday. 
 

At peak we had 2,000 and near 100 daily deaths .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Leet8s said:

 

I get your point that certain groups or media outlets have bias and an agenda...

 

Where do you get your objective facts from?  Is it more experiential for you from your personal interactions?  Which sources would you trust as objective if looking to learn or research a topic?  The CDC doesn't strike me as a partisan group but I'm guessing anything put out by a government organization is tainted in your opinion?

There is no such thing as objective facts anymore. This is why it is so hard to have a discussion. I make decisions based on the information I take in from a variety of sources, my own experiences, my understanding of human nature, and my reasoned and thoughtful analysis.

 

I trust very few, if any, sources. I’m not sure that there are any objective sources of information. It is more a matter of taking in information from many and varied sources, especially conflicting sources and sorting out the info as explained above to reach a reasonable conclusion. This applies to data and studies as well. Both are easily manipulated for the intended purpose of manipulating how people think.

 

I understand you thinking the CDC is unbiased, but it is run by humans who have their own biases and agendas who simply cannot and do not leave their thoughts and beliefs at the workplace door.

 

Finally, yes, my default position is that information put out by any government official or agency is tainted by the beliefs and opinions of human beings. It is naive to think that “government” has different characteristics than the humans who control the government. 
 

My proof to you is that you are more likely to believe information put out by a part of the government you like and agree with, while you choose to disbelieve information put out by a government you disagree with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Neeek said:

I'm not sure what you are upset about, but you might want to try to figure it out.

 

You jumped into an argument where I was stating a very basic and uncontroversial fact (droplet transmission, not free-floating viruses).  A fact that is not specific to this coronavirus, but common to the transmission of pretty much any respiratory virus.  A fact that you will see is consistent everywhere - CDC, WHO, every public health website, every medical textbook for decades, and the current medical literature.  There is a correct answer, and there is no controversy.  If you find a different answer you are wrong.  Its not hard.    If your "truth" is something different than you are actively trying to find misinformation.  Most of the time people latch onto misinformation, it is to help further entrench their preconceived false beliefs.  Conspiracies.  

 

The person asked if I was a doctor (which you know I am), and I responded that you can google it - because it doesn't take special knowledge, nor even effort to find the answer.  You jumped in to make a separate point (which is clearly that you interpret changing recommendations and inconsistencies for more complicated information as politically motivated).  I didn't take the bait (you will see in my response that I specifically  focused on transmission for this reason), because I wasn't arguing with you.  You just extrapolated to a bunch of shit that I have never said.  

 

Suddenly you jump off to me (a physician) taking all my info from the WHO and CDC, and I'm so controlled and whatnot.  I don't feel the need to explain to you how absurd that is (I have been living and breathing coronavirus for 7 months now).  That makes me a dumbfuck, the reason why you don't post (lolol), and a rube.    

 

People post literal conspiracy bullshit on here every single day.  Like verifiable nonsense.   Racist shit.  All kinds of stuff.  I don't expect you to respond (like you expect everyone to condemn RT2 for some reason), but I do find what you choose to get all hot and bothered about interesting.  For some reason  a doctor telling someone how the virus is transmitted is the thing that gets you so frustrated (or maybe annoyed) that you don't post anymore.   I guess because I'm "the left" and google is the "media" or some similar convoluted connection you have made in your own head.    You might want to think about why, before you get to trues level.  

 

I'm happy to talk about changing coronavirus accounting, changing public health recommendations, treatment, and a million other topics where there is disagreement and where you have a valid point.  You might even find that I agree with most of your criticisms.  But that isn't what happened here.

 

 

 

 

That’s a lot of words. I’ll do my best to answer.

I am not upset at anything. This is a major problem with communicating with people on Internet forums. You, as the intended recipient of my posts, know virtually nothing about me, yet you are certain enough about me that you think I am upset at something. Pointing out a defect in how you react to my post equals me being upset in your mind. I can’t do anything about that.

 

You then jump into the thought that what you say about the transmission of viruses is true. It may or may not be true, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that you expressly relied on information from WHO and the CDC. I essentially stated that info like this is biased, tainted and based on an agenda. You then wrongfully exclaimed that I must be a conspiracy theorist. I told you that was stupid and it is part of the reason we can’t have reasonable discussions.

 

 

Edited by Willywoo
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Willywoo said:

There is no such thing as objective facts anymore. This is why it is so hard to have a discussion. I make decisions based on the information I take in from a variety of sources, my own experiences, my understanding of human nature, and my reasoned and thoughtful analysis.

 

I trust very few, if any, sources. I’m not sure that there are any objective sources of information. It is more a matter of taking in information from many and varied sources, especially conflicting sources and sorting out the info as explained above to reach a reasonable conclusion. This applies to data and studies as well. Both are easily manipulated for the intended purpose of manipulating how people think.

 

I understand you thinking the CDC is unbiased, but it is run by humans who have their own biases and agendas who simply cannot and do not leave their thoughts and beliefs at the workplace door.

 

Finally, yes, my default position is that information put out by any government official or agency is tainted by the beliefs and opinions of human beings. It is naive to think that “government” has different characteristics than the humans who control the government. 
 

My proof to you is that you are more likely to believe information put out by a part of the government you like and agree with, while you choose to disbelieve information put out by a government you disagree with.

 

Just seems very cynical your viewpoint.  Of course there are things such as objective facts.  Saying anything from source X can't be objective or truthful because it's put out by humans is a cop out and lets you doubt everything without arguing any merits or points.  It's just ad hominem expanded to a whole new level.

 

Don't you have biases?  You said, "I make decisions based on the information I take in from a variety of sources, my own experiences, my understanding of human nature, and my reasoned and thoughtful analysis," but why is your mind and thought process so much better than other sources?  You have biases too Willy, it isn't solely based on objective facts or inputs like you're a computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Leet8s said:

 

Just seems very cynical your viewpoint.  Of course there are things such as objective facts.  Saying anything from source X can't be objective or truthful because it's put out by humans is a cop out and lets you doubt everything without arguing any merits or points.  It's just ad hominem expanded to a whole new level.

 

Don't you have biases?  You said, "I make decisions based on the information I take in from a variety of sources, my own experiences, my understanding of human nature, and my reasoned and thoughtful analysis," but why is your mind and thought process so much better than other sources?  You have biases too Willy, it isn't solely based on objective facts or inputs like you're a computer.

How on earth do you conclude that I don’t think I have biases based on what I wrote?

 

I would not say my view is cynical, I would characterize it as a healthy skepticism.

Edited by Willywoo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor are staying home, the rich ate out without a care. Just how tbe politicians want it. 

 

  • The rich are traveling less for business and using private jets more to reach resort towns.
  • Private jet flights to Westhampton, New York, surged 172% in October, according to data from Tuvoli, an online payments platform for jets, compiled by Private Jet Card Comparisons.
  • Meanwhile, private jet traffic at New Jersey's Teterboro Airport — often the busiest private jet hub in the nation since it is used by the rich flying to New York City — plunged 52% in October.
Edited by wantagolf
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2020 at 2:56 PM, Neeek said:

 

Wow, lol.

The WHO, CDC, and literally every major publication and infectious disease society in the United States are all colluding in one big conspiracy about coronavirus transmission.  And all of the doctors (who also read the studies and expert recommendations themselves) are also being tricked.  And somehow that is also related to the media.  And willywoo found his truth.  

 

Your devolution into anti-intellectual, conspiracy theory madness should probably be sad, but its mostly hilarious.

 

 

 

i heard it's a symptom of the covid, that and excessive swearing and jacking off to pictures of trump and pence

 

fkn old git needs to be euthanised to end his own personal tormented soul

 

 

 

100,000 cases today woo, so sorry for your loss

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Willywoo said:

That’s a lot of words. I’ll do my best to answer.

I am not upset at anything. This is a major problem with communicating with people on Internet forums. You, as the intended recipient of my posts, know virtually nothing about me, yet you are certain enough about me that you think I am upset at something. Pointing out a defect in how you react to my post equals me being upset in your mind. I can’t do anything about that.

 

I knew you would focus on this.  Much easier to argue about irrelevant shit like whether or not you are upset.  I can't think of something I care about less.  I'm bored already.  

You went from normal discussion to "fucking idiot" "this is why I don't post anymore," "rube" and a few others.

 

20 hours ago, Willywoo said:

You then jump into the thought that what you say about the transmission of viruses is true. It may or may not be true, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that you expressly relied on information from WHO and the CDC. I essentially stated that info like this is biased, tainted and based on an agenda. You then wrongfully exclaimed that I must be a conspiracy theorist. I told you that was stupid and it is part of the reason we can’t have reasonable discussions.

 

 

It is true.  And its simple and not controversial. The fact that you still say "it may ore may not be" makes you look stupid. You clearly don't understand basic facts, which is fine.   I wouldn't expect you to.  But then you try to discredit me (who does understand, since its literally my job) by saying I "expressly relied on information from the WHO and CDC."   Which isn't what happened.   I told someone to google it, and pointed at the first two search results give you the correct answer.  And every reasonable result after that.  Because its simple.

I think this is where you make some PLUVesque post about me and/or "the left" being arrogant and thinking I know everything.  It is anti-intellectualism at its worst.   You call it "healthy skepticism."  But its not.

 

Again, there are lots of areas where there are differences of opinion among professionals.  Areas where controversy exists, and people disagree.  We can talk about testing strategies, data reporting, fast-tracking vaccines, politicizing mitigation strategies, etc.  But you chose to blow your load on a simple fact where your criticisms - which have validity under many circumstances - doesn't apply.

Edited by Neeek
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, Leet8s said:

 

Just seems very cynical your viewpoint.  Of course there are things such as objective facts.  Saying anything from source X can't be objective or truthful because it's put out by humans is a cop out and lets you doubt everything without arguing any merits or points.  It's just ad hominem expanded to a whole new level.

 

 

This.  

Its anti-intellectualism disguised as skepticism.

 

Not understanding transmission means droplet spread is controversial.

Not understanding how public health measures (like distancing and masks) work means their efficacy is in question.

Not understanding obvious limitations in testing and difficulties in reporting means the testing numbers are political.

Not understanding how cause of death is assigned means doctors are intentionally inflating numbers.

etc.

Edited by Neeek
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Neeek said:

 

 

This.  

Its anti-intellectualism disguised as skepticism.

 

Not understanding transmission means droplet spread is controversial.

Not understanding how public health measures (like distancing and masks) work means their efficacy is in question.

Not understanding obvious limitations in testing and difficulties in reporting means the testing numbers are political.

Not understanding how cause of death is assigned means doctors are intentionally inflating numbers.

etc.

 

Is it safe for me to go shop at walmart if 10% of the customers have covid and everyone is wearing a mask? 

 

Because i always thought its not safe. Because the 10% that have it are breathing and talking and shit the entire time they are shopping. And the virus is small enough to escape thru or around their masks. 

 

So then i go in there with no goggles on and the virus flies into my eyeball. Right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sharonavich said:

Is it safe for me to go shop at walmart if 10% of the customers have covid and everyone is wearing a mask? 

Because i always thought its not safe. Because the 10% that have it are breathing and talking and shit the entire time they are shopping. And the virus is small enough to escape thru or around their masks. 

So then i go in there with no goggles on and the virus flies into my eyeball. Right? 

I would not go in a store if I knew that 10% of the customers had covid, period.  Doing less when the community prevalence is high is a good idea.

None of the public health measures that are recommended are perfect.  They each add a layer of protection.

The Swiss Cheese Model is a common explanation.  Each piece of cheese (aka each method - masks, distancing, ventilation, etc)  has holes in it (isn't sufficient to prevent transmission).  When you stack a bunch of layers  of cheese together, though, you no longer have visible holes.

 

Never coming close to a person means you will never get the virus.  But sometimes (when you need groceries) you have to.  So people not going out when they have fevers/symptoms helps.  So does having fewer people in the store - which decreases the number of close contacts where the virus can spread.  Wearing a mask lowers the chances that the close contacts will result in transmission of the virus.  Good ventilation in the building dissipates the droplets quicker so they are less likely to make it from one person to another.  Spending less time in the store means less cumulative time in a place where transmission could occur.    Add them all up and you are pretty safe.

 

There is a theoretical risk of droplets coming in contact with mucous membranes (eyes), resulting in transmission.  But this would be like an actively sick person coughing in your face.  Like in the hospital.  Its incredibly unlikely if you are walking by other asymptomatic people in a store when you are both wearing masks.    Nothing is perfect, but not something I would ever worry about.

 

Edited by Neeek
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neeek said:

 

 

 

Again, there are lots of areas where there are differences of opinion among professionals.  Areas where controversy exists, and people disagree.  We can talk about testing strategies, data reporting, fast-tracking vaccines, politicizing mitigation strategies, etc.  

This. It was a willy post(towards the end of the chuck Norris willy day) that got me thinking about a lot of this and asking myself why we trust all the numbers where do they all come from etc. its a discussion. Can it be had here?  I doubt it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be had amongst reasonable people.

 

Testing is complicated. 

Not everyone with infection gets tested.  We don't really know yet what percentage of infections are being caught.  This would underrepresent the numbers. On the other hand - the more asymptomatic people you test, the more false positives you get.  This would overrepresent the numbers. 

So some people say test less.  But most say a lot of false positives is necessary, as finding the cases for isolation and quarantining to control the virus is much more important.  I go back and forth a little bit, but think tons of testing is correct and dealing with the necessary evil (and harm) that comes along with false positives.

 

I'm no expert on state reporting.  I don't think it matters to a huge degree medically.  Politically maybe, but I don't much care about that.  

You have all the different types of tests and all of the different labs that all report data a little differently and on different time scales.  Sometimes the tests are repeated on the same individual to go back to work.  sometimes the less accurate tests are confirmed with more accurate ones and you get disparate results.  Sometimes antibody testing gets lumped in.  The public health departments are trying to track all of this data in real time.  Its a huge undertaking, and there are going to be corrections and mistakes. 

 

I tend to trust my local public health officials.  They are not political, and neither are the interactions (reporting of infectious diseases, tracking down information, contact tracing, etc).  I have a ton of trust in the system as a whole. 

Of course the higher ups in the department (those that don't do the actual work) could certainly have lots of other motives.  The more power they have, the more likely they are to be politicized.   So cumulative data is flawed to begin with and could be intentionally misrepresented for political gain.

 

I just don't really focus on this.  The exact numbers don't much matter - I only care about trends (positivity rate, number of total infections going up or down).    Labs will keep testing, public health officials will keep tracing, and doctors will keep treating, regardless of if the case definitions are changed in state level reporting.  

 

 

Edited by Neeek
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.