GSUeagles14 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Deadpulse said: I don't have a level head, it's why I keep responding to pure and utter trash go to timeout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBrocks Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Just now, GSUeagles14 said: you realize anyone with a level head can see youre throwing a tantrum, right? instead of having to answer to some of the things said, just get aggresive and insult people. @JDBrocks was my grammar ok, thats what we are all here for. No, it’s actually atrocious for the most part. I don’t say this lightly, because there are many of them on this site, but you are easily the most disingenuous poster I have come across. I’ve never once seen you make a comment or ask a question in good faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Dunning Kruger 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deadpulse said: So you are against keeping the numbers as low as possible, both cases and deaths, in the meantime. Got it. Someone write it down for me, I have lost my pen. No. I think we should make decisions based on a rational cost benefit, considering how many (and who) will likely die or face serious complications under various approaches and the cost of those approaches to people's well being, the economy, etc. I don't think there is any room for overly simplistic and emotionally charged arguments that essentially boil down to "one preventable death is too many" because of course that's not true and it just lets our leaders off the hook for 400k dead when the number could've been 100k with a better initial response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, -Hope- said: lol. this is equally "simplistic and emotional" if not more so, just coming from the opposite direction. Yeah thats my point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, SwAg said: Dunning Kruger I dont even care if you are referring to me lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, JDBrocks said: No, it’s actually atrocious for the most part. I don’t say this lightly, because there are many of them on this site, but you are easily the most disingenuous poster I have come across. I’ve never once seen you make a comment or ask a question in good faith. yup, im on my phone and dont care to double check... its a flaw. but uh, its an internet forum.... so it doesnt really matter? as to the second part, i would say im offended but im not? you got youre feathers ruffled because i asked you to clarify where you get your information from (and i had to ask, many, many times) and then follwed my word and left it alone once you answered. tne salt is confusing but its ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, mission27 said: No. I think we should make decisions based on a rational cost benefit, considering how many (and who) will likely die or face serious complications under various approaches and the cost of those approaches to people's well being, the economy, etc. I don't think there is any room for overly simplistic and emotionally charged arguments that essentially boil down to "one preventable death is too many" because of course that's not true and it just lets our leaders off the hook for 400k dead when the number could've been 100k with a better initial response. So what is your position here? Are you trying to weigh how many deaths are acceptable to allow for certain things to fully open to stave off economic drop off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Hope- Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Just now, mission27 said: Yeah thats my point... i'm not referring to the nonsense about cars. i'm referring to the fact that you'd go to the trouble to construct a nonsense narrative about cars in order to inaccurately characterize the substance of what you're arguing against. it's not actually "overly emotional" to pursue a pandemic response that seeks to minimize deaths, full stop. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Just now, Deadpulse said: So what is your position here? Are you trying to weigh how many deaths are acceptable to allow for certain things to fully open to stave off economic drop off? I don't know what fully open means. We aren't going back to normal until middle of next year at the earliest and that's assuming good news on the vaccine front. My argument all along has been this is a cost benefit, so lets put all our cards on the table, and all admit that we're willing to accept some level of disease and death to avoid a complete economic and societal collapse, and then we can argue about what level of disease and death for what level of social cost. Some people want to short circuit that conversation by pretending like that is cold hearted. My views on where we should shake out on that question tend to be pretty middle of the road tbh. But I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, -Hope- said: i'm not referring to the nonsense about cars. i'm referring to the fact that you'd go to the trouble to construct a nonsense narrative about cars in order to inaccurately characterize the substance of what you're arguing against. it's not actually "overly emotional" to pursue a pandemic response that seeks to minimize deaths, full stop. It is extremely simplistic and emotional to suggest that the number of people who are dying and their age don't matter because anyone who is "moral" would be equally outraged by one death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwAg Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 13 minutes ago, Deadpulse said: I dont even care if you are referring to me lol I’m not lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Hope- Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Just now, mission27 said: It is extremely simplistic and emotional to suggest that the number of people who are dying and their age don't matter because anyone who is "moral" would be equally outraged by one death no, not really. rationing care based on age is a worst-case-scenario and a moral failure that will be hanging over the healthcare professionals who were forced to administer it for the rest of their lives (in many of their own words, no less). you're hanging onto this worst-case "trolley problem" despite being told repeatedly that it didn't actually need to exist, which is true. with an adequate response focused on minimizing deaths, this scenario would never have come to pass, and indeed did not come to pass in numerous countries that implemented more comprehensive policy responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, mission27 said: I don't know what fully open means. We aren't going back to normal until middle of next year at the earliest and that's assuming good news on the vaccine front. You might be overestimating the efficacy of a vaccine. Obviously nobody can be sure how effective it will be at this juncture, but from the, albeit minimal, things I have read it will be a little more than a standard trivalent flu vaccine (about 40-60% on average efficacy rate). Vaccine is still definitely step one in terms of getting any sort of pre-covid normalcy. 12 minutes ago, mission27 said: My argument all along has been this is a cost benefit, so lets put all our cards on the table, and all admit that we're willing to accept some level of disease and death to avoid a complete economic and societal collapse, and then we can argue about what level of disease and death for what level of social cost. Some people want to short circuit that conversation by pretending like that is cold hearted. All triage discussion is cold hearted. That doesn't mean it is not necessary. Some level of disease and death is inevitable, even in an ideal response to the pandemic. On the flip side, it is near impossible to measure how the societal and economic relief measures add to the death and disease. If that was possible, we could have that discussion, but I don't think you can empirically sit there and say, well if we reopen movie theaters it will revitalize hollywood and a large industry and add X amount of jobs back to the economy but it will cost us X amount of cases and X amount of deaths if we do it. I read some encouraging article around the first stimulus package and how the economy would do just that, be stimulated by it. In the same articles it stated further stimulus bills would sustain the economy well. Unfortunately, Congress can't get their head out of there rears and create a bipartisan bill for a bipartisan issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Just now, -Hope- said: 6 minutes ago, mission27 said: It is extremely simplistic and emotional to suggest that the number of people who are dying and their age don't matter because anyone who is "moral" would be equally outraged by one death no, not really. rationing care based on age is a worst-case-scenario and a moral failure that will be hanging over the healthcare professionals who were forced to administer it for the rest of their lives (in many of their own words, no less). you're hanging onto this worst-case "trolley problem" despite being told repeatedly that it didn't actually need to exist, which is true. with an adequate response focused on minimizing deaths, this scenario would never have come to pass, and indeed did not come to pass in numerous countries that implemented more comprehensive policy responses. I'm not talking about rationing care. I'm talking about what level of public health response is justified to prevent what number of deaths/cases. That is a cost benefit and we have to be honest about the facts - i.e. how many people and which people are dying, what is the prevalence and severity of ongoing complications, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts