• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check

Status
Not open for further replies.

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I'll be honest, I read this back in July. I didn't bookmark it. It wasn't from the Lancet. It was a scientific journal that was discussing COVID, novel viruses, and how they mutate in general, and how over time they work their way through a population. The article was NOT saying that COVID was less lethal than the flu today, but over time they would anticipate it probably would be through mutations and what not. If I had the link saved I would provide it, but I just don't have it.

These are the projected death rates today based on the CDC. I think we would all agree that the CDC should (emphasis on should) be considered one of the more credible sources of information on COVID or medical issues in general.

Age 0-19 — 99.997%
Age 20-49 — 99.98%
Age 50-69 — 99.5%
Age 70+ — 94.6%

Under 50, the virus is less lethal than the flu. I don't know how anyone can argue that isn't a fact based on the data coming out of the medical community including the CDC. If you think I am misinterpreting this data, then please explain how. Over 50, clearly there is a spike and it is much more dangerous. The article I read talked about how over time these death rates would be expected to decline substantially. For example, I am 38 now. If I catch COVID now, and another 5 or 6 times before I reach 70, COVID is not likely to kill me when I am 75 years old like it might today if a 75 year old catches it. There is still a risk but it is not likely to be anywhere close to the 5.4% death rate someone who is 70+ today has. Even with comorbidities because my body has learned to fight the virus and has an immune response to it. I am oversimplifying it, but that was (at a very high level) the crux of much of the argument. Hence, that was the support that over time COVID was likely to be less lethal than the flu. Again - this was an article written several months ago in a scientific journal that talked about novel viruses in general and taking the information we had available at the time and drawing conclusions and trying to explain how our bodies respond to new infections. There have been articles posted at various news sites I have stumbled across at various news sites (CNBC, MSNBC, Marketwatch, etc) that have interviewed virologists that have said similar things. In all those cases they were talking about years down the road after COVID has worked its way through the population either through natural infection or vaccination. Not present state.

Ah, so... you actually mean covid is no worse than flu to you. Gotcha 👍

Covid is not all that deadly at all to someone of your age.

And I‘m sorry if I sound flippant or rude, but I’m really fucking sick of hearing how annoyed people are with lockdowns because Covid isn’t dangerous to them.
 
Last edited:

Chittagong

Gold Member
UK stats keep looking really bad. I was hoping it was just Christmas backlog but they remain at over 50K/day. I give it 2 weeks tops until everyone is banging pans on balconies again.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
UK stats keep looking really bad. I was hoping it was just Christmas backlog but they remain at over 50K/day. I give it 2 weeks tops until everyone is banging pans on balconies again.

Yes. Pretty fucking horrific all round. Fingers crossed the harder measures help as they did before. The fucking government have been woeful on this. Dread to think what Xmas is going to do.
 
UK stats keep looking really bad. I was hoping it was just Christmas backlog but they remain at over 50K/day. I give it 2 weeks tops until everyone is banging pans on balconies again.
The truth is these lockdowns are not effective enough to justify their cost. For whatever they do to slow the spread of the virus, which is unclear at this point, they collapse the economy for almost everyone outside of the wealthy and people who work in “essential” areas.
 

T8SC

Member
So let me get this straight, im speaking mainly from a UK POV but im sure it goes for all:

The Gov acted WAY too late, people still going on holidays etc in March... but then, lockdown, 2 months or so...

We come out of lockdown, around June time ... people go outside but not everything opens up, salons, gyms etc are still several weeks away.

August - Go & eat, we'll pay £10.

Sept.... hmmm interesting how cases and various stats are still going up.... The Government seems surprised.

Oct - Calls for lockdown again

November - Lockdown occurs, numbers (cases & deaths) declines.

Dec - Lockdown ends, numbers (cases & deaths) increases.

Jan - Lockdown/Tier 4 starts again - No doubt numbers will decline

Feb??? - Lockdown/Tier 4 ends - Numbers will probably rise again

Mar??? - Lockdown/Tier X starts yet again - Numbers will d

See where I'm going?

Lets just keep doing this same shit over and over until there's fuck all left of shops, businesses and whatever else. /Sarcasm
 

WoJ

Member
Ah, so... you actually mean covid is no worse than flu to you. Gotcha 👍

Covid is not all that deadly at all to someone of your age.

And I‘m sorry if I sound flippant or rude, but I’m really fucking sick of hearing how annoyed people are with lockdowns because Covid isn’t dangerous to them.

You still haven't addressed any of my questions or points which is around how do we (as a society) back off these draconian measures when COVID is "under control" (whatever that means and I realize the definition is different for everyone. You can't possibly advocate living like this forever, no? So as someone who is pro-lockdown, when does it end? How does it end? What is preventing our government officials from doing it again during a bad flu season (which we have seen before)?

What is the support for lockdowns if that is your stance? The WHO said they should be a last resort. Again, the WHO is questionable in terms of their validity throughout this whole thing, but in theory they are supposed to a "gold standard" of sorts for providing guidance on how to navigate a health crisis. I personally don't think lockdowns are doing much - the data from CA and NYC would support that. In my state, Ohio, our health director and governor have come out and said the same thing - transmission is not happening at schools, restaurants, stores, etc. It is happening in homes and personal gatherings. If this is what officials who are enforcing these lockdowns are saying, how is it defensible when these very people are saying "we are banning X, even though we know X isn't the cause of COVID spread."? There is no logic to that statement.

Banning large gatherings makes sense, and if you want to implement some type of social distancing requirements in businesses and restaurants, fine I guess. I'm not convinced they work based on contact tracing data that seems to show that spread is coming from private gatherings rather than public ones.

Again - you're dismissive, condescending, and limiting the argument about the lethality of COVID down to a simplistic view that isn't taking into account larger societal considerations. Yes, I am less likely to die of COVID. So are billions of people on the planet. People age 50 and under are largely what helps keeps society going from an economic standpoint. Under 50 years of age, COVID is not any worse than the flu from a mortality standpoint. Why can't this population of people live their lives with some mitigation/protective measures when dealing with vulnerable populations and those who are more vulnerable take precautions for themselves? Between 50 and 70 there is obviously increased risk, but it is not an Armageddon type illness even for that population, with those mortality rates heavily skewed towards individuals with comorbidities. What is your interpretation the data that is clearly so different than my own or others?

Is your argument then that it's okay to have indefinite lockdowns regardless of the impact it has on young people and that older and vulnerable populations have no responsibility to care for and protect themselves? Because years of economic hardship on younger people has the unintended consequence of creating more poverty which leads to all kinds of other problems - both health and otherwise. And it is the working class - those who are most vulnerable to end up below the poverty line as a result of lockdowns - who are disproptionately impacted by the COVID response. So are those long term results more acceptable to you by taking a more balanced approach to COVID rather than lockdowns or do you just disagree entirely?
 
UK stats keep looking really bad. I was hoping it was just Christmas backlog but they remain at over 50K/day. I give it 2 weeks tops until everyone is banging pans on balconies again.
I think the sad thing is people and governments have given up. Yes we have vaccines and thats incredible and they'll do wonders but what we're gonna see the next few months is raw, dirty, unfiltered, old fashioned herd immunity. A lot of death, a lot of cases, but you'll see it decline I'd say in the late january-march/april timeline maybe. It's just hit a point of spread where this is whats gonna happen.
 
Last edited:
People think this coronavirus is the Superman of viruses. Utterly invulnerable and scientifically impenetrable because its novel and nobody has really lived through something like this before but the reality is it is a virus like any other and basic virology dictates that you have your susceptible, and your infected, when the latter starts to come up on the former, it runs out of hosts and dies off. It's just sad we're in this position where thats how it has to be. You can and pull up articles from January and February archives and its just heart breaking because you can see every twist and turn and moment we could have prevented this.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
You still haven't addressed any of my questions or points which is around how do we (as a society) back off these draconian measures when COVID is "under control" (whatever that means and I realize the definition is different for everyone. You can't possibly advocate living like this forever, no? So as someone who is pro-lockdown, when does it end? How does it end? What is preventing our government officials from doing it again during a bad flu season (which we have seen before)?

What is the support for lockdowns if that is your stance? The WHO said they should be a last resort. Again, the WHO is questionable in terms of their validity throughout this whole thing, but in theory they are supposed to a "gold standard" of sorts for providing guidance on how to navigate a health crisis. I personally don't think lockdowns are doing much - the data from CA and NYC would support that. In my state, Ohio, our health director and governor have come out and said the same thing - transmission is not happening at schools, restaurants, stores, etc. It is happening in homes and personal gatherings. If this is what officials who are enforcing these lockdowns are saying, how is it defensible when these very people are saying "we are banning X, even though we know X isn't the cause of COVID spread."? There is no logic to that statement.

Banning large gatherings makes sense, and if you want to implement some type of social distancing requirements in businesses and restaurants, fine I guess. I'm not convinced they work based on contact tracing data that seems to show that spread is coming from private gatherings rather than public ones.

Again - you're dismissive, condescending, and limiting the argument about the lethality of COVID down to a simplistic view that isn't taking into account larger societal considerations. Yes, I am less likely to die of COVID. So are billions of people on the planet. People age 50 and under are largely what helps keeps society going from an economic standpoint. Under 50 years of age, COVID is not any worse than the flu from a mortality standpoint. Why can't this population of people live their lives with some mitigation/protective measures when dealing with vulnerable populations and those who are more vulnerable take precautions for themselves? Between 50 and 70 there is obviously increased risk, but it is not an Armageddon type illness even for that population, with those mortality rates heavily skewed towards individuals with comorbidities. What is your interpretation the data that is clearly so different than my own or others?

Is your argument then that it's okay to have indefinite lockdowns regardless of the impact it has on young people and that older and vulnerable populations have no responsibility to care for and protect themselves? Because years of economic hardship on younger people has the unintended consequence of creating more poverty which leads to all kinds of other problems - both health and otherwise. And it is the working class - those who are most vulnerable to end up below the poverty line as a result of lockdowns - who are disproptionately impacted by the COVID response. So are those long term results more acceptable to you by taking a more balanced approach to COVID rather than lockdowns or do you just disagree entirely?

Lockdowns should carry on the entire time millions of elderly and vulnerable people are at risk of death. Simple as that. Their lives are more important than younger people getting to do what they want. Lockdowns have been effective in here in the UK. The US never locked down nationally.

The vaccine will end the pandemic.
 

WoJ

Member
Lockdowns should carry on the entire time millions of elderly and vulnerable people are at risk of death. Simple as that. Their lives are more important than younger people getting to do what they want. Lockdowns have been effective in here in the UK. The US never locked down nationally.

The vaccine will end the pandemic.

Fair enough. I don't know that I agree with you on the trade off of crippling younger people and the working class, but I can respect the point of view.
 

Stouffers

Banned
The UK will have access to millions of doses of the vaccine from astra Zeneca. They are planning 2mil per week with round the clock vaccinations.

Fucking France where I am though.... I will get my dad to register me and my family for shots with his dr in the spring and hopefully get vaccinated in the UK. I am a Brit and still have a registered dr in the UK.... Thankfully
A registered doctor? Can’t you just go to any doctor?
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Fair enough. I don't know that I agree with you on the trade off of crippling younger people and the working class, but I can respect the point of view.

I know it’s awful, it truly is. But the fact is it’s better for people to lose their jobs or their social lives than it is for others to lose their actual lives. The economic pain is worth it to keep people alive.
 
I know it’s awful, it truly is. But the fact is it’s better for people to lose their jobs or their social lives than it is for others to lose their actual lives. The economic pain is worth it to keep people alive.
I guess I wonder why you wouldn’t use the same rational to ban cars or guns or leaving your home generally. I’m sure you have a limit somewhere. I’m just curious where it is. We are seeing a pretty big increase in suicide in young people. Is that an acceptable loss to prevent these deaths?

I’m not trying to call you out. Your position is defensible, obviously. I don’t share it but that’s fine.
 
Ah, so... you actually mean covid is no worse than flu to you. Gotcha 👍

Covid is not all that deadly at all to someone of your age.

And I‘m sorry if I sound flippant or rude, but I’m really fucking sick of hearing how annoyed people are with lockdowns because Covid isn’t dangerous to them.

A new study shows that many who are asymptomatic with COVID-19 may have long-term lung damage just like those who get a severe case. This is particularly concerning here in Arizona as the number of young people coming down with coronavirus continues to skyrocket.... “You look at a chest X-ray and say, ‘My God, this guy should be dead!’ And you talk to them, and they say, ‘No I feel fine. I’m not that bad,’ and they’re relatively asymptomatic,” said emergency medicine Dr. Frank Lovecchio...
Now, a study out of the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego backs up what Dr. Lovecchio is seeing first hand. The study found that on the Diamond Princess cruise ship earlier this year where there was a COVID outbreak, more than half of the 76 asymptomatic people infected on board now show significant lung abnormalities that weren't immediately apparent.

“The few times I’ve seen it and my colleagues, it’s usually been younger folks,” said Lovecchio.

Coronavirus doctor says lung scans for young patients were ‘nothing short of terrifying’​

Prof Fergus Gleeson, who is leading the work, tried out his scanning technique on 10 patients aged between 19 and 69.
Eight of them had persistent shortness of breath and tiredness three months after being ill with coronavirus, even though none of them had been admitted to intensive care or required ventilation, and conventional scans had found no problems in their lungs....
The aim is to discover whether lung damage occurs and if so whether it is permanent, or resolves over time.
He said: "I was expecting some form of lung damage, but not to the degree that we have seen."...
Dr Shelley Hayles is a GP based in Oxford involved in helping set up the trial. She believes that up to 10% of those who have had Covid-19 might have some form of lung damage which is leading to prolonged symptoms.
"We're now at more than one and a quarter million who have been infected - and 10% of that is a lot of people," she said.



In a telephone interview, Giacca said that, while his research team found no overt signs of viral infection or prolonged inflammation in other organs, they discovered “really vast destruction of the architecture of the lungs”, with healthy tissue “almost completely substituted by scar tissue”.

“Massive” damage

“It could very well be envisaged that one of the reasons why there are cases of long COVID is because there is vast destruction of lung (tissue),” he told Reuters. “Even if someone recovers from COVID, the damage that is done could be massive.”

Growing evidence from around the world suggests that a small proportion of people who have had COVID-19 and recovered from their initial infection can experience a range of ongoing symptoms including fatigue, brain fog and shortness of breath. The condition is often called “long COVID”.

Giacca said almost 90% of the 41 patients had several characteristics unique to COVID-19 compared to other forms of pneumonia.

One was that patients had extensive blood clotting of the lung arteries and veins. Another was that some lung cells were abnormally large and had many nuclei - a result of the fusion of different cells into single large cells in a process known as syncytia.

Silent lung damage​


I quickly learned that many patients with advanced COVID-19 disease bore none of the hallmarks of severe respiratory illness until they suddenly collapsed and died. The science behind this early lesson is now emerging, with a study from Wuhan, China, describing pathological lung changes on CT scans of completely asymptomatic patients. Asymptomatic carriage is not uncommon in other virulent infections, such as MRSA and C diff, but what is striking with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is that it may be accompanied by underlying organ damage.


The researchers found lesions consistent with inflammation of the underlying lung tissue (ground-glass opacities and consolidation, to use the medical jargon), which are not specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection and may be seen in many other forms of lung disease. What remains a mystery is why, despite these changes, patients do not display typical symptoms of pneumonia, such as severe shortness of breath....

When I arrived decked out in full PPE and ready to sedate her for immediate ventilation, I thought I had arrived at the wrong bed. She sat comfortably on her chair, speaking on her mobile phone to her daughter, bemused by my appearance. Overcautious colleagues, I thought, but measured her blood oxygen saturation just in case, more from instinct than concern. From her appearance I expected it to be close to normal (100%). It was 75% – a level barely compatible with being conscious.


Even if you are asymptomatic you may have severe damage and be on the border of losing consciousness, and this might be permanent loss of exercise ability. A second hit of covid, if no long term immunity can be created and if the damage is permanent and you may see a significant wave of people dying from cumulative damage to the lungs.

It may be that covid will generate a new wave of disability that needs government assistance. Some people who've recovered from covid can't walk a block or go up a flight of stairs without becoming significantly strained.
The World Health Organization reports that 80 percent of COVID-19 infections are mild or asymptomatic; 15 percent are considered severe, requiring oxygen and 5 percent are critical infections, requiring ventilation.

Also if enough people get infected at the same time this can still overwhelm hospitals.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Gold Member
I guess I wonder why you wouldn’t use the same rational to ban cars or guns or leaving your home generally. I’m sure you have a limit somewhere. I’m just curious where it is. We are seeing a pretty big increase in suicide in young people. Is that an acceptable loss to prevent these deaths?

I’m not trying to call you out. Your position is defensible, obviously. I don’t share it but that’s fine.

His position is not defensible, it is insane, for the exact reason you say. People die from lots of stuff every year, stuff we tolerate and accept as part of living in the world. We have also always accepted that old people are particularly vulnerable to maladies that younger people brush off, and again, it's part of the deal.

The only reason people say this now with COVID is because the media tells them to, basically.
 

Lister

Banned
Holy shit at the stupidity and ignorance in this thread.

Right now LA hospitals are calling in the national guard to help move the bodies crowding up the morgues. Patients with other life threatening emergencies are dying because hospitals are overwhelmed.

This isn't the motherfucking flu. And its not just the old dying. Not to mention that its also not the case that if you don't die you come out 100%. There are issues that can stem from the disease like lower lung capacity, as well as other lung and heart damage.
 
Last edited:

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie
rhArFim.jpg
 

sinnergy

Member
These numbers are not surprising considering the way people keep underestimating these disease

Some of those guys are here people like Joe T, Prag, carlosrox

These people are the reason why the covid contamination are failing
Great USA numbers ! I hope they improve higher with the new variation.

EVEN that doctor who left the vaccine out of the freezer is doing his part 🤡
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I guess I wonder why you wouldn’t use the same rational to ban cars or guns or leaving your home generally. I’m sure you have a limit somewhere. I’m just curious where it is. We are seeing a pretty big increase in suicide in young people. Is that an acceptable loss to prevent these deaths?

I’m not trying to call you out. Your position is defensible, obviously. I don’t share it but that’s fine.
I’d ban guns completely, because they’re stupid things that nobody other than law enforcement and the military need. Cars are forms of transport that are needed by human beings for work and life. A pandemic virus is not.

If young people are killing themselves then we need to improve our mental health services, not risk the lives of millions of elderly and vulnerable people. And yes, those suicides in the hundreds are worth it to save the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of others.

I‘d rather see me, you, and every other person on this forum lose their job than see tens of thousands of people die of Covid. There is always another job. There is never another life.

Again, all of this is awful, but it’s the reality we face... regardless of how many people in this thread don’t want to accept that, and will do everything they can to convince themselves and others that Covid isn’t a big deal, because that’s easier than just admitting they care more about their own financial and social welfare than the lives of other people.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Is economic ruination for 100 million young and middle aged people worth it to keep one elderly person alive?

If your answer is yes you are insane. If you say no, then where is your line? And how do you know for sure that what we're doing now is on the good side of your line?

It’s sure as shit worth it to keep tens of millions of elderly and vulnerable people alive. Certainly the amount predicted to die without Covid restrictions and lockdowns. They have more right to their lives than you do to your job.
 
Last edited:
H

hariseldon

Unconfirmed Member
What will be interesting is the aftermath of all of this and when the world gets out of it how they look back on the destruction that was caused mentally and financially and how children are going to suffer.
This is the difference between the lockdown enthusiasts and the rest of us. We are questioning this not just because of the madness of over-sensitive PCR but also because there will be a horrendous long term impact to this and governments don’t seem to have an exit plan, while the WHO and others are pushing ideas like the vaccine not being the end. We can’t keep this up forever. You’re doing ok. I’m doing ok. Kids aren’t - they’re missing education and socialisation. Poor people are getting shafted because most can’t work from home or worse still they work in industries decimated by the insane response to the virus. Finally all those people who dreamed big and started a small business, putting in blood, sweat and tears, working every hour God sends to make their dream and provide jobs for others, all of them are being screwed so Bezos can make another trillion. Those in the left should be absolutely furious about this. Instead when asked to jump the merely enquire how high.

Some of us are asking what the future looks like. We’re playing chess. Others are just reacting to whatever happened in the last 3 seconds, buffeted by headlines. Those people have barely progressed to snakes and ladders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’d ban guns completely, because they’re stupid things that nobody other than law enforcement and the military need. Cars are forms of transport that are needed by human beings for work and life. A pandemic virus is not.

If young people are killing themselves then we need to improve our mental health services, not risk the lives of millions of elderly and vulnerable people. And yes, those suicides in the hundreds are worth it to save the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of others.

I‘d rather see me, you, and every other person on this forum lose their job than see tens of thousands of people die of Covid. There is always another job. There is never another life.

Again, all of this is awful, but it’s the reality we face... regardless of how many people in this thread don’t want to accept that, and will do everything they can to convince themselves and others that Covid isn’t a big deal, because that’s easier than just admitting they care more about their own financial and social welfare than the lives of other people.
I’m sorry, but I’m thankful you are not in charge. You have a ridiculously myopic view of life and what makes it work. The flu, while obviously not as bad as covid, kills 10s of thousands every year as well. Should we be ruining everyone finically and in terms of QOL to prevent those deaths? Or are those number acceptable to you? Should we ban smoking outright? COPD kills 3 million people a year globally.

You realize that globally people are going to starve due to the massive economic contraction we’ve experienced. It’s a big part of the reason the WHO doesn’t recommend lockdowns anymore.

Anyway, my point is, it’s easy to say “shut it all down” when you think you don’t have to pay any actual price. But there are costs to all this.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I’m sorry, but I’m thankful you are not in charge. You have a ridiculously myopic view of life and what makes it work. The flu, while obviously not as bad as covid, kills 10s of thousands every year as well. Should we be ruining everyone finically and in terms of QOL to prevent those deaths? Or are those number acceptable to you? Should we ban smoking outright? COPD kills 3 million people a year globally.

You realize that globally people are going to starve due to the massive economic contraction we’ve experienced. It’s a big part of the reason the WHO doesn’t recommend lockdowns anymore.

Anyway, my point is, it’s easy to say “shut it all down” when you think you don’t have to pay any actual price. But there are costs to all this.

I literally spoke about what the costs are. The cost of this pandemic is economically huge, but its a price we have to pay. Whether you like it or not.

And stop with the flu comparisons, please. The flu is nothing like Covid. The death rate of Covid is far higher, the long terms affects of Covid can be far worse for those who survive. The economic cost of letting Covid run rampant is FAR higher than the cost of these lockdowns. By this constant comparison with flu you’re doing exactly what I said people are doing: trying to make out Covid isn’t all that bad, because they just don’t want to admit that they care more about their own welfare than the deaths of thousands of other people.

All I see is people constantly downplaying Covid, like it’s no worse or more affecting than a variety of societies other maladies... even when every single considered, official, independent medical and scientific organisation repeatedly says it is.

The simple fact of the matter is that our comfortable, easy, rich, soft society has been shocked out of its complacency by a very virulent, nasty disease, and a lot of people are having problems coming to terms with that. Easier to deny than accept. Easier to downplay than to make the sacrifices necessary to see it come to an end.
 

Roufianos

Member
There's zero point in closing shops and restaurants while keeping schools open.

That November lockdown was a fucking joke and now we have record cases and fucked businesses.

Just keep the kids at home, they have their whole lives ahead of them to make it up. Boris is in denial about how big of a role schools play in spreading this.
 
I literally spoke about what the costs are. The cost of this pandemic is economically huge, but its a price we have to pay. Whether you like it or not.

And stop with the flu comparisons, please. The flu is nothing like Covid. The death rate of Covid is far higher, the long terms affects of Covid can be far worse for those who survive. The economic cost of letting Covid run rampant is FAR higher than the cost of these lockdowns. By this constant comparison with flu you’re doing exactly what I said people are doing: trying to make out Covid isn’t all that bad, because they just don’t want to admit that they care more about their own welfare than the deaths of thousands of other people.

All I see is people constantly downplaying Covid, like it’s no worse or more affecting than a variety of societies other maladies... even when every single considered, official, independent medical and scientific organisation repeatedly says it is.

The simple fact of the matter is that our comfortable, easy, rich, soft society has been shocked out of its complacency by a very virulent, nasty disease, and a lot of people are having problems coming to terms with that. Easier to deny than accept. Easier to downplay than to make the sacrifices necessary to see it come to an end.
It’s rich watching your talking about “soft, easy, comfortable” when you are the softest of all. “Keep me safe, fuck everyone else” is your solution. It’s easy to tell others to sacrifice. It’s a coward’s solution. It requires no cost from you personally.

You clearly don’t understand the economic costs because you’re sentencing thousands of people to famine and starvation if anyone actually listened to you.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
It’s rich watching your talking about “soft, easy, comfortable” when you are the softest of all. “Keep me safe, fuck everyone else” is your solution. It’s easy to tell others to sacrifice. It’s a coward’s solution. It requires no cost from you personally.

You clearly don’t understand the economic costs because you’re sentencing thousands of people to famine and starvation if anyone actually listened to you.
Me safe? When the hell did I mention me? I literally said I’d rather see me lose my job than see people die! Much rather, in fact. I’m happy to suffer some financial stress and hardship (already have) if it means I’m helping to save people, if that’s what’s necessary. And that is what is necessary right now to stop this virus.

You’re projecting massively.

Serious pandemics cause economic damage. Fact. Always have, always will. That’s why we should have all made effort to suppress it better with fast, full lockdowns.

The vaccine will do the job though.
 
Last edited:
Me safe? When the hell did I mention me? I literally said I’d rather see me lose my job than see people die! Much rather, in fact. I’m happy to suffer some financial stress and hardship (already have) if it means I’m helping to save people, if that’s what’s necessary. And that is what is necessary right now to stop this virus.

You’re projecting massively.
Please. Talking about what you “would” do is nothing. You’ve done nothing. It’s talk. You are demanding the world shut down to feel safe. Economic impact isn’t about money and vacations and new cars. Not for poor people. It’s about food and shelter and heat in the winter. You clearly don’t understand that because what you would do sentences them to destitution. So spare me the talk of what you “would” sacrifice and consider what doing what you’re talking about would do to literally billions of poor people throughout the world, including millions inside the US.
 
Last edited:

prag16

Banned
It’s sure as shit worth it to keep tens of millions of elderly and vulnerable people alive. Certainly the amount predicted to die without Covid restrictions and lockdowns. They have more right to their lives than you do to your job.
But we're not "saving tens of millions of lives". You or I don't know an exact amount, but it's likely MUCH smaller than that, and I've never ever heard an estimate nearly that high. Again, where is your line, and how do you know for sure we're on the plus side of your line with what's being done now?
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Please. Talking about what you “would” do is nothing. You’ve done nothing. It’s talk. You are demanding the world shut down to feel safe. Economic impact isn’t about money and vacations and new cars. Not for poor people. It’s about food and shelter and heat in the winter. You clearly don’t understand that because what you would do sentences them to destitution. So spare me the talk of what you “would” sacrifice and consider what doing what you’re talking about would do to literally billions of poor people throughout the world, including millions inside the US.

If only you exhibited so much concern for all the people vulnerable to serious Covid disease...

Which - in case this wasn’t clear enough already - is more people than your theoretical and unsubstantiated mass destitution would affect.

You’re essentially stating we should ignore the safety of people from a real and present danger, to protect others from a theoretical danger in the future.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
But we're not "saving tens of millions of lives". You or I don't know an exact amount, but it's likely MUCH smaller than that, and I've never ever heard an estimate nearly that high. Again, where is your line, and how do you know for sure we're on the plus side of your line with what's being done now?

Models based on evidence of the disease’s transmission and virulence suggest that Covid would have killed 40 million in 2020 with no precautions taken.
 
If only you exhibited so much concern for all the people vulnerable to serious Covid disease...

Which - in case this wasn’t clear enough already - is more people than your theoretical and unsubstantiated mass destitution would affect.

You’re essentially stating we should ignore the safety of people from a real and present danger, to protect others from a theoretical danger in the future.
See. There it is. “Don’t think about the future, I’m scared now.” You being completely myopic. You need to think harder and read more.
Likewise, David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), warned of alarming global hunger and food insecurity, with the number of people “marching towards starvation” spiking from 135 million to 270 million as the pandemic unfolded. He stressed that 2021 will be catastrophic.
That’s the cost of what you want to do. Hundreds of millions of deaths. But do go on about what you “would” sacrifice.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
See. There it is. “Don’t think about the future, I’m scared now.” You being completely myopic. You need to think harder and read more.

That’s the cost of what you want to do. Hundreds of millions of deaths. But do go on about what you “would” sacrifice.

From same article:

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), speaking via video-teleconference from Geneva, said that although the unprecedented crisis has strained the very fabric of multilateralism, it has also demonstrated the United Nations capabilities. Working closely with other major United Nations organizations, the WHO has provided personal protection equipment to 179 countries and territories. “The pandemic is what humanity is capable of at its best and worst,” he said, but with 65 million people infected and 1.5 million deaths worldwide, responses involving solidarity and sacrifice show the virus can be tamed and stopped, while where there is self-interest, the virus thrives and spreads.

In case you don’t get it, “We shouldn’t lockdown to save the elderly and vulnerable, because it might hurt me economically” is exhibiting self interest.

You’ve literally quoted an article at me that highlights the need for effective precautions like lockdowns to stop the virus, and only by doing this can all that starvation be avoided.
 
From same article:

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), speaking via video-teleconference from Geneva, said that although the unprecedented crisis has strained the very fabric of multilateralism, it has also demonstrated the United Nations capabilities. Working closely with other major United Nations organizations, the WHO has provided personal protection equipment to 179 countries and territories. “The pandemic is what humanity is capable of at its best and worst,” he said, but with 65 million people infected and 1.5 million deaths worldwide, responses involving solidarity and sacrifice show the virus can be tamed and stopped, while where there is self-interest, the virus thrives and spreads.

In case you don’t get it, “We shouldn’t lockdown to save the elderly and vulnerable, because it might hurt me economically” is exhibiting self interest.

You’ve literally quoted an article at me that highlights the need for effective precautions like lockdowns to stop the virus, and only by doing this can all that starvation be avoided.

That’s what the WHO thinks about lockdowns.

“Not sustainable”. So how long were talking about locking down again?

Again. Your model showed 40 million theoretical covid deaths. My model shows 100s of millions of starvation deaths.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member

That’s what the WHO thinks about lockdowns.

“Not sustainable”. So how long were talking about locking down again?


No. They’re not permanently sustainable... which is why it’s so great we have vaccines now. They are the only safe way out of this for all of us. Just accept that, eh? In the meantime, we should rightly continue with lockdown measures.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom