Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Larssen
Member
+23|503

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

it’s amazing how quickly liberals will sponsor state takeovers of industry and nationalisation.
Still waiting to hear a CEO say "Yup, when the tide goes out we see who's been swimming without speedos, its right that my company should be liquidated and I should be bankrupted, thats free market capitalism." Instead of "Govt money, GIMME GIMME GIMME"

Here there was a long argument about whether the govt should bail out over-indebted Virgin airlines 'to maintain competition'.
Its a standard blag now, take control of a business, load it up with debt to the hilt, pay yourself a huge whack, if it goes wrong either the govt will bail you out or the shareholders will be fucked.
I've seen big tech/IT multinationals apply for government aid. Tech companies. The players arguably least affected by this whole crisis. The only purpose of course being to retain their already dying on site IT service models as more and more companies migrate to the cloud. Shouldn't receive a penny. Won't stop their CEOs from trying though.

Consultancies are also generally in very bad weather. As soon as the pandemic hit every deloitte/kpmg/pwc/ey excel/PP jockey was ejected from their client engagements. I predict that branch has hit it's all time high revenues in 2019 and won't recover as companies now realise they don't actually need to pay someone 120 euros an hour for an agile transformation slide deck.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+345|2335
Across the United States, 38,115 new infections were reported by state health departments on Wednesday — surpassing the previous single-day record of 34,203 set on April 25. Texas, Florida and California led the way, with all three states reporting more than 5,000 new cases apiece.
COVID has literally broken its own record in the U.S. What a gigantic failure. An utter waste of human lives.
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+630|4907|Washington St.
we r smrt
uziq
Member
+280|2068
texas is now u-turning on opening up. lmao.

remember when jay said most americans had already had it.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|3974|London, England

uziq wrote:

texas is now u-turning on opening up. lmao.

remember when jay said most americans had already had it.
Nope. Never said that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+280|2068
you said antibody levels were high and it was totally
overblown.

turns out most of america are still yet to get it.

antibody levels in main cities post-corona outbreak were at 5-15%

you claimed it was 70%+ or something.

we are barely at the beginning of this thing and your talk has consistently made out that it’s ‘liberal hysteria’ and ‘overblown’. you said liberals/democrats were ‘afraid to be seen backtracking’ on the issue. well who is backtracking now? lmao.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-25 11:26:20)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|3974|London, England

uziq wrote:

you said antibody levels were high and it was totally
overblown.

turns out most of america are still yet to get it.

antibody levels in main cities post-corona outbreak were at 5-15%

you claimed it was 70%+ or something.

we are barely at the beginning of this thing and your talk has consistently made out that it’s ‘liberal hysteria’ and ‘overblown’. you said liberals/democrats were ‘afraid to be seen backtracking’ on the issue. well who is backtracking now? lmao.
I said it was likely that the majority of New Yorkers had already had it based on anecdotal evidence. We're at around 30% now, so I was within 20% of my guess.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|3974|London, England
I also said that we should protect the most vulnerable and that the cure would be worse than the disease if we shut down the economy. Care to disagree? Riots, looting, mass unemployment, mass defaults, a completely unstable society.

Last edited by Jay (2020-06-25 11:31:38)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+280|2068
no, you said to let it take its course and insisted it was no worse than flu. you insisted on this for quite some time. who knows what position you actually hold now.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|3974|London, England

uziq wrote:

no, you said to let it take its course and insisted it was no worse than flu. you insisted on this for quite some time. who knows what position you actually hold now.
It's still not much worse than the flu, to people under 75, anyway.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+280|2068
it is statistically an order of magnitude more lethal than flu.

here is the CDC's 2019/20 stats for flu:

Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.0
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm

https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/755/90/sites/default/files/20200627_WOC211.png

Data released on June 16th by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) show that the country’s death toll skews significantly younger. There, people in their 80s account for less than half of all covid-19 deaths; people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, meanwhile, account for a significantly larger share of those who die. The median covid-19 sufferer in America is a 48-year-old; in Italy it is a 63-year-old.
and you completely disregard the dynamics of young people surviving the disease because of available healthcare. you persistently ignore this. if the vast majority of a population are as-yet unexposed to the virus, and it is allowed to spread freely (i.e. no lockdown), then you very quickly start seeing people die because of no beds, no ventilators, no frontline staff, etc.

page 166 and you still do not understand why it poses a threat.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-25 11:48:27)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|3974|London, England

uziq wrote:

it is statistically an order of magnitude more lethal than flu.

here is the CDC's 2019/20 stats for flu:

Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.0
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES

Data released on June 16th by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) show that the country’s death toll skews significantly younger. There, people in their 80s account for less than half of all covid-19 deaths; people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, meanwhile, account for a significantly larger share of those who die. The median covid-19 sufferer in America is a 48-year-old; in Italy it is a 63-year-old.
and you completely disregard the dynamics of young people surviving the disease because of available healthcare. you persistently ignore this. if the vast majority of a population are as-yet unexposed to the virus, and it is allowed to spread freely (i.e. no lockdown), then you very quickly start seeing people die because of no beds, no ventilators, no frontline staff, etc.

page 166 and you still do not understand why it poses a threat.
Page 166 and you still do not understand that we have more than enough spare hospital capacity, and have for several months, and yet the lockdowns continue. The economy has cratered. Tens of millions are out of work. Tens of millions more have been asked to take severe pay cuts, or furloughs. We have civil unrest across society right now, and for what? Taking precautions doesn't have to mean a complete lockdown. We're all wearing masks every day in New York. Our economy is reopening. Our transmission rates are still going down. The answer seems to be to isolate the most at-risk population, require masks for those that go out in public, and let the rest of the people go on with their daily lives. Sure, encourage work-from-home behavior. Re-think the stupid open office environments that have been all the rage for the past decade. I'm not, and have not, advocated doing nothing at all. I've warned against doing too much, and I've warned against over-reacting to doomsday scenarios that would and did prove false.

Last edited by Jay (2020-06-25 11:54:30)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+280|2068
but half of america think wearing masks is for fag libcucks?

how are you simultaneously going to re-open and perfectly control the disease? it’s all very well saying ‘we need to protect the over 75s’ (or more like over 50s in the american example). but how are you going to do that with full activity and little government oversight?

many countries with far more severe and stringent lockdown and trace measures are barely containing new outbreak clusters, at present. it’s all very well, jay, saying that you support the protecting of the vulnerable but hate ‘over-reaction’. i don’t think anyone would disagree that the weak and fragile need to be shielded and everyone else has to live. but how? you have vague retorts to everything put forth by epidemiologists but then distance yourself from the disastrous lack of planning at the white house, or state-level u-turns. it’s all very convenient and a little vaporous.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+345|2335
Right wingers are being trained to completely ignore the crisis. You can't find a story about it in their sources. Look at National Review's front page. Not a single story about it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-06-25 12:54:35)

SuperJail Warden
Member
+345|2335
Larssen
Member
+23|503

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

it is statistically an order of magnitude more lethal than flu.

here is the CDC's 2019/20 stats for flu:

Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.0
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES

Data released on June 16th by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) show that the country’s death toll skews significantly younger. There, people in their 80s account for less than half of all covid-19 deaths; people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, meanwhile, account for a significantly larger share of those who die. The median covid-19 sufferer in America is a 48-year-old; in Italy it is a 63-year-old.
and you completely disregard the dynamics of young people surviving the disease because of available healthcare. you persistently ignore this. if the vast majority of a population are as-yet unexposed to the virus, and it is allowed to spread freely (i.e. no lockdown), then you very quickly start seeing people die because of no beds, no ventilators, no frontline staff, etc.

page 166 and you still do not understand why it poses a threat.
Page 166 and you still do not understand that we have more than enough spare hospital capacity, and have for several months, and yet the lockdowns continue. The economy has cratered. Tens of millions are out of work. Tens of millions more have been asked to take severe pay cuts, or furloughs. We have civil unrest across society right now, and for what? Taking precautions doesn't have to mean a complete lockdown. We're all wearing masks every day in New York. Our economy is reopening. Our transmission rates are still going down. The answer seems to be to isolate the most at-risk population, require masks for those that go out in public, and let the rest of the people go on with their daily lives. Sure, encourage work-from-home behavior. Re-think the stupid open office environments that have been all the rage for the past decade. I'm not, and have not, advocated doing nothing at all. I've warned against doing too much, and I've warned against over-reacting to doomsday scenarios that would and did prove false.
You fail to acknowledge a few crucial points:

1. The blind lockdown was an essential tool in controlling the pandemic spread in your state.

You may take the angle that 'they did too much' and that it was an overreaction, but fail again to see that they had to act on fundamentally incomplete information. When your governor and/or the NY mayor had to make a choice, he was forced to make one on information that was available at that point in time. The most complete being statistical data of Lombardy, Italy and the surrounding area, what little was known about the virus' behaviour and effects and whatever your intelligence services divulged about the situation in China. Which strongly indicated that the virus was a very significant threat and spread rapidly. Your governor perhaps being a competent man defers to his expert advisors as to assessing the seriousness of the pandemic and juggles economic and health priorities to enact policy.

While over time some nuance may have been achieved, those statements still hold true. The coronavirus is incredibly contagious and very dangerous on a community level. But instead of seeing a succesful containment effort and saying 'thank fuck capacity wasn't reached', you seem to take the angle that failing to reach capacity means that the government made a huge overestimate in their analysis. Which STILL ignores that they had to act on incomplete information and, that as far as health crises are concerned, you should ask yourself whether it's right if the government did too little or too much. Too little would in this case have meant way more death and no controlled spread. You'd still be in lockdown now.

As you're now witnessing because a significant part of the electorate yourself included are not taking the threat seriously, the growth curve has not been controlled at all. Which brings me to point 2.

2. Even if your economy opens up, it will still be wrecked.

Why? Several factors. The example of Sweden tells us countries will be strongly affected by the global economic downturn regardless of what policy they pursue. This will be true in the United States as well. Let's imagine for a moment the impossible, that the US were not affected by the virus at all, and remained open. Flight traffic would still come to a near standstill, supply from China would still be gutted, Europe would still be in a near total lockdown, tourism would still die out (which I imagine is a huge income source for NY, esp. in restaurants/retail) an enormous amount of jobs would still be lost. The example of Sweden can also tell you on a smaller scale how individual states might fare in a United States that is strongly affected by the pandemic. As states and cities are forced to close down, the economic downturn will affect neighbouring states regardless of their best economic efforts. Should then the priority be with saving lives or cruising an economy that you already know is going to endure a very hard time?


Last but not least I find your arguments dishonest. We've already established before that essentially you do not give a single fuck about the continued operation of your healthcare services and the people who work in it, and would have had no problem with massgraves having to be dug to get rid of all the bodies. I find it ironic in a way that you do seem to somehow care for people's economic livelihoods, just not their actual lives.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-06-25 14:12:40)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|3974|London, England

uziq wrote:

but half of america think wearing masks is for fag libcucks?

how are you simultaneously going to re-open and perfectly control the disease? it’s all very well saying ‘we need to protect the over 75s’ (or more like over 50s in the american example). but how are you going to do that with full activity and little government oversight?

many countries with far more severe and stringent lockdown and trace measures are barely containing new outbreak clusters, at present. it’s all very well, jay, saying that you support the protecting of the vulnerable but hate ‘over-reaction’. i don’t think anyone would disagree that the weak and fragile need to be shielded and everyone else has to live. but how? you have vague retorts to everything put forth by epidemiologists but then distance yourself from the disastrous lack of planning at the white house, or state-level u-turns. it’s all very convenient and a little vaporous.
You can't control the disease. You can slow it, sure, but everyone will eventually get it. You can't control people for long. You can't shut them up in their house and tell them to not go outside. You can't tell people in their 20s to be shutins and avoid partying. It just doesn't work. It was never going to work. Do you think the ongoing protests would be happening if the alternative wasn't sitting in your home watching your bank account tick down and listening to the daily press conferences of state governors? People are social by nature. They're also mischievous and don't like to be controlled. This was as true on day 1 of this crisis as it will be on day 1880. Slowing it, and protecting the vulnerable somewhat, that was the only real hope. At this point it's better for society as a whole if all the people in their teens and 20s and 30s were to go catch a case and get it over with. Then they can't be vectors.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,804|5388|USA

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Right wingers are being trained to completely ignore the crisis. You can't find a story about it in their sources. Look at National Review's front page. Not a single story about it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/
Dunno if I've mentioned this before but I've seen right-wingers who were very concerned about it early on spin a 180 as it became political, and utterly dismiss it. Pretty hefty flip-flop.
uziq
Member
+280|2068
People are social by nature. They're also mischievous and don't like to be controlled.
lmao hahahaha

i love how you keep presenting these fucking inane platitudes as if it's 'sage wisdom', and even then you fuck it up and look goofy. 'people are mischievous' by nature. hahahaha

At this point it's better for society as a whole if all the people in their teens and 20s and 30s were to go catch a case and get it over with. Then they can't be vectors.
at this point we simply do not know. once again, as it has been repeated multiple times. we do not know what long-term immunity looks like, or if it's even a thing (it isn't for other coronaviruses). anti-bodies are present for 6-8 weeks, 3 months at best. further, covid can leave people with serious health complications for a long time afterwards. it's really not so simple as hyping 'herd immunity' for the young and fit. if it was, epidemiologists would be recommending it; as it stands, the 'herd immunity' folks have been quietened in the fact of mounting, and concerning, data. lots of those young people who survive a bout of coronavirus are left with seriously impacted health or chronic conditions. that's Not Good in the long run, and far from a winning strategy.

and, yes, nobody denies that controlling the disease and letting society continue as best as possible is the optimal solution. the problem, to repeat YET again, is that america's leadership ignored covid and did nothing for two months. so you went from having a manageable outbreak that could be controlled to a raging firestorm of contagion. full and total lockdown was the emergency brake, jay. 'controlled measures' and 'protecting the vulnerable' doesn't work when you have high rates of uncontrolled transmission.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-25 15:22:41)

SuperJail Warden
Member
+345|2335

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Right wingers are being trained to completely ignore the crisis. You can't find a story about it in their sources. Look at National Review's front page. Not a single story about it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/
Dunno if I've mentioned this before but I've seen right-wingers who were very concerned about it early on spin a 180 as it became political, and utterly dismiss it. Pretty hefty flip-flop.
Its half due to Trump not handling the situation well and half because there is no "small government/free market" solution to the crisis. We could have mobilized resources on the scale of war time production but Republicans didn't want to do take those steps. It will be a mystery as to why. Especially since the ratings of almost all the leaders who faced this crisis actually went up. Crisis spending is also a great way to reward and win over new allies. It's a perfect crisis in fact. No enemies or moral ambiguity. The U.S./Trump is going to be unique among nations for how badly we handled the virus and how badly it damaged our political system.

I was listening to a far left podcast on Monday and they mentioned how wrong they were about the politics of COVID back in March. They were fearing Trump would use it to enact his version of war communism and do all of the things he has wanted to do in regards to trade, immigration, and law. Instead, he chose to do nothing. The man is wholly uninterested in governing even when history offered a once in a 100 year opportunity. It's amazing really.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|3974|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Right wingers are being trained to completely ignore the crisis. You can't find a story about it in their sources. Look at National Review's front page. Not a single story about it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/
Dunno if I've mentioned this before but I've seen right-wingers who were very concerned about it early on spin a 180 as it became political, and utterly dismiss it. Pretty hefty flip-flop.
Its half due to Trump not handling the situation well and half because there is no "small government/free market" solution to the crisis. We could have mobilized resources on the scale of war time production but Republicans didn't want to do take those steps. It will be a mystery as to why. Especially since the ratings of almost all the leaders who faced this crisis actually went up. Crisis spending is also a great way to reward and win over new allies. It's a perfect crisis in fact. No enemies or moral ambiguity. The U.S./Trump is going to be unique among nations for how badly we handled the virus and how badly it damaged our political system.

I was listening to a far left podcast on Monday and they mentioned how wrong they were about the politics of COVID back in March. They were fearing Trump would use it to enact his version of war communism and do all of the things he has wanted to do in regards to trade, immigration, and law. Instead, he chose to do nothing. The man is wholly uninterested in governing even when history offered a once in a 100 year opportunity. It's amazing really.
Good.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+345|2335
Yeah, it is actually fairly entertaining watching it all burn. I don't have 2.5 kids and a wife to worry about after all.
uziq
Member
+280|2068
the economy will be fucked until the pandemic is brought under control. the illusion of going back to ‘normal’ is just that. many sectors of the economy are going to be way down until the perception changes that it’s truly safe to resume — and not ‘government’ safe, i.e. thought expedient for the sake of the economy.

you can look and say the lockdown was too severe (i don’t think it was, given the fact you skipped a two-month opportunity to get an early grip on the situation), but the simple fact is that, by july, you’re going to have undone all of that work and sacrifice for nothing. and it is NOT inevitable. america’s pandemic plot has been radically different to many other countries around the world. arguing for things being ‘inevitable’ is just rhetorical bullshit from a person resigned and interested only in excusing his ‘side’s’ failure. the ‘it’s inevitable’ talk is only appearing in one other place in the world right now: brazil. go figure. another national leader that insisted on going around without a mask, shaking everyone’s hand, and calling major public rallies in his own name.

the only thing that is inevitable are the scientific facts, and sooner or later you will be forced to come to terms with them. there’s only so many times you can call ‘covid as dangerous as flu for most people under 75’ when 55% of all covid fatalities are in the 50-75 bracket, and when the deaths per million are around 375 to flu’s 20.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-26 01:16:43)

Larssen
Member
+23|503
Do have to note that some countries are deliberately ignoring the pandemic because the average age is closer to 20, while in our societies it's 40+. While Bolsonaro is an idiot, the average brazilian is 31 years old. Should they lock down?

Moreover, we're the lucky ones. In many other countries there is no safety net to speak of. Locking down means an instant increase in poverty.

Globally it's mostly the west and china that experience the most consequences from this event, the rest of the world it's more indirect. Particularly the aging & vulnerable west is feeling this one.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-06-26 04:20:26)

uziq
Member
+280|2068
whilst that’s very certainly true, brazil is still experiencing horrifying scenes of avoidable human suffering and many, many people are going to die. the different demographics of each nation do not change the essence of the political question: preserve life or preserve the economy? how to manage human life years lost due to the economy collapsing versus human lives lost due to an uncontrolled pandemic?

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-26 04:40:56)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard