Pages: 1 … 75 76 77 78 79 … 401

 

2020-04-16 15:09:31
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+641|3962

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:


Yes, of course it matters. Not everyone that develops symptoms seeks testing. If only 1 in 20 people is seeking medical care, then your death rate becomes 1%. Your recovered rate also has no criteria attached to it. Is it just people who had followup tests and tested negative? Is it people who are outside the 2 week range of a positive test?

The numbers are pointless right now. Universal antibody tests will be the only thing that ever lets us know what the severity really was.
Do you have any proof there are mass asymptomatic carriers? Because it sounds you are "trying to fit an academic theory onto the population at large".
Nope. I don't have the data. Just a load of anecdotes from friends and coworkers and friends of friends that have had the symptoms but didn't bother going to the hospital or get tested because it was too difficult and because they wanted to conserve resources for people with more severe cases.
I thought for weeks I had lung cancer or lung scaring from vaping. I just had acid reflux disease instead. Your derpy friends aren't medical experts.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2020-04-16 15:11:00
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5786|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:


Yes, of course it matters. Not everyone that develops symptoms seeks testing. If only 1 in 20 people is seeking medical care, then your death rate becomes 1%. Your recovered rate also has no criteria attached to it. Is it just people who had followup tests and tested negative? Is it people who are outside the 2 week range of a positive test?

The numbers are pointless right now. Universal antibody tests will be the only thing that ever lets us know what the severity really was.
Sorry Jay, but that's stupid. Your argument is stupid. Your reasoning is stupid. Here's a concept you'll need to make sense of why we're so sure it's at least 10% death rate, if not more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

You're an engineer. You have to have taken statistics. I only did 3 graduate courses on it, and this was covered in lecture 2, right after we learned the topics to be covered and when to submit the problem sheets.

I'm normally not so rude, but sorry man, you're out to lunch.
So you are assuming that nearly everyone that has had symptoms has received a test. Ok.
Sorry there Jay, I think you need to read through that article a little more. Statistical sample sizes allow you to extrapolate to an entire population with a given margin of error (hence the inexact nature of the 10% figure). You may see it represented as something like "1% confidence interval, 19 times out of 20".

We already know, with extreme certainty (scientific method and everything!), that we have a large enough sample size to know the death rate.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
2020-04-16 15:11:26
Larssen
Member
+99|2130

Jay wrote:

Larssen wrote:

Jay wrote:

But do we agree? Half this country hates our president and actively tries to undermine him every day. I hate my governor and think he's a corrupt moron. Why should these people have the power to dictate to anyone? They're just people who won popularity contests in rigged two-party contests where we the people were never given more than a passing chance at deciding who those two jackasses running should be. Our politicians are fools in general. None of them are experts at anything other than winning political campaigns. Granting them the power to dictate the daily lives and expecting positive outcomes is stupid. These people need to be lined up against a wall and shot, not obeyed.
The power of the state is not concentrated simply in the person elected to political office. They are only part of its workings - power manifests itself in all rules and regulations that govern your daily life, the laws that dictate only the state is authorised to use force, and the judiciary, police & military to back that up. These are more 'hard' forms of power, but it isn't necessary for you to agree with that to acknowledge this. Legitimacy, the acceptance of authority, can be enforced if it's not given voluntarily.

So that circles back to the point that it IS factually within the state's means to enforce a lockdown or social norms and to stem the spread of the virus.

So I would concentrate on if it should. Well, weighing the cost, states across the globe agree the answer is 'yes'.
Which is why we have 2nd Amendment rights. Good luck trying to enforce unpopular laws.
Your right to bear arms does not legitimise their use, a militia as conceived in the late 1700s also isn't exactly capable of toppling a power with drones and aircraft carriers at its disposal.

But that is beside the point. Your argument is now simply that if a law is unpopular people will get their guns. You keep avoiding any sort of discussion that forces you to acknowledge the cost of the virus and the possibility to control and contain. When the cost is too high you'll swivel to 'it can't be controlled' if it can be controlled you rotate into stating 'there will be violence!'.

Even if that were true -  I suppose minor violence by some nutjobs is worse than a pandemic sweeping the US leaving 1 in 10 hospitalised and 1 in 50 dead?

It also speaks volumes if people would rather shoot eachother than band together to save their neighbours from death by agony on an intensive care unit. Or to save the US healthcare system.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-04-16 15:12:40)

2020-04-16 15:14:01
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+641|3962

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:


What makes it superfluous? Because it's not something you personally enjoy?
It's a waste of land.
It can be, definitely.

I really miss golfing

I let myself entertain the thought of sneaking on to the country club behind me early in the morning and getting through a few holes before work but I didn't because I'm a pussy and didn't want to get in trouble with the POPO
When I was in high school they developed a large part of my town into a golf course nobody wanted and that only allowed rich people there to golf. My high school friend and I met this 20ish year old drunk who hanged out with us and bought us liquor. We then used the public walking path to climb onto the golf course and underage drank on the grass in broad daylight. We left the bottles there too.

#FightThePower
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2020-04-16 15:15:36
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:


Sorry Jay, but that's stupid. Your argument is stupid. Your reasoning is stupid. Here's a concept you'll need to make sense of why we're so sure it's at least 10% death rate, if not more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

You're an engineer. You have to have taken statistics. I only did 3 graduate courses on it, and this was covered in lecture 2, right after we learned the topics to be covered and when to submit the problem sheets.

I'm normally not so rude, but sorry man, you're out to lunch.
So you are assuming that nearly everyone that has had symptoms has received a test. Ok.
Sorry there Jay, I think you need to read through that article a little more. Statistical sample sizes allow you to extrapolate to an entire population with a given margin of error (hence the inexact nature of the 10% figure). You may see it represented as something like "1% confidence interval, 19 times out of 20".

We already know, with extreme certainty (scientific method and everything!), that we have a large enough sample size to know the death rate.
We have absolutely no idea what the real denominator is right now. You can extrapolate all you want, but you're working with flawed data. No, your sample sizes aren't big enough. Unless you perform universal antibody tests, and it doesn't have to be universal as in the whole planet, but it does have to be a representative sample, then there is no way of know how many people have been exposed but are asymptomatic, or had mild cases that didn't register.

Right now, your data is biased heavily towards the most severe cases because those are the people who sought medical attention.
"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
2020-04-16 15:24:46
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

Larssen wrote:

Jay wrote:

Larssen wrote:


The power of the state is not concentrated simply in the person elected to political office. They are only part of its workings - power manifests itself in all rules and regulations that govern your daily life, the laws that dictate only the state is authorised to use force, and the judiciary, police & military to back that up. These are more 'hard' forms of power, but it isn't necessary for you to agree with that to acknowledge this. Legitimacy, the acceptance of authority, can be enforced if it's not given voluntarily.

So that circles back to the point that it IS factually within the state's means to enforce a lockdown or social norms and to stem the spread of the virus.

So I would concentrate on if it should. Well, weighing the cost, states across the globe agree the answer is 'yes'.
Which is why we have 2nd Amendment rights. Good luck trying to enforce unpopular laws.
Your right to bear arms does not legitimise their use, a militia as conceived in the late 1700s also isn't exactly capable of toppling a power with drones and aircraft carriers at its disposal.

But that is beside the point. Your argument is now simply that if a law is unpopular people will get their guns. You keep avoiding any sort of discussion that forces you to acknowledge the cost of the virus and the possibility to control and contain. When the cost is too high you'll swivel to 'it can't be controlled' if it can be controlled you rotate into stating 'there will be violence!'.

Even if that were true -  I suppose minor violence by some nutjobs is worse than a pandemic sweeping the US leaving 1 in 10 hospitalised and 1 in 50 dead?

It also speaks volumes if people would rather shoot eachother than band together to save their neighbours from death by agony on an intensive care unit. Or to save the US healthcare system.
Asking Americans to band together to save the US healthcare system is pretty funny. Doctors are the highest paid people in the country besides top entertainers and CEOs. They also spent decades creating a guild that limited access to their profession in order to keep their wages astronomical. No, I have no sympathy for doctors. Nurses? A bit.
"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
2020-04-16 15:26:29
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+641|3962

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:


So you are assuming that nearly everyone that has had symptoms has received a test. Ok.
Sorry there Jay, I think you need to read through that article a little more. Statistical sample sizes allow you to extrapolate to an entire population with a given margin of error (hence the inexact nature of the 10% figure). You may see it represented as something like "1% confidence interval, 19 times out of 20".

We already know, with extreme certainty (scientific method and everything!), that we have a large enough sample size to know the death rate.
We have absolutely no idea what the real denominator is right now. You can extrapolate all you want, but you're working with flawed data. No, your sample sizes aren't big enough. Unless you perform universal antibody tests, and it doesn't have to be universal as in the whole planet, but it does have to be a representative sample, then there is no way of know how many people have been exposed but are asymptomatic, or had mild cases that didn't register.

Right now, your data is biased heavily towards the most severe cases because those are the people who sought medical attention.
So the overburdened hospitals and dead in meat trucks aren't big deal or real?
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2020-04-16 15:27:42
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5786|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:


So you are assuming that nearly everyone that has had symptoms has received a test. Ok.
Sorry there Jay, I think you need to read through that article a little more. Statistical sample sizes allow you to extrapolate to an entire population with a given margin of error (hence the inexact nature of the 10% figure). You may see it represented as something like "1% confidence interval, 19 times out of 20".

We already know, with extreme certainty (scientific method and everything!), that we have a large enough sample size to know the death rate.
We have absolutely no idea what the real denominator is right now. You can extrapolate all you want, but you're working with flawed data. No, your sample sizes aren't big enough. Unless you perform universal antibody tests, and it doesn't have to be universal as in the whole planet, but it does have to be a representative sample, then there is no way of know how many people have been exposed but are asymptomatic, or had mild cases that didn't register.

Right now, your data is biased heavily towards the most severe cases because those are the people who sought medical attention.
In almost every country (not all) testing, we've already approached a figure that allows an adequate sample size to begin to extrapolate to the entire population, regardless of how many asymptomatic carriers there are. The US has tested at least 636,350 people, which is the number of confirmed cases only. Probably triple that were tested if I can be bothered to find the number. The US has roughly 325,000,000 people, which is the most population that can conceivably ever be tested. asymptomatic, symptomatic, fearful, whatever. Using those two data points it can be shown that the death rate is statistically almost certain. How certain? You can decide how exact you want the number to be using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

You'll find that 636,000 is more than enough for whatever.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
2020-04-16 15:29:20
Larssen
Member
+99|2130
So your solution is to make them renounce their hippocratic oath and watch people die? Cause processing millions of patients in a year will overload every care unit. Taking care of the bodies would also be reduced to a waste disposal program.

I think you have a very limited conception of how that would affect society at large. Or the economy and jobs you care about. Other countries would not want US visitors in any form be it business or tourism and the amount of hospitalised and dead would a. Ruin your insurance business and probably banks, b. Dramatically affect productivity. So, again, run the numbers.
2020-04-16 15:36:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:


Sorry there Jay, I think you need to read through that article a little more. Statistical sample sizes allow you to extrapolate to an entire population with a given margin of error (hence the inexact nature of the 10% figure). You may see it represented as something like "1% confidence interval, 19 times out of 20".

We already know, with extreme certainty (scientific method and everything!), that we have a large enough sample size to know the death rate.
We have absolutely no idea what the real denominator is right now. You can extrapolate all you want, but you're working with flawed data. No, your sample sizes aren't big enough. Unless you perform universal antibody tests, and it doesn't have to be universal as in the whole planet, but it does have to be a representative sample, then there is no way of know how many people have been exposed but are asymptomatic, or had mild cases that didn't register.

Right now, your data is biased heavily towards the most severe cases because those are the people who sought medical attention.
In almost every country (not all) testing, we've already approached a figure that allows an adequate sample size to begin to extrapolate to the entire population, regardless of how many asymptomatic carriers there are. The US has tested at least 636,350 people, which is the number of confirmed cases only. Probably triple that were tested if I can be bothered to find the number. The US has roughly 325,000,000 people, which is the most population that can conceivably ever be tested. asymptomatic, symptomatic, fearful, whatever. Using those two data points it can be shown that the death rate is statistically almost certain. How certain? You can decide how exact you want the number to be using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

You'll find that 636,000 is more than enough for whatever.
It's not though. You are aware of bias, yes? You know that with something like polling, asking people to call into a poll to answer questions is far less predictive than calling a random sample of the population and gauging opinion, yes? If your 636,000 number was pulled from a random sample of the entire population, I would completely, 100% agree with you. It wasn't though. It was self-selected by the people who had symptoms and were motivated to go to a testing station.

In NY you have to call the Department of Health or go to a doctor or a hospital in order to have a test done. I personally had to wait 2 days for the Department of Health to call me back, and then it took 3 days from that point to have a test done. If I didn't list certain symptoms on their form, I would never have gotten a call back. The only reason my wife got tested is because she's pregnant and her doctor insisted. Anecdotally, I know of at least ten people who had symptoms but didn't bother with testing because the news told them that tests were unavailable, and only for the most at-risk parts of the population.
"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
2020-04-16 15:42:14
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6928|United States of America

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:


What is wrong with golfing?
Nothing, necessarily, provided people are still social distancing and working to prevent disease transmission. Also, that they're just golfing and not hanging around with the boys in the clubhouse. It is a superfluous leisure activity that need not be a huge priority, though.There's plenty of fun things I enjoy doing that are closed, too.
What makes it superfluous? Because it's not something you personally enjoy?
Because it's not necessary for survival? If you wanted to make the exercise argument, a fuckload of gyms are closed, too.
2020-04-16 15:42:22
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5786|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:


We have absolutely no idea what the real denominator is right now. You can extrapolate all you want, but you're working with flawed data. No, your sample sizes aren't big enough. Unless you perform universal antibody tests, and it doesn't have to be universal as in the whole planet, but it does have to be a representative sample, then there is no way of know how many people have been exposed but are asymptomatic, or had mild cases that didn't register.

Right now, your data is biased heavily towards the most severe cases because those are the people who sought medical attention.
In almost every country (not all) testing, we've already approached a figure that allows an adequate sample size to begin to extrapolate to the entire population, regardless of how many asymptomatic carriers there are. The US has tested at least 636,350 people, which is the number of confirmed cases only. Probably triple that were tested if I can be bothered to find the number. The US has roughly 325,000,000 people, which is the most population that can conceivably ever be tested. asymptomatic, symptomatic, fearful, whatever. Using those two data points it can be shown that the death rate is statistically almost certain. How certain? You can decide how exact you want the number to be using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

You'll find that 636,000 is more than enough for whatever.
It's not though. You are aware of bias, yes? You know that with something like polling, asking people to call into a poll to answer questions is far less predictive than calling a random sample of the population and gauging opinion, yes? If your 636,000 number was pulled from a random sample of the entire population, I would completely, 100% agree with you. It wasn't though. It was self-selected by the people who had symptoms and were motivated to go to a testing station.

In NY you have to call the Department of Health or go to a doctor or a hospital in order to have a test done. I personally had to wait 2 days for the Department of Health to call me back, and then it took 3 days from that point to have a test done. If I didn't list certain symptoms on their form, I would never have gotten a call back. The only reason my wife got tested is because she's pregnant and her doctor insisted. Anecdotally, I know of at least ten people who had symptoms but didn't bother with testing because the news told them that tests were unavailable, and only for the most at-risk parts of the population.
Ok, fair point. I didn't understand how the testing is being done in the US. Up here they're testing far and wide. Not hard to get, really, and people are more inclined to get tested because it's easy and free. It'd be nice if we knew more, but I think it's very safe to say that at the least, if you exhibit symptoms, you have at least a 10% chance of dying.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
2020-04-16 15:43:20
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:


Nothing, necessarily, provided people are still social distancing and working to prevent disease transmission. Also, that they're just golfing and not hanging around with the boys in the clubhouse. It is a superfluous leisure activity that need not be a huge priority, though.There's plenty of fun things I enjoy doing that are closed, too.
What makes it superfluous? Because it's not something you personally enjoy?
Because it's not necessary for survival? If you wanted to make the exercise argument, a fuckload of gyms are closed, too.
Yeah, but gyms require you to work out indoors in poorly ventilated environments full of sweaty dudes. Golf is outside where perfect air dilution can occur.
"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
2020-04-16 15:46:53
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6928|United States of America

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:


What makes it superfluous? Because it's not something you personally enjoy?
Because it's not necessary for survival? If you wanted to make the exercise argument, a fuckload of gyms are closed, too.
Yeah, but gyms require you to work out indoors in poorly ventilated environments full of sweaty dudes. Golf is outside where perfect air dilution can occur.
Indeed, it should make it easier to stay apart as I mentioned in my original response, so it is a lower risk than other activities. However, in terms of the "stay the fuck home" approach, it is a nonzero risk for players and staff.
2020-04-16 15:48:31
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:


Because it's not necessary for survival? If you wanted to make the exercise argument, a fuckload of gyms are closed, too.
Yeah, but gyms require you to work out indoors in poorly ventilated environments full of sweaty dudes. Golf is outside where perfect air dilution can occur.
Indeed, it should make it easier to stay apart as I mentioned in my original response, so it is a lower risk than other activities. However, in terms of the "stay the fuck home" approach, it is a nonzero risk for players and staff.
People need exercise
"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
2020-04-16 15:56:18
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

In almost every country (not all) testing, we've already approached a figure that allows an adequate sample size to begin to extrapolate to the entire population, regardless of how many asymptomatic carriers there are. The US has tested at least 636,350 people, which is the number of confirmed cases only. Probably triple that were tested if I can be bothered to find the number. The US has roughly 325,000,000 people, which is the most population that can conceivably ever be tested. asymptomatic, symptomatic, fearful, whatever. Using those two data points it can be shown that the death rate is statistically almost certain. How certain? You can decide how exact you want the number to be using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

You'll find that 636,000 is more than enough for whatever.
It's not though. You are aware of bias, yes? You know that with something like polling, asking people to call into a poll to answer questions is far less predictive than calling a random sample of the population and gauging opinion, yes? If your 636,000 number was pulled from a random sample of the entire population, I would completely, 100% agree with you. It wasn't though. It was self-selected by the people who had symptoms and were motivated to go to a testing station.

In NY you have to call the Department of Health or go to a doctor or a hospital in order to have a test done. I personally had to wait 2 days for the Department of Health to call me back, and then it took 3 days from that point to have a test done. If I didn't list certain symptoms on their form, I would never have gotten a call back. The only reason my wife got tested is because she's pregnant and her doctor insisted. Anecdotally, I know of at least ten people who had symptoms but didn't bother with testing because the news told them that tests were unavailable, and only for the most at-risk parts of the population.
Ok, fair point. I didn't understand how the testing is being done in the US. Up here they're testing far and wide. Not hard to get, really, and people are more inclined to get tested because it's easy and free. It'd be nice if we knew more, but I think it's very safe to say that at the least, if you exhibit symptoms, you have at least a 10% chance of dying.
Unless they are doing antibody tests too (to see who has been exposed and recovered), and picking random names out of the phone book to test, they're still dealing with selection bias.

The only real sampling I've seen done has been in a small remote county in Colorado where they've performed 100% testing.
https://khn.org/news/a-colorado-ski-com … -happened/
https://reason.com/2020/04/08/mass-anti … lethality/

Last edited by Jay (2020-04-16 16:03:35)

"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
2020-04-16 15:59:31
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6928|United States of America

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:


Yeah, but gyms require you to work out indoors in poorly ventilated environments full of sweaty dudes. Golf is outside where perfect air dilution can occur.
Indeed, it should make it easier to stay apart as I mentioned in my original response, so it is a lower risk than other activities. However, in terms of the "stay the fuck home" approach, it is a nonzero risk for players and staff.
People need exercise
No problem with people being out and exercising as long as they mind their distance.
2020-04-16 16:30:21
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6349|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

pointless as the TSA.
Yes, there should be no restrictions on people taking weapons and bombs on planes, the free market should have been left to deal with the consequences of 9/11.
Fuck Israel
2020-04-16 16:45:50
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5786|Toronto

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:


Indeed, it should make it easier to stay apart as I mentioned in my original response, so it is a lower risk than other activities. However, in terms of the "stay the fuck home" approach, it is a nonzero risk for players and staff.
People need exercise
No problem with people being out and exercising as long as they mind their distance.
I know in my province at least that we attempted to maintain a 2 meter rule, but that people just weren't getting it. Waterfront trails were full of neighbors bumping into each other and having a chat a foot apart. So instead the government closed most public places, but rather selectively actually gives out fines. Only in the most egregious cases does someone actually get hit with a $2k fine. It's just easier to message.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
2020-04-16 16:51:17
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

pointless as the TSA.
Yes, there should be no restrictions on people taking weapons and bombs on planes, the free market should have been left to deal with the consequences of 9/11.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar … ty/357599/
"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
2020-04-16 16:54:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6349|eXtreme to the maX
So what's your solution, have no screening on flights?
Fuck Israel
2020-04-16 16:55:15
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5786|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

pointless as the TSA.
Yes, there should be no restrictions on people taking weapons and bombs on planes, the free market should have been left to deal with the consequences of 9/11.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar … ty/357599/
Would you propose we do nothing instead?
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
2020-04-16 16:56:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6349|eXtreme to the maX
Jay's solution to everything is do nothing.
Fuck Israel
2020-04-16 16:58:14
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5786|Toronto
I am also starting to see that pattern.

Government is inept! No more government!

COVID-19 testing is limited! No more public health intervention!

TSA doesn't catch everyone! No more TSA!
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
2020-04-16 17:02:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England
The biggest thing that changed after 9/11 was they reinforced the cockpit doors and changed the protocols for opening the doors in flight. This prevents a 9/11 style attack from happening again and required minimal fuss. A trained person that wanted to try to hijack a plane could get a gun or a bomb on board today. Nothing is really stopping them. A suicide bomber is gonna do his thing. A gunman will be stopped by the door. This is reality. All the TSA does is act as a mild deterrent for wannabes and amateurs. In exchange for this incompetent deterrence we've traded our dignity in the form of body scanners, and our time in the form of long lines and hours wasted on every trip. Is it worth it? I guess it helps people feel safer, even if it doesn't really do anything. Is that worth something? Most people would probably say yes even as they recognize it's not much more than a placebo.

But people have to recognize the limitations of what the TSA can do and not demand ever stricter measures every time something goes wrong. It doesn't make anything better for anyone when you are impacting everyone for what is really a one-off event.

Last edited by Jay (2020-04-16 17:03:38)

"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

 

Pages: 1 … 75 76 77 78 79 … 401

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard