If a trained and determined suicide bomber can pull it off then why haven't they?
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3962
Because our troops are closer to home and provide the same free one way ticket to Allah
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +641|3962
It doesn't happen more often because most people who would think of doing it are the very amateurs deterred from attempting it by the TSA.Jay wrote:
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.
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
When all the stewardesses are getting their throats cut one by one the pilot is going to open the door, and a door won't stop a bomb or other device obviously.Jay wrote:
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.
Poor saps on minimum wage probably don't enjoy looking at your weeble-like body through a scanner, and trying to guess if the roll of fat is really a semtex belt.
They're the real heros, YOU should thank THEM for their service.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-04-16 18:26:01)
Fuck Israel
The TSA was very clearly created so that people could profit off the government. I like the comparison because you can clearly see the Federal Govt's COVID response team is largely doing the same thing.
Number of Saudis involved in 9/11: All of themJay wrote:
Because our troops are closer to home and provide the same free one way ticket to Allah
Number of Saudis killed during the war on terror: 0
Fuck Israel
oh goodie we’re doing the iraq war again. mention blair!
yes the data from coronavirus is incomplete. testing is woefully inadequate. but the numbers we do have are not encouraging. the virus is many times deadlier than flu (china just revised or, er, admitted that their death rate was 50% higher than reported). under-reporting of deaths is just as common and part of the same phenomenon as the under-reporting of positive cases. the numbers are far higher, across the board.
your assumption that ‘most people have had it’ already is anecdotal nonsense. epidemiologists can model this sort of thing and estimate within a range. even if the infection rate (the r0 factor) is at the higher end of the spectrum, there’s no chance the majority of people have had it and built an immunity. that’s a huge assumption built on a huge assumption (namely, that herd immunity is even possible and applicable with coronavirus).
from a public health perspective, what’s more pressing than overall statistics is the situation in hospitals and care homes. if you let new infections take off exponentially with an ‘open and working society’, your ICUs and available resources are going to be exhausted very quickly. that’s when people die. there’s no two ways about it, social distancing and stringent controls are going to have to be a part of life until a vaccine comes along. the calculus involves huge amounts of deaths. 600,000 in the UK, 2 million in the USA. it is an affront to common decency to insist that we should throw that many people into mass graves just because it’s annoying not being able to play golf or go to a restaurant. society is going to have to economically support the most affected in the short term; solutions devised. trying to plough on and ignore it hasn’t worked for a single society in the world yet.
it’s also the case that this is still just getting started. as i said about 50 pages back, based on the preliminary findings report from an oxford malaria researcher, this is a marathon not a sprint. talk of infections having ‘peaked’ are illiterate. we’re crossing a mountain range. we know that the vast majority of people are not immune to coronavirus; it spreads exponentially as one would expect a novel pathogen to do. if we curb the infection rate now through shutdowns, it still leaves the vast majority of the population yet to be exposed. the only exit strategy is to implement extensive contact tracing and testing; the shutdown should be buying time to that end. herd immunity is a pipe dream. 60-70% of a population should develop it incidentally over a very long time frame. opening the doors to let 70% of the population get infected at once is a hydrogen bomb being dropped on your medical system. not only will huge numbers die, it’ll wipe out huge numbers of your hospital staff and essential workers, too. no epidemiologist is recommending herd immunity as a serious strategy. the UK experts have recanted their views and are already busy with the damage control.
yes the data from coronavirus is incomplete. testing is woefully inadequate. but the numbers we do have are not encouraging. the virus is many times deadlier than flu (china just revised or, er, admitted that their death rate was 50% higher than reported). under-reporting of deaths is just as common and part of the same phenomenon as the under-reporting of positive cases. the numbers are far higher, across the board.
your assumption that ‘most people have had it’ already is anecdotal nonsense. epidemiologists can model this sort of thing and estimate within a range. even if the infection rate (the r0 factor) is at the higher end of the spectrum, there’s no chance the majority of people have had it and built an immunity. that’s a huge assumption built on a huge assumption (namely, that herd immunity is even possible and applicable with coronavirus).
from a public health perspective, what’s more pressing than overall statistics is the situation in hospitals and care homes. if you let new infections take off exponentially with an ‘open and working society’, your ICUs and available resources are going to be exhausted very quickly. that’s when people die. there’s no two ways about it, social distancing and stringent controls are going to have to be a part of life until a vaccine comes along. the calculus involves huge amounts of deaths. 600,000 in the UK, 2 million in the USA. it is an affront to common decency to insist that we should throw that many people into mass graves just because it’s annoying not being able to play golf or go to a restaurant. society is going to have to economically support the most affected in the short term; solutions devised. trying to plough on and ignore it hasn’t worked for a single society in the world yet.
it’s also the case that this is still just getting started. as i said about 50 pages back, based on the preliminary findings report from an oxford malaria researcher, this is a marathon not a sprint. talk of infections having ‘peaked’ are illiterate. we’re crossing a mountain range. we know that the vast majority of people are not immune to coronavirus; it spreads exponentially as one would expect a novel pathogen to do. if we curb the infection rate now through shutdowns, it still leaves the vast majority of the population yet to be exposed. the only exit strategy is to implement extensive contact tracing and testing; the shutdown should be buying time to that end. herd immunity is a pipe dream. 60-70% of a population should develop it incidentally over a very long time frame. opening the doors to let 70% of the population get infected at once is a hydrogen bomb being dropped on your medical system. not only will huge numbers die, it’ll wipe out huge numbers of your hospital staff and essential workers, too. no epidemiologist is recommending herd immunity as a serious strategy. the UK experts have recanted their views and are already busy with the damage control.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-16 22:07:17)
I've argued these points over the last few pages, the response being:uziq wrote:
oh goodie we’re doing the iraq war again. mention blair!
yes the data from coronavirus is incomplete. testing is woefully inadequate. but the numbers we do have are not encouraging. the virus is many times deadlier than flu (china just revised or, er, admitted that their death rate was 50% higher than reported). under-reporting of deaths is just as common and part of the same phenomenon as the under-reporting of positive cases. the numbers are far higher, across the board.
your assumption that ‘most people have had it’ already is anecdotal nonsense. epidemiologists can model this sort of thing and estimate within a range. even if the infection rate (the r0 factor) is at the higher end of the spectrum, there’s no chance the majority of people have had it and built an immunity. that’s a huge assumption built on a huge assumption (namely, that herd immunity is even possible and applicable with coronavirus).
from a public health perspective, what’s more pressing than overall statistics is the situation in hospitals and care homes. if you let new infections take off exponentially with an ‘open and working society’, your ICUs and available resources are going to be exhausted very quickly. that’s when people die. there’s no two ways about it, social distancing and stringent controls are going to have to be a part of life until a vaccine comes along. the calculus involves huge amounts of deaths. 600,000 in the UK, 2 million in the USA. it is an affront to common decency to insist that we should throw that many people into mass graves just because it’s annoying not being able to play golf or go to a restaurant. society is going to have to economically support the most affected in the short term; solutions devised. trying to plough on and ignore it hasn’t worked for a single society in the world yet.
it’s also the case that this is still just getting started. as i said about 50 pages back, based on the preliminary findings report from an oxford malaria researcher, this is a marathon not a sprint. talk of infections having ‘peaked’ are illiterate. we’re crossing a mountain range. we know that the vast majority of people are not immune to coronavirus; it spreads exponentially as one would expect a novel pathogen to do. if we curb the infection rate now through shutdowns, it still leaves the vast majority of the population yet to be exposed. the only exit strategy is to implement extensive contact tracing and testing; the shutdown should be buying time to that end. herd immunity is a pipe dream. 60-70% of a population should develop it incidentally over a very long time frame. opening the doors to let 70% of the population get infected at once is a hydrogen bomb being dropped on your medical system. not only will huge numbers die, it’ll wipe out huge numbers of your hospital staff and essential workers, too. no epidemiologist is recommending herd immunity as a serious strategy. the UK experts have recanted their views and are already busy with the damage control.
'govt can't fix this'
'The rules are ridiculous'
'People won't accept it'
'It's useless'
'I have no sympathy for doctors'
'People will get their guns'
Jay prefers destruction by way of virus. Healthcare and funerals are luxuries anyway, not necessities. His position has only shifted inches away from the notion that 'it's just the flu'. Maybe it's deadly, but apparently there's no point in doing anything.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-04-17 00:04:18)
if jay’s own illness or, heaven forbid, those closest to him had gone any other way, you can bet your bottom dollar that he’d be expecting a senior white house staffer to be changing his catheter bag and mnuchin to be finishing off his decking. it’s a waste of time.
i outlined all these these aspects about 30 pages ago. it’s not even complicated stuff. it would take the better part of half a year for a virus to spread, uncontrolled, even at an exponential rate and infect 330 million people. it’s simple mathematical modelling involving incubation time, length of viral activity, and that pesky r0 factor he keeps ignoring when insisting its flu’s twin brother from dakota. jay thinks everyone has had it and it has peaked in 8 weeks and everyone is now immune. he has a HUNCH. friends of friends. gossip!
i outlined all these these aspects about 30 pages ago. it’s not even complicated stuff. it would take the better part of half a year for a virus to spread, uncontrolled, even at an exponential rate and infect 330 million people. it’s simple mathematical modelling involving incubation time, length of viral activity, and that pesky r0 factor he keeps ignoring when insisting its flu’s twin brother from dakota. jay thinks everyone has had it and it has peaked in 8 weeks and everyone is now immune. he has a HUNCH. friends of friends. gossip!
Imagine all you had to do to do your part for the country is stay at home. Not fly overseas and spend 4 years of your life in a soggy trench, not be shelled 24/7, not get chased down by a panzer division, not live in fear that some foreign superpower was about to blow your brains out along with all of your mates. Just stay at home watch Netflix, and eat junk food. thats all you have to do. but that's too hard. so unfair. why is life so cruel. no one else has ever had it harder than us.
notice the skin colour of these people, when coronavirus is disproportionately affecting blacks, latinos/hispanics, etc. no, it's middle america who live in remote suburbs with 500,000 square ft homes who are mad about this. not the people stuck inside basement flats or crowded tenements during a hot summer. nope, people in michigan are outraged. there's only 700 cable channels! whole foods' delivery is booked up for weeks!Dilbert_X wrote:
meanwhile you've got people like jay circulating the right-wing take that it's 'poor people' who are to blame for its spread. 'they are irresponsible and insist on going to parks'. 'they like to have sex too much, especially when it's hot and humid'. 'they listen to reggaeton'. or whatever the fuck. it can't possibly be the fault of a bunch of angry gammons who look like they're from his family tree.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-17 02:20:34)
No, my main argument, which you ignored is that by the time a vaccine is found, the virus will have mutated, rendering the vaccine worthless. Because of this, all these precautions are pointless. We have to accept that people will die. We can't stay locked away forever under ever stricter quarantine measures.Larssen wrote:
I've argued these points over the last few pages, the response being:uziq wrote:
oh goodie we’re doing the iraq war again. mention blair!
yes the data from coronavirus is incomplete. testing is woefully inadequate. but the numbers we do have are not encouraging. the virus is many times deadlier than flu (china just revised or, er, admitted that their death rate was 50% higher than reported). under-reporting of deaths is just as common and part of the same phenomenon as the under-reporting of positive cases. the numbers are far higher, across the board.
your assumption that ‘most people have had it’ already is anecdotal nonsense. epidemiologists can model this sort of thing and estimate within a range. even if the infection rate (the r0 factor) is at the higher end of the spectrum, there’s no chance the majority of people have had it and built an immunity. that’s a huge assumption built on a huge assumption (namely, that herd immunity is even possible and applicable with coronavirus).
from a public health perspective, what’s more pressing than overall statistics is the situation in hospitals and care homes. if you let new infections take off exponentially with an ‘open and working society’, your ICUs and available resources are going to be exhausted very quickly. that’s when people die. there’s no two ways about it, social distancing and stringent controls are going to have to be a part of life until a vaccine comes along. the calculus involves huge amounts of deaths. 600,000 in the UK, 2 million in the USA. it is an affront to common decency to insist that we should throw that many people into mass graves just because it’s annoying not being able to play golf or go to a restaurant. society is going to have to economically support the most affected in the short term; solutions devised. trying to plough on and ignore it hasn’t worked for a single society in the world yet.
it’s also the case that this is still just getting started. as i said about 50 pages back, based on the preliminary findings report from an oxford malaria researcher, this is a marathon not a sprint. talk of infections having ‘peaked’ are illiterate. we’re crossing a mountain range. we know that the vast majority of people are not immune to coronavirus; it spreads exponentially as one would expect a novel pathogen to do. if we curb the infection rate now through shutdowns, it still leaves the vast majority of the population yet to be exposed. the only exit strategy is to implement extensive contact tracing and testing; the shutdown should be buying time to that end. herd immunity is a pipe dream. 60-70% of a population should develop it incidentally over a very long time frame. opening the doors to let 70% of the population get infected at once is a hydrogen bomb being dropped on your medical system. not only will huge numbers die, it’ll wipe out huge numbers of your hospital staff and essential workers, too. no epidemiologist is recommending herd immunity as a serious strategy. the UK experts have recanted their views and are already busy with the damage control.
'govt can't fix this'
'The rules are ridiculous'
'People won't accept it'
'It's useless'
'I have no sympathy for doctors'
'People will get their guns'
Jay prefers destruction by way of virus. Healthcare and funerals are luxuries anyway, not necessities. His position has only shifted inches away from the notion that 'it's just the flu'. Maybe it's deadly, but apparently there's no point in doing anything.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
That reads like a pretty baseless argument Jay.
that wasn't your argument initially at all, jay, because evidently you didn't understand how viruses work at all. you thought it was 'just like the flu' when it's from a completely different family and shares no viral similarities at all. you then spoke in terms of the flu being 'a very specific thing' when the flu is more like 4/5 different strains at once, even being simplistic. besides, we actually know (because, y'know, experts and virologists have done the work) that coronavirus is a relatively stable virus. hence all the early claptrap about herd immunity. it's actually a lot less likely to mutate than flu because of its structure and the length of its RNA.
your argument doesn't make any sense, unsurprisingly. we vaccinate against flu every single year despite the fact that it mutates often and changes according to geographic region. we are chasing multiple strains of flu every year at any one time, and we still inoculate with a pretty good rate of success. it is worth doing. once again your defeatist hokum is scientific nonsense.
your argument doesn't make any sense, unsurprisingly. we vaccinate against flu every single year despite the fact that it mutates often and changes according to geographic region. we are chasing multiple strains of flu every year at any one time, and we still inoculate with a pretty good rate of success. it is worth doing. once again your defeatist hokum is scientific nonsense.
All I'm seeing is you gathering anything that aligns with your preconceived views that 1. Government cannot fix this and 2. That the consequences are in some way acceptable or less destructive than any sort of lockdown.
I think you'll find both points are misguided. Your experience under lockdown so far is quite sufficient evidence that government can in fact control society to slow the spread and relieve pressure on your essential services.
So the only issue you have left to figure out is whether or not the consequences of letting corona go are acceptable. I'd like to refer you to pandemics in history and prognoses on how long it'll take for it to spread and what that'll mean for your health services, workforce and society.
Don't come at me with nonsense like 'it'll mutate before we have a vaccine', where did you even get this idea? I'm not a virologist but very doubtful of the claim that the work being done to develop a vaccine is an exercise in futility. Did you turn antivax now? Do you know how vaccines work?
I think you'll find both points are misguided. Your experience under lockdown so far is quite sufficient evidence that government can in fact control society to slow the spread and relieve pressure on your essential services.
So the only issue you have left to figure out is whether or not the consequences of letting corona go are acceptable. I'd like to refer you to pandemics in history and prognoses on how long it'll take for it to spread and what that'll mean for your health services, workforce and society.
Don't come at me with nonsense like 'it'll mutate before we have a vaccine', where did you even get this idea? I'm not a virologist but very doubtful of the claim that the work being done to develop a vaccine is an exercise in futility. Did you turn antivax now? Do you know how vaccines work?
conservatives don't think the government can fix it anything which is why they dismantle it every time they have power. And Democrats don't seem in a hurry to fix it
the worst thing is that the conservatives can't even take responsibility for their dunderheaded ideas. okay, so dismantle the state and downsize. okay, so deregulate. but take responsibility when the economy runs out of control or your crisis response is crippled. instead they blame the other side, or china, or the WHO. it's pathetic. conservatives like to dress up narrow self-interest and short-termism in high-minded crap and then pass the buck when it inevitably goes wrong. what sort of moral cripple of a leader doesn't own up to being responsible? trump has deflected time and time again onto nameless 'persons' in his administration. wtf? is he the president or just a TV star trying to get a ratings boost?
OkLarssen wrote:
That reads like a pretty baseless argument Jay.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
the flu is a virusuziq wrote:
that wasn't your argument initially at all, jay, because evidently you didn't understand how viruses work at all. you thought it was 'just like the flu' when it's from a completely different family and shares no viral similarities at all. you then spoke in terms of the flu being 'a very specific thing' when the flu is more like 4/5 different strains at once, even being simplistic. besides, we actually know (because, y'know, experts and virologists have done the work) that coronavirus is a relatively stable virus. hence all the early claptrap about herd immunity. it's actually a lot less likely to mutate than flu because of its structure and the length of its RNA.
your argument doesn't make any sense, unsurprisingly. we vaccinate against flu every single year despite the fact that it mutates often and changes according to geographic region. we are chasing multiple strains of flu every year at any one time, and we still inoculate with a pretty good rate of success. it is worth doing. once again your defeatist hokum is scientific nonsense.
In many years, the flu vaccine does not prevent the flu virus from becoming widespread because the virologists that predict that sort of thing guessed wrong.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
can you write in english please?
who is contradicting you that the flu is a virus? do you know how many viruses there are? saying coronavirus is just like flu because they are both viruses is so dumb. HIV is a virus. coronavirus is just like HIV?
who is contradicting you that the flu is a virus? do you know how many viruses there are? saying coronavirus is just like flu because they are both viruses is so dumb. HIV is a virus. coronavirus is just like HIV?
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-17 05:12:27)
He's going through serious cognitive dissonance now, any moment reason is about to pop in his head he has to supress it someway. We may see him link vaccines and autism before long.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-04-17 05:16:02)
78 Pages and Jay still thinks the flu and COVID-19 are comparable.
There's really no point at this stage.
If a nation is dumb enough to elect a demented child as President then maybe it would be best to let them go.
It will be a great source of data for future epidemiologists to work with.
There's really no point at this stage.
If a nation is dumb enough to elect a demented child as President then maybe it would be best to let them go.
It will be a great source of data for future epidemiologists to work with.
Fuck Israel
What cognitive dissonance? That I don't believe in effective government? Is what my government is doing to slow the spread of the virus? Absolutely, without a doubt it is. But it's not stopping it. Whether you rip a bandaid off quickly or slowly, it's the same amount of pain, we're just talking about disbursement time. I think, if given the choice between long, drawn out suffering, or something quicker, most people will opt for quicker.Larssen wrote:
He's going through serious cognitive dissonance now, any moment reason is about to pop in his head he has to supress it someway. We may see him link vaccines and autism before long.
Right now, what we're doing is not going to change the ultimate outcome, it's just dragging it out over a longer period of time. And frankly, the more time we let this thing go the more chance it mutates and people then have to deal with reinfections, restarting the cycle all over again.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat