Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

[QUOTE=Efurufe;4755175]Yeah, somehow it's become a partisan issue whether or not we should go back to work. Decisions based on polling rather than science. I understand mistrust of government, but when the ENTIRE WORLD is shut down, how does anyone think it's a liberal ploy?[/QUOTE]The decisions to stay closed are not based on science. All their "models" have proven incredibly pessimistic. All the actual field data, e. G. The Princess Diamond, actual random antibody tests in various places, show that the virus and antibodies are already widespread. And actual data tells us the hospitals haven't filled up (outside of NYC, which partied long and has subways) and the ventilators weren't needed.

The word "science" has a meaning. That your hypothesis is "falsifiable", meaning you can prove it wrong. The models that the shutdown were based on have all been proven wrong. Ergo, and this is the actual use of the word "ergo", continuing the shutdowns is the anti-scientific side.

[QUOTE=Efurufe;4755175]Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens in Georgia and South Carolina when they open earlier than recommended.[/QUOTE]Of course everyone else will be opening far later than recommended too, especially those looking at economics, etc. Just depends on whose recommendations you're listening to.

[QUOTE=DrtyHarry;4752938]The incredibly intelligent Governor of GA announced the re-opening of massage parlors as one of the types of businesses that can be re-opened as long as social distancing can be followed. Tell me genius. How do you get a massage while maintaining social distancing?[/QUOTE][BLUE]Please don't post partisan stupidity like this on review threads. And before you insult my intelligence by saying "what, I called him intelligent." Don't.

I don't care who you prefer to fuck you up the ass with a giant red, white, and blue dildo just keep it off the review threads.

A2[/BLUE]

What you're doing is conflating current evidence with evidence of 6 weeks ago. We knew less about the virus back then and so models from then are bound to have a certain amount inaccuracy. That's to be expected. You seem to be implying that because we know more than we did 6 weeks ago that we know 'enough' to make decisions that affect millions of people. That's fairly cavalier and not very scientific at all. Given the continued large gaps in our understanding of the behavior of the virus a certain amount of caution in reversing prophylactic social interventions seems warranted until either the knowledge base increases to a higher level of certainty or the evidence regarding infections rates, hospitalizations, etc becomes clear past the point of doubt.

Science does have a meaning and it also has well defined processes and logic. Looking at the latest numbers and thinking that's all you need to know without deeper analysis of larger trendlines and incorporating other data is not a scientific modality.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4755565]The decisions to stay closed are not based on science. All their "models" have proven incredibly pessimistic. All the actual field data, e. G. The Princess Diamond, actual random antibody tests in various places, show that the virus and antibodies are already widespread. And actual data tells us the hospitals haven't filled up (outside of NYC, which partied long and has subways) and the ventilators weren't needed.

The word "science" has a meaning. That your hypothesis is "falsifiable", meaning you can prove it wrong. The models that the shutdown were based on have all been proven wrong. Ergo, and this is the actual use of the word "ergo", continuing the shutdowns is the anti-scientific side.

Of course everyone else will be opening far later than recommended too, especially those looking at economics, etc. Just depends on whose recommendations you're listening to.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Admin2;4758002][BLUE]Please don't post partisan stupidity like this on review threads. And before you insult my intelligence by saying "what, I called him intelligent." Don't.

I don't care who you prefer to fuck you up the ass with a giant red, white, and blue dildo just keep it off the review threads.

A2[/BLUE][/QUOTE]Easy now. The Title of this thread is Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

I think his comments do qualify under one of those headings.

[QUOTE=GangBangLeader;4758267]Easy now. The Title of this thread is Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

I think his comments do qualify under one of those headings.[/QUOTE]Careful GBL. Only admin2 gets to Rant, Rave & stupid shit. It is his thread.

I'm still on the fence on the whole thing. I think the whole thing is way overblown, but I'm not stupid enough to say it publicly and be one of those people being laughed at on in social media that disputed the evidence surrounding the virus and ended up dead from it. So, I will impart some wisdom I was taught from a business owner 25 years ago.

He said, "If you allow your accountants to make all of your business decisions, then your business will ultimately fail. " I originally thought this was a stab at me, because this guy's business was going bankrupt. I came in made major adjustments and his business was thriving. He then wanted to remodel the facility and expand. I ran the numbers and told him that he would go bankrupt if he did this. He said that if he didn't do it, no one would be interested in his business in a few years. I quit. 20+ years later, his little business has expanded to several branches and he's a major player in the market. An accountant's job is NOT to take risk; an entrepreneur's job is to take risk and I stepped out of my lane. Stay with me, this is an important point.

Over time I realized that you can't allow an expert in a specific field to make decisions for the common good. They will fix the problem at hand, but in fixing that problem they will cause more problems outside of their expertise than they can fix. As an example, you can't allow an environmentalist full control on cleaning up the environment. You would end up with a clean environment, but it would basically kill most industries. You can't put a successful business person in charge of an economy. You would end up with a great economy, but many workers and the environment would be severely hurt.

In one month, we just added 4 trillion dollars to our national debt, we have destroyed thousands (if not millions) of small businesses, people that were self-sufficient may be homeless in several months. Because of this virus, we allowed doctors / scientists a substantial voice in creating public policy. They may eradicate or limit the deaths from this virus, but in the end, they may have destroyed the quality of life of 300 million people for the next 20 years.

[QUOTE=Michael1967;4758740]I'm still on the fence on the whole thing. I think the whole thing is way overblown, but I'm not stupid enough to say it publicly and be one of those people being laughed at on in social media that disputed the evidence surrounding the virus and ended up dead from it. [/QUOTE]And yeah, I also agree that you can't say anything contrary. That's sort of the current social meta though -- whatever is currently "in", drowns out any opposing ideas or thoughts. Yes, the virus is real and it's not a hoax, but it's also clearly not that dangerous. Even those who acknowledge this use the argument that human life is more valuable than the economy. And how much is a human life worth? Well, shit it's priceless right? But even that argument is dishonest. It's very clear at this point that more people will die from automobile accidents worldwide than will EVER die from COVID-19 worldwide. The vast majority of car accidents involve other people (I. E. Are not single car accidents). Should we stop driving all cars? Stay at home, save lives, right? Or are all your car drivers so selfish that you're willing to sacrifice a million lives per year for "convenience" or "entertainment" reasons. You car drivers should all be ashamed!

There are valid arguments and bullshit arguments on both sides.

Disagreeing with the balance of economic impact and loss of life is a valid argument from my perspective, with a few caveats. We clearly can't stay locked down forever, or every year during flu season, so we're going to have to figure out how to get to work while reducing risk.

Comparison to other causes of death is a bullshit argument as it discounts how contagious this stuff is. Just by death rate, this isn't even a bad flu year. But my HCA friend in New York spends a good part of his day moving bodies into refrigerated 18 wheelers, and that ain't normal.

As for the deficit, maybe Congress shouldn't have passed a $1 T tax cut during economic prosperity, and shouldn't have been running a deficit since 1790. I don't get to spend endlessly beyond my means; why do we elect people (of both parties) that think that's OK?

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4758115]What you're doing is conflating current evidence with evidence of 6 weeks ago. We knew less about the virus back then and so models from then are bound to have a certain amount inaccuracy. That's to be expected.[/QUOTE]It is to be expected, but one should [I]learn and adjust[/I]. They haven't. And, since you apparently missed it, the Princess, for example, is not "current evidence. " You can "prove" anything if, as you seem to, you simply exclude all the inconvenient data.

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4758115] You seem to be implying that because we know more than we did 6 weeks ago that we know 'enough' to make decisions that affect millions of people. That's fairly cavalier and not very scientific at all.[/QUOTE]You ignore that they've already [I]made decisions affecting millions of people[/I]. On bad guesses. Those should be reversed and a new course, based on better data, created.

Your mindset, that you should double-down even after your initial estimates were proven to be way off, just in case your new guesses from the same losers who are invested in maintaining some shred of credibility, is bizarre. Don't modify the broken models to try to fix them, but rather build a [I]new[/I] hypothesis. You understand neither science, logic nor politics.

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4758115]Science does have a meaning and it also has well defined processes and logic. Looking at the latest numbers and thinking that's all you need to know without deeper analysis of larger trendlines and incorporating other data is not a scientific modality.[/QUOTE]Latest numbers? Project much? You're the one ignoring the past and the resulting trendlines. While parroting the talking heads you so desperately want to believe.

You apparently have quickly googled "science" and come up with some terms. Come back when you have a degree and decades actually doing it.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759438]Comparison to other causes of death is a bullshit argument as it discounts how contagious this stuff is. [/QUOTE]No, it doesn't discount it at all. I don't see how you can just say something like that without even attempting to explain it. If something was highly contagious and killed 1 in a billion people, would comparing it to other forms of deaths also discount how contagious it was? Stating that makes zero sense.

Over 1 million people die every year from automobile accidents. What will coronavirus reach? 1/8th that? 1/12th that if we used Germany's standards for declaring Coronavirus deaths?

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759438]Comparison to other causes of death is a bullshit argument as it discounts how contagious this stuff is.[/QUOTE]That doesn't make any sense. Something like 80% of the population has Herpes I, what people think of as the coldsore virus. Super contagious. Not deadly. Most get it from their mothers. We don't quarantine anyone over it.

This looks similar, unless you're elderly and co-morbid with diabetes or a few other pre-existing issues. Those are the people we should be quarantining.

The reason shallow-thinkers don't grasp this is that they forget how limited testing was. Until recently, only people with known contacts with other infected persons could be tested. That's how it went so far in Life Care Center. They weren't even test candidates despite the symptoms.

With more [I]random[/I] testing, we see it's quite wide-spread, and that most under-50-year-olds with antibodies don't even know they'd been sick, and many of the rest just assumed they had the flu.

Perhaps put your hyperbole and your tin hat away, and look around. The sky isn't falling. There's a virus that targets a specific group. We should help them protect themselves, but most people are not threatened. Sounds a bit like a virus from 40 years ago.

[blue]No, we have to all go crawl into a hole, pull it in behind us, and never go outside again or we will all die immediatly.

If killing 5,000,000 people around the world saves just 1 person that might have died from C-19 it will all be worth it.

A2[/blue]

[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4759686]No, it doesn't discount it at all. I don't see how you can just say something like that without even attempting to explain it. If something was highly contagious and killed 1 in a billion people, would comparing it to other forms of deaths also discount how contagious it was? Stating that makes zero sense.

Over 1 million people die every year from automobile accidents. What will coronavirus reach? 1/8th that? 1/12th that if we used Germany's standards for declaring Coronavirus deaths?[/QUOTE]I shouldn't have to explain it, but here's the "crayons" view: if every automobile accident had the potential to spawn 10-20 more accidents, and each of those had the potential to spawn 10-20 each, you don't see that as being different, nor see how that exponential growth is a highly more dangerous situation? If not, then. You are bad at maths.

[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4759686]No, it doesn't discount it at all. I don't see how you can just say something like that without even attempting to explain it. If something was highly contagious and killed 1 in a billion people, would comparing it to other forms of deaths also discount how contagious it was? Stating that makes zero sense.

Over 1 million people die every year from automobile accidents. What will coronavirus reach? 1/8th that? 1/12th that if we used Germany's standards for declaring Coronavirus deaths?[/QUOTE]Virus deaths to automobile deaths is a faulty comparison which renders your argument invalid.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759438]As for the deficit, maybe Congress shouldn't have passed a $1 T tax cut during economic prosperity[/QUOTE]There is no correlation between tax cuts and deficits. In otherwords, you can't find one year following a tax cut where the total reciepts were less than before the cuts (causing a budget deficit). Spending, however, is out of control.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759787]I shouldn't have to explain it, but here's the "crayons" view: if every automobile accident had the potential to spawn 10-20 more accidents, and each of those had the potential to spawn 10-20 each, you don't see that as being different, nor see how that exponential growth is a highly more dangerous situation? If not, then. You are bad at maths.[/QUOTE]If you want to make this accurate then it's like this, and I don't know why I have to keep explaining it either.

You are an accident that spawns 10 accidents and of that 10 6 didn't even know they had been in an accident, and the other 4 were a scratch in the paint. Then each of them spawns 10 accidents and for all those 100 60 of them don't know they were in an accident either.

If the cars are between 10 and 40 years old and haven't had a prior accident (co-morbidity) then you need to have 50,000 accidents before the first one dies. (Straight from the Italian Health Ministries web page. . 2% fatality in ages 10-40 with 99% of deaths involving a co-morbidity you can look those numbers up yourself and do the math).

That was before the antibody studies in Santa Clara, LA County and New York let everybody know that 25-50 times more people had the virus than was previously thought so most likely you have to have 500,000 accidents before the first one dies. Yeah it's super contagious but unless you're in a high risk group your chances of dying are minuscule.

Before you say "yeah but the strokes, the strokes" that's 5 out of 250,000 or. 002%.

Exponential growth happens early because it attacks the risk groups horrendously but that red line on the graph doesn't go up until everybody dies. Even in the very worst risks groups 94% of the people who get it survive (more actually after the antibody tests showed that lots more people have it and most don't know it).

You are also bad at maths.

A2.