Corona Thread |OT| Please scream inside your heart

[Madrun Badrun]

That wouldn't be all that surprising, no?

Whether it is the right or wrong strategy, I do feel people are missing the point a little. There is no vaccine. Most experts believe there will be second and third waves of the virus. It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back. 60 to 70% of the population has to have the virus for some sort of immunity to be achieved. That's the point of the strategy. It assumes all these things are true, and believes mitigation is the only working strategy in the long run. It could be wrong, but there is logic to it.

This is was the majority of my previous post which you ignored with 'lol semantics'.  You can have stronger mitigation strategies, like lockdowns, and still, end up with herd immunity.  The point is to delay things until you get stuff under control.  Why wouldn't we want to delay this? Do you think the UK had enough PPE to have gone through with their initial strategy and not suffer unnecessary deaths? Why are you so attracted to let-people-die strategies?  Of the experts what percentage do you think is in favour of the initial UK strategy vs the one the rest of the world took?  Why are you the person in the thread that is quick to say maybe Sweden is on to something or defend the initial UK strategy?

None of these points I actually made. None. Not one. Not a single one.... How about not putting words into my mouth and actually read my posts. lol

How about you actually answer the questions? 

[Leadbelly]

Well, the "science" guy just happens to be calling the shots in Sweden. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. That wasn't the point.

when large numbers of people die, many ethicists believe this to be "not good"

I can show you ethicists who believe otherwise.  They could be wrong, but there is logic to it.  I think we should wait and see.

Case in point... You say, "the strategy was all about the economy" in other words it's all a big conspiracy. I say, "prove it". I then go on to prove there are scientists out there that genuinely believe it. Which is why I argue it isn't all a big conspiracy to put the economy first over lives.

You then twist my post into some dumb argument that I never actually made. lol Quite incredible.

[shosta]

Leadbelly, I'm going to say this because no one else has the guts to do it, and also it's sort of rude so they wouldn't want to anyway, but I've been thinking this ever since you posted that Chomsky is a classical liberal.

You have Dumb Guy Syndrome. You try to compensate for this by looking stuff up but you don't have enough knowledge or common sense to separate wheat from chaff and you just end up posting whatever rabbit hole of a carefully constructed argument you run across while filling in the rest of the blanks. It reminds me of when I knew nothing about Postmodernism but I was posting on here that "JP might have a point right? You can draw a straight line from Marx to Foucault" because I Wikipedia'd Foucault.

[Mandark]

None of these points I actually made.

Best I can tell your points are:

1) "Mitigation" repeated ad nauseam without addressing what this actually entails vs. what other countries have done.

2) The plan has its own internal logic.

3) In conclusion, Sweden is a land of contrasts

[Tripon]

That wouldn't be all that surprising, no?

Whether it is the right or wrong strategy, I do feel people are missing the point a little. There is no vaccine. Most experts believe there will be second and third waves of the virus. It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back. 60 to 70% of the population has to have the virus for some sort of immunity to be achieved. That's the point of the strategy. It assumes all these things are true, and believes mitigation is the only working strategy in the long run. It could be wrong, but there is logic to it.

Okay, but you don't want that first wave to last so long that it rolls into the 2nd wave. That's what's happening in the countries with these long tails. The spike will happen as more people interact with each other.

[Leadbelly]

Leadbelly, I'm going to say this because no one else has the guts to do it, and also it's sort of rude so they wouldn't want to anyway, but I've been thinking this ever since you posted that Chomsky is a classical liberal.

You have Dumb Guy Syndrome. You try to compensate for this by looking stuff up but you don't have enough knowledge or common sense to separate wheat from chaff and you just end up posting whatever rabbit hole of a carefully constructed argument you run across while filling in the rest of the blanks. It reminds me of when I knew nothing about Postmodernism but I was posting on here that "JP might have a point right? You can draw a straight line from Marx to Foucault" because I Wikipedia'd Foucault.

That's okay shosta because just like I just demonstrated in my previous post, you don't actually read my posts or ever try to see what the argument actually is.

Classical liberalism has an emphasis on the freedom of the individual. The roots of anarchism is classical liberalism, i.e. the freedom of the individual. I explained it quite clearly in that post. Presented a youtube video where Chomsky states exactly that. What can I say?

And you say I'm the dumb one here. Maybe read that post again if you can find it. Although what's the point? You are only looking for something to 'win' on.

And why are you so intent on your sly digs at me anyway. Because my opinion differs from yours? Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine. I don't spend my time making sly digs at you. Why would I? It's pathetic. There are more important things in life than your opinions. I don't give shit about your opinions.

[Leadbelly]

"The way you argue is all wrong" never works, my dude. Especially when you choose to do that instead of addressing what Madrun put up.

Bullshit... It's an argument I never had to begin with. My posts are right there. I never argued Sweden for instance are taking the right or wrong response.

[Mandark]

Case in point... You say, "the strategy was all about the economy" in other words it's all a big conspiracy. I say, "prove it". I then go on to prove there are scientists out there that genuinely believe it. Which is why I argue it isn't all a big conspiracy to put the economy first over lives.

Genuinely believe what?

What would constitute success or failure of Sweden's policy?

[Stro]

More like leadbrain lmaooooo

[Mandark]

Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine.

fuckin' checkmate

[shosta]

That's okay shosta because just like I just demonstrated in my previous post, you don't actually read my posts or ever try to see what the argument actually is.

It's worse than that. I read every single word.

And why are you so intent on your sly digs at me anyway. Because my opinion differs from yours? Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine. I don't spend my time making sly digs at you. Why would I? It's pathetic. There are more important things in life than your opinions. I don't give shit about your opinions.

sport hunting

[shosta]

I never argued Sweden for instance are taking the right or wrong response.

[Leadbelly]

That's okay shosta because just like I just demonstrated in my previous post, you don't actually read my posts or ever try to see what the argument actually is.

It's worse than that. I read every single word.

And why are you so intent on your sly digs at me anyway. Because my opinion differs from yours? Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine. I don't spend my time making sly digs at you. Why would I? It's pathetic. There are more important things in life than your opinions. I don't give shit about your opinions.

sport hunting

What's wrong with it? I mean it is so dumb must be easy to refute.

I know you won't though because you're talking shit. I don't care about you shosta. Carry on.

[Leadbelly]

I never argued Sweden for instance are taking the right or wrong response.

Find the post. It's so easy to do.

[shosta]

Ok but in all seriousness Leadbelly, did China contain it or not? They have no new deaths per day. South Korea is in the same situation. A second wave doesn't come from a spontaneous genesis, it's when you suppress the infection so that the case numbers don't rise exponentially but there's still a significant infected population, you lift the suppression factors, and the case numbers go exponential again.

[ToxicAdam]

 

[Mandark]

"I never said Sweden was doing the right thing, I merely explained a rationale justifying their policy, presented an authority figure in support of it, and handwaved evidence that it was killing people."

Your sympathies are plenty clear, dude, just own it.

[Leadbelly]

Mitigation strategy is a conspiracy to save the economy.

The point of argument. Just a reminder.

[Leadbelly]

Ok but in all seriousness Leadbelly, did China contain it or not? They have no new deaths per day. South Korea is in the same situation. A second wave doesn't come from a spontaneous genesis, it's when you suppress the infection so that the case numbers don't rise exponentially but there's still a significant infected population, you lift the suppression factors, and the case numbers go exponential again.

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=46908.msg2855039#msg2855039

[shosta]

Mitigation strategy is a conspiracy to save the economy.

The point of argument. Just a reminder.

Giving up and saying "we can't stop the disease, everyone will get it eventually" is weird when other countries did exactly that by acting early and fast. So yeah, we have to deduce the real reason and assume the costs of lockdown are too high. It's not a secret when major leaders say things like "we have to go back to work".

[Mandark]

Mitigation strategy is a conspiracy to save the economy.

The point of argument. Just a reminder.

Nobody has called it a "conspiracy" except you.

How about not putting words into my mouth and actually read my posts.

[BIONIC]

[Leadbelly]

Honestly shosta, I don't feel like having a serious conversation with you. You must understand right?

[CatsCatsCats]

[shosta]

[shosta]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

[Leadbelly]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

[CatsCatsCats]

South Korea seems so cool and smart. Full disclosure, my only exposure to South Korea is the show Chef and My Fridge, K-Pop songs on Lets Dance, instant ramens and cloud’s Facebook stories, so

[Tripon]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

This entire conservation started because you were disputing that the U.K. initial policy was trying to create the conditions for herd immunity as fast as possible.

[Mandark]

South Korea seems so cool and smart. Full disclosure, my only exposure to South Korea is the show Chef and My Fridge, K-Pop songs on Lets Dance, instant ramens and cloud’s Facebook stories, so

They also produce elite Starcraft players and breakdancers.

[Leadbelly]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

This entire conservation started because you were disputing that the U.K. initial policy was trying to create the conditions for herd immunity as fast as possible.

Because it is true. I'm sorry for stating facts.

[shosta]

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

What I was talking about was how China has 4,600 deaths and the UK has 35,000. I admit China and SK can get second waves but they'll just handle it really well like they did the first time.

[Leadbelly]

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

What I was talking about was how China has 4,600 deaths and the UK has 35,000.

Okay. You also mentioned a second wave. In terms of how a second wave occurs, I don't know.

I'm sure you have watched the video by now. The expert states that it is basically going to keep coming back until 60 to 70% of the population has it. Unless there is a vaccine.

[Madrun Badrun]

I finally read Leadbelly's posts from the last few months.  I know We of the Secret Cabal promised each other and that we would only reply to his comments in bad faith, but I just couldn't suffer the call outs anymore.  Guys, he was right about everything - the conspiracy, the science, Sweden.  The UK's initial response was sound and backed by science.  The fact that they changed course can only be explained by how they presented their plan to the public.  His arguments were coherent and elegant.  Not being an expert himself, he sat fence like a gymnast and only presented us with the information needed to better ourselves.  He never offered his opinions and when he did they were true, obvious, and backed by a scientist.  I would also just like to contrast his conduct with ours - he never resorted to making sly digs at anyone. Because why would he? It's pathetic.

[shosta]

I'm sure you have watched the video by now. The expert states that it is basically going to keep coming back until 60 to 70% of the population has it. Unless there is a vaccine.

What he's not saying is that 60%-70% of the population has to get it. He's endorsing suppression strategies and explaining that there will be future outbreaks.

[Leadbelly]

I'm sure you have watched the video by now. The expert states that it is basically going to keep coming back until 60 to 70% of the population has it. Unless there is a vaccine.

What he's not saying is that 60%-70% of the population has to get it. He's endorsing suppression strategies and explaining that there will be future outbreaks.

No he isn't saying that.

[team filler]

[shosta]

No he isn't saying that.

You're telling me that he thinks 60%-70% of the population will eventually get coronavirus if there isn't a vaccine in a couple of years?

[Leadbelly]

No he isn't saying that.

You're telling me that he thinks 60%-70% of the population will eventually get coronavirus if there isn't a vaccine in a couple of years?

I was agreeing with you.

[Mandark]

Okay so the argument goes something like this:

1) COVID19 only goes away when there is a vaccine, or some degree of population-wide immunity from having been infected previously.

2) In the best case a vaccine is far away and in the worst case there will never be one.

3) Given that, our most likely path out is through herd immunity, which means ~70% of the population getting infected.

4) Since it is inevitable that most of the population is going to contract the virus, the only point of restricting the spread is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed Lombardy-style, and to steer the virus away from the elderly and at-risk, so the rest of the population can build up immunity with fewer deaths.

5) Countries that have seemingly "beaten" the virus are only winning Pyrrhic victories, because they rely on continuing and unsustainable restrictions on people's mobility. As soon as they remove those restrictions, the virus will come roaring back until 70% of the population have the antibodies. South Korea, China, New Zealand, etc. are merely delaying the inevitable at great economic cost. (the flipside of this is that countries like Sweden aren't necessarily doing "worse" for having excess deaths now, since other countries will be suffering those as well, just a smidge later)



that about right?

[Leadbelly]

Okay so the argument goes something like this:

1) COVID19 only goes away when there is a vaccine, or some degree of population-wide immunity from having been infected previously.

2) In the best case a vaccine is far away and in the worst case there will never be one.

3) Given that, our most likely path out is through herd immunity, which means ~70% of the population getting infected.

4) Since it is inevitable that most of the population is going to contract the virus, the only point of restricting the spread is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed Lombardy-style, and to steer the virus away from the elderly and at-risk, so the rest of the population can build up immunity with fewer deaths.

5) Countries that have seemingly "beaten" the virus are only winning Pyrrhic victories, because they rely on continuing and unsustainable restrictions on people's mobility. As soon as they remove those restrictions, the virus will come roaring back until 70% of the population have the antibodies. South Korea, China, New Zealand, etc. are merely delaying the inevitable at great economic cost.



that about right?

I will say that is actually a reasonable argument. Whether ultimately it will turn out right or wrong.

[shosta]

edit: misread

[Mandark]

You should be more willing to take a stand.

And that's coming from me, the forum's most notorious and reviled coward.

[Stro]

More like Mandork lmaoooo

[BIONIC]

This was the true shit thread all along 

[Leadbelly]

You should be more willing to take a stand.

And that's coming from me, the forum's most notorious and reviled coward.

I was never that confident in it to begin with. I think you lot want me to take a stand more than I ever did. I guess because you wanted to shoot me down for it for some reason.

[shosta]

you were pretty fatalistic and giving too much cover for BJ a couple of months ago. You just have this weird predilection when there are clear counterexamples

[Madrun Badrun]

Okay so the argument goes something like this:

1) COVID19 only goes away when there is a vaccine, or some degree of population-wide immunity from having been infected previously.

2) In the best case a vaccine is far away and in the worst case there will never be one.

3) Given that, our most likely path out is through herd immunity, which means ~70% of the population getting infected.

4) Since it is inevitable that most of the population is going to contract the virus, the only point of restricting the spread is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed Lombardy-style, and to steer the virus away from the elderly and at-risk, so the rest of the population can build up immunity with fewer deaths.

5) Countries that have seemingly "beaten" the virus are only winning Pyrrhic victories, because they rely on continuing and unsustainable restrictions on people's mobility. As soon as they remove those restrictions, the virus will come roaring back until 70% of the population have the antibodies. South Korea, China, New Zealand, etc. are merely delaying the inevitable at great economic cost.



that about right?

I will say that is actually a reasonable argument. Whether ultimately it will turn out right or wrong.

Do you think the UK would have suffered unnecessary deaths due to PPE shortages had they gone through with their initial strategy? 

Do you think it makes any difference when people get the virus in terms of death toll?  Like if we all get it once will the death toll be the same as we all got it over two years?

Why do you think the UK changed its strategy? 

Has your opinion changed over the last three months?

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/kazweida/status/1261348574593380353

"never thought that corona-chan would hurt me!"  

[Leadbelly]

Okay so the argument goes something like this:

1) COVID19 only goes away when there is a vaccine, or some degree of population-wide immunity from having been infected previously.

2) In the best case a vaccine is far away and in the worst case there will never be one.

3) Given that, our most likely path out is through herd immunity, which means ~70% of the population getting infected.

4) Since it is inevitable that most of the population is going to contract the virus, the only point of restricting the spread is to keep the health system from being overwhelmed Lombardy-style, and to steer the virus away from the elderly and at-risk, so the rest of the population can build up immunity with fewer deaths.

5) Countries that have seemingly "beaten" the virus are only winning Pyrrhic victories, because they rely on continuing and unsustainable restrictions on people's mobility. As soon as they remove those restrictions, the virus will come roaring back until 70% of the population have the antibodies. South Korea, China, New Zealand, etc. are merely delaying the inevitable at great economic cost.



that about right?

I will say that is actually a reasonable argument. Whether ultimately it will turn out right or wrong.

Do you think the UK would have suffered unnecessary deaths due to PPE shortages had they gone through with their initial strategy? 

Do you think it makes any difference when people get the virus in terms of death toll?  Like if we all get it once will the death toll be the same as we all got it over two years?

Why do you think the UK changed its strategy? 

Has your opinion changed over the last three months?

Hold on. I am going to go back to my original posts, because I know there are bits that you missed.

[Madrun Badrun]

We can have Mandark write up your arguments and you can just yes no them if that would make you more confident.  I don't see how your original post is going to answer if your opinions have changed since them. 

[Mandark]

If someone's presenting a plan with the caveat "sure, a lot more people are going to get killed because of this over the next few months, but..." then they better have a pretty ironclad counterfactual.

[Joe Molotov]

https://twitter.com/kazweida/status/1261348574593380353

"never thought that corona-chan would hurt me!"  

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Also all this evidence you're showing me is all made up by the fake media and doesn't count."

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/HollywoodShack/status/1261380986820079619

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/HollywoodShack/status/1261380986820079619

uh...isn't 97.4 kind of...bad?

[Tripon]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1261378747523117057
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1261382958067314688
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1261386347295711236

[Madrun Badrun]

I'm a dude that runs hot.  Also, I get all sweaty in a mask.  If this becomes normal I'll have to stay in my room for the next few years, but out of social stigma instead of shame. 

[Leadbelly]

A part of me just feels like, lets get this shit over and done with. Mitigate the spread as much as we can, but fuck this lock down shit.

Not sure many people are with me on this though. And I'm not sure I am to be honest. It's just that the more I read about how it is going to take years, and that obviously we can't keep shit shut down for the long term anyway, the more I kind of feel like, 'fuck it then!'.

I didn't jump on it, I said I understood it after reading more about the issues with containing it. It's not like I wouldn't want a better solution or anything.

I will say one thing though. I also understand there is a tragic side of life, something the West has forgot a little bit. We've gone through this many times already. Sometimes it is inescapable.

Yeah. And I'm not sure I even want to do it anyway just yet. The thing is though, it seems like there is no way out of it. That eventually we will give up on it anyway.

I was never that confident in it to begin with. That's the first thing. This was me just thinking aloud on current news.

And I never stated it was the right or wrong course of action:

None of this is true though. The idea is quite clearly coming from epidemiologists. Goodness knows, I have listened a lot to them over past week. It is not some plot to save the economy over lives. Although economic meltdown isn't great either.

It may seem like a risky strategy, which is why many countries will choose the other option though. And it might not be the best course of action. Suppression has seemed to work in places like China. What we don't yet know is what happens when China goes back to normal. Things could change just like that.

The weird thing is, I notice the arguments are actually the same. It's you talking about the 'herd immunity' strategy being all about the economy and me arguing against it. The other thing is, I state it might not be the best course of action.

Looking back, I always thought there was at least a logical argument in the mitigation strategy, I still do. And was a little annoyed by people completely mocking the UK approach to it. I never said it was necessarily the right strategy though. I didn't know. Only that it seemed there was at least some logic to it.

I will say one thing though, I do believe that if things come back in a big way, governments will seriously consider it. Hopefully there will be a vaccine or some working treatment before then.

[Stro]

https://twitter.com/HollywoodShack/status/1261380986820079619

uh...isn't 97.4 kind of...bad?

I run under 97 degrees almost always.

[Madrun Badrun]

I don't know if you are an idiot or not.  And I don't want you to be an idiot.  And I haven't actually ever called you an idiot.  But I do make lots of posts under the premise that you are an idiot.  Hypothetically, and I'm not saying this is true, if one were to call you an idiot, I would feel like there is a certain logic there. 

Question, do I think you are an idiot?  Yes no. 

Lets look at it another way

A part of me just feels like, lets get this shit over and done with. Mitigate the spread as much as we can, but fuck this lock down shit.

Not sure many people are with me on this though. And I'm not sure I am to be honest. It's just that the more I read about how it is going to take years, and that obviously we can't keep shit shut down for the long term anyway, the more I kind of feel like, 'fuck it then!'.

I didn't jump on it, I said I understood it after reading more about the issues with containing it. It's not like I wouldn't want a better solution or anything.

I will say one thing though. I also understand there is a tragic side of life, something the West has forgot a little bit. We've gone through this many times already. Sometimes it is inescapable.

Yeah. And I'm not sure I even want to do it anyway just yet. The thing is though, it seems like there is no way out of it. That eventually we will give up on it anyway.

I was never that confident in it to begin with. That's the first thing. This was me just thinking aloud on current news.

And I never stated it was the right or wrong course of action:

None of this is true though. The idea is quite clearly coming from epidemiologists. Goodness knows, I have listened a lot to them over past week. It is not some plot to save the economy over lives. Although economic meltdown isn't great either.

It may seem like a risky strategy, which is why many countries will choose the other option though. And it might not be the best course of action. Suppression has seemed to work in places like China.  What we don't yet know is what happens when China goes back to normal. Things could change just like that.

The weird thing I notice the arguments are actually the same. It's you talking about the 'herd immunity' strategy being all about the economy and me arguing against it.

The other thing is, I state it might not be the best course of action. Looking back, I always thought there was at least a logical argument in the mitigation strategy, I still do. And was a little annoyed by people completely mocking the UK approach to it. I never said it was necessarily the right strategy though. I didn't know. Only that it seemed there was at least some logic to it.

I will say one thing though, I do believe that if things come back in a big way, governments will seriously consider it. Hopefully there will be a vaccine or some working treatment before then.

Do you know what weasel words are? 

Definition of weasel word

: a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position

All you did is bold them to try to hid the fact that your feels are pretty clear on the matter. 

Now maybe you want to answer these:

Do you think the UK would have suffered unnecessary deaths due to PPE shortages had they gone through with their initial strategy?

Do you think it makes any difference when people get the virus in terms of death toll?  Like if we all get it once will the death toll be the same as we all got it over two years?

Why do you think the UK changed its strategy?

Has your opinion changed over the last three months?