MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => COVID-19 => Topic started by: Jay Bee on March 25, 2020, 08:27:38 PM
-
I'm not a conspiracy guy, but my question has been, "why aren't we shutting this down??". Including here in Minnesota. It's been 10 days since I was telling people Minnesota would be a shelter in place spot... and on Friday I predicted "on or around Tuesday" we'd shut it down. Today, the governor did, effective Friday. That's a lot of time lost. People infected, and undoubtedly, deaths.
Some had to die. Some more will die.
I have come to the understanding that "flattening the curve" means there's not much we can do to change the % of people that will get this virus... we can only change the timing of when they do. That's scary.
But.. is that where we're at? This is really just a timing exercise? I think that's what the politicians are really saying. In Minnesota, the desire was literally that a number of folks would get the virus, some would die, and that's helpful to the overall battle. That was the reason for the delay. You wouldn't hear that from politicians because it's a bad PR move, but I think that's the reality.
The decided fight is to flatten the timing of the infections... it's not to fight the # of infections.
"Hey, some ask why didn't we take action earlier? Well, we needed some to die early on" is a tough explanation so we won't hear it... but it seems like that is what it is.
We have accepted defeat and are just timing of the blows. Wow.
-
It’s a math problem and most countries have accepted that. Infection rate, ventilators, throughput through the hospital.
One reason why I’m so discouraged by our non-process oriented response. Test-trace-slow-handle through the health system. Not rocket science.
-
We have accepted defeat and are just timing of the blows. Wow.
Timing the blows yes. But in the process, we are:
*giving the people who get sick now a better chance of finding an open hospital bed and ventilator.
*buying time to learn more about the virus and its mode of spread.
*buying time between the peaks to develop and research drugs and vaccines.
Altogether, these things will increase survival rates today and tomorrow, and hopefully decrease incidence when the next wave comes.
Losing the battle, but trying to minimize casualties, and ultimately still trying to win the war.
-
Timing the blows yes. But in the process, we are:
*giving the people who get sick now a better chance of finding an open hospital bed and ventilator.
*buying time to learn more about the virus and its mode of spread.
*buying time between the peaks to develop and research drugs, vaccines.
Altogether, these things will increase survival rates today and tomorrow, and hopefully decrease incidence when the next wave comes.
Losing the battle, but trying to minimize casualties, and ultimately still trying to win the war.
I think that all makes sense. However,... and maybe it's a good thing.. it's lying to the American people. The truth is we want people to get sick early on, understanding there will be some deaths, and are making governmental (in)actions to effectively kill people because of this.
I get it. But, should it be communicated?
-
I think that all makes sense. However,... and maybe it's a good thing.. it's lying to the American people. The truth is we want people to get sick early on, understanding there will be some deaths, and are making governmental (in)actions to effectively kill people because of this.
I get it. But, should it be communicated?
Does it need to be? Isn’t it obvious?
-
I think that all makes sense. However,... and maybe it's a good thing.. it's lying to the American people. The truth is we want people to get sick early on, understanding there will be some deaths, and are making governmental (in)actions to effectively kill people because of this.
I get it. But, should it be communicated?
I think this happened at a stunning pace from a historical standpoint. Global pandemic in the course of 90days.
We are charting new historical ground.
-
I think that all makes sense. However,... and maybe it's a good thing.. it's lying to the American people. The truth is we want people to get sick early on, understanding there will be some deaths, and are making governmental (in)actions to effectively kill people because of this.
I get it. But, should it be communicated?
Who should be making that communication? Honest question.
We are also buying time so that eventually the at risk people can get a vaccine. But life for them is going to be awful for 12-18 months.
-
I think that all makes sense. However,... and maybe it's a good thing.. it's lying to the American people. The truth is we want people to get sick early on, understanding there will be some deaths, and are making governmental (in)actions to effectively kill people because of this.
I get it. But, should it be communicated?
Yes, it would be great if they communicated it better, but IMHO they are still figuring it out as they go. And unfortunately, the messages get muddled as different public officials are often speaking to different constituencies. POTUS has one view about how this should be handled, public health officials have another, and state and local government officials seem to have something in between.
-
We're letting people die tomorrow because we believe fewer will die later.
I get it, but the general population does not. And that's not being communicated.
We are trying to flatten.... we are not trying to reduce with any significance.
"We've lost the war... we're just trying to space out the casualties"
That's the reality, yeah?
-
We're letting people die tomorrow because we believe fewer will die later.
I get it, but the general population does not. And that's not being communicated.
We are trying to flatten.... we are not trying to reduce with any significance.
"We've lost the war... we're just trying to space out the casualties"
That's the reality, yeah?
Pretty much, but I’d say “trying to space out and ultimately reduce the total casualties.”
-
We're letting people die tomorrow because we believe fewer will die later.
I get it, but the general population does not. And that's not being communicated.
We are trying to flatten.... we are not trying to reduce with any significance.
"We've lost the war... we're just trying to space out the casualties"
That's the reality, yeah?
I think it is a throughput problem. If we all get it now there won’t be enough ventilators. So The hope is space it out, minimize the fatality rate and give the scientist time to figure out better therapy. Vaccine in a year as the backstop.
-
I think it is a throughput problem. If we all get it now there won’t be enough ventilators. So The hope is space it out, minimize the fatality rate and give the scientist time to figure out better therapy. Vaccine in a year as the backstop.
Right. Understood. But, I think some states are saying, "we should get SOME OUT" now. Let some get sick, some die is a great thing.
But, that's obviously not the message they're delivering.. it's the reality.
So in Minnesota... everything sounds great and compassionate and "i'm waiting on data" from the governor... that really means, "ay, some mf'rs gotta die... we spreadin dis out yo.. let's hold up, let some peeps get this sh1t.. some die.. it's all good... we can't win, we can only spread.. "
yes?
-
Right. Understood. But, I think some states are saying, "we should get SOME OUT" now. Let some get sick, some die is a great thing.
But, that's obviously not the message they're delivering.. it's the reality.
So in Minnesota... everything sounds great and compassionate and "i'm waiting on data" from the governor... that really means, "ay, some mf'rs gotta die... we spreadin dis out yo.. let's hold up, let some peeps get this sh1t.. some die.. it's all good... we can't win, we can only spread.. "
yes?
I think denying the virus a host controls the disease and lowers the ultimate death rate. South Korea, Japan and Singapore proved that. So they can minimize the death rate overall. I don’t know. They have lived with SARS and mers so I tend to think they know how to deal with these things without breaking the health system. I don’t know that it’s inevitable yet that a high percentage of us have this disease.
-
I think denying the virus a host controls the disease and lowers the ultimate death rate. South Korea, Japan and Singapore proved that. So they can minimize the death rate overall. I don’t know. They have lived with SARS and mers so I tend to think they know how to deal with these things without breaking the health system. I don’t know that it’s inevitable yet that a high percentage of us have this disease.
If you're making a claim I have no idea what it is.
I do believe Minnesota and others are giving up bodies for future gains. That may be reasonable and sane, but I wish they'd state the true goals.
-
If you're making a claim I have no idea what it is.
I do believe Minnesota and others are giving up bodies for future gains. That may be reasonable and sane, but I wish they'd state the true goals.
Slowing it down lowers the death rate is my claim.
-
Slowing it down lowers the death rate is my claim.
Fine. What I'm saying, and the example is Minnesota, is that the government intentionally is letting some* deaths happen early on in hopes of flattening the death rate.
Slowing it down could have been done earlier. My claim is that the government didn't want that - they wanted some early infections, which come with deaths.
It sounds sick, but I believe it's true and potentially smart. Just a hard sell. That's why they won't explain it truthfully.
-
Slowing it down lowers the death rate is my claim.
Agreed. There is no way we can totally prevent deaths from COVID; it just isn’t possible. So we are trying to do the next best thing: flatten the curve to give current patients the best hope of survival, and hopefully minimize deaths more as time goes by and we learn more.
-
Fine. What I'm saying, and the example is Minnesota, is that the government intentionally is letting some* deaths happen early on in hopes of flattening the death rate.
Slowing it down could have been done earlier. My claim is that the government didn't want that - they wanted some early infections, which come with deaths.
It sounds sick, but I believe it's true and potentially smart. Just a hard sell. That's why they won't explain it truthfully.
JayBee I don’t know this will kill some people. All we can do is protect the vulnerable as best as possible and protect as many as long as we can.
I think the U.K. initially took the explicit strategy you reference (and was blunt about it) but changed course as they realized that it would break the hc system.
-
Agreed. There is no way we can totally prevent deaths from COVID; it just isn’t possible. So we are trying to do the next best thing: flatten the curve to give current patients the best hope of survival, and hopefully minimize deaths more as time goes by and we learn more.
Well, not that part. If that was true, we would have enacted a shelter-in-place long ago.
They want to spread the deaths at this point. To be sure, the government of Minnesota and many other places have accepted deaths today, in the hopes of fewer deaths tomorrow. That's the reality. I just wish everyone would be honest about what we're doing here.
-
JayBee I don’t know this will kill some people. All we can do is protect the vulnerable as best as possible and protect as many as long as we can.
I think the U.K. initially took the explicit strategy you reference (and was blunt about it) but changed course as they realized that it would break the hc system.
If we knew shelter-in-place would happen eventually last week, why did we wait until today to put it in force (late Friday)?
Why?
Because we are flattening the curve. Some people getting sick and dying now will help that effort.
-
Fine. What I'm saying, and the example is Minnesota, is that the government intentionally is letting some* deaths happen early on in hopes of flattening the death rate.
Slowing it down could have been done earlier. My claim is that the government didn't want that - they wanted some early infections, which come with deaths.
It sounds sick, but I believe it's true and potentially smart. Just a hard sell. That's why they won't explain it truthfully.
What? Why does the government want deaths from this?
No. The reason to "flatten" now is so that we avoid overwhelming healthcare resources and prevent catastrophic amounts of deaths.
This is the only viable option now because we didn't act sooner (January or February). If we had acted back then, it's possible we could have avoided even more deaths than we're doing to have
So... Expected deaths - early action in January (extensive testing and tracking) < shelter in place in March/April < no intervention.
The government didn't intervene earlier because some people didn't believe it would be a threat. And also because government is generally slow to react. And this thing moved incredibly fast
Now... Why did/does the government want deaths from this?
Edit: I think you're missing many factors here: infectious disease, epidemiology, government indecision, politics
-
What? Why does the government want deaths from this?
No. The reason to "flatten" now is so that we avoid overwhelming healthcare resources and prevent catastrophic amounts of deaths.
This is the only viable option now because we didn't act sooner (January or February). If we had acted back then, it's possible we could have avoided even more deaths than we're doing to have
So... Expected deaths - early action in January (extensive testing and tracking) < shelter in place in March/April < no intervention.
The government didn't intervene earlier because some people didn't believe it would be a threat. And also because government is generally slow to react. And this thing moved incredibly fast
Now... Why did/does the government want deaths from this?
Edit: I think you're missing many factors here: infectious disease, epidemiology, government indecision, politics
I think you're agreeing with me. The government wants to SPREAD deaths. Therefore, some have DELAYED action to get in more infections/deaths early on the curve... flatten time.
It's very obvious tbh
-
Well, not that part. If that was true, we would have enacted a shelter-in-place long ago.
They want to spread the deaths at this point. To be sure, the government of Minnesota and many other places have accepted deaths today, in the hopes of fewer deaths tomorrow. That's the reality. I just wish everyone would be honest about what we're doing here.
I agree we should have had the shelter in place earlier. I have been hibernating for over a week.
Still, I seriously doubt Walz could have totally prevented any deaths even if he shut down the state as early as possible. The virus has been in the US for a couple months now, and Walz probably didn’t have the legal authority to mandate a large-scale closure of businesses until Trump declared a state of emergency. Before that, Walz’s actions would probably have been deemed an impermissible interference with interstate commerce. So no matter how you slice it, by the time the Gov had decisions to make, nature had already decided that there would be some deaths. So it has essentially always been a question of how many deaths we can prevent, and at what cost.
-
I agree we should have had the shelter in place earlier. I have been hibernating for over a week.
Still, I seriously doubt Walz could have totally prevented any deaths even if he shut down the state as early as possible. The virus has been in the US for a couple months now, and Walz probably didn’t have the legal authority to mandate a large-scale closure of businesses until Trump declared a state of emergency. Before that, Walz’s actions would probably have been deemed an impermissible interference with interstate commerce. So no matter how you slice it, by the time the Gov had decisions to make, nature had already decided that there would be some deaths. So it has essentially always been a question of how many deaths we can prevent, and at what cost.
I'll simplify my view: Walz could have put the order in effect long ago. It was inevitable and that was clear to any non-dumbass human. He delayed. The questions are why. I believe the reason is he wanted to start to flatten the curve by people getting infected (and some dying). So he held off.
-
I'll simplify my view: Walz could have put the order in effect long ago. It was inevitable and that was clear to any non-dumbass human. He delayed. The questions are why. I believe the reason is he wanted to start to flatten the curve by people getting infected (and some dying). So he held off.
You don’t flatten the curve “by getting some people infected.” You flatten the curve because some people already have the infection. If they didn’t, there would be no curve to flatten.
-
You don’t flatten the curve “by getting some people infected.” You flatten the curve because some people already have the infection. If they didn’t, there would be no curve to flatten.
No. You manufacture the curve by encouraging some to get it now with a loose 'quarantine'... flattening the curve means you want a small amount to get it throughout.. that's all. And that's what Minnesota has done without saying. They WANTED some people to get ill. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that was the game plan.... to help flatten
-
Does it need to be? Isn’t it obvious?
The information and strategy is widespread out there. The problem is, most have no desire to read it, and don't understand it. The paper guiding all the strategies nations are using right now has been widely linked on this site. It is long, and a bit technical.
It is easier to simply say "flatten the curve" and "lengthen the runway". The fact is, total number of infections are larger with these strategies, but mortality is lower.
-
No. You manufacture the curve by encouraging some to get it now with a loose 'quarantine'... flattening the curve means you want a small amount to get it throughout.. that's all. And that's what Minnesota has done without saying. They WANTED some people to get ill. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that was the game plan.... to help flatten
Guess we are going to have to disagree. I think the first viruses were already in US (and likely MN) before Walz had the ability to do anything. At that point a curve was inevitable, and the only questions were how much we can flatten it, and at what cost.
-
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
Here is the paper guiding the strategies right now.
-
Guess we are going to have to disagree. I think the first viruses were already in US (and likely MN) before Walz had the ability to do anything. At that point a curve was inevitable, and the only questions were how much we can flatten it, and at what cost.
You're saying exactly what I'm saying. Walz believes there is no ability to change the total... he delayed the stay at home measure to flatten it.
I'm just asking for some honesty when these people are talking about it.
e.g, ' I delayed because we can help flatten if more die NOW'
-
I'll simplify my view: Walz could have put the order in effect long ago. It was inevitable and that was clear to any non-dumbass human. He delayed. The questions are why. I believe the reason is he wanted to start to flatten the curve by people getting infected (and some dying). So he held off.
I do think there's a bit of semantic disconnect between holding off knowing people will get sick and holding off wanting people to get sick. I think weeks ago Walz was operating on three "facts" (i put in quotes because these can still be argued, though I think they're generally accepted then and now): (i) that instituing a shutdown would slow, but not stop/prevent spread (ii) with eventual spread inevitable the goal became flattening the curve to give healthcare a puncher's chance at keeping up, and (iii) long term, immunity will be a part of the equation at making this less deadly.
But I don't think the shutdown delay was in service of the immunity piece, immunity is just kind of the 'solution' of last resort that comes on its own. I think the real reason for delay is from a political-economic standpoint, if you shutdown early, what is the case for ever un-shutting down? You wait a bit to prevent people from arguing that you cost everyone an extra paycheck and a chance to prepare before things were bad. Not saying its the right call, but I think its what happened.
-
I do think there's a bit of semantic disconnect between holding off knowing people will get sick and holding off wanting people to get sick. I think weeks ago Walz was operating on three "facts" (i put in quotes because these can still be argued, though I think they're generally accepted then and now): (i) that instituing a shutdown would slow, but not stop/prevent spread (ii) with eventual spread inevitable the goal became flattening the curve to give healthcare a puncher's chance at keeping up, and (iii) long term, immunity will be a part of the equation at making this less deadly.
But I don't think the shutdown delay was in service of the immunity piece, immunity is just kind of the 'solution' of last resort that comes on its own. I think the real reason for delay is from a political-economic standpoint, if you shutdown early, what is the case for ever un-shutting down? You wait a bit to prevent people from arguing that you cost everyone an extra paycheck and a chance to prepare before things were bad. Not saying its the right call, but I think its what happened.
We're probably very close in our views, but I'm struggling to understand what you think the argument was for delaying an obvious eventual shut down.
-
We're probably very close in our views, but I'm struggling to understand what you think the argument was for delaying an obvious eventual shut down.
Read the paper. There are benchmarks for when you should optimally transition to "shut down" mode. I guarantee you most states have there own custom version of this model based on their respective treatment capacities.
-
Read the paper. There are benchmarks for when you should optimally transition to "shut down" mode. I guarantee you most states have there own custom version of this model based on their respective treatment capacities.
You mean their vs. there? What paper? Happy to tear it apart
-
You mean their vs. there? What paper? Happy to tear it apart
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
-
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
I found this passage near the end of the paper especially alarming:
However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.
In other words: Once this cat got out of the bag, we were dealing with a new type of animal, so even the experts aren't sure exactly how well we can contain it, and at what cost....
-
I found this passage near the end of the paper especially alarming:
However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.
In other words: Once this cat got out of the bag, we were dealing with a new type of animal, so even the experts aren't sure exactly how well we can contain it, and at what cost....
Agreed, and it is even further complicated by the lack of testing, so we really do not know any of the actual numbers, which are essential to planning/modelling.
-
We're probably very close in our views, but I'm struggling to understand what you think the argument was for delaying an obvious eventual shut down.
This is the first time I've ever seen you talk honestly about something other than B-Ball (unless maybe when you were insulting me). Quite refreshing, actually and I don't completely disagree with you for a change.
But many governors ARE trying to save lives - both Dems and Republicans. Many more don't care (Florida, Mississippi, Missouri).
But the reason shutdowns didn't come earlier is crystal clear. Because the country was told the whole thing was a hoax, fake news, and that the virus would disappear in a matter of days.
It is important for good people - everyone in this thread - to speak truth and to do whatever little part we can. People need help both physically and emotionally and we all can do little things to help. The country can go two very different ways when there is a true crisis as we have now. We have to try to tilt it the right way. We have to stand up and scream as loud as we can when people openly advocate letting others die just to get through this a bit quicker.
I am surprised but very happy that you are doing that "screaming" in this thread. We need to follow your lead and make our voices heard.
-
People need help both physically and emotionally and we all can do little things to help.
Thought about starting another thread for this - and probably to Coleman's mental health thread on the superbar. But I'm noticing almost everyone has extra stress now. Whether it's because there's more to do at work, or boredom, or not enough money coming in, or savings disappearing, or worries about a loved one. Plenty of reasons that everyone is carrying more stress than normal - and we all need to remember to breathe, and help each other out.
-
Thought about starting another thread for this - and probably to Coleman's mental health thread on the superbar. But I'm noticing almost everyone has extra stress now. Whether it's because there's more to do at work, or boredom, or not enough money coming in, or savings disappearing, or worries about a loved one. Plenty of reasons that everyone is carrying more stress than normal - and we all need to remember to breathe, and help each other out.
+Infinity
-
We're probably very close in our views, but I'm struggling to understand what you think the argument was for delaying an obvious eventual shut down.
We probably are. I think the main reason was a lack of political will to wear the economic consequences of a shutdown before covid was being felt on the ground at home. Of course, by then you've waited too long to meaningful stymie spread. But the uncertainty of when a shutdown would end factors in too. I think there is a fear to set a precedent for when you shut it down, because its hard to push the message to open it back up until you've gotten to the same point on the other side of the curve. So if you're super proactive and shut down after 10 cases, I think there's this fear that you have to keep it shut down until you ride the curve up and then get back down to only 10 cases. Of course that's not how the science behind all this necessarily works, but I think that thought process dictated a lot of the initial delay.
-
But the reason shutdowns didn't come earlier is crystal clear. Because the country was told the whole thing was a hoax, fake news, and that the virus would disappear in a matter of days.
Maybe that could be the reason why some of the earlier hard hit areas were slow to shut down. I doubt a couple press conferences from Trump were really impacting Cuomo's and Newsom's policy decisions. But maybe.
I think the reality of why cities and states are slow to lockdown is a combination of factors
1- there is a calculable economic cost that is very hard to commit to, even when it's the right thing to do. And the impact is not just for a few weeks.
2 - I doubt any of our local leaders had a playbook or had prepared for this situation. That's sure to cause delays in action
3- Optimism. I'm sure every governor is hoping their situation will be less severe than everyone else's. And until there's real data to show that your state or city is on one of those bad trend charts, it would be hard to accept that you're stuck in the same mess as everyone else.
-
Maybe that could be the reason why some of the earlier hard hit areas were slow to shut down. I doubt a couple press conferences from Trump were really impacting Cuomo's and Newsom's policy decisions. But maybe.
I think the reality of why cities and states are slow to lockdown is a combination of factors
1- there is a calculable economic cost that is very hard to commit to, even when it's the right thing to do. And the impact is not just for a few weeks.
2 - I doubt any of our local leaders had a playbook or had prepared for this situation. That's sure to cause delays in action
3- Optimism. I'm sure every governor is hoping their situation will be less severe than everyone else's. And until there's real data to show that your state or city is on one of those bad trend charts, it would be hard to accept that you're stuck in the same mess as everyone else.
You make excellent points here and I don't disagree with any of the three.
I think a 4th would be that no one wanted to be the first to shut things down.
-
People wont really listen to governors, mayors, CEOs, anyone unless people are dying. Dead ass neighbors are the only thing that really gets attention of the masses.
-
You're saying exactly what I'm saying. Walz believes there is no ability to change the total... he delayed the stay at home measure to flatten it.
I'm just asking for some honesty when these people are talking about it.
e.g, ' I delayed because we can help flatten if more die NOW'
With some stuff, the government simply needs to lie about it, e.g., bringing down Flight 93. (The government isn't outright lying so much as it is agreeing to go along with the public's denial).
Regarding a delay of a mass quarantine, I think the reason it was delayed was the timing. "Social fatigue" sets in after two weeks or so. After two weeks people become restless and say "f*ck this quarantine, I'm going out and living my life."
Hence, the government only has a two week window where it can impose the maximum lockdown period. For the sake of saving as many lives as possible, you want to time the "max lockdown" right before you hit the resource constraint, i.e., right before your hospitals reach capacity.
-
People wont really listen to governors, mayors, CEOs, anyone unless people are dying. Dead ass neighbors are the only thing that really gets attention of the masses.
Sad but true
-
This is the first time I've ever seen you talk honestly about something other than B-Ball (unless maybe when you were insulting me). Quite refreshing, actually and I don't completely disagree with you for a change.
But many governors ARE trying to save lives - both Dems and Republicans. Many more don't care (Florida, Mississippi, Missouri).
But the reason shutdowns didn't come earlier is crystal clear. Because the country was told the whole thing was a hoax, fake news, and that the virus would disappear in a matter of days.
It is important for good people - everyone in this thread - to speak truth and to do whatever little part we can. People need help both physically and emotionally and we all can do little things to help. The country can go two very different ways when there is a true crisis as we have now. We have to try to tilt it the right way. We have to stand up and scream as loud as we can when people openly advocate letting others die just to get through this a bit quicker.
I am surprised but very happy that you are doing that "screaming" in this thread. We need to follow your lead and make our voices heard.
It's sh*t like this that pisses me off about society...they hear something on CNN or MSNBC and consider it factual, it becomes a firestorm and then everyone(well everyone who just believes everything they hear) runs with it. NO one checks facts anymore..the American public is so sadly jaded by the media(particularly from a certain side). That's the biggest problem we face with this thing..the media. No one cares about facts anymore..agendas..that's what they care about.
-
It's sh*t like this that pisses me off about society...they hear something on CNN or MSNBC and consider it factual, it becomes a firestorm and then everyone(well everyone who just believes everything they hear) runs with it. NO one checks facts anymore..the American public is so sadly jaded by the media(particularly from a certain side). That's the biggest problem we face with this thing..the media. No one cares about facts anymore..agendas..that's what they care about.
The definition of irony.
-
It's sh*t like this that pisses me off about society...they hear something on CNN or MSNBC and consider it factual, it becomes a firestorm and then everyone(well everyone who just believes everything they hear) runs with it. NO one checks facts anymore..the American public is so sadly jaded by the media(particularly from a certain side). That's the biggest problem we face with this thing..the media. No one cares about facts anymore..agendas..that's what they care about.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/709/826/059.jpg)
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/709/826/059.jpg)
He definitely won't get the irony but this cracked me up.
-
It's sh*t like this that pisses me off about society...they hear something on CNN or MSNBC and consider it factual, it becomes a firestorm and then everyone(well everyone who just believes everything they hear) runs with it. NO one checks facts anymore..the American public is so sadly jaded by the media(particularly from a certain side). That's the biggest problem we face with this thing..the media. No one cares about facts anymore..agendas..that's what they care about.
So you *don't* think that "the country was told the whole thing was a hoax, fake news, and that the virus would disappear in a matter of days", and that is just a concoction of the left-wing media?
-
So you *don't* think that "the country was told the whole thing was a hoax, fake news, and that the virus would disappear in a matter of days", and that is just a concoction of the left-wing media?
He does his fact checking of Fox & Breitbart by going onto OAN and Infowars to confirm.
-
It's sh*t like this that pisses me off about society...they hear something on CNN or MSNBC and consider it factual, it becomes a firestorm and then everyone(well everyone who just believes everything they hear) runs with it. NO one checks facts anymore..the American public is so sadly jaded by the media(particularly from a certain side). That's the biggest problem we face with this thing..the media. No one cares about facts anymore..agendas..that's what they care about.
Trump literally said those things. Would you like me to post the video?
-
Trump literally said those things. Would you like me to post the video?
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HImj__5VoiM
-
So you *don't* think that "the country was told the whole thing was a hoax, fake news, and that the virus would disappear in a matter of days", and that is just a concoction of the left-wing media?
The president certainly downplayed the seriousness of the virus at the outset, but he didn't call it a hoax.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
-
Hey folks - I appreciate that everyone wants to educate the others, but lets move on...
-
Move on to what theres like literally nothing else to talk about
-
Move on to what theres like literally nothing else to talk about
Sorry should have been clear. Move on from the debate about what the prez said. Talk about flattening the curve all you like.
-
Jay bee - I still don't understand your perspective. You think the government wanted deaths, and wants more deaths, from this?
-
Jay bee - I still don't understand your perspective. You think the government wanted deaths, and wants more deaths, from this?
I believe MN’s gov was OK with waiting to issue an exec order to stay home even though it would and did cause more illness here than we’d otherwise be experiencing, in part because it’s more about flattening the curve vs. stopping the virus.
-
I believe MN’s gov was OK with waiting to issue an exec order to stay home even though it would and did cause more illness here than we’d otherwise be experiencing, in part because it’s more about flattening the curve vs. stopping the virus.
So you believe the government did not, at any point, want to stop the virus? You truly believe the government wanted the virus to spread?
-
Hey folks - I appreciate that everyone wants to educate the others, but lets move on...
Thanks for the resize.
-
IMO, there's more at play other than just "earlier mandatory quarantine equals less deaths". As much as this will hurt economically, increasing the time isolated would also increase the net economic loss. It then becomes a question of "how much are you willing to lose financially to have an increase in lives saved?", and that is a balancing act that I don't think has, or should have, a correct answer.
-
So you believe the government did not, at any point, want to stop the virus? You truly believe the government wanted the virus to spread?
The govt was ok with the virus spreading. Defeat accepted.
-
The govt was ok with the virus spreading. Defeat accepted.
But you can't really stop it. You can only slow it.
-
The govt was ok with the virus spreading. Defeat accepted.
What do you suggest they should have done to stop it from being spread that was acceptable politically and economically?
Also, why were they okay with the virus spreading?
-
The govt was ok with the virus spreading. Defeat accepted.
Did you read that paper, honestly, just curious what you thought.