Coronavirus General Discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Wed May 13, 2020 1:52 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 1:05 pm

By your logic, we should make the speed limit five miles per hour, since "human life is more important" than getting somewhere faster.
That's something I've brought up when we invest so much money in making schools fortified compounds for the slim tiny probability a shooting will take place at any school. Yet, on the other hand we willingly have speed limits which we KNOW are going to result in the harm to some children.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 2:24 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 1:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 11:55 am
Xan wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 11:51 am
The goal wasn't a "flat" curve, it was a "flatter" curve. One that keeps the number of cases below the medical capacity. Note how the total number of cases (the area under the curve) is the same, or perhaps even higher in the "flatter" scenario. So if you don't bump up against 100% capacity, you are unnecessarily elongating the amount of time of the whole thing.
I'm going to agree to disagree here. I think human life is more important than massage parlors, movie theaters, and gyms staying in business. We will find out in a few weeks how this turns out. In the meantime, there's really no point in debating. The decision has already been made, and the science experiment will be live and underway in my local population by the end of the week.
By your logic, we should make the speed limit five miles per hour, since "human life is more important" than getting somewhere faster.
This is taking my comments and exaggerating them to a ridiculous extreme. You obviously have either not read what I have said, or you do not understand what I have said. I have said multiple times that I was ok with the original phased opening plan. So I think you need to go put your glasses on and actually read my actual words throughout this entire thread instead of forming false assumptions that do not line up with my actual stance.
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 2:24 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 1:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 11:55 am
Xan wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 11:51 am
The goal wasn't a "flat" curve, it was a "flatter" curve. One that keeps the number of cases below the medical capacity. Note how the total number of cases (the area under the curve) is the same, or perhaps even higher in the "flatter" scenario. So if you don't bump up against 100% capacity, you are unnecessarily elongating the amount of time of the whole thing.
I'm going to agree to disagree here. I think human life is more important than massage parlors, movie theaters, and gyms staying in business. We will find out in a few weeks how this turns out. In the meantime, there's really no point in debating. The decision has already been made, and the science experiment will be live and underway in my local population by the end of the week.
By your logic, we should make the speed limit five miles per hour, since "human life is more important" than getting somewhere faster.
This is taking my comments and exaggerating them to a ridiculous extreme. You obviously have either not read what I have said, or you do not understand what I have said. I have said multiple times that I was ok with the original phased opening plan. So I think you need to go put your glasses on and actually read my actual words throughout this entire thread instead of forming false assumptions that do not line up with my actual stance.
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tyler » Wed May 13, 2020 3:41 pm

You also can't say no lives are lost because of the shutdown. From critical screenings and procedures not performed to the long-term detrimental health effects of poverty, willingly shutting down the world has consequences. It's not black and white.

I see the current conflict more about the competing interests of different socioeconomic groups. The very wealthy (who get government bailouts left and right and have enough money to not care) and minimum wage workers (who now make more in temporary government assistance than they did in their real jobs) are more than happy to sit things out. But the middle class (who depend primarily on their jobs to pay the bills) is rightfully freaking out and starting to get impatient with the other two groups continuing to shift the goalposts for their own benefit.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:15 pm

Tyler wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:41 pm
You also can't say no lives are lost because of the shutdown. From critical screenings and procedures not performed to the long-term detrimental health effects of poverty, willingly shutting down the world has consequences. It's not black and white.

I see the current conflict more about the competing interests of different socioeconomic groups. The very wealthy (who get government bailouts left and right and have enough money to not care) and minimum wage workers (who now make more in temporary government assistance than they did in their real jobs) are more than happy to sit things out. But the middle class (who depend primarily on their jobs to pay the bills) is rightfully freaking out and starting to get impatient with the other two groups continuing to shift the goalposts for their own benefit.
That is still looking at things from a purely monetary standpoint. And you are right there are some social rifts here which were there long before the virus, as the very wealthy have been favored to the detriment of everyone else for years now and the other people are rightfully upset. Why is it ok to give money to the rich but not ok to give money to poor? There's a lot of deep rooted issues like this that have been festering for a long time. Personally, I'm in the upper middle class so I get shafted either way. I make enough that I get hit with an incredibly large tax bill, get no "stimulus" checks, but I also don't yet have enough wealth to fully benefit from the wealth gap inflation like the very wealthy do. It sucks. I have reason to gripe here with both sides. But at the end of the day I do believe that peoples lives are more important than my monetary gripes. This is a humanitarian crisis, and it needs a humanitarian plan of action.

I'm ok with states taking a data driven approach to reopening... like the one Ducey originally had planned. His original plan was to open barbershops and dine in this week with heavy safety restrictions in place. Then waiting 2 weeks to see what happens with the data. If the data looks good, extend the opening to another set of businesses. If 2 weeks after that the data still is looking reasonable, then you do the full open. That would have us full open in a month if the data went well. This is a reasonable and data driven plan to me. Just punting the data and doing a full open less than a week from announcing that phased data driven plan just really does not sit with me well. This seems like a political move, not a logical move based on data and research.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tyler » Wed May 13, 2020 4:20 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:15 pm
That is still looking at things from a purely monetary standpoint.
Maybe you missed my first point. ;) Shutdowns also kill people. Here's one example:

Economic shutdown could kill more than coronavirus, experts warn

If you believe a data-driven approach is important, then IMO we should honestly account for the human cost on both sides of the decision and not simply frame it as life vs. money.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:26 pm

Tyler wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:20 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:15 pm
That is still looking at things from a purely monetary standpoint.
Maybe you missed my first point. ;) Shutdowns also cost lives. Here's one example:

Economic shutdown could kill more than coronavirus, experts warn

If you believe a data-driven approach is important, then IMO we should honestly account for the human cost on both sides of the decision and not simply frame it as life vs. money.
That article is a bit exaggerated and extreme. A 4 week data driven phased opening is not going to create that kind of a scenario.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Smith1776 » Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm

I think the whole idea of deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is largely a matter of balancing the time-frame.

A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus. A shutdown too long will cause a needless number of deaths by economic hardship and diseases of despair.

The trick is finding the right timeframe for shutdown. It's like optimizing a poorly defined function though. Easier said than done.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:31 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm
I think the whole idea of deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is largely a matter of balancing the time-frame.

A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus. A shutdown too long will cause a needless number of deaths by economic hardship and diseases of despair.

The trick is finding the right timeframe for shutdown. It's like optimizing a poorly defined function though. Easier said than done.
Agreed.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tyler » Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm
I think the whole idea of deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is largely a matter of balancing the time-frame.

A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus. A shutdown too long will cause a needless number of deaths by economic hardship and diseases of despair.

The trick is finding the right timeframe for shutdown. It's like optimizing a poorly defined function though. Easier said than done.
Well said. I totally agree.

Striking the right balance is hard, but recognizing the need for balance is the important first step.
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:38 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
If you look above we are already discussing some of those things. So you can continue to insult me all you want, but it is clear for everyone here to see that everything you've implied about me is false. So you can go troll and insult someone else. I don't have the time or patience for your bullshit.
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 4:40 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:38 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
If you look above we are already discussing some of those things. So you can continue to insult me all you want, but it is clear for everyone here to see that everything you've implied about me is false. So you can go troll and insult someone else. I don't have the time or patience for your bullshit.
LOL! Yes, I see you've changed your position.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:42 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:40 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:38 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
If you look above we are already discussing some of those things. So you can continue to insult me all you want, but it is clear for everyone here to see that everything you've implied about me is false. So you can go troll and insult someone else. I don't have the time or patience for your bullshit.
LOL! Yes, I see you've changed your position.
No my position has not changed at all. It's just that other people in the thread have come to me with discussion, whereas you just came to me as an arrogant asshole throwing insults at me from the onset with no attempt to even open up any form of dialogue.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Xan » Wed May 13, 2020 4:43 pm

I've read (somewhere) that the drop in food production will primarily affect exports to third-world countries, where the lack of available food could by itself kill as many as the virus.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by dualstow » Wed May 13, 2020 4:45 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:29 pm
I think the whole idea of deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is largely a matter of balancing the time-frame.

A shutdown too short will cause a needless number of deaths by the virus. A shutdown too long will cause a needless number of deaths by economic hardship and diseases of despair.

The trick is finding the right timeframe for shutdown. It's like optimizing a poorly defined function though. Easier said than done.
Thirded. There’s no way everyone is going to be happy (or alive) when this is done, but the optimal timeframe is of course the target.

I wonder how Sweden’s doing. I last read that they are doing worse than other Scandinavian nations but better than much of the rest of Europe. Maybe that’s out of date.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 4:47 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:42 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:40 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:38 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:32 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:12 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:10 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
You keep telling yourself that, hall monitor.
So what is your superior stance then if it in no way takes money/economy or lives into account and has no tradeoff between the two?
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with money. I'm saying the trade-off is not "money versus life." This is obvious because the lockdown objectively leads to an increase in deaths, not to mention other negative societal costs. With every percentage uptick in unemployment, there's a measurable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, crime, mental health issues, etc. Now does the lockdown cause more deaths and have more societal costs when compared to other approaches or is it really the best option? That would be a great discussion to have. Instead, we have lockdown hall monitors attempting to shut down the conversation by virtue-signalling about how only they are concerned with human life.
If you look above we are already discussing some of those things. So you can continue to insult me all you want, but it is clear for everyone here to see that everything you've implied about me is false. So you can go troll and insult someone else. I don't have the time or patience for your bullshit.
LOL! Yes, I see you've changed your position.
No my position has not changed at all. It's just that other people in the thread have come to me with discussion, whereas you just came to me as an arrogant asshole throwing insults at me from the onset with no attempt to even open up any form of dialogue.
Your old position: money vs. life
Your new position: deaths by shutdown vs. deaths by coronavirus
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:48 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:43 pm
I've read (somewhere) that the drop in food production will primarily affect exports to third-world countries, where the lack of available food could by itself kill as many as the virus.
Food production should be considered "essential". My gripe here is with things like shopping malls, movie theaters, massage parlors, bars, etc. Things that are definitely not essential. These things have no reason to open right now, especially into weekly data that is still trending worse.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pmward » Wed May 13, 2020 4:50 pm

upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:47 pm
Your old position: money vs. life
Your new position: deaths by shutdown vs. deaths by coronavirus
Not at all. Our discussion on that ended with me agreeing with Smith that the debate between deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is timeframe dependent. And on the timeframe I'm looking at in my state, and the timeframe I've been discussing this whole time, that argument does not even come into effect. Hence, no change in position.
upside
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by upside » Wed May 13, 2020 5:04 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:50 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:47 pm
Your old position: money vs. life
Your new position: deaths by shutdown vs. deaths by coronavirus
Not at all. Our discussion on that ended with me agreeing with Smith that the debate between deaths by shutdown vs deaths by coronavirus is timeframe dependent. And on the timeframe I'm looking at in my state, and the timeframe I've been discussing this whole time, that argument does not even come into effect. Hence, no change in position.
LOL.

I give you a solid "9.4" on your mental gymnastics routine. It's too bad I don't have any record of you saying the lockdown debate all boils down to money vs. lives. Oh wait...
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:08 pm
upside wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 3:02 pm
Nope. I simply made clear your continued use of a logical fallacy. The lockdown debate does not boil down to money vs. lives. Framing it that way is pure sophistry.
Except the fact that it really does come down to that.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by WiseOne » Wed May 13, 2020 5:05 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 11:43 am
WiseOne wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 11:36 am
pmward wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 11:25 am
During a lockdown, people that stay locked down and socially isolated had less cases and deaths than those that did not stay isolated.
Please cite the source for this data and the actual numbers? I'm interested to see it, because that conflicts with data already out there e.g. there is no difference in coronavirus mortality between states that locked down early vs. late. Plus that would conflict with the info from NY that few hospital cases consisted of people going to work (17%) and taking public transportation (4%).
The states that locked down early vs late is meaningless, because the states that locked down late mostly did not have a problem early. There is no data in reopening early vs late. My state is the guinea pig for that. If 2-3 weeks from now our data looks good, then my theory will be proven wrong. Until such time though, there is no real data to support your case.
Your statement (bolded above) is incorrect.

Your arguments are based primarily on your emotional response to the situation. While that's understandable, it's not terribly helpful to the rest of us. Hard data is what we would prefer to debate on.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by dualstow » Wed May 13, 2020 5:15 pm

As for the easing of the lockdown, though, did pmward say anything so crazy? It seems like he was just saying he didn't like the abrupt change from a careful rollout to a free-for-all and he's kind of getting beaten up over it. Maybe an endorsement from me is undesirable, O0 but I thought it made total sense.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
Post Reply