wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Unfortunately, yesterday and today have seen a pronounced spike in the numbers of new cases, to the extent that they are about 500 above what the previous record for new cases in the state was. That can't be good, and suggests a longer lockdown. Also, today is the second deadliest day on record in the state, with about 4 hours more to go.

---

I think this is due to a big testing spike in CA, not so much increased spread of the virus.

---

Hopefully that is the explanation. And hopefully the increased deaths is just a result of it being a delayed reaction to new cases.

I did find it interesting that the la times is now tracking hospitalizations related to covid and whether they were ICU or ACU patients. That number seems to be pretty steady.

---

I still argue you need to look at trends on a longer term basis because of reporting and testing biases. Again, I would encourage people to look at the state curves which you can see on the internet with a google search. It is not a smooth curve, but peaks and valleys. You need to a few weeks to see the curve shapes in general. Silver and others are just wrong on relying on short period changes.

---

Looking at cases is pointless especially given there are clearly places that are actively trying to keep their numbers down by not testing as much. Hospitalizations would be the best number, but it is hard to find that. Death is a lagging indicator, but that is the best number to look at.

Also, you have to look at where places are on their curve. South Dakota looks great on deaths right now, but that big spike in cases from the meat processing plant has the potential to blow up their deaths per capita, for instance.

OaktownBear said:

---

I'm also trying to figure out why so many conservatives are fixated with the mortality rate of the disease and seem to think a higher infection rate justifies anything. 2 options:

1. 1 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. Every person who gets the disease dies. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

2. 100 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. 1 out of 100 who get the disease will die. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

Do I effing care that the mortality rate of the 2nd disease is much lower. I have the same flipping chance of dying. Why do you seem to think a high transmission rate and lower mortality rate is safer?

We could be opening up tomorrow if your boy had gone all in on producing n95 masks, and developing a testing infrastructure. That is the issue. Not finding a philosphy professor from Harvard and a Woman's Studies professor from Oxford that are willing to theorize that the disease is not that dangerous.

---

Since we're throwing around death rates and our reactions to them, here are some interesting stats:

--We know that approximately 88,000 people will die of alcohol-related causes each year in America.
--We know that cigarette smoking is responsible for 480,000 deaths per year in America.

Despite having the tools necessary, where is our urgency to mitigate these causes of death that are 100% avoidable? Can we reasonably conclude that it isn't death rates that compel us to take action? Is it more likely the fear of the unknown?

Does anyone else find it at all bewildering that, taking into account the above statistics, liquor stores have been exempt from closing during the coronavirus lockdown? What does that say about what we say we fear, and what we truly fear?

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Unfortunately, yesterday and today have seen a pronounced spike in the numbers of new cases, to the extent that they are about 500 above what the previous record for new cases in the state was. That can't be good, and suggests a longer lockdown. Also, today is the second deadliest day on record in the state, with about 4 hours more to go.

---

I think this is due to a big testing spike in CA, not so much increased spread of the virus.

---

Hopefully that is the explanation. And hopefully the increased deaths is just a result of it being a delayed reaction to new cases.

I did find it interesting that the la times is now tracking hospitalizations related to covid and whether they were ICU or ACU patients. That number seems to be pretty steady.

---

I still argue you need to look at trends on a longer term basis because of reporting and testing biases. Again, I would encourage people to look at the state curves which you can see on the internet with a google search. It is not a smooth curve, but peaks and valleys. You need to a few weeks to see the curve shapes in general. Silver and others are just wrong on relying on short period changes.

---

Looking at cases is pointless especially given there are clearly places that are actively trying to keep their numbers down by not testing as much. Hospitalizations would be the best number, but it is hard to find that. Death is a lagging indicator, but that is the best number to look at.

Also, you have to look at where places are on their curve. South Dakota looks great on deaths right now, but that big spike in cases from the meat processing plant has the potential to blow up their deaths per capita, for instance.

---

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/04/62572/

I find it curious that the people who advocate for reopening the economy all seem to grasp desperately for any possible explanation that could minimize the impact of the virus (Hydroxycloroquine and other miracle cures; comparisons to the flu; any study that hints that the asymptomatic rate is higher than we think; any study that hints that infection has spread more widely than it has) while completely ignoring what we do actually know about which countries and localities have handled this best. They are perfectly capable of pointing out imperfections in existing knowledge but seemingly incapable of attaching any discount to studies which would increase our risk and exposure.

Here's what we know about COVID as of late April 2020: when ignored, it overwhelms our healthcare systems and has the capacity to increase the typical death rate. See NYC below for just one example.



We also know that it doesn't impact everyone the same and that many will be asymptomatic spreaders of the disease and that it is more deadly to the old, infirmed, and people with "pre-existing conditions" (which roughly speaking could be somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the country).

Finally, we know that there are a number of different ways to successfully limit the spread and impact of the virus. There is the South Korean approach of aggressive testing and quarantine, and there is the lockdown approach. Because we were unable to aggressively test, we have defaulted to the lockdown approach. It would have been possible to switch to the SK approach after lockdown if our country had competent leadership and was dedicated to doing so, but we have not made any progress there.

So, long story short, I think people who prioritize reopening the economy should be looking to South Korea as the model and right now we should be doing everything we can to be able to implement that model. Instead, many people are just ignoring science and hoping for a miracle to save us. We don't need a miracle, we just need coordinated effort to implement a solution to a public health problem. In sum, we're screwed because we cannot get 50 states to coordinate efforts without federal assistance and we do not have a functioning federal government.

kelly09 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Unfortunately, yesterday and today have seen a pronounced spike in the numbers of new cases, to the extent that they are about 500 above what the previous record for new cases in the state was. That can't be good, and suggests a longer lockdown. Also, today is the second deadliest day on record in the state, with about 4 hours more to go.

---

I think this is due to a big testing spike in CA, not so much increased spread of the virus.

---

Hopefully that is the explanation. And hopefully the increased deaths is just a result of it being a delayed reaction to new cases.

I did find it interesting that the la times is now tracking hospitalizations related to covid and whether they were ICU or ACU patients. That number seems to be pretty steady.

---

I still argue you need to look at trends on a longer term basis because of reporting and testing biases. Again, I would encourage people to look at the state curves which you can see on the internet with a google search. It is not a smooth curve, but peaks and valleys. You need to a few weeks to see the curve shapes in general. Silver and others are just wrong on relying on short period changes.

---

Looking at cases is pointless especially given there are clearly places that are actively trying to keep their numbers down by not testing as much. Hospitalizations would be the best number, but it is hard to find that. Death is a lagging indicator, but that is the best number to look at.

Also, you have to look at where places are on their curve. South Dakota looks great on deaths right now, but that big spike in cases from the meat processing plant has the potential to blow up their deaths per capita, for instance.

---

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/04/62572/

---

What? The Harvard philospher and the Oxford Woman Studies professor was busy? You had to get an economist to provide an analysis of health issues?

The funny thing is that even this source claims the validity of a lot of things that Trump and republicans simply aren't doing. Fact is, we shouldn't have to lock down.

Quote:

---

Many policies do provide public-health benefits. Masks work and should be mandatory, just as they were during the 1918 influenza pandemic. School cancellations are hugely important, and reliably show up as a key part of reducing infection. Bans on large assemblies are an obvious policy with good support. Restrictions on long-distance travel help reduce the occurrence of new outbreaks. Centralized quarantine helps actively reduce the spread of COVID-19 to a very low level.

---

I would be thrilled if we would move to do all these things. The quarantine won't do any good if you don't have adequate testing to identify who needs to be quarantined. This is exactly the South Korea model. We are locking down because your boy can't get off his ass to implement this. The lockdown was to buy time to do that. The economy could be saved and the virus spread controlled if we did all of this. Given that the federal government is not doing this, the only real tool we have is lock down.

The average American male is 5'9 198 lbs. The average American female is 5'4 170 lbs. That means half the people are fatter than that and that half appears to be over represented in those lockdown protests with the beer gut boys in Kevlar strapped with assault rifles with husky blonds by their side shrieking like Banshees and waiving signs. That is exactly the group COVAID 19 attacks.
I suppose when part of your bundled belief system is that science, experts, logic and actual facts are the playground of Leftist elitists and the Deep State, that you can cause yourself real harm.*



*Do you think that nurse knows how to fight? I do, but they would have just shot him if it came to that. That is a martial arts defensive stance because he is prepared to strike someone standing to his side or in front of him.

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I'm also trying to figure out why so many conservatives are fixated with the mortality rate of the disease and seem to think a higher infection rate justifies anything. 2 options:

1. 1 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. Every person who gets the disease dies. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

2. 100 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. 1 out of 100 who get the disease will die. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

Do I effing care that the mortality rate of the 2nd disease is much lower. I have the same flipping chance of dying. Why do you seem to think a high transmission rate and lower mortality rate is safer?

We could be opening up tomorrow if your boy had gone all in on producing n95 masks, and developing a testing infrastructure. That is the issue. Not finding a philosphy professor from Harvard and a Woman's Studies professor from Oxford that are willing to theorize that the disease is not that dangerous.

---

Since we're throwing around death rates and our reactions to them, here are some interesting stats:

--We know that approximately 88,000 people will die of alcohol-related causes each year in America.
--We know that cigarette smoking is responsible for 480,000 deaths per year in America.

Despite having the tools necessary, where is our urgency to mitigate these causes of death that are 100% avoidable? Can we reasonably conclude that it isn't death rates that compel us to take action? Is it more likely the fear of the unknown?

Does anyone else find it at all bewildering that, taking into account the above statistics, liquor stores have been exempt from closing during the coronavirus lockdown? What does that say about what we say we fear, and what we truly fear?

---

We tried prohibition. It didn't work. People still drank alcohol. We just developed a criminal black market. We do spend a lot of money on education to reduce the rate of smoking. We have put in laws to limit where you can smoke to reduce second hand smoke exposure. I think we have shown an urgency to mitigate the causes of death from smoking. I assume you are saying we can make it illegal. It is questionable whether that would actually work.

And to be blunt, cigarette smoking is zero risk to me because I choose not to do it or to be around anyone doing it. As an individual I can easily avoid the risk. Mitigating the risk of a virus spreading through the community is not the same equation as a person choosing to smoke despite education into the harmful effects because they get pleasure from the activity and choose to take on the health hazards.

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I'm also trying to figure out why so many conservatives are fixated with the mortality rate of the disease and seem to think a higher infection rate justifies anything. 2 options:

1. 1 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. Every person who gets the disease dies. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

2. 100 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. 1 out of 100 who get the disease will die. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

Do I effing care that the mortality rate of the 2nd disease is much lower. I have the same flipping chance of dying. Why do you seem to think a high transmission rate and lower mortality rate is safer?

We could be opening up tomorrow if your boy had gone all in on producing n95 masks, and developing a testing infrastructure. That is the issue. Not finding a philosphy professor from Harvard and a Woman's Studies professor from Oxford that are willing to theorize that the disease is not that dangerous.

---

Since we're throwing around death rates and our reactions to them, here are some interesting stats:

--We know that approximately 88,000 people will die of alcohol-related causes each year in America.
--We know that cigarette smoking is responsible for 480,000 deaths per year in America.

Despite having the tools necessary, where is our urgency to mitigate these causes of death that are 100% avoidable? Can we reasonably conclude that it isn't death rates that compel us to take action? Is it more likely the fear of the unknown?

Does anyone else find it at all bewildering that, taking into account the above statistics, liquor stores have been exempt from closing during the coronavirus lockdown? What does that say about what we say we fear, and what we truly fear?

---

The problem is that while you can choose not to drink or smoke, the virus is invisible so you can't choose to not be around people who have it.

We do have laws to limit exposure to the consequences of other people's drinking and smoking. Drunk driving is illegal. Smoking in a bar or restaurant is illegal. Unfortunately, until we know more about who has the virus and how it spreads, the way to limit exposure is to have everyone stay home.

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I'm also trying to figure out why so many conservatives are fixated with the mortality rate of the disease and seem to think a higher infection rate justifies anything. 2 options:

1. 1 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. Every person who gets the disease dies. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

2. 100 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. 1 out of 100 who get the disease will die. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

Do I effing care that the mortality rate of the 2nd disease is much lower. I have the same flipping chance of dying. Why do you seem to think a high transmission rate and lower mortality rate is safer?

We could be opening up tomorrow if your boy had gone all in on producing n95 masks, and developing a testing infrastructure. That is the issue. Not finding a philosphy professor from Harvard and a Woman's Studies professor from Oxford that are willing to theorize that the disease is not that dangerous.

---

Since we're throwing around death rates and our reactions to them, here are some interesting stats:

--We know that approximately 88,000 people will die of alcohol-related causes each year in America.
--We know that cigarette smoking is responsible for 480,000 deaths per year in America.

Despite having the tools necessary, where is our urgency to mitigate these causes of death that are 100% avoidable? Can we reasonably conclude that it isn't death rates that compel us to take action? Is it more likely the fear of the unknown?

Does anyone else find it at all bewildering that, taking into account the above statistics, liquor stores have been exempt from closing during the coronavirus lockdown? What does that say about what we say we fear, and what we truly fear?

---

We tried prohibition. It didn't work. People still drank alcohol. We just developed a criminal black market. We do spend a lot of money on education to reduce the rate of smoking. We have put in laws to limit where you can smoke to reduce second hand smoke exposure. I think we have shown an urgency to mitigate the causes of death from smoking. I assume you are saying we can make it illegal. It is questionable whether that would actually work.

And to be blunt, cigarette smoking is zero risk to me because I choose not to do it or to be around anyone doing it. As an individual I can easily avoid the risk. Mitigating the risk of a virus spreading through the community is not the same equation as a person choosing to smoke despite education into the harmful effects because they get pleasure from the activity and choose to take on the health hazards.

---

I don't think engaging with LMK5's bad faith attempts to create strawmen has been productive. He's just dancing around his real argument which is that he believes the economy is more important than people's lives (like Texas' Dan Patrick). Maybe it's because he doesn't care how many people die to save his 401(k) or business or job or perhaps he just genuinely cares about the finances, but not lives, of other people, I can only suspect based on his juvenile attempts to grasp at straws.

But what I do know is that LMK5 is aware of why we are sheltering in place and what we are trying to avoid. I think he also has a pretty good grasp at this point, assuming he's read any of the posts he has responded to, that the cost of failing to do so will be hundreds of thousands of American lives. What I don't think he realizes (but OTB and most others here do) is that simply "reopening" the economy won't undo the damage or prevent further damage if we fail to prevent the spread of COVID. We will learn very soon from the Georgia experiment that people are not going to flock to businesses when there is an uncontrolled outbreak. I believe we all also learn that there are just enough idiots out there to ensure that the spread will continue without aggressive SIP orders and that it will take even longer for places with weak responses to see the full benefits from a reopening of the economy.

Disney heir slams the company for furloughing 100,000 staff



https://mol.im/a/8246221

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I'm also trying to figure out why so many conservatives are fixated with the mortality rate of the disease and seem to think a higher infection rate justifies anything. 2 options:

1. 1 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. Every person who gets the disease dies. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

2. 100 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. 1 out of 100 who get the disease will die. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

Do I effing care that the mortality rate of the 2nd disease is much lower. I have the same flipping chance of dying. Why do you seem to think a high transmission rate and lower mortality rate is safer?

We could be opening up tomorrow if your boy had gone all in on producing n95 masks, and developing a testing infrastructure. That is the issue. Not finding a philosphy professor from Harvard and a Woman's Studies professor from Oxford that are willing to theorize that the disease is not that dangerous.

---

Since we're throwing around death rates and our reactions to them, here are some interesting stats:

--We know that approximately 88,000 people will die of alcohol-related causes each year in America.
--We know that cigarette smoking is responsible for 480,000 deaths per year in America.

Despite having the tools necessary, where is our urgency to mitigate these causes of death that are 100% avoidable? Can we reasonably conclude that it isn't death rates that compel us to take action? Is it more likely the fear of the unknown?

Does anyone else find it at all bewildering that, taking into account the above statistics, liquor stores have been exempt from closing during the coronavirus lockdown? What does that say about what we say we fear, and what we truly fear?

---

We tried prohibition. It didn't work. People still drank alcohol. We just developed a criminal black market. We do spend a lot of money on education to reduce the rate of smoking. We have put in laws to limit where you can smoke to reduce second hand smoke exposure. I think we have shown an urgency to mitigate the causes of death from smoking. I assume you are saying we can make it illegal. It is questionable whether that would actually work.

And to be blunt, cigarette smoking is zero risk to me because I choose not to do it or to be around anyone doing it. As an individual I can easily avoid the risk. Mitigating the risk of a virus spreading through the community is not the same equation as a person choosing to smoke despite education into the harmful effects because they get pleasure from the activity and choose to take on the health hazards.

---

I don't think engaging with LMK5's bad faith attempts to create strawmen has been productive. He's just dancing around his real argument which is that he believes the economy is more important than people's lives (like Texas' Dan Patrick). Maybe it's because he doesn't care how many people die to save his 401(k) or business or job or perhaps he just genuinely cares about the finances, but not lives, of other people, I can only suspect based on his juvenile attempts to grasp at straws.

---

Of course the economy is more important than you, my dog is more important than you. You and your lefty hypocrites pretend you care about people, oh the people! You slander people, you don't care about people, but you can't say that, you need to convince yourself that you're morally superior, oh look at the Texas governor, he cares more about the economy than people, unlike me, because Unit2Sucks cares about people so much.

bearister said:

---

Disney heir slams the company for furloughing 100,000 staff

https://mol.im/a/8246221

---

They figured our tax dollars can pay for their workers which really means our tax dollars are paying their dividends.

For anyone who thinks that we can pin our hopes on a vaccine to protect us because we gave up on social distancing or otherwise reducing the spread of the virus through testing and contact tracing.

In short, if the penalties for prematurely reopening and allowing COVID to get an even bigger footprint in this country could be ever more severe.

But hey, what do you have to lose - you can always take Hydroxycloroquine?

LMK5 said:

---

That lady is two cardiac events prosecutions from being POTUS.

---

FIFY

BearForce2 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I'm also trying to figure out why so many conservatives are fixated with the mortality rate of the disease and seem to think a higher infection rate justifies anything. 2 options:

1. 1 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. Every person who gets the disease dies. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

2. 100 out of every 100 people in America will get a disease with no measures to stop the spread. 1 out of 100 who get the disease will die. I have a 1% chance of dying from the disease.

Do I effing care that the mortality rate of the 2nd disease is much lower. I have the same flipping chance of dying. Why do you seem to think a high transmission rate and lower mortality rate is safer?

We could be opening up tomorrow if your boy had gone all in on producing n95 masks, and developing a testing infrastructure. That is the issue. Not finding a philosphy professor from Harvard and a Woman's Studies professor from Oxford that are willing to theorize that the disease is not that dangerous.

---

Since we're throwing around death rates and our reactions to them, here are some interesting stats:

--We know that approximately 88,000 people will die of alcohol-related causes each year in America.
--We know that cigarette smoking is responsible for 480,000 deaths per year in America.

Despite having the tools necessary, where is our urgency to mitigate these causes of death that are 100% avoidable? Can we reasonably conclude that it isn't death rates that compel us to take action? Is it more likely the fear of the unknown?

Does anyone else find it at all bewildering that, taking into account the above statistics, liquor stores have been exempt from closing during the coronavirus lockdown? What does that say about what we say we fear, and what we truly fear?

---

We tried prohibition. It didn't work. People still drank alcohol. We just developed a criminal black market. We do spend a lot of money on education to reduce the rate of smoking. We have put in laws to limit where you can smoke to reduce second hand smoke exposure. I think we have shown an urgency to mitigate the causes of death from smoking. I assume you are saying we can make it illegal. It is questionable whether that would actually work.

And to be blunt, cigarette smoking is zero risk to me because I choose not to do it or to be around anyone doing it. As an individual I can easily avoid the risk. Mitigating the risk of a virus spreading through the community is not the same equation as a person choosing to smoke despite education into the harmful effects because they get pleasure from the activity and choose to take on the health hazards.

---

I don't think engaging with LMK5's bad faith attempts to create strawmen has been productive. He's just dancing around his real argument which is that he believes the economy is more important than people's lives (like Texas' Dan Patrick). Maybe it's because he doesn't care how many people die to save his 401(k) or business or job or perhaps he just genuinely cares about the finances, but not lives, of other people, I can only suspect based on his juvenile attempts to grasp at straws.

---

Of course the economy is more important than you, my dog is more important than you. You and your lefty hypocrites pretend you care about people, oh the people! You slander people, you don't care about people, but you can't say that, you need to convince yourself that you're morally superior, oh look at the Texas governor, he cares more about the economy than people, unlike me, because Unit2Sucks cares about people so much.

---

Good one and thanks for the backup. Unit2Sucks likes to fancy himself as the height of sophisticated progressive thought, but in practice he acts like a fascist, desperately trying to stifle thoughts that sway from the ones that he claims to hold. Note how he mentions the 401(k) as a dig. But many may have noticed that earlier in this thread, in a discussion about commercial real estate, he mentions "I've reduced my REIT exposure." Now, only knowledgeable and experienced investors even know what REITs are, so in that little slip, he revealed that he is a committed investor himself, and quite concerned about his own money. What a pompous hypocrite.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Unfortunately, yesterday and today have seen a pronounced spike in the numbers of new cases, to the extent that they are about 500 above what the previous record for new cases in the state was. That can't be good, and suggests a longer lockdown. Also, today is the second deadliest day on record in the state, with about 4 hours more to go.

---

I think this is due to a big testing spike in CA, not so much increased spread of the virus.

---

Hopefully that is the explanation. And hopefully the increased deaths is just a result of it being a delayed reaction to new cases.

I did find it interesting that the la times is now tracking hospitalizations related to covid and whether they were ICU or ACU patients. That number seems to be pretty steady.

---

I still argue you need to look at trends on a longer term basis because of reporting and testing biases. Again, I would encourage people to look at the state curves which you can see on the internet with a google search. It is not a smooth curve, but peaks and valleys. You need to a few weeks to see the curve shapes in general. Silver and others are just wrong on relying on short period changes.

---

Looking at cases is pointless especially given there are clearly places that are actively trying to keep their numbers down by not testing as much. Hospitalizations would be the best number, but it is hard to find that. Death is a lagging indicator, but that is the best number to look at.

Also, you have to look at where places are on their curve. South Dakota looks great on deaths right now, but that big spike in cases from the meat processing plant has the potential to blow up their deaths per capita, for instance.

---

it is hard to look at a small population of cases like in South Dakota, for any statistical understanding of trends. Statistics 101.

That said, case reporting, and death reporting, despite problems, at least gives you a reportable number, where someone actually is confirming cases. That is the best you have right now for trend analysis. And if you are looking for trends, as opposed to daily or even weekly results, these numbers, where statistically significant, probably are accurate enough.

If you start using the school studies like John Hopkins or Stanford that extrapolate (i.e., make up stuff) you not only get wildly inconsistent results, you get people accused of pushing an agenda with bad data applications (how many articles are there now that say the Stanford prognostication re: Santa Clara infection rates was simply fiction?). Death totals have the similiar problems as case sturdies. Not all cases are reported or reported on time. For starters, when people die, they don't aways examine for COVID, especially where there may be multiple causes of death. My friend works at UCLA COVID critical care. In numerous cases, somebody is brought down in peril from another hospital area, with just diagnosed COVID or suspected COVID in addition to other fatal conditions, only to have them code out. Is that a COVID death? The determination is at the discretion of the attending, and not always consistent. But you figure a lot of those decisions just even out and use either cases or deaths, since they do have actual results. Maybe you adjust the numbers when there is more testing (most states have way higher per capita testing then California, but at least the base statistic are people who actually are determined to have COVID, and you then look for a trend line, not daily or even weekly data that morons on Twitter use in order to find ways to support their political agenda.

Newsom has ordered a relook at early deaths and cases, with the idea of demonstrating if there were more deaths or cases early, Cali really is on the flat or lowering side of the curve, so he can justify dropping certain restrictions. That may sound like a politician under pressure, but that may also be the right way to do this. Get the most accurate reportable results you can get. And tell places like Stanford or John Hopkins they do more harm than good with these hypothetical studies that are blown-up all over the media. Who really benefits when you have a patently false college study that says there are 80 times more cases?

American billionaires are $280 billion richer since COVID-19


https://www.fastcompany.com/90494347/american-billionaires-have-gotten-280-billion-richer-since-the-start-of-the-covid-19-pandemic

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks likes to fancy himself as the height of sophisticated progressive thought, but in practice he acts like a fascist, desperately trying to stifle thoughts that sway from the ones that he claims to hold. Note how he mentions the 401(k) as a dig. But many may have noticed that earlier in this thread, in a discussion about commercial real estate, he mentions "I've reduced my REIT exposure." Now, only knowledgeable and experienced investors even know what REITs are, so in that little slip, he revealed that he is a committed investor himself, and quite concerned about his own money. What a pompous hypocrite.

---

Unsurprisingly, you have managed to yet again to tilt at windmills.

I've never denied the economic impact of COVID. As many have pointed out, including OTB numerous times, you can't just wish the economic impacts of the pandemic away by ignoring it. That's what morons like Trump thought you could do. And now the mayor of Las Vegas I suppose. I get that everyone wants the economy to perform well. I do too. I am not belittling people who care about their jobs or their 401(k)s. The federal response to this pandemic has been horrendous. We had a chance to respond appropriately to this in February - like South Korea - but instead chose to do nothing because Trump is a moron. That decision is the reason we are seeing economic devastation. Had he done everything perfectly, we might still have needed to shelter in place, but for a shorter period of time. I am belittling anyone who is dumb enough to believe that simply "reopening" the economy will fix the economy when we don't have COVID under control.

Allowing COVID to run unchecked in our country will pretty much guarantee a prolonged deeply negative economic outfall. People who don't want to increase their chances of getting sick and dying will reduce their public exposure. This will lead to a corresponding reduction in consumer spending, not unlike we are seeing now, except there won't be an end in sight because we won't knock down the virus. Tyson had to close a pork processing plant in Iowa because of COVID. Do you think "reopening" the economy would keep a plant like that open? What happens when we expose more and more people to COVID and are forced to shut even more of the food supply chain? Please connect the dots for all of us.

COVID has a chance to be the leading cause of death in the United States in the month of April and if it's not no. 1 it will surely be in the top 3 - and that's with shelter in place in effect throughout the country. Imagine what will happen if we "reopen the economy"?

bearister said:

---

American billionaires are $280 billion richer since COVID-19


https://www.fastcompany.com/90494347/american-billionaires-have-gotten-280-billion-richer-since-the-start-of-the-covid-19-pandemic

---

Yeahbut - A Thousand Points of Light!

Oh yeah, and: Trickle down.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks likes to fancy himself as the height of sophisticated progressive thought, but in practice he acts like a fascist, desperately trying to stifle thoughts that sway from the ones that he claims to hold. Note how he mentions the 401(k) as a dig. But many may have noticed that earlier in this thread, in a discussion about commercial real estate, he mentions "I've reduced my REIT exposure." Now, only knowledgeable and experienced investors even know what REITs are, so in that little slip, he revealed that he is a committed investor himself, and quite concerned about his own money. What a pompous hypocrite.

---

Unsurprisingly, you have managed to yet again to tilt at windmills.

I've never denied the economic impact of COVID. As many have pointed out, including OTB numerous times, you can't just wish the economic impacts of the pandemic away by ignoring it. That's what morons like Trump thought you could do. And now the mayor of Las Vegas I suppose. I get that everyone wants the economy to perform well. I do too. I am not belittling people who care about their jobs or their 401(k)s. The federal response to this pandemic has been horrendous. We had a chance to respond appropriately to this in February - like South Korea - but instead chose to do nothing because Trump is a moron. That decision is the reason we are seeing economic devastation. Had he done everything perfectly, we might still have needed to shelter in place, but for a shorter period of time. I am belittling anyone who is dumb enough to believe that simply "reopening" the economy will fix the economy when we don't have COVID under control.

Allowing COVID to run unchecked in our country will pretty much guarantee a prolonged deeply negative economic outfall. People who don't want to increase their chances of getting sick and dying will reduce their public exposure. This will lead to a corresponding reduction in consumer spending, not unlike we are seeing now, except there won't be an end in sight because we won't knock down the virus. Tyson had to close a pork processing plant in Iowa because of COVID. Do you think "reopening" the economy would keep a plant like that open? What happens when we expose more and more people to COVID and are forced to shut even more of the food supply chain? Please connect the dots for all of us.

COVID has a chance to be the leading cause of death in the United States in the month of April and if it's not no. 1 it will surely be in the top 3 - and that's with shelter in place in effect throughout the country. Imagine what will happen if we "reopen the economy"?

---

Reopening the economy without also once again exposing the economy to the negative effects of the virus will require large-scale national coordination and long-term planning. These are two things the Trump Administration has shown little aptitude for.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks likes to fancy himself as the height of sophisticated progressive thought, but in practice he acts like a fascist, desperately trying to stifle thoughts that sway from the ones that he claims to hold. Note how he mentions the 401(k) as a dig. But many may have noticed that earlier in this thread, in a discussion about commercial real estate, he mentions "I've reduced my REIT exposure." Now, only knowledgeable and experienced investors even know what REITs are, so in that little slip, he revealed that he is a committed investor himself, and quite concerned about his own money. What a pompous hypocrite.

---

Unsurprisingly, you have managed to yet again to tilt at windmills.

I've never denied the economic impact of COVID. As many have pointed out, including OTB numerous times, you can't just wish the economic impacts of the pandemic away by ignoring it. That's what morons like Trump thought you could do. And now the mayor of Las Vegas I suppose. I get that everyone wants the economy to perform well. I do too. I am not belittling people who care about their jobs or their 401(k)s. The federal response to this pandemic has been horrendous. We had a chance to respond appropriately to this in February - like South Korea - but instead chose to do nothing because Trump is a moron. That decision is the reason we are seeing economic devastation. Had he done everything perfectly, we might still have needed to shelter in place, but for a shorter period of time. I am belittling anyone who is dumb enough to believe that simply "reopening" the economy will fix the economy when we don't have COVID under control.

Allowing COVID to run unchecked in our country will pretty much guarantee a prolonged deeply negative economic outfall. People who don't want to increase their chances of getting sick and dying will reduce their public exposure. This will lead to a corresponding reduction in consumer spending, not unlike we are seeing now, except there won't be an end in sight because we won't knock down the virus. Tyson had to close a pork processing plant in Iowa because of COVID. Do you think "reopening" the economy would keep a plant like that open? What happens when we expose more and more people to COVID and are forced to shut even more of the food supply chain? Please connect the dots for all of us.

COVID has a chance to be the leading cause of death in the United States in the month of April and if it's not no. 1 it will surely be in the top 3 - and that's with shelter in place in effect throughout the country. Imagine what will happen if we "reopen the economy"?

---

You're missing the point entirely. You attack people personally, then when they respond, you walk it back and talk about the issue at hand in a much more reasonable manner. But your initial impulse to discredit a person for his/her views needs to be controlled. It's not just me. In the "Elephant in The Room" thread you did the same thing to Rushinbear, using the "people like you" tactic. Take a step back. This is a just a bunch of Cal football fans bantering about contemporary issues. Nothing more. The best that can come out of it is you gain someone else's perspective--if you let it happen. Lots of smart folks on here.

Someone espousing views differing from your own should not provoke the kind of pointed, personal attacks that have become your MO.

After tRump's medical experts refused to go all in on his lies yesterday during the COVID 19 pressie, I decided that I would love to see Dr. Fauci go FULL PACINO on tRump:

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks likes to fancy himself as the height of sophisticated progressive thought, but in practice he acts like a fascist, desperately trying to stifle thoughts that sway from the ones that he claims to hold. Note how he mentions the 401(k) as a dig. But many may have noticed that earlier in this thread, in a discussion about commercial real estate, he mentions "I've reduced my REIT exposure." Now, only knowledgeable and experienced investors even know what REITs are, so in that little slip, he revealed that he is a committed investor himself, and quite concerned about his own money. What a pompous hypocrite.

---

Unsurprisingly, you have managed to yet again to tilt at windmills.

I've never denied the economic impact of COVID. As many have pointed out, including OTB numerous times, you can't just wish the economic impacts of the pandemic away by ignoring it. That's what morons like Trump thought you could do. And now the mayor of Las Vegas I suppose. I get that everyone wants the economy to perform well. I do too. I am not belittling people who care about their jobs or their 401(k)s. The federal response to this pandemic has been horrendous. We had a chance to respond appropriately to this in February - like South Korea - but instead chose to do nothing because Trump is a moron. That decision is the reason we are seeing economic devastation. Had he done everything perfectly, we might still have needed to shelter in place, but for a shorter period of time. I am belittling anyone who is dumb enough to believe that simply "reopening" the economy will fix the economy when we don't have COVID under control.

Allowing COVID to run unchecked in our country will pretty much guarantee a prolonged deeply negative economic outfall. People who don't want to increase their chances of getting sick and dying will reduce their public exposure. This will lead to a corresponding reduction in consumer spending, not unlike we are seeing now, except there won't be an end in sight because we won't knock down the virus. Tyson had to close a pork processing plant in Iowa because of COVID. Do you think "reopening" the economy would keep a plant like that open? What happens when we expose more and more people to COVID and are forced to shut even more of the food supply chain? Please connect the dots for all of us.

COVID has a chance to be the leading cause of death in the United States in the month of April and if it's not no. 1 it will surely be in the top 3 - and that's with shelter in place in effect throughout the country. Imagine what will happen if we "reopen the economy"?

---

You're missing the point entirely. You attack people personally, then when they respond, you walk it back and talk about the issue at hand in a much more reasonable manner. But your initial impulse to discredit a person for his/her views needs to be controlled. It's not just me. In the "Elephant in The Room" thread you did the same thing to Rushinbear, using the "people like you" tactic. Take a step back. This is a just a bunch of Cal football fans bantering about contemporary issues. Nothing more. The best that can come out of it is you gain someone else's perspective--if you let it happen. Lots of smart folks on here.

Someone espousing views differing from your own should not provoke the kind of pointed, personal attacks that have become your MO.

---

I don't have a problem with people genuinely espousing views differing from me. I have a problem with trolls and people who post disingenuously.

bearister said:

---

Are these lockdown protestor lads planning something for the future?

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/media-smear-michigan-lockdown-protesters-confederate-flag-canard/

Nice people on both sides, amiright?

kelly09 said:

---

www.thepubicdiscourse.com/2020/04/666c72

---

Folks, even a broken clock is right twice a day and when someone is right, they're right.

I encourage every straight-thinking American to click on the above link.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

COVID has a chance to be the leading cause of death in the United States in the month of April and if it's not no. 1 it will surely be in the top 3 - and that's with shelter in place in effect throughout the country. Imagine what will happen if we "reopen the economy"?

---

That said, we also need to have a rational discussion about risks and costs.

Is the risk of a child from a family that has sheltered in place for a month really at risk from going over to play at another child's house from a family that has also sheltered in place?

Is the risk of two people going on a walk without a mask standing six feet apart so great that we should prohibit it?

Is the risk of someone going surfing so great that we should prohibit it if we can limit the number of people who do it?


Responsibility is great and all, but I think people have gotten the message. And I think people are sufficiently suspicious about anyone they don't know coming into close proximity of them. And if for someone reason, you're in a public space and people keep violating that space (like the people in the park yesterday who weren't wearing masks and being careful kept clustering too much), you always have the right to just leave that situation as my wife and friend did yesterday. Why, you can even choose to snitch on them and call the police to ask them to disburse.

There are multiple kinds of health and mental health is one of them. Cooping people up in their houses for a month is not healthy either.

We also need to figure out how people are going to survive economically. Poverty is not good for human health. And addressing it by picking workers in specific industries that will be supported is not good policy. That's just picking winners and losers. It's a kind of false charity.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks likes to fancy himself as the height of sophisticated progressive thought, but in practice he acts like a fascist, desperately trying to stifle thoughts that sway from the ones that he claims to hold. Note how he mentions the 401(k) as a dig. But many may have noticed that earlier in this thread, in a discussion about commercial real estate, he mentions "I've reduced my REIT exposure." Now, only knowledgeable and experienced investors even know what REITs are, so in that little slip, he revealed that he is a committed investor himself, and quite concerned about his own money. What a pompous hypocrite.

---

Unsurprisingly, you have managed to yet again to tilt at windmills.

I've never denied the economic impact of COVID. As many have pointed out, including OTB numerous times, you can't just wish the economic impacts of the pandemic away by ignoring it. That's what morons like Trump thought you could do. And now the mayor of Las Vegas I suppose. I get that everyone wants the economy to perform well. I do too. I am not belittling people who care about their jobs or their 401(k)s. The federal response to this pandemic has been horrendous. We had a chance to respond appropriately to this in February - like South Korea - but instead chose to do nothing because Trump is a moron. That decision is the reason we are seeing economic devastation. Had he done everything perfectly, we might still have needed to shelter in place, but for a shorter period of time. I am belittling anyone who is dumb enough to believe that simply "reopening" the economy will fix the economy when we don't have COVID under control.

Allowing COVID to run unchecked in our country will pretty much guarantee a prolonged deeply negative economic outfall. People who don't want to increase their chances of getting sick and dying will reduce their public exposure. This will lead to a corresponding reduction in consumer spending, not unlike we are seeing now, except there won't be an end in sight because we won't knock down the virus. Tyson had to close a pork processing plant in Iowa because of COVID. Do you think "reopening" the economy would keep a plant like that open? What happens when we expose more and more people to COVID and are forced to shut even more of the food supply chain? Please connect the dots for all of us.

COVID has a chance to be the leading cause of death in the United States in the month of April and if it's not no. 1 it will surely be in the top 3 - and that's with shelter in place in effect throughout the country. Imagine what will happen if we "reopen the economy"?

---

You're missing the point entirely. You attack people personally, then when they respond, you walk it back and talk about the issue at hand in a much more reasonable manner. But your initial impulse to discredit a person for his/her views needs to be controlled. It's not just me. In the "Elephant in The Room" thread you did the same thing to Rushinbear, using the "people like you" tactic. Take a step back. This is a just a bunch of Cal football fans bantering about contemporary issues. Nothing more. The best that can come out of it is you gain someone else's perspective--if you let it happen. Lots of smart folks on here.

Someone espousing views differing from your own should not provoke the kind of pointed, personal attacks that have become your MO.

---

I don't have a problem with people genuinely espousing views differing from me. I have a problem with trolls and people who post disingenuously.

---

Because a post ruffles your feathers doesn't mean it's trolling. What you view as trolling is just your opinion and nothing more. Your constant insertion of Trump, even if he's not the subject, can easily be viewed as trolling.Your assessment of what is genuine and disingenuous is also just your own opinion; hardly a sound basis for below-the-belt tactics.

Your posting can easily be called into question for the same reasons you use. Two posts back you said, in reference to me, "Maybe it's because he doesn't care how many people die to save his 401(k) or business or job or perhaps he just genuinely cares about the finances, but not lives, of other people." In your next reply to me you said: "I am not belittling people who care about their jobs or their 401(k)s." Yep, that was you.

bearister said:

---

---

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-idolatry/

State by State, Charting a Path Out of Lockdown | Think Global Health


https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/state-state-charting-path-out-lockdown

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

COVID has a chance to be the leading cause of death in the United States in the month of April and if it's not no. 1 it will surely be in the top 3 - and that's with shelter in place in effect throughout the country. Imagine what will happen if we "reopen the economy"?

---

That said, we also need to have a rational discussion about risks and costs.

Is the risk of a child from a family that has sheltered in place for a month really at risk from going over to play at another child's house from a family that has also sheltered in place?

Is the risk of two people going on a walk without a mask standing six feet apart so great that we should prohibit it?

Is the risk of someone going surfing so great that we should prohibit it if we can limit the number of people who do it?


Responsibility is great and all, but I think people have gotten the message. And I think people are sufficiently suspicious about anyone they don't know coming into close proximity of them. And if for someone reason, you're in a public space and people keep violating that space (like the people in the park yesterday who weren't wearing masks and being careful kept clustering too much), you always have the right to just leave that situation as my wife and friend did yesterday. Why, you can even choose to snitch on them and call the police to ask them to disburse.

There are multiple kinds of health and mental health is one of them. Cooping people up in their houses for a month is not healthy either.

We also need to figure out how people are going to survive economically. Poverty is not good for human health. And addressing it by picking workers in specific industries that will be supported is not good policy. That's just picking winners and losers. It's a kind of false charity.

---

I agree with everything you said here. Crushing the economy is not the goal of shelter in place orders nor is creating unnecessary damage. It's quite clear that just about everyone is paying a price from sheltering in place which is why people are rightfully focused on opening up.

But It's crucial that our leaders think about the ramifications of opening up too early (meaning before we have adequate measures in place to control the spread). It's like every action movie ever where the villain gets the hero to within one punch of his life and rather than strike the finishing blow he proceeds to turn his back and go on a lengthy soliloquy. It's a role reversal here because the villain is the lockdown and the hero is COVID, but the principal is the same.

If we end the lockdown prematurely, we will have accomplished absolutely nothing. If we reopened today and removed precaution, COVID would be rampant within weeks and we would be in even worse economic ruin. We would have to reinstate SIP orders. We've done almost nothing as a nation to prepare for this. We have 850k confirmed cases and almost 50k dead Americans. It appears we've reduced the effective R to below 1.0 in the vast majority of the country. If we allow R to go above 1.0, we could see multiples of these infections and deaths within months. And then what would we do? What would have been the point of this all?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

If we end the lockdown prematurely, we will have accomplished absolutely nothing. If we reopened today and removed precaution, COVID would be rampant within weeks and we would be in even worse economic ruin. We would have to reinstate SIP orders. We've done almost nothing as a nation to prepare for this. We have 850k confirmed cases and almost 50k dead Americans. It appears we've reduced the effective R to below 1.0 in the vast majority of the country. If we allow R to go above 1.0, we could see multiples of these infections and deaths within months. And then what would we do? What would have been the point of this all?

---

Moderation does have its place.

And now I have to go vomit.

Two states: one Democrat, one Republican. Two very different outcomes


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/us-coronavirus-outbreak-tennessee-kentucky?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The best thing about Georgia ending lockdown is that COVID 19 can take out the descendants of some of those strays that General Sherman didn't mop up.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I don't hate to say I told you so. Clear difference in quality of leadership between Newsom and Trump. Hopefully more states will look to Newsom and his coalition for guidance.

Trump basically flinched today and acknowledged he will work with states on reopening but that may change if Gavin gets too much credit.

---

Yeah, Gavin gets credit for using California taxpayer money to support immigrants who don't qualify for unemployment insurance, homeboy is getting sued .