Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
“Fall” and “Fail” are two different things.[/quote]
Sure, but plenty have taken centuries to do either. So my point remains.
[quote=sdduuuude]
An interesting topic for another thread.
[/quote]
You’re right.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude] The structure of government where they take your money and tell you what to do is destined to fail every time, even if you get to vote.[/quote]
Am I mistaken, or is that all governments? Even “small” ones?[/quote]
You are not misaken.
Bigger (higher % of GDP is govt spending) is worse, though.[/quote]So you’re saying all governments are destined to fail.
But if it takes several hundred years or more to fail (which in many cases it has), then you can’t really say that it was necessarily an inherent fault in the nature of the system. There are no human systems (on the scale of a government, anyway – even the smallest one) that won’t fail at some point, if you give them five hundred years. That’s not necessarily because said system was fatally flawed. Circumstances change. Other countries invade. Humans screw things up. Anything can happen.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude] The structure of government where they take your money and tell you what to do is destined to fail every time, even if you get to vote.[/quote]
Am I mistaken, or is that all governments? Even “small” ones?
Participant[quote=TheBrianNarrative]
Read the first two words of his response and kindly put your angry political rants aside.[/quote]
You’re not just a troll, flu, you’re a troll with poor reading skills.
Participant[quote=TheBrianNarrative][quote=zk][quote=Coronita]
For now this administration and this country has chosen public health over economy[/quote]This country, yes. This administration, not so much.
Virtually all social distancing measures earlier in the crisis were put in place by state and local authorities, not the federal government.
This administration finally got on board, but way after it was clear that the country was going that way with or without them.[/quote]
Thats what he said[/quote]
You said the administration put health over economy, flu. It didn’t. It tried, at first, to put the economy first by downplaying the coming effects of the virus. Only when it could see that it couldn’t bullshit its way through that plan, and the rest of the country could see what the experts were saying, did the administration finally go along with the experts. And they didn’t do it for the sake of public health. They did it because they got caught trying to bullshit their way through the first plan and could see that that plan was no longer in their best interests politically.
And when I say “they” and “the administration” I mean trump. He’s got most of them afraid to do anything without the approval of the dear leader.
There certainly have been a few outspoken people in the administration during this crisis. Let’s hope that that precedent is followed by many more. I wouldn’t be surprised if his grip starts to loosen significantly at this point. Although that could be wishful thinking.
Participant[quote=zk]
Now that I think about it, the likely scenario, politically, has nothing to do with the reality of how trump deals with the situation. Or what happens with the virus. No matter what happens, right-wing propaganda will portray trump as the hero, and liberals as the villains. Tens of millions of ignorant, pathetic chumps will, as usual, fall for it[/quote]The below article (which came out yesterday, two weeks after my above post) is all about how the above happens.
It’s pretty funny (and sad) that so many right-wingers have been led around by the nose by propagandists and changed their positions just as the propaganda told them to. This is how it generally plays out. It’s just a lot more obvious in this instance.
Look on facebook and see how many right-wingers first said the coronavirus is nothing to worry about but have now changed their tune. And watch in the coming days/weeks/months how the rest of them come around as they catch up with what fox is telling them.
So pathetic.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
It mystifies me how people can simultaneously say the government is failing to deal with something, then turn right back to the government to fix the problem.[/quote][quote=zk]
Really? That mystifies you? Amazing. It’s not complicated at all. I don’t understand how anybody can be mystified by something so simple.So you think that anything that is failing should be completely abandoned? We should immediately dump any failing party and try to find someone/something else to fix the situation? No attempts at correcting their failings should be attempted?
Now I’m mystified.[/quote]
[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=zk]
So you think that anything that is failing should be completely abandoned? [/quote]In the case of big government, yes.[/quote]
So (correct me if I’m wrong) what mystifies you isn’t “how people can simultaneously say the government is failing to deal with something, then turn right back to the government to fix the problem.” What mystifies you is that anyone would not want to abandon what you call “big government” when it’s being poorly run.
Seems pretty closed-minded, and it brings to mind the below article. Republicans have been against “big government” for so long without really considering which situations might call for strong government involvement that they now mindlessly reject considering anything that involves significant government involvement.
Participant[quote=Coronita]
For now this administration and this country has chosen public health over economy[/quote]This country, yes. This administration, not so much.
Virtually all social distancing measures earlier in the crisis were put in place by state and local authorities, not the federal government.
This administration finally got on board, but way after it was clear that the country was going that way with or without them.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]In the US today, of the 3916 active cases, only 12 are serious or critical. Seems like that is a lower percentage than it was a couple days ago but I don’t really remember. It is much lower than Italy’s 8%.
Things are looking genuinely exponential, though. Maybe we’ll see in the data effects of this weekends shutdowns around the 27th or so.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/%5B/quote%5D
That’s the number of confirmed, tested cases (over 5,000 now). Until tests are way, way, WAY easier to get, we won’t know what’s happening. We really have no idea how many cases there are.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/who-gets-tested-coronavirus/607999/%5B/quote%5D
Yes, but we do know that the people who are tested are the worst off so if the critical cases-to-total cases ratio is down, that is even better news, given limited testing.[/quote]
Right now the death rate in the U.S. is 1.6%. So it could be cut by 80% (to 0.32%) and still be more than three times deadlier than the flu.
Besides which, a lot of people with serious symptoms still can’t get tests unless they’ve traveled to particular countries.
Most importantly, if we don’t test more widely, the spread is much harder to stop.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]In the US today, of the 3916 active cases, only 12 are serious or critical. Seems like that is a lower percentage than it was a couple days ago but I don’t really remember. It is much lower than Italy’s 8%.
Things are looking genuinely exponential, though. Maybe we’ll see in the data effects of this weekends shutdowns around the 27th or so.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/%5B/quote%5D
That’s the number of confirmed, tested cases (over 5,000 now). Until tests are way, way, WAY easier to get, we won’t know what’s happening. We really have no idea how many cases there are.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/who-gets-tested-coronavirus/607999/
Participant[quote=svelte]…you guys gotta stop sending out links to things that require a subscription…[/quote]
I was under the impression that Wapo an NYT gave out 10 free articles a month (per device). Is that not true?
ParticipantDisclaimer: I know nothing about this sort of thing (as you’ll probably find out tomorrow).
Prediction: A 10% drop in the stock market tomorrow. That’s my prediction, but a 15%-20% wouldn’t surprise me a bit (if the circuit breakers allow such a thing).
Anyone else want to hazard a guess?
Participant[quote=Hobie][quote=ltsddd]
flu:45 million sick, 61K deaths
corona: 70-100 million sick, 700K – 1 million deaths
[/quote]This is what I mean. Panic inducing numbers.
[/quote]
It was indicated quite clearly that those were “worst case scenario” numbers “if no actions were taken to slow transmission.”
Also, those numbers were based on CDC modeling.
If a tsunami is coming, and it’s projected to be between 15 and 30 feet, should we not warn the people who would be affected if it were 30 feet high?
Participant[quote=BrianisaFraud]
So then you’re ok with Trump for another term.[/quote]
If you’re going to be a troll, at least be entertaining or funny. So far a whole lot of whiffing on both counts.
-
AuthorPosts