COVID-19

[SlickAg]

I think it was pretty obvious from the rest of my sentence that I see you as being significantly to the right (vice left or libertarian). I think your posts here and in the Thunderdome thread confirm that. I also thinks it's fairly common for people on the right to look to lawmakers to control other people's personal lives (e.g., religion, marriage, sex, alcohol, drugs, decency, etc.) I don't see the confusion on your part or the paranoia on mine.

The only thing political I've ever talked about on here is my personal opposition to abortion despite acknowledging the fact that it is legal, and my opposition to serving officers on here allowing their political views to inform how they speak on a quasi-private forum about their Commander-in-Chief, which I believe to be legal yet very tacky. Please go find anything I've posted about religion, marriage, sex (other than abortion), alcohol, drugs, decency, etc. I've been on here since 2004 or so I think. You can't write a book report when you've only read a few pages. I'm sure you learned that at TPS.

The reason why I tagged you is because of the picture of President Bush that you posted, which seemed as though you were insinuating that everyone on here who didn't think it was a good idea to keep destroying our economy was declaring a false victory against this pandemic. If that isn't the case, I'd love to know why you picked that specific time to post that picture. Also, you kept liking people's posts who were countering mine.

 

[SlickAg]

The original models took social distancing and masks into account. They had to revise them because the weekly numbers were not adding up, because the models were flawed (and probably still are..)

I really wish more people would acknowledge this. 2.2 million was accounting for social distancing measures. Not "doing nothing".

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

I really wish more people would acknowledge this. 2.2 million was accounting for social distancing measures. Not "doing nothing".

From what I’ve read, the 2.2 million was “without mitigation.”
The 100K-240K was with social distancing.

 

[SlickAg]

From what I’ve read, the 2.2 million was “without mitigation.”
The 100K-240K was with social distancing.

Thanks for tightening me up. Upon further research, I think that was the Imperial College model.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Ummmm...yeah, that has been made clear from the beginning. Those models were used to show what might happen if measures weren't put in place to limit the spread of the virus and have been revised after many of those measures were in fact put in place. So yeah, I'll still go with the medical docs on this one.

The 2.2 million death estimate, got it. They were warning without mitigation, that’s what could happen.

But the model that showed 100K-240K deaths in the US accounted for all the social distancing guidelines that we are currently following.
They walked that all the way down to 60K without any new mitigation added. That’s like the weatherman changing his forecast when it starts to rain.
And it’s not the face covering, because there is no evidence that masks or face coverings will make a healthy adult less likely to catch the virus. (According to the surgeon general)

 

[SlickAg]

For all of the right-wingers/Republicans/MAGAbros/Redhats in the audience here’s an article from one of our fascist propaganda rags. (I’m allowed to say even this isn’t the war zone because a fellow aviator outed me as one.)

COVID-19 Projection Models Are Proving to Be Unreliable | National Review

The question of when government officials will reopen the country they have shut down for coronavirus presses.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[JTS11]

The masks aren't about you catching the virus.

Glad @SlickAg acknowledged his model interpretation error.

I'll see his NR Trump flunky with a better NR analysis on the COVID situation:

On ‘The Cure Is Worse Than the Disease’ | National Review

In the face of the coronavirus crisis, our leaders are trying to answer unanswerable questions.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[JTS11]

Maybe Professor Knut Whatzhisnutz is who we should be listening to...who knows?

 

[SlickAg]

The masks aren't about you catching the virus.

Glad @SlickAg acknowledged his model interpretation error.

I'll see his NR Trump flunky with a better NR analysis on the COVID situation:

On ‘The Cure Is Worse Than the Disease’ | National Review

In the face of the coronavirus crisis, our leaders are trying to answer unanswerable questions.

www.nationalreview.com

So tickled that you approve.

That article is from March 20th. Three weeks old. I assume you’ll acknowledge that a lot has changed since then in terms of data gathering, analysis, changed models, hospital admissions, ICU admissions, etc?

 

[JTS11]

So tickled that you approve.

That article is from March 20th. Three weeks old. I assume you’ll acknowledge that a lot has changed since then in terms of data gathering, analysis, changed models, hospital admissions, ICU admissions, etc?

Sure, but does the crux of his argument change?

You just shit on a model with your false assumption that it wasn't based on any mitigation strategies. So, I'm assuming you'll acknowledge that a lot of people are flying blind without good data and a strategy to get said data?

 

[wiseguy04]

Maybe Professor Knut Whatzhisnutz is who we should be listening to...who knows?

We should have. This would have been over by now if we had.

Time will tell, but by the end of summer, I predict one of the following:

1.) Over 240,000 dead, in which case I would fully admit that I was wrong.

or...

2.) A death toll less than 60,000, in which case we look like complete fucking morons for shutting down the entire country over a disease with a lower annual death toll than influenza (80,000+ last year).

I’m betting on the second one.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

We should have. This would have been over by now if we had.

Time will tell, but by the end of summer, I predict one of the following:

1.) Over 240,000 dead, in which case I would fully admit that I was wrong.

or...

2.) A death toll less than 60,000, in which case we look like complete fucking morons for shutting down the entire country over a disease with a lower annual death toll than influenza (80,000+ last year).

I’m betting on the second one.

Why would we look like morons for using mitigation strategies that reduce our death toll to under 60k?

That, to me, is a sign of success

 

[exNavyOffRec]

(even that piece-of-shit popcorn one)

How is that even still a Jelly Belly flavor? none of my family or friends like it that I know of, I don't like it, is there anyone that actually does, or did the popcorn mafia pay off someone at Jelly Belly?

 

[SlickAg]

Sure, but does the crux of his argument change?

You just shit on a model with your false assumption that it wasn't based on any mitigation strategies. So, I'm assuming you'll acknowledge that a lot of people are flying blind without good data and a strategy to get said data?

I hope this model is wrong as well, but 32% unemployment should send shivers down your spine. That’s based off of actual unemployment claims, which are going up astronomically. Remember how long it took to recover from the 2008 recession?

ILI is “influenza-like illness” to reference the picture below. New research shows that the first cases appeared in the US as early as November 2019. Either we had a hell of a flu season, or this has been getting people sick for a long time. deaths from heart disease, pneumonia and flu have been steadily dropping ever since this pandemic began. Coincidence?

 

[wiseguy04]

Why would we look like morons for using mitigation strategies that reduce our death toll to under 60k?

That, to me, is a sign of success

Having the old, infirm, and sick self-quarantine at home (like they do every flu season) would be a mitigation strategy.

A nationwide quarantine of all healthy people because of a disease with a 99.9% survivability rating is idiotic.