Pandemic Panic Must Stop

[JoeMorgue]

Conservatives then: It's only a few old people, stop crying

Conservatives now: What is death? What is life? What does it mean to exist? What is consciousness?

Standard trolling 101. When losing the debate start a debate about the debate or argue the broad philosophy of the debate.

As I've called it in the past when my house is burning down I want to talk about how to put fires out, when your house is burning down I want, nay demand, a deep philosophical debate about the inherent natural right to have an unburned house.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Standard trolling 101. When losing the debate start a debate about the debate or argue the broad philosophy of the debate.

As I've called it in the past when my house is burning down I want to talk about how to put fires out, when your house is burning down I want, nay demand, a deep philosophical debate about the inherent natural right to have an unburned house.

Whenever I read these comments, I hear them in a Werner Herzog voice, and it makes much more sense.

“I believe the common denominator of the universe is not harmony; but chaos, hostility and murder.”

 

[theprestige]

There is NO level of harm to children that is acceptable to me. There may be a level of harm I might have to tolerate, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it! : mad :

As long as you're willing to tolerate some level of harm to children, for the greater good, I'm satisfied. Honestly I don't see enough distance between "tolerate" and "accept" to justify the degree of moral outrage and moral superiority on display here. And of course tacking a "mad" emoji onto your statement just makes it look unserious anyway.

 

[The Atheist]

Yeah I seriously thought the "I'm better than you because I don't care about anything" flex was something we all outgrew when we stopped doodling Pentagrams and Linkin Park lyrics in our high school notebooks.

What a lovely little strawman! Can I have one?

Not caring has never been my position, which I've clearly stated on several occasions and even went as far as asking if people were aware of the "greatest harm" argument.

Yet again, avoid making a serious answer to double down on not having an actual response.

Well played.

 

[smartcooky]

As long as you're willing to tolerate some level of harm to children, for the greater good, I'm satisfied. Honestly I don't see enough distance between "tolerate" and "accept" to justify the degree of moral outrage and moral superiority on display here.

OK, let me make it clearer for you

"There is NO level of harm to children that am willing to assent to without protesting. There may be a level of harm I might be forced to endure the existence of, but that doesn't mean I have to shut up and embrace it."

There is no "moral superiority" on display here. THIS IS WHO I AM. If you don't like it, tough. I don't have to justify the direction of my moral compass to you or anyone else.

And of course tacking a "mad" emoji onto your statement just makes it look unserious anyway.

Anything you say Jim

 

[JoeMorgue]

What a lovely little strawman!

Again making your argument look bad is not a "strawman."

 

[JoeMorgue]

The nihilist contrarian troll army started at "Covid is not going to be a big deal because I want to be the 'I told you so' guy" so now that it IS a big deal their only defense is the same sad little "Okay but it's not technically a big deal..." routine.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The far right troll army started at "Covid is not going to be a big deal because our God King said it wasn't going to be" so now that it IS a big deal their only defense is the same sad little "Okay but it's not technically a big deal..." routine.

Look Joe, there's two sides to every issue.

One says that underreacting to this clear and present danger will lead to mass loss of life and yet not fully understood permanent health complications from contracting a largely untreatable disease.

The other side says that overreacting might mean being slightly inconvenienced without need, like being required to wear a mask or avoid large crowds.

Who's to say which side is more reasonable?

 

[The Atheist]

Again making your argument look bad is not a "strawman."

Ah, you don't understand logical fallacies and have reading difficulty.

Let me help you out.

noun: strawman

1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

You are deliberately misrepresenting my position, presumably because you haven't been able to read it properly.

Every single one of your posts in the thread has completely misrepresented what I've typed. It's all still there, so you go back and check anytime.

Not that you will - you'll continue to post strawmen and utter ********.

And right on cue...

The nihilist contrarian troll...

Probably a fire sale on them, feel free to use as many as you like.

You certainly seem unaware that using logical fallacies is a sure way to confirm you don't have the ability to deal with the subject at hand.

 

[The Atheist]

They appear to be more contagious than Covid itself - here's another one.

The other side says that overreacting might mean being slightly inconvenienced without need, like being required to wear a mask or avoid large crowds.

Can you show me anywhere in this thread any post made that covers that sentiment, even if by the longest inference you can manufacture.

TIA

Hint: I've specifically noted what the actual problems are, backed by scientific and pediatric evidence, so feel free to ignore any of that.

Run along...

 

[smartcooky]

Look Joe, there's two sides to every issue.

One says that underreacting to this clear and present danger will lead to mass loss of life and yet not fully understood permanent health complications from contracting a largely untreatable disease.

The other side says that overreacting might mean being slightly inconvenienced without need, like being required to wear a mask or avoid large crowds.

Who's to say which side is more reasonable?

The other side also starts getting snarky, sarcastic, demeaning, rude and generally dismissive of anyone who doesn't immediately snap to attention and fawn over their every proclamation, or who dares question their self-implied intellectual superiority.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

651,000 deaths in the US, its

• Almost one Civil War
• 1½ World War IIs
• 5½ World War Is
• 11 Vietnam Wars
• 18 Korean Wars
• 44 Wars of 1812
• 147 Gulf Wars
• 218 9/11s

Meh, its only 0.2% of the population, so what's the big deal?

Did you mean 2% or 0.2%?

 

[smartcooky]

Did you mean 2% or 0.2%?

Its 0.2%

US Covid dead ~651,000
US Population ~328,200,000

651000 ÷ 328,200,000 = 0.198 which is 1 in every 505 people, or 0.2%

2% of the US population would be 6.5 million

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Its 0.2%

US Covid dead ~651,000
US Population ~328,200,000

651000 ÷ 328,200,000 = 0.198 which is 1 in every 505 people, or 0.2%

2% of the US population would be 6.5 million

Got it, thanks. But that math isn't right. the denominator would be all the people infected with COVID, not all the people in the US.

 

[smartcooky]

Got it, thanks. But that math isn't right. the denominator would be all the people infected with COVID, not all the people in the US.

What? I think you have misunderstood the question. Nowhere did I talk about the Covid death rate from infections. The question is, "what percentage of the total US population have died as a result of Covid" ...

........

...."Meh, its only 0.2% of the population"

So, Deaths/Population x 100, this is 651K ÷ 328M x 100.


ETA: The Covid death rate from infections is 651K ÷ 40.5M x 100 ~1.6%
(It is approximate because the denominator contains currently infected, unrecovered patients, some of who may yet die. Those people are not included in the divisor)

 

[Carlotta]

(Insert the scene from Airplane! here)

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/icpyf7at4o3557a/airplane-panic-attack.gif?raw=1[/qimg]

Your wish is my command!

Snortlaff!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What? I think you have misunderstood the question. Nowhere did I talk about the Covid death rate from infections. The question is, "what percentage of the total US population have died as a result of Covid" ...

So, Deaths/Population x 100, this is 651K ÷ 328M x 100.

ETA: The Covid death rate from infections is 651K ÷ 40.5M x 100 ~1.6%
(It is approximate because the denominator contains currently infected, unrecovered patients, some of who may yet die. Those people are not included in the divisor)

OK. Not used to looking at fatality rates that way but that's fine.

 

[Bubba]

Covid positive mortality rate says it is not a pandemic

 

[wobs]

Covid positive mortality rate says it is not a pandemic

What definition of "pandemic" are you basing this on, and can you provide a link?

 

[smartcooky]

Covid positive mortality rate says it is not a pandemic

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic

An outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affects a significant proportion of the population : a pandemic outbreak of a disease


Mortality rate has nothing whatever to do with whether a disease is pandemic.

228M people world wide have been infected with Covid-19. That is 3% of the global population. In the US, its 41.4M, that is 12.6% (one in every eight people).

Any way you slice it, those are "a significant proportion of the population".

ETA: Oh and just for reference and your education, the 1918 Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 pandemic 1918 (a bit of a misnomer as it ran almost 2½ years to mid 1920) came in four waves that infected about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million. In the US, about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected, and an estimated 675,000 died, 0.6% of the population.

You might think that given the relative populations, it was a far more serious pandemic than Covid, but you must keep in mind that living conditions in 1918 were far worse than the present day. Medical knowledge was nowhere near as advanced, and hygiene conditions were deplorable by our standards. There were also no vaccines to protect against infection and no antibiotics to treat the secondary bacterial infections associated with influenza infections.
.
.