The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

"Honey, if we don't stop spending $10,000 every month, we're going to be in serious debt by this time next year."

 

"Well...that's not good. Let's start spending only $2,000 a month instead."

 

*Fast forward a year*

 

"HAHAHAHA remember when you said we were going to be in debt if we didn't do something? And now we did something, and we're not in debt at all. LOL you idiot, you were so wrong."

 

Or "look how well the Voting Rights Act worked. There's so much more equity now. Might as well get rid of it." 

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

"Honey, if we don't stop spending $10,000 every month, we're going to be in serious debt by this time next year."

 

"Well...that's not good. Let's start spending only $2,000 a month instead."

 

*Fast forward a year*

 

"HAHAHAHA remember when you said we were going to be in debt if we didn't do something? And now we did something, and we're not in debt at all. LOL you idiot, you were so wrong."

“HAHAHAHAHA remember when we modeled out our expenses to be that of a billionaire knowing we would never be a billionaire and look at how much we are under budget.  Boy we sure outperformed our inaccurate model. Who would have ever thought we wouldn’t spend that much money??”

[Archy1221]

38 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You’re really struggling with this to try to support you’re original comment. 

Not really.  Basic math is on my side.  Sorry if you don’t believe in it. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

The entire country shut down for weeks on end, some parts not opening back up for months.  All based on that model.  
 

States that were not affected yet, parts of states that were not affected yet had to close down, because of that model.  Did that need to happen?  
 

The NE states obviously had a problem and needed to have a pause in activity, I don’t think most will dispute that.  KS never needed to, I do know that.  
 

I think it would be incumbent on someone doing models of what could actually happen and stop with doing models on things they know will never happen when they are supposed to be the experts.  That would be one of my larger point. 
 

The other would be if @RedDenverwants to shame a Twitter user for being wrong, then maybe shame the expert for being more wrong.  Another would be to not call the twitter user a Covid denier unless he wants to show his work 

 

Just a few things:

 

• This is our generation's first pandemic rodeo, but not the rest of the world's. Countries that had no skin in our expert predictions enacted lockdowns, many much stricter than the U.S. Most government actions didn't fall along idealogical lines but common sense and historical precedent. 

 

• If "that model" had merely predicted that more Americans would die from COVID than World Wars I, II, Vietnam and 9/11 combined, would the response be "oh....that's much less of a deal" 

 

• There actually was an A/B test at the time. Sweden. They pointedly refused to shut down the way the rest of Europe did. It looked pretty good for the first few weeks of the pandemic. Then it came back hard to bite them. 

 

• Technically, the entire US didn't shut down. A lot of loosely defined essential businesses were allowed to remain open, and the worst of it lasted a few weeks. Restaurants, bars, health clubs, concerts, conventions, and travel took a big hit. Everyone agreed that it sucked, but only a fool would insist that didn't need to happen. The pandemic was a series of spreader events that you wouldn't want to replicate.

 

• And let's face it -- the states less affected and especially individual towns and proprietors often ignored the bans altogether. 

 

• The Experts based their projections on the best available information in an unfolding crisis, keenly aware that the last most relevant example -- the 1918 Influenza pandemic -- wiped out a significant portion of human life on Earth.  There was not a federal mandate based on any single projection, but a bunch of states and municipalities trying to figure things out on the fly -- while people were dying, hospitals were over-stressed, and medical professionals were dropping like flies. 

 

Interestingly enough, those experts still remain the experts. Not you. 

 

The words you're looking for are "thank-you." 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Not really.  Basic math is on my side.  Sorry if you don’t believe in it. 

If you only knew both inputs in a two input equation. 
 

algebra is tough. 

[Archy1221]

38 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

"Honey, if we don't stop spending $10,000 every month, we're going to be in serious debt by this time next year."

 

"Well...that's not good. Let's start spending only $2,000 a month instead."

 

*Fast forward a year*

 

"HAHAHAHA remember when you said we were going to be in debt if we didn't do something? And now we did something, and we're not in debt at all. LOL you idiot, you were so wrong."

Dan Crumb “Mr. Hunt, we are going to model our football revenue based on worst case scenario of no fans coming to a single game and the Television networks canceling the NFL TV contract with no penalty.  Let’s figure out what our budget is going to be”. 
 

Clark Hunt “ well Dan, that is a scenario that will never happen but you are right.  We should waste our time and budget of something we know not to be true, know will not happen, but people will claim we were right to do it anyways and our modeling was good when we actually show 800,000 fans and show all the millions of actual revenue that comes in with it and the TV contact”. 
 

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If you only knew both inputs in a two input equation. 
 

algebra is tough. 

Well if you are gonna say I’m wrong, then what’s the right answer? 

[BigRedBuster]

19 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

”. 
 

Well if you are gonna say I’m wrong, then what’s the right answer? 

im not claiming I know the right answer, but I’m pretty sure you’re wrong since the experts even say your wrong. 

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The Experts based their projections on the best available information in an unfolding crisis, keenly aware that the last most relevant example

This is patently untrue when discussing the “experts” I am referencing.  You know how I know this?   They actually said it!  Weird I know.  

 

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

There actually was an A/B test at the time. Sweden. They pointedly refused to shut down the way the rest of Europe did. It looked pretty good for the first few weeks of the pandemic. Then it came back hard to bite them.

Are you referencing the Sweden that has 500 less deaths per million overall than the UK and no current Delta wave (yet)? 
 

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Everyone agreed that it sucked, but only a fool would insist that didn't need to happen.

They didn’t need to happen until they actually needed to happen.  As you know, many States were not affected at the time of the lockdown.  The Genesis of the lockdown idea was not sold to stop the spread of Covid as I remember.  It was to slow the spread as to not overwhelm hospital systems.  The lockdown, however, affected States and areas of States that were nowhere near that point or ever came close to that point.  As I said previously, IMO targeted lockdowns were more appropriate. 
 

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Interestingly enough, those experts still remain the experts. Not you. 

Interestingly enough, the lockdowns didn’t stop wave two three or four.  

[DevoHusker]

On 10/1/2021 at 11:09 AM, teachercd said:

Merck stock lighting up

 

[BigRedBuster]

Some interesting comments from the speakers.

 

 

[suh_fan93]

LSU needs people in the stands apparently...

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

18 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

This is patently untrue when discussing the “experts” I am referencing.  You know how I know this?   They actually said it!  Weird I know.  

 

Are you referencing the Sweden that has 500 less deaths per million overall than the UK and no current Delta wave (yet)? 
 

They didn’t need to happen until they actually needed to happen.  As you know, many States were not affected at the time of the lockdown.  The Genesis of the lockdown idea was not sold to stop the spread of Covid as I remember.  It was to slow the spread as to not overwhelm hospital systems.  The lockdown, however, affected States and areas of States that were nowhere near that point or ever came close to that point.  As I said previously, IMO targeted lockdowns were more appropriate. 
 

Interestingly enough, the lockdowns didn’t stop wave two three or four.  

 

 

1) So that would be the specific "expert" you introduced in order to discredit the experts, assuming he was egregiously wrong, which he wasn't. Moving on....

 

2) Yes. That Sweden. The one that was feeling pretty cocky in early Spring 2020 with its open schools and restaurants before suffering its own specific surge, vaulting into the Top Ten of per capita deaths in the world, then admitting it had listened to the wrong "expert" and enacting the more stringent pandemic measures they'd avoided. At the end of the day Sweden's fatality rate remains far higher than fellow Scandinavian countries, merely higher than many other European countries and yes, below the single worst country in Europe, Professor Cherrypicker. For the record, Kansas has racked up more per capita deaths than U.K. 

 

3) Yes, the objective was to avoid overwhelming hospitals. And yes, many states and specific locals were not as affected at the time of the lockdown. Many of them didn't believe COVID was a problem, until it was. And having either flouted or rescinded basic masking and social distancing guidelines (let's face it, these were barely in place and rarely enforced across much of the country) America emerged during Spring Break/Mother's Day to launch a second wave that the experts had predicted if we got cocky too early. When these "unaffected" populations suddenly saw their parents, spouses and friends die, their hospitals over-flow, and states like North Dakota topping the charts, they finally took the precautions seriously, at which point the numbers went back down. See how that works?  

 

4) No one liked the lockdowns, No one wanted the lockdowns. But most countries on earth considered them necessary. We had to go on with our lives and we did, quickly moving out of lockdown into a hybrid of risk that allowed as many businesses as possible to remain open while limiting the kind of spreader events that fueled the original outbreak. The experts advised us on those risks, knowing nothing would be as scientifically effective as a lockdown, but learning and adapting to ways we could best mitigate it. Lockdowns didn't stop wave two or three because we weren't in lockdown. Wave four involved a significantly more powerful variant ripping through a population that had ignored the advice of the experts.

 

Final Score:  Experts = pretty good. You = not so much.

 

[Jason Sitoke]

If I know this thread like I think I do, I believe @Archy1221 will concede your point and we'll have an accord.

[DevoHusker]

49 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

 

1) So that would be the specific "expert" you introduced in order to discredit the experts, assuming he was egregiously wrong, which he wasn't. Moving on....

 

2) Yes. That Sweden. The one that was feeling pretty cocky in early Spring 2020 with its open schools and restaurants before suffering it's own specific surge, vaulting into the Top Ten of per capita deaths in the world, then admitting it had listened to the wrong "expert" and enacting the more stringent pandemic measures they'd avoided. At the end of the day Sweden's fatality rate remains far higher than fellow Scandinavian countries, merely higher than many other European countries and yes, below the single worst country in Europe, Professor Cherrypicker. For the record, Kansas has racked up more per capita deaths than U.K. 

 

3) Yes, the objective was to avoid overwhelming hospitals. And yes, many states and specific locals were not as affected at the time of the lockdown. Many of them didn't believe COVID was a problem, until it was. And having either flouted or rescinded basic masking and social distancing guidelines (let's face it, these were barely in place and rarely enforced across much of the country) America emerged during Spring Break/Mother's Day to launch a second wave that the experts had predicted if we got cocky too early. When these "unaffected" populations suddenly saw their parents, spouses and friends die, their hospitals over-flow, and states like North Dakota topping the charts, they finally took the precautions seriously, at which point the numbers went back down. See how that works?  

 

4) No one liked the lockdowns, No one wanted the lockdowns. But most countries on earth considered them necessary. We had to go on with our lives and we did, quickly moving out of lockdown into a hybrid of risk that allowed as many businesses as possible to remain open while limiting the kind of spreader events that fueled the original outbreak. The experts advised us on those risks, knowing nothing would be as scientifically effective as a lockdown, but learning and adapting to ways we could best mitigate it. Lockdowns didn't stop wave two or three because we weren't in lockdown. Wave four involved a significantly more powerful variant ripping through a population that had ignored the advice of the experts.

 

Final Score:  Experts = pretty good. You = not so much.

 

 

Informative, thanks.

 

Serious question here, but why now, when there have been more deaths in 2021 than in 2020, does the only answer seem to be "vaccinate or else"? If some of the actions you describe were successful, not just here but across the globe, why is the only measure of success gauged by percentage of population vaccinated, or number of shots in arms?  How about an approach similar to your bold above? I have heard literally zero regarding anything similar proposed.

 

I have mentioned it before, but it would seem that this far into this mess, the folks who are going to take the jab have already done so. 

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Informative, thanks.

 

Serious question here, but why now, when there have been more deaths in 2021 than in 2020, does the only answer seem to be "vaccinate or else"? If some of the actions you describe were successful, not just here but across the globe, why is the only measure of success gauged by percentage of population vaccinated, or number of shots in arms?  How about an approach similar to your bold above? I have heard literally zero regarding anything similar proposed.

 

I have mentioned it before, but it would seem that this far into this mess, the folks who are going to take the jab have already done so. 

Because we want to get back to normal.  Limiting spreader events eliminates a ton of our normal lives.  We can have these types of events if people get vaccinated. 

 

I would guess the reason why 2021 has more deaths than 2020 is two fold:

 

1) The pandemic didn't start in 2020 till March.  Even then, it took months to really get nation wide like it is today.

 

2) Because society has tried to get back to normal (which I agree with ) and at the same time, we don't have enough people vaccinated.  The vast majority of deaths in 2021 have been from unvaccinated people.