MSM is getting pressure to not show Trump daily briefings because his poll and approval numbers are going through the roof. Scary stuff.

I think a lot of people are probably tired of hearing Mike Pence saying stuff like, "Because of your bold and decisive leadership, Mr President..."  I know I am.  But I do like to hear from Fauci and Birx.

---

You're speaking in absolutes.
Not everyone listens to public policy guidance.  But most people do.
Public policy can't stop all diseases.
But public policy can mitigate many diseases.
Adapt your mind to think in terms of floating point ranges instead of 1's and 0's.

Childish.  

The entire idea of "how much death is acceptable" is a precursor to the fallacy "if we can save just one life" that is the justification for emotionally abandoning the best solution in search of a perfect solution that doesnt exist.  

What was my response?  When the cure is worse than the disease, which is an inherent acknowledgement that there is a balance between disease mitigation and broader economic growth, not a pure choice.  My point is that, despite what were being told, there is no perfect solution to prevent all death from the disease AND there is no solution to mitigate the disease that doesnt on the other hand carry with it a promise of death and destruction in another form.

More often than not it's the alarmists taking the position that were "choosing our 401k over our grandparents" that dont acknowledge all the variables involved and bury their head in the sand that people will die on the other side of the totalitarian shutdown equation.  

My point from the beginning in this thread has been that we need to weigh the real lethality of the disease and the potential negative impacts of our mitigation efforts to determine the public policy that's best.  In other words, if a mitigation action saves more lives than it would potentially cost in resources economic destruction and death then take it, but I think the data is about to show that in places like Sweden and Japan there were much less invasive courses of action like washing your hands, wearingmasks when sick and being less physically intimate while greeting that still had efficacy in mitigation without shutting down an entire economy.  

#policynotvirtuesignalling

I think it should be pointed out that we as a society make the choice every day of how much to spend to save human lives.  For example, if we want to save 50,000 lives per year, just outlaw cars.  But we don't do that, because we don't want to cripple the economy.  So the whole idea of "No amount of money is too much if it saves just one human life..." is totally absurd, and flies in the face of reality.  We make that decision all the time.  

Want to save tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives?  Outlaw junk food.  Outlaw bacon.  Outlaw cigarettes.  Outlaw booze.  Make everyone exercise under penalty of law.  We don't do that, do we?   

So there is a valid choice to be made- how much do we sacrifice as a society compared to how many lives we save.  On one hand, we have the doctors.  On the other hand, we have the economists.  There is a middle ground, and that is why the office of President of the United States is considered one of the toughest jobs in the world.  Because he will have to make that choice and find that middle ground.   

I just wish he was better at explaining it.

---

You're speaking in absolutes.
Not everyone listens to public policy guidance.  But most people do.
Public policy can't stop all diseases.
But public policy can mitigate many diseases.
Adapt your mind to think in terms of floating point ranges instead of 1's and 0's.

Childish.  

The entire idea of "how much death is acceptable" is a precursor to the fallacy "if we can save just one life" that is the justification for emotionally abandoning the best solution in search of a perfect solution that doesnt exist.  

What was my response?  When the cure is worse than the disease, which is an inherent acknowledgement that there is a balance between disease mitigation and broader economic growth, not a pure choice.  My point is that, despite what were being told, there is no perfect solution to prevent all death from the disease AND there is no solution to mitigate the disease that doesnt on the other hand carry with it a promise of death and destruction in another form.

More often than not it's the alarmists taking the position that were "choosing our 401k over our grandparents" that dont acknowledge all the variables involved and bury their head in the sand that people will die on the other side of the totalitarian shutdown equation.  

My point from the beginning in this thread has been that we need to weigh the real lethality of the disease and the potential negative impacts of our mitigation efforts to determine the public policy that's best.  In other words, if a mitigation action saves more lives than it would potentially cost in resources economic destruction and death then take it, but I think the data is about to show that in places like Sweden and Japan there were much less invasive courses of action like washing your hands, wearingmasks when sick and being less physically intimate while greeting that still had efficacy in mitigation without shutting down an entire economy.  

#policynotvirtuesignalling

You're ascribing arguments to me that I never made.
I never accused anyone of choosing their 401(k) over their grandmother.
It is possible for the "cure" to be worse than the disease. You're not wrong to ask the question.
But we have to quantify these things, and make sure we're comparing apples to apples as much as possible.
We have a very credible guess of how bad the disease will be if we do nothing.  
About 2-3 million Americans will die.
Is the cure worse?
Already over 3 million Americans have lost their jobs from the "cure".  But jobs are not lives.
If you can show that what we've already shut down is going to create enough economic devastation to kill 3 million Americans, then you'd have a case, we'd have to consider totally reversing course on this.
If you can show that shutting the next thing down (a marginal decision) will somehow end more lives (on the margin) than it will save, then the thing shouldn't be shut down.
I don't think you should be accusing your opponent of ignoring the possibility of death by economic malaise.  It wasn't ignored, but at this moment it seems to be a few orders of magnitude less than the possibility of death by virus.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

2 to 3 million dead is bull [BLEEP] propaganda and it always was.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

2 to 3 million dead is bull [BLEEP] propaganda and it always was.

Whenever I see a bunch of people who are way smarter than me make a complicated report, I believe the report until a group of people who seem even smarter comes along and explains why the first group was wrong.
Most people don't do this.
Most people decide to believe something based on how many things about their lives they would have to change for believing it. You're in the second category, but at least you're not alone!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

2 to 3 million dead is bull [BLEEP] propaganda and it always was.

The lead researcher admitted it was horse manure and hes still spewing it.  Ridiculous.  

#NOTTODAY


hey mikey, still waiting on the retraction about the control group from the Bloomberg article!

---

OK folks, as an aside. If you own any extra firearms/ammo (especially 9mm ammo) that you have been contemplating moving, now is the time. It is unreal the prices that are being had. I haven't and probably won't sell anything but damn, I could make some serious coin if I needed to with what I consider my junk.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

2 to 3 million dead is bull [BLEEP] propaganda and it always was.

Whenever I see a bunch of people who are way smarter than me make a complicated report, I believe the report until a group of people who seem even smarter comes along and explains why the first group was wrong.
Most people don't do this.
Most people decide to believe something based on how many things about their lives they would have to change for believing it. You're in the second category, but at least you're not alone!

Or we read it and decide for ourselves that pretty much everyone is guided by greed. And fear sells.

---

It's clear either my question is being misunderstood, or I framed it poorly. Allow me to try to rephrase.

In a couple weeks, I believe the US is going to begin to reverse course on social distancing. We are going to put parameters in place that will allow most folks to return to work, school, and social events. When that happens, people will continue to die from the virus, but we have no idea of knowing the rate. If the media does what it does (and there's no reason to think otherwise), the narrative will shift, and they will begin to cover deaths from the coronavirus. MSM will likely blame Trump for all new deaths, regardless if it is in line or better than other nations, and Fox News will downplay the severity of it, regardless if the numbers are significantly worse than other modern nations. I'm asking people to go on record with their opinion before the "experts" get a chance to give out their talking points.

What would be the magical number when you have to give Trump some credit or blame? This requires a little bit of critical thinking and accountability, so I understand if people are unwilling to stick their necks out.

---

It's clear either my question is being misunderstood, or I framed it poorly. Allow me to try to rephrase.

In a couple weeks, I believe the US is going to begin to reverse course on social distancing. We are going to put parameters in place that will allow most folks to return to work, school, and social events. When that happens, people will continue to die from the virus, but we have no idea of knowing the rate. If the media does what it does (and there's no reason to think otherwise), the narrative will shift, and they will begin to cover deaths from the coronavirus. MSM will likely blame Trump for all new deaths, regardless if it is in line or better than other nations, and Fox News will downplay the severity of it, regardless if the numbers are significantly worse than other modern nations. I'm asking people to go on record with their opinion before the "experts" get a chance to give out their talking points.

What would be the magical number when you have to give Trump some credit or blame? This requires a little bit of critical thinking and accountability, so I understand if people are unwilling to stick their necks out.

Here is all I need to know.

Influenza by the end of this year will have killed 2x more than SARS COV-2.

---

2 to 3 million dead is bull [BLEEP] propaganda and it always was.

Whenever I see a bunch of people who are way smarter than me make a complicated report, I believe the report until a group of people who seem even smarter comes along and explains why the first group was wrong.
Most people don't do this.
Most people decide to believe something based on how many things about their lives they would have to change for believing it. You're in the second category, but at least you're not alone!

Oh Mikey, stop being so self-deprecating. We know you've never seen anyone you thought was smarter than you!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

He has to think they are smarter than him so he can come here and pretend to be smarter than you.

---

It's clear either my question is being misunderstood, or I framed it poorly. Allow me to try to rephrase.

In a couple weeks, I believe the US is going to begin to reverse course on social distancing[1]. We are going to put parameters in place that will allow most folks to return to work, school, and social events. When that happens, people will continue to die from the virus, but we have no idea of knowing the rate. If the media does what it does (and there's no reason to think otherwise), the narrative will shift, and they will begin to cover deaths from the coronavirus. MSM will likely blame Trump for all new deaths, regardless if it is in line or better than other nations, and Fox News will downplay the severity of it, regardless if the numbers are significantly worse than other modern nations [2]. I'm asking people to go on record with their opinion before the "experts" get a chance to give out their talking points.

What would be the magical number when you have to give Trump some credit or blame? This requires a little bit of critical thinking and accountability, so I understand if people are unwilling to stick their necks out.

So you asked a question with presumptions [1] and [2] that you didn't mention at first.  [2] is your prediction based on [1] happening first, but [1] is far from given.

But [2] is a pretty odd prediction, even if [1] takes place.  It would be totally valid to compare deaths in a country that "reversed course" to one that did not "reverse course".  Sure, some in the media will make invalid or uninformed comparisons, but there is a valid comparison to be made, even if people misunderstand it.

---

Whenever I see a bunch of people who are way smarter than me make a complicated report, I believe the report until a group of people who seem even smarter comes along and explains why the first group was wrong.
Most people don't do this.
Most people decide to believe something based on how many things about their lives they would have to change for believing it. You're in the second category, but at least you're not alone!

Oh Mikey, stop being so self-deprecating. We know you've never seen anyone you thought was smarter than you!

On this board, no.  Well, that Marty guy seems pretty smart. Most of you, though, no.
In academic settings, I met people smarter than me all the time.

---

He has to think they are smarter than him so he can come here and pretend to be smarter than you.

Did you ever take the GRE?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's clear either my question is being misunderstood, or I framed it poorly. Allow me to try to rephrase.

In a couple weeks, I believe the US is going to begin to reverse course on social distancing. We are going to put parameters in place that will allow most folks to return to work, school, and social events. When that happens, people will continue to die from the virus, but we have no idea of knowing the rate. If the media does what it does (and there's no reason to think otherwise), the narrative will shift, and they will begin to cover deaths from the coronavirus. MSM will likely blame Trump for all new deaths, regardless if it is in line or better than other nations, and Fox News will downplay the severity of it, regardless if the numbers are significantly worse than other modern nations. I'm asking people to go on record with their opinion before the "experts" get a chance to give out their talking points.

What would be the magical number when you have to give Trump some credit or blame? This requires a little bit of critical thinking and accountability, so I understand if people are unwilling to stick their necks out.

The thing is there is no correct or logical answer to your question.  In my heart my feeling is that no unnecessary death is acceptable.  Does that mean that there is an absolute way to prevent it?  Nope.  If part of the country is "opened back up for business" and someone dies in that area of the country, is there any way to prove that the policy in place caused it or could have prevented it?  Nope.

Now do I think that some portions of the country should possibly go back to work and "open for business"?  Yes.  Certain venues and businesses could start back up with limitations to continue practicing social distancing.  It's not about "greed" or "evil CEO's" it's about workers that need to have their income restarted.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

2 to 3 million dead is bull [BLEEP] propaganda and it always was.

The lead researcher admitted it was horse manure and hes still spewing it.  Ridiculous.  

#NOTTODAY


hey mikey, still waiting on the retraction about the control group from the Bloomberg article!

You're still wrong about what Neil Ferguson is saying.  Read the National Review article I linked you to.

The control group in the Bloomberg article was given antiviral drugs, yes.  Apparently that's become the standard of care in China.  I have no idea what standard of care in the US is, nor how long the average person needs a ventilator after they start using one.  The article wasn't about that.  Maybe the criteria for starting mechanical ventilation, and ending it, are different between the two countries.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Whenever I see a bunch of people who are way smarter than me make a complicated report, I believe the report until a group of people who seem even smarter comes along and explains why the first group was wrong.
Most people don't do this.
Most people decide to believe something based on how many things about their lives they would have to change for believing it. You're in the second category, but at least you're not alone!

Or we read it and decide for ourselves that pretty much everyone is guided by greed. And fear sells.

Greed? how would putting out a scary but false report translate into more money for Imperial College of London?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The lead researcher admitted it was horse manure and hes still spewing it.  Ridiculous.  

#NOTTODAY


hey mikey, still waiting on the retraction about the control group from the Bloomberg article!

You're still wrong about what Neil Ferguson is saying.  Read the National Review article I linked you to.

Go read the part I quoted.  

The control group in the Bloomberg article was given antiviral drugs, yes.  Apparently that's become the standard of care in China.  I have no idea what standard of care in the US is, nor how long the average person needs a ventilator after they start using one.  The article wasn't about that.  Maybe the criteria for starting mechanical ventilation, and ending it, are different between the two countries.

Ur right the article was about trashing the president and lying to the reader.  The headline suggests the drug has "no affect" on patients.  

As I point out, the actual results of the trial (13/15 cases clearing viral load in 1 week) is a vast improvement over the normal course of Covid 19 (most patients take 2 weeks plus).  Further, 1 case progressing to severity would be a marked improvement over the 20% case hospitalization rate u see in NYC.    So in reality, the article actually supports the idea that hcq  does pharmaceutically avert bad outcomes.  

Now, the two anti HIV meds that china used are also being studied globally to determine their clinical efficacy against SARS COV2.  if they really are as/slightly more effective @ clearing the virus then let's pick them.  My guess would be that we looked closer @ hcqn  because a.) Its 1/5th the cost b.) Weve been using it for 70 years wi good history of outcomes and c.) probably less of a stretch to ho from anti malarial than from anti hiv from the standpoint of the fda.  D.) already in generic form e.) Guessing more abundant if proven to work.  F.) The issue isn't purely clearing the viral load, it's also modulating the immune system to prevent cytokine storm (the real source of lung complication) which hcqn does.

But the only thing that matters is finding  pharmaceutical solution to bend the hospitalization curve instead of unsustainable economic shutdowns.

---

You're wrong, and you spend three paragraphs being wrong.  Sad!
Remember you're never going to get that time back.  All you can do is try to do better in the future.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/co...edictions/

If nothing else, the original Imperial model will be obsolete soon, because it didn’t predict what could happen with extensive testing and contact tracing, which is likely the next step once the spread is contained and we have enough tests to go around. But it hasn’t been walked back just yet

My gosh....  lock yourselves away for 18 months....  vaccine or starve.  

Death rate, hospitalization rate, infection rate, and upper limit of the succeptable population ALL WRONG from the original simulation causing the next depression.  I told u bruh.  NOT TODAY.  

btw, you still need to acknowledge that using anti HIV meds isn't "conventional care" from the garbage Bloomberg article....  ILL WAIT.  

3 days on ld is supposed to result in a 96% reduction in death rates...  lol.  Get on my level.  

#dotsdontwashtheirhands

I don't see a quote here.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's clear either my question is being misunderstood, or I framed it poorly. Allow me to try to rephrase.

In a couple weeks, I believe the US is going to begin to reverse course on social distancing[1]. We are going to put parameters in place that will allow most folks to return to work, school, and social events. When that happens, people will continue to die from the virus, but we have no idea of knowing the rate. If the media does what it does (and there's no reason to think otherwise), the narrative will shift, and they will begin to cover deaths from the coronavirus. MSM will likely blame Trump for all new deaths, regardless if it is in line or better than other nations, and Fox News will downplay the severity of it, regardless if the numbers are significantly worse than other modern nations [2]. I'm asking people to go on record with their opinion before the "experts" get a chance to give out their talking points.

What would be the magical number when you have to give Trump some credit or blame? This requires a little bit of critical thinking and accountability, so I understand if people are unwilling to stick their necks out.

So you asked a question with presumptions [1] and [2] that you didn't mention at first.  [2] is your prediction based on [1] happening first, but [1] is far from given.

But [2] is a pretty odd prediction, even if [1] takes place.  It would be totally valid to compare deaths in a country that "reversed course" to one that did not "reverse course".  Sure, some in the media will make invalid or uninformed comparisons, but there is a valid comparison to be made, even if people misunderstand it.

---

Oh Mikey, stop being so self-deprecating. We know you've never seen anyone you thought was smarter than you!

On this board, no.  Well, that Marty guy seems pretty smart.  Most of you, though, no.
In academic settings, I met people smarter than me all the time.

---

He has to think they are smarter than him so he can come here and pretend to be smarter than you.

Did you ever take the GRE?

Oooo, are we gonna compare degrees now? Nothing makes my ego swell like talking about my 7 years in high school!

---

Or we read it and decide for ourselves that pretty much everyone is guided by greed. And fear sells.

Greed? how would putting out a scary but false report translate into more money for Imperial College of London?

Lol, you know how the grant process works...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I took the GRE. I don't remember what I scored, but it was good enough to get me into law school.

Mike, you hurt my head when you post.

In my original post, I still laid out both my presumptions, even if they weren't clear. I get it, though, everyone doesn't think like me, so, due to objections by you and JJ, I reframed the questions, giving more supporting context. The first of those two presumptions is a given unless all of humanity dies in quarantine. We will eventually stop social distancing. It's inevitable. When that happens, the political narrative will shift, which is inductive reasoning based on all of political history. I used basic common sense to arrive at the second presumption, which and gave probably examples based on both sides of the political spectrum. There are no guarantees that I'll be accurate with my prediction, sure. You can suggest the I am going way out on a limb, but I'm not. It's on record to quote me if I am incorrect (but I seriously doubt it). Either way, you can still answer a question based on a hypothetical.

The question is predictive. That was it's design. I want people to stick their necks out, before the situation happens, so we can see (if my hypothetical comes true), if they will abandon their claims or not.

So, I ask you again: What are your criteria for this being a successful exit from quarantine into resuming normal life. Make a prediction using what we know from other countries. Then let's see if you stand by it when the narrative shifts in the near future.

---