Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agree to disagree. Private industry is the ONLY solution to the problems that aile us - Government is only good at collecting taxes, and fighting wars. It can not solve your individual problems.
Our government has no money to provide for you - had the government not shut everything down it is highly likely we would have experienced only marginally more deaths/illness -
Private business does not act in its own self interest when it thinks the government is going to do it for them.
Anytime someone says "ONLY" and things like that I know that they are misinformed and don't understand nuances of issues.
Private industry chases the dollar, any economist will tell you that. Consumers chase value/quality. There is nothing in society to protect the society as a whole without the government. Government serves that function because collectively people won't make such decisions.
Examples: Rallies held in NC to reopen government, the lead organizer gets COVID-19. Barber shops and salons reopen in GA, people go for a haircut or pedi/mani and contract COVID-19. Texas reopens state parks and they are crowded and they have to close them. People are great at making decisions for themselves and their families, companies are great at making decisions for their company but those are tree level decisions. The government makes forest level decisions. Others can't see the forest through the trees. This is why you have the top epidemiologists and other experts at the federal level who can advise what we should do. And unless you have a Medical Degree from Harvard you cannot say if what they are recommending is good advice or not. The only choice is to believe the top experts in the same way you believe your doctor if he says you have cancer or you believe a structural engineer when he says your house may collapse. The other option is death.
This is the question that’s fundamental and that you haven’t addressed: why thwart the wisdom and advice of science?
You talk about "science" as if there is some authoritative voice. There isn't. Have you ever had a medical condition and received multiple medical opinions? Likewise, there are competing voices on the science of COVID-19. Not only that, but the infection and death "models" used early on have proven to be dramatically wrong.
What scares me is the large tech companies like Google and Facebook are shutting down competing opinions because they don't agree with those opinions. That is censorship, flat out! And it should be condemned, but it won't be.
You talk about "science" as if there is some authoritative voice. There isn't. Have you ever had a medical condition and received multiple medical opinions? Likewise, there are competing voices on the science of COVID-19. Not only that, but the infection and death "models" used early on have proven to be dramatically wrong.
What scares me is the large tech companies like Google and Facebook are shutting down competing opinions because they don't agree with those opinions. That is censorship, flat out! And it should be condemned, but it won't be.
I'm seeing the authoritative voice as the vast consensus, which is radically tilted toward the cautionary approach. Opinions outside that approach have been published, and discussed, but they are way, way outside the mainstream of 99% of medical, scientific and epidemiological thinking. When you have that much of science saying one thing, I think it's important to listen and to heed the warning.
The death models you are referring to went through several scenarios. The most popular models suggested that we in the US would experience between 100 and 200k deaths. That's what we're on track for afaik by the end of this outbreak IF we keep social distancing. Think about it. We have 60 thousand so far and we've gone from 50 to 60 in the last week. What do you think is going to happen next? It's just going to stop?
Google and Facebook can publish or deny publication of whatever they want. That's their prerogative. It's not censorship if they don't want to publish something on their platform. Facebook doesn't allow hardcore porn. Is that wrong? Neither platform tries to show hate speech, although there's plenty of that out there anyway. And in this case, you're talking about opinions that endanger lives. Why WOULD they publish it?
Agree to disagree. Private industry is the ONLY solution to the problems that aile us - Government is only good at collecting taxes, and fighting wars. It can not solve your individual problems.
Our government has no money to provide for you - had the government not shut everything down it is highly likely we would have experienced only marginally more deaths/illness -
Private business does not act in its own self interest when it thinks the government is going to do it for them.
Private business always acts in its own best interests, usually without regard for the impact on others. Private business is also running the meat packing plants that are infecting workers because they have to be very close together to process the meat that flies by on the conveyors. The meat packers have no interest in slowing things down, because it might reduce their profits slightly. Businesses don't like to pay sick pay, because they think all workers are lazy and will abuse the sick pay, but the managers take however many days they need, with not a thought for workers in the same situation.
Business does lots of good stuff, but absent government regulations and rules, we would see human kidneys in Aisle 7. Government provides a framework to keep the outliers from screwing the rest of us.
Business does lots of good stuff, but absent government regulations and rules, we would see human kidneys in Aisle 7.
Like the doctors that sell foreskin for $100k a pop to cosmetic companies to make creams for celebrities who inject it into their face. Meanwhile parents pay for this nefarious procedure for their baby boy. Not many people know about this racket.
I'm seeing the authoritative voice as the vast consensus, which is radically tilted toward the cautionary approach. Opinions outside that approach have been published, and discussed, but they are way, way outside the mainstream of 99% of medical, scientific and epidemiological thinking. When you have that much of science saying one thing, I think it's important to listen and to heed the warning.
The problem with this is that all of the doctors spouting the cautionary approach are all unaffected by the financial impacts of it. The doctors I know - smart folks - general surgeons, dermatologists - all say this was way overblown - they are great doctors, but their income has been destroyed by this so they have a different opinion. They believe they are much smarter than the government people making these plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerbear30
The death models you are referring to went through several scenarios. The most popular models suggested that we in the US would experience between 100 and 200k deaths. That's what we're on track for afaik by the end of this outbreak IF we keep social distancing. Think about it. We have 60 thousand so far and we've gone from 50 to 60 in the last week. What do you think is going to happen next? It's just going to stop? .
Its widely believed that to achieve herd immunity people need to be exposed. The number of people susceptible to severe illness is essentially a fixed number and will not change - so we either stay in a lock down forever or we accept that *some* people will need to stay in lockdown while others dont. Also the cost of this lockdown - is about $1.7M per death at this point. That is the value of the lost economic activity per death in the US right now. That is a pretty steep number especially since we did not spend that much on a cure - we just traded off time - we delayed the illness - but we traded someone else's life for the person who delayed their own COVID case - like the toddler who drowned, or the people who are dying at home from heart complications because of fear of going to the hospital. The models are a great tool for someone planning how they personally should react, but they are awful for government planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerbear30
Google and Facebook can publish or deny publication of whatever they want. That's their prerogative. It's not censorship if they don't want to publish something on their platform. Facebook doesn't allow hardcore porn. Is that wrong? Neither platform tries to show hate speech, although there's plenty of that out there anyway. And in this case, you're talking about opinions that endanger lives. Why WOULD they publish it?
If Google & Facebook can deny publication to anything they want then they should lose their liability protections as a platform. As it stands they claim to be a platform who is not liable for content posted on their platforms - its a section 230 defense - but once they begin censor, and decide what does get published and does not get published they move from a platform to a publisher - and ALL publishers have legal liability for anything they publish. They don't get to have it both ways. That is not how our system is set up.
The problem with this is that all of the doctors spouting the cautionary approach are all unaffected by the financial impacts of it. The doctors I know - smart folks - general surgeons, dermatologists - all say this was way overblown - they are great doctors, but their income has been destroyed by this so they have a different opinion. They believe they are much smarter than the government people making these plans.
Its widely believed that to achieve herd immunity people need to be exposed. The number of people susceptible to severe illness is essentially a fixed number and will not change - so we either stay in a lock down forever or we accept that *some* people will need to stay in lockdown while others dont. Also the cost of this lockdown - is about $1.7M per death at this point. That is the value of the lost economic activity per death in the US right now. That is a pretty steep number especially since we did not spend that much on a cure - we just traded off time - we delayed the illness - but we traded someone else's life for the person who delayed their own COVID case - like the toddler who drowned, or the people who are dying at home from heart complications because of fear of going to the hospital. The models are a great tool for someone planning how they personally should react, but they are awful for government planning.
If Google & Facebook can deny publication to anything they want then they should lose their liability protections as a platform. As it stands they claim to be a platform who is not liable for content posted on their platforms - its a section 230 defense - but once they begin censor, and decide what does get published and does not get published they move from a platform to a publisher - and ALL publishers have legal liability for anything they publish. They don't get to have it both ways. That is not how our system is set up.
To your first point: Isn't the whole point of objectivity that you are disinterested, or don't have anything to lose? If you are saying that the people who should be making the decisions are the ones who have the most to lose, that just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm a Democrat, but I don't believe the people attacking Tara Reade right now, because I know they're just attacking her because they feel they have something to lose, and it's odious to watch. I WANT an objective voice. And when it comes to objective voices, the VAST MAJORITY of science says we should be safe. It's not wrong, it's not making it up. The models vary, but almost ALL of the scientists agree that without significant social distancing and control, we'd be overrun by now.
That leads me to your second point, about herd immunity. The problem with that is of course that we can't all get it at once, or the hospitals will be overrun and then death will be exponential. Not just all the Covid deaths, but deaths from other issues that ER doctors would normally be able to treat. The toddler at risk of drowning or the person with heart issues is SAFER because hospitals have room to treat them now, not less safe. Those people are at greater risk if we go the "herd immunity" model, because the covid cases would be clogging the system, and making people with other issues EVEN MORE afraid to go to the doctor.
Your third point is something I don't know enough about. I was talking without knowing what I was saying, but I do think I was falsely baited too. I don't actually see Google censoring anything so I think that's made up. I do see Facebook cutting some things as "misinformation" about COVID. That actually seems pretty reasonable to me. Something I posted was actually cut, and I re-read the thing, and sure enough it wasn't actually all true. I'm generally no fan of Facebook, though. It's a vector for lies and misinformation on both sides, though probably like 90% conservative, 10% liberal. Still, pretty bad all around.
It's a vector for lies and misinformation on both sides, though probably like 90% conservative, 10% liberal. Still, pretty bad all around.
Im liberal and I dont even buy that. Id lean closer to 60/40.
Conservatives tend to just make stuff up outright and liberals tend mislead and spin to get the same outcome. I dont think one is better than the other.
I don't actually see Google censoring anything so I think that's made up. I do see Facebook cutting some things as "misinformation" about COVID. That actually seems pretty reasonable to me. Something I posted was actually cut, and I re-read the thing, and sure enough it wasn't actually all true. I'm generally no fan of Facebook, though. It's a vector for lies and misinformation on both sides, though probably like 90% conservative, 10% liberal. Still, pretty bad all around.
Thanks for the link. To be clear, the material they are considering taking down is ALL misinformation. People on both sides of the debate seem to agree on this. Do you want this stuff available out of principle or because you believe it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
