File: 1601855000439.jpg (86.23 KB, 720x720, 1:1, 120637482_1015961110597379….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
United States of America, Presidential Authority Donal Trump is reported by several sources to have COVID. This disease is usually harmless, but as in all probabilistic things, we must hope for the best.
File: 1601855887924.png (193.23 KB, 740x582, 370:291, 4MhY7rW.png) ImgOps Google
>>6915>COVID. This disease is usually harmless
I disagree. It is true that a significant percentage of infected persons (especially young persons) are asymptomatic, but our best estimate is that a majority of infected adults do show some degree of at least short-term bodily harm, and there are many cases of long-term damage to heart tissue and/or lung tissue that persists after the infection has been cleared.
File: 1601885495171.jpeg (133.61 KB, 626x1024, 313:512, large.jpeg) ImgOps Google
I was in the scope of state-truth, knowing the Presidential Authority asserts COVID to be 99% harmless. I figured that was appropriate as the concern was for a state authority, if in his 'body natural.'>>6917
I think we can assume survival if an outcome must be predicted. Do you have a prediction about the effect on the election?
He thus far does seem like he'll survive, and the effect it would have if he didn't survive is pretty clear. It'd be an automatic win for Biden. Nothing the Republicans can do would pick up enough steam by November to get any votes out with their figurehead slain. Not a lot of predictions to postulate there.
Post survival, though, it could still be a major topic. If he comes out completely unscathed it could serve as the lynchpin for him saying that Covid is no big deal. But it could also have impacted him enough to change his tune on how dangerous and important it is. And if his lungs are permanently impacted, as is the case with many infections that have gotten serious, it could cut deeply into his ability to project himself at debates and rallies. He'd be physically incapable of being the man he was before and it might cost him not just debates but the election itself.
There's just a lot riding on the specifics of the outcome, and it might decide the entire election.
I think I agree. If President Trump is visibly degraded, it adds gravity to COVID's seriousness for both sides, but as Biden is more associated with taking the virus seriously, he will be most helped. (Pending additional spin, anyway.)
If Trump can appear to recover quickly and completely, it will strengthen his position, probably.
Suppose so. Problem with 99% harmlessness is you still have 1%, and how you recon the 1%'s distribution in those who become positive, I can only guess.>at least according to the Lamestream Media
The official stream shows Trump in a hospital setting learning about COVID (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1312864232711520257
As consistent with the conservative belief that only losers and suckers have died from COVID with dangers getting severely overblown, it appears that Trump has recovered to the point where he has no symptoms of the disease, at least according to the President's official doctor.
File: 1602072816857.jpg (227.6 KB, 881x1024, 881:1024, r.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Excellent news, I expect our hoping for the best helped, especially if Trump took the time to visit this thread.>conservative belief that only losers and suckers have died from COVID
Interesting. I doubt the virus is considered sentient. Is a deity controlling the outcomes for justice?>dangers getting severely overblown
That will be the angle, I think, more than before. Some will prefer to listen to so-called experts with their numbers and analytical tools, but others gain courage knowing if they can just channel a bit of their inner Trump, they too can weather the China flu, should it come to them.
I'm not religious, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I personally do not think COVID is "controlled by a deity."
It's insulting because spread of the virus has been managed in other countries much better than it has in the US, because of attempts by the government to downplay the severity of the virus and it's ability to spread. As a result, thousands have died, with no sign of the spread slowing. Saying things like the virus is "mostly harmless" only goes to further these attempts to downplay and ignore.
We should not downplay the severity of this disease, we should not politicize the safety measures against this disease, we should not conflate recovering from the disease as being consequence free, and we should not disrespect those who have died from preventable deaths.
If "conservatives" are saying that, it's clear they are unempathetic, cruel people.
Trump was given experimental treatments for the disease that literally no one else has access to. Not only that, there's reason to believe doctors are keeping details about his health and supposed recovery secret.
Of course conservatives aren't saying that. It's about as nonsensical as seeing someone saying "Democrats just want to steal everything you've earned", and presuming it true.
What's typically said at least as far as I've seen is that, ultimately, everyone dies, and it's a bad idea to sacrifice everyone's liberty and prosperity over less than 1% of the population.
Sure. But that doesn't make it insulting to note that it is mostly safe.
Some caution is worthwhile, but it's hardly advisable, let's say, two refuse to do anything at all anywhere near a body of water, or ever cross the street.
Likewise I would personally suggest shut downs, curfews, lockdowns, and do on are an extreme response.
As it currently sits, I see no significant justification for that kind of totalitarianism
>>6952>200,000 people have died. It's pretty insulting to those people to say the disease is "usually harmless".
I disagree. If a majority of infected persons were asymptomatic, then "The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is usually harmless" would be true. In fact, among young persons, most infections are
asymptomatic, although I believe that, in the whole population, usually the virus does cause some amount of harm. But in any case, I don't see how assertions (about whether it is usual for the virus to cause harm) can be considered insults.
It's a tricky situation. This is a natural disaster, there's no other way to look at it, and there isn't an answer that just solves the disaster and lets everyone get on with their lives. When the country is hit by a tornado or flooding or hurricane, there's some amount of damage we're going to take and are unable to stop, but we've become very good at calculating how to minimize this, particularly in regards to human casualties. A pandemic on this level hasn't been seen within the current framework of society, so we don't have significant information to pull from for minimizing damage. We all have our best estimates on what might cause the most damage, as well as personal calls on what we find most valuable and worth protecting, but none of that can be verified with past results.
In short, lockdowns might seem
like an extreme response, but as there's no standard
response you can't really declare anything is too extreme. The next time there's a pandemic perhaps we can look back at this one and then make judgements on what's too extreme or not going far enough.
Those things aren't highly infectious diseases. What are you even talking about? It's not something we just have to deal with in order to travel. It's something completely preventable if people in government positions take it seriously. WHich is why most countries have controlled the spread of the virus while cases in the US keep rising. >>6967
It's insulting to dismiss something that is still actively killing people as harmless. That isn't saying water is usually harmless, it's saying water is usually harmless during a deadly flood
I consider extreme restrictions on people's basic human rights "extreme", regardless of the nature of the disaster.
I had similar complaints for example when Katrina hit and they started confiscating people's firearms.
I'm unconvinced of it's efficacy, and am very opposed to the loss of such vital rights.
I understand there is no standard response, but, I would also say it was be a bad idea if the government started rounding up anyone sick and shooting them. There's no standard response isn't an excuse for bad action, as I see it, And the current standard seems to be absolutely a bad action
You are right, in that crossing the road or swimming are not items we have to deal with if we want to travel. The virus, however, seems to be. As it currently stands many places are restricting travel. Many places are restricting what time you can go out. Many places are restricting whether or not you can have your place of business, your means of income, open or not.
These are significantly worse responses than, in the case of crossing the road, just not, or in the case of swimming, again just not. They cause significantly more damage to people
From what I have heard, there's also been a few countries who've done nothing, in terms of lockdowns And other major basic human right in fractions, and have been fine.
And given the data, the response at this point seems exceptionally overdone, for what ultimately accounts for a small fraction of the population. Money doesn't grow on trees, and the economy is not something we can just instantly start up and stop whenever we please.
Why are we sacrificing 99% of the populations basic rights, their livelihoods, their prosperity, and their general well-being, in favor of a small minority of people, of whom the majority are still likely to die due to other issues within a few short years.
It makes no sense. And it certainly would have been far easier to simply put those at risk under some sort of protection. It would have cost the nation far less, it wouldn't have violated so many people's basic human rights, and it would have avoided destroying the economy.
I think the US government's strategy is to return to normal as soon as possible to end the greater harm of preventative measures. (I'm currently operating in human state-respectful scope).
Suppose we're discussing the role of the dead and suffering in helping the state achieve this goal. If they must be insulted for this purpose, and the virus is fairly random, it would seem a random insult. I was suggesting a means by which the state might seem more moral, if COVID was punishment by a deity and insults aligned with this punishment. I see you reject the idea.
File: 1602377103588.jpg (44.24 KB, 460x532, 115:133, 95-mask-1860.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
If everyone had N95 masks, the lockdowns wouldn't have been necessary. Personally, I think the initial lockdowns were justified, when there was still little information about the Coronavirus. Going forward, I think the best thing to do is to ensure that there is sufficient manufacturing capacity for N95 masks and to suggest that everyone keep a personal supply of them for disaster preparedness. Also, the government should commission elastomeric masks with filtered exhaust. The elastomer provides a better seal, but most elastomeric masks don't filter the exhaust air, which is okay for industrial use (for toxic dusts and such things) but improper for pandemic use.
Keeping an emergency supply of masks would be a great way to deal with viruses without violating people's rights.
I would definitely support something similar.
Though it is admittedly not easy, considering The population, and of course not everybody will want to wear it.
Still, at the very least, it means the people who are most at risk can protect themselves, which is better.
I could probably agree to that.>>6995
You've a fair point, shooting everyone would probably be too far, though it would technically make it more difficult for the virus to spread.
Where I live, we've largely opened back up by now, with the only remaining restrictions being building capacity and the requirement to wear a mask, which I'd definitely mark as okay, though some people think mask requirements are also too extreme. If we still had lockdowns then I'd be pretty suspicious of the governer.
That said, I don't know what the virus status is looking like in the places that do
have lockdowns, so maybe it's still warranted? I'm far from a virologist.
The greater harm of... Not having people die? I'm not sure what you think is going to happen if we prevent the disease.
The government should have paid people to stay home and then implemented safety procedures to slowly reopen. That is literally what every other developed country has done and why their death rates are decreasing. >>6997
"just not" is not the solution to swimming or crossing a road... We have designated places for crossing the road which limit the the danger, it's literally a minor crime to cross in a place that isn't one of those designated areas. Not only that, drivers are taught that pedestrians always have the "right of way" and to stop if one is seen committing this minor crime. It is a much harsher crime to hit a pedestrian. >From what I have heard, there's also been a few countries who've done nothing
Which? What kind of population sizes and densities do they have? Do they have a lot of international travel? There are factors to consider here, even if this is true, which I have my doubts on. >Why are we sacrificing 99% of the populations basic rights, their livelihoods, their prosperity, and their general well-being...
That is not the only option. The options aren't "shut everything down and let everyone go broke" or "do nothing and let the virus kill tens of thousands." Or atleast it shouldn't be. There are more options. Like an actually competent government offering stimulus to help though a better planned and executed lock-down, and then providing a plan to slowly re-open and get businesses back on their feet. Your assumption that this is all or nothing is false. We can do both. Deal with the virus AND keep people's livelyhoods in check. Your insistence that money and the economy is more important than human lives is nothing short of monstrous.
File: 1602400390654.png (481.65 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, r.png) ImgOps Google
>>7028>Not having people die?
Well, you know. Some are depressed with cabin fever or when trapped at home are not in good environments. The economy may suffer, and I suppose that's to have negative health effects because money is health. The President finds this, on the balance, more important than lives that might be saved.
If we can assume for a moment preventing folks from getting the virus and sometimes dying or suffering long-term is an honorable value, and the danger of COVID has not been widely overblown by the liberal media, yes.
- Provide support for people to stay at home when possible, including financial help so they don't end up without homes.
- Protect essential workers as much as possible and don't over-work them. Reward them for their risks.
- Encourage and/or enforce things like masks when they are shown to help more than harm, even if they are not 100% effective (because what is?). Don't make basic preventative measures needlessly political.
- Provide community medical care, allow people to be able to afford treatment.
- Trust scientists and doctors. Not absolutely, of course, so more precisely, don't distrust them just because what they say is inconvenient. Can it with the conspiracy theories.
- Play nice with other countries.
>>7028>"just not" is not the solution to swimming or crossing a road... We have designated places for crossing the road which limit the the danger, it's literally a minor crime to cross in a place that isn't one of those designated areas. Not only that, drivers are taught that pedestrians always have the "right of way" and to stop if one is seen committing this minor crime. It is a much harsher crime to hit a pedestrian.
All of this is true, and if applied to something like the virus, would be not
shutting down, restricting people's travel, and forbidding religious gatherings.
This is my point.
The reaction we are currently doing is extreme.
As we have done with crossing the road, and with swimming, there are things we can do without
massive shutdown and rights violations.>Which?
As I understand it, Sweden, for one.
As to densities and population sizes and international travel, these are not consistent across the entirety of the united states anyway.
Though I think Sweden is still likely to be comparable, especially given that travel by land is going to be more common there.>That is not the only option. The options aren't "shut everything down and let everyone go broke" or "do nothing and let the virus kill tens of thousands."
Which is why we should not lock down.> Like an actually competent government offering stimulus to help though a better planned and executed lock-down, and then providing a plan to slowly re-open and get businesses back on their feet.
Money does not grow on trees.
Massive government spending is a bad thing.
There are options beyond "lock everything down and let everyone go broke" and "lock everything down and let the country go broke".>Your assumption that this is all or nothing is false
No, that is solely your
I have not said that.>Your insistence that money and the economy is more important than human lives is nothing short of monstrous.
Never said that.
Your habbit of jamming words into people's mouth to make them look bad is nothing short of monstrous.
Considering a lockdown would also mean no income to tax, I'm skeptical.
Last I saw, we're already in a bad debt. This is going to add a massive pile on top of that.> It is fallacious for you to assume that those are the only two options.
If you actually read the post you're replying to, or even the thing you're quoting, this fact would be apparent to you.>Besides, how is using tax money to actually help those who pay taxes not die a "bad thing"?
Never said it was. Again, you seem to have not read my post.
Taxes ought be used to help the taxpayers. But that doesn't mean there's infinite money to spend.
Otherwise, none of us would ever have to work. Just chill in front of a flat screen tv every day.
File: 1602616045887.gif (1.89 MB, 462x427, 66:61, 21d898988d9a572b3b8bc67dfd….gif) ImgOps Google
Charitable Cardinal wrote in >>7040
:>There are options beyond [Option 1] and [Option 2].
And in response to that, you replied:>It is fallacious for you to assume that those are the only two options.
Come on, are you just trolling at this point?
What taxes go to pay for what is not set in stone and can be re-arranged in the event of a crisis. Or even outside of one. We spend more on the military than any other country, for example. Or let the senators or the president take a pay cut.
You can't just keep saying "Money is finite" and assume all the money is already spoken for. They have a duty to help Americans not die a preventable death. A lock-down was the only logical option. Anything less is putting money above human lives. How much money is a human life worth to you?
While true, once again, without income
there are no taxes to
I'd love it if we could gut the budget of so much unnecessary fluff. But, keep in mind, we're already in
Getting a huge load more thanks to a big expense combined with closing down that tax revenue is a bad idea. >You can't just keep saying "Money is finite" and assume all the money is already spoken for.
You just assume that's what I do.
Much as you assumed I had said there were only two options, when I explicitly said the opposite.>They have a duty to help Americans not die a preventable death.
In so far as they can, sure.
It's part of why I am in favor of free healthcare.> A lock-down was the only logical option.
It's a brainless action which has well gone beyond the point of what the original justification was.
At one point it was to "flatten the curve". Yet here we still are.
That has been rather thoroughly demonstrated at this point to be a lie.
In any case; The logic of forfieting massive basic civil liberties away for temporary safety and expecting the government to give it back is as brainless as it gets, as I see it. Not logical at all.>Anything less is putting money above human lives
I disagree. >How much money is a human life worth to you?
As it pertains to civil liberties?
A life only has value if it is free.
File: 1602642833939.png (289.17 KB, 395x432, 395:432, 1463444839118.png) ImgOps Google
>>7251>How much money is a human life worth
For the purpose of highway safety and other construction to avoid accidental death, a human life is typically valued at $5-10 million.
For the purpose of medical care, the measure is usually done on a QALY basis, with each QALY valued at something like $50,000.
Giving a range of 5 to 10 million per life seems a bit misleading as best estimates tend to give it as 10 million (or 9 million) or so specifically, see: https://www.wired.com/story/how-much-is-human-life-worth-in-dollars/
(Not that I'm accusing you of lying or anything, just saying.)
Way belated, but: I typed "conservative" while meaning a different label, sorry about that. Would be genuinely like libel to act as if regular conservative fellows are somehow rooting for individuals' deaths.
(Or maybe it's technically not libel since the internet is different than print media, eh, whatever.)
>>7272>Giving a range of 5 to 10 million per life seems a bit misleading as best estimates tend to give it as 10 million (or 9 million) or so...
Ah, sorry, I didn't spend a lot of time digging into this and just used my memory and a few quick searches to find a rough range. I had the $5 million figure in memory (maybe it's outdated now from when I'm remembering it from) and also found it in some sources (e.g., https://www.livescience.com/15855-dollar-human-life.html
), so I included it as a lower-end.