I can assure you that scene would not have ended well had it been me that a bunch of 17ers were yelling at.
Printable View
No idea what was said prior to that video starting. Per this video, everyone yelling at this woman were being assholes. But like I said, we have no idea what instigated the exchange. I would be willing to bet that lady smarted off, instead of being apologetic that she forgot her mask. We all can do out little part, and that will make the difference.
Sounds like you are a billy bad ass though.
Since it's now been shown the virus attacks those with the dementia gene, I think we better understand why it's old people it's killing. It's not necessarily their age. It's genetics and underlying issues.
Go get tested for the dementia gene.
I harped on this very thread quite a bit about our president spending over $5 per mask from a company that has no manufacturing wing or history in the medical field, but when California spends 60% of that, they are the idiots wasting money.
I expect everyone who shit on me for pointing that out to come in here and tell Jack why he's wrong and defend California. I'll wait.
You need to blame science. They are the ones who got all the projection wrong that cause all the panic. Hell if I am President and the top doctor on infection disease comes into my office and say 1 million americans are going to die you take action. Science let us down and now you have blue state governors claiming it science why they are staying shut down.
The curve was flatten. Time to start going back to work and stop playing politics because this is an election year and stop using science as your excuse. I am not wearing a mask because the ****ing doctors keep changing the science. I am not going to live in fear and I am not going let someone scare me into wearing a stupid mask. I keep hoping someone will say something to me in public but two things. Hardly no one wears mask and not too many people are going to smart off to me. There is an advantage of looking like I look.
Science projected that we would hit 1 million dead and overrun our hospitals if we didn't social distance. Science predicted we would have around 60k dead if we did. We social distanced some and now we're at 100k+ dead.
"This vaccine prevents the flu."
'Yea well I took it and I didn't get the flu so it was pointless and science failed me.'
"..."
That's you.
And again this guy has been president for four years. It's past time to let him shift blame. He was in here to drain the swamp yet constantly blames others for anything bad that happens while taking all credit for good things that happen. That's not a leader of the free world.
So either: A. science was wrong and trump didn't put the best people on the job. B. Science was right and Trump is now wrong for questioning them and suggesting injecting lysol and now insulin.
I just don't get the mentality here. You say the president should take action if he's hearing 1 million will die. He took some action but mostly left it up to the states who for the most part took good action albeit late. 1 million didn't die. Now science is wrong. But he took action. So how is science wrong.
And now you're chastising California who got prices lower than Trump for spending negligently. But Trump spent even more negligently. And that's actually YOUR tax dollars. But somehow California and the dems are the wrong ones.
Do you see the faulty logic? I broke it down as simple as I can for you.
It's a little different comparing emergent diseases and wars or acts of war. We very likely have a new disease that's just going to be part of our disease burden going forward and it has a IFR somewhere in the range of .3%. That's extremely bad. It's probably going to show up in life expectancy numbers, although not as much as you'd think because so many of the deaths are with people that likely would have died within a year anyway. It will probably be COVID and Flu season going forward, and that's a significant drain on quality of life. That could fairly be called a disaster, but I would resist that because people are using it as a reason to inflict a ton of avoidable and unnecessary harm. There are bad things that happen that are unavoidable and we shouldn't make things worse b/c we think there is always a silver bullet.
ETA: Also, while this is worse than vietnam b/c it will be an ongoing thing, 58k deaths of people of military age, many in their early twenties if not late teens, is a much bigger loss than we have suffered so far. It will probably not be worse by the time Wuhan works its way through the population unless we get an upside surprise, but as of right now, there's no question the toll of vietnam was worse.
The projections were not wrong. They were based on not doing anything at all, which they plainly said from the start. We did flatten the curve, at least so far. Where they HAVE been wrong is thinking people would cooperate fully with the recommendations. People haven't hence the death and case counts have been way higher than the models showing social distancing effects. We have to go back to work, but people won't even do something easy and simple like wear a mask. If you look at one of the common denominators with the countries that have been holding this down the best, high mask wearing compliance is one of the main ones. I'm starting to see stuff that implies it is THE main one, more so than testing. The amount of asymptomatic cases makes contact tracing and testing very problematic.
Science didn't fail anyone. What you are seeing is scientific research played out in the public forum. Most of this stuff (at least for us anyway) happens behind the scenes and behing closed doors or at professional conventions and/or symposiums. This was an unknown virus as of 6 month ago. There has been aggressive research done on the virus over that time span. Typically, you would do your research, get it peer-reviewed, edited, then published (a 1-2 year process). At that point everyone in the relevant scientific community would read it and offer criticism or support. This would initiate more testing and research by different groups to either replicate your findings or disprove your findings and then the data parsing, writing, peer-review, publishing process would happen all over again followed by the relevant scientific community reading and reviewing the work. This happens over and over again (sometimes over a decade) until the scientific field comes to an understanding and consensus on a matter.
Due to the nature of this virus you are seeing that process sped up. You are seeing non-peer-reviewed articles being published online in order to expedite the process and get the info out as fast as possible due to the emergency of the situation. The problem is that media members then grab these technical articles and treat them as if they are 100% accurate when they are, in fact, theories at BEST and have yet to be fully reviewed by the scientific community.
That's not how science works and the media and other outlets need to be educated that just because a scientific article on researchgate, plos, or pubmed says "we believe XYZ based on the data gathered during the course of our research" doesn't mean that is the answer...it's just a step on the path toward the answer.
"Science predicted we would have around 60k dead if we did (distance)" ..............when did that happen? I don't think I ever saw that number anywhere close to that low even if we distanced
Same as a lot of folks on this board haha. "Science" is never 100% precise/accurate. And models are only as good as algorithms and input data. Lots of variables there. In addition, science can be and is quite often influenced by agenda/politics .. depending on the funding source/scientist/company.
I respectfully disagree with all of you who disagree with me. Just giving the friendly "just saying". If you met me at a game I'll buy you a hotdog and coke.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...n-us-by-august
This is when everybody started saying it was no big deal