UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if the goal is to prevent the spread of covid, should people expose themselves to more people or less people?
Lockdowns don't work.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Leading questions are not effective argumentation.
I simply counter, If the goal of the lockdowns are to flatten the curve such that the baseline remains above the apex, is this even possible? What's the cost?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
That wasn’t a leading question
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Furthermore, this must be factored:
NYC Reports Thousands of Additional Deaths, City Toll Tops 10K Despite Signs of Hope
New York’s daily death toll surged back near 800 Tuesday, a day after falling below 700 for the first time in a week, while its coronavirus caseload surpassed 200,000, according to the state’s Department of Health. Still, Gov. Andrew Cuomo pointed to signs of optimism as total hospitalizations...
www.nbcnewyork.com
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
maybe if they had taken less precautions and exposed themselves to more people it would have been lessFurthermore, this must be factored:
NYC Reports Thousands of Additional Deaths, City Toll Tops 10K Despite Signs of Hope
New York’s daily death toll surged back near 800 Tuesday, a day after falling below 700 for the first time in a week, while its coronavirus caseload surpassed 200,000, according to the state’s Department of Health. Still, Gov. Andrew Cuomo pointed to signs of optimism as total hospitalizations...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So all deaths except those related to traffic are up, and it's because they failed to obey the lockdown properly?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i think it’s due to a global pandemic
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The fact is, you thought my argument was more simple and you're finding that it's a little more nuanced. I actually still think you can come up with a strong counter once you see what I'm actually saying, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to you, so you opt instead to dismiss and insult.
I'm ok with that, as long as we undertsand eachother.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i haven’t insulted or dismissed you and I don’t find anything nuanced about your argument or mine
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
@UncleBuck
I'll boil it down as short as I can, because I can see this is tedious to you and I'm actually not trolling, at least with this.
When I say lockdowns don't work, I mean the current strategy of "flatten the curve". Some of my premises include this more simple statement, that they don't work in the very simple sense that you're noticing regarding case number growth, because it's still impossible to prove that the other factors and not the lockdown account for it.
However, it has caused us to segue from the conclusion (though I still stand by those premises).
So here's the short version of what I'm trying to say:
It is not possible to "flatten the curve" such that the apex remains below the baseline and if we continue to try to do so, we will cause another problem that will compound the epidemic, killing more people, bringing the baseline down further and raising the apex as well.
I'll boil it down as short as I can, because I can see this is tedious to you and I'm actually not trolling, at least with this.
When I say lockdowns don't work, I mean the current strategy of "flatten the curve". Some of my premises include this more simple statement, that they don't work in the very simple sense that you're noticing regarding case number growth, because it's still impossible to prove that the other factors and not the lockdown account for it.
However, it has caused us to segue from the conclusion (though I still stand by those premises).
So here's the short version of what I'm trying to say:
It is not possible to "flatten the curve" such that the apex remains below the baseline and if we continue to try to do so, we will cause another problem that will compound the epidemic, killing more people, bringing the baseline down further and raising the apex as well.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i don’t think you’re trolling, I think you are under tremendous stress from multiple directions and not dealing with it as well as you could
Lockdowns are a blunt instrument but the best one we have
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That's a dismissal.
No, they're not. Here's where I think we can agree with or without the lockdowns: "Test and trace" is a better instrument
1) Because of Trump's utter malfeasance, state governors are competing in international markets for PPE (bringing the baseline down)
2) because of Trump's positive efforts to withhold test kits from states, testing is inadequate
3) test and trace is PROVEN to be so effective at exposing infection chains that some countries have relied solely on this and not lockdowns
Here's where we disagree, lockdowns alone do more harm than good.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Noted that this is the entirety of your argument.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Correct
Direct contradiction of your premise is sufficient. Some might call it “intuitively obvious to the casual observer”
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Not really, we've already established that you disagree. You inability to offer anything other than "nah" will become all the more facile in the coming days when more and more news stories start talking about how to reopen the economy and even states like New York seek to do so while stipulating that it is on their terms.
I would also easily dismiss the intuitions of any casual observer in a time of crisis as "privileged bullshit".
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that by limiting our interactions with others, we also limit the spread of very communicable diseases
Thus “nah” is an acceptable response to contradict your premises regarding the supposed failure of lockdowns and social distancing
Again, you are not having the easiest or best times with lockdown. You are experiencing tremendous stress. I understand
My 2.5 year old had a fever of 104.9 at her peak.we were instructed to not bring her in to the hospital unless her fever stayed above 105 for half a day. I was aghast
Her fever broke and were getting through
Chill out and stay at home
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It was a "nah" to a minor premise, a furthermore. Not to a major premise.
Just because according to you, any casual observer, (read: uninformed idiot) can infer something that I haven't even contradicted, doesn't mean that you have even understood my actual conclusion. In fact, I have all along maintained that limiting interactions is a great idea.
Thus "nah" is just your way of saying that you disagree, for now, since the news stories haven't started coming out en masse that it's time to reopen the economy, even though there's no vaccine yet. You'll likely promptly agree once it's mainstream and then insist I was arguing something else, even though you've clearly not understood my conclusion.
It's ok, you already knew you're an obtuse prick and most of us, including myself, still like and accept you that way.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Another 11,550 new cases in New York in the last 24 hours.
Up from the 11,525 new cases in the previous 24 hour period.
There were 7,468 in the 24 hour period before that.
Before this, 6,337 new cases were reported in the previous 24 hour period.
Someone graph that curve logarithmically!
Up from the 11,525 new cases in the previous 24 hour period.
There were 7,468 in the 24 hour period before that.
Before this, 6,337 new cases were reported in the previous 24 hour period.
Someone graph that curve logarithmically!
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Scientists say the lockdown slows the progression of the virus as to not overwhelm the hospitals.
Ill believe them vs someone on the internet arguing otherwise.
My wife who is a Cardiologist also says if the virus is allowed to run rampant, theres no way they can treat all the sick people that come into the hospital.
This included other people, that have other illnesses that will die because of lack of space, and PPE/ventilators.
YES. Im going to believe her before I listen to someone on a weed forum Any fucking day.
Ill believe them vs someone on the internet arguing otherwise.
My wife who is a Cardiologist also says if the virus is allowed to run rampant, theres no way they can treat all the sick people that come into the hospital.
This included other people, that have other illnesses that will die because of lack of space, and PPE/ventilators.
YES. Im going to believe her before I listen to someone on a weed forum Any fucking day.