COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

I think he'd rather just repeat "who's on first" over and over to deflect from his refusal to answer certain inquiries. Acting like this conversation has just randomly spun out of control, when in reality it is directly due to nasty and him hijacking the discussion with strawman arguments, a refusal to answer very relevant questions, and general nonsense. nasty is much more responsible for this tailspin but Site is certainly adding to it.

---

lol how can I hijack a discussion that my views were at the center of? Name a relevant question I've 'refused to answer'. I started the Who's on first thing in part BECAUSE I've tired of explaining things I've already explained while others seem to want to keep repeating some of the same discussion seemingly in the hopes I'll change my opinion. We all know I'm not going to change yours and you're not going to change mine, so the productivity of continuing in circles seems nil to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Who knows what the case is but he has fully established that he doesn't deserve a seat at the table when it comes to conversations about propaganda and media (amongst many other topics). The real issue is that, despite the fact that at times he'll waver from one side of a position to the other like the wind changes direction, he'll basically never admit that he is wrong. If one wants to have an honest conversation with someone knowledgeable and aware of the topic at hand, there's basically no reason to ever engage nasty.

**** has reached comical levels of absurdity at this point.

---

Yeah, some of his takes on things are truly WAY WAY out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Can't keep track of how many times I've heard Trump say that "the cure can't be worse than the sickness".

A true statement? Yes....but it is being used in an inappropriate context.

---

Why would anyone listen to Trump talk and think there is a reasoning person behind it?

You say that, yet you are parroting him in this particular case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

And I never said you did. I said "you are making a massive assumption" about no long lasting effects of covid. I said "It's also a massive assumption" about vaccine's eliminating covid. I specifically did not say "you are making that assumption". I know semantics matter thank you very much :)

It's only a conservative viewpoint because it is common in bait and switch tactics where it starts off talking about that, but the true purpose of bringing it up is to talk about how we shouldn't do X or Y covid precuations. That is why 99% of the time conservatives only bring it up in a discussion about covid procedures.

It's a lot like how conservatives only bring up violence in Chicago in a discussion about gun control, or how they only ever talk about helping the homeless in a discussion about funding some other liberal agenda.


I agree, at some point we need to talk about those issues. In fact, we already did. Guess you missed it. It's why many are not in favor of another national lockdown (including Biden himself) because of those ancillary effects. So perhaps it's not that they aren't talking about these issues enough, it's that you're not listening :)

---

I didn't assume it would solve it, I put forward a hypothetical.

So it's not really a conservative viewpoint, it's a conservative talking point which doesn't invalidate the viewpoint at all it just means it has been co-opted. Just like racist *******s co-opted all-lives-matter to mean only white people's lives matter when that's not what the actual language says.

And I hate to break it to you but not only conservatives bring up violence in Chicago, and when they do it's not always about gun control, and they don't only bring up helping the homeless in discussions about liberal agendas. If you are talking about conservative personalities on TV or social media you are closer to right, but in general you are certainly not correct.

And yes, just recently the talk of national lock downs has come up and been muted because when it was put forward as a possible Biden policy the push back was so hard and immediate they had to respond and that's a good thing, but it took a LONG time to get here and it's still not a general topic of discussion. Most people I talk to about it react like you did ... that even talking about it is some kind of conservative, and therefore evil, position to even discuss.

Just like when I talk to conservatives about legalizing all drugs or not locking up non-violent criminals or making the main focus of our prison system rehabilitation rather than punishment ... they are likely to just cry leftist and dismiss the actual point.

We've spend the last 11 months being told there is only one thing to do and for the first several months we were told that it would take less time that it has. I was saying at the very beginning we'd be dealing with this for years and was called an idiot and crazy for saying it, but here we are. When I talked about the secondary impacts of those decisions then I was told they were unimportant or tiny, but here we are.

There are no easy solutions and dismissing people who have reasonable concerns is a real problem.

Dare I open this can of worms again, but I wrote quite some many posts back that the Supreme Court decision in the New York case signals a 180-degree reversal of an earlier SC ruling and poses a potential quandary for public health officials as to what restrictions they can levy on indoor religious gatherings.

Well, the US Supreme Court today formally told the California judges to “reconsider” California’s “Tier 1” restrictions in light of the new SC guidelines gleaned from the recent New York ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

I didn't assume it would solve it, I put forward a hypothetical.

So it's not really a conservative viewpoint, it's a conservative talking point which doesn't invalidate the viewpoint at all it just means it has been co-opted. Just like racist *******s co-opted all-lives-matter to mean only white people's lives matter when that's not what the actual language says.

And I hate to break it to you but not only conservatives bring up violence in Chicago, and when they do it's not always about gun control, and they don't only bring up helping the homeless in discussions about liberal agendas. If you are talking about conservative personalities on TV or social media you are closer to right, but in general you are certainly not correct.

And yes, just recently the talk of national lock downs has come up and been muted because when it was put forward as a possible Biden policy the push back was so hard and immediate they had to respond and that's a good thing, but it took a LONG time to get here and it's still not a general topic of discussion. Most people I talk to about it react like you did ... that even talking about it is some kind of conservative, and therefore evil, position to even discuss.

Just like when I talk to conservatives about legalizing all drugs or not locking up non-violent criminals or making the main focus of our prison system rehabilitation rather than punishment ... they are likely to just cry leftist and dismiss the actual point.

We've spend the last 11 months being told there is only one thing to do and for the first several months we were told that it would take less time that it has. I was saying at the very beginning we'd be dealing with this for years and was called an idiot and crazy for saying it, but here we are. When I talked about the secondary impacts of those decisions then I was told they were unimportant or tiny, but here we are.

There are no easy solutions and dismissing people who have reasonable concerns is a real problem.

---

First Bolded: Irrelevant distinction since you brought it up both as your viewpoint and as a talking point.

Second Bolded: I'm talking about in general (semantics matter :) ). No, they do not bring it up with any regularity.

Third Bolded: I never said it was an evil notion to discuss, I even said there was a point at which it's premise is true. I said it was a conservative notion to discuss. And it is.

I never once dismissed you or your concerns, I was merely pointing out that your concerns were a conservative viewpoint, in an attempt to illustrate you are far more conservative than you constantly portray yourself as (heck, in the other thread, when I pointed out that conservative politicians who don't ever follow covid rules are worse than liberal ones who are hypocritical some of the time, your immediate reaction was to turn that into a conservative talking point about how people's refusal to follow covid protocols was really hypocritical liberals' fault).


Just because it's a conservative viewpoint doesn't mean it's not a valid one, nor does it mean we shouldn't talk about it. But it is a conservative viewpoint that you espoused, even if a valid one.

Though saying it should be discussed is far different than saying the effects of covid precautions are worse thna covid, which is where you sometimes dabbled into possibly espousing, causing me to push back on that notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

You say that, yet you are parroting him in this particular case.

---

Who are you talking to/about?

If it's me, I can't be parroting Trump without hearing him say something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First Bolded: Irrelevant distinction since you brought it up both as your viewpoint and as a talking point.

Second Bolded: I'm talking about in general (semantics matter :) ). No, they do not bring it up with any regularity.

Third Bolded: I never said it was an evil notion to discuss, I even said there was a point at which it's premise is true. I said it was a conservative notion to discuss. And it is.

I never once dismissed you or your concerns, I was merely pointing out that your concerns were a conservative viewpoint, in an attempt to illustrate you are far more conservative than you constantly portray yourself as (heck, in the other thread, when I pointed out that conservative politicians who don't ever follow covid rules are worse than liberal ones who are hypocritical some of the time, your immediate reaction was to turn that into a conservative talking point about how people's refusal to follow covid protocols was really hypocritical liberals' fault).


Just because it's a conservative viewpoint doesn't mean it's not a valid one, nor does it mean we shouldn't talk about it. But it is a conservative viewpoint that you espoused, even if a valid one.

Though saying it should be discussed is far different than saying the effects of covid precautions are worse thna covid, which is where you sometimes dabbled into possibly espousing, causing me to push back on that notion.

---

You are the one that made it conservative, not me.

Who is "they"?

Okay

You seemed to be dismissive when you were saying something like "as expected of you".

Yeah, I never intended to say one thing was worse than another ... how can you accuse me of all people of saying one thing was worse than the other? :)

Also, so long as we're talking about which strategy is better, it's worth pointing out that we're having this discussion the day after the US broke it's record for most covid deaths in a day as well as most hospitalizations from Covid, so reality seems to also be undercutting the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

The fact that their death rate was drastically lower than similar circumstances and outbreaks in every other country during that time. It was fairly self evident the numbers were low.

---

Based on what?

Should their numbers have been similar to America?

If one state mandates masks and one doesn't, we already know we can expect significant differences in numbers. In January china went way beyond wearing masks, they made a mask mandate look like child's play. They LOCKED DOWN. Not reduced capacities and shorter hours, they locked. The ****. Down.

So obviously we should expect them to have DRASTICALLY lower numbers than us.

Look at their spread pattern from before they started their lockdown. It's exactly on par with ours and the rest of the world. After their lockdown, well of course their graph should look significantly lower than ours.

Have.you guys seen any videos of what they were doing there? If you watch videos of what they were doing in Wuhan, it makes sense their numbers are significantly lower.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

racist.

---

Only half [emoji846]

No ones actually offended by this, right? I'm assuming no one is, seems a safe assumption, but if I'm wrong someone tell me..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

I didn't say they are approaching the number of corona deaths. The problem comes in where the balance is not that the balance is entirely the other way.

So in some groups suicide rates are half way to your 600%, also drug related deaths are up a similar amount in some groups, so I suspect it's closer than most people think, but also there is an assumption in what you are saying that a 30% reduction in corona restriction would result in a linear increase on one side and a smaller decrease on the other side.

The long term effects of the personal and economic damage are likely going to have a much longer lifespan than this virus does so the death toll is not a "this year" sort of a thing. I've seen some estimates that the economic impact may be a decades long recovery while the vaccine may end corona as a major concern next month.

I know a few sociologists psychologists who work in the drug abuse field and they are experts and they are watching people turn down roads that they know will lead to their eventual death because of the decisions being made by governments today, and their governments are ignoring their pleas (California and Washington state). Oregon just passed a change in their laws that allows them to move money from enforcement to helping people but it's gotten so bad there that it's not uncommon for regular non-drug using people to be carrying around narcan so they can maybe save someone's life overdosing on the street.

Corona is a disaster and a nightmare no question, but it's going to leave in it's wake another massive disaster and nightmare and it's not getting enough coverage, and people saying it's a conservative issue is total bull ****.

The reality is that we don't know what the effects will be by making other choices. I don't see how thinking about those things

---

Great post. I'm not sure what your point is, or of I even agree with it, but the post itself is spot, this is the exact things we need our govt to be thinking of and considering when figuring out epidemic protocol.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Also, so long as we're talking about which strategy is better, it's worth pointing out that we're having this discussion the day after the US broke it's record for most covid deaths in a day as well as most hospitalizations from Covid, so reality seems to also be undercutting the point.

---

What point? That we don't really know what we are doing? I don't think people are making that point enough either :)

I actually haven't seen an explanation for why some areas where the rules have not changed have had big spikes in infections while in other areas where the rules have loosened the infections have gone down or up. I've seen lots of speculation but have not been able to find much in the form of scientific study results. One thing I wondered about was were there increases in people traveling from area to area? Was the issue a new strain of the virus that was more virulent? Is it that regardless of the rules/regulations people are just getting more careless as individuals? If that last one is the case then the stricter rules are not likely to have much effect without some strict enforcement which leads to political issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

You are the one that made it conservative, not me.

Who is "they"?

Okay

You seemed to be dismissive when you were saying something like "as expected of you".

Yeah, I never intended to say one thing was worse than another ... how can you accuse me of all people of saying one thing was worse than the other? :)

---

Indeed, that was my entire point. You are espousing a very conservative mode of thinking.