You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Covid 19
Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Re: Covid 19
Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
The current climate in this US is anti science anyway...so the more conspiracies the better.
Re: Covid 19
Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Let me just save everyone the time and post the inevitable response:
"These are people with nothing left to offer society, are someone's grandma who's been put into a home that people haven't visited in 10 years, are being supported by the government and therefore have forfeited their right to live in the greatest country in the world."
Re: Covid 19
Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
The problem is this is where logic fails us. First of all, we're not "sacrificing a certain bit of economic growth" - you're lucky I didn't just dismiss everything with silly statements like that. You don't have to destroy the economy when the people at risk are in very specific segments of the population. We need to do a better job protecting those people (which is what I have been saying all along) while allowing the rest of us to go on about our lives developing the herd immunity as it spreads among those not at risk.
Why didn't we shut down the world in 1969? Why didn't we shut down the world when Obama was president? I'm not up on all the past pandemics (and apparently we've had a LOT of them) as we've never decided to do full-blown panic mode before. We didn't come up with a vaccine for Obama's pandemic, right? It went away as it spread and people developed immunity? Isn't that how viruses work? We don't have vaccines for other corona viruses, right? Why do we think we can't go on with our lives until we have one for this one? Because it's deadly to a specific segment of the population?
Just pause for one second and think about how nonsensical it is not to protect that segment while at the same time allowing the rest to develop immunity which is protecting them. No destroyed economy. Everybody is getting the best protection available to them. Yes, there are going to be instances where people die. We can't save everybody. Decisions can't be made emotionally.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Average age of a death to COVID in my state is 79. Average life expectancy in the US 78.5. So people dying by me don't have 12 years left. As around 80% of fatalities in the US are occurring in nursing homes, I don't think that metric would apply here, and I'm curious how the Scots came to that conclusion. I know if I was 80, I'd want 12 more years in a nursing home. How much "economic growth" are you willing to sacrifice? 33% unemployment? How many homes need to be lost and life savings drained so your 80 year old grandmother gets 12 more years in a nursing home? I'm curious where your cutoff is?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
TheMole wrote:Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Let me just save everyone the time and post the inevitable response:
"These are people with nothing left to offer society, are someone's grandma who's been put into a home that people haven't visited in 10 years, are being supported by the government and therefore have forfeited their right to live in the greatest country in the world."
Do you have any current information to back up your numbers, especially as they compare to historical averages where no action was taken? Or is the fear you had on March 15th still driving you?
Re: Covid 19
TheMole wrote:Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Average age of a death to COVID in my state is 79. Average life expectancy in the US 78.5. So people dying by me don't have 12 years left. As around 80% of fatalities in the US are occurring in nursing homes, I don't think that metric would apply here, and I'm curious how the Scots came to that conclusion. I know if I was 80, I'd want 12 more years in a nursing home. How much "economic growth" are you willing to sacrifice? 33% unemployment? How many homes need to be lost and life savings drained so your 80 year old grandmother gets 12 more years in a nursing home? I'm curious where your cutoff is?
I know where the cut off for you is...I think you have an extremely high threshold to death. I just hope you sing the same tune if/when it directly affects you. I'm going to guess you won't.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
Randall Flagg wrote:TheMole wrote:Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Average age of a death to COVID in my state is 79. Average life expectancy in the US 78.5. So people dying by me don't have 12 years left. As around 80% of fatalities in the US are occurring in nursing homes, I don't think that metric would apply here, and I'm curious how the Scots came to that conclusion. I know if I was 80, I'd want 12 more years in a nursing home. How much "economic growth" are you willing to sacrifice? 33% unemployment? How many homes need to be lost and life savings drained so your 80 year old grandmother gets 12 more years in a nursing home? I'm curious where your cutoff is?
I know where the cut off for you is...I think you have an extremely high threshold to death. I just hope you sing the same tune if/when it directly affects you. I'm going to guess you won't.
What does this mean? Are you hoping I lose an elderly family member? I thought you said we all deserved this for not voting for Clinton. It doesn't matter that we're still handling it 2nd in the world to Germany (who isn't counting cancer deaths as COVID), you have some invalidated opinion that something was done wrong, but you slink away when pressed for specifics. The others are like you in this regard. They refuse to acknowledge that all things considered, the US did a fantastic job, and they can't point to where it should have been done differently.
It's pathetic and sad that you honestly believe that "protecting" your 80 year old relative in a nursing home (and notice you never define protection - you'll ignore this as you do everything that forces you to think) warrants the complete and utter destruction of the world economy. So if if something can possibly harm me, I should inflict greater harm onto the masses? This is your expectation. I've lost friends and family to gunshots, and my opinion of firearm ownership hasn't changed. What an anti-intellectual position to take and so so selfish. When you lose your house in 6 months, will (insert undefined protection measure) be worth it? Will we have deserved this too?
Can you explain what was done wrong, and what we should be doing? How the US is still #2 in the world behind a country that isn't counting every person who died who may have been infected by COVID, a bad thing? Do you have any idea at all or are you content to continue to be ignorant and link a news headline that affirms your opinion without determining the underlying evidence?
Re: Covid 19
mitchejw wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Average age of a death to COVID in my state is 79. Average life expectancy in the US 78.5. So people dying by me don't have 12 years left. As around 80% of fatalities in the US are occurring in nursing homes, I don't think that metric would apply here, and I'm curious how the Scots came to that conclusion. I know if I was 80, I'd want 12 more years in a nursing home. How much "economic growth" are you willing to sacrifice? 33% unemployment? How many homes need to be lost and life savings drained so your 80 year old grandmother gets 12 more years in a nursing home? I'm curious where your cutoff is?
I know where the cut off for you is...I think you have an extremely high threshold to death. I just hope you sing the same tune if/when it directly affects you. I'm going to guess you won't.
What does this mean? Are you hoping I lose an elderly family member? I thought you said we all deserved this for not voting for Clinton. It doesn't matter that we're still handling it 2nd in the world to Germany (who isn't counting cancer deaths as COVID), you have some invalidated opinion that something was done wrong, but you slink away when pressed for specifics. The others are like you in this regard. They refuse to acknowledge that all things considered, the US did a fantastic job, and they can't point to where it should have been done differently.
It's pathetic and sad that you honestly believe that "protecting" your 80 year old relative in a nursing home (and notice you never define protection - you'll ignore this as you do everything that forces you to think) warrants the complete and utter destruction of the world economy. So if if something can possibly harm me, I should inflict greater harm onto the masses? This is your expectation. I've lost friends and family to gunshots, and my opinion of firearm ownership hasn't changed. What an anti-intellectual position to take and so so selfish. When you lose your house in 6 months, will (insert undefined protection measure) be worth it? Will we have deserved this too?
Can you explain what was done wrong, and what we should be doing? How the US is still #2 in the world behind a country that isn't counting every person who died who may have been infected by COVID, a bad thing? Do you have any idea at all or are you content to continue to be ignorant and link a news headline that affirms your opinion without determining the underlying evidence?
Wtf are you talking about? You're been opposed to the shut down from the get go...you've been unsupportive of what's going on since the get go. How dare you say we're doing a great job now.
The country deserves this because they elected a man who has fouled up his roll in this...his end of the bargain. You're incapable of criticizing the man but very capable of criticizing Democrats. So here again...you've fouled it up.
Flagg man...it's no worth arguing with you...you dispute experts and declare yourself one. You're not qualified...at basically anything when it comes to this. You think we are all freaking out over nothing...great...good on ya buddy.
Hell...just a few days ago you posted 'don't trust the main stream media'...then you posted two articles from CNN...it'd be nice if you had a point every once in awhile. Something coherent that isn't just screaming 'LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT HOW SMART I AM.'
You select biased sources that confirm your already forgone conclusions.
I stick to my original stance...you can't bullshit a pandemic...but I invite you to go our there and try.
If you're asking me to trust you and your in-depth 'analysis' over MSM...I'd say you're both about as equally flawed.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
Wtf are you talking about? You're been opposed to the shut down from the get go...you've been unsupportive of what's going on since the get go. How dare you say we're doing a great job now.
This is why people call you stupid. You cannot read. This is just blatantly false and shows why everyone shouldn't engage with you. You're dishonest and make no effort to engage in dialogue with anyone. You ignore what they post and inject unintelligible ramblings. There's no way you've gone through life expressing your opinions and not been told what I just did. Either you're a troll, or you surround yourself with people whom suffer mental retardation.
The country deserves this because they elected a man who
Jesus Fucking Christ. The world is in the shitter, and this stupid fucker is telling us we deserve it. First racial slurs, now he's celebrating the collapse of the global economy and god knows what harms to global populations. Anyone else going to call him out on this, or is this type of behavior acceptable.
