Bad News Thread

Grace T. said:
That's exactly the issue. There isn't a whole lot of "fact". To dad's point, we don't really even understand a lot of the factors that are driving Rt<1. Instead, we have a bunch of experts that are speculating on things and calling them "facts" (even going so far as to put out propaganda based studies like the CDC mask study dad cited a few weeks ago to justify their priors). We have experts that threw out years and years of pandemic planning to do lockdowns and ordering masking (even though there's no RCS and can't be proving that masks help with COVID on a macro level). We had experts that told everyone to lockdown and socially distance, but when the BLM protests came those were "important" and the prior advice was disgarded. We even had scientists that came up with the new Biden school guidance based on "input from stakeholders" (read the teachers union) even though it is wholly absent in science, was contradicted by the CDC director's prior advice, and has been widely disregarded by even blue states like NY, Massachusetts and California, and then in a propaganda fit was masked as a school "reopening" plan while really it was a school closing plan (and they would have gotten away with it too but not for quick spotting people like our own dad4).

We on the anti-lockdown side are only skeptics. We raise the questions the experts can't. We aren't headed in a particular direction because we aren't vested in the outcome (remember the 20% threshold limits...the anti-lockdowners quickly acknowledged herd immunity thresholds were much higher when proven wrong). We were among the first to say we have a problem coming, when the experts had their head in the sand. We are the pro-science and pro-data. We are Galileo, you are the church.
Click to expand...
Better safe than sorry
 
Grace T. said:
That's exactly the issue. There isn't a whole lot of "fact". To dad's point, we don't really even understand a lot of the factors that are driving Rt<1. Instead, we have a bunch of experts that are speculating on things and calling them "facts" (even going so far as to put out propaganda based studies like the CDC mask study dad cited a few weeks ago to justify their priors). We have experts that threw out years and years of pandemic planning to do lockdowns and ordering masking (even though there's no RCS and can't be proving that masks help with COVID on a macro level). We had experts that told everyone to lockdown and socially distance, but when the BLM protests came those were "important" and the prior advice was disgarded. We even had scientists that came up with the new Biden school guidance based on "input from stakeholders" (read the teachers union) even though it is wholly absent in science, was contradicted by the CDC director's prior advice, and has been widely disregarded by even blue states like NY, Massachusetts and California, and then in a propaganda fit was masked as a school "reopening" plan while really it was a school closing plan (and they would have gotten away with it too but not for quick spotting people like our own dad4).

We on the anti-lockdown side are only skeptics. We raise the questions the experts can't. We aren't headed in a particular direction because we aren't vested in the outcome (remember the 20% threshold limits...the anti-lockdowners quickly acknowledged herd immunity thresholds were much higher when proven wrong). We were among the first to say we have a problem coming, when the experts had their head in the sand. We are the pro-science and pro-data. We are Galileo, you are the church.
Click to expand...
Again you derive your data from conspiracy driven fly by nights. Your stance is heretical to humankind not to any fairytales. They use you for clicks and revenue, they’ll tell you what you want to hear. Life is tough, tough love is not the easy road but the prudent one. Toughen up.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Side? You guys? Care to explain comrade?
Click to expand...

Take your pick:

-Lockdowners v. antilockdowners
-Team panic v. team reality
-Blue pillers v red pillers
-Husker/espola/EOTL/dad4 v. Grace/Hound/Kicker/Alf

Hüsker Dü said:
Better safe than sorry
Click to expand...

No, "better safe than sorry" is antiscience. Those of are the words of the scared and panic, and the pandemic has proved scared and panic are just as dangerous and destructive. And what's worse is even when proven wrong y'all dig your heels in (witness dad4's epic just now of goalpost moving and throwing up every justification he can think of rather than "yeah, maybe I did overestimate the impact, but it's still stupid".)
 
Grace T. said:
It's is entirely possible to have a meaningful discussion with dad4 and even Husker. It is quite difficult to have one with you when you are running that car all over the place. Get the glasses. They'll help.
Click to expand...

q.e.d.

A meaningful discussion could start right here with, for instance, an explanation of what you meant by my agenda, using complete sentences, logical thought, and perhaps with actual quotes or other examples showing that alleged agenda.
 
espola said:
q.e.d.

A meaningful discussion could start right here with, for instance, an explanation of what you meant by my agenda, using complete sentences, logical thought, and perhaps with actual quotes or other examples showing that alleged agenda.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious coming from you when you cast aspersion on my agenda, yet refused to outline it yourself, using complete sentences, logical thought, and quotes.

So instead, I'll do the same thing you did: I will not state my opinion on your political and/or moral stance (other than, as Husker conceded, that you have one and like anyone it colors your outlook). You do that very well by yourself by your words and examples. It is self-evident to anyone who reads your posts here.

p.s., like dad4 pointed out about trotting out Hitler, it's pretty apparent when someone is on the ropes when they trot out that old warhorse: "q.e.d. I win!"
 
Grace T. said:
That's hilarious coming from you when you cast aspersion on my agenda, yet refused to outline it yourself, using complete sentences, logical thought, and quotes.

So instead, I'll do the same thing you did: I will not state my opinion on your political and/or moral stance (other than, as Husker conceded, that you have one and like anyone it colors your outlook). You do that very well by yourself by your words and examples. It is self-evident to anyone who reads your posts here.

p.s., like dad4 pointed out about trotting out Hitler, it's pretty apparent when someone is on the ropes when they trot out that old warhorse: "q.e.d. I win!"
Click to expand...

I didn't say "I win". I just pointed out that you were demonstrating your avoidance of a coherent discussion, just as I had claimed.
 
espola said:
I didn't say "I win". I just pointed out that you were demonstrating your avoidance of a coherent discussion, just as I had claimed.
Click to expand...

Which I've said is not really possible with you (as opposed to dad4 or husker) because you lack the coherence. Why would I ever want to engage in such an exercise of futility, particularly when it revolves around what is supposedly your favorite topic, and my least, (which is you) particularly when you've demonstrated already it's o.k. to cast aspersions but to not back them up when you did the same to me.

Talk about ego...you want to have an argument about you!.....q.e.d.?
 
Desert Hound said:
Some days I am more thankful vs others. Today is one of those days. So happy my kids are not in public school.

View attachment 10213
Click to expand...
Blame that one on school bureaucracy, not the scientists. Looks like uninformed locals trying to create a loophole.

They are indoors. No one in the scientific community is recommending indoor band or choir practice.

Lose the tents and practice outside. Or take up piano and get keyboards for everyone. But don't put 20 people in the same room playing wind instruments.
 
Grace T. said:
Which I've said is not really possible with you (as opposed to dad4 or husker) because you lack the coherence. Why would I ever want to engage in such an exercise of futility, particularly when it revolves around what is supposedly your favorite topic, and my least, (which is you) particularly when you've demonstrated already it's o.k. to cast aspersions but to not back them up when you did the same to me.

Talk about ego...you want to have an argument about you!.....q.e.d.?
Click to expand...

Today's discussion started when I mocked your criticism of those "with an agenda". I still think that's pretty funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top