Bad News Thread

Grace T. said:
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



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".)
Click to expand...
Damn, you did @dad4 dirty.
 
Grace T. said:
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



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".)
Click to expand...

Life is not that simple.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Damn, you did @dad4 dirty.
Click to expand...
True that. Not saying at all he’s equivalent, he really does think, and they could tag our side with a few too. There’s also the great middle that was really concerned at first but eventually got tired of it all and moved off that position. But just an opinion...given that the middle has moved off it is strange company to keep...if those are your...trying to think of the word but there is no English equivalent...comrades.....maybe time for a reflection on your position.
 
dad4 said:
Your article is from some right wing crackpot site that proudly talks about "why the capitol riots scared the elite". ( Apparently they think the elite are the bad guys and the good guy is the man who used a fire extinguisher to smash in a police officer's skull. )
Click to expand...
I know this isn't the topic of this particular conversation - But he wasn't hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. Apparently there wasn't any blunt force trauma at all. It made for great articles though. The "elites" ran with it, loving every minute of making a bad situation worse. It's how they roll.

And in many ways, the "elite" are the bad guys. At a minimum, they are deliberate hypocrites.

I find it very amusing that you can say "right wing crackpot site" in the same paragraph. And yes, there are right wing crackpot sites just as there are left wing crackpot sites that perpetuated the fire extinguisher myth.
 
Grace T. said:
True that. But I point out you did the same by casting aspersions as well on my own agenda and then declined to articulate. Maybe take some of your own medicine then???
Click to expand...

This pretty well describes your agenda --

-Lockdowners v. antilockdowners
-Team panic v. team reality

And you show it every day.
 
espola said:
This pretty well describes your agenda --

-Lockdowners v. antilockdowners
-Team panic v. team reality

And you show it every day.
Click to expand...
I’m a pro science skeptic that wants the science and not politics or panic to govern pandemic decisions

And you’ve just defined yourself in opposition (which you’ve also shown repeatedly)
 
happy9 said:
I know this isn't the topic of this particular conversation - But he wasn't hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. Apparently there wasn't any blunt force trauma at all. It made for great articles though. The "elites" ran with it, loving every minute of making a bad situation worse. It's how they roll.

And in many ways, the "elite" are the bad guys. At a minimum, they are deliberate hypocrites.

I find it very amusing that you can say "right wing crackpot site" in the same paragraph. And yes, there are right wing crackpot sites just as there are left wing crackpot sites that perpetuated the fire extinguisher myth.
Click to expand...
ok. The murder weapon was not a fire extinguisher.

Of course there are left wing crackpots, and left wing crackpot sites. And, like their right wing mirrors, they are not a place to go when looking for a balanced and well thought explanation of important events.

Fringe sites, like mises.org, tend to tell only the half of the story that helps grind their axe.

They will tell you that CA has a similar total death rate to FL, which is true.
They will remember to correct for age, because this helps their case.
They will forget to tell you that CA has a more contagious variant, because that fact pretty much eviscerates their case.

Even a 20% difference in transmissibility can cause a far greater than 20% difference in cases and deaths. It’s the difference between R=1.1 and R= 1.3 The second causes three times as many infections as the first.

So, they accurately tell half the story, but leave out enough key points to ruin the validity of the conclusion.. This just isn’t helpful. If you want a full comparison of policies in all 50 states, there are people who do it honestly. But you won’t find them on fringe sites.
 
dad4 said:
ok. The murder weapon was not a fire extinguisher.

Of course there are left wing crackpots, and left wing crackpot sites. And, like their right wing mirrors, they are not a place to go when looking for a balanced and well thought explanation of important events.

Fringe sites, like mises.org, tend to tell only the half of the story that helps grind their axe.

They will tell you that CA has a similar total death rate to FL, which is true.
They will remember to correct for age, because this helps their case.
They will forget to tell you that CA has a more contagious variant, because that fact pretty much eviscerates their case.

Even a 20% difference in transmissibility can cause a far greater than 20% difference in cases and deaths. It’s the difference between R=1.1 and R= 1.3 The second causes three times as many infections as the first.

So, they accurately tell half the story, but leave out enough key points to ruin the validity of the conclusion.. This just isn’t helpful. If you want a full comparison of policies in all 50 states, there are people who do it honestly. But you won’t find them on fringe sites.
Click to expand...

Those who do it honestly are few and far between on the pro lockdown side either. They are also pushing an agenda because they have to justify the profound damage they’ve done by throwing out 20 years of pandemic planning. The best thing either side can do is to say “we just don’t know”. At least then we can have an honest debate between “better safe than sorry” and “the cost is too damn high”. But the pro lockdown side has taken this attitude that they alone have the high ground and they alone follow the science, despite having been wrong at nearly every turn and having been caught at times putting politics in front of the science. The most important thing that we can be doing is asking questions, because that’s how we force experts to come to the corrected conclusions or to defend their conclusions and prove them right. The biggest issue is there’s been far too much deference (even among the experts) from the beginning (which led to the world believing China and being caught unprepared).
 
dad4 said:
ok. The murder weapon was not a fire extinguisher.

Of course there are left wing crackpots, and left wing crackpot sites. And, like their right wing mirrors, they are not a place to go when looking for a balanced and well thought explanation of important events.

Fringe sites, like mises.org, tend to tell only the half of the story that helps grind their axe.

They will tell you that CA has a similar total death rate to FL, which is true.
They will remember to correct for age, because this helps their case.
They will forget to tell you that CA has a more contagious variant, because that fact pretty much eviscerates their case.

Even a 20% difference in transmissibility can cause a far greater than 20% difference in cases and deaths. It’s the difference between R=1.1 and R= 1.3 The second causes three times as many infections as the first.

So, they accurately tell half the story, but leave out enough key points to ruin the validity of the conclusion.. This just isn’t helpful. If you want a full comparison of policies in all 50 states, there are people who do it honestly. But you won’t find them on fringe sites.
Click to expand...

I get your frustration and do respect your consistency.
 
dad4 said:
ok. The murder weapon was not a fire extinguisher.

Of course there are left wing crackpots, and left wing crackpot sites. And, like their right wing mirrors, they are not a place to go when looking for a balanced and well thought explanation of important events.

Fringe sites, like mises.org, tend to tell only the half of the story that helps grind their axe.

They will tell you that CA has a similar total death rate to FL, which is true.
They will remember to correct for age, because this helps their case.
They will forget to tell you that CA has a more contagious variant, because that fact pretty much eviscerates their case.

Even a 20% difference in transmissibility can cause a far greater than 20% difference in cases and deaths. It’s the difference between R=1.1 and R= 1.3 The second causes three times as many infections as the first.

So, they accurately tell half the story, but leave out enough key points to ruin the validity of the conclusion.. This just isn’t helpful. If you want a full comparison of policies in all 50 states, there are people who do it honestly. But you won’t find them on fringe sites.
Click to expand...
"murder weapon"? Since the medical examiners report has not been released and there is an ongoing investigation... I assume you have facts or evidence to support he was murdered? OR are you one of the crackpots feeding a false narrative?
 
Grace T. said:
Those who do it honestly are few and far between on the pro lockdown side either. They are also pushing an agenda because they have to justify the profound damage they’ve done by throwing out 20 years of pandemic planning. The best thing either side can do is to say “we just don’t know”. At least then we can have an honest debate between “better safe than sorry” and “the cost is too damn high”. But the pro lockdown side has taken this attitude that they alone have the high ground and they alone follow the science, despite having been wrong at nearly every turn and having been caught at times putting politics in front of the science. The most important thing that we can be doing is asking questions, because that’s how we force experts to come to the corrected conclusions or to defend their conclusions and prove them right. The biggest issue is there’s been far too much deference (even among the experts) from the beginning (which led to the world believing China and being caught unprepared).
Click to expand...

What did the 20 years of pandemic planning call for?
 
Kicker4Life said:
Here’s another little insight to how some school board members are perceiving/positioning getting schools open.

Click to expand...
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...
Painful to watch...like a t-ball team playing the LA Dodgers.
 
espola said:
What did the 20 years of pandemic planning call for?
Click to expand...
Not lockdowns Those were a Chinese invention. Not masks (those were for health care workers per Faucis original advice). School closures and restrictions were only for short periods and only in the most severe outbreak times (not months)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top