CBH1926

Coronavirus outbreak

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, riffraff said:

have you watched the video with Dr. Sucharit Bahkdi I posted?

I did watch his video a number of days ago. I’m assuming it’s the same one you posted, haven’t gone back pages and pages to see it. It is a very informative video, for those that haven’t watched it.

 

As for everything else, with young children and a consistent hatred of the general public, I’m more than happy to oblige and stay inside. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, riffraff said:

My stance is.  Should freedoms be removed based on inconclusive science.  I say no.

 

nobody has accepted patchy science before to any benefit.

So what's an acceptable number of dead for you?  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, riffraff said:

My stance is.  Should freedoms be removed based on inconclusive science.  I say no.

 

nobody has accepted patchy science before to any benefit.

See, now that's a statement that we can dig deeper on in a constructive manner. 

 

I think we have credible enough data to say otherwise, that we should err on the side of caution and ensure our health system doesn't get overwhelmed where more people die than otherwise, similar to what we see in Italy, Spain, and the US.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, riffraff said:

No I’m not saying that.

 

im saying.  Look around.

 

have you read any of the articles I’ve posted?

 

have you watched the video with Dr. Sucharit Bahkdi I posted?

 

Nothing to do with “deep state”

 

right now gvts are competing for supplies, gvts (Hungary this week) have eliminated democratic ideal,  you can get a 7500$ fine for walking as a couple in Ontario,  you can rat out your neighbour on a phone line in Ontario.

 

the world is going through some self inflicting damaging changes and I’m trying to figure out for myself if it makes sense for these things to happen.

 

and I’m trying to ask people to maybe do some research.  Where is the problem stawns?

 

by all means.  Everyone is welcome to stay in doors and wait.  

i am working steadily during this time of crisis

i cannot read all things people may recommend be read on line

i rely on certain sources that are reliable

on the key medical considerations of this virus

 

it seems you may be confusing

the medical issues regarding this virus

with non medical matters

 

it is always an opportunity

in a time of crisis

to manipulate social order

and other norms

in the name of battling the crisis

 

however, that does not really alter

the medical understanding/assessment of how to deal with the virus

 

again, i have not reviewed all your post on here as i do not have the time

nor read all the sources you recommend reading

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stawns said:

It sounds to me like he thinks he knows more than experts and this is the the time to promote pseudoscience

no.  I’m pointing out there are many experts out there.  Some agree some don’t.  Based on that alone.  The science is inconclusive 

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

.......not when Ontario had 27 deaths in one day and will likely have 50+ a day by mid week.

again as the science says. The cause of death is inconclusive.  Because the science is inconclusive 

 

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

It's that attitude that led people to shrug it off three weeks ago, to continue to mingle and live their lives, despite what infectious disease experts were telling us.

More of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

See, now that's a statement that we can dig deeper on in a constructive manner. 

 

I think we have credible enough data to say otherwise, that we should err on the side of caution and ensure our health system doesn't get overwhelmed where more people die than otherwise, similar to what we see in Italy, Spain, and the US.

Don’t disagree.

 

i would like to see hard science before freedoms are restricted further and more severely.  Basically the root of my stance.

 

a timeline for restrictions would be helpful too but I suppose that can’t happen right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

i am working steadily during this time of crisis

i cannot read all things people may recommend be read on line

i rely on certain sources that are reliable

on the key medical considerations of this virus

 

it seems you may be confusing

the medical issues regarding this virus

with non medical matters

 

it is always an opportunity

in a time of crisis

to manipulate social order

and other norms

in the name of battling the crisis

 

however, that does not really alter

the medical understanding/assessment of how to deal with the virus

 

again, i have not reviewed all your post on here as i do not have the time

nor read all the sources you recommend reading

I’m working too.  Outdoors.  CoffeE breaks and lunch I use for trolling.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, stawns said:

So what's an acceptable number of dead for you?  

I don’t know.  But many are dying from many things.

 

and part of the debate is how many will die as a result of “the cure”

 

tough times.

Edited by riffraff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, riffraff said:

That’s the debate.  The issue.  And that would be different from person to person, culture to culture.

 

please know I’m not trying to piss anyone off.  I’ve already been called a troll now, here, and “ramming down throats”, a threat humanity and no doubt “a Covidiot” in due time, after years on cdc doing none of that.

 

all because I’ve posted a few links to start some thinking and discussion.....

 

and admittedly to balance the sensational panic themed articles on msm that are all posted here and in our “news” feeds.

 

im happy to stop now and we can all just agree with each other.

At least you're articulating what your stance is here, that I can deal with.

 

Obviously the debate around the "cure is worse than the disease" is a contentious one, but how can you argue with what happened in Italy, Spain, New York?  Does that argument stand up in the face of thousands, tens of thousands (soon to be millions) of people who know their loved ones died alone?

 

I understand the economic consequences of this virus, I understand the world is going to be very different on the other side of this........but we can deal with that, we can solve that problem.  What we can't solve is the emotional human toll that sacrificing millions upon millions of lives for money will bring.

 

That is not acceptable to me, as a human being.

Edited by stawns
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, riffraff said:

no.  I’m pointing out there are many experts out there.  Some agree some don’t.  Based on that alone.  The science is inconclusive 

again as the science says. The cause of death is inconclusive.  Because the science is inconclusive 

 

More of the same.

More of the same what?  Listening to people who have some time their lives studying infectious diseases?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Monty said:

I did watch his video a number of days ago. I’m assuming it’s the same one you posted, haven’t gone back pages and pages to see it. It is a very informative video, for those that haven’t watched it.

 

As for everything else, with young children and a consistent hatred of the general public, I’m more than happy to oblige and stay inside. :lol: 

Well hate is a strong word and I encourage you to look into the source of that hate.  For hate,  (And I know you don’t actually hate because you are awesome). Can be changed if we look at ourselves first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, riffraff said:

My stance is.  Should freedoms be removed based on inconclusive science.  I say no.

 

nobody has accepted patchy science before to any benefit.

Do the dead people get to vote on this?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, riffraff said:

That’s the debate.  The issue.  And that would be different from person to person, culture to culture.

 

please know I’m not trying to piss anyone off.  I’ve already been called a troll now, here, and “ramming down throats”, a threat humanity and no doubt “a Covidiot” in due time, after years on cdc doing none of that.

 

all because I’ve posted a few links to start some thinking and discussion.....

 

and admittedly to balance the sensational panic themed articles on msm that are all posted here and in our “news” feeds.

 

im happy to stop now and we can all just agree with each other.

If you think this is what you are doing, you're not being successful. You are not discussing anything. You present details without context. When those details are questioned, you say things like "well that is just your opinion" and deflect the conversation. The article you posted by the blogger showed that he didn't know how to properly consider how a rate is calculated. This is my opinion but it is also a fact.

 

You can't claim high false positive rates on the one hand and then claim inflated mortality rates on the other hand, because high false positive rates actually deflate the mortality rate. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, riffraff said:

I don’t know.  But many are dying from many things.

 

and part of the debate is how many will die as a result of “the cure”

 

tough times.

Would you go volunteer in an ICU without PPE right now?

 

Honest answer.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stawns said:

At least you're articulating what your stance is here, that I can deal with.

 

Obviously the debate around the "cure is worse than the disease" is a contentious one, but how can you argue with what happened in Italy, Spain, New York?  Does that argument stand up in the face of thousands, tens of thousands (soon to be millions) of people who know their loved ones died alone?

 

I understand the economic consequences of this virus, I understand the world is going to be very different on the other side of this........but we can deal with that, we can solve that problem.  What we can't solve is the emotional human toll that sacrificing millions upon millions of lives for money will bring.

 

That is not acceptable to me, as a human being.

I think the issues between these cities/countries are different although there are some consistencies.

 

the articles relative to Italy are quite telling.

 

with New York....unfortunately that is obvious us territory and anyone’s guess is worthy as to what the hell is going on down south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Do the dead people get to vote on this?

Cmon deb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I don't hear people saying "years of".  I hear them saying "we just don't know right now" because it's in OUR hands...how we react and if we do what's necessary to break the chains of transmission and allow people to go through the medical system without saturating it.

 

It doesn't "necessarily"...but that's no guarantee.  You have to plan for the worst then hope you avoid it.  You take every precaution to do so.

 

I'd rather speculation (erring on the side of caution) than people go out and continue to spread this thing and we lose a whole bunch of people because we wanted to "be sure".

I agree we have to plan for the worst. I'm not saying that. I haven't seen people say years either but I also don't understand how it could not be if it continues the way it is right now. I mean I have been working with very strict regulations through this entire thing but I simply can't see this thing suddenly disappearing in two months time, and us going back to "more normal" unless something like riffraff says comes to fruition.

 

Also remember they are not saying it's two more months and we should be good. They are saying it's two months at least and then we'll see. They usually try to candy coat stuff for the public so reading between the lines I would say that means they are conditioning us to prolong that in two months, or they really have no clue. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer or anything so I'm hoping that sunlight and heat pay huge dividends in halting this mf'er.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, riffraff said:

My stance is.  Should freedoms be removed based on inconclusive science.  I say no.

 

nobody has accepted patchy science before to any benefit.

Inconclusive science is not always patchy science. 

 

 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...