Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Coronavirus outbreak


CBH1926

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, riffraff said:

I’ve already said.

 

gvts are making decision based on inconclusive science.

 

quit the bs and pay attention 

They're being proactive because this virus is something new and is fast and furious.  Doesn't leave much wiggle room to scientifically prove things..proof is in the numbers?

 

Do they sit back?  Wait?  Do all the research as people die?

 

The decisions are being made because idiots are challenging the severity of this thing and there's an old saying..."better safe than sorry".  They want proof?  Maybe someone in their family dying will be the be careful what you wish for in this.

 

Governments have had to act without a whole lot to go on....what SHOULD they base decisions on?  

 

It isn't BS to take this as a real threat and act accordingly.

 

If some freedoms are temporarily sacrificed so people live, I'd say it's a fair trade off.   And if people did what we were supposed to it would help eliminate the need for enforcement.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that covid-19 is not as virulent as sars is why it is so dangerous. Asymptomatic people and people with mild to moderate symptoms thinking they have just a cold or the normal flu aren't tested, and are walking around in our communities unknowingly giving it to other people. These make up the majority of the infected.

  • Thanks 3
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....errrr, now back to the subject at hand....

 

(pumping Doug Ford's tires again :lol:)

 

Look at how Doug Ford handles his conferences compared to Bone Spurs.  One guy isn't mugging the camera, looks & act human....defers to the real medical experts & not his son in law with a silver spoon up his ass.  That's a leader.  It's not being a dictator telling everyone what to do but actually let those with knowledge in the matter do their jobs.  Both guys are supposed to be right of center so it has nothing to do with political differences.

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, riffraff said:

I encourage you to read the article as I did.  
 

warning it’s 47 pages but the info is impressive 

 

I only highlighted that as it’s just a small detail within volumes of examples of inconclusive science as sourced from numerous leading scientists specializing in these fields.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, riffraff said:

Really this doesn’t even apply to what I posted 

 

there is none of either

 

its a presentation of actual fact

Is what you're saying is that actual death rate statistics for health conditions are exaggerated because of such a high number of deaths actually caused by medical errors?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, riffraff said:

I’ve already said.

 

gvts are making decision based on inconclusive science.

 

quit the bs and pay attention 

you are qualified to make this assessment??
really??

 

our local government

is following mostly the advice of the bc centre for disease control

a world leader in virus prevention/treatment

 

your general statement is severely distorted

the steps taken in bc actually appear to be working presently

  • Thanks 2
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, droid56 said:

The fact that covid-19 is not as virulent as sars is why it is so dangerous. Asymptomatic people and people with mild to moderate symptoms thinking they have just a cold or the normal flu aren't tested, and are walking around in our communities unknowingly giving it to other people. These make up the majority of the infected.

Exactly right.  CBC1 had an expert on at the beginning of March and said that exact thing.  What makes covid so dangerous is that it's found the sweet spot.......highly contagious, mild to moderate enough for most people that they will underestimate its power to kill and go about their business and mass infect.........then it will wreak havoc.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, riffraff said:

I’ve already said.

 

gvts are making decision based on inconclusive science.

 

quit the bs and pay attention 

If this is what you're saying then my last comment 100% addresses your stance: you think governments are overreacting vs the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

So, it's a hoax is what you're saying.......some deep state power grab?  I just want to be clear what your motives are.  I've no problem with different opinions, I just don't have time or energy for bull$&!#!t trolling.

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

But you are asking them to make the decisions that you prefer that are also based on inconclusive science. 

 

It is kind of getting tiring because you don't debate the merits of anything you post, you just keep reposting the same things or the same thing in a new format.

 

Yes, there is disagreement among the experts about what the best course of action is/what the true rate of infection/mortality is. But the experts you refer to seem to be in the minority. One of the "experts" you refer to is a blogger with a communications background that doesn't seem to understand how rates work. 

 

When anyone is faced with a decision where there are two options, and neither have conclusive/definitive evidence that one is the best, I am okay with that person/party choosing the option that seems most reliable. 

 

You've gone from the point of providing alternative points of view to just ramming those down our throat with little consideration of their merit. 

 

The problem with some of the skeptics on this board is that they don't look nearly as hard at their own sources as they do the ones their sources are critiquing. The standard you have set to agree with your own sources is far lower than the standard you are using to consider sources being used that have guided how the pandemic is being handled to this point. 

Your opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute 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.  

So you think the cure is worse than the disease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, riffraff said:

Your opinion. 

I think the issue is that you're not providing credible, expert sources and it comes across as one of those insecure people who deride experts because you think you know better than people who are smarter than you.

 

That's the exact reason the US is in the state they are in............because a large portion of the population has been told it's ok to ignore the advice of people smarter than they are.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

So, it's a hoax is what you're saying.......some deep state power grab?  I just want to be clear what your motives are.  I've no problem with different opinions, I just don't have time or energy for bull$&!#!t trolling.

 

7 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

They're being proactive because this virus is something new and is fast and furious.  Doesn't leave much wiggle room to scientifically prove things..proof is in the numbers?

 

Do they sit back?  Wait?  Do all the research as people die?

 

The decisions are being made because idiots are challenging the severity of this thing and there's an old saying..."better safe than sorry".  They want proof?  Maybe someone in their family dying will be the be careful what you wish for in this.

 

Governments have had to act without a whole lot to go on....what SHOULD they base decisions on?  

 

It isn't BS to take this as a real threat and act accordingly.

 

If some freedoms are temporarily sacrificed so people live, I'd say it's a fair trade off.   And if people did what we were supposed to it would help eliminate the need for enforcement.

In my mind he is simply saying that a lot of what we are hearing is complete speculation, and not proven science that we are being led to believe. It also gives hope that this thing might turn around sooner than we think, because if we are to believe a lot of these models and the intensive, collective action, we are taking, we are looking at years of social distancing and economic depression, not two months. It is a common mathematical practice to look at all probable answers in a data set, and planning for the most extreme outliers allows you to plan for the worst, but it doesn't necessarily play out that way. Seems like a positive message to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Ok then I misunderstood your post.  Thx

I think part of the issue with your posts is that you don't clearly state your position, same as @samurai, even tho others have asked many times what your position(s) are. Then you read my post, which clearly states my position, and you cherry pick one part and reassert your unclear stance over top of it. 

 

If you think governments are overreacting then say so. But posting a 47 page paper and telling people it's all in there, well, what's all in there? Say clearly what your stance is after reading the paper.

 

As I said before, governments could be overreacting, but equally so they could not be, or they could be reacting quite right. 

 

It seems to me like this is the crux of many of the debates in this thread, and we may just all have to agree to disagree on it and see how this plays out - from a safe distance, of course.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

So you think the cure is worse than the disease?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

In my mind he is simply saying that a lot of what we are hearing is complete speculation, and not proven science that we are being led to believe. It also gives hope that this thing might turn around sooner than we think, because if we are to believe a lot of these models and the intensive, collective action, we are taking, we are looking at years of social distancing and economic depression, not two months. It is a common mathematical practice to look at all probable answers in a data set, and planning for the most extreme outliers allows you to plan for the worst, but it doesn't necessarily play out that way. Seems like a positive message to me.

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".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

In my mind he is simply saying that a lot of what we are hearing is complete speculation, and not proven science that we are being led to believe. It also gives hope that this thing might turn around sooner than we think, because if we are to believe a lot of these models and the intensive, collective action, we are taking, we are looking at years of social distancing and economic depression, not two months. It is a common mathematical practice to look at all probable answers in a data set, and planning for the most extreme outliers allows you to plan for the worst, but it doesn't necessarily play out that way. Seems like a positive message to me.

It sounds to me like he thinks he knows more than experts and this is the the time to promote pseudoscience.......not when Ontario had 27 deaths in one day and will likely have 50+ a day by mid week.

 

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jester13 said:

I think part of the issue with your posts is that you don't clearly state your position, same as @samurai, even tho others have asked many times what your position(s) are. Then you read my post, which clearly states my position, and you cherry pick one part and reassert your unclear stance over top of it. 

 

If you think governments are overreacting then say so. But posting a 47 page paper and telling people it's all in there, well, what's all in there? Say clearly what your stance is after reading the paper.

 

As I said before, governments could be overreacting, but equally so they could not be, or they could be reacting quite right. 

 

It seems to me like this is the crux of many of the debates in this thread, and we may just all have to agree to disagree on it and see how this plays out - from a safe distance, of course.

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

 

nobody has accepted patchy science before to any benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- locked and unlocked this topic
  • -SN- featured and pinned this topic
  • -SN- unfeatured this topic

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...
×
×
  • Create New...