psuhoffman

@mappy I’m the social studies content lead for Balt City summer school and as of right now we are tentatively developing a plan to deliver summer credit recovery online. I don’t know what the counties are thinking but any return to physical school seems unlikely before the fall at the earliest in the city.

Are thousands of people living in a high rise apartment “nature taking its course”. What about people congregating in shopping centers or movie theatres? Or people quickly traveling thousands of miles in planes and cars? What else about our society strikes you as nature taking its course? Do you use electricity? Drive a car? That’s nature? But with this one thing we should let nature take its course? Next time you get strep throat should we let nature take its course?

I don’t disagree with you at all. I think some regions that have not been effected much should start cautious phases openings. Even here I think if the metrics continue to improve the next few days we are close to a start to phased openings keeping some degree of social distancing in place. I’ve neger once made an argument for a lengthy lockdown. I’ve simply argued for a logical science based methodology to the openings and I’ve railed against some silly or manipulative posts. But since a few of those were in favor of a quick opening (or against any collective action at all) I think I was lumped into some extreme long term lockdown club. In some cases I didn’t necessarily disagree with the plan so much as the illogical methodology they were using to justify it.

Dude... 1. one thing being worse doesn’t make another problem not a problem. Even if you win the argument alcohol is a problem it doesn’t mean covid isn’t. 2. Criticism of one bad policy doesn’t justify another bad policy. 3. We can do more than one thing at a time. I hate this type of argument “but what about that other problem over there”. It’s a diversion. 4. We do do things about alcohol. We have drunk driving laws. We have public intoxication laws. Open bev laws. Age restrictions. Serving restrictions (at least we did when I was a bartender in VA many moons ago). Substance abuse programs. Don’t act like we don’t care or think it’s a problem. 5. No I’m done...just can’t anymore...

Dude what’s your affinity for ad hominem arguments. Do you think dropping Stalin in every other paragraph adds legitimacy to anything? If your arguments can’t stand up on their own merits without some name calling transfer tactic they are weak sauce. Frankly even the couple of points you made that accidentally wandered into the same zip code of a logical argument aren’t worth responding to because some of that ridiculousness and the disingenuous way you present it make it obvious you’re trolling.

@ldub23

that @ldub23dude has more “final points” than Lord of the Rings has endings. Wow

One reason I’ve never fully understood the vehemence of some arguments (on both sides) is that whatever “open” is it’s unlikely to look significantly different from now. Most of the things currently closed won’t just be back to normal anytime soon regardless of what the official policy is called.

You do realize if it will take about 80%+ infections to reach herd immunity and the mortality is between .5-1% that’s 2+ million deaths in the United States using that route? The one piece of hard non data evidence against “let nature take its course” is what happened in most places that tried that. Look at what happened in places that got hit before mitigation measures were implemented. They ended up in lockdown anyways not because they wanted to prevent anything but because it got so bad fast they had no choice.

That is a GREAT way to describe being around you. I couldn't have said it better myself. Congrats

There is too much lumping of people into "sides" here IMO. Not everyone questioning the current plan or accepted assumptions about Covid is automatically saying "we should just open up with no measures and let whatever happen". And not everyone arguing against someone making a case for a quick opening is saying "we should stay closed for 3 years if we have too no matter what". There is a LOT of space in between those 2 extremes. Personally I have NEVER said we should stay in lockdown for any set period of time. My main points of contention have been when I saw arguments I didn't feel had logical consistency. But here is what I do think...whatever plan we have should be developed based on sound scientific evidence and logic. We should come up with metrics to determine when it is safe and and how to open. And then those metrics (not peoples feelings) should determine the timeline. Because those metrics will determine when it is safe...not someones feelings of cabin fever. The virus doesn't care how frustrated you are. If we open before it is time we risk doing more harm than good. But what those metrics should be is a valid debate. And once we meet the metrics, whatever they are, we should open. In some places maybe that is very soon. In some places maybe that is still a long ways away. I don't know...but I see way too many arguments that seem to be based upon wanting to formulate policy based on their feelings and what they want...not actual evidence that its a good idea medically.

I will accept that it was a mistake and not intentional. We all make mistakes. The number of infections likely is growing. Also keep in mind that because deaths lag infection by about 3 weeks typically there are some people who were infected at the time of the study as still alive...that will unfortunately pass away after the date of the study. So the mortality rate will end up higher than if you simply take the deaths and divide by the infections at the time of the study. That is one reason why there is a range not an exact number for the estimated mortality rate. One other thing...wrt to your comp to the flu. If you are going to compare the two you need to use the same metric. If you are going to use the lowest possible mortality estimate for covid then you need to compare it to the low end of the flue mortality estimates. When you made your flu/covid comparison you used the low end of the covid range with the high end of the flu. That is a skewed comparison.

My father was able to get a box of old government pandemic response kits from previous outbreaks in Asia. I think from one of his contacts in government from when he worked at the FED. Some of the stuff is slightly expired but its way better than having nothing. The kits include hand sanitizer, masks, and gloves.

This is a very fair point...but let me explain where my "animosity" comes from. It's not the "view". But I can see how it could be interpreted that way. For me...I get snippy and hostile when someone is trying to BS me, and its insulting to my intelligence. I don't mind an opposing point of view...I do mind when that person is trying to manipulate facts to support their argument and thinks I am stupid enough to not realize it. I will give you a specific example. The other day someone was citing a New York study. But I had already read the same study. So when they intentionally manipulated the results to skew the argument I was aware of that fact. First they used the State level numbers for infections with the city numbers for fatalities to skew the mortality rate. Then they made a patently false statement about what statistical significance is. Then they used the absolute lowest estimated possible mortality rate for Covid along with the absolute highest possible flu mortality in a comparison. When people do stuff like that I do get hostile because its insulting. I am not stupid, and obviously they think I am if they think that kind of data manipulation will work. But my hostility is not towards their point of view, its towards their dishonest presentation of their argument. There have been others who have made arguments on that side of the ledger who I have not said a single hostile comment towards. So long as people are making their arguments with sound logic and with intellectual integrity I am open and willing to amicably discuss and debate any point of view. But when people are trying to "get one over" on me...I do become hostile.

If you want productive discussion post something substantive to reply too. Cite some evidence to support a claim and we can discuss. You will be allowed to make your case. Others might refute it with contrary evidence. That’s how it works. But there wasn’t much to discuss in your original post.

Oppositional defiance

So you went with “I know you are but what am I”...

So if every study and all data is useless what are you using to form your opinion?

Another solid contribution. We are lucky to have you.

So serious question...why is it being political to point out a lie or make fun of something stupid someone said if the topic isnt political just because the politics of the person who said it is known? By that logic EVERYTHING becomes political.

This was what you felt should be your contribution to this thread? Btw congrats on your promotion to being official VA spokesman.

I think saying it was a group is exaggerating. It was really only a couple contrarians like phin and golfsnow who said that. 2 people isn’t really a group.

Plus people aren’t doing most normal economic activity when they are sick. And the loss of much of entertainment and service industry is going to hurt bad no matter what we do. There are a LOT of factors people are failing to accurately incorporate into their theories. And that’s why it’s dangerous to think we know better than the experts. I’m sure there are factors I don’t know or am missing also but I’m not the one suggesting I know better than them.

Oh and one last thing...before the “but the economy” arguments start up again. The economy has already been tanked. It’s too late. There is no way to flip a switch and just undo what’s been done. And even if we open and go herd immunity the economy will be further damaged by the 200 million sick people and 25 million people that would end up hospitalized in the unmitigated spread scenario (again using best case scenarios) and the 1-2 million deaths. We are going to suffer economically for a while no matter what we do now. So that is a really crappy justification for accepting a strategy with higher projected fatalities.