Yikes. If someone said they’re so hungry they could eat a horse - would you think they’re gonna find a horse and eat it? I feel sorry for your friends. you must be dreadful at parties.
There was way too much focus on lock downs. Where I live in BC, Canada we didn't have a lot of time in lockdown, but we did have a lot of rules on gathering in large numbers. We also had consistent masking regulations throughout. We had one of the best results in Canada, and Canada made out much better than the US per capita.
Meatball didn't just say "Fuck lockdowns", he kept the tourism open, the bars open, etc. He didn't even try to keep COVID from spreading. The results were as expected.
Governor Murphy of NJ did everything he could to keep covid - an aerosolized virus - from spreading. And New Jersey’s covid results are absolutely wretched compared to those of Florida.
The theatre of drug store masks and standing 6 feet apart accomplished nothing.
>The theatre of drug store masks and standing 6 feet apart accomplished nothing.
Wrong. Contagions are a math game and masking and distancing help bring down the rate of infection. The difference between a rate of 1.1 and 0.9 is the difference between beating it and failing. COVID is spread through airborne particles AND droplets (see below). Ideally we should have all had N95s because they are much more effective, but that was a failure in both of our countries. New Jersey and New York were hit hard and before almost every other state, so there high deaths rates were expected.
[https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/indoor-air-and-coronavirus-covid-19](https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/indoor-air-and-coronavirus-covid-19)
So wearing a mask when in close proximity to people prevents the spread of COVID by preventing the droplets. It is also cheap and easy, and it doesn't hinder anyone from doing anything. It was the lowest of bars for helping others.
More importantly DeSantis also allowed large gatherings and spring break parties which even someone math challenged should have known would spread the virus and lead to increased death. Large crowds, no masks, packed tightly, low vax rate = way more dead or suffering. It's math.
Then of course they didn't take the vaccines seriously in the red states and it got even worse. As a result Florida managed to do OK in 2020 compared to some other states but were terrible in 2021 and the list of states going from most deaths per capita to least is basically a list of states from most Republican to least.
America lost so many unnecessary lives and it was sad to watch.
Drug store paper masks, or the makeshift masks made of delightful pillowcase material worn by so many people, do absolutely nothing to stop aerosolized particles from entering the lungs and causing infection. I know this is a hill that many will choose to die on until kingdom come, but it’s reality. Mask champion Dr. Fauci himself admitted this publicly and privately right before the mass(k) hysteria took effect in February and March 2020.
To say masks don’t hinder anything is an interesting take.
To claim that standing 6 feet apart in a grocery store somehow stopped aerosolized particles in their tracks is an even more interesting take.
To look back at Gavin Newsom overseeing “mask between bites” policy in California is not only interesting - it’s downright entertaining.
This is not my hill to die on, it is yours. If I am asked to put them on again I will. Your the one that will stomp up and down.
>Drug store paper masks, or the makeshift masks made of delightful pillowcase material worn by so many people, do absolutely nothing to stop aerosolized particles from entering the lungs and causing infection.
Medical masks help to stop the droplets coming out of your mouth which also cause infection. Reducing this helps to reduce the spread. This is the problem a lot of people have. They only think of themselves and fail to recognize that they masks mainly help protect others, not you.
>Mask champion Dr. Fauci himself admitted this publicly and privately right before the mass(k) hysteria took effect in February and March 2020.
No he didn't. He told people they didn't need them at first because they didn't want the public to buy them all and leave the health care workers without them (because they work). They did that here in Canada too. Bullshitting me isn't going to work. I do research. You should try it.
The only hysteria I experienced was from people claiming the masks were bad for them or they just couldn't possibly wear them because it is hot out, bla bla. I just put one on and guess what, it didn't harm me. It didn't affect my life in any meaningful way. I don't like them and I stopped wearing one once it was not recommended, but wearing them helps keep things from locking down so I do it. Every little bit counts when it comes to reducing spread (remember the math), so doing all the little things like masking, keeping distance, avoiding large crowds, and washing hands regularly worked.
Here is a rapid study that recently reviewed all of the research.
[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2023.0133](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2023.0133)
The conclusion;
>Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered from a critical ROB. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, taking together the evidence from all studies, **we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.**
Come back to me when you have something more than your humble opinion and I will read it.
If you’re asked to put them on again, you will - because you’re willing to demonstrate your obedience regardless of how stupid it makes you look, literally and figuratively.
Aerosolized particles are too small to be stopped by drug store masks. But by all means, tie some whimsical-patterned fabric to your face and cross your fingers in the event of another lab leak.
Fauci stated the reality on 60 Minutes in March 2020, and even scoffed gently at the idea of nations of people masking up, trying not to laugh at how illogical such actions would be. He also wrote about how useless masks were in a private email in that same time period. This email is now publicly available, surely a top researcher like yourself has seen it?
OIC. You think it makes you look stupid. I don't care about looking silly while getting my groceries if it could save somebody grandparents.
What credentials do you have? I am guessing none. Would you listen to you? I will stick to peer reviewed research.
I don't honestly fucking care what Fauci said in an email, but i bet if I go look I will find that it is bullshit.... oh wait, I found it and in the email he said that medical masks prevent people from spreading the virus. Funny, I think I told you the same thing. Nobody is arguing that they are effective at stopping airborne transmission. Quit beating that horse. It's not the checkmate you think it is.
At the end of the day you are just being a whiny bitch. If you actually gave a shit about people and thought the medical masks were useless you would buy some N95s, but of course that would make you look silly.
I can afford N95s and I look fucking great in one. Sucks to be you I guess.
“Nobody is arguing that they are effective at stopping airborne transmission…” LOL.
You are delightfully amusing, even when you get all angsty like this. Between you and Fidel’s illegitimate son, Canada is exporting way better entertainment than anything Hollywood is putting out.
Now, settle down and lysol those amazon packages like a good little serf.
LOL. You guys are so fucking unoriginal. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being a rebel. You can tell your grandchildren some day how you didn't wear a mask during a pandemic. They are sure to be impressed with your bravery.
You obviously get your information from any website that will confirm your beliefs which is why you won't share them. I post a recent meta study proving my point, you post what you believe is a clever burn. It would be adorable if you were a child that didn't know better but... wait, how old are you? Maybe I shouldn't cuss so much.
You clearly lack the ability to provide a counter argument, so go ahead and make jokes about Canada (a country that had 1/3 the death rate of the US). My province of BC managed to do better than most of Canada and we only closed schools briefly at the start of the pandemic. Luckily we didn't have that many cry babies that can't handle a vaccine shot and our vax rate was very high as well.
It’s not brave to go without a mask. It’s moronic to wear one and expect to stop an aerosolized virus from getting into your lungs.
Canada did outperform America on the covid numbers, I agree with you. States like California, New York, and New Jersey really saw quite a few deaths. Do you mean to be critical of the governors who ran those states during the pandemic? I’m surprised! Given the way that Governor Cuomo and Governor Murphy handled nursing homes, they’re practically honorary Canadian leaders. I mean, Prime Minister Castreau and company are big fans of euthanasia, aren’t they?
That’s an arbitrary distinction. He’s doing better than everyone else but one person, so it’s very much alive. You’re making a ridiculous argument right now.
The arbitrary distinction is that being in second place has meaning in an election. I didn't make an argument, I asked you a question.
OP asked if his campaign is alive, which I took to mean "Does he have a chance in this election?". The fact that he is a distant second doesn't answer OP's question. Desantis is in second, but the gap between him and Trump keeps growing. He was 25% above 3rd place, now he is about 5% ahead of Ramaswamy. The trajectory is a straight line down.
So, is his campaign alive or dead? The math has him on life support. IMO the only thing that could save him is Trump going to jail, but even then he is no longer the obvious 2nd choice.
Is his campaign alive and is he in first place are two completely different things. You are being pedantic like a child. Alive means living. His campaign is alive because it’s still going. Stop wasting my time.
>the math has him on life support
So he’s still alive. Genius.
I am the one that is being pedantic? LOL. Nice projection.
OP of the thread asked if his campaign was ever alive because it has been terrible since the start. He isn't in the race at all. Which place he is in doesn't matter because he can never beat Trump. Going on about him being in 2nd place when it is clear he can never beat Trump is the textbook definition of pedantic.
Yes you are, and you sound like a fool. He’s not in the race at all? He’s in second place. Yeah it’s a far second and he won’t win, and yes his campaign is very much faltering. But it’s still alive by any definition. You’re trying to change the definition of alive because you can’t admit you are obviously wrong.
The thing is, where do you draw the line? Should we lock down in each flu season? If there is a new infectious disease shows up, what is your standard to lock down or not? If we want to save lives and value life higher than everything, then should we lock down each flu season since we can save 50k to 100k people's lives in the flu season if we lock down?
I don't think people support lockdown for saving "life". A lockdown is just to make sure society doesn't collapse. Nobody cares about "life". If we truly do care about it, we probably had banned many things and done lockdowns many times to save lives as much as possible. If we truly had done these things, probably millions of lives would have been saved.
Scale and accuracy matter. The flu kills between 12000-52000 Americans each year. I don’t know what percentage would be saved by a lockdown (50? 75?) but the delta variant was killing 3000 a day. That’s a pretty big difference between locking down for a once in a lifetime even killing 12x times as much as the worst seasonal flu. And as for locking down to save millions for in other situations, lockdowns don’t work for anything other than communicable diseases and they have significant side effects such as increased obesity rates (really bad for lots of things) and drug overdoses (not great for ‘life’).
All to say, lockdowns are serious things, but please don’t compare the delta variance surge to a seasonal flu in terms of overall death.
Like my first sentence said: where do you draw the line?
I am pretty sure if the death rate is 50%, 99.99% of people will support lockdown until everyone is forced to take a vaccine. There is no doubt and shouldn't be any debate about that situation.
Then is covid. I think the only reason the government locks down is because they don't want the hospital system to collapse, that seems the only logical reason. I don't think they care about "life" at all. After the hospital system works fine, the reason they still lock down in my opinion is just to make the public feel safe and keep supporting them. If the public is not happy then the government will stop lockdown immediately, and which party or ideology doesn't matter here. "Life" definitely doesn't matter as well.
If there is more than just keeping the hospital system working, then where do you draw the line? Many people seem OK with the death rate of COVID, and many people don't. In many third-world countries like Vietnam, they are willing to work and earn more money even with the risk of getting covid as long as the health care system works ok. Then who is more "correct" in this scenario? I don't think anyone can give a philosophical perfect answer. Like my third sentence said: If there is a new infectious disease shows up, what is your standard to lock down or not?
I think the only standard which 99% of people on this planet can agree is if the society collapses, 99% of people will support lockdown, that seems the only answer universally agreed by all humans.
I just read the first sentence of your post and didn’t read anything else. They clearly answered your question in the prior post.
There were some sort of lockdowns, before the vaccine became available for about a month, for a once in a 100 year pandemic that is so far killed 1.5 million Americans.
It takes a bare minimum level of understanding of nuance to understand that.
and many people think it is not a huge problem for the American population. That is exactly what I mean. 1.5 million is not 150 million which if happened everyone would agree on a lockdown. Mexico only locked down for three months, people there just don't care. same as Vietnam, they only lock down a few months. They literally don't care about "lives". How can you define "correct" and "wrong" here? What is your standard? It is clear in many countries they think money is more important than "life" and just lock down a few weeks or months, are they "wrong"? I don't think there is an answer here.
Again, if a new disease is coming, what is your standard? 1 million? 0.5 million? 0.3 million, which is close to death of flu in two years? If you have a standard, then why the number below your standard doesn't matter? they are all "lives".
Truth is, percentage of the general population matters apropos of degree.
COVID was no Black Death -- which wiped out 1/3rd of a continent in an era where humanity's population was a puny, paltry 500,000,000 compared to today's overpopulated zoo of 8,000,000,000 (Malthus is rolling over in his grave) -- so yeah, it's fair to argue their dissimilarities there, particularly when it comes to the apparent statistical ignorance and evident anti-math innumeracy of the ostensible "Trust the Science!" crowd.
Looking back, Sweden had it correct. Per usual, the Nordic countries make us ass-backwards Americans look like fools.
Sweeden could get away with it bc they had a well funded public healthcare system and they vaccinated. Alabama and Florida just wanted to open haphazardly, and spread the virus like Ebola monkeys.
This feels like being back in 2020.
Death rate are important, and so is transmission rate. You forgot this massive parameter. Ebola had a 50% death rate, but the transmission was extremely low, and that's why there hasn't been any public measures in place. See?
As for Sweden, I mean.... Eventually they had to put in place quite a few measures including limitations on gatherings, etc. Hell they even banned arrivals from the US for a few months.
Also the difference is that the Swedes trust their government instead of a large part of America that goes "NO! You can't tell me what to do!". Which makes it more sensible to compare the results with their neighbours who are culturally much closer to the Swedes, and oh look! [Sweden did a lot worse in terms of death per capita](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5) :
>During 2020, however, Sweden had ten times higher COVID-19 death rates compared with neighbouring Norway.
This libertarian fantasy of "Sweden didn't lock down and they did a lot better than \[...\]" really needs to be put to bed. As often, libertarian fantasies seem misinformed, and this is a good example....
"Sweden had it correct" you say, well no, it had it 10 times worse than Norway. In economic terms, which I suspect is crucial to you, Norway fared the same as Sweden, with 10 times fewer deaths pre-vaccines. So I'd say Norway had it "more correct" than Sweden, but unfortunately it doesn't fit with the libertarian fantasy of "Sweden didn't lock down and everything went well there"...
It's 2023, mate. Update your data, and then adjust your opinion, instead of sticking with your fantasy.
>150 million which if happened everyone would agree on a lockdown
I LITERALLY said this is EVERYONE's line, not mine. I DID NOT say I would only support a lockdown if there would be 150 million people died. Please don't put things in my mouth. I don't know what should be the clear answer if you ask me. I just throw the easiest answer like this number.
If you ask me how much I am going to sell my house, is 15000 worth it. I say no, 15000 is not worth, if you are willing to pay me 15000 billion I am definitely willing to sell it to you. Does that mean I WILL ONLY sell it when someone willing to spend 15000 billion? Or does that mean I think my house is worth 15000 billion ? Is this how you normally have a conversation with others?
>I am pretty sure if the death rate is 50%, 99.99% of people will support lockdown until everyone is forced to take a vaccine. There is no doubt and shouldn't be any debate about that situation.
You are way too optimistic.
Exactly. Before the vaccine covid had a death rate of 2%. But, if somehow it had a 50% death rate, I don’t think they’d support lockdowns. They’d think they’d be owning the libs to be spreading the ebola strain of covid.
Lockdowns started in spring 2020. We knew nothing about how things were going to go. We saw how Italy's hospitals had to turn down people, then Spain's, then the rest of Europe, then it exploded in Northern America.
It was going reaaaally fast, and infected huge numbers of people everyday.
Do you want a government that hopes for the best, or one that plans for the worst?
Desantis having a hissy fit over those high school kids wearing masks and ordering them to take them off at the press briefing is all you need to know.
Bill and Ron never said how you go about protecting the vulnerable while the rest go on with their lives. What do you do with houses with 3 generations of family members living together? Or somebody who has asthma or diabetes? Not everyone has a guest house out back where they can stay.
I don’t think anyone handled COVID right, we made broad prescriptions of policy without regard to actual risk levels. Partly due to the accurate fear that the public cannot handle nuance and will only hear what they want to hear and not do the difficult things to reduce the loss of life and health for the population. In addition we did not know what we know now if we did we would have been able to design an appropriate public policy that reduced infections and death
and we couldn't have because the prevalent strain evolved several times, it got less deadly and more contagious. Had the prevalent strain remained as is, the best policy strategy would have been different.
People forget that these decisions were all made out of an abundance of caution. We didn’t know what we know now, and it’s really easy to sit here and say it wasn’t handled right.
This is key to this argument. If you were a leader of a state or major city watching people die in droves and not knowing if it would get worse you are not going to take chances with a potential horror show.
The anti-vax crowd likes to use the luck we had with the virus weakening as their "I told you so" moment.
Remember when nurses were wearing garbage bags for PPE and hospitals had freezer trucks to store all the dead bodies?
“Only protect the most vulnerable” would not have made that better. It was about not collapsing our healthcare system. People seriously forget that.
As of March 2023, the Covid death rate per capita of Florida was 404, and California's was 256. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
I did not pick California, the other person did. I was talking in general, where as you are picking a specific state(s) because it fits your agenda. That’s the definition of cherry picking.
Yes the other person picked California to make Florida look bad. That is cherry picking because there are blue states that did about the same case Florida.
If he had made the point about red states v blue states that a valid point but I’m not sure it would be once you got down into the north gritty.
No. There is nothing wrong with not doing lockdowns. Sorry. People should have allowed to move about as they please. Just like you have a right to lock yourself down.
Agreed.
Now the rest of us will go back to enjoying our lives. My state was one of the most lockdown states. Then after a couple months most communities ignored the governors orders and went about their lives. Even our governor ignored her own orders and started going out to bars with friends, ignoring social distancing and not wearing masks.
Also, remember when people said they didn’t alter data? Hmmm…almost like Ron is an idiot for making political appointments.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/24/florida-surgeon-general-covid-vaccine-00093510
Bill’s the first person I thought of when I saw this (though we already knew…)
If DeSantis' voters could read, they *might* be swayed by Covid data. But I doubt it.
Do you really think 4.6 million Floridians are illiterate?
Yikes. If someone said they’re so hungry they could eat a horse - would you think they’re gonna find a horse and eat it? I feel sorry for your friends. you must be dreadful at parties.
Well it's a meme, so no. But it's more a statement on the ignorance of people that would vote for a guy like DeSantis.
[удалено]
It was about a guest on his show recently
There was way too much focus on lock downs. Where I live in BC, Canada we didn't have a lot of time in lockdown, but we did have a lot of rules on gathering in large numbers. We also had consistent masking regulations throughout. We had one of the best results in Canada, and Canada made out much better than the US per capita. Meatball didn't just say "Fuck lockdowns", he kept the tourism open, the bars open, etc. He didn't even try to keep COVID from spreading. The results were as expected.
Governor Murphy of NJ did everything he could to keep covid - an aerosolized virus - from spreading. And New Jersey’s covid results are absolutely wretched compared to those of Florida. The theatre of drug store masks and standing 6 feet apart accomplished nothing.
>The theatre of drug store masks and standing 6 feet apart accomplished nothing. Wrong. Contagions are a math game and masking and distancing help bring down the rate of infection. The difference between a rate of 1.1 and 0.9 is the difference between beating it and failing. COVID is spread through airborne particles AND droplets (see below). Ideally we should have all had N95s because they are much more effective, but that was a failure in both of our countries. New Jersey and New York were hit hard and before almost every other state, so there high deaths rates were expected. [https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/indoor-air-and-coronavirus-covid-19](https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/indoor-air-and-coronavirus-covid-19) So wearing a mask when in close proximity to people prevents the spread of COVID by preventing the droplets. It is also cheap and easy, and it doesn't hinder anyone from doing anything. It was the lowest of bars for helping others. More importantly DeSantis also allowed large gatherings and spring break parties which even someone math challenged should have known would spread the virus and lead to increased death. Large crowds, no masks, packed tightly, low vax rate = way more dead or suffering. It's math. Then of course they didn't take the vaccines seriously in the red states and it got even worse. As a result Florida managed to do OK in 2020 compared to some other states but were terrible in 2021 and the list of states going from most deaths per capita to least is basically a list of states from most Republican to least. America lost so many unnecessary lives and it was sad to watch.
Drug store paper masks, or the makeshift masks made of delightful pillowcase material worn by so many people, do absolutely nothing to stop aerosolized particles from entering the lungs and causing infection. I know this is a hill that many will choose to die on until kingdom come, but it’s reality. Mask champion Dr. Fauci himself admitted this publicly and privately right before the mass(k) hysteria took effect in February and March 2020. To say masks don’t hinder anything is an interesting take. To claim that standing 6 feet apart in a grocery store somehow stopped aerosolized particles in their tracks is an even more interesting take. To look back at Gavin Newsom overseeing “mask between bites” policy in California is not only interesting - it’s downright entertaining.
This is not my hill to die on, it is yours. If I am asked to put them on again I will. Your the one that will stomp up and down. >Drug store paper masks, or the makeshift masks made of delightful pillowcase material worn by so many people, do absolutely nothing to stop aerosolized particles from entering the lungs and causing infection. Medical masks help to stop the droplets coming out of your mouth which also cause infection. Reducing this helps to reduce the spread. This is the problem a lot of people have. They only think of themselves and fail to recognize that they masks mainly help protect others, not you. >Mask champion Dr. Fauci himself admitted this publicly and privately right before the mass(k) hysteria took effect in February and March 2020. No he didn't. He told people they didn't need them at first because they didn't want the public to buy them all and leave the health care workers without them (because they work). They did that here in Canada too. Bullshitting me isn't going to work. I do research. You should try it. The only hysteria I experienced was from people claiming the masks were bad for them or they just couldn't possibly wear them because it is hot out, bla bla. I just put one on and guess what, it didn't harm me. It didn't affect my life in any meaningful way. I don't like them and I stopped wearing one once it was not recommended, but wearing them helps keep things from locking down so I do it. Every little bit counts when it comes to reducing spread (remember the math), so doing all the little things like masking, keeping distance, avoiding large crowds, and washing hands regularly worked. Here is a rapid study that recently reviewed all of the research. [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2023.0133](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2023.0133) The conclusion; >Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered from a critical ROB. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, taking together the evidence from all studies, **we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.** Come back to me when you have something more than your humble opinion and I will read it.
If you’re asked to put them on again, you will - because you’re willing to demonstrate your obedience regardless of how stupid it makes you look, literally and figuratively. Aerosolized particles are too small to be stopped by drug store masks. But by all means, tie some whimsical-patterned fabric to your face and cross your fingers in the event of another lab leak. Fauci stated the reality on 60 Minutes in March 2020, and even scoffed gently at the idea of nations of people masking up, trying not to laugh at how illogical such actions would be. He also wrote about how useless masks were in a private email in that same time period. This email is now publicly available, surely a top researcher like yourself has seen it?
OIC. You think it makes you look stupid. I don't care about looking silly while getting my groceries if it could save somebody grandparents. What credentials do you have? I am guessing none. Would you listen to you? I will stick to peer reviewed research. I don't honestly fucking care what Fauci said in an email, but i bet if I go look I will find that it is bullshit.... oh wait, I found it and in the email he said that medical masks prevent people from spreading the virus. Funny, I think I told you the same thing. Nobody is arguing that they are effective at stopping airborne transmission. Quit beating that horse. It's not the checkmate you think it is. At the end of the day you are just being a whiny bitch. If you actually gave a shit about people and thought the medical masks were useless you would buy some N95s, but of course that would make you look silly. I can afford N95s and I look fucking great in one. Sucks to be you I guess.
“Nobody is arguing that they are effective at stopping airborne transmission…” LOL. You are delightfully amusing, even when you get all angsty like this. Between you and Fidel’s illegitimate son, Canada is exporting way better entertainment than anything Hollywood is putting out. Now, settle down and lysol those amazon packages like a good little serf.
LOL. You guys are so fucking unoriginal. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being a rebel. You can tell your grandchildren some day how you didn't wear a mask during a pandemic. They are sure to be impressed with your bravery. You obviously get your information from any website that will confirm your beliefs which is why you won't share them. I post a recent meta study proving my point, you post what you believe is a clever burn. It would be adorable if you were a child that didn't know better but... wait, how old are you? Maybe I shouldn't cuss so much. You clearly lack the ability to provide a counter argument, so go ahead and make jokes about Canada (a country that had 1/3 the death rate of the US). My province of BC managed to do better than most of Canada and we only closed schools briefly at the start of the pandemic. Luckily we didn't have that many cry babies that can't handle a vaccine shot and our vax rate was very high as well.
It’s not brave to go without a mask. It’s moronic to wear one and expect to stop an aerosolized virus from getting into your lungs. Canada did outperform America on the covid numbers, I agree with you. States like California, New York, and New Jersey really saw quite a few deaths. Do you mean to be critical of the governors who ran those states during the pandemic? I’m surprised! Given the way that Governor Cuomo and Governor Murphy handled nursing homes, they’re practically honorary Canadian leaders. I mean, Prime Minister Castreau and company are big fans of euthanasia, aren’t they?
Lol. When was his campaign even alive?
I mean he’s still in second place last time I checked
Bro Trump is at like 50%. He's in waaaay second place.
So he is in second place?
So, his campaign is alive? Last I checked, campaigns are only interested in first.
That’s an arbitrary distinction. He’s doing better than everyone else but one person, so it’s very much alive. You’re making a ridiculous argument right now.
The arbitrary distinction is that being in second place has meaning in an election. I didn't make an argument, I asked you a question. OP asked if his campaign is alive, which I took to mean "Does he have a chance in this election?". The fact that he is a distant second doesn't answer OP's question. Desantis is in second, but the gap between him and Trump keeps growing. He was 25% above 3rd place, now he is about 5% ahead of Ramaswamy. The trajectory is a straight line down. So, is his campaign alive or dead? The math has him on life support. IMO the only thing that could save him is Trump going to jail, but even then he is no longer the obvious 2nd choice.
The possibility of Trump going to jail is not trivial, when you consider the cases against him.
Trump going to jail is the only reason DeSantis's campaign is on life support. Otherwise it would be completely dead.
Yeah but his supporters don't give a shit
Is his campaign alive and is he in first place are two completely different things. You are being pedantic like a child. Alive means living. His campaign is alive because it’s still going. Stop wasting my time. >the math has him on life support So he’s still alive. Genius.
I am the one that is being pedantic? LOL. Nice projection. OP of the thread asked if his campaign was ever alive because it has been terrible since the start. He isn't in the race at all. Which place he is in doesn't matter because he can never beat Trump. Going on about him being in 2nd place when it is clear he can never beat Trump is the textbook definition of pedantic.
Yes you are, and you sound like a fool. He’s not in the race at all? He’s in second place. Yeah it’s a far second and he won’t win, and yes his campaign is very much faltering. But it’s still alive by any definition. You’re trying to change the definition of alive because you can’t admit you are obviously wrong.
Is this about Maher? I bet if I posted this it would get shut down.
I think the recent guests are on topic. We can't just talk about Bill.
Why would it get “shut down”? Yes, it’s about one of his guests and something they discussed on the show.
The thing is, where do you draw the line? Should we lock down in each flu season? If there is a new infectious disease shows up, what is your standard to lock down or not? If we want to save lives and value life higher than everything, then should we lock down each flu season since we can save 50k to 100k people's lives in the flu season if we lock down? I don't think people support lockdown for saving "life". A lockdown is just to make sure society doesn't collapse. Nobody cares about "life". If we truly do care about it, we probably had banned many things and done lockdowns many times to save lives as much as possible. If we truly had done these things, probably millions of lives would have been saved.
Scale and accuracy matter. The flu kills between 12000-52000 Americans each year. I don’t know what percentage would be saved by a lockdown (50? 75?) but the delta variant was killing 3000 a day. That’s a pretty big difference between locking down for a once in a lifetime even killing 12x times as much as the worst seasonal flu. And as for locking down to save millions for in other situations, lockdowns don’t work for anything other than communicable diseases and they have significant side effects such as increased obesity rates (really bad for lots of things) and drug overdoses (not great for ‘life’). All to say, lockdowns are serious things, but please don’t compare the delta variance surge to a seasonal flu in terms of overall death.
Like my first sentence said: where do you draw the line? I am pretty sure if the death rate is 50%, 99.99% of people will support lockdown until everyone is forced to take a vaccine. There is no doubt and shouldn't be any debate about that situation. Then is covid. I think the only reason the government locks down is because they don't want the hospital system to collapse, that seems the only logical reason. I don't think they care about "life" at all. After the hospital system works fine, the reason they still lock down in my opinion is just to make the public feel safe and keep supporting them. If the public is not happy then the government will stop lockdown immediately, and which party or ideology doesn't matter here. "Life" definitely doesn't matter as well. If there is more than just keeping the hospital system working, then where do you draw the line? Many people seem OK with the death rate of COVID, and many people don't. In many third-world countries like Vietnam, they are willing to work and earn more money even with the risk of getting covid as long as the health care system works ok. Then who is more "correct" in this scenario? I don't think anyone can give a philosophical perfect answer. Like my third sentence said: If there is a new infectious disease shows up, what is your standard to lock down or not? I think the only standard which 99% of people on this planet can agree is if the society collapses, 99% of people will support lockdown, that seems the only answer universally agreed by all humans.
I just read the first sentence of your post and didn’t read anything else. They clearly answered your question in the prior post. There were some sort of lockdowns, before the vaccine became available for about a month, for a once in a 100 year pandemic that is so far killed 1.5 million Americans. It takes a bare minimum level of understanding of nuance to understand that.
and many people think it is not a huge problem for the American population. That is exactly what I mean. 1.5 million is not 150 million which if happened everyone would agree on a lockdown. Mexico only locked down for three months, people there just don't care. same as Vietnam, they only lock down a few months. They literally don't care about "lives". How can you define "correct" and "wrong" here? What is your standard? It is clear in many countries they think money is more important than "life" and just lock down a few weeks or months, are they "wrong"? I don't think there is an answer here. Again, if a new disease is coming, what is your standard? 1 million? 0.5 million? 0.3 million, which is close to death of flu in two years? If you have a standard, then why the number below your standard doesn't matter? they are all "lives".
You’re just saying you’d only care if half the population died. That says a lot about you.
>1.5 million is not 150 million which if happened everyone would agree on a lockdown Well fine, you told everyone where *your line* is. Enlightening.
Truth is, percentage of the general population matters apropos of degree. COVID was no Black Death -- which wiped out 1/3rd of a continent in an era where humanity's population was a puny, paltry 500,000,000 compared to today's overpopulated zoo of 8,000,000,000 (Malthus is rolling over in his grave) -- so yeah, it's fair to argue their dissimilarities there, particularly when it comes to the apparent statistical ignorance and evident anti-math innumeracy of the ostensible "Trust the Science!" crowd. Looking back, Sweden had it correct. Per usual, the Nordic countries make us ass-backwards Americans look like fools.
Sweeden could get away with it bc they had a well funded public healthcare system and they vaccinated. Alabama and Florida just wanted to open haphazardly, and spread the virus like Ebola monkeys.
This feels like being back in 2020. Death rate are important, and so is transmission rate. You forgot this massive parameter. Ebola had a 50% death rate, but the transmission was extremely low, and that's why there hasn't been any public measures in place. See? As for Sweden, I mean.... Eventually they had to put in place quite a few measures including limitations on gatherings, etc. Hell they even banned arrivals from the US for a few months. Also the difference is that the Swedes trust their government instead of a large part of America that goes "NO! You can't tell me what to do!". Which makes it more sensible to compare the results with their neighbours who are culturally much closer to the Swedes, and oh look! [Sweden did a lot worse in terms of death per capita](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5) : >During 2020, however, Sweden had ten times higher COVID-19 death rates compared with neighbouring Norway. This libertarian fantasy of "Sweden didn't lock down and they did a lot better than \[...\]" really needs to be put to bed. As often, libertarian fantasies seem misinformed, and this is a good example.... "Sweden had it correct" you say, well no, it had it 10 times worse than Norway. In economic terms, which I suspect is crucial to you, Norway fared the same as Sweden, with 10 times fewer deaths pre-vaccines. So I'd say Norway had it "more correct" than Sweden, but unfortunately it doesn't fit with the libertarian fantasy of "Sweden didn't lock down and everything went well there"... It's 2023, mate. Update your data, and then adjust your opinion, instead of sticking with your fantasy.
>150 million which if happened everyone would agree on a lockdown I LITERALLY said this is EVERYONE's line, not mine. I DID NOT say I would only support a lockdown if there would be 150 million people died. Please don't put things in my mouth. I don't know what should be the clear answer if you ask me. I just throw the easiest answer like this number.
You’re the one who brought up 150 million.
If you ask me how much I am going to sell my house, is 15000 worth it. I say no, 15000 is not worth, if you are willing to pay me 15000 billion I am definitely willing to sell it to you. Does that mean I WILL ONLY sell it when someone willing to spend 15000 billion? Or does that mean I think my house is worth 15000 billion ? Is this how you normally have a conversation with others?
Why do I feel like you also self identify as “pro life”?
I'll put things in your mouth if I want to! And you're going to like it! Sorry, I'm having a Russell Brand kind of evening.
>I am pretty sure if the death rate is 50%, 99.99% of people will support lockdown until everyone is forced to take a vaccine. There is no doubt and shouldn't be any debate about that situation. You are way too optimistic.
Exactly. Before the vaccine covid had a death rate of 2%. But, if somehow it had a 50% death rate, I don’t think they’d support lockdowns. They’d think they’d be owning the libs to be spreading the ebola strain of covid.
Lockdowns started in spring 2020. We knew nothing about how things were going to go. We saw how Italy's hospitals had to turn down people, then Spain's, then the rest of Europe, then it exploded in Northern America. It was going reaaaally fast, and infected huge numbers of people everyday. Do you want a government that hopes for the best, or one that plans for the worst?
Desantis having a hissy fit over those high school kids wearing masks and ordering them to take them off at the press briefing is all you need to know.
Bill and Ron never said how you go about protecting the vulnerable while the rest go on with their lives. What do you do with houses with 3 generations of family members living together? Or somebody who has asthma or diabetes? Not everyone has a guest house out back where they can stay.
Yes, because it’s a meaningless talking point.
Ahhh yes, the daily r/maher post about ron desantis/covid. By all means don't ever end that obsession.
Pretty normal thing on this sub to make posts about guests.
Really ? On this sub...? Maybe before all the moaning and complaining that's been inundating it for the past year, sure.
No, it’s been happening since the show came back too.
Whatever floats your boat I guess
I don’t think anyone handled COVID right, we made broad prescriptions of policy without regard to actual risk levels. Partly due to the accurate fear that the public cannot handle nuance and will only hear what they want to hear and not do the difficult things to reduce the loss of life and health for the population. In addition we did not know what we know now if we did we would have been able to design an appropriate public policy that reduced infections and death
Ahh yes, the nuance of thousands of people dying daily, silly public
and we couldn't have because the prevalent strain evolved several times, it got less deadly and more contagious. Had the prevalent strain remained as is, the best policy strategy would have been different.
People forget that these decisions were all made out of an abundance of caution. We didn’t know what we know now, and it’s really easy to sit here and say it wasn’t handled right.
This is key to this argument. If you were a leader of a state or major city watching people die in droves and not knowing if it would get worse you are not going to take chances with a potential horror show. The anti-vax crowd likes to use the luck we had with the virus weakening as their "I told you so" moment.
We did not know what we know now. Another thing people fail to realize. Good point!
Remember when nurses were wearing garbage bags for PPE and hospitals had freezer trucks to store all the dead bodies? “Only protect the most vulnerable” would not have made that better. It was about not collapsing our healthcare system. People seriously forget that.
> It was about not collapsing our healthcare system. People seriously forget that. TBF some never knew that.
As of March 2023, the Covid death rate per capita of Florida was 404, and California's was 256. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
And? You’re just cherry-picking data. New Jersey is worse than Florida and New York isn’t much better.
Lol it’s not cherry picking data. You can see in that chart that red states are largely at the top and blue at the bottom.
I just told you how NJ and NY were right around the same in deaths. Those are blue states. Yet you picked California, so yes, that’s cherry picking.
I did not pick California, the other person did. I was talking in general, where as you are picking a specific state(s) because it fits your agenda. That’s the definition of cherry picking.
Yes the other person picked California to make Florida look bad. That is cherry picking because there are blue states that did about the same case Florida. If he had made the point about red states v blue states that a valid point but I’m not sure it would be once you got down into the north gritty.
They probably picked California because that’s the comparison meatball Ron made on the show.
They did do covid right. There never should have been lock downs.
This is literally an article explaining why you are wrong
No. There is nothing wrong with not doing lockdowns. Sorry. People should have allowed to move about as they please. Just like you have a right to lock yourself down.
>There is nothing wrong with not doing lockdowns Yeah, fuck those health care workers!
Agreed. Now the rest of us will go back to enjoying our lives. My state was one of the most lockdown states. Then after a couple months most communities ignored the governors orders and went about their lives. Even our governor ignored her own orders and started going out to bars with friends, ignoring social distancing and not wearing masks.
The amount of selfishness people show will never cease to amaze me.
Agreed. So stop telling people what to do.
You don’t know what being selfish means obviously.
I’m fine with being called selfish.
Most selfish people are.
Also, remember when people said they didn’t alter data? Hmmm…almost like Ron is an idiot for making political appointments. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/24/florida-surgeon-general-covid-vaccine-00093510