Which of the following statements do you think is false?

1) By going outside I am statistically more likely to come in contact with people.
2) By coming in contact with people, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus. — Baden

I don’t think either are false. — NOS4A2

What I disagree with is the implication that going outside means I’m going to come into contact with people — NOS4A2

You've directly contradicted yourself.

Do you think one must remain isolated in his house to practice physical distancing? — NOS4A2

This is a red herring.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

I'll try again:

You just agreed that by going outside, you are statistically more likely to transmit the virus.

It's above in black and white.

That means that by staying inside, you are statistically less likely to transmit the virus.

That implies by staying inside you are helping people.

If any of the above is false, explain why.

You realize you're just humiliating yourself here, right?

Which of the following statements do you think is false?

1) By going outside I am statistically more likely to come in contact with people.
2) By coming in contact with people, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus. — Baden

I don’t think either are false. — NOS4A2

Therefore, you agree that:

1) By going outside, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus.

Understand, so far?

That also implies

2) By staying inside, I am statistically less likely to transmit the virus.

And we help people by not transmitting the virus to them.

Do you get it now? Or is there something in the above you can show to be false?

You just agreed that it does.

(Your characterization of "staying at home" as "hiding" is just empty rhetoric and makes no difference to whether or not going outside infects more people, which is the only relevant factor related to whether you "help" them or not.)

OK, this is false then.

You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house. — NOS4A2

[as 1) + 2) above>> by staying inside, I am less likely to transmit the virus >> which helps to protect others.]

Which of the following statements do you think is false?

1) By going outside I am statistically more likely to come in contact with people.
2) By coming in contact with people, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus.

Sadly, most of what I've read on the situation in the UK today lends support to un's contentions, dramatic as they are. i.e. It's quite possible that Herd Immunity (which amounts to sacrificing the old and weak for the sake of the young and strong) was never really taken off the table, but is just being done more gradually.

We should therefore expect people to be putting them on their nuts or however else they might misuse therm. — Hanover

Shouldn't be a problem for the at least 10% of Americans that mistakenly wear their underwear on their face.

It's a simple but ingenious system. Rich people pay politicians to keep them rich and politicians pay advertisers and PR agencies to make them look like they're on your side. A fully bipartisan agreement.

I've been looking into the mask thing. I think the motivations for the official slipperiness on it were probably something like the following:

1) A lack of masks
2) A lack of experience with masks in western countries leading to:
a) Incorrect usage
b) Resistance to compliance for cultural reasons
3) 1) and 2) leading to not enough people wearing them and wearing them properly to be effective enough to offset 4) =
4) A false sense of security that might detract from effecting other more reliable measures, such as proper social distancing/handwashing behaviours etc.
5) 3) and 4) making it more difficult for the government to know if any of this was working before it was too late.
6) A desire to keep masks for health workers who know how to use them and will use them when necessary.

I know... :mask:

Oh, and the Fed just dumped $1.5 trillion into the stockmarket to keep it afloat. But... it's crazy to think you could ever afford a proper health care system. :chin:

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/fed-to-inject-1-5-trillion-in-bid-to-prevent-unusual-disruptions-in-markets-11584033537

But we are not stupid. — Athena

I'm not sure about that. Your government just gave every taxpayer a $1200 dollar check while taking an average of $1500 of each taxpayer's tax dollars to give to corporations, including corporations that deliberately avoid paying the taxes that are now being used to shower them with money. So, your government "helped" you in your greatest time of need by taking a net $300 from each of you to give to its donors, who will give a proportion back to these con artists, which they will spend at the next election convincing you none of this ever happened. And that will work. So...

Just want to say btw that I'm aware the phrase "the China/Chinese virus" could be used in an innocent way, but a good faith actor would have no justifiable reason to insist on that kind of renaming when the objections are spelled out to them.

I don't know the specific reason as @jamalrob banned him, but I presume it was some combination of low quality and his apparent inability to accept that we weren't going to let him call COVID, the "China virus".

Maybe. Anyway, feel free to take turns on the world's smallest violin.

@Nobeernolife was banned.

You won't be using that nomenclature because it is not the name of the virus and a politically motivated xenophobic rebranding is not allowed here. Full stop. Future whining about this will be deleted.

Yes, Jared solved the Middle East with one wave of his over-inflated ego, so this should be a piece of cake for him. :lol:

Some good data here.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

The Chinese government is to blame for the pandemic. — Hanover

Questionable. The article you quoted doesn't support that unqualified assertion if you mean the extent of the pandemic: E.g:

"Clearly, the U.S. government’s response to this threat was not nearly robust enough, and not enacted anywhere near quickly enough."

But maybe there didn't need to be a pandemic at all. We'll find out more as things progress. It does certainly support the assertion that the CCP are culpable as they did what Trump did, i.e., tried to downplay the seriousness of the situation. Only it seems in a much more sophisticated and coordinated way, which is typical of them. In any case, my assertion was that China was not to blame for Trump downplaying things. And as the CCP cat was out of the bag by Jan 23rd when Wuhan was quarantined, but Trump continued to assert everything was just fine right through into February, that's obvious.

I won't argue with you that the CCP is a pernicious, dangerous, dishonest, and murderous actor nor will I argue with you that the CDC and WHO fucked things up and very possibly deliberately lied over masks, but it would be just silly to disregard expert opinions and data altogether because of this. Just apply critical thinking. Trump's position changes with the direction of his farts. You can't rely on that for anything.

Apologies folks, you need to be a subscriber for direct uploads because we need to pay for the space. But you can link to a pic of yourself as an alternative.

I think that the lock down option is better, but then again this pandemic could go on for a year and a lock down isn't so great for one year. — ssu

We've got over the major hump though, which is convincing the vast majority of people that this is serious. And to the point where not taking it seriously is likely to result in pariah status, i.e. we've got a "trained" public. That leaves open the possibility of a weaning off lockdown on a shorter timescale as long as we've got proper systems in place, such as an ongoing publicized option of a return to lockdown at a given threat marker, married with mandatory masks, widespread test and track, constant public awareness campaigns on effective social distancing techniques etc. And governments should be preparing this strategy now or, yes, we could find ourselves still stuck in limbo in a few months and with no good options going forward.

Trump spent about a third of February playing golf, a third at Mar a Lago, and the other third giving rallies. Yet it's the Chinese and the Dems' fault he couldn't figure out that COVID was a threat. Sounds like the Republican governor of Georgia, who just discovered a few days ago that COVID is infectious before symptoms show and finally issued a stay at home order on that basis. Feckless, intellectually lazy, self-serving parasites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-coronavirus-china-republicans/2020/04/03/baa149de-74fc-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html

You can turn off javascript in Chrome to get around the paywall.

tl;dr: We fucked up. Let's blame China.

Fallacy of association.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Race is a sociological construct, not a biological. — Benkei

I also tried to explain that to nobeer by PM before he self-imploded.

China is a country, not a race. In fact it’s racist to imply otherwise, and such a charge is an underhanded political ploy to absolve a totalitarian regime of guilt. — NOS4A2

So, your theory is there is a conspiracy to insist China is a race not a country in order that people don't believe the CCP is guilty of... something. Please explain how that works and what evidence you have to support the assertion. Also, who do you suspect is involved and what do they have to gain by helping the CCP in this way?

Well put, sir.

Sorry @Shawn that your thread got hijacked. Apparently, @Michael is dealing with it.

Cool, you can have nobeer then. *Washes hands*.

Read these. It will save us all time:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced.If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

On the rest, already explained by PM:

"... the word "racism" can be used loosely for prejudice or antagonism against different nationalities, particularly when the different nationality happens to be of a different race.

...

Call it xenophobic if you want. This type of discourse results in reinforcing negative attitudes towards Chinese and Asians. So, when it's not the actual name of the virus, we will presume the change is being made for that reason."

Now this is not your feedback thread, and this has been explained anyway (twice now) so I'm not going to continue it with you.

US had close to 1,000 deaths yesterday. That was a 20% increase on the total in one day.

:clap:

"Tucked into the largest bailout in United States history — a $2 trillion federal stimulus package agreed to by congressional leaders and the White House early Wednesday in an effort to reduce the economic devastation of the coronavirus outbreak — are a range of provisions that stand to benefit specific industries and interest groups.

...it turns out that the provision might not preclude funds from going to companies owned by the family of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, while Mr. Trump’s companies would not be barred from benefiting from other elements of the bill intended to help broad swaths of American business."

"The provision says that if a company owns multiple hotels, even if the overall hotel or restaurant chain has more than 500 employees — the limit to qualify for treatment as a small business — it will still be able to take advantage of the small-business benefits offered in the rescue package.

That means loans from the federal government worth up to 2.5 times the firm’s monthly payroll that will not have to be repaid...

Representatives from the American Hotel & Lodging Association reached out to Republicans and Democrats to push them to insert the language"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/politics/virus-fineprint-stimulus-bill.html

Again, I would urge people to look past the headlines and look into the fine print of the bill. Though we're going off-topic now, so I'll leave it at that.

OK, relax. I didn't intend to upset you. I still like Bernie, but in this case he did the wrong thing.

The bill is indeed total carp. — Artemis

:clap:

What part of "you're missing the point" don't you understand? — Xtrix

Put your attitude back in your pants. You don't own the point here.

I don't think he cares about the optics right now — Xtrix

Yes, he obviously does, because he voted for the bill. There was no other reason to vote for it.

If this truly turns you off to Bernie, by all means keep holding your breath for someone more principled. — Xtrix

It's not about me.