Hospital overflow fears were driven by the unreliable death estimates made by Imperial College, whose model - according to Johan Giesecke (one of Sweden’s prior state epidemiologists) - did not take into account that hospital capacity could be increased, which happened in the UK.

This event is far more comparable to the 1968 flu pandemic, for which no measures of this sort were implemented. Going by newspaper headlines health/hospital crises happen quite regularly. This one, though troubling, appears to have been overblown to the extent that the world is now in far worse shape that it perhaps would have been if we’d done nothing at all.

The maskless rallies, the red-faced anti-maskers screaming at grocery store workers, the protesters hurling invectives at the schoolteachers who are begging for masks so that schoolchildren can return to school — Xtrix

I just think Trump voters and Republicans. And I remember them, after Trump won, saying "Fuck your feelings" to the left, and their coffee cups with "Liberal Tears" written on them.

Karma, bitches.

The greatest thing about Twitter (and other online media) is that it can show you how dreadful an “expert” can be at thinking. Once you truly witness this you’re free—you don’t have to listen to selected authorities, you can find others and listen to them instead. Sometimes you can even think or experience your own way around the junk these selected authorities are perfectly capable of coming out with. You learn that you don’t need a heap of credentials to be *smart*. It’s actually quite beautiful.

Don't leave out small pox -- the world was declared free of smallpox in 1980. "One of history's deadliest diseases, smallpox is estimated to have killed more than 300 million people since 1900 alone." The fatality rate for smallpox was about 33%. Those who survived were usually scarred, sometimes severely. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed -- thank you for that.



Since he has demonstrated, over and over, that he doesn't have a clue what "begging the question" even means, there's no sense in wasting time. In my view.



:up:



:100:

I just think Trump voters and Republicans. — James Riley

There's a very real correlation, yes. The group that denies the vaccines in the highest percentage is white, male, Republican. Not a surprise.

https://www.wpr.org/gop-men-are-most-likely-say-theyll-refuse-covid-19-vaccine

You learn that you don’t need a heap of credentials to be *smart*. — AJJ

Flat-Earthers, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, and all the rest also say this -- and often.

Credentials have nothing to do with being smart. True. But there is such a thing as expertise. Credentials are one indicator of this expertise, along with experience, research, published material, knowledge of a subject, etc., which are the more important factors.

You have none of the above. What you do is beg the question, repeatedly. Then try to hide it by accusing others of it -- using the term in a way that betrays how little you understand it.

If it comes down to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, or you, I choose the former. You go with "my own thoughts on this matter" -- fine, go be happy with that. But much like flat earthers and others mentioned in the thread's title, you're just wrong.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people. — Cheshire

Some groups of people devalue themselves. That can aid in finding their market value.

Hospital overflow fears were driven by the unreliable death estimates made by Imperial College, whose model - according to Johan Giesecke (one of Sweden’s prior state epidemiologists) - did not take into account that hospital capacity could be increased, which happened in the UK. — AJJ

So, my perspective is the US, not the UK. Though I have heard plenty about the UK's situation on the BBC and from the Guardian.

I'm not so sure that hospital capacity can be increased ON SHORT NOTICE, in the UK, Sweden, or anywhere else. Yes, true enough, overflow wards can be, and were, opened across the US--especially for non-ICU patients. But space is only one part of the deal. Hospitals also have to be able to expand the number of staff able to provide ICU care, which involved procedures, practices, and knowledge that an orthopedic or OB-GYN nurse would not have. Further, the ratio of patients to staff in ICU is often 1:1. Scores of skilled ICU staff happen not to be waiting in cold storage, just needing to be warmed up and put on a shift.

Some local hospitals took over closed or under-utilized care facilities and turned them into full-time ICU buildings, in order to separate infectious patients from the main hospital population. However, they could do this ONLY if they had the staff resources necessary.

What Covid-19 revealed in the US, is that the health care industry is not all that resilient. It also revealed serious deficiencies in many state-level public health departments and public health infrastructure.

You're either deluded or a troll, and I don't think anything I can say will change that so...it's been fun...but I'm done.

Some groups of people devalue themselves. That can aid in finding their market value. — James Riley

This is a way of blaming them for one's low valuation of them. Historically lumping undesirables into sets and devaluing them has preceded atrocities. I think you can really get to know some one and determine they're shit on an individual basis if it's necessary to produce a market price.

This is a way of blaming them for one's low valuation of them. — Cheshire

Indeed, it is. Placing blame where it belongs. If they devalue themselves, that's on them. Think ISIS, if that helps.

Historically lumping undesirables into sets and devaluing them has preceded atrocities. — Cheshire

It has also preceded election losses, progress and change. But what might be an atrocity for them is a net win for humanity.

I think you can really get to know some one and determine they're shit on an individual basis if it's necessary to produce a market price. — Cheshire

True, if you want a market price for individuals. But if you want a market price for groups, use the groups. Think Liz Cheney and Donald Trump, as individuals, and the Republican party as a group. The first represents classic principles of the group to which she belongs. The second does not. Yet the group chose to throw her under the bus and run with the latter. By doing so, the group has devalued itself. So, the first set her market value and we can consider that, but her remaining with the group affects that individual value. But the group value (or lack there of) is a separate matter based upon their treatment of the individual.

And so I’m not going to deny that we were always going to experience hospital crises. But in the UK we now have another one in the form of massive waiting lists caused by lockdowns (that have never even been shown to be effective compared simply to asking people to take care). It seems to me the same people responsible for a deficient healthcare system implemented and advocated for a foolish policy to “protect” it when it experienced trouble.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational but "on the fence"? — Xtrix

Some are, but are they all like that?

And what issues do you put into this category "not worth to engage"?

How about those who say that the Lab-leak hypothesis of the Corona-pandemic should be investigated? Or those who claim Pakistan to be the culprit of terrorism? Or what about the attack on USS Liberty in 1967?

Remember that this is also the way to control the public discussion. In it's obvious case. Sometime the "village nut" is the only one that is talking sanity. I've experienced in my own country during the Cold War when the existence of the Soviet Union was totally given. Anybody who would have anticipated that the Soviet Union would collapse would have been marked as a lunatic. You don't engage with lunatics.

That said, unfortunately you are also correct. Most of them do already think that everybody else that "those who have seen the light" are against them. Other people are "the Sheeple", who don't use at all their own brains but slavishly repeat what is given to them. This attitude makes them already confrontational and not open for discussion. And if they get banned from sites, the feeling just intensifies.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people. — Cheshire

It's a rare person who realizes this, though.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people. — Cheshire

No it isn’t.

There’s a golden mean here. We don’t want to be close minded, and we don’t want to be so open minded that we fall for any charlatan out there.

Dissent — in law, in politics, in science — is very important. Minority opinion is important. Challenging prevailing dogma and consensus is important. No doubt. We all agree.

Since charlatans and ignoramuses readily use this to justify their stances, and since real dissent often looks ridiculous to establishment dogma, how do we distinguish between “real dissent” and the “dissent” of climate deniers, creationists, astrologers, and the others?

That’s the real question, and I don’t think there are any recipes or litmus tests to decipher. It’s not even a matter of evidence, since anyone can easily claim the evidence is on their side — for example, that the fossil record is evidence for the Biblical flood. Entire books have been written about that (“The Genesis Flood”).

Yet there is such a thing as correct and incorrect, true and false. So where are we left?

Personally, I like it when predictions are made— like in the QAnon conspiracy theory — because when they fail to come true (as they always do), the failure is palpable. But most nonsense doesn’t make predictions, and in fact can’t be falsified in any way.

I think all that’s left is to understand how and why people come to these immovable positions in the first place. Like with the study of cults, it usually involves social pressure and desire for inclusion, appeals to values and existing beliefs, gives a neat explanation of things, and allows members to maintain a sense of specialness.

Whether or not we can use this understanding to change minds, I don’t know. I tend to doubt it.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people.
— Cheshire — Xtrix

No it isn’t. — Xtrix

It's the basis for tribalism. The foundation of fascism. It reduces the human condition to some narrow division of ideals and places us further from a constructive process. In this particular case it makes broad equivocations; combining those propagating a pandemic with several thousand that are simply bad at physical science. It assumes the worst and distributes it.

But the group value (or lack there of) is a separate matter based upon their treatment of the individual. — James Riley

I think I understand this argument. It acknowledges that the individual and the group ought be assessed in different ways; at least acknowledging that people are a little more complicated than this or that ascription. It leaves room for hope.

It's the basis for tribalism. The foundation of fascism. — Cheshire

No it isn’t.

No it isn’t. — Xtrix

Compelling contrarianism.

It's the basis for tribalism. The foundation of fascism. It reduces the human condition to some narrow division of ideals and places us further from a constructive process. — Cheshire

While that may be true, it is also the basis for the forces required to defeat those ills. A destructive process.

It's a tool that can be used for ill or for good. Removing the tool from the work bench doesn't make all work the better.

at least acknowledging that people are a little more complicated than this or that ascription. — Cheshire

They can be, but when they throw their lot in with X, they have branded themselves with a group and with no aid from me.

Devaluing the Nazis is a bad thing, according to new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit.

Dehumanizing is arguably bad; devaluing groups is perfectly normal, and often just.

They can be, but when they throw their lot in with X, they have branded themselves with a group and with no aid from me. — James Riley

I still argue that it is better isolate the ideas from the people. I don't think we lose anything from failing to make additional assumptions of worth. But, maybe I'm still idealistic in my non-judgement of people; based on my desire not to be judged by those who don't know me. Or a victim of the egos desire to increase its own value based on breaking down others. The narcissistic trap so many would be intellectuals fall into to.

Dehumanizing is arguably bad; devaluing groups is perfectly normal, and often just. — Xtrix

:100: Individuals often use dehumanization to harden their hearts and make killing easier. A seasoned soldier, on the other hand, doesn't need to dehumanize to kill. The killing is a business based upon devaluation. Killing Nazis was business and business was good.

Individuals often use dehumanization to harden their hearts and make killing easier. A seasoned soldier, on the other hand, doesn't need to dehumanize to kill. The killing is a business based upon devaluation. Killing Nazis was business and business was good. — James Riley

Devaluing groups in the context of war is a good strategy for war. Do we want to create a society that operates on the rules of war?

I still argue that it is better isolate the ideas from the people. — Cheshire

I agree, but when the people throw their lot in with, and identify with an idea, I see no problem in holding them to it, especially if doing so will free up resources for others who could avail themselves of a good. For instance, if a guy won't take the vax because it is not FDA approved, then he should not take other non-FDA approved drugs to save him from being killed by that which the vax would have save him from. If he thinks Covid is BS, he should not take up the limited resources and time of individuals who could tend to others who need those resources or time. In a tip o' the hat to humanity, we can allow him to beg on bended knee, confessing the error of his ways, and swearing off the idea he had once thrown his lot in with; and then we re-value him, treat him, save him, and send him forth as a soldier to convert his former comrades.

Truth is not only stranger than fiction, it is more interesting. — William Randolph

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken

When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra. — Theodore Woodward

Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. — William Of Ockham

Time to drop the bombs,

Certum est, quia impossibile. — Tertullian

Credo quia absurdum. — Tertullian

Do we want to create a society that operates on the rules of war? — Cheshire

See the tool example. Everything doesn't have to be either/or. There are gradients in life. But the left, in general does not stand up on their hind legs when doing so might keep us all from war. They let the right push them around and use those methods until war becomes necessary. Then they get their asses up off the couch, kick some ass, and go back to their lives. Maybe if they stood up a little sooner, engaged in a little push-back, speak a little of the right's language, then we would not end up in a war. So yeah, fuck Trump and his acolytes. I hope the DOJ burns them down.