so not saving lives, but college football...that is the motivation for exercising common sense I hate these politicians
I agree it seems pretty tone deaf. That said any argument that get's people do do what is needed to fight this disease is going to help.
To me that is a dude who understands his audience. Now the awkward thing is he has to deliver. If you go from 10% of Mississippi to 16% of Mississippi wearing masks, and the virus is still horrible in a couple of months, they will still demand their football, "just like you said, peckerwood." (delivered with mask hanging on chin.)
“Please wear a mask, people are dying because of this virus.” “wear a ******* mask, or we won’t be able to watch college football”
Watching the president speak to the nation you know he’s fat as hell when we can see his t*** through his suit.
According to worldometers, there were 11,210 new cases in Texas today and 207 deaths. Also, according to today’s numbers provided by the COVID Tracking Project, the positive test rate was over 18% (9,167 new cases / 50,262 total tests). I keep hoping that I’ll wake up one day and see real progress towards containing the spread of the virus in Texas, but, I quickly realize that will not happen any time soon because too many people are selfish idiots, and our leadership will not take all the necessary steps to get things under control.
"Did the Lockdowns Work?": https://200proofliberals.blogspot.com/2020/08/did-lockdowns-work.html have not read the study cited. Tuesday, August 4, 2020 Did the Lockdowns Work? Here's a new paper by the excellent Christian Bjørnskov arguing they did not reduce mortality. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665588 Note that the defender of the lockdowns bears the burden of proof demonstrating otherwise. Simple post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning will not do. Do some social science, please. Also, when you try to justify them, please be sure to do a full cost-benefit analysis, taking into account lost schooling, the massive drop in GDP, lost jobs, increased suicides, reduced treatment for other diseases, increased child hunger, the re-emergence of tuberculosis, and so on. No using overly paranoid, unscientific models which assume no natural immunity and a 75% infection rate. Please be sure to account for what appears to be the re-emergence of the virus in the early lockdown countries; it's very possible all they did was delay the mass spreading of the disease. I'd like also to remind you that your original argument for lockdowns was not to make the disease go away, but instead to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. No gaslighting us, please, by changing your justifications after the fact. By Jason Brennan at August 04, 2020
The link for the study is broke. Just a quick question for you, why do you think Sweden has 569 deaths per mill pop, compared to Norway at 47, Finland at 60? A Swedish economic teacher is writing a paper about lockdowns not reducing mortality, that's really interesting.
a followup on the discussion we had about this last week https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/08/04...ps-mishandling-of-the-pandemic-killed-people/
To make matters worse we are about the only state left that refuses to allow absentee voting for people who fear getting Coronavirus. Our Trump soldiers simply don't give a ****. They are hell bent on forcing people into mask optional polling stations to vote at all cost. They don't care if people are forced to vote in person and take that risk, as long as they get brownie points from Trump, who thinks it's fine to vote by mail in his registered state.
Could you give me your honest thoughts on the question I asked? I skimmed the article and the first thing that interested me is what countries he used for data, it's 24 countries, I checked which countries were included and I can see Italy, France, and Spain we're included. Do you think including countries that we're hit massively before lockdowns were put in place if a fair thing to do in a study about mortality in relation to lockdowns?
Really? Are you sure? 3 countries, incredibly similar geographically, culturally, population density, they all got hit at similar times, I just wonder what the reason is behind Sweden specifically having a death rate 1000% higher then it's neighbors. What are your thoughts on this?
I don't live in Sweden. I don't follow Swedish politics. Nor am I an epidemiologist. I also don't live in Norway. Or Finland. I also don't follow the politics in those countries. And I repeat that I am not an epidemiologist. So when I say I honestly have no idea why Sweden has 569 deaths per mill pop, compared to Norway at 47, and Finland at 60, I honestly have no idea. not precisely sure what "this" refers to. not trying to be coy, I don't know what you're asking me to respond to
