Jump to content

Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

InkaUtexas

By InkaUtexas
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Why are you getting so emotional? 
 

What word would you use to describe rules that say kids have to wear masks outside at summer camp based on little to no scientific backing? 
 

As time passes it’s becoming more clear to me that this kind of crap is just about maintaining control.  

 

I’m just glad we live in Texas where this regard level “guidance” is largely ignored. 

Yep. It’s all about “maintaining control” of the fake kids of fake chiros in snowy San Antonio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    2461

  • dcar00

    1722

  • Cheeseweasel

    1552

  • MNLonghornFUKM

    1324

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Uncle Boobs
Uncle Boobs

Against my better judgment and several beers deep, I have taken you up on this, potentially ending my streak of totally worthless posts. I have done 3 and 7 day averages only on the Worldometer data. 

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Daughter’s home. A little PTSD, we’re picking up Whataburger to help.

Coelenterate Fuccboi
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Just try and imagine GreenspointTexas being the person to intubate you as you fight for your life against COVID-19. You’re laying there gasping for air while he chastises you for all the things you li

Posted Images

  • Popular Post
DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
8 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

 

 


Never trust someone with those set of eyebrows

 

perhaps the craziest part of this simulation for me is the 'IT'S JUST THE FLU' crowd mocking people's predictions.

remember when 'BODIES IN TREES OMGZZZ!' was the go-to retort when people predicted 300K dead...welp, 578K deaths later and y'all are still fucking yapping. 

crazy simulation. 

  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Better than Ilya Ehrenburg

Ilya Ehrenburg was a fierce anti-nazi in WWII. After Stalin died, Ilya help steer the Soviet Union to move away from the horrors of Stalinism towards a more open society. 

Why would you be against Ilya Ehrenburg - a man who helped defeat Nazism and Stalinism?  Who taught you that? 

Genuinely curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16491

Posted
Posted
It's almost as if these people have had this condition their entire lives and we can isolate and focus attention directly to them - as they are compromised, how may other variants and illnesses are we ignoring?  Not comparing this to the flu, but what about that?  For the compromised, it can be a death sentence.  

What about the flu? We showed this year that the seasonal flu can be essentially eliminated with minimal measures. That saves tens of thousands of lives, many of them children as you love to point out. Not to mention the kind of quality of life and productivity gains to be had from not getting the flu because it blows.

Having seen an giant real world experiment on this play out, from an ethical standpoint there’s no question that everyone should get a flu shot and wearing a mask indoors during flu season should be normalized. No question at all. Is that going to happen? No, probably not. But again, that goes back to value of the common good versus even a minor individual inconvenience.

Your entire argument is that even that minor act of consideration for others is a bridge too far. Which, okay, I obviously don’t agree but it’s a philosophical difference, I can’t say that’s objectively incorrect. Obviously a large portion of our society believes this. Trying to be coy about that so you don’t feel like or come off as a gigantic asshole is what’s getting you tied up.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Your entire argument is that even that minor act of consideration for others is a bridge too far. Which, okay, I obviously don’t agree but it’s a philosophical difference, I can’t say that’s objectively incorrect. Obviously a large portion of our society believes this. Trying to be coy about that so you don’t feel like or come off as a gigantic asshole is what’s getting you tied up.

I can. It is objectively and morally incorrect. It maximizes harm and minimizes good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquor and Poker

Liquor and Poker 3659

Posted
Posted

This conversation played out last night at a happy hour for my kids' school.  These are pretty damn close to exact quotes - no paraphrasing:

Wife - "Glad they are supposed to open up the Pfizer vaccine for 12-15s, so my kids can get it."

Drunk Mom A - "Why? Do you really think they're at any risk?"

Wife - "Well, probably not, but it's not just about them, it's about who they interact with."

Drunk Mom B - "But you and your husband are vaxxed.  Isn't your Mom?  So what difference does it make?"

Wife - "I was talking about strangers, other people they're around, places they go.  Plus the possibility of further driving this thing into the ground."

Drunk Mom A - "Why does that matter to you?"

 

To me, that's the debate in a nutshell.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoJames

MoJames 8241

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

This conversation played out last night at a happy hour for my kids' school.  These are pretty damn close to exact quotes - no paraphrasing:

Wife - "Glad they are supposed to open up the Pfizer vaccine for 12-15s, so my kids can get it."

Drunk Mom A - "Why? Do you really think they're at any risk?"

Wife - "Well, probably not, but it's not just about them, it's about who they interact with."

Drunk Mom B - "But you and your husband are vaxxed.  Isn't your Mom?  So what difference does it make?"

Wife - "I was talking about strangers, other people they're around, places they go.  Plus the possibility of further driving this thing into the ground."

Drunk Mom A - "Why does that matter to you?"

 

To me, that's the debate in a nutshell.  

I see no reason to vaccinate children at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Or our friends at the NYT:

2.2 million people in the United States could die.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/coronavirus-fatality-rate-white-house.html

that is incredibly fucking dishonest:

Quote

Sweeping new federal recommendations announced on Monday for Americans to sharply limit their activities appeared to draw on a dire scientific report warning that, without action by the government and individuals to slow the spread of coronavirus and suppress new cases, 2.2 million people in the United States could die.

in context. i bolded and italicized the relevant part for you.

even with mitigation strategies in place, we still lost nearly 600k people. imagine if we didn't shut things down. see india.

why did you leave out the context?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gyroprotagonist

gyroprotagonist 2591

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

This conversation played out last night at a happy hour for my kids' school.  These are pretty damn close to exact quotes - no paraphrasing:

Wife - "Glad they are supposed to open up the Pfizer vaccine for 12-15s, so my kids can get it."

Drunk Mom A - "Why? Do you really think they're at any risk?"

Wife - "Well, probably not, but it's not just about them, it's about who they interact with."

Drunk Mom B - "But you and your husband are vaxxed.  Isn't your Mom?  So what difference does it make?"

Wife - "I was talking about strangers, other people they're around, places they go.  Plus the possibility of further driving this thing into the ground."

Drunk Mom A - "Why does that matter to you?"

 

To me, that's the debate in a nutshell.  

drunk mom pics not showing up.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26437

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

why did you leave out the context?

Because it was a response to this:

BREAKING: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky warns that she feels “impending doom” with the Covid case trajectory. “Right now I’m scared.”
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquor and Poker

Liquor and Poker 3659

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MoJames said:

Let me rephrase. Once 100% of Americans over 70 years old get vaccinated, I might consider getting it for my 5 and 8 year old.

Two things.  100% is objectively impossible, but I get your point.  And to me, the vaccine calculus for a 5 (or 8 )-year-old is very different from the one for a 12- or 15-year-old (like mine).  I wouldn't expect or want Gardasil-9 for my 5 year old daughter, but by 15, absolutely. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MNLonghornFUKM

MNLonghornFUKM 8799

Posted
Posted
perhaps the craziest part of this simulation for me is the 'IT'S JUST THE FLU' crowd mocking people's predictions.
remember when 'BODIES IN TREES OMGZZZ!' was the go-to retort when people predicted 300K dead...welp, 578K deaths later and y'all are still fucking yapping. 
crazy simulation. 

Kind of a bitch move of the person who doesn’t make predictions to mock the predictions of those who mocked predictions of others.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

My oldest won't be eligible for the vaccine until the next youngest age tranche.  But wife and I have discussed it extensively. 

And I won't be pressured by politics, other parents, science, or even parental instincts.  

Not until I've heard from Jenny McCarthy god dammit! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Because it was a response to this:

BREAKING: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky warns that she feels “impending doom” with the Covid case trajectory. “Right now I’m scared.”
 

no it wasn't. it was in response to me pointing out how fucking wrong you and the brain worms crew ultimately were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Separate sections for fans. Creepy. 

This has different levels to it. I think I’d actually like to sit in a section that’s 1/3 capacity. Also, aren’t you actually more likely to spread illness having unvaccinated people in their own spread out section? They’re no vaccinated people between them as a physical buffer. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 42844

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

This has different levels to it. I think I’d actually like to sit in a section that’s 1/3 capacity. Also, aren’t you actually more likely to spread illness having unvaccinated people in their own spread out section? They’re no vaccinated people between them as a physical buffer. 

There's a real easy fix to this but I have no issues with stadiums saying unvaxxed get less access. The Rangers took the opposite approach where they don't give a shit if you're vaxxed or not. If you are wanting to socially distance, you get to sit in the upper levels. Seems sensible to me. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16491

Posted
Posted
There's a real easy fix to this but I have no issues with stadiums saying unvaxxed get less access. The Rangers took the opposite approach where they don't give a shit if you're vaxxed or not. If you are wanting to socially distance, you get to sit in the upper levels. Seems sensible to me. 

Rangers games are another example of things that didn’t touch 100 percent capacity long before the pandemic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

raw

lulz. you know what you did. and resorting to gifs is the last bastion of someone with nothing left to argue. kind of sad.

it's shit like that kind of intentional dishonesty that has us a year and nearly 600k dead americans later, still needing to mask up in public. i'm fully vaxxed and have been for more than a month now, and i still wear a mask. it's because the guy next to me or in line with me at heb has no idea if i'm vaxxed. i still stand 6 feet apart from others. because they have no idea if i'm vaxxed or not.

it's not about me. it's not about you. it's about all of us together.

it's amazing how so many of yall seem to miss that point.

but go on with your dishonesty and misrepresentations and selfish world view. you're only extending this painful period to be longer than necessary. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26437

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

it's amazing how so many of yall seem to miss that point.

Here's the Reader's Digest version for you. I'll go slow since you are obviously regarded.

@MNLonghornFUKM on post #57060, posted Twitter link to the CDC woman's concern of "IMPENDING DOOM"

@DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt  on post #57065 responded with "remember when 'BODIES IN TREES OMGZZZ!' was the go-to retort when people predicted 300K dead"

I responded on post #57072 Or our friends at the NYT: 2.2 million people in the United States could die.

Got it? Good. 

angry will ferrell GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, MoJames said:

Let me rephrase. Once 100% of Americans over 70 years old get vaccinated, I might consider getting it for my 5 and 8 year old.

The only reason I can think of to vaccinate children is that it is an easy check point to make sure people get vaccinated. But given that the vaccines aren't approved for that age range and that its possible the small risks associated with the vaccines are still greater than the risks of Covid-19 at that age, it would be inappropriate right now. Our current focus should be on getting adults, in particular the at risk, vaccinated. Maybe 2 years from now the Covid-19 vaccine will become part of the set of inoculations given to newborns/children. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Here's the Reader's Digest version for you. I'll go slow since you are obviously regarded.

@MNLonghornFUKM on post #57060, posted Twitter link to the CDC woman's concern of "IMPENDING DOOM"

@DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt  on post #57065 responded with "remember when 'BODIES IN TREES OMGZZZ!' was the go-to retort when people predicted 300K dead"

I responded on post #57072 Or our friends at the NYT: 2.2 million people in the United States could die.

Got it? Good. 

angry will ferrell GIF

New York times did not predict 2.2 million dead. And that number has nothing to do with what @DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt was talking about. Hayden was right. You missed the point. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2035

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Here's the Reader's Digest version for you. I'll go slow since you are obviously regarded.

@MNLonghornFUKM on post #57060, posted Twitter link to the CDC woman's concern of "IMPENDING DOOM"

@DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt  on post #57065 responded with "remember when 'BODIES IN TREES OMGZZZ!' was the go-to retort when people predicted 300K dead"

I responded on post #57072 Or our friends at the NYT: 2.2 million people in the United States could die.

Got it? Good. 

angry will ferrell GIF

Slower for the people in the back!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15208

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Your entire argument is that even that minor act of consideration for others is a bridge too far. Which, okay, I obviously don’t agree but it’s a philosophical difference, I can’t say that’s objectively incorrect. Obviously a large portion of our society believes this. Trying to be coy about that so you don’t feel like or come off as a gigantic asshole is what’s getting you tied up.

Suggesting that I have a moral obligation to get the vaccine because without it there is a slim chance that I would pass the virus on to someone that can't get the vaccine for whatever reason is akin to me saying that you should never unnecessarily drive, because each time you do you're putting others at risk of serious injury or death.

It's unprecedented and illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Johnson

Don Johnson 4745

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The only reason I can think of to vaccinate children is that it is an easy check point to make sure people get vaccinated. But given that the vaccines aren't approved for that age range and that its possible the small risks associated with the vaccines are still greater than the risks of Covid-19 at that age, it would be inappropriate right now. Our current focus should be on getting adults, in particular the at risk, vaccinated. Maybe 2 years from now the Covid-19 vaccine will become part of the set of inoculations given to newborns/children. 

I got my first shot the first day I could get it.  Convinced my wife to do the same.  I have not done the research on whether my elementary aged kids will get it.  Obviously, I'm not against it, but I don't think I will be in any rush at all.  With Covid as it is, I don't see the risk to them.  And if a variant pops up overseas that is harmful/deadly to kids, I will just get them the shot then.

I agree with your post, but am a bit surprised, because to me, it flies in the face of the "greater good" debate on this.  That's roughly 50 million people in the US that can get it, pass it along to those who can't get the vaccine and keeps it around so that it can mutate.  Or so I was told yesterday.

Edited by Don Johnson
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquor and Poker

Liquor and Poker 3659

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Suggesting that I have a moral obligation to get the vaccine because without it there is a slim chance that I would pass the virus on to someone that can't get the vaccine for whatever reason is akin to me saying that you should never unnecessarily drive, because each time you do you're putting others at risk of serious injury or death.

It's unprecedented and illogical.

Saying that getting a two-shot vaccine is equal to "never driving again" is a false equivalence at best.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Saying that getting a two-shot vaccine is equal to "never driving again" is a false equivalence at best.

Not getting the shot, it's the logic that you MUST get the shot to save a fractional percentage of the population that have medical issues that preclude them from taking vaccines of any kind (including COVID).

Every time you drive somewhere that isn't absolutely critical, something for pleasure like going to a movie or visiting a friend, you are putting other people at risk. You could make a mistake during your leisurely drive and inadvertently cause the death of an innocent person that was on their way to work or some critical chore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I got my first shot the first day I could get it.  Convinced my wife to do the same.  I have not done the research on whether my elementary aged kids will get it.  Obviously, I'm not against it, but I don't think I will be in any rush at all.  With Covid as it is, I don't see the risk to them.  And if a variant pops up overseas that is harmful/deadly to kids, I will just get them the shot then.

I agree with your post, but am a bit surprised, because to me, it flies in the face of the "greater good" debate on this.  That's roughly 50 million people in the US that can get it, pass it along to those who can't get the vaccine and keeps it around so that it can mutate.  Or so I was told yesterday.

I'm not sure how you mean. If vaccinating young children would cause more harm to them than good, then it isn't in the interest of the "greater good" that they get the vaccine. It is a net negative. Or perhaps you think others have been arguing that we should expose a few to potential harm in order to prevent more harm to society? I suppose it is possible that vaccinations of children, even if it causes a net harm to the children, may produce the overall more beneficial result to society. But that seems highly speculative and unlikely given available data (children don't get sick and don't pass it easily). At any rate, I've never believed the analysis should be so simple. Any medical treatment has to also have a net benefit for the intended patient, not just society as whole. Vaccinations for adults easily meets that threshold. With children it is uncertain, so holding off is the correct and ethical course of conduct. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...