Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32996

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There is no way in hell that those figures represent the "middle range of the projections". That's fucking stupid. 

Well if they ran a projection based on doing absolutely nothing then it could be the "middle" range. But yeah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Well if they ran a projection based on doing absolutely nothing then it could be the "middle" range. But yeah. 

You mean if they ran ALL projections based on doing absolutely nothing, if could be middle range. 

 

But of course, that is not how these things work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You mean if they ran ALL projections based on doing absolutely nothing, if could be middle range. 

 

But of course, that is not how these things work. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615360/cdc-cmu-forecasts-coronavirus-spread/

Now the agency is tapping several dozen teams to adapt their techniques to forecast the spread of the coronavirus in an effort to make more informed decisions. Among them is a group at Carnegie Mellon University that, over the last five years, has consistently achieved some of the best results. Last year, the group was designated one of two National Centers of Excellence for Influenza Forecasting and asked to lead the design of a community-wide forecasting process.

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I didn’t bother to read this but noticed known troll Zavala gave it positive rep so I negged it sight unseen. I encouraged all non trolls to do the same. 

I’m one of the few (only?) people to share any local level insight on the situation as it evolves. And I’ve been pretty much non political. Have only criticized Trump’s initial response. Is that useful? Idk. 

You meanwhile, are just a sad, deluded poster who contributes nothing and encourages people to neg posts because you assume you disagree with them. You represent the worst side of the internet and actively lower the level of discourse. You are the mirror image of the Facebook/Fox News poster you so despise.  I hope you find something better to do with your time. 
 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3308

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well if they ran a projection based on doing absolutely nothing then it could be the "middle" range. But yeah. 

Yeah, I read that article this morning, and it seemed pretty irresponsible the way it was reported.  It mentions that their were A, B, C and D models prepared, and "one of them" showed these results.  I suspect that was the "we do absolutely nothing" model, but it was totally silent beyond it being one of several approaches.  That's the type of thing that's going to warrant some accusations of them being click-baity in some of their stories.

For those that are curious, the excerpt from the story is included below.

Spoiler

One of the agency’s top disease modelers, Matthew Biggerstaff, presented the group on the phone call with four possible scenarios — A, B, C and D — based on characteristics of the virus, including estimates of how transmissible it is and the severity of the illness it can cause. The assumptions, reviewed by The New York Times, were shared with about 50 expert teams to model how the virus could tear through the population — and what might stop it.

The C.D.C.’s scenarios were depicted in terms of percentages of the population. Translated into absolute numbers by independent experts using simple models of how viruses spread, the worst-case figures would be staggering if no actions were taken to slow transmission.

Between 160 million and 214 million people in the United States could be infected over the course of the epidemic, according to one projection. That could last months or even over a year, with infections concentrated in shorter periods, staggered across time in different communities, experts said. As many as 200,000 to 1.7 million people could die.

 

Edited by Gap03
Excerpt for those that couldn't get beyond paywall
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17625

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You mean if they ran ALL projections based on doing absolutely nothing, if could be middle range. 

 

But of course, that is not how these things work. 

I thought he meant middle of the road of the "do nothing" projections, not middle of the road of all projections. I could see it being middle of the road for the former, it appears to have higher assumed spread but lower CFR than what we've seen so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

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

I thought he meant middle of the road of the "do nothing" projections, not middle of the road of all projections. I could see it being middle of the road for the former, it appears to have higher assumed spread but lower CFR than what we've seen so far. 

I'm taking the twat at face value.

The New York Times has managed to get their hands on the still-not-public CDC projections. One model estimates 160 to 214 million infected in the US, with 200,000 to 1.7 million dead. That’s middle range of the projections what I’m seeing.

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29192

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Is it insane that the NYtimes is presenting not-for-the-public information on a pandemic? Isn't that irresponsible journalism? Oh wait, who am I kidding, it's the NYtimes

there's a great number of people in this country that need to be hit by a truck to pay attention.

this isn't about china.  this is about personal responsibility.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17625

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'm taking the twat at face value.

The New York Times has managed to get their hands on the still-not-public CDC projections. One model estimates 160 to 214 million infected in the US, with 200,000 to 1.7 million dead. That’s middle range of the projections what I’m seeing.

I meant "he" as in Huckleberry, not the tweet. I agree the reporting seems irresponsible and misleading. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3308

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

there's a great number of people in this country that need to be hit by a truck to pay attention.

this isn't about china.  this is about personal responsibility.

I agree with this.  I have no problems whatsoever with them providing good faith estimates to open people's eyes.  My objection was to them disclosing numbers without explaining to which model these results related, especially if there was a wide spread among the results of the models (which I kind of expected).

For comparison:

  • Stories were circulating earlier that Congress had been briefed that between 70-150m people in the US would likely be infected.
  • Another epidemiologist (Michael Osterholm) projected around 96m infections in the US with ~480,000 deaths .  

I found Osterholm's interview with Joe Rogan pretty intriguing (estimates about 1:30-2:15) :

 

Edited by Gap03
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31495

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Goredho said:

He has made quite a turnaround in the past week!  I give him and you credit for being willing to quit pretending this is much ado about nothing, admitting error at least implicitly with a change in strategy and generally acting more responsibly with regards to the coronavirus.

But I am going to have wait to actually see Trump translate words and posterboard diagrams into action before I join you for the mushroom surprise at the Orange Man Wet Market. 

A big part of the turnaround, I'm sure, is the fact that the market is completely in the toilet.  There's no point any longer in trying to pussyfoot around it to preserve "beautiful 401ks."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I’m one of the few (only?) people to share any local level insight on the situation as it evolves. And I’ve been pretty much non political. Have only criticized Trump’s initial response. Is that useful? Idk. 

You meanwhile, are just a sad, deluded poster who contributes nothing and encourages people to neg posts because you assume you disagree with them. You represent the worst side of the internet and actively lower the level of discourse. You are the mirror image of the Facebook/Fox News poster you so despise.  I hope you find something better to do with your time. 
 

Coming for you I will take this as a compliment.

Now tell us more about how well trump is doing as president and how much more money you make than everyone else here. Its fascinating internet stuff.

Oh and stop trying to claim you are contributing anything to the discussion here. We’re all part of the same hypocrisy senator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

So, I’ve been away from the Internet today because of maddening work shit and going to the hell that is the grocery store.

I finally sit down to catch up. I’ve been keeping up with this thread and the DT thread.

All I have to say that the way the discussion has been handled is ridiculous.

Can’t even mention the fucking President’s name in the DT thread or the objectively terrible management of this crisis over there without the pants shitting Republicans in hiding going apoplectic. And the mods have bent to their crying and wailing.

And yet, this thread has been an absolute shitshow this afternoon with no word at all from the mods.

I get not wanting the DT thread to devolve into nothing but shittalking but the fact that nothing negative can be said about the way this administration has handled this, Trump’s stupid behavior during today’s PC, or the lack of action from McConnell and the Senate because some fragile sheep are having to finally face the idiocy they support is something else.

And it is that one sided because NONE of the babies over there crying about it would say jackshit if someone posted something negative about the way Pelosi has handled this.

It’s a fascinating real time look at the way unengaged and uniformed people deal with their shallow political beliefs being smacked with reality.

Sorry, I had to vent. Everyone got their toilet paper??

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31495

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Is it insane that the NYtimes is presenting not-for-the-public information on a pandemic? Isn't that irresponsible journalism? Oh wait, who am I kidding, it's the NYtimes

The first question is why is it not for the public?  Is there a legitimate reason for it?

You can't answer any of your questions without answering the first.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I hope all of the reproductive items were trimmed from the bill. I prefer bills to be simple and contain the items pertinent to the funding, in this case: sick leave, testing, and food. i understand that add-ons are a thing, but it's frustrating and adds to the slick salesperson image I have of Reps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

So, I’ve been away from the Internet today because of maddening work shit and going to the hell that is the grocery store.

I finally sit down to catch up. I’ve been keeping up with this thread and the DT thread.

All I have to say that the way the discussion has been handled is ridiculous.

Can’t even mention the fucking President’s name in the DT thread or the objectively terrible management of this crisis over there without the pants shitting Republicans in hiding going apoplectic. And the mods have bent to their crying and wailing.

And yet, this thread has been an absolute shitshow this afternoon with no word at all from the mods.

I get not wanting the DT thread to devolve into nothing but shittalking but the fact that nothing negative can be said about the way this administration has handled this, Trump’s stupid behavior during today’s PC, or the lack of action from McConnell and the Senate because some fragile sheep are having to finally face the idiocy they support is something else.

And it is that one sided because NONE of the babies over there crying about it would say jackshit if someone posted something negative about the way Pelosi has handled this.

It’s a fascinating real time look at the way unengaged and uniformed people deal with their shallow political beliefs being smacked with reality.

Sorry, I had to vent. Everyone got their toilet paper??

We’re on a Zavala shift so of course the discussion went to crap. GRUHorn providing his assistance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:


Sorry, I had to vent. Everyone got their toilet paper??

Believe me, if anyone on Surly runs out, Brisket is going to get a knock on the door.

Sorry you've been slammed, I suspect it will continue for awhile. Got a call from my oldest out in Pasadena (Cali not Texas) and they've been sent home as a lab mate has a fever. Kiddo swears she thinks she had it a month ago and I do remember she was pretty sick and couldn't figure out why as she'd had the flu shot. Since the shot this year wasn't a great match, everyone who came down with colds, etc from mid January on (especially in her area as there are a lot of international students and travel) is going to be wondering if they were already exposed or not. Reminded that protocols were still to be cautious and not expose others so she is going to stay in and monitor for symptoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

She and her campaign promoted him because he was - in their collective wisdom - the easiest to beat. She needs to go away and take her Frankensteinian creation with her. Utter insanity praise her - when she created him.

Offense intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13045

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

She and her campaign promoted him because he was - in their collective wisdom - the easiest to beat. She needs to go away and take her Frankensteinian creation with her. Utter insanity praise her - when she created him.

Offense intended. 

She didn’t create anything. Stop blame shifting from the people who’s fault he really is.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

She didn’t create anything. Stop blame shifting from the people who’s fault he really is.

Read: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428

You have been fed fake news. You should not repeat fake news. It was a Clinton campaign strategy - named Pied Piper. It failed this country horribly. Stop.

So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Like 2
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...