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

Anastasis

Anastasis 23,469

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

Agreed - be curious as to where they are getting their data and what range they are showing it from.

My hunch is that JH's data feed is including the back logged results in new case counts, and not treating them the same way as DSHS (add to cum. totals, but not the daily new counts).  This creates misleading bump whenever the back logs representing data collected over an extended timeframe are cleared. Same thing was the case last time I saw one of these click bait tweets, I think from Houston Chronicle. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fletch

Fletch 5,800

Posted
Posted

I got roasted on the football board for saying I’m interested in going to the game this weekend. Yeah I said some shitty stuff back then, but so far so good testing wise and it’s an outdoor venue, I’d be wearing a mask the whole time and then find a spot in the upper deck where no ones within 20 feet of me. I know this is mainly a college football board, but Jesus some of the posters around here are annoyingly stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrazilHorn

BrazilHorn 6,606

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Fletch said:

I got roasted on the football board for saying I’m interested in going to the game this weekend. Yeah I said some shitty stuff back then, but so far so good testing wise and it’s an outdoor venue, I’d be wearing a mask the whole time and then find a spot in the upper deck where no ones within 20 feet of me. I know this is mainly a college football board, but Jesus some of the posters around here are annoyingly stupid

Go to the game. Just take appropriate precautions. I would also after game probably not go see an elderly parent or at risk friend for a couple of weeks just to be on safe side.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,781

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Rule number one in the pandemic playbook should have always been and will now always be, wear a mask.  There is literally ZERO downside.  Imagine where we are at now if we simply said “Mask Up” as soon as COVID reached the US.

And the first thing Trump should've done back in January was to invoke the DPA to produce masks and PPE on a massive scale. Even in February. But late in Feb. he was calling the virus a hoax and has mostly belittled mask use for nine months. It's criminal. 

Edited by WhatTheBuck
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3,432

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Rule number one in the pandemic playbook should have always been and will now always be, wear a mask.  There is literally ZERO downside.  Imagine where we are at now if we simply said “Mask Up” as soon as COVID reached the US.

Well that in and of itself would not work and might give a false sense of security which might lead to riskier behavior which leads to fear...anger...the dark side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,139

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

 

"New England Journal of Medicine?  Never heard of it.  It's fake news.  I prefer Englands that didn't have to be renewed.  Lots of doctors are saying I did more to save lives from COVID than any president in history.  LAW AND ORDER!"

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9,208

Posted
Posted

I hate that move. They've now blown their objectivity and become political. More fuel to the anti-media anti-science movement. Nobody gives a shit about your political thoughts, New England journal of medicine. You will change exactly zero votes. Stick to objective science and medicine and stop exacerbating the problem.

It's amazing how stupid and short sighted academics can be when they think everyone should care about their super important opinions.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5,793

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I hate that move. They've now blown their objectivity and become political. More fuel to the anti-media anti-science movement. Nobody gives a shit about your political thoughts, New England journal of medicine. You will change exactly zero votes. Stick to objective science and medicine and stop exacerbating the problem.

It's amazing how stupid and short sighted academics can be when they think everyone should care about their super important opinions.

 

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

I hate that move. They've now blown their objectivity and become political. More fuel to the anti-media anti-science movement. Nobody gives a shit about your political thoughts, New England journal of medicine. You will change exactly zero votes. Stick to objective science and medicine and stop exacerbating the problem.

It's amazing how stupid and short sighted academics can be when they think everyone should care about their super important opinions.

 

 

While normally I would agree with you, Donald Trump is the fucking president. 

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Fletch said:

I got roasted on the football board for saying I’m interested in going to the game this weekend. Yeah I said some shitty stuff back then, but so far so good testing wise and it’s an outdoor venue, I’d be wearing a mask the whole time and then find a spot in the upper deck where no ones within 20 feet of me. I know this is mainly a college football board, but Jesus some of the posters around here are annoyingly stupid

See you there. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54,230

Posted
Posted
Quote
File photo of Rodney Anderson, Chairman of the Dallas County Republican Party.

File photo of Rodney Anderson, Chairman of the Dallas County Republican Party.

Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Rodney Anderson tested positive for COVID-19 Tuesday following a personal event over the weekend, a party spokesman said Wednesday morning.

Anderson and his family will continue to quarantine for the next two weeks, the statement said. No staff or volunteers were exposed.

"The Chairman is expected to make a full and quick recovery, and wants to remind everyone to continue to wear their masks and make safe social decisions," the statement read.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27,561

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
18 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I hate that move. They've now blown their objectivity and become political. More fuel to the anti-media anti-science movement. Nobody gives a shit about your political thoughts, New England journal of medicine. You will change exactly zero votes. Stick to objective science and medicine and stop exacerbating the problem.

It's amazing how stupid and short sighted academics can be when they think everyone should care about their super important opinions.

 

 

It’s not political. The virus is not political. He’s literally killing people. Doctors have a duty to try and save lives and the biggest measure that can be taken to do that at the moment is to vote trump out

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4,378

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I hate that move. They've now blown their objectivity and become political. More fuel to the anti-media anti-science movement. Nobody gives a shit about your political thoughts, New England journal of medicine. You will change exactly zero votes. Stick to objective science and medicine and stop exacerbating the problem.

It's amazing how stupid and short sighted academics can be when they think everyone should care about their super important opinions.

 

 

They are sticking to objective science and medicine. Trump's actions have exacerbated the outbreak. You're confusing objectivity with fence sitting.  Anthropologists in Nazi Germany could have objectively said Hitler was wrong about the Jews. 

So you're falling into the trap that Trump wants you to fall into.  Don't fence sit between right and wrong.  The positions of white supremacists don't deserve equal airtime. Nor do the positions of science deniers. Both are objectively wrong.

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

BradInATX 9,208

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

It’s not political. The virus is not political. He’s literally killing people. Doctors have a duty to try and save lives and the biggest measure that can be taken to do that at the moment is to vote trump out

A scientific journal endorsing a political candidate is not political?

k. I guess I can't really find anywhere to begin to debate that if that's your stance. 

Listening to emotion over strategy is why Democrats continue to lose despite the majority of the country agreeing with them on most things. This endorsement will change zero votes, but will continue to exacerbate the distrust and politicization of media and science. I'm not saying it's right or fair that that's the case, but it is the case. 

 

It's as if you've seen what's happened to our media and the relationship between the populace and journalism over the last couple of decades and have decided that you're really happy with that outcome and want to see science and medicine go the exact same way. I don't. But I'm not a party loyalist, either,

Edited by BradInATX
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27,561

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/8/2020 at 3:52 PM, BradInATX said:

A scientific journal endorsing a political candidate is not political?

k. I guess I can't really find anywhere to begin to debate that if that's your stance. 

Listening to emotion over strategy is why Democrats continue to lose despite the majority of the country agreeing with them on most things. This endorsement will change zero votes, but will continue to exacerbate the distrust and politicization of media and science. I'm not saying it's right or fair that that's the case, but it is the case. 

 

It's as if you've seen what's happened to our media and the relationship between the populace and journalism over the last couple of decades and have decided that you're really happy with that outcome and want to see science and medicine go the exact same way. I don't. But I'm not a party loyalist, either,

Donald Trump’s covid policy is objectively the greatest public health risk in the US at this time. If the editors of a journal want to point that out, as well as recommend steps to take to minimize that risk I have zero problem with that. And not only am I not a party loyalist I have been called everything from Trumpkin to traitor on this very website

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

Dahobbs 17,534

Posted
Posted
On 10/8/2020 at 3:52 PM, BradInATX said:

A scientific journal endorsing a political candidate is not political?

k. I guess I can't really find anywhere to begin to debate that if that's your stance. 

Listening to emotion over strategy is why Democrats continue to lose despite the majority of the country agreeing with them on most things. This endorsement will change zero votes, but will continue to exacerbate the distrust and politicization of media and science. I'm not saying it's right or fair that that's the case, but it is the case. 

 

It's as if you've seen what's happened to our media and the relationship between the populace and journalism over the last couple of decades and have decided that you're really happy with that outcome and want to see science and medicine go the exact same way. I don't. But I'm not a party loyalist, either,

This is stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,139

Posted
Posted
It's not. But politicizing it made them and a lot of people feel better, so it's not without merit.

It’s literally a matter of 1) public 2) health. It IS political. They didn’t make it political - it is inherently a political matter. It shouldn’t be a political ISSUE, just like having regulations prohibiting feces in drinking water shouldn’t be an ISSUE. But here we are. Which is fucking insane.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9,208

Posted
Posted

It’s literally a matter of 1) public 2) health. It IS political. They didn’t make it political - it is inherently a political matter. It shouldn’t be a political ISSUE, just like having regulations prohibiting feces in drinking water shouldn’t be an ISSUE. But here we are. Which is fucking insane.

Who are you convincing? Everyone that agrees with you already agrees with you. There's no upside.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,534

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, BradInATX said:
8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:
This is stupid. 

It's not. But politicizing it made them and a lot of people feel better, so it's not without merit.

Again, your post was stupid. Your point, whatever it is, is stupid. Go run a couple hundred laps. When you come back, think why a public health publication may have an opinion on a public health matter. Then, think why said public health organization may have an opinion on policies that affect the public health. It isn't an emotional choice. It is a rational one. This weird thing you have where you blame the "democrats" (which I feel very confident have not typically included the editors of NEJM among their ranks) for the actions of others is emotional. Thinking that the problem in our country is that scientists are too engaged in politics is emotional.

If anything, our problem is that the people that actually know shit have been disengaged and allowed policy wonks to take control of the narrative. You repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. That is what is happening. Not correcting those lies, not exposing the truth, and not advocating for science, that is where we've gone wrong. 

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

Bookman 4,639

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, BradInATX said:
8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s literally a matter of 1) public 2) health. It IS political. They didn’t make it political - it is inherently a political matter. It shouldn’t be a political ISSUE, just like having regulations prohibiting feces in drinking water shouldn’t be an ISSUE. But here we are. Which is fucking insane.

Who are you convincing? Everyone that agrees with you already agrees with you. There's no upside.

Why is there no upside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,781

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, BradInATX said:
8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s literally a matter of 1) public 2) health. It IS political. They didn’t make it political - it is inherently a political matter. It shouldn’t be a political ISSUE, just like having regulations prohibiting feces in drinking water shouldn’t be an ISSUE. But here we are. Which is fucking insane.

Who are you convincing? Everyone that agrees with you already agrees with you. There's no upside.

How do you feel about religious leaders declaring that Donald Trump was sent by God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11,964

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Bookman said:

If true, that means that God must really fucking hate us.

Trump is the anti-Christ.

And not in that whole revelationsy way... you know, that weird graphic novel-like book that seems to not be part of the same story and was tacked on later when they realized that they needed an ending. That ending is all over the place and bogus. 

Trump is Bizzaro Jesus and sent to earth so that we can re-inherit our sins. 

I don’t know what did it, but apparently we squandered that whole New Testament message. 

So I guess we’re going to see a lot more of Hebrew Bible / Vengeful god.

 

dont-call-it-a-comeback.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9,208

Posted
Posted
Why is there no upside?

What's the upside to it? To convince a bunch of already-Trump-haters that Trump sucks? We already know that.

It's purely an emotion driven stunt. Did they endorse John Kerry because GWB killed thousands of Americans in the Middle East? Did they come out against Reagan because his economic policies would ultimately lead to suffering and death by countless working class? What about LBJ? He killed 60,000 young healthy Americans in Vietnam. Is that not a public health crisis? Of course they didn't because that would make them political.

This is why Democrats lose. Contain your damn emotions and keep your eye on the fucking ball

 

 

 

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...