Page 793 of 1673 FirstFirst ... 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 ... LastLast
Results 19,801 to 19,825 of 41810
  1. #19801
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Nope. You're months late to the discussion. Even your posts about the serology results from Spain and France were discussed here the week before you began trolling.

    The response to your arguments along with your whinging about your own victimhood, because of course you're the victim, has less to do with content and more to do with people thinking you're a giant asshole.


    To add to the response below, there is and has been a wide array of opinions expressed in this thread. In spite of Ron's self congratulatory opinion of himself, he's brought nothing new to the table.

  2. #19802
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Nope. You're months late to the discussion. Even your posts about the serology results from Spain and France were discussed here the week before you began trolling.

    The response to your arguments along with your whinging about your victimhood, just means people think you're a giant asshole.
    I was reading the thread long before I started posting in it.

    I'm an asshole because you are a sensitive bunch that don't like any disruption to the groupthink. Please find an example of me being an asshole without being provoked. I'll go away if you do, but you won't be able to find one, just like you can't find a post of mine that isn't valid.

  3. #19803
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    14,373
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  4. #19804
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,066
    You will not go away until everyone stops replying and giving you your fix.

    Fuck you.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  5. #19805
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Geopolis
    Posts
    16,084
    is it really possible to be an economic negative because you’re old? fancy nursing homes can cost tens of thousands a month on top of million dollar buy ins. seems like it’s just part of the economy that keeps people employed.

    real negatives are either crooks or the supposed job creators who take money out of the system rather than circulating it like the 90 whatever percent.
    j'ai des grands instants de lucididididididididi

  6. #19806
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    11,146
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    That's one sentence with a period where a comma should be. There are standards--this place is all about proper grammer, speling; and punctuation.
    I’m still learning please be, patient¿ with me

  7. #19807
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    You will not go away until everyone stops replying and giving you your fix.

    Fuck you.
    It should be very easy to find a post of mine that isn't valid and make me go away. But no one can. Why?

  8. #19808
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by ml242 View Post
    is it really possible to be an economic negative because you’re old? fancy nursing homes can cost tens of thousands a month on top of million dollar buy ins. seems like it’s just part of the economy that keeps people employed.

    real negatives are either crooks or the supposed job creators who take money out of the system rather than circulating it like the 90 whatever percent.
    That and fulfilling the social contract is what incents people to keep working past 40. If life expectancy fell to 55 the cost to keep 52 year olds on the job would skyrocket. Same thing happens if people lose faith in the system, as they will when they see the elderly being flushed away--even if they claim to agree with the policy today, their own decisions will change going forward if they have less reason to expect to be alive much longer. I don't know much from experience on this virus thing, but I can say with certainty that if you see yourself leaving the planet before the next president leaves office your investment horizon becomes decidedly short.

  9. #19809
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    17,475
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Nope. You're months late to the discussion. Even your posts about the serology results from Spain and France were discussed here the week before you began trolling.

    The response to your arguments along with your whinging about your own victimhood, because of course you're the victim, has less to do with content and more to do with people thinking you're a giant asshole.


    To add to the response below, there is and has been a wide array of opinions expressed in this thread. In spite of Ron's self congratulatory opinion of himself, he's brought nothing new to the table.
    The idea that we could indiscriminately kill off 1% of the population with zero effects on the economy is laughably stupid.
    Damn shame, throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that

  10. #19810
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    ...if you assume that those infected gain immunity and that no vaccine is developed until 2023.
    Entire reasoning of that is based on a very unlikely combination: if those infected gain immunity it's because antibodies work (let's say we are 98% confident of that). If antibodies work and there are 100+ vaccines in development and many of those already in testing, several of which have already been shown to produce antibodies, then what are the odds that it takes until 2023 to release a vaccine? 1%? 2%?

    If we don't have a vaccine on the market by this time next year the Finns would be better off picking whichever one or two they like and just approving them for domestic use without further testing than following a strategy that they estimate will kill 3000 people. This suggestion is just as speculative but much more probable.

  11. #19811
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ml242 View Post
    is it really possible to be an economic negative because you’re old? fancy nursing homes can cost tens of thousands a month on top of million dollar buy ins. seems like it’s just part of the economy that keeps people employed.

    real negatives are either crooks or the supposed job creators who take money out of the system rather than circulating it like the 90 whatever percent.
    Depends where the money to pay for it comes from. If it's coming from SS and Medicare then it's a negative. If it comes from savings then it's a positive, but when you die those savings are just passed on to the heirs who use those savings in other productive ways.

    You think job creators are negatives??

  12. #19812
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush View Post
    The idea that we could indiscriminately kill off 1% of the population with zero effects on the economy is laughably stupid.
    Sure, but your problem is the virus doesn't kill indiscriminately.

  13. #19813
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    14,373
    JHC! Is the only value of a citizen the immediate economic benefit to they provide? Sure, Jerrod K said that but I we used to be better. And wiser.

    Rob on ignore. Freedom
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  14. #19814
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,308
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    We all know Ron won't keep his promise to stop posting if an argument of his is invalidated. But, in a recent post Ron wrote in response to Adolf Allerbus's argument that killing millions of American would have a severe economic impact said, "Either way your economic argument doesn't work because the majority of deaths from COVID are people who are economic burdens on society."

    Ron's argument is invalid for a number of reasons. For one, a majority is not everybody especially when talking about millions of deaths so even going with Ron's flawed logic some substantial portion of deaths destroy human capital Ron deems economically useful.

    Ron's argument is further invalidated because contrary to his apparent belief, older workers add value to the economy and boost GDP. About 20% of workers over age 65 have a graduate degree and remain in skilled positions while the rest who remain in the workforce add value in too many other ways to list. People 50 and older also have the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity, creating 33% of new businesses which creates more jobs for younger workers.

    Sure nobody likes boomers except boomers (kidding) but many older Americans are economically productive which when combined with the portion of younger people also removed from the work force under a millions of deaths scenario easily invalidates Ron's argument that COVID deaths do not matter economically.
    Don't forget old people are also spending lots of money and have lots of money invested. Both of those things are awfully important in keeping an economy humming along.

  15. #19815
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    ^ Also, many people assume the ratio of old to young affected by COVID is static. As people adapt to circumstance, and higher-risk people take more precautions, while lower risk people relax their vigilance, then the ratio of confirmed cases will shift towards the young, which is what we're seeing now.

    The hospitalization rate and death rate to hospitalization rate will go down if new infections average younger, but it's tendentious to simply assume young people are not at risk.

  16. #19816
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    21,053
    Ronny J.
    Putting the fear and the loathing into the rat flu.
    One shit poast at a time
    . . .

  17. #19817
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,308
    Quote Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post
    JHC! Is the only value of a citizen the immediate economic benefit to they provide? Sure, Jerrod K said that but I we used to be better. And wiser.
    You are correct, sir.

  18. #19818
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post
    JHC! Is the only value of a citizen the immediate economic benefit to they provide? Sure, Jerrod K said that but I we used to be better. And wiser.

    Rob on ignore. Freedom
    Of course not, but this has been strictly an economic argument.

  19. #19819
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    14,373
    It takes a village. Really.

  20. #19820
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,111
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavir...153503886.html
    No one doubts Norway's success in bringing the pandemic under control. On Friday, there were just 30 people in hospital with coronavirus and five on a ventilator. Only one person had died all week. The per capita death toll is now 44 per million people, just over a tenth of that seen in neighbouring Sweden, where 4,971 people have died.

    But this success has come at a prohibitive social and economic cost. An expert committee charged with carrying out a cost-benefit analysis into the lockdown measures in April estimated that they had together cost Norway 27bn kroner (£2.3) every month. With only 0.7 per cent of Norwegians infected, according to NIPH estimates, there is almost no immunity in the population.

    The expert committee concluded last Friday that the country should avoid lockdown if there is a second wave of infections.

    "We recommend a much lighter approach," the committee's head, Steinar Holden, an Oslo University economics professor, told the Sunday Telegraph. "We should start with measures at an individual level -- which is what we have now -- and if there’s a second wave, we should have measures in the local area where this occurs, and avoid measures at a national level if that is possible."

    Norway's current strategy -- using testing, contact tracing, and home isolation to keep the level of infections down without heavy restrictions -- would be best, the report concluded. But if this 'keep down' strategy fails to prevent a surge in cases, a 'brake strategy' which aims to suppress the rate of transmission but not bring it below 1, would be preferable to a lockdown.

    "If it’s necessary to have very strict restrictions for a long time, then the costs are higher than letting the infection go through the population," Holden told the Telegraph. "Because that would be immensely costly."

    According to the report, a brake strategy would cost as much as 234bn kroner (£20bn) less than an "unstable keep-down" scenario, if you assume that those infected gain immunity and that no vaccine is developed until 2023. But it would also lead to a little over 3,000 additional deaths.
    The original idea behind shutdown was to slow spread enough that the medical system could cope and so that PPE and testing resources could be stockpiled. The first has been accomplished, the second never will be, at least under the current administration. Controlling the spread of the virus indefinitely was never the plan. All continued shutdown can do is slow the spread of the virus through the population but it can't reduce the ultimate percent of the population that is infected. The longer shutdown continues the greater the economic damage and in addition, the infrastructure of society and of our personal lives will start to break down with no means or parts to repair it. What happens when your furnace breaks down next winter and there are no parts? It seems reasonable to me to wait for the preliminary results of the current vaccine trials. If the results are sufficiently promising waiting longer would make sense; if it looks like a vaccine is still a long way off we will have no choice but to accept a significant number of deaths. Individuals, especially the retired, will still have the option of isolating themselves, although not as effectively as if everyone else was doing the same.

  21. #19821
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Looking down
    Posts
    50,491
    Please, just don't. Ignore.

  22. #19822
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    Don't forget old people are also spending lots of money and have lots of money invested. Both of those things are awfully important in keeping an economy humming along.
    And what happens to that money when they die? It goes to heirs who spend and invest that money, charity which puts it to good use, and taxes - with how left leaning this forum is, most probably consider that good use as well.

  23. #19823
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Please, just don't. Ignore.
    Agreed. This inane 'argument' doesn't deserve the bandwidth.

  24. #19824
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    The original idea behind shutdown was to slow spread enough that the medical system could cope and so that PPE and testing resources could be stockpiled. The first has been accomplished, the second never will be, at least under the current administration. Controlling the spread of the virus indefinitely was never the plan. All continued shutdown can do is slow the spread of the virus through the population but it can't reduce the ultimate percent of the population that is infected. The longer shutdown continues the greater the economic damage and in addition, the infrastructure of society and of our personal lives will start to break down with no means or parts to repair it. What happens when your furnace breaks down next winter and there are no parts? It seems reasonable to me to wait for the preliminary results of the current vaccine trials. If the results are sufficiently promising waiting longer would make sense; if it looks like a vaccine is still a long way off we will have no choice but to accept a significant number of deaths. Individuals, especially the retired, will still have the option of isolating themselves, although not as effectively as if everyone else was doing the same.
    They are starting to see the light!

  25. #19825
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Please, just don't. Ignore.
    Should be real easy to make me go away. Why can't anyone do it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •