Some thoughts:
[ul]
[li]The US deserves to be broken up because the Revolution’s purpose was to keep just enough slavery to cast off the British monarchy.[/li][li]Changing our form of government will not solve the problem of cause-effect hysteresis (i.e. the next President gets blamed for the current President’s economy, when in fact the President has only limited control of the economy.[/li][li]If the us “cracks up and becomes something else”, I guarantee the remaining pieces are going to war, with foreign involvement, and we may not like the outcome.[/li][/ul]
Non-political children are living in the GOP’s concentration camps as well. Fuck all the fascists.
Seems like a non-sequitur, but it bears saying that you’re a fascist if you propose punishing red states knowing that it will kill children who had no say in any of these policies.
Look, I would love for some punishment to fall selectively upon the GOP, something that they would recognize was their own fault, that would cause no loss of life, nor befall people who aren’t GOP cultists, and could be easily be undone when they vote in a repentant fashion.
There’s no point in talking about that kind of reckoning because it doesn’t exist. Not least because they can’t connect the dots between their votes and the actual outcome of what they voted for.
I don’t propose punishing these states, I just don’t care what happens to them. Too disgusted.
Maybe some of those red states could hit up their newly-enriched Congresspeople for some of their COVID-19 blood money; then they could afford to outbid others for new ventilators.
I hate Trump as much as anyone, and confess my ignorance as to epidemiology, statistics, and the economy. But is there any merit to the ideas set forth in this NYT oped?
He proposes that the 2 week general quarantine act as a rebooting of society, to be followed by more targeted measures aimed at the most vulnerable.
I admit that I may find this argument attractive because it jibes with my predisposition. And, as a general matter, I tend to favor targeted approaches over all-inclusive. I have not yet researched to see if the writer is a crank, or to otherwise support/refute his argument.
The New York Times is relentless in it’s pursuit of profit and thus many of us cannot read that.
ETA: But I’m gonna guess that, no, there’s no real merit in it.
Fuck me but you’re a vile and repugnant piece of shit. Tedious to boot, which may even be the bigger sin. This is by no means the first time you’ve called for the death, suffering or summary execution of large swathes of people with whom you disagree. I’d call you a fascist, but by now that bunch has at least learned to limit their expressing their sociopathic tendencies for when they’re in their own Facebook groups. You are EXACTLY like the people you get worked up about, except actually worse than a good portion of them. You are wasting every breath of air you draw. You have no redeeming qualities: I’m pretty sure that in some bizarro world where you were in charge not even the trains would run on time. You, in fact, embody every bit as much as what is wrong with America as anyone you rant about.
I ran across this article earlier this morning. Usually I cannot read NYT articles, but for some reason, I can read this one.
The author, David Katz, has some impressive credentials, and the institute that he founded, the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, is partially funded by the CDC, according to their website.
What he says makes some sense, but I have a hard time envisioning how we protect and isolate just the high-risk groups. I’m afraid that his suggestions are more pie-in-the-sky wishes, rather than policies that can actually be enacted.
I dunno either, but it sounds like it proposes some sort of weighing of potential costs/benefits - which makes sense to me. If x% of precautions can likely prevent y% of infections/deaths/hospital use - then by all means, implement those x precautions. But how much additional “cost” do we incur in an attempt to remove as much risk as possible?
Apologies if this seeks rationed discussion as ill-befits a Pit thread!
Nobody gives a fuck what you think or say.
NYT is giving free access to selected coronavirus articles: The Covid-19 Pandemic - The New York Times
The New York Times has removed the paywall for corona virus coverage. You can read it.
[Chad]No thanks.[/Chad]
I do. I fully agree with him, in my darker moments. In my lighter moments, I just sort of generally approve
Every article I click on requires me to start an account. That doesn’t fit my definition of “free”.
And when I try and delete their cookie, it immediately reconstitutes itself.
ETA: HA! I moved to a machine that I just setup with Windows and now I can read stuff. Thanks y’all.
Spoke too soon. 1 article and now I get the “start an account or go away” half-page banner on that machine too.
Do you know why you should pay for news? Because if you don’t you get crap like Fox.
No different from starting an account here. You pay if you want to.
I copied and pasted the article in Word. It’s 1906 words. Should I post it here? It might make for an interesting discussion.