ADVERTISEMENT

Harvard researcher says Iowa, Alabama, two other states should 'lock down immediately'

Exactly, but for some reason there are group of people, and maybe it's because they hate Trump so much? that refuse to really look at the data and the circumstances and take it for what it is. They just want to believe this has all been mismanaged and we are going to have a billion deaths if we go back to normal life.

You have it wrong. Below is a response I gave to another poster and it explains why you can't get your normal back. At least it's my view on it.

I'm not asking for a total shutdown. I have a kid on campus. I get there is a higher levels of concern based on criteria. What seems to be the typical answer (and you even mentioned it) is that each group only needs to protect themselves. There's your flaw, right there. That's exactly why we can't get back to normal. Because you want an environment of, every man for himself. So as someone who is in a higher risk, how do I go back to normal knowing there are people who are not taking precautions that protect me (and I'm healthy, it's my ages that makes me at risk). So what am I supposed to do. I tell you what I do, I stay away from anywhere that I feel isn't right. Now, apply my situation to 50% (just guessing on the % since I'm middle age) of the people (who are my age or have preexisting conditions, or both), and guess what you end up with, a country that can't go back to normal because over 50% are unable to. What someone should be doing is figuring out the percentage of people needed in order to get back to somewhat normal, then make decisions that will allow that percentage to feel ok with going back. Until that happens you're going to have what we currently have. Stop thinking that you can assign precautions to groups like the groups don't interact.
 
What seems to be the typical answer (and you even mentioned it) is that each group only needs to protect themselves. There's your flaw, right there. That's exactly why we can't get back to normal. Because you want an environment of, every man for himself. So as someone who is in a higher risk, how do I go back to normal knowing there are people who are not taking precautions that protect me (and I'm healthy, it's my ages that makes me at risk). So what am I supposed to do. I tell you what I do, I stay away from anywhere that I feel isn't right. Now, apply my situation to 50% (just guessing on the % since I'm middle age) of the people (who are my age or have preexisting conditions, or both), and guess what you end up with, a country that can't go back to normal because over 50% are unable to. Stop thinking that you can assign precautions to groups like the groups don't interact.
So the saying that applies to your thought process is similar to that of "if I have to go down in taking you all with me." In other words - if these particular people (You apparently) are at a higher risk and need to take precautions..well shit... let's just make everyone do it too.

The whole "a few people ruined it for everybody" kind of deal. Dumb.

I'm sorry this Coronavirus thing exploded at the time you're in a higher-risk category. If you choose not to go back to normal, then don't. Wait for the vaccine..until then "stay away from anywhere that doesn't feel right" if you're that extreme. Or continue to wear face protection, or only engage with people in smaller crowds to minimize your risk level. I don't care what you do.

You should be able to do what you want to do based off your level of comfort. I should have the same freedom. Now, outside of this board I don't put up a fuss or disobey mask ordinances but it's very disappointing.

Influenza, which spreads through air particles obviously, was in existence before this and sickens up to 45 million people annually (and yes, I know the flu doesn't kill at a percentage quite as high as they say this virus does). Now, most people get the vax but a lot of people do not and there's no telling if the person you sit next to or in front of at Kinnick got the vax or has the flu. Were you living in fear 1 year ago? 8 months ago?
 
Iowa is No. 1 -- as the new COVID-19 hotspot in the entire country. Way to go, Gov. Reynolds. Keep those kids in school. And, hell yes, play football, boys.

Or, you can read this and try to understand why 61 conferences are NOT playing college football and only SIX are. It's not exactly like the Big Ten is alone in this.

Here's the article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...esearchers-say/ss-BB18yRcr?li=BBnbcA0#image=5
Dude. Your shtick is tired bro. You and @HawkRCID.

Don’t turn it on then. Boycott all products that support the NCAA. I dunno. Do something. Just make sure it’s something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
You have it wrong. Below is a response I gave to another poster and it explains why you can't get your normal back. At least it's my view on it.

I'm not asking for a total shutdown. I have a kid on campus. I get there is a higher levels of concern based on criteria. What seems to be the typical answer (and you even mentioned it) is that each group only needs to protect themselves. There's your flaw, right there. That's exactly why we can't get back to normal. Because you want an environment of, every man for himself. So as someone who is in a higher risk, how do I go back to normal knowing there are people who are not taking precautions that protect me (and I'm healthy, it's my ages that makes me at risk). So what am I supposed to do. I tell you what I do, I stay away from anywhere that I feel isn't right. Now, apply my situation to 50% (just guessing on the % since I'm middle age) of the people (who are my age or have preexisting conditions, or both), and guess what you end up with, a country that can't go back to normal because over 50% are unable to. What someone should be doing is figuring out the percentage of people needed in order to get back to somewhat normal, then make decisions that will allow that percentage to feel ok with going back. Until that happens you're going to have what we currently have. Stop thinking that you can assign precautions to groups like the groups don't interact.
If you are at risk, what you are supposed to do is SIP. Sorry but that is how it needs to be.

Because youre personally at risk does not mean, even for a second, that you need to exclude what everyone else is able to do. For example, if you were receiving chemotherapy right now, and that puts you at risk from about any illness, do you call everyone you know and tell them to stay home so you can go to the grocery store? I realize that this sentiment is somewhat rude and I feel bad about that, I do, but facts don’t care about your feelings.

The fact is that those that aren’t vulnerable might get it. If you are less than 50 and not obese the chance of dying from this is negligible and we will be that much closer to herd immunity. Unless you were certain there’s a vaccine on the horizon. But we’re not that’s the fact. I personally thought we’d have one by now but we don’t seem too so time to start making other plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVPFAN
So the saying that applies to your thought process is similar to that of "if I have to go down in taking you all with me." In other words - if these particular people (You apparently) are at a higher risk and need to take precautions..well shit... let's just make everyone do it too.

The whole "a few people ruined it for everybody" kind of deal. Dumb.

I'm sorry this Coronavirus thing exploded at the time you're in a higher-risk category. If you choose not to go back to normal, then don't. Wait for the vaccine..until then "stay away from anywhere that doesn't feel right" if you're that extreme. Or continue to wear face protection, or only engage with people in smaller crowds to minimize your risk level. I don't care what you do.

You should be able to do what you want to do based off your level of comfort. I should have the same freedom. Now, outside of this board I don't put up a fuss or disobey mask ordinances but it's very disappointing.

Influenza, which spreads through air particles obviously, was in existence before this and sickens up to 45 million people annually (and yes, I know the flu doesn't kill at a percentage quite as high as they say this virus does). Now, most people get the vax but a lot of people do not and there's no telling if the person you sit next to or in front of at Kinnick got the vax or has the flu. Were you living in fear 1 year ago? 8 months ago?

I'll give it to you plain and simple. Until enough is done to make the majority of the people feel safe, you're just not going to get your normal back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not_mantiteo
If you are at risk, what you are supposed to do is SIP. Sorry but that is how it needs to be.

Because youre personally at risk does not mean, even for a second, that you need to exclude what everyone else is able to do. For example, if you were receiving chemotherapy right now, and that puts you at risk from about any illness, do you call everyone you know and tell them to stay home so you can go to the grocery store? I realize that this sentiment is somewhat rude and I feel bad about that, I do, but facts don’t care about your feelings.

The fact is that those that aren’t vulnerable might get it. If you are less than 50 and not obese the chance of dying from this is negligible and we will be that much closer to herd immunity. Unless you were certain there’s a vaccine on the horizon. But we’re not that’s the fact. I personally thought we’d have one by now but we don’t seem too so time to start making other plans.

I agree that people who are at risk need to SIP. Totally agree. What you fail to see is that there is a large percentage of the population that either needs to SIP or living with someone who needs to SIP, so the majority of the people are in a SIP situation. Please tell me how things can go back to normal if 50% of the people are in SIP. Things can't go back to normal. You're fighting a losing battle.
 
Now, apply my situation to 50% (just guessing on the % since I'm middle age) of the people (who are my age or have preexisting conditions, or both), and guess what you end up with, a country that can't go back to normal because over 50% are unable to.
Age group at highest risk - folks over 60 w/ health issues (65+ is considered elderly). The elderly pop. in this country makes up around 16%. Now let's apply your situation to 50% (choosing to not go back to normal) of your high-risk category and what do we have? Around 8% of the population not getting back to normal.
 
you are not addressing the data at all. the best evidence throughout the pandemic that the number of covid death were not over counted is that the increase in the death rate has been greater than the number of covid deaths. this is solid data. again, our death rate has gone up more than the reported covid deaths and this argues that covid deaths are being under counted and not over counted. sorry, but dont understand your argument or how it would have any bearing on this.
Well you are making assumptions with that data in a totally biased way. Yes our overall death rate is up higher than the covid death tolls would account for. That does not in any way suggest we are under reporting Covid deaths. Is it possible? Sure. Is it also possible that we are over reporting Covid deaths and the total rise in death rate is accounted for by an increase in suicide, homicide, traffic deaths from an increase in alcoholism, and an increase in obesity from a sedentary lifestyle driven from lockdowns? Sure. Both are possible.
 
Age group at highest risk - folks over 60 w/ health issues (65+ is considered elderly). The elderly pop. in this country makes up around 16%. Now let's apply your situation to 50% (choosing to not go back to normal) of your high-risk category and what do we have? Around 8% of the population not getting back to normal.

Sure the highest risk is 65+, they're not the only ones at risk. You might not know it because of your age but there's a lot of people on medication for all kinds of medical conditions. Those people might consider themselves at risk because of it. There's a lot of over weight people around, they're at risk. I would also bet there are a number of parent with young kids that don't want to risk leaving their family without a parent. I'm guessing you're young and single. You just wait until you have kids and know they depend on you for everything. You need to put yourself in someone else's shoes and you might find it's not that simple as saying, get back to normal.
 
You might not know it because of your age but there's a lot of people on medication for all kinds of medical conditions. Those people might consider themselves at risk because of it. There's a lot of over weight people around, they're at risk.

I'm guessing you're young and single.
I'm 36 and married.

And I just don't understand your thought process. It's not my God damn problem if someone is overweight and more at risk of additional issues in this world.

Fix your shit and do what you need to do to survive. If you are overweight, make fewer trips to Burger King and hit the treadmill. If you have clogged arteries and high blood pressure, cut out the salt.

If you don't want to get shot by a police officer, maybe consider not fighting and shooting them with a taser. Take some f**king responsibility for yourself. It's on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVPFAN and Arbor1
I'm 36 and married.

And I just don't understand your thought process. It's not my God damn problem if someone is overweight and more at risk of additional issues in this world.

Fix your shit and do what you need to do to survive. If you are overweight, make fewer trips to Burger King and hit the treadmill. If you have clogged arteries and high blood pressure, cut out the salt.

If you don't want to get shot by a police officer, maybe consider not fighting and shooting them with a taser. Take some f**king responsibility for yourself. It's on you.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. It's not your fault that people have preexisting conditions, so they should not be allowed to protect themselves. They should be forced to go back to normal so your life isn't impacted. That's what I'm getting from your response. You're like that kid on the playground that's trying to force everyone to play his game by his rules. That usually end up with a kid crying and screaming at anyone who walks by. Kind of like your previous post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Good grief man, are you just obtuse all the time? Iowa has had 35 deaths per 100,000 people, right in the middle of the country in terms of deaths per 100k people. Michigan and Illinois, which I'm sure you think have done a top-notch job of being more restrictive and locking down (Whitmer in Michigan has banned HS football) have far higher death rates. Michigan at 65 deaths per 100k, and Illinois at 63 deaths per 100k. So tell me again how lockdowns work? They don't.

There is no magic panacea to making the virus go away. Locking down only delays the inevitable. Protect the elderly and those at risk.
I live in Michigan and Governor Whitmer did not ban high school football. The Michigan High School Athletic Association made that decision, but you and your fellow trumpbillies choose to blame “that woman from Michigan”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not_mantiteo
Where did you get this??

From your post. I've pointed out that people won't go back to normal as long as they feel they're at risk (because of preexisting conditions). Your response is that it's not your problem that people have preexisting conditions. Maybe I missed it but how are you expecting your life to get back to normal if everyone else doesn't get back to normal. Wouldn't you have to force them. It should be obvious (to you) that you need a large percentage of the population to get your normal back. If they don't go back to normal then you don't get your normal back, right? So really it is your problem that people have preexisting conditions and you should care.
 
Literally 40% of the US population is at risk because of weight alone. Willing to bet many more have high blood pressure, diabetes etc.
There is not going to be back to normal when over 50% of the population is at risk...

some of ya all act like it’s 1-2% that need to SIP
 
  • Like
Reactions: SB_SB
Actually, that's not at all evidence that COVID deaths are undercounted. Instead, it's evidence that the deaths caused by the lockdowns are accumulating just as many experts predicted they would way back in March when the totalitarians began exploiting the intelectually defenseless. Delayed medical treatment that the lockdowns banned as "non-essential", coupled with increased deaths due to social ills such as suicide, drug overdose, doestic violence, etc. This is why many researchers are now estimating that the life-years lost to the lockdowns far exceed those lost to COVID.


when analyzing data researchers use the occam's razor principle where the simplest explanation that accounts for the data is most likely to be the correct one. there is a covid pandemic and the number of deaths go up. the simplest explanation is that the increase in deaths is due to covid. of course, you can come up with more complex explanations but without more data your argument is weak. do you have data showing suicides going up or more drug overdoses or more deaths due to domestic violence.
 
when analyzing data researchers use the occam's razor principle where the simplest explanation that accounts for the data is most likely to be the correct one. there is a covid pandemic and the number of deaths go up. the simplest explanation is that the increase in deaths is due to covid. of course, you can come up with more complex explanations but without more data your argument is weak. do you have data showing suicides going up or more drug overdoses or more deaths due to domestic violence.

There's a lockdown that is responsible for denying medical care to patients whose treatments are considered "non-essential", and which has caused millions of Americans to become unemployed, a condition that without exception has invariably resulted in increases in social ills like suicide, drug overdoses, and domestic violeunce.

The simplest answer is that totalitarianism kills now, just as it always has in the past, and no matter how complex you find something that is little more than a keen sense of the obvious.
 
No, but it means he didn't die of high blood pressure, which is the proper way to use the analogy. This alleged report (which I haven't seen and don't vouch for) apparently says people who die of cancer, for instance, are listed as dying from Covid-19 if they test positive for it.
NO they aren't. Every comorbidity that person had is listed on the death certificate. If they had covid it is listed as well. So, say person has pneumonia, respiratory arrest, ARDS, and covid all on the death certificate. Covid can, and will cause all of those, so covid is responsible for the death of that person. All a person has to do is look at the average deaths over the last several years for this time period and you will see there are somewhere around 200k more deaths this year than in years past. Not hard to tell what is responsible for that, and it shows that, if anything, covid deaths are under reported.
 
Let's say PersonX has been dealing with Stage 4 Cancer, CHF, and Diabetes. Then PersonX passes away and it's discovered he/she had Covid-19.

What did PersonX die from? NOT COVID-19.
Bullshit. You can live with stage 4 cancer, CHF, and diabetes for years and not die. Get Covid and it magnifies all your other problems, so technically Covid did cause death, as the person would still be able to live if they didn't catch Covid. This really isn't hard to understand. Go look at the average deaths for the last few years during this time period and you will see they're about 200k more deaths for this time period. What do you think is responsible for that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: not_mantiteo
Bullshit. You can live with stage 4 cancer, CHF, and diabetes for years and not die. Get Covid and it magnifies all your other problems, so technically Covid did cause death, as the person would still be able to live if they didn't catch Covid. This really isn't hard to understand. Go look at the average deaths for the last few years during this time period and you will see they're about 200k more deaths for this time period. What do you think is responsible for that?
Check post #57 - it is a clearer example of what I was getting at.
 
I'll give it to you plain and simple. Until enough is done to make the majority of the people feel safe, you're just not going to get your normal back.
As I told you you can feel plenty safe, along with everyone else getting their normal back, if you just shelter in place.
 
Literally 40% of the US population is at risk because of weight alone. Willing to bet many more have high blood pressure, diabetes etc.
There is not going to be back to normal when over 50% of the population is at risk...

some of ya all act like it’s 1-2% that need to SIP
Then maybe people need to start losing weight. It’s possible if you want it bad enough. But it does take work....
 
First, if you have not read the CDC publications of August 24-26 you should not opine on Covid. Your information is obsolete and wrong.

The CDC has made two explicit disclosures. First, 94% of all deaths heretofore reported as Covid were caused by co morbidities, an average of 2.6. The CDC release identifies around 9000 actual Covid only deaths. Second, 90% of the positive tests, so that means 90% of the 6 million odd cases, are a symptomatic or possible false positives. This means 90 % of C+ ARE NOT SICK.

At the same time, CDC said that testing of a symptomatic persons is not necessary, even if they have been in close contact with a C+ but remain a symptomatic for 14 days. The only possible conclusion to be drawn from that reversal of policy is CDC no longer thinks a symptomatic C+s are a source of transmission. If not, would not the CDC continue to recommend testing for everyone that has been in close contact with a C+ person? Of course, because the need to continue social isolation of C+ but a symptomatic persons to prevent their transmission of the virus would remain. While the usual media, academic and professional left is doing everything possible to suppress this information IT REMAINS ON THE CDC WEBSITE. I put that in caps so no one would overlook it. The mere fact that Twitter is hiding the information, and CNN won't cover it, does not make it disappear.

While the public can be kept largely ignorant for a little longer when this actually begins to penetrate the public consciousness, and it will eventually penetrate the media embargo, all of the sports bans are going to disappear. It might be slow because there a lot of asses to cover but it will happen.

The first step to making the public safe has to be telling the public the truth about the Covid risk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: unclesammy
Because the virus peaked in New York and New Jersey first, when we knew nothing about the virus. Texas and Florida weren’t hit until months later, allowing them to gain valuable information and data about how to treat the virus and how best to limit its spread.

America was VERY lucky that Florida, AZ, Texas, etc did not explode in new cases when NY & NJ did. There would hundreds of thousands more dead... The treatments now, mainly remdesirvir and cortiosteroid, saved the US from looking much, much worse than we do already....and that is bad on the world stage.
 
America was VERY lucky that Florida, AZ, Texas, etc did not explode in new cases when NY & NJ did. There would hundreds of thousands more dead... The treatments now, mainly remdesirvir and cortiosteroid, saved the US from looking much, much worse than we do already....and that is bad on the world stage.

That fear is preposterous in light of the new data from the CDC last week. 90% of the "exploded cases" would be a symptomatic or false positives. Most of the rest would have mild rather than acute symptoms. Elevated temperature for 24-72 hours. Only 6% of the exploded population would die of Covid, the other 94% would die with Covid, and 2.6 other comorbidities (e.g. not from Covid). 80% of the deaths would be among the 65+ demo, already afflicted with severe immune deficiency or near end state respiratory illnesses.
 
That fear is preposterous in light of the new data from the CDC last week. 90% of the "exploded cases" would be a symptomatic or false positives. Most of the rest would have mild rather than acute symptoms. Elevated temperature for 24-72 hours. Only 6% of the exploded population would die of Covid, the other 94% would die with Covid, and 2.6 other comorbidities (e.g. not from Covid). 80% of the deaths would be among the 65+ demo, already afflicted with severe immune deficiency or near end state respiratory illnesses.

Literally everything you just said is wrong, and it has been explained to you a number of times why. At this point, I can only assume that you are not intelligent enough to understand those explanations.
 
Then maybe people need to start losing weight. It’s possible if you want it bad enough. But it does take work....
Sure and I wouldn’t argue with that point. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s the reality of the situation. You’re not magically going back to normal when half the country is at risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SB_SB
That fear is preposterous in light of the new data from the CDC last week. 90% of the "exploded cases" would be a symptomatic or false positives. Most of the rest would have mild rather than acute symptoms. Elevated temperature for 24-72 hours. Only 6% of the exploded population would die of Covid, the other 94% would die with Covid, and 2.6 other comorbidities (e.g. not from Covid). 80% of the deaths would be among the 65+ demo, already afflicted with severe immune deficiency or near end state respiratory illnesses.
wow, you are spreading complete misinformation at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not_mantiteo
wow, you are spreading complete misinformation at this point.
I have not looked at the website to confirm his numbers, but are you saying Deplorable Sleeping Dog is making up the statistics that he is including in his posts? His information is not accurate?
 
I live in Michigan and Governor Whitmer did not ban high school football. The Michigan High School Athletic Association made that decision, but you and your fellow trumpbillies choose to blame “that woman from Michigan”.

Hmmm and how many pals does she have on that?
 
Sure and I wouldn’t argue with that point. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s the reality of the situation. You’re not magically going back to normal when half the country is at risk.

One would hope that since we have had roughly 6 months now with warning that individuals would have taken it upon themselves to get themselves in much healthier condition.
 
America was VERY lucky that Florida, AZ, Texas, etc did not explode in new cases when NY & NJ did. There would hundreds of thousands more dead... The treatments now, mainly remdesirvir and cortiosteroid, saved the US from looking much, much worse than we do already....and that is bad on the world stage.

So you are saying we got this thing under total control now. Good deal. Let's go.
 
Literally 40% of the US population is at risk because of weight alone. Willing to bet many more have high blood pressure, diabetes etc.
There is not going to be back to normal when over 50% of the population is at risk...

some of ya all act like it’s 1-2% that need to SIP

Stopping eating f-ing oreos and start walking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haw-key
I have not looked at the website to confirm his numbers, but are you saying Deplorable Sleeping Dog is making up the statistics that he is including in his posts? His information is not accurate?
Saying only 6% die is the right number from the report but the wrong interpretation...I would encourage you to research what the CDC actually said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not_mantiteo
ADVERTISEMENT