A Dictatorship by Consent | Starting Strength Radio Extra

[stef]

Again, I'll decline your invitation to insult you back, preferring to wait for the specific scientific facts about which you say I am wrong.

See, you're not even keeping up with current information across the ever-changing landscape of scientific "facts." No one's going to spoon feed to catch you up, gamma.

[franklie]

COVID-19 is now the No. 1 cause of death in the U.S.

From what source is this assertion verified? For what period of time is this assertion applicable and for what demographic (age, gender, etc...)?

[darrowdisciple]

You might have saved yourself some typing by simply citing just one fact about which I am so wrong. If memory serves, your response is actually from a Marx Brothers movie. Confronted with the absurdity of one of his statements, Groucho shouts, "I'm not going to dignify that with an answer!"

Here are a couple of dozens of citations to this fact: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...h/?arc404=true
Dr. Michael Osterholm Coronavirus will spread this Fall | WCCO

Please spare me the references to the "mainstream media." I lost interest in that blah blah when people were burbling that the moon landings never happened.

Of course, death rate is a difficult statistic to rely on, since there are so many variables that go into it: available medical care, quality of care, equipment. It does appear that the worst effects of the virus have concentrated somewhat on certain demographics, and on people with pre-existing conditions. One scratches one's head as to why those facts matter to the central question of how to open up. Surely, you're not suggesting, as some have, that a quick re-opening of the economy without precautions is worth exchanging for the lives and health of millions of Americans. Are you? Adjectives for such thinking are many, but none of them describe something acceptable.

I've read my post several times, and I am honestly baffled at how a person concludes from those words that I live in NYC. That said, I have found that people who blah-blah about New York usually are afraid of cities in general, and the reasons reveal what's roiling inside the head of the fearful person rather than what's actually taking place. Come to think of it....

Wait, it took me a while to get your point, obscure as it is. I think you're saying this whole shutdown thing has been a huge waste and hoax. After all, outside of New York, where the factors for rapid spread were so many, and where the virus was spreading before it was widely understood, the medical system was not overwhelmed. Of course, one might suggest that the lockdowns led to the medical system not being overrun, but for this discussion, that obvious logic just isn't angry enough.

The fact remains, as Dr. Osterholm says, and as you've avoided acknowledging, the virus will continue to transmit until it infects 60%-70% of the population before slowing down. That means that Wichita, and Omaha, and Dallas, and all those places that aren't anything like New York, other than the fact they are inhabited by human beings, will be infected to the same degree. And COVID is at least ten times as lethal as influenza. A plan to deal with those facts is what has been needed, and is so sorely lacking. I read an apt joke: A skydiving instructor says to his students over the radio: "Our parachutes have worked well and gotten almost to the ground. Go ahead and remove them for the final part of the descent."

[Nockian]

It’s like Brexit dejavu Same argument over and over getting nowhere. As the panel agreed “they will do it again”. The question cannot be “what shall we do when they do it again” ? but what do we need to do right now to stop them doing it again. Brexit taught us that if you wait, people like darrowdisciple will back it to the hilt. You cannot argue with these people because you are doing so on their intellectual playing field backed by all the Governmental experts, celebrities and money. The longer you leave it, the harder it becomes. I dragged myself to probrexit demonstrations, wrote letter, spent money, backed campaign groups, attended rallies. You have to bring people together, so the hesitant don’t feel so overwhelmed. It requires someone to take the lead and you’d all better decide quickly who that’s going to be.

[Fulcrum]

Dr. Osterholm has said that we are in "the second inning of a nine inning game." The virus is going to score at least 6-7 runs. Our goal is to keep the score as close as possible until we get a vaccine -- a walk-off home run. How we play the game until we score our own runs is the issue, and relying on science is the only way that makes sense.

The vaccine outlook doesn't look promising.
We have never successfully developed a vaccine for a coronavirus before (for humans).
The vaccine for the run of the mill flu doesn't even work well when administered.

Then, there's the chance of the vaccine backfiring....

[ltomo]

Again, I'll decline your invitation to insult you back, preferring to wait for the specific scientific facts about which you say I am wrong. More precisely, where is Dr. Osterholm wrong?

Regarding the WWII analogy, I will award you the prize for missing the point, however. Omaha Beach and Gualdalcanal were bloody conflicts for the future of the world. One analogy today would be how the current administration wants our citizens, "warriors," to go into battle, reckless "re-opening,' with no plan and little equipment. History does not record that Eisenhower and MacArthur sent human waves of ill-equipped and barely-armed Americans into battle, simply hoping that more of them would survive than the enemy. Months of planning, weeks and days of bombardment, steady progress in all areas, assurance of sufficient materiel, and meticulous planning went into those victories. Surely, the bravery and sacrifice of the soldiers is historic, and hardly what a sensible person would think I was alluding to.

No, the obvious analogy to WWII is that Americans who did not serve in the military were called upon to sacrifice and serve in many ways to achieve victory. Gasoline was rationed. Availability of building products, medical supplies, and a host of other items was rationed or not available at all. Food was frequently rationed. Waste and indulgence, particularly following the Depression, were not tolerated. There were volunteer air raid marshals, fire fighter squads, and many other ways of serving in civilian life. Complaining about such things, and focusing solely on yourself in the midst of the war, was not acceptable.

You have learned about WWII almost exclusively from Hollywood movies. The idea that soldiers and citizens happily and willingly sacrificed themselves for the "greater good" and that the generals in charge were all magnanimous men is childish propaganda. Goods were forcefully seized from citizens all the time. Backroom deals with war profiteers allowed the US to produce the material it did. Commanders sent poorly-equipped on suicide missions and put them into indefensible positions where they knew they would die. That's the nature of war. Most citizens were no where close to okay with all this. You need to read some actual books and do some research on this subject. I won't and can't do this kind of work for you.

As to me personally, while it hardly matters to this discussion, like millions of people, I am working from home, knowing that will change sooner, and more permanently, if we listen to the only voices that matter: scientists. Do I miss eating in restaurants, chatting with friends in colleagues in coffee shops, and going to my gym? Sure. But, like so many people, I have found ways to work, work out, and socialize within the constraints of the sacrifice that is needed until conditions warrant otherwise.

As to being a coward, I allow that being afraid of getting the virus myself is somewhat cowardly. But you still haven't answered what right anybody has to spread the virus to others recklessly. And more important, how can a government worth the name at all not just allow, but encourage, such reckless endangering of life and health? Until you answer that question, well, stick and stones may break my bones....

I won't engage in a serious discussion with you. It's pointless. You can't be convinced that you're wrong because you're not willing to listen anything you don't consider canonical. You are a zealot. The only reason I"m responding is to use you as an example so the people reading this can see what's actually going on.

You've cited some guy named Dr. Osterholm who has made observations using available data and says the virus is catastrophic, we're all going to die, etc. But there are many other scientists (Wittkowski, Battacharya, Ionnidis, William Briggs, and many more) who have said almost the exact opposite.

I could ask why I should trust Dr. Osterholm over and above these other doctors, but you could ask the same thing. If that's the conversation we're having, it really a faith-based discussion about which people each of us trust and why, and the whole argument is basically an appeal to authority. This is the entire argument of everyone who appeals to "science". "Here are some bureaucracy approved men who say I should be scared. I trust the bureaucracy and you should t."

Rip is right, if you are really interested in people discussing the science behind this (protip: you aren't) there are 300+ pages of people discussing this on the other thread. You have not been keeping up with any of that actual data, so discussing it with you is useless.

[Mark Rippetoe]

...

This is so 200 pages ago. Reddit, right?

[darrowdisciple]

Take a moment, think without typing, and then address directly what Osterholm says. Not one other thing could possibly matter. I'll cue the crickets for your sensible response...chirp...chirp...chirp..Then again, you could surprise us. Actually, nah. Chirp....chirp...chirp...

[Matt James]

You have learned about WWII almost exclusively from Hollywood movies. The idea that soldiers and citizens happily and willingly sacrificed themselves for the "greater good" and that the generals in charge were all magnanimous men is childish propaganda. Goods were forcefully seized from citizens all the time. Backroom deals with war profiteers allowed the US to produce the material it did. Commanders sent poorly-equipped on suicide missions and put them into indefensible positions where they knew they would die. That's the nature of war. Most citizens were no where close to okay with all this. You need to read some actual books and do some research on this subject. I won't and can't do this kind of work for you.



I won't engage in a serious discussion with you. It's pointless. You can't be convinced that you're wrong because you're not willing to listen anything you don't consider canonical. You are a zealot. The only reason I"m responding is to use you as an example so the people reading this can see what's actually going on.

You've cited some guy named Dr. Osterholm who has made observations using available data and says the virus is catastrophic, we're all going to die, etc. But there are many other scientists (Wittkowski, Battacharya, Ionnidis, William Briggs, and many more) who have said almost the exact opposite.

I could ask why I should trust Dr. Osterholm over and above these other doctors, but you could ask the same thing. If that's the conversation we're having, it really a faith-based discussion about which people each of us trust and why, and the whole argument is basically an appeal to authority. This is the entire argument of everyone who appeals to "science". "Here are some bureaucracy approved men who say I should be scared. I trust the bureaucracy and you should t."

Rip is right, if you are really interested in people discussing the science behind this (protip: you aren't) there are 300+ pages of people discussing this on the other thread. You have not been keeping up with any of that actual data, so discussing it with you is useless.

Michael Osterholm is the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, for whatever it's worth. Although they (CIDRAP) published a very interesting article last month about the relative ineffectiveness of cloth masks. Data do not back cloth masks to limit COVID-19, experts say | CIDRAP

[ltomo]

Michael Osterholm is the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, for whatever it's worth. Although they (CIDRAP) published a very interesting article last month about the relative ineffectiveness of cloth masks. Data do not back cloth masks to limit COVID-19, experts say | CIDRAP

This is exactly the issue. I'm told I should listen to the experts and authorities, but none of them even agree with each other.

If you're interrogating someone and they can't keep their story straight, odds are they're lying to you.