A Dictatorship by Consent | Starting Strength Radio Extra A Dictatorship by Consent | Starting Strength Radio Extra

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: A Dictatorship by Consent | Starting Strength Radio Extra

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,976

    Default A Dictatorship by Consent | Starting Strength Radio Extra

    • texas starting strength seminar september 2020
    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    A follow up to the panel discussion between Mark Rippetoe, Stef Bradford, and Dr. Andrew Mueller on new developments since the government-imposed lockdowns around the world started in Mid-March.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    73

    Default

    The science of COVID-19 is remarkably simple. Dr. Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy has said that the virus will continue to transmit until 60%-70% of the population has been infected, and then it will only slow down. The only thing that will prevent transmission is a widely available, effective vaccine. When that will be is anyone's guess. There is no genuine scientific disagreement about these facts.

    So, we can fight these facts, either by staying home completely, which is unsustainable, or by running headlong into the machine gun fire of the virus, which is foolish. We can wisely understand that operating businesses, schools, offices, etc. will not be the same as it was for a considerable time. We've already adapted well under the current lockdowns, and reopening with sufficient plans can be done, though there has been an absence of leadership from Washington, where it must come from. Nobody needs to sit in a restaurant to eat, and doing it as before will not feasible for the foreseeable future. Gyms? There are likely ways to operate them safely, though nobody needs to go to a gym to exercise. To get coaching, in a place with sufficient protocols for cleaning the equipment and distancing, would seem to make sense. But what seems to get lost in the discussion is that a person who takes an unusual risk of infection not only risks themself, but every other person they may come into contact with, and who has the right to do that?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,229

    Default

    Did you just wake up out of a 3 -month coma yesterday, and spend the afternoon watching CNN? Are you afraid for your life because you are 85, and somehow woke from the coma anyway? Do you think this virus kills everyone it contacts? If you do, they have you right where they want you. There is no disagreement about the transmissibility, but the lethality in which you believe is a fairy tale. WAKE THE FUCK UP: society has been maimed, and you are worried about getting sick for a few days.

    And fuck me for responding to another of these fucking idiots.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I graduated from name-calling school in 9th grade, so rather than respond in kind, I'll appeal to the side of you that writes interestingly and eloquently about the science of strength training. There are two statistics that matter in making decisions in the pandemic. The first is that 60%-70% of the population will be infected before it slows down. The other stat is the "R" rate. Infection rates in a given area? You'd need a comprehensive testing system, which has been inexcusably absent from the outset. Death rates? There are countless variables: available medical care and equipment, quality of medical care, personal characteristics of the infected person, how a death is characterized. Do they count someone with the virus who dies of pneumonia as a COVID death, or just "pneumonia." What about people who die weeks after infection from a related illness? In New York, during the peak, the "home death" count tripled, but few corpses were tested for COVID. Regardless of how you calculate it, COVID-19 is now the No. 1 cause of death in the U.S., which itself only really matters in relation to other considerations.

    Plus, are the only two affects of the virus, as you seem to suggest, dying or being sick "for a few days?" The evidence from thousands of health care professionals and hospitals suggests otherwise. And, there are the non-COVID illnesses and accidents that can't be treated properly in overloaded hospitals. Does anyone think those problems are not the result of the pandemic? And of course, what right does anyone have recklessly to inflict on someone else even just being sick? Total prevention can't be achieved, even with appropriate precautions while reopening, but is throwing caution to the wind a sensible alternative?

    The other important statistic is the "R" rate, or "reproduction rate." If there were a comprehensive testing system, it could be calculated more reliably. The purpose of the lockdowns has been to keep the medical system from being overloaded as much as possible, and to reduce the transmission rate in a given area below an R of 1, such that an infected person infects, statistically, less than one other person. in the interim, leaders were supposed to develop plans for safe reopening that would prevent the necessity of closing agains. When an R rate of less than 1has been achieved in a given area, it makes sense to re-open further we sensible precautions. We have been open all along.

    Society "maimed?" That's a matter of perspective. I might suggest that what has been maimed is a kind of selfishness that goes as far as ignoring the effect of one's behavior on others. During WWII, people recognized the necessity of shared sacrifice. Many products and services were rationed, or not allowed at all. Those who weren't in the military needed no encouragement to serve in other ways. Everyone understood that the sacrifices were necessary, and a responsible, inspiring national leadership made it clear that the war would end one day, and that we needed to work together toward victory.

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    I graduated from name-calling school in 9th grade, so rather than respond in kind, I'll appeal to the side of you that writes interestingly and eloquently about the science of strength training. There are two statistics that matter in making decisions in the pandemic. The first is that 60%-70% of the population will be infected before it slows down. The other stat is the "R" rate. Infection rates in a given area? You'd need a comprehensive testing system, which has been inexcusably absent from the outset. Death rates? There are countless variables: available medical care and equipment, quality of medical care, personal characteristics of the infected person, how a death is characterized. Do they count someone with the virus who dies of pneumonia as a COVID death, or just "pneumonia." What about people who die weeks after infection from a related illness? In New York, during the peak, the "home death" count tripled, but few corpses were tested for COVID. Regardless of how you calculate it, COVID-19 is now the No. 1 cause of death in the U.S., which itself only really matters in relation to other considerations.

    Plus, are the only two affects of the virus, as you seem to suggest, dying or being sick "for a few days?" The evidence from thousands of health care professionals and hospitals suggests otherwise. And, there are the non-COVID illnesses and accidents that can't be treated properly in overloaded hospitals. Does anyone think those problems are not the result of the pandemic? And of course, what right does anyone have recklessly to inflict on someone else even just being sick? Total prevention can't be achieved, even with appropriate precautions while reopening, but is throwing caution to the wind a sensible alternative?

    The other important statistic is the "R" rate, or "reproduction rate." If there were a comprehensive testing system, it could be calculated more reliably. The purpose of the lockdowns has been to keep the medical system from being overloaded as much as possible, and to reduce the transmission rate in a given area below an R of 1, such that an infected person infects, statistically, less than one other person. in the interim, leaders were supposed to develop plans for safe reopening that would prevent the necessity of closing agains. When an R rate of less than 1has been achieved in a given area, it makes sense to re-open further we sensible precautions. We have been open all along.

    Society "maimed?" That's a matter of perspective. I might suggest that what has been maimed is a kind of selfishness that goes as far as ignoring the effect of one's behavior on others. During WWII, people recognized the necessity of shared sacrifice. Many products and services were rationed, or not allowed at all. Those who weren't in the military needed no encouragement to serve in other ways. Everyone understood that the sacrifices were necessary, and a responsible, inspiring national leadership made it clear that the war would end one day, and that we needed to work together toward victory.

    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.
    Everybody needs to read this shit so that you'll understand who we are up against here: uninformed believers. I'm going to post a link to this from the main thread, because it is so deliciously ignorant, and it demonstrates the awesome power of propaganda.

    One question: do you live in NYC?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    Society "maimed?" That's a matter of perspective. I might suggest that what has been maimed is a kind of selfishness that goes as far as ignoring the effect of one's behavior on others. During WWII, people recognized the necessity of shared sacrifice. Many products and services were rationed, or not allowed at all. Those who weren't in the military needed no encouragement to serve in other ways. Everyone understood that the sacrifices were necessary, and a responsible, inspiring national leadership made it clear that the war would end one day, and that we needed to work together toward victory.
    You may have graduated from 9th grade name-calling, but it's obvious you didn't graduate from the actual 9th grade. If you had maybe you would've learned that name-calling actually does serve a function.

    I won't even acknowledge the rest of what you wrote, because it's just flat out wrong. It's like I'm reading mainstream media articles from 2 months ago, like some kind of haunted radio broadcast from the past that won't stay dead. Not even CNN and MSNBC are broadcasting this brand of garbage anymore.

    I will acknowledge this whole WWII=The Virus thing though, only because it's the same kind of BS that got us the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and I'm afraid it's going to turn into the next weaponized meme.

    Trying to turn this situation into some kind of heroic, epic battle is such lunacy I'm ashamed to even have to spell it out. Wars throughout history have always been complicated. Most have probably been avoidable. They've all been terrible and involved forcing people to kill other people, almost always against the better angels of their nature. To compare yourself, sitting around at home watching Netflix, with the men who unloaded onto Omaha beach and Guadalcanal is disgusting. Whatever the talking heads on TV say, if you buy into this idea, you are a coward.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I can't help notice that you call me "uninformed," yet offer no actual information as a refutation. Please inform me. I would suggest you start at CIDRAP.umn.edu. Please search for, and cite to, the facts about which I am wrong. Offer others. I might suggest that in your lexicon "uninformed believers" are people who listen to, and understand, science. What am I "believing" that isn't fact?

    I'd be more snarky, but you can have that prize. You've earned it in spades.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    73

    Default

    In my haste to note the lack of scientific fact in your response, which I was frankly surprised to see, I missed your question about where I live. Before I answer, in what way could that possibly matter? Is the virus different there? Do human beings respire differently in Manhattan than other places? Surely perspective on what all this means can be affected by geography. But I have heard the abject silliness that the virus spread more rapidly in NY because it has "liberal" leadership. One pre-pandemic look at 5th Ave., or one of a hundred other streets, with thousands of people crowded on the sidewalks, or one visit to the subway at rush hour, or any hour for that matter, easily explains how it spread faster there than other places. Forget the thousands of passengers from around the world at the three international airports in the area, bringing the virus in daily from all over the world.

    I'll continue just to cite facts. But until you, or anyone, can refute Dr. Osterholm's scientific facts, is calling me names accomplishing anything more than making yourself feel good for a moment? And, after all, as another Texan once wrote, "feeling good was good enough for me and Bobby McGee," though their "freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    73

    Default

    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.

    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....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,229

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    In my haste to note the lack of scientific fact in your response, which I was frankly surprised to see, I missed your question about where I live. Before I answer, in what way could that possibly matter? Is the virus different there? Do human beings respire differently in Manhattan than other places? Surely perspective on what all this means can be affected by geography. But I have heard the abject silliness that the virus spread more rapidly in NY because it has "liberal" leadership. One pre-pandemic look at 5th Ave., or one of a hundred other streets, with thousands of people crowded on the sidewalks, or one visit to the subway at rush hour, or any hour for that matter, easily explains how it spread faster there than other places. Forget the thousands of passengers from around the world at the three international airports in the area, bringing the virus in daily from all over the world.
    Exactly. You live in NYC, the only place in the US where the hospitals are not actually empty and bankrupt. It's like Bruno is back.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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