If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Anthems and Protests ---
While we certainly understand the frustration by fans on all sides of the discussion, we have decided to keep the Broncos Country message boards separate from politics. Recent events have brought the NFL to the forefront of political debates, but due to the highly emotional and passionate discussion it tends to involve, we think it’s best to continue to keep politics and this forum separate. Yes, the forum is meant for discussion, but we’d like to keep that discussion to football as much as possible.
With everything going on in our country, it would be nice to keep our complaints and cheers purely related to football here. If you feel passionately, there are plenty of other outlets available to you to express your opinions. We know this isn’t the most popular decision, but we ask that you respect it.
Thank you for understanding.
--Broncos Country Message Board Staff
Youtube has censored the video from the 2 doctors interviewed in Bakersfield CA. That is so disappointing. What has happened to freedom of speech and sharing ideas?
Especially since they said it is against WHO guidelines. The same WHO that had blundered this from the beginning and a factor in why nations where slow to respond.
That said, YouTube is a private platform, so under certain guidelines, they are free to police their content as they like.
The problem with what you're saying now is that the decision that's 51% correct (actually closer to 99%) is the one you're against. Everyday we learn about the virus and we realize that the number of people who have had it is much greater than thought, and the death rate much lower than thought. It shows the "correct" decision would be to send kids back to school and everyone back to work. Yes more people will become positive, no it won't be the end of the world.
The moving goalposts on what we need to lift things is ridiculous. Initially lockdown was put in place to stop from overwhelming the health system, but now that we've discovered that's very unlikely the goalposts have ranged anywhere from few people getting sick to waiting until there's a vaccine. The notion of stopping people from catching this is fantasy, it's going to be there and people are going to get it, the correct path is ensuring their outcome is the best possible.
The death rate argument keeps getting weaker. Unfortunately it seems being right is more important than doing what’s right by those making the decisions.
Example: video that doesn’t support current lockdown, remove it!!
The problem with what you're saying now is that the decision that's 51% correct (actually closer to 99%) is the one you're against. Everyday we learn about the virus and we realize that the number of people who have had it is much greater than thought, and the death rate much lower than thought. It shows the "correct" decision would be to send kids back to school and everyone back to work. Yes more people will become positive, no it won't be the end of the world.
The moving goalposts on what we need to lift things is ridiculous. Initially lockdown was put in place to stop from overwhelming the health system, but now that we've discovered that's very unlikely the goalposts have ranged anywhere from few people getting sick to waiting until there's a vaccine. The notion of stopping people from catching this is fantasy, it's going to be there and people are going to get it, the correct path is ensuring their outcome is the best possible.
I said...."It is easy to look back. It is impossible to know the future. You make decisions that hopefully are correct, and in some cases, a great decision is one that wins over 51% of the population. " It was a generality of life. Trust me. That's what I meant. It was not specific details of the covid situation, but I guess it can be interpreted that way. But, that's how I meant it. It's easy to make decisions when the decisions are easy. And it's very, very hard to make decisions that are hard, and without information, and without support at times.
It's a generality. And it was in light of what I said about the local decision-making where I live. Tough calls, but I think good calls.
Lets put it this way....I am glad I did not have to make decisions on a lot of this stuff.
So explain what makes a decision right? Explain how you know it's 51% correct.
FTR...the meaning was relative to a simple concept, that great decisions are not usually easy decisions. The closer they are to 50% correct or more popular or whatever the common denominator, the harder they get. It's why the high paid folks don't usually get the 90% decisions. Just for the sake of this little statement I made, switch the words popular and correct. The point is, great decisions may or may not be obvious, or not as popular as one would hope, but there's greatness in the decision itself. Because it was a hard decision.
I think I see more of what you were getting at with the initial statement. I don’t think a decision has an element of greatness because it was hard to make, although I think I see what you’re saying there.
The death rate argument keeps getting weaker. Unfortunately it seems being right is more important than doing what’s right by those making the decisions.
Example: video that doesn’t support current lockdown, remove it!!
Susan Wojcicki, CEO YouTube was recently interviewed and responded to questions about posting content related to Covid-19. She said content providing information not aligned to the World Health Organization is subject to review and removal. In other words, the World Heath Organization is held up as truth, any dissenting information is false.
One of the World Heath Organization’s original positions on Covid-19’was that the virus could not be transmitted from human to human. The WHO represented China’s position which as we know turned out to be completely wrong (a lie). However, YouTube continues propping up the WHO as the standard for accurate information.
We need more information about Covid-19, not less. We need more curiosity, not less.
Peanut and I were talking about our local areas...she said state. I refer to my province.
I live in California and I think the governor here has done a great job!
That said I don’t believe the numbers support keeping another month of restrictions.
My understanding in the beginning was to prevent the hospitals from being over run with patients.
That has been achieved.
Hospitals in many areas are empty.
The area I live has a population of 1.5 million
We have 41 deaths related to the virus.
The death rate argument keeps getting weaker. Unfortunately it seems being right is more important than doing what’s right by those making the decisions.
Example: video that doesn’t support current lockdown, remove it!!
In Canada 79% of our deaths have occurred in Long Term Care Facilities. It's very unfortunate, and something we need to be ultra focused on correcting, but it highlights that the initial picture painted of bodies littering streets isn't going to occur. Healthy people will get Covid, and they will beat it. Many may not even know they had it.
Especially since they said it is against WHO guidelines. The same WHO that had blundered this from the beginning and a factor in why nations where slow to respond.
That said, YouTube is a private platform, so under certain guidelines, they are free to police their content as they like.
Beat me to similar comment about the WHO and YouTube. This stay at home life is slowing me down.
Peanut and I were talking about our local areas...she said state. I refer to my province.
You often include others to bolster your point. I think Peanut can speak for herself.
Why do you seem to think the issue is binary? Especially when the lockdown has proven little too no help in stopping the spread: a high number in CA, NYS have antibodies, nursing homes are hardest hit though being fully isolated? In Sweden alone they say nearly 50% if fatalities are from nursing homes, NYC nursing homes were hot very hard as well. Is Evan asking the question now forbidden?
In light of what we know now, it makes no sense. Early, yes, and again, but now? How many cancer treatments were postponed, biopsies, brain surgeries - recent news says a lot.
Remember where this started: to flatten the curve, come overwhelm hospitals. Is was never and could never be to stop the virus altogether. Now hospitals, instead of being overwhelmed are the exact and extreme opposite. Staff being furloughed, bleeding money, some closing. In trying to avoid a medical crisis in the hospitals we've seem to be creating one.
What does an explosion mean statistically? Is there an increase in testing in their area? Unless you have randomized antibody testing to understand how many cases went undetected, it’s hard to know if the spread is increasing or only a matter of more testing.
Seven states implemented social distancing mitigation instead of strict lock downs: Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. South Carolina implemented more stringent mitigation late relative to other states (April 6).
As of today these are the deaths per million people in those states: Arkansas (17), Iowa (43), Nebraska (29), North Dakota (25), South Dakota (13), Utah (15), Wyoming (12) and South Carolina (39).
Removing South Carolina those states had 22 deaths per million people. Including South Carolina, 24 deaths per million people.
Virginia has 58 deaths per million people, 2.4 times higher than the eight states above. Virginia was one of the earliest to lock down with arguably one of the most stringent.
The analysis is similar comparing the rest of the states with strict lock downs vs the seven states with social distancing. Wilfred Reilly completed a more advanced analysis with variables adjusting for demographics and population density. He observed the same thing - lock downs don’t produce a better outcome. Looking at states such as Virginia, the lock down resulted in more deaths per million people.
When you boil this thing down, the high risk population includes the elderly and people with underlying health conditions.
Taken from the Lincoln Journal Star:
The Sioux City metropolitan area — including Dakota County in Nebraska, tucked on the bluffs of the Missouri River — has the fastest growth of coronavirus cases in the U.S.
The five-county area encompassing parts of Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota topped the New York Times’ list of metro areas with the highest daily COVID-19 growth rate, charting a 131% daily increase in recent days.
So, I would use explosion, that's me though. They had not implemented stay at home orders. My friends thought they were relatively going to go unscathed because it really wasn't talked about until the workers at the plant started getting sick. But with it breaking out at the meat plants, they have seen a spike. And now there are people questioning if they need to do some sort of limited order. Who knows.
I said...."It is easy to look back. It is impossible to know the future. You make decisions that hopefully are correct, and in some cases, a great decision is one that wins over 51% of the population. " It was a generality of life. Trust me. That's what I meant. It was not specific details of the covid situation, but I guess it can be interpreted that way. But, that's how I meant it. It's easy to make decisions when the decisions are easy. And it's very, very hard to make decisions that are hard, and without information, and without support at times.
It's a generality. And it was in light of what I said about the local decision-making where I live. Tough calls, but I think good calls.
Lets put it this way....I am glad I did not have to make decisions on a lot of this stuff.
So in a conversation about Covid, in a thread about Covid, your response about Covid wasn't specifically dealing with Covid? That's interesting.
Yes, hard decisions are hard. That's why they get paid the money they're doing. But I'd rather a person in power make the hard decision that's unpopular rather than listening to the masses on Twitter. Right now we have decision makers making decisions that are easy because they're popular on twitter.
Just wait until the bills come due, that will lead to some very unpopular decisions.
As for your specific Province, it was never going to be the threat that it was made out to be, your province is too spread out and with relatively little in population. When my friend was getting the hospital in Winnipeg ready for Covid he couldn't believe they were doing it. And now that it sits empty (some units are 2 or 3 nurses to every 1 patient right now) he just shakes his head and wonders about it all.
Tweet
Comment