• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Swedish citizens can self regulate, why cannot US citizens?

cabse5 said:
Reverse quarantine those most susceptible to Covid...Set them apart from everyone else. Heavily guard entrances and exits to this reverse quarantine. Those who come in contact with the reverse quarantined should also be reverse quarantined. Test those reverse quarantined constantly. Send those immediately from the reverse quarantine to the ICU that test positive.
Reverse quarantines will have their own hospital resources. Those not in reverse quarantine who become infected and need hospitalization or worse, won't overload the hospital resources, either.

Let everyone else not in reverse quarantine go about their daily lives. Get the them out of the house where catching Covid is least likely. Develop a herd immunity for those not reverse quarantined which, among other things, will help to promote a vaccine of some sorts sooner.
When a vaccine is found and the reverse quarantined inoculated with that vaccine, release them from reverse quarantine.

Don't worry about cases of spread. Worry about cases where Covid is the underlying cause of hospitalization or death. Don't test everybody. Test those in reverse quarantine.
Click to expand...

Since "obesity" is one of the "high risk" factors, your starting point would appear to be to "quarantine" approximately 39.8% of adults aged 20 and over (that includes the 7.6% who are "severely obese"). That would mean that, since those "quarantine camps" do not include any production facilities, the US unemployment rate would be AT LEAST 39.8%. That would mean that the American work force wouldn't be sufficient to maintain the US economy (and that includes feeding and caring for those in the "quarantine camps") UNLESS the remaining 60.2% of all Americans were REQUIRED to work where, when, and how they were directed to by "The Gummint".

Some how that doesn't appear to be a very attractive type of society to me, although, I suspect that the owners of the means of production wouldn't be all that upset (or even affected by) it. Mind you, it might also require a "slight" re-interpretation of the 13[sup]th[/sup] Amendment in order to implement your proposal WITHOUT causing mass starvation and/or economic disaster.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since "obesity" is one of the "high risk" factors, your starting point would appear to be to "quarantine" approximately 39.8% of adults aged 20 and over (that includes the 7.6% who are "severely obese"). That would mean that, since those "quarantine camps" do not include any production facilities, the US unemployment rate would be AT LEAST 39.8%. That would mean that the American work force wouldn't be sufficient to maintain the US economy (and that includes feeding and caring for those in the "quarantine camps") UNLESS the remaining 60.2% of all Americans were REQUIRED to work where, when, and how they were directed to by "The Gummint".

Some how that doesn't appear to be a very attractive type of society to me, although, I suspect that the owners of the means of production wouldn't be all that upset (or even affected by) it. Mind you, it might also require a "slight" re-interpretation of the 13[sup]th[/sup] Amendment in order to implement your proposal WITHOUT causing mass starvation and/or economic disaster.
Click to expand...

I just hate it when you do the math.... :2razz:
 
QUICK SUMMARY OF Comparative COVID-19 (Total Deaths/Total Cases) Mortality Rates

20/04/15 – World (128,011/2,017,174) 6.35% / USA (26,064/* 614,246) 4.24% / Canada (* 903/27,063) 3.34%
20/04/16 – World (147,598/2,197,968) 6.72% / USA (34,641/* 678,210) 5.11% / Canada (1,195/30,106) 3.97%
20/04/17 – Still looking for this one – if you see it please let me know where – thanks.
20/04/18 – World (156,104/2,275,782) 6.86% / USA (37,154/* 709,735) 5.23% / Canada (1,310/31,927) 4.10%
20/04/19 – World (161,275/2,345,338) 6.88% / USA (39,015/* 738,923) 5.30% / Canada (1,470/33,383) 4.40%
20/04/20 – World (166,271/2,430,733) 6.84% / USA (40,743/* 767,189) 5.31% / Canada (1,587/35,056) 4.53%
20/04/21 – World (171,735/2,501,898) 6.86% / USA (42,518/* 792,938) 5.36% / Canada (1,690/36,831) 4.59%
20/04/22 – World (179,032/2,578,205) 6.94% / USA (45,343/* 819,175) 5.54% / Canada (1,834/38,422) 4.77%
20/04/23 – World (185,451/2,658,794) 6.98% / USA (47,684/* 849,092) 5.62% / Canada (1,974/40,190) 4.89%
20/04/24 – World (192,262/2,752,692) 6.98% / USA (50,283/* 887,622) 5.66% / Canada (2,147/42,110) 5.10%
20/04/25 – World (198,073/2,850,387) 6.95% / USA (52,217/* 925,758) 5.64% / Canada (2,302/43,888) 5.25%
20/04/26 – World (203,814/2,940,731) 6.93% / USA (54,265/* 960,893) 5.65% / Canada (2,465/45,354) 5.44%
20/04/27 – World (207,906/3,014,073) 6.90% / USA (55,415/* 987,322) 5.61% / Canada (2,560/46,895) 5.46%
20/04/28 – World (212,522/3,084,801) 6.89% / USA (56,803/1,010,507) 5.62% / Canada (2,707/48,500) 5.58%
20/04/29 – World (219,265/3,160,779) 6.94% / USA (59,266/1,035,765) 5.72% / Canada (2,859/50,026) 5.71%
20/04/30 – World (229,179/3,244,537) 7.07% / USA (61,680/1,064,832) 5.79% / Canada (2,996/51,597) 5.81%
20/05/01 – World (234,495/3,325,620) 7.05% / USA (63,871/1,095,304) 5.83% / Canada (3,184/53,236) 5.98%
20/05/02 – World (240,353/3,422,691) 7.02% / USA (65,783/1,132,038) 5.81% / Canada (3,391/55,061) 6.16%
20/05/03 – World (245,429/3,508,778) 6.99% / USA (67,535/1,163,372) 5.81% / Canada (3,566/56,714) 6.28%
​

More Americans have now died from COVID-19 than died due to​

-the Normandy Campaign (29,204),

influenza in an average year (~35,000),

the Korean War (36,516)-

the Vietnam War (58,209).

The next ”Grim Mortality Milestone” is the number of American deaths​

-in the Normandy Campaign (29,204),

from influenza in an average year (~35,000),

in the Korean War (36,516),

in the Vietnam War (58,209)-

in World War I (116,516).

Mushmouth Error Factor 556.70% too LOW (and difference RISING) / Fausi 100 Error Factor 32.47% too HIGH (and difference FALLING) / Fausi 150 Error Factor 54.98% too HIGH (and difference FALLING) / Fausi 200 Error Factor 66.23% too HIGH (and difference FALLING)
 
cabse5 said:
I'm not arguing Covid isn't dangerous. It is.

I'm arguing that social distancing of any kind WON'T protect those most susceptible to Covid and social distancing WON'T protect the most susceptible to Covid for an artificially longer period of time because concentration is mistakenly placed on spread of cases instead of concentration properly being placed on cases where Covid is the underlying cause of hospitalization or death.
Click to expand...

You're making up facts then asserting goals - just protect the vulnerable - without a clue, the first idea, how to achieve them, but assuming we can somehow wave a wand, let the healthy like you I assume get the virus, but without it spreading to the vulnerable. NYC got hit hard in the general population, which is really the result you WANT, and it spread to nursing homes. Why do you think that's not cause and effect, versus two independent problems? How can the general community get hit hard, and it not spread to the vulnerable, given those people such as in nursing homes are attended to by those who live in the 'let them get sick' world? They attend doctors offices that also will have non-vulnerable but with CV19? They have family who visit but who you'd allow to get sick.

If you cannot answer that then you're just posting drivel - what you'd like with no idea in the world of how society can get there. Like I said on another thread, when someone, anyone, comes up with this plan you're describing the HOPE of, I'll listen, but just asserting the goal - protect the vulnerable - without a comprehensive plan to do that, is just nonsense, drivel, bull****. Because I can tell you in real life, with real constraints that simply do exist, your goal is an ENORMOUS task to achieve. The only way I see it's possible is a robust test and trace program, with everyone attending to the vulnerable tested weekly or so, and if positive quarantined. If would have to apply to the family of staff as well. And we are not there yet.
 
Rawley said:
87,712

And how many Americans are you willing to sentence to die in order to feel safe to crawl out from under your bed?
Click to expand...

87,712 is WAY short of how many Americans would be dead had we let it spread and infect Americans faster. it's more like 140,000 as of today.

you okay with 140,000 dead Americans as of today?
 
Thoreau72 said:
All living creatures eventually die, and I'm sure you know that.

So I'm not sure of your point.
Click to expand...

So, does "libertarian" in your world mean playing both sides of the fence depending on which way the wind blows?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Although I strongly suspect that your post was a sarcastic one, you are not quite correct.

Statistics CAN "predict (the likelihood of) events" PROVIDED that you are using the "appropriate data" to derive those statistics from. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) there is simply NO "appropriate data" with respect to many events.
Click to expand...

Statistics can give a range of probabilities for possible outcomes but it can't predict an outcome for a specific event. For example, the probability of six coming up on each throw of a die is one in six. It can't predict which throw will be a six. Even if one throws a die 100 times and not get a six, the probability of the next throw being a six is still one in six. One of the ways people of a certain ideology try to attack scientific evidence that runs counter to their ideology is to find what they falsely claim are predictions that didn't come to pass. This is one of the standard ways they attack the scientific basis of CAGW. They'll pervert the idea of global warming probability as a weather prediction so it can't be getting worse when we still have snowstorms in Winter.
 
Last edited:
digitusmedius said:
Statistics can give a range of probabilities for possible outcomes but it can't predict an outcome for a specific event. For example, the probability of six coming up on each throw of a die is one in six. It can't predict which throw will be a six. Even if one throws a die 100 times and not get a six, the probability of the next throw being a six is still one in six.
Click to expand...

Which is what "predict (the likelihood of) events" means, isn't it?

digitusmedius said:
One of the ways people of a certain ideology try to attack scientific evidence that runs counter to their ideology is to find what they falsely claim are predictions that didn't come to pass. This is one of the standard ways they attack the scientific basis of CAGW. They'll pervert the idea of global warming probability as a weather prediction so it can't be getting worse when we still have snowstorms in Winter.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Now where did you see me say otherwise?
 
Dayton3 said:
U.S. citizens have next to no social cohesiveness. They do not tend to cooperate with each other or with government authorities.
Click to expand...

In Arkansas.

Still about 70% of those polled agree with social distancing and feel it's too soon to back off. You're part of the 30% - coincidentally the same percentage as are die-hard supporters of the mango menace - the guy who thought we should investigate whether ingesting bleach is good for you.

So....
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Which is what "predict (the likelihood of) events" means, isn't it?



Quite right. Now where did you see me say otherwise?
Click to expand...

I didn't nor intended to imply that you did. I was trying to expand on my first comment.
 
digitusmedius said:
Ahh, another voice from the Death Cult of Donnie Dirtbag squeaks up. You forgot to mention they were expendable like this massive asshole fellow traveler of yours does:

Rep. Trey Hollingsworth says letting more Americans die of coronavirus is lesser of two evils compared to economy tanking - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

It is idiotic to call Trump supporters a "cult". A 3% death rate for people who contract the virus is small by any standard. And wrecking the economy will cost more lives in the long run..
 
Thoreau72 said:
Focus on death and dying is an excellent way to embrace your inner coward and to swim in fear.
Click to expand...

In fact, it's just the opposite. Nothing will free you quicker.

In the words of the Buddha, “of all the footprints, that of the elephant is supreme. Similarly, of all mindfulness meditation, that on death is supreme.”
Click to expand...
 
Dayton3 said:
It is idiotic to call Trump supporters a "cult". A 3% death rate for people who contract the virus is small by any standard. And wrecking the economy will cost more lives in the long run..
Click to expand...

Get in the PPE business, become a war profiteer.
 
cabse5 said:
I can't prove the WHO, for example, is malevolent.
Click to expand...

Neither can I. We don't have to.

But knowing how bureaucracies protect their turf, I've been forewarned.
 
digitusmedius said:
So, does "libertarian" in your world mean playing both sides of the fence depending on which way the wind blows?
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. It has nothing to do with that, so I've still missed your point.
 
Dayton3 said:
It is idiotic to call Trump supporters a "cult". A 3% death rate for people who contract the virus is small by any standard. And wrecking the economy will cost more lives in the long run..
Click to expand...

The economy is wrecked already... It's not like we can end the stay at home orders and tomorrow everything returns to normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom