J5V
-
Posts
1,019 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by J5V
-
-
46 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:
what is sinister is the campaign and the origins of it are not the will of the people... they are being manipulated by those that have no interest in the lives at stake, only in their hedge fund portfolios...
Understood. You've opened my eyes to what may be happening behind the scenes. I don't have a lot of knowledge of U.S. politics (or any politics for that matter). Politicians are not my favorite people.
I sincerely thought this was a grass roots protest from regular folks wanting to go back to work.
-
1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:
Funny, you are all about keeping the 1% accountable and for the lower and middle class to take back power... and that the Powers that be are robbing the rest of the classes of wealth and so on... yet- this stunt in Michigan has Koch foundation all over it.
So what is so sinister about people wanting to go back to work to provide for their families and save their jobs and businesses? They're not in the high risk group.
-
15 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:
Look up the Koch brothers.
Holy crap! Talk about rich, powerful, and influential.
-
9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
But apparently we do. Lots of people can't manage to do the right thing on their own.
Hard to guard against those people. Seeing them going into illegal nightclubs was just bizarre.
-
1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:
Funny, you are all about keeping the 1% accountable and for the lower and middle class to take back power... and that the Powers that be are robbing the rest of the classes of wealth and so on... yet- this stunt in Michigan has Koch foundation all over it.
I have to admit I had to look up Koch Foundation as I didn't know who they were. A charitable foundation. I don't get it. Is there something bad about them?
-
1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:
This is just the start.
“Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of healthy people,” Meshawn Maddock of the Michigan Conservative Coalition told the network. “Every person has learned a harsh lesson about social distancing. We don’t need a nanny state to tell people how to be careful.”
- MOBomberFan and Tracker
-
2
-
13 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:
And..the Idiot King...
Good to hear rates are beginning to drop in New York though.
-
Buddy sent me this from up the street from where I live. Haven't seen this here in 30 years.
-
Please give this guy a listen and give what he is saying a chance.
-
10 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
I think your doom & gloom, we're all gonna die if we don't go back to work, we must sacrifice the old & the sick for the young & the strong, the economy being destroyed is worse than the virus itself thingy needs to be tempered. I was curious as to how the Great Depression affected the mortality rate & found articles all saying the death rate went down & not up. Life expectancy increased as well.
Here's one:
Another:
https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy
Finally:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2765209/
There's more of the same articles but I won't post them. It seems historians & scholars are in agreement that while life was difficult for just about everyone in the 1930's, millions did not die from starvation, disease, from freezing to death or from the economy falling into a depression. Indeed, life expectancy increased in the 1930's.
So then, based on the information in the 3 articles above & others that can be googled, it seems the world would survive somehow & life would carry on. Therefore, I would only sacrifice my life to save my family if in danger. Not to save the local A & W down the street or Apple, Microsoft, General Motors, Sony or Amazon. In this economy at present, companies will fold & others will take their place. I expect that a lot of companies that we know now will not be around in the future when this pandemic is over. Ones that we have known all our lives. Opportunities will be created by entrepreneurs when these & other businesses fail.
The world survived the Great Depression & The Second World War back to back. Europe, China, Japan & SE Asia were in ruins after 1945. The economy roared back in the early 1950's. My concern isn't Floyd's business. That's his problem although I do hope his business makes it even though he wants human sacrifices at The Altar Of The Almighty Dollar. I have my own problems to worry about & those of my family, relatives & friends making it safely thru this pandemic. But if any of you want to sacrifice the lives of seniors who are sick then please think again. People who sacrificed to make a better life for you by building this country. If saving the economy means killing the weak, the sick & the infirmed then count me out. If you want to be be dead heroes & sacrifice your life willingly or the lives of your loved ones to save the economy then have at it. I won't be doing it.
The articles state that a major cause of death was suicide and that it did indeed go up. Yes, automobile deaths went down. I don't imagine too many people were out and about in their cars. Tons of missing data from those days make it really hard for me to believe some of the author's conclusions regarding mortality. It seems there is a bit of a propaganda war going on with the Russians claiming 7 million died of starvation in the U.S. during the GD so now there are these counter-studies to disprove that claim. However, they do acknowledge widespread "malnutrition". The population of the U.S. is much higher now so the effects of an economic collapse are going to be magnified greatly.
"There's a clear, and fairly substantial increase in the rate of deaths in 1934, and then again in 1936. The conclusion of the other discussion seemed to be that the Great Depression did not lead to an increase in deaths from starvation, but at the same time as some medical advances appear to be reducing the deaths from certain diseases, deaths from illnesses you can attribute to 'weakness' and therefore malnutrition such as Heart disease and Pneumonia sharply increase, and actually continue to increase substantially for the remainder of the 1930s.
Wouldn't these deaths be consistent with both the short term, and long term effects of malnutrition? Particularly among children whose development was stunted by calorie deficiencies?"
No one is espousing the virtues of sacrificing the sick and infirm for the sake of the economy. That's just a straw man. It has been stated repeatedly that exactly that segment of our population needs to be isolated and protected. The argument is to relax the lockdown and let the young & strong continue running their businesses, working and paying taxes, and keeping the economy afloat while we battle this virus and keep people like you (and me) safe.
-
32 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:
Oh boy.
What. I’m saying. Is.
You mixed data from whatever source with more data from another source and compared it with another country. That’s misinformation in another dress.
You've got this bone and you won’t let go..Sounds trumpish to me.
Geez. That's a form of research, after all. If it supported your argument you'd be all for it. Since it doesn't it sounds trumpish? C'mon. I did let go of the bone when it became clear the numbers were askew and the gentleman in the video was mistaken. I then apologized. I can't be any more honest. You asked where I got the number. I calmly explained it wasn't my number and told you where it came from. You've got this bone and you won’t let go.
Sweden is experiencing a big spike in Covid-19 deaths right now and they've explained what they're doing and it makes sense to me. They're not in a lockdown and their Covid-19 death numbers are still way under their flu/pneumonia death numbers so that's probably contributed to their decision to not destroy their economy in an effort to save lives. Still they remain open to the possibility of tightening things up further. Makes sense to me too. I feel as bad as anyone else that people are dying from this thing but tough decisions are being made here and time will show who made the best ones.
-
19 hours ago, Mr Dee said:
Stand? You better sit down.
Where did get 10483? You’re trumping out misinformation.
You asked me where I got that number insinuating I made it up which wasn't true since it wasn't even my number. Now you say that wasn't your point when it clearly was. Nice try.
-
9 hours ago, Mr Dee said:
Where did get 10483? You’re trumping out misinformation.
Sweden has total cases, as of today, of 10948.
April 6 - 376 new cases April 8 - 726 new cases April 9 - 722 April 10 - 544
That’s a total of 2368 with no figures for April 7. That’s an average of 592 per reported day.
The rate therefore is higher than what you’re suggesting.
Maybe you’re thinking of Sudan? They have pretty low rate..10483 was ARF'S number, that's why I used it. It wasn't my number. Therefore I trumped out nothing. Therefore it stands.
ARF: "Death rate of Sweden=899/10483*100=8.6%"Feel free to run off on your tangent though. Haters gonna hate. Sad.
-
Just as an aside if anyone's interested.
Influenza and pneumonia deaths, 2017, Sweden had 3,589. Covid-19 deaths, 2020, to-date - Sweden at 919
Influenza and pneumonia deaths, 2017, Canada had 6,391. Covid-19 deaths, 2020, to-date - Canada at 780Sources:
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/sweden-influenza-pneumonia
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/canada-influenza-pneumonia
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries -
51 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:
The great unknown is how many deaths can be prevented by spreading out the curve. I get the idea that IF the health system is not going to be overwhelmed AND the same number of people are going to die in the end, then why stall it and hurt the economy, but the concern was exactly that the system WOULD be overwhelmed and more deaths would occur if it happened all at once. And this outcome had already been seen in Italy, where decisions were made not to treat patients over a certain age for no reason other than the fact that there were not enough s ventilators to administer to everyone and hospitals were literally choosing who lived or died based on age. Had there been a slower curve, it is logical that there would have been enough machines for every patient and more would survive than simply being left to die. Is it worth the economic losses? Some will say no, some will say it isn’t even a question to be considered. I guess my view is that the economy has bounced back before from bad times, but no one bounces back from being dead, and I don’t have statistics to show that an economic downturn will cause more deaths than Coronavirus, but stats are showing that a delinquent or non-response to social isolation has been causing a higher per capita incidence of death.
Ideally we save both the people and the economy. That's not going to happen and we're going to have to make tough choices. Losing some people to the virus AND losing the economy is just the worst case scenario I can imagine because even if you save people initially if the economy goes down you're going to lose people later anyway. A lot of people.
I can't shake the idea that if you at least save the economy and as many people as you can it is the best approach. If the economy collapses the deaths from that and the toll it will take on our society may make the virus death numbers pale by comparison. I wish I could be more optimistic about the economy but I really do see it's collapse as the greater threat.
As Floyd stated we already have a shitload of nasty problems waiting just down the road and I think people either don't see it or maybe they think someone is going to deal with it for us but I have no faith in our governments or the elites to do what is best for us. I suspect the vultures are already gathering and waiting patiently to encircle the carcass of our economy when the time is right so they can sweep in and pick off the flesh unencumbered by our once-virulent society.
-
40 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:
Wait...is the younger person also me?
It could be, but this better be good. 😉
-
40 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
Yeah, everyone over the age of 60 is going to sacrifice their lives for a 30 year old because that is the right thing to do.
I'm just saying it has been done before. "Adult Hero Saves Kid By Sacrificing Himself", "Details at 6:00".
-
56 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
What's your point? That old people with Dementia deserve to sacrifice their lives for you because you own a business? My Dad died of Dementia.
If you had to make a choice between yourself and a younger person what choice would you make? I think I know the answer and why.
-
1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:
When Sweden had 477 deaths, they didn’t the same 10,483 cases that they have now. Both the number of deaths and number of cases have risen in the last week. When Sweden had only 477 deaths they also had only 7200 cases, not 10483, so their rate was 6.6%, not 4.5%. The liar comment was heavy-handed, sorry Statistics matter when making a point on either side.
Yeah, I messed that up badly. My apologies. You're right. In my defense, in the video, the gentleman being interviewed said that Sweden and Denmark had roughly the same death rate. When I referred to that comment I prefaced it with "If that's true" (then what's the point of the lockdown). I didn't realise he was off as much as he was. Sweden is definitely taking it on the chin right now but they have managed it and haven't overwhelmed their health system.
If x number of people are going to die regardless, what does it matter if they die in a short, tall curve or a longer, flattened curve provided your health system doesn't get overwhelmed? It remains to be seen what the final result is. Maybe they're looking at it like a battle. They'd rather charge and take the hill all at once rather than try to inch their way along and take it slowly. It could very well be the death toll is the same either way.
-
1 hour ago, Floyd said:
What kind of a monster do you have to be to shrug off willfully destroying someone's life's work? Where do people go once their small business is destroyed and they're say 506- years old - work at WalMart?
We absolutely have to be addressing the long-term care home situation... 20% of cases are over 70 and they account for 80-85% of deaths, most of those in nursing homes and most of those due to overcrowding
We can't just flush the economy. It's going to be a balancing act of priorities.
1. Save lives
2. Save the economy (small businesses, jobs)
3. Prepare for recovery -
2 hours ago, Noeller said:
What kind of monster do you have to be that this doesn't make sense to you...??
A logical Vulcan? 😉
-
2 hours ago, 17to85 said:
That has been going on for a long long time already and it's your type of attitudes that keep it going. You know how you counteract that? Good old fashioned socialism where you tax the wealthy and give social programs and support to the middle and lower classes... exactly what is starting to happen during a lockdown.
Out of crisis comes opportunity and if businesses fail, there will be opportunities for new ones to take their place in the recovery.
Status quo wasn't working. This can be a shakeup to actually make changes that improve things.
Please tell me about my attitude and then I'll tell you about yours.
I didn't know confining me to my home was socialism, or draining my EI account, or casting millions into unemployment, or bankrupting businesses, or collapsing the value of stocks, or collapsing the value of my RRSPs, or removing my rights.
In your rainbow & unicorn world what percentage of tax do the wealthiest Canadians (the 1 percenters) pay? Remember, they don't work. Now compare that to the working middle class people of this country and tell me who bears the weight of taxes in this country. Do you seriously think that's going to improve things during this lockdown? What happens when there are no more tax revenues for our government to hand out because we aren't working? Do you think the big corporations that have been shipping our jobs to Mexico are suddenly going to step in and save us? Odd, I haven't heard from any of the big corporations in this country during this lockdown. Do you really think the govt (Mr. Trudeau) is going to make them pay for this lockdown?
-
1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:
Putting aside your mis-information on numbers, could you please cite what proof you have that a non-lockdown will save the economy, and a long-term lockdown will "crater" it as you say? Yeah the stock market is down and people are filing unemployment claims, but who is to say that long-term we can re-open and handle a second wave better because of the drastic measures now, or that the economy won't bounce back (it did in 1987, 2001, 2008), or that biting the bullet now will actually keep the economy afloat anyway? I'd be curious to hear your argument as to what is happening today is somehow irreversible, and why it is a black and white "save lives, kill the economy vs. risk lives, save the economy" pre-ordained result. Sources to back up your argument, if you please.
I won't attempt the impossible as I can't prove opinions, I have cited sources in support of my opinions however.
You say people are filing E.I. claims. 10 million in the U.S. in 2 weeks! When have we seen that before?
Should you wish to speculate on the scenarios, I'll be happy to do so. For example, we could very well be heading into a mega-depression like we have never seen before. It's not hard to imagine many of the bankrupt small and medium size businesses and industries being bought up by huge monopolies like Google, Amazon, AliBaba, etc. and gigantic mergers take place. You mention 1987, 2001, 2008 but we have been steadily eroding as the good jobs have vanished and the ability to afford good health care and the basics have been slipping away from us steadily. This may precipitate the final grab of capital from the bottom of the pyramid to the top that our civilization has ever seen.
-
6 minutes ago, AtlanticRiderFan said:
Mine is based on the total number of cases as well. Deaths divided by number of cases in that country
You have to admit, those numbers are damned close, give or take a few zeroes. LOL!
Covid-19
in General Discussion
Posted
A plan to zero deaths and a healthy economy in Canada.
Age 65 - + - The most vulnerable. Do everything possible to isolate and save these people with a goal of 0 covid deaths.
Age 50-65 - The second most vulnerable group. If you work, collect EI instead and stay home. Isolate and save these people with a goal of 0 covid deaths.
The above two groups total 1/3 of our population. These are the ones to be most concerned with.
Everyone under 50 represents 2/3 of our population. If you are infected you will not die and 80% of those infected will experience no to very mild symptoms. If you're one of the 20% in this age bracket that might get sick, stay home, otherwise go about your business -- work, build your businesses, pay taxes, support your families, provide resources for the most vulnerable in our society, and maintain a healthy economy.
This plan would protect the most vulnerable in our society, reduce isolation and lockdown by 66%, and would save our economy resulting in less suicide, depression, hunger, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.
If this plan had been rolled out from the start I think most Canadians would have accepted and preferred it over a 100% lockdown and social isolation plan that is doing tremendous damage to our economy and causing undue financial hardship for millions of Canadians.
Flame away.